Canada Free Press -- ARCHIVES

Because without America, there is no free world.

Return to Canada Free Press

New York Times, liberal Media, UN advocacy groups

Bolton's shameless opponents

By Joseph Klein

Wednesday, July 26, 2006

The New York Times, other liberal media and various UN advocacy groups are launching a pre-emptive attack against UN ambassador John Bolton's re-nomination. after an up-or-down Senate vote was blocked last year, Bolton was given the job as UN ambassador by President Bush anyway as a presidential recess appointment. That appointment expires at the end of this Congressional term in January 2007. Hence, Bolton's nomination is coming up again before the Senate, with a hearing scheduled by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee for this Thursday, July 27th. Bolton's opponents are determined to see that he is blocked again and are already taking off the gloves for the fight to come.

For example, in a front page New York Times "news" article on Saturday, July 22nd (under the headline "as Praise Grows at Home, Envoy Faces U.N. Scorn"), the article's author Warren Hoge proceeded to lace into Bolton as "a stand-in for the arrogance of the [Bush] administration itself." Quoting from mostly anonymous diplomatic sources, Hoge reports how difficult Bolton has been to get along with because of a confrontational style that is at odds with "procedures at the mannerly, rules-bound United Nations." The diplomats quoted in Hoge's article say that Bolton's non-compromising approach only ends up further isolating the United States in the UN. Hoge also quotes William H. Leurs, president of the United Nations association of the United States, a pro-UN group, to reinforce this point.

another example is a so-called "memo to the Secretary of State" written for Foreign Policy magazine by Barbara Crossette, the long time UN correspondent for the New York Times and now a consulting editor at the United Nations association of the United States of america. She wants the Secretary of State to reconsider Bolton's re-nomination. among Bolton's sins, says Ms Crosette, is that "[at] the United Nations, Bolton has often overwhelmed and angered delegates from other countries…" Ms. Crossette's case against Bolton is reported on an anti-Bolton site devoted to defeating Bolton's re-nomination called Bolton Watch. (boltonwatch.tpmcafe.com/)

The one world government advocacy group Citizens for Global Solutions also opposes Bolton's re-nomination, stating on its website: "Unfortunately, Bolton has seriously damaged the United States' 60-year working relationship with the U.N. with less-than-diplomatic tactics; the results of which have led to a further diminution of american influence."

as a curious sidelight, it is interesting how interconnected some of these anti-Bolton groups turn out to be. For example, Scott Paul, one of the leaders of Bolton Watch, is currently Campaigns Manager at Citizens for Global Solutions.

What underlies these pathetic complaints about ambassador Bolton's performance is not really a concern about his style, but rather a debate over the degree to which the U.S. must bend its core principles to the lowest common denominator of ‘international consensus.' Bolton's opponents want to ensnare the United States in a web of multilateral institutional arrangements that would not only undermine U.S. sovereignty but would often be counterproductive. They want to slip UN misdeeds under the rug, pretending they never happened or are of little consequence.

Bolton is not willing to play along with such politics as usual because that course has led the United Nations to its present morass of massive corruption, waste and mismanagement. Even more importantly, its priorities have been misdirected. as a result, little of any substance gets done. Bolton's views reflect the beliefs of the Bush administration and many american taxpayers who are picking up the tab for nearly a quarter of the UN's entire budget. Unfortunately, such changes are difficult to accept by those who have a vested interest in the status quo - the bloated UN bureaucracy, the hangers-on who make their living serving as UN cheer-leaders and the free-riding member states who see the United Nations as their best means to contain the power of the United States while expecting the United States to shut up and continue paying the bills.

Here are some examples of what ambassador Bolton has sought to accomplish. The fact that he wants to shake things up at the dysfunctional world body is a good thing, except to those threatened by change:

  1. When Bolton first arrived at his post last summer, he dug right into the preparations for the Millennium+5 General assembly summit meeting. Unlike most senior diplomats, Bolton actually read the main summit "outcome" document the heads of state were being asked to adopt at the summit. He wanted the document to reflect a real, measurable commitment to UN reform. If the U.S. is expected to pay nearly a quarter of the UN's budget, he reasoned, american taxpayers should expect to see a well-run, transparent organization that delivers value for the money they contribute. While succeeding in focusing attention on the reform issue by obtaining consensus for a temporary cap on UN expenditures during the first half of 2006, politics as usual prevailed when the General assembly voted last month to approve the UN 2006-2007 budget without any significant conditions tied to reform.

    2. Should Bolton give up pressing forcefully for real reform simply to get some pats on the back from his fellow diplomats for his new-found collegiality? apparently, his opponents think so.

  2. Bolton opposed the new Human Rights Council because he saw, beneath its attractive packaging, the farce that it really was. He turned out to be right. Cuba, Saudi arabia, azerbaijan, Pakistan, algeria, Tunisia, Cameroon, China and Russia were elected as members. They are all ranked "not free" by Freedom House. Six of these countries will serve on the Human Rights Council for the maximum three year term. at the same time, the entire number of seats on the Human Rights Council allotted to the more democratic "Western European and Others Group" (including North america, australia, and New Zealand) was limited to seven nations, only three of which will have three year terms. The first official session of the Human Rights Council turned into an Israel-bashing exercise. The Council approved a one-sided resolution demanding that Israel end its current military operations in Gaza, which the Council blamed for the deteriorating humanitarian conditions of the Palestinian people without a single mention of the Palestinian provocations that caused the crisis in the first place.

    3. Was Bolton wrong to want to avoid the mistakes of the discredited UN Commission on Human Rights that the new Human Rights Council was intended to replace? Should Bolton have simply played along in order to win friends in the UN establishment by pretending that all major problems were adequately addressed when the opposite was so glaringly obvious? apparently, his opponents think so.

  3. Bolton expected the UN Security Council to deal effectively with the gravest threats to international peace and security, which have involved Iran, North Korea and the genecide in Sudan. Far from ignoring the UN, he wanted its key body to work. To that end, he strove to reach a multilateral consensus for meaningful action. He achieved positive results on Security Council condemnation of North Korea, somewhat more limited results on Sudan and nothing to speak of to date on Iran's intransigence over its nuclear enrichment program.

Should Bolton have acquiesced in the kind of toothless slaps on the wrist that China and Russia have been advocating just to get some piece of paper out of the Security Council — anything at all — so long as it carried the UN stamp of ‘legitimacy'? apparently, his opponents think so.

So the next time you hear the tiresome canard that ambassador Bolton is ill-suited to serve as america's representative to the United Nations because he is so undiplomatic, remember his opponents' true agenda. They want to neuter U.S. foreign policy in favor of their globalist agenda. They prefer meaningless compromises that bury real problems like terrorism under a mountain of empty rhetoric. They want america's unconditional support for the United Nations, as defined by its majority of members who do not pay the bulk of its bills, no matter how dysfuncional the organization remains.

Finally, consider what is happening today with respect to the Israeli-Hezbollah conflict. Kofi annan continues to speak out of both sides of his mouth. UN human rights officials try to be even-handed, blaming both sides for the humanitarian crisis. The United Nations' top human rights official, Louise arbour, even accused both Israel and Hezbollah of committing possible war crimes. Contrast this nonsense with the moral clarity that John Bolton has brought to defining what is at stake in this conflict. He has dared to speak the truth — that the terrorist organization Hezbollah, supported by Iran and Syria, was the sole aggressor that put Lebanese civilians in harms way and that deliberately targeted Israeli civilians for death. Bolton dared to state publicly: "We take note that some member states have called for an immediate and unconditional ceasefire between Israel and Hezbollah -- but we must ask our colleagues: How do you negotiate and maintain a ceasefire with a terrorist organization?"

If Bolton were to be graded on his proficiency in UN-speak, such questions would probably earn him an F. But if he were to be graded on his integrity as a spokesperson for genuine peace and security in the world and as an advocate for freedom, he would deserve an a+. When it comes time for Senators to stand up and be counted on Bolton's re-nomination, which grading system will they use? Will Hillary Clinton for example, choose to side with the Citizens for Global Solutions and other shameless opponents of Bolton, who advocate UN-centric global governance, and see Bolton as an obstacle? Instead, let us hope that she and other Senators will reverse their previous opposition to Bolton and side with a man who believes that support for Israel and other democracies against terror is more important than burying one's head in the shifting sands of Turtle Bay.

Pursuant to Title 17 U.S.C. 107, other copyrighted work is provided for educational purposes, research, critical comment, or debate without profit or payment. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for your own purposes beyond the 'fair use' exception, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. Views are those of authors and not necessarily those of Canada Free Press. Content is Copyright 1997-2024 the individual authors. Site Copyright 1997-2024 Canada Free Press.Com Privacy Statement