Bolton Is The Right Man For The UN Job
By Carol Devine-Molin (04/19/05)
Why does the United Nations so despise John Bolton, who is being considered for the post of US ambassador to the UN? As usual, understanding basic human nature is key. Sadly, the dysfunctional UN is now largely comprised of members and associates that are undisciplined and unethical.
That being said, the undisciplined and unethical never want to be reined-in. They would rather continue on their merry way free from any interference. They’ll only come under thumb kicking and screaming. And that’s precisely why the United Nations both fears and loathes John Bolton. He’s more than a straight shooter; he’s a “man on a mission” who will not be deterred. Bolton will do his absolute best to reform the United Nations, a global institution that’s not only thoroughly inept, but a moral cesspool that can no longer be tolerated by the US. Moreover, it’s a den of third world despots that spew forth anti-Americanism and anti-Semitism, and that has to stop. Specifically, that rancid hatred is helping to fuel the mindset of potential terrorists.
Bolton as US ambassador to the UN is simply an inspired choice on the part of the Bush administration. He’s a dragon slayer that will undoubtedly “speak truth to power” as the political Left is apt to say. But for all their righteous talk, the Left is going to have a collective conniption when Bolton opens his mouth and, with steely determination, underscores the UN’s blatant inadequacies and corruption. Can we continue to treat the United Nations with kid gloves? Clearly, we cannot. President George Bush and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice are smart to have full confidence in Bolton and his ability to get at the heart of any particular issue. When Bolton shines the light of day on the UN’s glaring difficulties, the institution will forced to ameliorate its ways to some extent. Yes, I do believe that Bolton will have some success.
Now let’s zero in on Kofi Annan. It would be fair to say that things have only worsened under Kofi Annan’s tenure as the UN Secretary General. Regarding Annan, author Nile Gardiner noted in National Review magazine in December 2004: “Indeed, the man who did nothing to prevent the genocide in Rwanda when he was head of UN peacekeeping operations in the mid-1990s has been woefully out of depth ever since his appointment as secretary general in 1997. Annan has been a shameless appeaser of dictators, and his only legacy will be his organization’s growing irrelevance.”
Moreover, Annan was clearly up-to-his-eyeballs in the “Oil for Food” travesty, which was originally designed to aid starving Iraqis with oversight by the UN. Instead, the program was subverted by Saddam Hussein, who generated over 20 billion dollars in ill gotten gains. The scandal continues to unravel and clearly criminality occurred. Saddam spread some of the wealth around, and bought armaments and bribed officials, many of them with UN agencies. And there have been other scandals as well involving peacekeepers engaged in sexual assaults in the Congo and elsewhere. Yes, Kofi Annan’s tenure is rife with unchecked genocide, financial fraud, and sexual abuse by peacekeepers. He also failed to hold Saddam’s feet to the fire when the Ba’athist regime continually refused to abide by seventeen UN resolutions. When the US-led “coalition of the willing” finally ousted Hussein, it was actually supporting and uplifting the United Nations as an institution, which had already set the limits for the rogue Iraqi regime. Unfortunately, the UN was all talk and no action. And it was left to the US and the coalition to see the mission through.
It might be a very close vote, but as of this writing, it appears that John Bolton’s nomination will pass muster with the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Of course, the Democrats are fighting President Bush and Bolton right down to the wire, implementing their systematic political strategy of obstructionism. On Fox News Sunday this past week, Senator Joe Biden voiced his ostensible concerns about Bolton, claiming that the nominee intimidated two intelligence analysts, attempting to get them fired or reprimanded. Well if Bolton did that, many Americans would say “good for him”. These intelligence analysts have largely failed at their jobs and deserve to be called on the carpet. In reality, we have an intelligence community that’s still not up to snuff, despite 9/11. The abject “breakdown” of the intelligence community has been substantiated by the 9/11 Commission, citing “pervasive problems of managing and sharing information across a large and unwieldy government”. Although Americans would like to think that these problems have been rectified, in truth there are significant difficulties still to be tackled. Bill Gertz of the Washington Times continues to write extensively about shortcomings within the American intelligence community, which stem from lack of accountability, refusal to engage in proper intelligence sharing and interagency cooperation, systemic political correctness, failure to gather vital human intelligence, and “risk averse” operatives and analysts that just aren’t getting the job done.
And what about Senator Barbara Boxer’s claim that Bolton has nothing but “distain” for the UN? Well, sure Bolton has been critical of the UN, and rightly so, given its disreputable condition. But, as noted by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Bolton is just the man to reform and strengthen the global institution. Bolton is committed to grappling with the problems of the UN and fixing them, which is thoroughly in sync with the goals of Rice and Bush. The American public should be satisfied with the Bush administration’s approach to the dysfunctional UN. According to a Gallup Poll conducted earlier this year, although the majority of Americans (61 percent) acknowledge that the UN is doing a poor job, they still overwhelmingly believe (64 percent) that the UN "plays a necessary role in the world today”. One might conclude that most Americans would appreciate US efforts to ameliorate matters at the UN.
(Printer friendly version) Email: Carol Devine-Molin
