I am a Desert, baby.

Last Updated

December 05, 2006 07:30 PM

Recent Entries

Categories

Search Entries






Creative Commons License
This weblog is licensed under a Creative Commons License.


Syndicate this site (XML)

Powered by Movable Type 3.2
Bulls on Parade: John Bolton goes to the U.N.
August 01, 2005
« Buckaroooo!! | Main | Comments! »
"We need a strong voice in New York who knows the U.N. and who can advance our reform agenda. But we don't need a voice which people may not be inclined to listen to. And I fear that knowing your reputation, and your reputation known well at the U.N., people will be inclined to tune you out. Some have said that sending you to New York would be like sending Nixon to China. I'm concerned it'll be more like sending a bull into a china shop." -Senator Joseph Biden (D- Delaware)


As some of you Americans out there may know, Bush plans to announce that John Bolton will be the Official US Ambassador to the United Nations. Bush plans to do this during the Congressional recess because they didn't approve of his choice.

Bush Announces Recess Appointment for Bolton

Anyway, I do not often get involved in politics, but there are a few positions I actually care about aside from my congressmen and the Leader of our 'free' nation. The Ambassador to the U.N. is one of them. Now, this may seem like an outlandish position to give a rat's ass about, but you must remember that this is the person who will be representing our Nation to the rest of the world in what is supposed to be an organized, free thinking forum.

I find myself incredibly irked by the fact that Bush is going to appoint John Bolton despite the fact that he was not approved by the Senate. To me, this feels like he's giving Congress the finger and waggling it about in their face like a spoiled child. Democrats and Republicans alike did not approve this choice as they failed to attain the 60 vote minimum to place this man in the position. So, instead of choosing another candidate, Bush decides to thrust this man into position whether we like it or not.

Now, I do not like Bolton and I will make no secret about that. I do not think he is qualified for the position. As a man, who knows, maybe he's a right smart chap to invite to your Sunday Afternoon Tea party. However, my grandmother is also a pleasure to have to tea, that doesn't mean she is qualified to be the U.N. Ambassador for the U.S.A.

"There is no United Nations. There is an international community that occasionally can be led by the only real power left in the world, and that's the United States, when it suits our interests and when we can get others to go along." - Bolton, 1994

How can we have a man who has such an incredibly low opinion of the rest of the world in a place where it is vital we show respect to those countries? This is a man who ignores facts or tries to manipulate them into something that simply isn't there to suit the answer he wants to hear. In a place of political discussion and tempered moderation, this simply cannot be tolerated. Sometimes you have to admit you're wrong and that your solution isn't the best one. The United Nations is about the world and a collective effort. It is not the United Nation as Bolton seems to think it should be.

Yes, it is true that the UN is in need of reform, but Bolton is not the man to do it. His idea of reform is closer to dictatorship with the United States holding the guns. We are a world power, but with that position comes responsibility. Not to overthrow and belittle other nations, but rather to work with them. Just because the US is bigger, or richer, or stronger, that doesn't make us better… it simply makes us different. Of course, the US isn’t really richer, strong or ‘bigger’ than some of the other countries in the United Nations, so really, the point it moot.

"If I were redoing the Security Council today, I'd have one permanent member, because that's the real reflection of the distribution of power in the world -- the United States." - Bolton, 2000

Not many people know how the United nations works, but the Security Council is a committee with five 'permanent' members. The rest of the slots are rotated around between the other nations. These committees are what make up the UN policies and basically decide control over things like the WHO, NATO and the Atomic Energy Commission. Any nation with a permanent position can more or less veto what ever they want to. To make the US the only permanent position would make them the UN Dictator. This would make the UN more or less an extension of the US government and that is not what it is.

There are of course other groups within the UN: The Trusteeship Council, the Economic and Social council, The International Court of Justice etc. But truly, the Security Council has the biggest impact on what actually get done within the UN. The Permanent members of the Security Council are: China, France, Great Britain, the United States, and Russia. The other 10 slots on the Security Council are nonpermanent slots that serve two years terms and are voted on by the General assembly.

Now, I would not call Great Britain, China, Russia or even France a non world power. These are (mostly) stable nations that have great sway over the world. I think rather than taking away permanent slots, you should add some: Brazil, Japan, South Africa, Egypt, India etc. This was in fact proposed back in 1997, but fell through.

Anyway, I have digressed from my point. John Bolton shouldn't be allowed into the U.N. He has no respect for the body. If he cannot respect it, then he will try to destroy it, or worse, twist it into something it is not meant to be.

Posted by Utopia at August 1, 2005 10:21 AM

Comments

Post a comment




Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)