Bolton Deserves to be UN Ambassador

The New Republic does a game, set, match refutation of the preposterous "stalking" of the Democrat minority trying to stall out his full appointment. Now that Sen. Voinovich recanted his earlier opposition, the frantic hysterics on the left are being mobilized inside their Trojan Filly, the New York Times, which has an hilarious track record opposing great UN Ambassadors such as Daniel Patrick Moynihan, arguably the best. Author Martin Peretz serves an ace:

President Nixon, who had asked Eugene McCarthy to take the post before Moynihan, sent the name of George Bush p?re to the Senate--and, as Moynihan quipped in his book A Dangerous Place (which is what he considered the United Nations), the Times did not say he was the wrong man.

After serving (quite magnificently) for two years as ambassador to India (in the tradition of John Kenneth Galbraith), Moynihan was named to the U.N. post by President Ford. Again, the Times found fault with the designee: "[T]he prospect of Mr. Moynihan at Turtle Bay has aroused among some friends of the United Nations genuine doubts about United States policy toward the world organization, and especially toward third world countries." The Times was carrying on what one could only call a vendetta against Moynihan for what were then surprising insights on race but are now--forgive the metaphor--white bread. But Moynihan was confirmed. I can still recall the bitter derision of the foreign affairs elite at Moynihan's insistence on putting the United States "in opposition" to the malevolent bargains the Soviets were then making with "the nonaligned," that label itself a lie.

Of course, Bush pere had presided over the "non-aligned" break-dancing in the aisles of the General Assembly in celebration of genocidal mass-murderer Mao Tse-Tung's brutal tyranny to the UN Security Council[in place of Taiwan]. The NYT had no problems with that. Bolton and Moynihan share the distrust of rational men toward the corrupt babblitorium that Turtle Bay is and will continue to be.

Moynihan and Bolton were cut from the same cloth: a bit pugnacious in their patriotism, realistic about the moral and practical limits of world-organization diplomacy, clear-headed about the fact that some nations sitting across the table from us at the United Nations are actual enemies. Bolton understands, as Moynihan did, the futility of the U.N.'s. grand bureaucracies and plastic procedures. When there is a crisis, the U.N. apparatus is mobilized to pass a resolution. A resolution is almost the be-all and end-all of the United Nations. No one seems to pay much attention to the consequences or whether there are consequences at all. Like Resolution 1559, passed two years ago. It stated quite clearly what was supposed to happen in southern Lebanon--namely, the disarming of Hezbollah and all other militias. And let us not forget its requirement that the secretary-general make a report "within thirty days" on progress toward the resolution's goals. Of course, he couldn't have reported more than nothing. This instance of impotence is not an exception to the rule; it is the rule.

Actually, in Annan's case incompetence, as in his dereliction of duty in the Rwanda massacres where close to a million died, trumps his impotence. But the UN rewards incompetence with higher office, in an affirmative action program for dumb people with no known skills except talking gibberish and the artful use of "language," known colloquially as BS.

The internationalization of decision-making through the United Nations is said to be the only basis for legitimate decision-making, especially when it comes to the use of force. In Darfur, just as one instance, the internationalization of the process has thus far meant no U.N. force at all. I'd bet that last week's decision not to put Resolution 1701 explicitly under Chapter 7 guidelines will mean that no one will disarm Hezbollah. Verbal compromise turns out to be the refusal to act, or the refusal to act decisively. In any case, Bolton has rejected the basic proposition about the internationalization of decision-making on several occasions. His point was that political legitimacy derives only from democratic processes. Since so few of the states in the United Nations operate through these processes, there is little legitimacy in the United Nations at all, particularly on extreme questions like force.

Now, Bolton has made an issue of the Oil-for-Food scandal, management reform, membership in ancillary agencies (for example, whether notorious human rights-abusing states--like China and Cuba--should be elected to the new U.N. Human Rights Council; they were), and other matters like corruption, the sexually abusive behavior of U.N. peacekeepers, et cetera. It is not that he hasn't accepted compromises. He has. But the American U.N. lobby (there is one) is content, even eager, to leave the bloated, corrupt, and often unethical norms of the organization be. It certainly doesn't want a searchlight focused on them. This lobby is very hostile to Bolton's confirmation.

I must confess that back in the day, I once considered joining the UN lobby as a way of getting a job in NYC. But, guess what, the Dems have to face the fact that Bolton has done an exceptionally good job over the last year:

Bolton has been exemplary on many issues, the most significant of which are the Security Council's attempts to persuade North Korea and Iran to suspend their nuclear adventures. His work resulted in unanimity among the five permanent members of the Council. He has riveted the attention of member states on elections in the Congo and the deteriorating circumstances in Burma. He continues to press for more effective initiatives on the genocidal situation in Sudan. Bolton's dexterity resulted in the establishment of both budget and management reforms that were very long overdue. Quotidian, you might say. But his ability to address high issues and routine ones is a rarity in the bureaucracy.

But Bolton helped James Baker forestall Gore's unconstitutional takeover attempt in Florida in 2000 [although he and Baker were aided by the incompetence of former Sec'y of State Warren Christopher and Alan Dershowitz]. So the Dems seethe at him and gnash their teeth in their outer darkness, while calling him a "bully." Peretz wins set and match with his final overhead smash into the Dem's empty court:

Still desperate to finish off Bolton's appointment, his antagonists have fixed on matters of character. He is a "bully," they say. And, indeed, some accounts of his brusque treatment of government intelligence analysts are troubling, if true. But that's now old news. His handiwork in Turtle Bay--co-writing resolutions with France, to take the most recent example--is hardly the mark of a blustering zealot. And do the Democrats imagine that the Clinton administration was all geniality? Do Democrats see Hillary Clinton as amiable? Which brings me to another former U.N. ambassador, Richard Holbrooke--one of the most accomplished diplomats of our time. I hope that the next Democratic president appoints him secretary of state. But, if Bolton is rejected because he's a bully, let me tell you that Holbrooke will have trouble, too.

Yes, Holbrooke is a bully even when he is making moves on other peoples' wives, but that is the kind of guy that the UN needs. Bolton is too good for the job, the Dems fear, and will add notches in Bush's foreign policy pistol, they fear [excuse metaphorical mixing].

Appoint Bolton and stop making the US as stupid as the Dem's want it to appear.