Monday, December 04, 2006
Bolton resigns from UN
In case you haven't seen it, Bush accepts Bolton's U.N. resignation. I have been told by friends working at the UN and by others who've met Bolton that he is, well, kind of a jerk. Actually I recall this was the gist of what was being said by ex-subordinates and co-workers when he was first appointed. But then again I think he's the jerk the UN deserved. I'm much more relieved to see this guy on his way out. And the manner and style of his exit is entirely typical and predictable. A pox on 'em both. Good riddance.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
I suspect that we are fated to disagree on the UN. But I could agree more: by all accounts Bolton was a jerk. That is forgivable if being a jerk helped matters, but I think the United States now recognises that however much it remains irritated by the UN, it still needs the UN to get some things done. Like nation-building...!
Yes, you're probaly right there's a fundamental disgreement here about the UN. Clearly we're agreed that the United States must embrace nation-building and it must work allies if it is going to accomplish the resolution of the conficts it is in satisfactorily. But that doesn't lead me to conclude that it needs the UN. At least part of the American irritation with the UN, and actually all of my irritation with it, stems from the belief that it is part of the problem, not the solution. Over the last 14 years it has failed:
in Somalia by trying to do too much
in Rwanda by doing basically nothing
in Yugoslavia in Bosnia by talking a lot and doing too little, winding itself into paralysis over Kosovo
It doesn't look up to doing, or really even saying for that matter, too much about Darfur. And its impact on the Arab-Israeli conflict has been singularly pernicious. At this point in history having a UN which is at best a do-nothing talkshop and at worst a conflict perpetuating mechanism is a luxury we can't afford.
Bin it. Get your multilateral nation-building coalitions some other way. NATO, for all its flaws, is at least composed of democracies.
I must admit I did raise an eyebrow at the generosity of your characterization. However, not wanting to come off all 'Mad Melish' about the guy I resisted the urge to scoff. Glad to hear that your view has self-adjusted.
Then there's Bolton's hair-do and tash. What's with that? Surely enough reasons to give him the heave-ho.
Point about Bolton is - he was selected precisely to stick it to the UN. His appointment was the Bush administrations way of saying "we're goin kick some ass in the UN." Yes, the UN is hopeless corrupt. Yes, its a mish-mash of democracies, pseudo-democracies, autocracies of various colours, and a smattering of plain old dictatorships. But its an organization that brings all these states together to talk to one another. In this sense, jaw-jaw is often better than war-war. Mats Berdal has done a really piece on this in Survival, on the disaster that was the UN Millenium Summit.
On Somalia - the US is the blame on the UN over-reaching itself, not the UN. UNSC 814 was written by the US State Dept. The head and deputy head of UNOSOM II (that winning team: Howe and Gilespie) were respectively a former US admiral and former senior US diplomat.
On Rwanda - guess what? US is to blame. In the wake of the collapse of the Somalia operation, the US was dead set against an intervenion in Rwanda which it knew would have to involve a major US force element. So it blocked action on this on the UNSC. Straight from the horses mouth, this one: the Canadian Ambassador to the UN was so furious about this, that he went public about it.
Clinton - a great president in many ways. And now doing really great work thru his foundation. But his admin failed Somalia and Rwanda.
BTW: have you fellas read the report from Slaughter-Ikenberry Princeton Project? I understand it advocates the commonwealth of democracies idea that David seems keen on.
http://www.wws.princeton.edu/ppns/
The Democrats answer to Project for a New American Century?
There already is a "bloc of democracies" - its called the Council of Europe. The only problem is that it keeps letting in quasi-democracies like Russia.
Hmmm...now where did I leave my geiger counter?
I think the jaw-jaw is better than war-war argument made a lot of sense... 50 years ago when the ability of average people to jaw-jaw with people outside of their own community was basically very limited. Now? You can't shut people up. Travel is cheap and the Internet democratizes communication and makes it ubiquitous. This gathering of nations guff is old paradigm. It's actually counter-productive sometimes. It gives a veneer of legitimacy to basically appalling demagoguery. Case in point: the 'Anti-Racism' conference in Durban which essentially turned into a celebration of anti-semitism with lashings of anti-Americanism on the side. Soooo helpful.
The way I see it is that we are beset with a number of problems which are essentially beyond the ability of individual nations to solve. Islamic Jihadism, for instance, thrives because it is a virus of an international system which has no appropriate antibody. The same could be said for carbon emissions and global warming. As a citizen of a democracy I am prepared to go along with the will of the majority even if I don't agree with it. At the end of the day I had my say and so did everyone else. Why should I ever accord the same to the UN which is neither internally democratic nor truly a mechanism for aggregating human will?
I suspect here is where I depart from Anthony. The fact is I'm as starry eyed as some Lib-Dems in some respects. A world government of some kind is something I want. Which is why the General Assembly fills me with contempt. Let's not be naive about it, if you want people to sacrifice their individual short term desires to something bigger and longer term they have to know that the process is fair. As I see it, the UN is a barrier to progress because it's unreformable and because while you have it you can't come up with something better.
Theo, thanks for the link.
Afterthought: yes, our side would have the Belgians. But they would be few in number and the fact that they produce a stunning variety, quantity and quality of beer and salted/smoked pork products makes up for A LOT.
Post a Comment