| How to Join | Member's Area | Private Library | Search | Sanctuary | Login | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Main Forums | Discussion | Tech Talk | Mature Content | Archives |
A home without a wall, |
|
|
||||||
| How to Join | Member's Area | Private Library | Search | Sanctuary | Login | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Main Forums | Discussion | Tech Talk | Mature Content | Archives |
A home without a wall, |
|
|
|
||||||
| The Alley |
|
The John Bolton Nomination |
|
Mistletoe Angel 
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816Portland, Oregon |
It looks like the nomination of John Bolton to be the U.S ambassador to the United Nations is preparing to be an even more challenging nomination than the Alberto Gonzalez nomination was, fueled upon the torture issue. The Los Angeles Times is reporting that every Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee plans to reject John Bolton's nomination to be US ambassador to the United Nations. This would mark the first time that committee Democrats unanimously opposed a diplomatic selection by President Bush. It could also put Bush's nomination in peril if any Republicans defected to vote against Bolton. Several groups opposed to Bolton have even launched campaigns to urge Republican Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island to vote against his nomination. The intense opposition to the nomination comes out of Bolton's history of U.N criticism and bashing. Take, for instance, his visit to “The Global Structures Convocation.” on February 3, 1994 in New York: “The point that I want to leave with you in this very brief presentation is where I started, is that 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 interest, and when we can get others to go along. And I think it would be a real mistake to count on the United Nations as if it is some disembodied entity out there that can function on its own." "The League of Nations was a failure because the United States did not participate. The United Nations would be a failure if the United States did not participate and, in fact, I remember as vividly as though it were yesterday, right after Iraq invaded Kuwait, Jim Baker said to me, we’re going to make this United Nations work, or we’re going to find out whether it is the League Nations or the UN. And that's the fact. And if you don't like it, then I’m sorry. The United States makes the UN work when it wants it to work, and that is exactly the way it should be, because the only question, the only question for the United States is what is in our national interest. And if you don't like that, I’m sorry, but that is the fact." "If you think that there is any possibility in this country that a 51,000 person bureaucracy is going to be supported by most Americans, you better think again. The Secretariat Building in New York has 38 stories. If you lost 10 stories today it wouldn't make a bit of difference. The United Nations is one of the most inefficient inter-governmental organizations going. UNESCO is even worse. And others go down hill from there. The fact of the matter is that the international system that has grown up, and again, I leave out the World Bank and the IMF because I do think that they're in a separate category, has been put into a position of hiring ineffective people who do ineffective things that have no real world impact, and we pay 25% of the budget." * For years John Bolton has attacked and mocked the United Nations, and opposed most of the activities in arms control and related activities that have been supported by the vast majority of the members of the United Nations. Some believe he has made a career from opposing multilateral approaches to international affairs, and may arguably be the symbol of the American unilateralist. So, should the Democrats be uniting in opposition to Bolton being nominated, and what sort of effect may this have on the national debate of international relations in general? Sincerely, Noah Eaton "If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other" |
||
| © Copyright 2005 Nadia Lockheart - All Rights Reserved | |||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Interesting, Noah. That's an excellent speech. I have to agree with every point he makes in it....but I can't see where that line of thought would make him a good representative to the UN. Actually, I have no idea why he would even want the post, with those views. It would be like an atheist wanting the post of Pearly Gates-tender. |
||
|
Aenimal Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350the ass-end of space |
"The United States makes the UN work when it wants it to work, and that is exactly the way it should be, because the only question, the only question for the United States is what is in our national interest. And if you don't like that, I’m sorry, but that is the fact." i don't agree with the rationale, but I agree that this is the way it is. 'the only question for the United States is what is in our national interest' great foreign policy. well at least he's honest and the reich..er..right..marches on |
||
|
Mistletoe Angel
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816Portland, Oregon |
That's an interesting response, Balladeer. I would agree with you there on that I don't understand why he wants that position of power. I don't know, maybe Bolton either hopes to be nominated to reform the U.N in being more aggressive on the issue of terrorism and foreign policy, or simply to just come in and operate like a petard within the organization and hope to implode it within the inside metaphorically. Of course our views differ on the U.N's service and satisfaction, and I'd flat out disagree with Bolton's points, but if your opinion or feeling here on Bolton is any larger indication, Bolton may very well not get nominated. * The bottom line is, I'm sure there are dozens of other and better nominees that also are friendly to the Bush agenda anyhow. A UN ambassador needs to be more of a diplomat than anything else, which I don't see Bolton being at all. By the way, for the record, John Bolton said himself the happiest moment of his life was when he got to bring the paper unsigning the US commitment to International Criminal Court treaty. He said it was the happiest moment in his government service. That is an indication to me of the U.N-Bolton mismatch. Sincerely, Noah Eaton "If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other" |
||
|
Alicat Member Elite
since 1999-05-23
Posts 4094Coastal Texas |
His response from 1994? Yeah, yeah, I knows. Over the course of 10-11 years, noone ever never ever changes their minds or views about anything. Set it in stone, and let the anthropologists figure it out. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
quote: How much does it pay? What are the benefits?  |
||
|
Mistletoe Angel
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816Portland, Oregon |
Bolton's anti-UN history goes far beyond 1994, Alicat. Bolton said to the Washington Times on October 24, 1998 the following: "Moreover, many Republicans in Congress - and perhaps a majority - not only do not care about losing the General Assembly vote but actually see it as a "make my day" outcome. Indeed, once the vote is lost, and the adverse consequences predicted by the U.N.'s supporters begin to occur, this will simply provide further evidence to many why nothing more should be paid to the U.N. system." He was one of the signers of a January 26, 1998 open letter to President Clinton from the Project for a New American Century (PNAC) calling on Clinton to invade Iraq and urged the U.S, not to be "crippled by a mis-guided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council." In an article for the U.S. Information Agency dated 5/2/97 entitled "America's Skepticism About the United Nations" he advocated that "the United Nations has a limited role to play in international affairs for the foreseeable future." In 2001 he aggressively opposed the UN efforts to reign in the international illicit arms trade because he said it might infringe on the right of Americans to bear arms. * Sincerely, Noah Eaton "If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other" |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
