From D.C. with Love ... a big "F*** you" to the U.N.

Remove all ads!

John Bolton is a man best known for sabotaging international treaties and alienating entire nations. He's as diplomatic as a battering ram. That's why he's been picked to be Bush's ambassador to the United Nations.

With ever-obedient Condi Rice in State, there is no more need to leave Bolton there as the neocon backstabber-in-chief to undermine realists like Powell.

So his masters looked for another occupation where he could wreak havoc: The UN he loathes.

The appointment of Bolton sends a clear message to the world - that the Bush crew sees themselves as vindicated.

In a way Bolton's nomination as U.N. ambassador is highly consistent: Bolton, who wants the U.S. armed to the teeth was in State "Undersecretary for Arms Control" and among the first things he started was the demolition of the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty and the ABM treaty.
Now, he, who said "there is no such thing as the United Nations" is to become U.S. ambassador to the U.N. I do see a pattern here:

His nomination is a big 'f*** you' to the realists and the U.N.

[ March 08, 2005, 14:38: Message edited by: Beren ]

 

I'm not so sure that the words "realist" and "U.N." can actually be used in the same sentence...unless it's the punchline of a bawdy joke.

 

That is a question of opinion, sure, the UN has flaws, many of them. She needs reform, yes.

That can't change the fact that the U.N. has been a very useful tool to the U.S., and can still be - enabling it to achieve things with much less resistance, on the cheap, that cost tenfold when tried to be implemented unilaterally. With their disdain for the U.N., the Bush administration is cutting in their own flesh.

That is what realists, and about every foreign policy veteran, have recognised and warned of, to name a few: James Baker with a nice quote

or Brent Scowcroft and a good quote by him that I found somewhere else:

But probably the Bush crew and the U.N.O.-phobes in the U.S just don't notice, hyped up as they are.

You wouldn't let a paedophile guard your children, I presume, or a certified alcoholic a liquor store.

Considering Bolton's well documented stance and general attitude towards the U.N. one couldn't possibly find a worse candidate for the job. But then, they made SM Gonzales secretary justice, too.

Being unsuited seems a job criterium in the Bush crew.

 

The International Criminal Court was a joke, it should never have been signed in the first place.

There is no such thing as a 'United Nations' -- they're united in very few things. The UN has a hard time providing for any major events happening world-wide because the nations making up the UN can't seem to agree on how the help should be done. When the UN finally moves in the whole operation is a fiasco -- each nation's group MUST have a direct tie to the 'person in charge' and will not work for or with any other country without significant protest (Austrailia and Canada are notable exceptions). Any assistance given to emergencies when in theater must first be approved of by the nation the troops/helpers are from. There's really only one country you can count on to give any kind of continuity to UN operations, the French.

We need a strong person in the UN. The UN has never and will never dictate policy for the US.

 

You are right that the UN finds it hard to agree, but I wouldn't say its operations have been a fiasco. In fact, the only problem with some of them is that they are not efficient enough - but that depends on how willing countries in the SC are to dedicate resources for working through the UN.
In those cases where agreeement can be reached, the UN is a fairly efficient channel. It can't work as a quick-reaction organization, but can manage to be fairly impartial.
The idea is not to complain that the organization is inefficient - but to see how it can be made efficient.

 

Unfortunately, there are many cases where troops from one nation come under attack and no other troops can help without direct approval from their government -- in emergent situations it becomes a fiasco. To make it efficient the peace keeping forces would need to be under COMPLETE control of the force commander. No country seems to be willing to do that.

 

As far as I know that is how it is for most UN troops. The only troops I can imagine who have flatly refuse to be under the command of a foreign commander are American and probably the French. I know that when Swedish soldiers serve in UN forces they have many times been under the command of a foreign commander.

 

We typically get teamed up with other countries in the region and typically get the command for being the biggest contingent, I guess. Up the chain, there's always some foreign HQ or commander-in-chief, though.

I must say I dislike the way some UN agencies put their nose where it doesn't belong and try to dictate policies. Sometimes they even go against their own statutes sometimes and also other international law regulations (this essentially means they act illegally).

The problem with the US not wanting to be under the jurisdiction an international criminal court for war crimes is that many bad officers will escape punishment but some good ones will escape harassment. And just about every single war the US has fought has been hated by leftists at least at one point. However, in order to be fair, the US would have to reject the idea of an international criminal court altogether, not just for US citizens.

One of the US' own criteria for axis of evil membership is breaking off or staying away from international treaties revolving around peace and the laws of war. Some actions of the Bush administration get pretty close to fulfilling those criteria.

Let's set the record straight and say one thing out loud: the same criteria apply to everyone. There's no such thing as we are good and they are bad so the laws are binding on them but not on us. The rules need to be the same for everyone.

And I guess Bolton's nomination is indeed a big **** you to the UN.

 

I do not like the U.N. So far they have failed in most of what they attempted to do, starting with the Korean War, all the way to todays current Sudaneese Genocide. It is imparative if there is a United Nations to prevent things such as the genocides or at least fufill goals they said would long be done. Such as one, the Millineum Goals.

The U.N. said they would end proverty, well. Looking at the world right now, I doubt that will happen. The United Nations is dedicated to peace, but sadly the nations and the U.N. are run by people who believe in their own personal agenda over anything. No matter how loyal, they see themselves as number one.

The U.N. has failed in the past and will continue to fail on multiple large global casues that they have dedicated themsevles to.

 

The ICC trials I've read about seem to be just a formality -- there is little doubt of what the virdict will be (the whole thing appears staged). Perhaps the ICC just does its homework and only tries those it knows are guilty, but I still have doubts.

I'll do a terrible thing and make an assumption here -- you've never been involved in peacekeeping force. It's a total cluster, there are thirty or so countries adding a hodgepodge of assistance -- there appears to no discernable thought process as to who should do what AND there are several countries that have animosity for each other in the mix. For example country A has cut off diplomatic ties with country B -- unfortunately, country A has provided ambulances for the force and country B has provided medical staff. The A ambulance drivers are not allowed on the B compound (i.e., the hospital) so they just drop off the sick and injured X meters from compound B (the X being determined by diplomats). Now, of course, the doctors and nurses in compound B are not allowed outside the compound -- so the patients either have to get to the hospital on their own or wait for some from another country to help them.

Countries give 'orders' to their peacekeepers. If X happens, you do Y. What can the commander of the peacekeeping force tell you to do, etc. Most of these are very sketchy, leaving out many very feasible contingencies such as attack on another country's peacekeepers. A few countries are very good and have detailed 'orders' -- Australia, Canada, UK and USA are usually the best (they've had a lot of practice at this). Any event that occurs that is not in the written orders must be brought up through diplomatic channels, which takes hours. As long as everything goes well, the peacekeeping force operates smoothly -- but if the **** hits the fan there are very few countries you can count on for immediate help (the Aussies are ALWAYS ready to rock).

These problems stem from the fact that the countries providing assistance can't agree on how to provide that assistance or the priority. It's a real mess -- that's why I said it's not really united. The UN mandate is often either too unclear or simply ignored by the leaders from the different countries (they pick and choose what part of the mandate to follow). It's not really done by agreement -- just by philosophical agreement that something needs to be done.

Your myth link went to a site explaining the ICC. Whether or not anyone agrees, the UN prefers to send in the US as an immediate response (at least did for several years). There are 4 carrier battlegroups around the world and at least one Marine amphibious task group ready to provide assistance -- and not just military aid, the Marines also provide rescue, protection and distribution of food and supplies. There were times it seemed Butros Butros-Ghali wanted control of the US military to do the peacekeeping missions for the UN -- there were many public arguements about this (if the US didn't respond in a way HE felt they should he would publicly decry the US effort in that particular mission).

 

There has been a lot of discussion of Abu Greib on SP, a separate post might be in order but I think we'd be beating a dead horse. Suffice it to say we disagree on that issue (at least the premise of who is at fault -- I'm fairly harsh in my view of punishment towards the perpetrators).

I don't believe I've said the UN peacekeepers were worthless, only that they're not very efficient. I believe the system needs to be fixed so countries have VERY DEFINED roles to play. Everyone should know what to expect of each other and that they cannot pick which aspects of a mandate to follow. That's why there needs to be a strong, and at times obnoxious, leader as the ambassador -- this problem needs to be fixed and it's not being fixed with the current players in the UN. If Bolton can shake things up and fix this, more power to him (but I doubt he'll be able to).

I agree, the UN doesn't have the power to make the US do anything -- in fact, it doesn't have the power to make leaders of any country do something they don't want to. But the perception is still there the UN can. Not just in America. I believe this perception really came about under Butros-Ghali and the way he used to spin the issues. What may be obvious to you and me may not be so obvious to others.

I also disagree on another point you made; the US can fight all it's wars (although we are never alone, there are always allies) AND clean up the mess afterwards AND clean up the mess from other wars too. We've been cleaning messes for over 90 years now (ours and others) and we'll continue cleaning messes for the forseeable future. The US government and people give a tremendous amount of aid to virtually all tragic events worldwide (and most of those we do NOT cause).

 

So far as justice goes, no one is going to tell me that holding people in detention without a charge for a year (or not just one) is justice (edit: removed the "not" which made it here by my mistake). No one is going to tell me that stripping people naked is justice, that hooding them and having them strike poses is justice, let alone beating and giving electroshocks. Do I have to mention other examples?

I want that kind of "justice" to perish. An international criminal tribunal could help. Guys responsible for such things belong behind the bars. They shouldn't be running loose, let alone around the Pentagon or White House and down the chain to the lowest ranking commander turning a blind eye, let alone those more "proactive" ones.

There's that nice old maxim: who comes to equity has to come with clean hands. When speaking out loud about ridding the world of evil and unrighteousness, perhaps it would be a good idea to apply the same high standards to oneself as one is applying to others.

[ March 09, 2005, 21:31: Message edited by: chevalier ]

 

And we wonder why the rest of the world hates us. Huh. And good luck telling the "moral majority" &^%$heads that old maxim, Chevalier. What else can these guys do to screw up this country? I shudder to think. I can't wait to move to New Zeland. Hope they'll still accept americans by then. God bless the all-knowing U.S. and the president Jesus picked. Bah!

 

Yeah! Go Australia! Wait... that's not always a good thing.

Unfortunately we're not quite as virtuous as T2Bruno makes us out to be. We let Indonesia annex East Timor and only went in to help them 25 years later. The price? We're helping ourselves to their natural resources and draining a great deal from their economy. While we have a record of being reasonably gung-ho, I don't think we can say it's always been for the right reasons, and rarely before it was too late.

Well, the Supreme Court played their part, too - don't you think about leaving Antonin Scalia off the acknowledgements list, Ravynn!

 

Well...I dunno much (read: anything) about Bolton, but I'm willing to buy that explanation for one simple reason: if some (many? most? all?) of the jokes I make were made public, um...

Suffice it to say they include racism, sexism, homophobia, xenophobia, extreme nationalism...and just about every other offensive and frightening thing you can come up with. So I don't really have trouble believing that other people make impolitic jokes. Unless I see evidence to make me think otherwise, I'll believe Bolton. On this, anyway.