Friday, November 25, 2005

John Bolton's Raison d' Tere

....was to tell the United Nations one basic message on behalf of the United States: It's our way or the highway.

And that message has now been emphatically delivered:

"Americans are a very practical people, and they don't view the U.N. through theological lenses," Bolton told reporters outside the General Assembly hall. "They look at it as a competitor in the marketplace for global problem-solving, and if it's successful at solving problems, they'll be inclined to use it. If it's not successful at solving problems, they'll say, 'Are there other institutions?' . . . that's why making the U.N. stronger and more effective is a reform priority for us: Because if it's a more agile, effective organization, it is more likely to be a successful competitor as a global
problem-solver." ... [emphases added]
"They don't view the UN through theological lenses" - I could kiss Bolton full on his mustache for that choice of phrase. "Theologically" is exactly how the Foggy Bottom elitists and feckless, mercenary Kerryesque left-wing weasels and Scowcroftian "realists" look upon the United Nations. Multilateralism is an article of dogmatic faith with them no matter how much it fails, how much it paralyzes our freedom of action, how much it empowers our enemies, and how much it corrupts ourselves and our allies.

Still harbor doubts? See for yourself:

Bolton's remarks come as the Bush Administration is encountering stiff resistance from poor countries to United States-backed initiatives aimed at streamlining the United Nations' management practices. The influential Group of 77 developing nations recently issued a letter sharply criticizing plans by Secretary General Kofi Annan to establish an ethics office and to review General Assembly-created programs that are more than five years old to determine whether they should be shut down.

The message couldn't be any clearer: No reform. We like our US-financed gravy train just the way it is, and you damn well better leave it alone.

And why wouldn't they think that way? As Cap'n Ed points out, institutionalized corruption is the rule in the "developing" world, which is why they never graduate to "developed." Even a lapdog "investigation" like the Volcker Report identified sixty countries, the vast majority of them "developing," that had a finger, hand, or entire arm shoved into the Oily Food scam that was funding Saddam Hussein's WMD programs. The last thing they want to see is their sugardaddy patsy pulling the plug on their perpetual party.

If the US left the UN the latter would probably grow even more corrupt and tyrannical than it is already. But it would do so without American taxpayer dollars and the legitimizing prestige our presence and "dues" undeservedly bestow upon it. That's the choice with which Ambassador Bolton has presented them. Now we'll see which is greater - Turtle Bay's anti-American/anti-Semitic hatreds or its avaricial greed.

UPDATE: Who says "straight talk" and diplomacy are mutually exclusive?

Following intense US pressure, the United Nations Security Council on Wednesday issued an unprecedented condemnation of Monday's Hizbullah attacks on northern Israel.

This condemnation - slamming Hizbullah by name for "acts of hatred" - marked the first time the Security Council has ever reprimanded Hizbullah for cross-border attacks on Israel. The condemnation followed by two days a failed attempt to get a condemnation issued on Monday, the day of the attack, when Algeria came out against any mention of Hizbullah in the statement.

When asked what changed from Monday to Wednesday, one diplomatic official replied: "John Bolton," a reference to the US ambassador to the UN. Bolton lobbied vigorously for the passage of the statement. [first emphasis added]

Imagine that. The man whom Democrats insisted was too "abrasive" and "hostile to the UN" to ever function effectively (i.e. as they think an ambassador to the UN is supposed to function - as a UN ambassador to the US rather than the reverse) at Turtle Bay is performing the miraculous by actually getting the "world body" to start acting as its founders originally intended. Indeed, not being a part of the striped-pants "club" may be Ambassador Bolton's biggest asset; that and the clout that come from representing the global hegemon as well as the member that underwrites a quarter of the UN budget.

That, of course, is why the Democrats opposed him. They want a UN ambassador who will piss away that clout and "fit in" with the "developing world" - to, to employ a Rosa Parkian metaphor, sit at the back of the international bus instead of taking his rightful place behind the wheel - and thereby prevent the bus from careening straight off the nearest cliff.

Libs want, in essence, a world without the U.S. In that they are in complete prostration to that portion of the world that they claim "hates" us, as well as the portion of the world - Red China, Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Brazil - that actually does precisely because we stand in the way of their murderous global ambitions.

John Bolton symbolizes the antithesis they detest. He's not letting any moss grow beneath his feet. And that's one more thing for which to be thankful.

Heaven help the world if the other side ever gets its wish. That "new world order" would destroy itself within a decade - or even less.

[HT: B4B]