Bolton and the UN

From The Federalist:

"In its initial conception, the UN was to be a deliberative body capable of developing negotiated resolutions to international solutions. Now, after fifty years of decay, the UN General Assembly is only a vehicle for the conveyance of Third World kleptocrats to New York City, whence they come to dine, dance and damn the very country that acts as their host.

Now, the UN is seeking to recreate its role as an international arbiter of international disputes. That site set, the United States is the clear target of the UN's "Draft Outcome Document of the High-level Plenary Meeting of the General Assembly of September, 2005"—not a meeting to which U.S. representatives were privy.

The plan would commit the U.S. to "meeting all commitments and obligations under the Kyoto Protocol"; to "maintain a moratorium on nuclear-test explosions pending the entry into force of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty and call upon all States to sign and ratify"; and authorize "the commencement, without delay, of negotiations on... effective measures for the prevention of an arms race in outer space"—all policies that the President has firmly rejected. The UN Outcome Document also mandates a global tax and a United Nations army.

More UN-nik pie in the sky? Well, the strategy undertaken by Kofi Annan & Co. to overcome any U.S. "reticence" was to present this package to Mr. Bush as a little September surprise at a special summit meeting slated for next month. After all, he couldn't refuse to sign without looking the part of the much-maligned "cowboy president," could he?

Enter John Bolton. When Ambassador Bolton got wind of the document, the roof was razed at Turtle Bay—thank heavens for that. If ever a U.S. President needed tenacity in an ambassador to the UN, it's now. We hope Mr. Bolton's recess appointment becomes a fixed reality in the coming congressional term."

Investors Business Daily adds:

"What supporters loved about John Bolton, and what worried his critics, was that he would push for structural change at the UN. The new ambassador has confirmed both sides' expectations... Bolton has occupied his Turtle Bay office just a few weeks and already he's tipped over Kofi Annan's bureaucratic apple cart. The secretary general had scheduled a Sept. 14 summit for the heads of 175 nations.

The agenda? Ratifying the 2000 Millennium Summit, which put the UN squarely in the business of not just arbitrating global conflicts but ending poverty and curing disease. Global utopianism of this sort—the Bush administration rightly believes—does not set the UN on the right course. It simply invites more of the monumental corruption into which the body—once touted as 'the last, best hope for mankind' —has been sinking.

So Bolton introduced 175 amendments to the plan. The U.S. version eliminates much of the sappy, socialistic language and demands attention be paid to terrorism, human rights and the curbing of weapons of mass destruction. It strikes any mention of the International Criminal Court, that hobbyhorse of world government enthusiasts in the Democratic Party. The bold stroke prompted The Washington Post to report that the administration had 'thrown the proceedings into turmoil,' a lead intended to excite anti-Bolton sentiments on the Hill. But such pot-stirring, even UN fans understand, is long overdue."

The Washington Post whines about it here in their piece, "UNdiplomatic".

JUST ABOUT EVERY head of state will be in New York for a U.N. summit two weeks from now, but the preparatory diplomacy has been anything but statesmanlike. John R. Bolton, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, has demanded a long list of changes to the summit document that, though sometimes defensible in substance, has been presented in such a way as to deepen mistrust and resentment of the United States.

(Emphasis mine -H.H.)

Mistrust? Resentment? What, me worry? Hell, no! I wonder, who mistrusts whom more? I think the general populace of the U.S., perhaps, distrusts and resents these blood sucking fools at the UN more than they do us.

"Neither U.N. officials nor Mr. Bolton's office have handled this dispute gracefully. Speaking in his capacity as a special U.N. adviser, Jeffrey D. Sachs, a Columbia University professor, has excoriated the Bush administration for backing away from a commitment to devote 0.7 percent of gross domestic product to foreign aid, but that was never a firm pledge. Meanwhile, Richard Grenell, Mr. Bolton's spokesman, reacted to a request for an interview with the ambassador by enunciating the principle that journalists need to support Mr. Bolton in order to have access to him. As to the diplomacy on the summit document, Mr. Grenell pooh-poohed its significance and predicted that it would fail anyway.

Ahhhhh, here is the real problem. And I love it: "journalists need to support Mr. Bolton in order to have access to him." There is a lot of work to be done at the UN, and we lost a lot of precious time with the stonewalling without an up or down vote on Bolton.

And now, Mr. Bolton doesn't want to waste more time, with these know nothing, panty waists, demanding his time as they hurl accusations and insinuations thinly disguised as thoughtful and probing questions. The contempt this present day media has shown towards this administration has been at an insane level. And Bolton wants no part of it. Hooray for him.

Related article: U.N. Accused of Distorting U.S. Aid Commitments: Administration Denies Having Endorsed Specific Targets Known as Millennium Development Goals