Posted on 05/01/2006 12:13:48 AM PDT by MadIvan
In his first interview with a British newspaper, America's ambassador to the United Nations tells Alec Russell why it is in dire need of reform
John Bolton was in his element. America's famously blunt UN ambassador and hundreds of other senior diplomats had just spent almost two hours twiddling their thumbs in a deadlocked meeting awaiting a letter from the secretary general.
Then moments after the document arrived, the session was adjourned as the representatives of the developing world retired to plot - successfully as it transpired - how to stymie a series of radical reforms.
South Africa's ambassador pledged that it would be for only a quarter of an hour.
"I know those 15 minutes," said a deadpan Mr Bolton. "We have a bit longer than that, I think."
If ever a scene epitomised the notorious UN inefficiency, which Mr Bolton has spent so much of his life railing against, this was it.
"You had nearly 150 permanent representatives waiting around for an hour and a half," he said in one of many breaks in the key meeting on budget and reform at UN headquarters in New York. "With their aides, that is roughly 400 people waiting for one document and now we are waiting again.
"There is an inherent amount of slippage in a process like this, but this really is business as usual."
America's bantam cock of an ambassador is something of a cult figure at the UN.
When meetings end he is followed by a crowd of cameramen keen to capture that famous walrus moustache and his colourful asides. Rival ambassadors salute his skill as a communicator and his diligence.
He keeps Washington rather than New York hours, starting work before dawn and often going to bed by nine. While he speaks off the cuff, he assiduously takes notes of others' speeches, the opposite of the usual UN style.
He is far less haughty than many of his predecessors.
But it is exasperation as much as envy that defines reactions to him in the UN. His undiplomatic ways have infuriated even America's allies and UN officials pushing for reform.
Eight months after President George W Bush made his highly contentious appointment, no one could suggest he has "gone native".
A long-term conservative hawk, in 1994 he said the UN could easily do without the top 10 of its 39 floors. He also said there was no such thing as the UN, just an international community that can be led by the US.
His language is a little more circumspect now but only a little. Has his opinion changed? "It's exactly what I expected ... an organisation that needs substantial reform," he replied
"This atmosphere is like a bubble. It is like a twilight zone. Things that happen here don't reflect the reality in the rest of the world.
"There are practices, attitudes and approaches here that were abandoned 30 years ago in much of the rest of the world. It's like a time warp. I think that's not useful for the organisation."
UN officials mutter that far from helping to push through much-needed reforms to ensure embarrassments such as the oil-for-food scandal are never repeated, his methods have impeded the chances of agreement.
In December, he forced a six-month limit on the UN budget, infuriating the developing world, by making further funding dependent on the passage of key reforms.
America's EU allies, especially Britain, had to negotiate a compromise - "they pulled his chest hairs from the fire" said a veteran UN observer.
Mr Bolton rolls his eyes when asked if he is combative because he is not really interested in reform. "That criticism is a complete non sequitur," he retorts. "My stance is not combative. I would describe it as assertive.
"We feel strongly that we need reform. Condoleezza Rice said last September we want a revolution of reform. It's not often an American secretary of state calls for revolutions."
The deadlocked meeting ended with the hopes of the UN secretary-general, Kofi Annan - of streamlining its bureaucracy - left in tatters.
The UN split on its traditional fault-line with developing nations voting against the changes, arguing that they would give too much power to the wealthy nations. "It's a mess," said one EU ambassador.
The crisis could lead to Congress calling for a withholding of US dues. So has his experience confirmed him as a unilateralist?
"I never thought of myself as a unilateralist or multi-lateralist one way or another. For most Americans it is a very pragmatic question to say what is the most effective tool to accomplish the goals of American foreign policy. They say, what is the way to advance our interest?"
When he leaves the post, he will have plenty more anecdotes to delight the Republican heartland - and all too few signs of change in his Twilight Zone.
UN officials mutter that far from helping to push through much-needed reforms to ensure embarrassments such as the oil-for-food scandal are never repeated, his methods have impeded the chances of agreement.
Oil for food scandal, Coffee Anus' son, UN peacekeepers committing sex crimes, countries like Libya, Cuba, Syria, Iran, etc. heading up committies dealing with disarmament, and human rights, and resolutions that are laughed at and have no meaning.....but it is Bolton that is the problem in their eyes?
Seriously, any candidate in 2008 that runs on a platform of making sure that this criminal organization is removed from our soil has got my vote, without question.
The U.S. Pres. and most of Wash. politicians thinks the U.N. is important and worth saving. My question is, 'just why is the U.N. important'? Just the facts. Is there ANY important use that the U.N. is used for? Has the U.N. at any time since it's conception been of any use to any country? Has it every stopped a war? Can it stop anything? Has it helped with any type of trade agreements that were not crooked?
Is the U.N. there just for the use of the high class politicians from all over the world?
I think I would really like to know just what GOOD is the U.N. to anyone in the world. What good have they done that is not done by a country or several countries anyway and still do if there were not a U.N.?
The UN is simply the most public symbol of the international communist movement on American soil. Its influence is felt across America via our federal bureaucracy that is illegally implementing unratified UN treaties such as the biodiversity treaty, voted down by the US senate in 1994. The UN should have been ripped down the same day the Berlin Wall fell.
Thanks Ivan, but with replies like that you're going to lose the tag "Mad". I agree with your comments. You're right on target from my perspective.
Not only its history is a failure but its dithering over facing real evil is so self-evident, only leftist delusionals think it has a part in governing the world. The USA should start its own Western-Eastern alliance which unites those who are democratic, capitalistic, for those nations open to these two levels, and reform a united NATO which would include those nations willing to fight Islamofacism and totalitarianism on all levels. Let the UN fall on its own corrupt sword. There is no reformation for it and Bolton is right in his condemnation. Now if only W would join in, we might see a very radical change in a opt-in with committment world organization.
Bolton bump!
I wish they would bulldoze the place,
and pave a (more useful) parking lot.
Another Bush globalist pulling wool over the eyes of the true believers. [chuckle]
LOL!!! Overestimating just a bit, isn't he? Silly guy.
"I am curious for an American perspective on when the real golden age was?"
August, 1945; two cities somewhere in Japan!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.