"Joltin' Bolton": Right for the UN?
President George W Bush has nominated John Bolton, an arms negotiator, to be the next US Ambassador to the United Nations. After scathing testimony at hearings last week, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee has delayed voting on the nomination
Bolton is brash, arrogant and contemptuous of the UN; and these are just his good points. More seriously, he lobbied Congress for Taiwan (while temporarily out of government service) without registering as foreign agent, even though Taiwan paid him $30,000. His diplomatic skills are so poor that the British insisted he be removed from joint negotiations with Libya (1).
Administration supporters counter that someone with his attitude is just what we need at the UN nowadays. The dispute raises the more basic question " Does the United Nations really work for world peace at all?"
The answer begins with a look at history.
League of Nations: Doomed to Failure
US President Woodrow Wilson suggested at the Versailles Peace Conference after World War I that the nations of the world should form a league to prevent another tragic war. Wilson believed that aggression would be deterred if a potential aggressor understood that the major powers of the world would unite to stop him.
The League was formed in Geneva in 1920, but Wilson failed to get the Republican support needed for American membership.
The first major accomplishment of the League was to give Britain a mandate to establish a home for the Jewish people in Palestine in 1922.
Without American participation, the League was unable to stop aggression by Japan (1931) or Italy (1933). The League disbanded in 1946.
A New Beginning: The United Nations
On January 1, 1942, representatives of 26 nations signed the "Declaration by United Nations" which called for postwar co-operation by the nations then fighting against Nazi Germany. These nations, joined by 24 others, met in San Francisco on April 25, 1945, to organize a new peace-keeping international organization: The United Nations. President Franklin Roosevelt, who had prompted the creation of the UN, did not live to see it born. His successor, Harry Truman, unlike Woodrow Wilson, obtained Senate approval for American membership. In 1952 the UN moved into its present building overlooking the East River in Manhattan.
The UN Charter established a Security Council to deal with problems of international peace consisting of 15 members. There were to be 5 permanent members (US, Soviet Union, France, Britain, and China) and 10 other members selected by the General Assembly. Passage of any resolution required the votes of all 5 permanent members. This arrangement meant, in effect, that no action would be taken unless the major world powers were in agreement. Although these nations did in fact work together to defeat the Germans, antagonism soon broke out between the Soviet Union and the other major powers.
In 1949, the Nationalist government of China was overthrown by a communist insurgency, but President Chiang Kai Shek and his regime retreated to the island of Taiwan and retained the UN seat until 1971.
Let's look at how the UN has performed its mission of working for world peace.
Korea
The Soviet Union walked out of the UN in late 1949 to protest the refusal of the organization to recognize Mao Tse Tung's communist regime as the new government of China. While the USSR seat was vacant, North Korean armed forces invaded South Korea on June 25, 1950. The United Nations Security Council, with the Soviet seat vacant, then voted to create a UN army to help the South repel the invasion. Although 16 nations particpated, the United States contributed over 95% of the soldiers and supplies. The war ended in July, 1953, after North Korean troops were driven out of the South. Just this once, the UN accomplished exactly what it was created for: form an international force to repel aggression. (2)
The Israel-Arab Conflict
In November, 1947, the UN voted to end the Palestine Mandate and divide the land between a Jewish state and an Arab state. All Arab nations opposed the partition, and five attacked the new State of Israel in May, 1948. Since then, the communists won China and lost Russia. Empires rose and fell. But the Israel-Arab conflict goes on and on. With 22 Arab members and dozens of other Muslim states supporting the Arab cause, the UN has consistently taken the Arab side ever since. (The story is too long to rehash here, but will be the subject of a future Glazerbeam.)
The US and the UN: Time for Bolton?
The United States pays about 25% of the UN budget, since dues are based on the size of each member's economy. What influence do we get for our money?
American policy goals were frustrated for many years by the Soviet veto in the Security Council, once the Soviets concluded that walking out was not a smart move. Third World countries came to dominate the General Assembly after 1960, and most of the new regimes were also hostile to American objectives. After the fall of the Soviet Union, however, the new government of Russia was much more cooperative with the US and Britain, and America regained power at the UN.
In 1991, the UN supported the use of force to expel Iraqi troops from Kuwait, and UN agencies are working to prevent Iran from building nuclear weapons. Meanwhile, however, France and China have often been obstacles to American initiatives, especially the effort to get UN support for the invasion of Iraq in 2003.
The composition of the Security Council reflects the world of 1945 more than that of 2005: France is a permanent member, while Japan, Germany, and India are not. Corruption and waste are rampant. Aggessor nations have more friends than victims. Effective action against terrorism is thwarted by nations that find some forms of terrorism useful.
Into this den of trouble comes the Bolton nomination. If President Bush were trying to win friends and influence people at the UN, I doubt that he would have picked John Bolton to be his spokesman. The nomination indicates that the President wants to confront the bureaucracy and adversarial delegations at the UN. For that posture, John Bolton will do as well as anyone.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) "Bolton unfit for UN job", Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel Op-Ed page, April 11, 2005.
(2) Although the UN has supplied peace-keeping forces many times over its history, only in Korea did a UN military force actually fight aggression. The UN authorized the use of force against Iraq in 1991, but the coalition that did the fighting was organized by American President George H W Bush.
Bolton is brash, arrogant and contemptuous of the UN; and these are just his good points. More seriously, he lobbied Congress for Taiwan (while temporarily out of government service) without registering as foreign agent, even though Taiwan paid him $30,000. His diplomatic skills are so poor that the British insisted he be removed from joint negotiations with Libya (1).
Administration supporters counter that someone with his attitude is just what we need at the UN nowadays. The dispute raises the more basic question " Does the United Nations really work for world peace at all?"
The answer begins with a look at history.
League of Nations: Doomed to Failure
US President Woodrow Wilson suggested at the Versailles Peace Conference after World War I that the nations of the world should form a league to prevent another tragic war. Wilson believed that aggression would be deterred if a potential aggressor understood that the major powers of the world would unite to stop him.
The League was formed in Geneva in 1920, but Wilson failed to get the Republican support needed for American membership.
The first major accomplishment of the League was to give Britain a mandate to establish a home for the Jewish people in Palestine in 1922.
Without American participation, the League was unable to stop aggression by Japan (1931) or Italy (1933). The League disbanded in 1946.
A New Beginning: The United Nations
On January 1, 1942, representatives of 26 nations signed the "Declaration by United Nations" which called for postwar co-operation by the nations then fighting against Nazi Germany. These nations, joined by 24 others, met in San Francisco on April 25, 1945, to organize a new peace-keeping international organization: The United Nations. President Franklin Roosevelt, who had prompted the creation of the UN, did not live to see it born. His successor, Harry Truman, unlike Woodrow Wilson, obtained Senate approval for American membership. In 1952 the UN moved into its present building overlooking the East River in Manhattan.
The UN Charter established a Security Council to deal with problems of international peace consisting of 15 members. There were to be 5 permanent members (US, Soviet Union, France, Britain, and China) and 10 other members selected by the General Assembly. Passage of any resolution required the votes of all 5 permanent members. This arrangement meant, in effect, that no action would be taken unless the major world powers were in agreement. Although these nations did in fact work together to defeat the Germans, antagonism soon broke out between the Soviet Union and the other major powers.
In 1949, the Nationalist government of China was overthrown by a communist insurgency, but President Chiang Kai Shek and his regime retreated to the island of Taiwan and retained the UN seat until 1971.
Let's look at how the UN has performed its mission of working for world peace.
Korea
The Soviet Union walked out of the UN in late 1949 to protest the refusal of the organization to recognize Mao Tse Tung's communist regime as the new government of China. While the USSR seat was vacant, North Korean armed forces invaded South Korea on June 25, 1950. The United Nations Security Council, with the Soviet seat vacant, then voted to create a UN army to help the South repel the invasion. Although 16 nations particpated, the United States contributed over 95% of the soldiers and supplies. The war ended in July, 1953, after North Korean troops were driven out of the South. Just this once, the UN accomplished exactly what it was created for: form an international force to repel aggression. (2)
The Israel-Arab Conflict
In November, 1947, the UN voted to end the Palestine Mandate and divide the land between a Jewish state and an Arab state. All Arab nations opposed the partition, and five attacked the new State of Israel in May, 1948. Since then, the communists won China and lost Russia. Empires rose and fell. But the Israel-Arab conflict goes on and on. With 22 Arab members and dozens of other Muslim states supporting the Arab cause, the UN has consistently taken the Arab side ever since. (The story is too long to rehash here, but will be the subject of a future Glazerbeam.)
The US and the UN: Time for Bolton?
The United States pays about 25% of the UN budget, since dues are based on the size of each member's economy. What influence do we get for our money?
American policy goals were frustrated for many years by the Soviet veto in the Security Council, once the Soviets concluded that walking out was not a smart move. Third World countries came to dominate the General Assembly after 1960, and most of the new regimes were also hostile to American objectives. After the fall of the Soviet Union, however, the new government of Russia was much more cooperative with the US and Britain, and America regained power at the UN.
In 1991, the UN supported the use of force to expel Iraqi troops from Kuwait, and UN agencies are working to prevent Iran from building nuclear weapons. Meanwhile, however, France and China have often been obstacles to American initiatives, especially the effort to get UN support for the invasion of Iraq in 2003.
The composition of the Security Council reflects the world of 1945 more than that of 2005: France is a permanent member, while Japan, Germany, and India are not. Corruption and waste are rampant. Aggessor nations have more friends than victims. Effective action against terrorism is thwarted by nations that find some forms of terrorism useful.
Into this den of trouble comes the Bolton nomination. If President Bush were trying to win friends and influence people at the UN, I doubt that he would have picked John Bolton to be his spokesman. The nomination indicates that the President wants to confront the bureaucracy and adversarial delegations at the UN. For that posture, John Bolton will do as well as anyone.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) "Bolton unfit for UN job", Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel Op-Ed page, April 11, 2005.
(2) Although the UN has supplied peace-keeping forces many times over its history, only in Korea did a UN military force actually fight aggression. The UN authorized the use of force against Iraq in 1991, but the coalition that did the fighting was organized by American President George H W Bush.
posted by Gerald S Glazer at 10:42 AM
0 comments
