Webloggin » U.N. Reform On Hold As Bolton Is Sent Packing

John Bolton will resign from his United Nations post when his term expires because Democrats, the ones who were going to do away with partisanship, blocked President Bush in his attempts to formally appoint Bolton to the post of U.N. Ambassador.

There are many reasons that Bolton failed – most of them due to the fact that he was an adamant proponent of reforming a United Nations that he viewed as being overly bureaucratic and a bit too anti-American with its agenda. He hurt peoples feelings with his “brusque style”.

All the blame can’t be placed on Democrats. Republicans failed to gather support when it came time to push him over the edge. Most notably we can thank Republicans like Lincoln Chafee, a maverick by all definitions in the MSM. Translated, Republican turncoat. He was adamantly opposed to putting someone with backbone in a position to counter anti-American elements within the U.N. Chafee is now out of a job and he just happens to be one of the front runners for Bolton’s soon to be vacated post. Democrats would love him.

Others who are possibly in line for the job include Zalmay Khalilzad who is the current U.S. ambassador to Iraq. He is a Muslim and apparently that would be a gesture of good will from the United States to the Muslim friendly United Nations. (see there is room for religion in liberal politics) Of course Iraq is probably more important to the Bush administration at the moment so we will have to wait and see.

There is no shortage of Republicans looking for a job so I am sure the list is going to get longer.

For Bolton’s part he isn’t liked by many on both sides of the aisle. But what do they expect? The United Nations is a virtual sink hole of American dollars and its track record is horrendous. They have effectively worked to sweep their own misdeeds under the rug by attacking the United States as the evil menace to the world. Should Bolton simply ignore this and play “get along” to made Democrats feel better with themselves?

Critics who solely blame Bolton for the the U.N.’s poisonous anti-American atmosphere are full of it. The U.N. was a problem long before Bolton stepped up to the plate as evidenced by its choices for human rights advocates, the oil for food scandal, charges of rape by U.N. peacekeeping forces, redundant committees, vast mismanagement of money and years of criticism that have simply been ignored. Bolton came in with the intent to change these things and he was opposed at every corner. Not because of his intent or knowledge mind you; it was his “style”.

Despite Bolton’s criticism he has made progress on many fronts including pushing through a Lebanon peace keeping force and opposing Iran and North Korea on nukes.

Bolton also opposed the newly formed Human Rights Council because it included Cuba, Saudi Arabia, Azerbaijan, Pakistan, Algeria, Tunisia, Cameroon, China and Russia. None of which are known to be big advocates of human rights. The Canadian Free Press hit this one right on the mark.

Bolton opposed the new Human Rights Council because he saw, beneath its attractive packaging, the farce that it really was. He turned out to be right. Cuba, Saudi Arabia, Azerbaijan, Pakistan, Algeria, Tunisia, Cameroon, China and Russia were elected as members. They are all ranked “not free” by Freedom House. Six of these countries will serve on the Human Rights Council for the maximum three year term. At the same time, the entire number of seats on the Human Rights Council allotted to the more democratic “Western European and Others Group” (including North America, Australia, and New Zealand) was limited to seven nations, only three of which will have three year terms. The first official session of the Human Rights Council turned into an Israel-bashing exercise. The Council approved a one-sided resolution demanding that Israel end its current military operations in Gaza, which the Council blamed for the deteriorating humanitarian conditions of the Palestinian people without a single mention of the Palestinian provocations that caused the crisis in the first place.

Was Bolton wrong to want to avoid the mistakes of the discredited UN Commission on Human Rights that the new Human Rights Council was intended to replace? Should Bolton have simply played along in order to win friends in the UN establishment by pretending that all major problems were adequately addressed when the opposite was so glaringly obvious? Apparently, his opponents think so.

On Darfur, Bolton argued that the Security Council had sufficient legal authority to send foreign troops in to halt atrocities. It was Bolton who engineered the 22,500 U.N. peacekeepers in Darfur and he is continuing to pressure the Sudanese government to accept them.

Bolton also fought to limit the definition of terrorist actions to true acts of terrorism as opposed to the expanded definition being sought by Arab nation members that included “military activities that are appropriately governed by international humanitarian law”. How ironic.

Democrats are concerned that Bolton had criticized the United Nations at a time when everyone else was working to placate them. This from a group that has spent their political lives as critics of anything and everything that doesn’t have a progressive label attached to it.

Rich. This is just one more example that the voting public of the United States is screwed. Republicans blew their opportunity to lead the party into 2008 and Democrats are proving that they simply aren’t up to the task of making the hard decisions needed to protect our national interests. Talk about taking it on both ends.

Others on Bolton: National Review, Wizbang, Michele Malkin, Stop The ACLU, FullosseousFlap’s Dental Blog, Assorted Babble, Texas Rainmaker, Hot Air, Mary Katharine Hamm