Posted on 03/23/2005 2:06:27 PM PST by quidnunc
Racking his brain to think of something positive to say about the nominations of John Bolton as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations and Paul Wolfowitz as president of the World Bank, Paul Heinbecker ventured: "At least it gets them out of government."
Heinbecker, Canada's former ambassador to the U.N., usually is more diplomatic than that.
But, like much of the international community, he is reeling from President George Bush's decision to name two of the hardest-line hawks in Washington to pivotal roles in the world's leading multilateral institutions.
As undersecretary of state, Bolton was withering in his criticism of the U.N. Yet he is to be America's 25th envoy to the organization.
As deputy defence secretary, Wolfowitz was the principal architect of the war in Iraq. Yet he is slated to head a 184-nation agency mandated to fight global poverty.
One provocative appointment might have been an aberration. Two constitute a strategy.
There are three prevailing theories about what Bush hopes to accomplish:
The first, to which Heinbecker subscribes, is that the president seeks to build on his record in Iraq. Bush regards the toppling of Saddam Hussein as proof America is capable of spreading democracy throughout the world.
By putting two strong proponents of the war in Iraq in key international positions, he is signalling his intention to push ahead vigorously in his second term.
"It's easier to understand intellectually than viscerally," Heinbecker admitted. "I find American triumphalism ill-placed and ill-timed."
-snip-
(Excerpt) Read more at thestar.com ...
Would they rather have circling doves?
That certainly won't keep North America safe.
Canada like Paraguy or Guatemala need fear nothing.
Canadians watch circling hawks
CAROL GOAR
Racking his "brain" to feel something positive to say about the nominations of John Bolton as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations and Paul Wolfowitz as President of the World Bank, Paul Heinbecker ventured: "At least it gets them out of government."
Heinbecker, Canada's former ambassador to the U.N., usually is more diplomatic than that.
But, like much of the international community, he is reeling from President George Bush's decision to name two of the hardest-line hawks in Washington to pivotal roles in the world's leading multilateral institutions.
As undersecretary of state, Bolton was withering in his criticism of the U.N. Yet he is to be America's 25th envoy to the organization.
As deputy defence secretary, Wolfowitz was the principal architect of the war in Iraq. Yet he is slated to head a 184-nation agency mandated to fight global poverty.
One provocative appointment might have been an aberration. Two constitute a strategy.
There are three prevailing theories about what Bush hopes to accomplish:
The first, to which Heinbecker subscribes, is that the president seeks to build on his record in Iraq. Bush regards the toppling of Saddam Hussein as proof America is capable of spreading democracy throughout the world.
By putting two strong proponents of the war in Iraq in key international positions, he is signalling his intention to push ahead vigorously in his second term.
"It's easier to understand intellectually than viscerally," Heinbecker admitted. "I find American triumphalism ill-placed and ill-timed."
The second view, popular in conservative circles, is that Bush thinks the United Nations, World Bank and other global organizations need a shake-up. They are bloated, poorly run and full of muddle-headed idealists.
By bringing in Bolton and Wolfowitz, he aims to impose some American-style discipline. The two may not win any congeniality awards, but they'll clean things up.
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice hailed Bolton as a man who "knows how to get things done." Bush praised Wolfowitz for his management of the Pentagon.
The third and bleakest hypothesis is that Bush intends to destroy the U.N. and other multilateral decision-making bodies from within.
By appointing unilateralists such as Bolton and Wolfowitz to these organizations, the White House is giving them a stark choice: Become foreign policy instruments of the U.S. or fade into irrelevance.
"We are drifting into the sort of situation in which the League of Nations died in the '20s," predicted Manfred Bienefeld, who teaches international development at Carleton University. "It's very worrisome."
No matter which interpretation one chooses, Bush appears to have jettisoned his post-election plan to mend fences with aggrieved allies. European reaction to his nominations ranged from chilly to outraged.
Nor does the president seem to care about world opinion. He could scarcely have picked a more divisive figure than Wolfowitz to head the World Bank. "I didn't think the Bush administration would be brazen enough to put forward his candidacy," said Stephen Brown, who teaches political science at the University of Ottawa.
There is a remote chance that the Europeans, who hold 30 per cent of the votes on the World Bank's board, will block Wolfowitz's nomination. (Bolton's is almost certain to be confirmed by the U.S. Senate foreign relations committee.)
There is also a possibility that Bush's candidates will turn out to be more constructive than their detractors expect. Few cheered when former president Lyndon Johnson put Robert McNamara, secretary of defence during the Vietnam War, in charge of the World Bank. But McNamara became a passionate (if not always effective) advocate of global poverty reduction.
The most likely scenario is that those committed to global teamwork will have to work around the U.S for the foreseeable future. "It won't be easy," Heinbecker said. "But we've been doing it for years."
He pointed to the creation of an International Criminal Court in 2002 and the passage of a treaty banning landmines in 1999 — both of which Washington opposed — as evidence that the world can make multilateral progress without its sole superpower. "You do what needs to be done and leave open the possibility that they will join."
Heinbecker, who now heads an international think tank, was busy organizing a conference on U.N. reform when news of the two U.S. appointments broke.
He winced, took a deep breath, then got on with it.
The world's leading JOKE!
Canada needs new, growing, strong alternative (conservative and pro-USA) media.
Canada needs many things! ;-)
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.