Regards, Ivan
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.
Regards, Ivan
Ping!
Hey, they're good for a lot of semi-sternly worded half-criticisms!
Kind of like your mother counting to three but stopping at 2 1/8, 2 and 1/4, 2 and 3/8 ...
"I miss the days when someone wanted to mess with us we could just hammer them and get it over with.
I also miss the days when congress wasn't totally worthless (I think that would be the contract with America)!"
Genuine question - (I'm not fishing for a particular response): When was this time you miss? You imply it is within living memory - so I am curious for an American perspective on when the real golden age was?
"I miss the days when someone wanted to mess with us we could just hammer them and get it over with.
I also miss the days when congress wasn't totally worthless (I think that would be the contract with America)!"
Genuine question - (I'm not fishing for a particular response): When was this time you miss? You imply it is within living memory - so I am curious for an American perspective on when the real golden age was?
I guess it's gotten better then. I've though of it as hell for a long time.
I think of it as a nuisance. It's too incompetently run to be Hell.
In the 19th century, a rebellion was started by someone called "The Mad Mullah" in the Sudan. The British response was to send the Army and kill him and his followers. He died of typhus, but otherwise the rebellion was crushed.
That was the correct response to Islamic terrorism then, it is the correct response now. The UN represents a retrograde step in the defence of our lives and liberty.
Regards, Ivan
Bump!
I would say it is more like the “Night Gallery” (a horror series hosted by Rod Serling).
"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."
Look, no institution that has a majority of it's members belonging to completely corrupt governments is ever going to work.
America's EU allies, especially Britain, had to negotiate a compromise - "they pulled his chest hairs from the fire" said a veteran UN observer.
I'd say our EU allies didn't do Bolton, the US, or the UN any favors with their compromise. A carrot without a stick is just a carrot -- and, in this case, a very expensive and wasteful carrot.
Awaiting from Mr. Bolton's mentor, George Voinovich.
Work it out Mr. Bolton
Garde la Foi, mes amis! Nous nous sommes les sauveurs de la République! Maintenant et Toujours!
(Keep the Faith, my friends! We are the saviors of the Republic! Now and Forever!)
LonePalm, le Républicain du verre cassé (The Broken Glass Republican)
Oops. Bolten is the WH Chief of Staff. Bolton is the U.N. Ambassador. I know, spelling fanatics, I know. Save your ammo.
Its time to move the UN to a third world country like Haiti and then we will see how serious they are about solving the world's problems. Time to kick this worthless, corrupt, brutal dictator supporting farce out of the USA.
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.