Bolton rant "There is no United Nations!"

This was a very good and timely move by the President!

 

Indeed that applies to all foreign policy of all countries. But it's absolutely not done to say that. Bolton committed the ultimate diplomatic faux pas by admitting to it in public.

 

All those diplomats from small insignificant countries that have to be herded into the direction the US likes to get something done don't like it if the US delegate goes out in public and points that out and they will be much less likely to cooperate with him.
That's why he is incompetent.

 

The part I love most is that I had a professor tell me, just last semester, that it was no longer a constitutionally valid move to use a recess apointment and that Bush couldn't possibly consider doing it. (The talk was about judges, but the same logic applies.) That is one more strike against the liberals in the world of higher education!

As for Bolton himself: He will be fine. He said what every decent conservative thinks every time they think about the UN. Why would a conservative President appoint someone that loves the institution when he doesn't feel that love himself? As for people working with Bolton, who cares? The UN members seem to have broken into two camps: those that support the US and those that do not. Bolton being honest about the value of the UN isn't going to change that. France will be against us. The Russians (Soviet Union is still a valid description in my eyes, but that is another thread.), the French, the Chineese, et al. still hate us. We could put anyone at the UN, they would hate us. When it comes down to it, American has other organizations to use for diplomacy. The UN is useless.

 

"The UN members seem to have broken into two camps: those that support the US and those that do not."
"
It's more like three dozen camps.
What you see is what happens when the US get's part of the UN to follow them on some scheme and part disagrees with them. That's the result of months of threatening, bribing and pleading on the part of the US. Getting anything done at the UN is like herding a bunch of cats. Insulting the UN cats I mean diplomats (which Bolton did) is making all of that a lot harder.

 

Indeed that applies to all foreign policy of all countries. But it's absolutely not done to say that. Bolton committed the ultimate diplomatic faux pas by admitting to it in public. [/QB]</font>[/QUOTE]If being a diplomat means not vocalizing what everyone knows to be the truth, why does anybody need them?

It's like having an elephant in your living room and everyone has to pretend it's not there. Woe unto he who says, "Hey, there's an elephant in here."

 

"why does anybody need them?"
"
Because how you go about doing something is a very important part of getting things done. Part of being a professional diplomat is if at all possible not ticking people of when it can be avoided. Being polite and not airing embarrassing truths unless unavoidable is a basic part of the protocol. Bolton has proven he can't even follow basic protocol. Not only will he insult the more petty minded foreign officials he has to deal with he will also annoy those foreign officials who are into maintaining proper behaviour.
Because of this the US will have to work harder (including payment of more and bigger bribes to other countries) to get things done than when a more polite man had gotten the same job.

 

What is embarrassing about the fact that all member countries work in the interest of their country?

 

I think the public has been aware of that for quite some time.

 

"What is embarrassing about the fact that all member countries work in the interest of their country? "
"
Nothing in itself. It's however not done to tell everybody working for the UN to their faces that their only meaningfull purpose in life is there to be occasionally used as tools for US foreign policy.

"I think the public has been aware of that for quite some time."
"
It's not that he leaked some secret, it's that he said it in a public statement at an official event several times that is the problem.

I can point out truthfully that the current Dutch PM looks strikingly like a grown up version of Harry Potter and that the facial expressions of the current POTUS look a lot like the faces a chimpansee makes at times.
However if I was the Dutch ambassador to the US I better not say these things out loud when holding a press conference. I would be in a great deal of trouble.

 

I understand your point. You've repeated it enough that even I caught on.

I just disagree.

Being direct has always been an American trait that has irritated others, Europeans and Orientals in particular.

It is time for the polite constraints of diplomacy to be set aside for some plain talk. The U.N. has many problems in it's own house to solve. Talking around the issues won't get the job done.

 

"I just disagree."
"
Good.
In that case let me be direct.
Bolton doesn't want to solve problems.
He prefers complaining about them.
Even if he did, European and Oriental diplomats won't coöperate with Bolton if they can help it.
Next couple of years the US will not succeed in forming any sort of large international coalition for any purpose, unless they visit each and every country they need seperately to bribe, or bully them into signing up.
Such is the price of using vinegar instead sugar.

 

...........and I cannot think of a person less capable of making an impact that the United Nations.



Regards,
BiR

 

mioque writes:
Because how you go about doing something is a very important part of getting things done.
----------------------------
miopue,
I'm afraid I'd have to be counted in the camp of the U.N. being irrelevant. I believe whoever was nominated, from Pat Buchanan to Jerry Brown, it wouldnt make a difference. Its just a big money pit.
However, you have made a couple of references about getting things done. Can you please name for me your top 5 accomplishments of the U.N. over the last, say, 10 years, that couldnt have been accomplished by our State Dept alone? Thanks.

 

So far he has had no opportunity to do anything about the problems but complain.

If they can help it may be your key phrase. They'll deal with him because they have to. Coalitions aren't the problem , the inability to do anything but talk about a problem is the problem.

We've tried sugar. It doesn't work either. The U.N has far too many nations that are run by petty dictators or tyrants. They've had a coalition for a couple of decades now and they're not going to change if we're sweet to them. They're too intent on keeping their game going. Why would they want to be a part of a coalition that penalizes them for abuses of any kind?

 

No, I cant. The UN appears to be a self licking ice cream cone.

 

"Can you please name for me your top 5 accomplishments of the U.N. over the last, say, 10 years, that couldnt have been accomplished by our State Dept alone?"
"
Ummm... well o.k.

In random order.

Plumpynut, it looks/tastes like peanutbutter and it can save children dying from starvation that are to far gone to be helped with normal food. It can often be produced locally instead of having to be imported and you don't have to add water which is often dangerous to drink in the areas in which such specialized food is needed.
Invented by the WHO.

The independence of East-Timor.

There was the threat of a small civil war in Syria that was diffused by talks conducted by a local Syrian-Orthodox bishop and the UN. Both sides in the conflict probably might have shot State Department employees on general principle.

Helping to contain the SARS epidemic.
Recalling the impact of the Influenza epedemic right after WWI in mind (prior to the existance of the UN, but there was a State Department back then), this may have been a very good thing.

The ending of decades of civil war in Sierra Leone.

 

"They'll deal with him because they have to."
"
Ofcourse they will, they will just make their coöperation more expensive for the US than they normally would have.