Citizen Journal

« The thing about Derek Jeter | Main | A sobering reminder: what Iran is up to, and why »

April 13, 2006

John Bolton: Media blackout?

One would think that given the last few days' developments in Iran, an appearance by UN Ambassador John Bolton on the timely subjects of UN Reform and Iranian nukes would garner some MSM attention, especially when that appearance is in the MSM beast's belly, midtown Manhattan. Bolton's newsworthy, right? (See here, here and here.)

Wrong!

Last night Mr. Bolton spoke before the New York Lawyer's Chapter of the Federalist Society on precisely those two subjects, opening with some details of his perspectives and efforts at reforming the UN. And yet I may be the only one who took notes. Owing to MSM's disinterest, here's a recap:

While most member nations wallow in inertia and revel in the status quo, Bolton believes the US shouldn't simply accept the unfair financial burden, the inefficiency, and the sick anti-American culture at Turtle Bay. He candidly made the case that if that if the UN is unable to confront challenges and meet its stated goals, it is incumbent upon the US first to effect change within the UN, and if that doesn't work, to pursue alternatives. The Ambassador is knee-deep in sensible financial and performance reform, the kind being resisted by UN fatcats who see the UN as a convenient restraint on US power that's being funded, wouldn't you know, primarily (and at an absurdly unfair rate) by the US. The US is, for example, a UN piggy bank, funding about a 1/4 of general expenses and nearly 1/3 of the "peacekeeping" bills. Funding shares of other nations drop off precipitously from there; the top 10 or so countries fund about 90% of these costs, and the UN scheme provides for one-country, one-vote. That, Bolton argues, is not in the US interest. Bolton noted insightfully that every member nation is expected to advocate on its own behalf at the UN with one exception. The United States alone is chastised for daring to act on its own interests, despite being the UN's cash cow, Secretariat host, and international engine of democracy.

Turning to Iran, the Ambassador noted the US' substantial diplomatic victory in convincing China and Russia to bring the Mullahs before the Security Council and went on to explain what to expect in the coming months, now that Iran has demonstrated "mastery" across the spectrum of nuclear development: (a few) more deadlines will be set then ignored by Iran, and we'll know "within a few months" whether the UN will have passed its "greatest test" in some years. Bolton clearly does not foresee an agonizing, drawn out diplomatic process but rather a simple, fair one that should be backed by resolve, not capitulations. The Ambassador drew some laughs rolling his eyes at the "stop or I'll say stop again" (paraphrasing) diplomatic process, and a few pokes at the absurdity of it all, although he was careful to emphasize the Security Council can have an important role, at least theoretically.

Bolton accepted a few questions and came across as exceptionally bright, straight talking and something of the non-diplomat Democrats hated, at least in the sense that he views challenges from the perspective that (gasp!) America must put American interests first. That is his prism: we are Americans, and we are allowed to be pro-American, even in the UN. To Bolton, both UN reform and questions on Iran present issues that are clear, often exceptionally so.

Bolton speaks with a clarity that is anathema to the Turtle Bay set, and to our friends at the NY Times, who incidentally have devoted a dozen or so reporters to a NY Post gossip columnist scandal but didn't feel compelled to cover the Ambassador's appearance. That's too bad, because few people have such relevant, timely insight on such important issues.

Posted by bill at April 13, 2006 12:44 PM

Comments

Posted by: Ames Tiedeman at April 14, 2006 07:10 PM

Post a comment