As the Bolton confirmation hearings get under way, Mr. Bolton needs to recognize that he is testifying to a group of Senators who already have their minds made up. The testimony is, therefore, irrelevant to his confirmation!
This is not to say that the testimony is unimportant – only that Bolton should pick his audience. Instead of playing to appease his opponents, which is impossible, or preaching to the choir of his supporters on the committee, he needs to take to opportunity to speak directly to the American People about the UN, the role of the United States Ambassador to the UN, and the United States' role in the UN. The confirmation vote will be what it will be, and his testimony will have little effect on changing minds of those casting those votes. He should say his piece, and then urge the committee to get on with the business of confirming or rejecting his nomination. At the end of the day, when the smoke all clears, his confirmation seems likely.
Once confirmed, Bolton should continue to do what he has been doing already: representing the interests of the United States. This is the role of every UN Ambassador… to represent the interests of their nation in the organization.
Ultimately, however, the United States must assess their participation in the corrupt farce that is the UN. There is a growing sentiment among the US population that the US should get out of the UN entirely – and that thought is not utterly without merit.
Further, there is growing sentiment that the UN organization has overstayed its welcome occupying so much prime real estate in Manhattan, and primarily at the expense of the American taxpayer!
The UN has shown itself to be:
Ineffective: Their resolutions have no force unless the US stands up to enforce them… and then the US is criticized for it. UN "Peacekeepers" fail miserably at keeping the peace. Their humanitarian efforts are ineffectual, and are better performed by the Peace Corps and Red Cross. "Aid" rarely reached those it's intended for but frequently winds up propping up those despotic governments that keep their populace in need of the aid!
Corrupt: Anyone remember Oil for Food?
Hypocritical: Sudan on the Human Rights commission?
Oppositional to US interests: (Too numerous to pick a representative example!)
Anti-Semetic: Case in point – Israelis kill 4 UN workers in an air raid targeting Hezbollah positions surrounding these workers – and Kofi Annan condemns Israel for deliberate murder! Hezbollah SHOOTS a UN peaceworker – and there is no condemnation from the UN at all! Every time Israel acts in its own defense, there is UN condemnation… but the UN has yet to condemn those who would see Israel's destruction.
Freeloading: The US provides the UN with real estate, office space, diplomatic immunity, operating budget and troops at US Taxpayer expense. The bulk of the UN's expenses are met by us. In return the UN routinely votes against US interests.
It is time to seriously consider whether hosting the UN, or even participating in it is in the US interest.
What would happen to the UN if we withdrew, reclaimed our real estate and office space, withdrew diplomatic status and visas from the delegates, and invited the UN to find a different home – like the Hague or Paris? Would the organization even survive? Should it?
At least Woodrow Wilson's "League of Nations" had the good sense to declare itself a failure and disband!
Copyright © 2006 by Doug Edelman
Doug Edelman is a conservative political commentator and a contributing editor for The Conservative Voice, and his work is also seen on News By Us, The American Daily, The Post Chronicle, Capitol Hill Coffee House etc. None of these pays him, so for the support of his family, he is also an IT Consultant/Contractor and owner of a Computer Services Business. He has taught PC Maintenance & Repair and Networking at his local Community College, and maintains a blog at http://edeldoug.blogs.com/.
