Log In | Register
If you haven't heard, the United State's representative to the UN, John Bolton, has submitted his resignation. He has been working for the last fifteen months in a temporary capacity, after the Senate sat on his nomination for a whole year. Bush has resubmitted his nomination, but last week, faced with a new Democratic lead congress in which he was even less likely to win approval of his nomination, Bolton announced that he would leave his position when the current term expires at the end of this year.
He was definitely not a carbon-copy of your average UN ambassador. As the NY Times put it: Mr. Bolton's decision to step down brings to an end the stormy and controversial tenure of an ambassador whose confrontational style often conflicted with the understated ways of the United Nations..
Tactics aside (an his were a nice change of pace from the usual diplomatic bore that is so commonplace in high-level International diplomacy), Bolton was not afraid to speak his mind and diverge from the popular world opinion, especially when addressing issues relating to the one country whose very existence has always irked the constituency of the UN: Israel.
A recent example: on November 17, the United Nations General Assembly congregated for the purpose of condemning Israel. As Anne Bayefsky sets the stage:
On November 17, 2006 the UN General Assembly "reconvened" its "Tenth" Emergency Session to condemn Israel. The Tenth Session began in 1997and has now been reconvened 14 times. No other emergency session of the General Assembly has occurred on any other subject in these ten years - not even on Darfur, Sudan with 2.5 million people displaced and over 400,000 dead. And once again, the General Assembly adopted another resolution condemning Israel without mentioning Hezbollah, Hamas, Iran or Syria, which are openly acting to bring about Israel's annihilation. Just seven of the UN member states voted against the resolution – the United States, Australia, the Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, and Palau. The European Union voted in favor.
I will not dwell on why this scenario just stinks. If you agree with the United Nation's habit of condemning Israel over all others and ignoring those seeking to destroy Israel, then we have nothing to talk about. I would though like to quote some of Ambassador Bolton's response. As this was in the General Assembly, the United States held no special veto powers, and Bolton's vote counted for as much as Israel's or Micronesia's when voting against this resolution. Here is some of what he had to say (full pdf here):
Just yesterday the Third committee passed a resolution stressing the need to avoid politically motivated and biased-country specific human rights resolutions. It called upon member states to resist the "selective targeting of individual countries" and to avoid "double standards". To be sure, many of the sponsors of that resolution are notorious abusers of human rights themselves, and were seeking to deflect criticism of their own policies. But we find it deeply ironic that here we are...discussing a highly politically motivated and biased-country specific resolution against a country that has for decades been the target of the General Assembly -- Israel.
The United States will vote against this resolution. Once again, the General Assembly, meeting in this Emergency Special Session, is presented with a one-sided, unbalanced resolution addressing the Israel-Palestinian conflict...Because this resolution fails to take a realistic, fair and constructive approach to the Israel-Palestinian conflict, it will fail to advance the aspirations of the Palestinian and Israeli people for a more secure, peaceful, and prosperous life, a goal so many of us share.
Unfortunately, this type of resolution serves only to exacerbate tensions by serving the interests of elements hostile to Israel's inalienable and recognized right to exist. In doing so, it deepens suspicious about the United Nations that will lead many to conclude that the organization is incapable of playing a helpful role in the region.
...We believe that the United Nations is ill served when its members seek to transform the organization into a forum that is little more than a self-serving and polemical attack against Israel or the United States....this resolution is another example of moderate elements being held hostage by a few extreme states or those whose parochial political agendas distort the ostensible purpose of this and other resolutions.
Since its inception earlier this year, the Human Rights Council, has quickly fallen into the same trap and de-legitimized itself by focusing attention almost exclusively on Israel. Meanwhile, it has failed to address real human rights abuses in Burma, Darfur, the DPRK, and other countries. Sadly, the Human Rights Council appears to be developing into an organ that is worse on this score than its predecessor.
The problem of anti-Israel is not unique to the Human Rights Council. It is endemic to the culture of the United Nations. It is a decades-old, systemic problem that transcends the whole panoply of UN organizations and agencies...
The consequences of this persistent, unconstructive, biased approach are painfully clear - not one single Palestinian is helped and the United Nations continues to be discredited by its inability to confront the serious challenge of the Israel-Palestinian conflict in a serious, responsible manner.
Thank you for those words, Ambassador Bolton. It is refreshing to see someone say things as they are, call out the anti-Israel nature of the United Nations in front of those parties who are most guilty of this offense, and unabashedly offer your opinions as to why this behavior is in direct contradiction of the mission of the UN, and how it helps no one in Middle-East come closer to any peaceful resolution.
Bayefsky concludes her editorial as follows:
Nobody clapped – in contrast to the applause which the same crowd had lavished on Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez when he referred to President Bush this past September as the devil. John Bolton, however, wasn't looking for accolades. In a room where the US has one vote among 192 states, he simply spoke truth to power. "We believe that the United Nations is ill served when its members seek to transform the organization into a forum that is little more than a self-serving and polemical attack against Israel or the United States."
