US President George W. Bush's decision to appoint John Bolton as ambassador to the UN, while controversial, is meant to send a clear signal to the international body that it is time for reform.
Bolton, a long time critic of the UN and currently the State Department's top diplomat for weapons nonproliferation, has been outspoken in blasting the organization for being ineffective and not conducive to US interests.
"There is nobody in the [Bush] administration that takes the issue of United Nations reform more seriously than John Bolton and you can be sure he will not shy away from speaking his mind," said Brett Schaefer, a diplomatic analyst at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative Washington think tank.
Bush's selection surprised officials at the UN and in Europe at a time when he is trying to rehabilitate trans-Atlantic alliances badly damaged during his first four years in office over the Iraq War. It reinforces the perception that Bush is a unilateralist unconcerned with the views of the US' closest friends.
Bolton is known for speaking his mind and is strongly supported by Vice President Dick Cheney, who lobbied for his position in the State Department over the objections of the more moderate and then-secretary of state Colin Powell.
US conservatives, especially within Congress, have been pushing for change at the UN, and for years blocked the payment of US dues until after the Sept. 11 attacks.
Bolton has long shared their view, emphasizing in 1994 the importance of the US in leading the world, rather than the UN that can rarely agree on a single policy, leaving it incapable of acting decisively.
"There is no such thing as the UN," he said, according to the Washington Post. "There is an international community that occasionally can be led by the only real power in the world, and that is the United States, when it suits our interest and we can get others to go along."
His appointment, which must be approved by the Senate, has raised objections at home. Opposition Democrats have vowed to fight the nomination in the Senate and some Republicans have expressed reservations. Forty-three Democrats voted against his posting as undersecretary at the State Department four years ago. Six voted, however, crossed party lines and voted for him.
Democratic Senator Joseph Biden, the ranking minority leader on the chamber's Foreign Relations Committee, said he was puzzled by Bush's choice.
"In light of the president's recent efforts to reach out to allies and the international community, I'm surprised at the choice of John Bolton to be our UN representa- tive," Biden said in a statement.
Senator John Kerry, who was narrowly defeated by Bush in last year's election, struck a harsher tone, saying Bolton carries "baggage we cannot afford."
"I recognize John Bolton's long service to our country, but this is just about the most inexplicable appointment the president could make to represent the United States to the world community," Kerry said.
But conservatives argue there could be tremendous benefits for the US and UN with Bolton's presence in New York.
The recent scandal over the mismanagement of the Iraqi oil-for-food program may ease his acceptance in the diplomatic ranks.
"The price that the scandal has had on the United Nations has created a more reform-minded atmosphere in the organization and may make it more receptive to to what Bolton is trying to do," Schaefer said.
By naming Bolton, Schaefer said Bush is sending the same message to congressional conservatives as he is to the UN: that he is serious about reform. Reform advocates in Congress have been sceptical about US efforts to change the UN, and Bolton will bring a higher level of credibility when he's addressing the issue on Capitol Hill because of his long record of pushing for reform, Schaefer said.
He also said that just because Washington wants changes at the UN doesn't mean it opposes the organization or that it is unilateralist "as a first recourse."
"Conservatives want to reform the United Nations ... but not throw the baby out with the bathwater," he said.
In the event of a war with China, Taiwan has some surprisingly tough defenses that could make it as difficult to tackle as a porcupine: A shoreline dotted with swamps, rocks and concrete barriers; conscription for all adult men; highways and airports that are built to double as hardened combat facilities. This porcupine has a soft underbelly, though, and the war in Iran is exposing it: energy. About 39,000 ships dock at Taiwan’s ports each year, more than the 30,000 that transit the Strait of Hormuz. About one-fifth of their inbound tonnage is coal, oil, refined fuels and liquefied natural gas (LNG),
On Monday, the day before Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) departed on her visit to China, the party released a promotional video titled “Only with peace can we ‘lie flat’” to highlight its desire to have peace across the Taiwan Strait. However, its use of the expression “lie flat” (tang ping, 躺平) drew sarcastic comments, with critics saying it sounded as if the party was “bowing down” to the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). Amid the controversy over the opposition parties blocking proposed defense budgets, Cheng departed for China after receiving an invitation from the CCP, with a meeting with
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) is leading a delegation to China through Sunday. She is expected to meet with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) in Beijing tomorrow. That date coincides with the anniversary of the signing of the Taiwan Relations Act (TRA), which marked a cornerstone of Taiwan-US relations. Staging their meeting on this date makes it clear that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) intends to challenge the US and demonstrate its “authority” over Taiwan. Since the US severed official diplomatic relations with Taiwan in 1979, it has relied on the TRA as a legal basis for all
To counter the CCP’s escalating threats, Taiwan must build a national consensus and demonstrate the capability and the will to fight. The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) often leans on a seductive mantra to soften its threats, such as “Chinese do not kill Chinese.” The slogan is designed to frame territorial conquest (annexation) as a domestic family matter. A look at the historical ledger reveals a different truth. For the CCP, being labeled “family” has never been a guarantee of safety; it has been the primary prerequisite for state-sanctioned slaughter. From the forced starvation of 150,000 civilians at the Siege of Changchun
RSS