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.
US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) were born under the sign of Gemini. Geminis are known for their intelligence, creativity, adaptability and flexibility. It is unlikely, then, that the trade conflict between the US and China would escalate into a catastrophic collision. It is more probable that both sides would seek a way to de-escalate, paving the way for a Trump-Xi summit that allows the global economy some breathing room. Practically speaking, China and the US have vulnerabilities, and a prolonged trade war would be damaging for both. In the US, the electoral system means that public opinion
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
RSS