Uncategorized

United Nations: with Bolton out, what next?

John Bolton is no longer the United States representative to the United Nations. Quite frankly, America can’t be in a better position. Bolton, who has a recorded history of publicly denouncing the U.N.,is leaving his post after never being legitimately elected to it.

At the Global Structures Convocation in 1994, Bolton said, “There is no such thing as the United Nations. There is an international community that occasionally can be led by the only real power left in the world and that is the United States when it suits our interest and”we can get others to go along.”

Can you believe President Bush supports this guy? Thankfully though, on Dec. 3 Bolton sent his resignation to Bush and the next day the president accepted it and sent a strong worded message to the senators (mostly Democrats) on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee who voted against giving Bolton a chance for a vote in the Senate. The president said, “They chose to obstruct his confirmation, even though he enjoys majority support in the Senate, and even though their tactics will disrupt our diplomatic work at a sensitive and important time.” But, Senate Democrats welcomed Bolton’s departure. “President Bush has made the right decision in accepting Ambassador Bolton’s resignation,” said Democratic Senate Leader Harry Reid of Nevada. Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry added, “America needs a U.N. ambassador who has the full support of congress.”

President Bush now has a unique opportunity: He could continue his hard-line conservative policies and appoint someone similar to Bolton, or take a new and more moderate approach and appoint someone who will give the United States a more reasonable voice in the United Nations and that could boost American support internationally.

According to multiple media outlets, it appears as of now, that the front runner for the job is Zalmay Khalilzad, who is our current ambassador to Iraq. Khalilzad would be disastrous for the job; he is a member of the neo-conservative think tank called Project for the New American Century. The P.N.A.C. is a non-profit organization that maintains and actively pursues the policy of U.S. military global dominance. He is not necessarily the individual you would want to represent the United States in the United Nations.

I believe that former president Bill Clinton would be a tremendous ambassador for the United States. Clinton is well respected and renowned all across the world. Not only has he shown his work as a goodwill ambassador for the United States in the aftermath of the horrible tsunami that occurred two years ago, but he has enjoyed broad support internationally. He is also effective as shown from 1994 to 2000, when he had to work with a Republican congress.

Sadly, there are a few problems: Clinton has never publicly said he would be interested in the position of ambassador and it also depends on whether Bush would want a Democrat representing his administration at the United Nations.

What Americans need right now from Bush is an ambassador who has a moral compass that will work to alleviate the problems that face the international community. These problems include poverty, debit relief for third world countries, working to eradicate world hunger and many more issues. That person is Clinton.

On Election Day, the American voters sent a mandate to the president that America needs a change in its foreign policy. So far he has responded with Donald Rumsfeld resigning as secretary of defense, but that’s just one piece of the puzzle.

Let’s hope that our president does not “stay the course” on the next nomination and selects a more moderate individual. It’s time that America takes the lead in uniting the United Nations.

Jeff Yutrzenka is a sophomore political science major.

You may also like

Leave a reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *