Bolton at the U.N.
Jay Nordlinger writes in NR Digital (subscription required):
On February 23, the U.N. brass, in the person of Jan Eliasson, president of the General Assembly, responded with a proposal that said: 47 members, rather than 53; voted in by an absolute majority; and even those under sanctions are eligible. Bolton said no way — the United States would not accept that proposal, in fact would vote against it, if it came to that. He told the press that it wasn’t enough that the Eliasson proposal, on the whole, wasn’t as bad as it could have been. He also said, “We want a butterfly. We’re not going to put lipstick on a caterpillar and declare it a success.”
(I later ask whether that is an expression from his growing up, or from somewhere else in American culture. Bolton says no, he made it up, and will have to accept paternity, for better or worse.)
Bolton made clear that he — i.e., the United States — was willing to negotiate with other member states, but not with Mr. Eliasson, acting as a “facilitator.” International agreements ought to be between nations, he argued. You sit down across a table, with red pencils, and jaw it out. Annan supports the Eliasson proposal, and so do many nations — most nations. The United States, incidentally, has no veto in the matter: It would be one of the 191 members of the General Assembly, voting on the proposal. Many conservatives believe that, if the proposal goes through, the United States should refuse to participate — should leave the human-rights panel as it did UNESCO, under Reagan, back in ’84.
For their stance, Bolton and the administration received support from an unexpected quarter: the New York Times. That Bush-despising, Bolton-despising newspaper editorialized, “When it comes to reforming the disgraceful United Nations Human Rights Commission, America’s ambassador, John Bolton, is right; Secretary General Kofi Annan is wrong; and leading international human rights groups have unwisely put their preference for multilateral consensus ahead of their duty to fight for the strongest possible human rights protection. A once-promising reform proposal has been so watered down that it has become an ugly sham, offering cover to an unacceptable status quo. It should be renegotiated or rejected.”
Bolton later sought to reassure National Review that, despite the Times’s approval, he and his people had not “gone soft in the head.”
But the Times, as it concluded the editorial, took care to offend: “Mr. Bolton, representing an administration whose record is stained by Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib, is awkwardly placed to defend basic human rights principles.”
Stubbornly soft in the head were usual suspects such as Archbishop Tutu, Jimmy Carter, and the leaders of the EU, all of whom urged acceptance of the Eliasson proposal. Carter practically pleaded with U.N. members to defy the United States. This recalled his actions in 1990, when the first President Bush was trying to rally the Security Council for what would be the Gulf War, Desert Storm. Carter wrote members of the Council, urging them to thwart the United States. The government in Washington found out about it when the Canadian prime minister, Brian Mulroney, called the secretary of defense, Dick Cheney, and said (essentially), “What gives?”
As of this writing, it is unclear what will become of the U.N. Human Rights Commission.
On February 23, the U.N. brass, in the person of Jan Eliasson, president of the General Assembly, responded with a proposal that said: 47 members, rather than 53; voted in by an absolute majority; and even those under sanctions are eligible. Bolton said no way — the United States would not accept that proposal, in fact would vote against it, if it came to that. He told the press that it wasn’t enough that the Eliasson proposal, on the whole, wasn’t as bad as it could have been. He also said, “We want a butterfly. We’re not going to put lipstick on a caterpillar and declare it a success.”
(I later ask whether that is an expression from his growing up, or from somewhere else in American culture. Bolton says no, he made it up, and will have to accept paternity, for better or worse.)
Bolton made clear that he — i.e., the United States — was willing to negotiate with other member states, but not with Mr. Eliasson, acting as a “facilitator.” International agreements ought to be between nations, he argued. You sit down across a table, with red pencils, and jaw it out. Annan supports the Eliasson proposal, and so do many nations — most nations. The United States, incidentally, has no veto in the matter: It would be one of the 191 members of the General Assembly, voting on the proposal. Many conservatives believe that, if the proposal goes through, the United States should refuse to participate — should leave the human-rights panel as it did UNESCO, under Reagan, back in ’84.
For their stance, Bolton and the administration received support from an unexpected quarter: the New York Times. That Bush-despising, Bolton-despising newspaper editorialized, “When it comes to reforming the disgraceful United Nations Human Rights Commission, America’s ambassador, John Bolton, is right; Secretary General Kofi Annan is wrong; and leading international human rights groups have unwisely put their preference for multilateral consensus ahead of their duty to fight for the strongest possible human rights protection. A once-promising reform proposal has been so watered down that it has become an ugly sham, offering cover to an unacceptable status quo. It should be renegotiated or rejected.”
Bolton later sought to reassure National Review that, despite the Times’s approval, he and his people had not “gone soft in the head.”
But the Times, as it concluded the editorial, took care to offend: “Mr. Bolton, representing an administration whose record is stained by Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib, is awkwardly placed to defend basic human rights principles.”
Stubbornly soft in the head were usual suspects such as Archbishop Tutu, Jimmy Carter, and the leaders of the EU, all of whom urged acceptance of the Eliasson proposal. Carter practically pleaded with U.N. members to defy the United States. This recalled his actions in 1990, when the first President Bush was trying to rally the Security Council for what would be the Gulf War, Desert Storm. Carter wrote members of the Council, urging them to thwart the United States. The government in Washington found out about it when the Canadian prime minister, Brian Mulroney, called the secretary of defense, Dick Cheney, and said (essentially), “What gives?”
As of this writing, it is unclear what will become of the U.N. Human Rights Commission.
posted by John Aristides at 3/12/2006 05:43:00 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home