Tags: John | Bolton | vs. | the | 'One | Worlders'

John Bolton vs. the 'One Worlders'

Monday, 11 April 2005 12:00 AM

Now that "liberalism," in its current incarnation has been rejected at the polls and elsewhere, we are told we must refer to the left as "progressives." This is another instance of turning the language on its head since it is the left that is demanding rigid adherence to the status quo on issues ranging from Social Security reform to school choice to tax reform to changes at the United Nations. That hardly amounts to "progress."

Now comes the leftist fight against the nomination of the pro-American, straight-talking John Bolton to be the new ambassador to the U.N. Remember the World Federalist Association? Well, it's back. Normally, a group which over the years has built a conspicuous reputation for advocating world government would be leery of placing ads around the country against Bolton lest they backfire.

Not to worry; another word game comes to the rescue. The World Federalist Association (WFA) is now operating under its new name, Citizens for Global Solutions (CFGS), and has been placing ads opposing Bolton, arguing that he has been most undiplomatic in criticizing the United Nations.

One of several signed letters circulated by conservatives and addressed to the Senate points out that the current director of the strategic planning and communications for CGFS, Harpinder Athwal, has affirmed as recently as March 31 that her organization favors world government. Ms. Athwal, by the way, serves as a member of "the far left British Liberal Democrat Party," America's Survival notes. The letter, researched by Cliff Kincaid, is heavily footnoted.

Which raises another question: Given that surveys have shown the American people's confidence in the United Nations at an all-time low (37% in one poll) what is wrong with having an ambassador representing American interests at the United Nations rather than the other way around? If a British subject can attempt to whip up popular protest urging our U.S. Senate to take action against a nominee of our elected president, why is it so impolite that an American should represent American interests at the U.N?

When President Bush sent Condoleezza Rice to the State Department, he knew she would represent his policies rather than getting caught up in the conventional wisdoms of the careerists of the foreign service, many of whom have spent so much of their adult lives listening to so many voices around the world they have lost sight of that which is in the best interests of the United States. It thus follows that the president would also want a U.N. ambassador who does not cringe at the first hint of disapproval from some terrorist nation or third world dictatorship.

Many people who join organizations such as the World Federalists aka Citizens for Global Solutions have been sincerely motivated by a desire for world peace. The problem is history has shown time and again that true peace results from strength. That is how Ronald Reagan ended the Cold War.

As Bolton has pointed out in a Cato Institute study on the U.N., prior to the Reagan 80s, "anti-western and anti-American U.N. General Assembly Majorities regularly and enthusiastically trashed our values."

After Reagan had cut U.N. funding, withdrew from UNESCO, demanded reform at the world body, and in other ways let it be known that America — the U.N.'s largest contributor - intended to represent its best interests, President George H.W. Bush ultimately was able to use the United Nations to cooperate in the Gulf War of 1991.

Yet another letter, signed (at last count) by 84 organizations, reminded the Senate that the U.N. charter itself, "not to mention the Universal Declaration of Human Rights," guarantees "freedom and fundamental human rights, yet ruthless persecution, imprisonment of the innocent, and mass genocide prevail globally. The U.N. must address these problems, and John Bolton is the envoy most able to carry that message."

Furthermore, the letter-writers point out, Bolton "has spent his career standing for fundamental, liberties, freedoms, and the Rule of Law." Former Senator Jesse Helms-chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations committee until his retirement, described John Bolton as "the kind of man with whom we would want to stand at Armageddon."

This letter was signed by (among many others),the Coalitions for America (Paul Weyrich), Family Research Council (Tony Perkins), Concerned Women for America (Beverly LaHaye), Catholic Family & Human Rights Institute (Austin Ruse), Southern Baptist Ethics & Religious Liberty Campaign (Dr. Richard Land), Eagle Forum (Phyllis Schlafly), and America's Future (Gen. John Singlaub). Space constraints prevent us from mentioning the many others who signed on to this, but they are all recognized for their concern for human liberties.

One can think of examples of the kind of issues on which a confirmed U.N. Ambassador John Bolton would stand tall for the stars and stripes (and if that sounds jingoistic, bear in mind that every other nation in that Tower of Babel on the East River looks out for what it perceives to be in its best interest. Only the United States gets a "tsk tsk" from the elites if it dares to do likewise).

One example is the International Criminal Court (ICC) which President Bush refused to join because he had good reason to suspect that Americans might be railroaded into jails far from these shores at the whim of some foreign judge who would not accord them the basic fair protections afforded suspects here.

One letter to the Senate points out that William Pace, executive director for the World Federalist Movement, with which CFGS is affiliated, has "savagely attacked the U.S. for attempting to shield Americans from prosecution at the ICC."

The communication adds that Pace "is also Secretary-General of the Hague Appeal for Peace, a group whose president, Cora Weiss, gained notoriety for organizing anti-Vietnam War demonstrations for traveling to Hanoi to meet with communist leaders."

President Bush also refused to endorse the Kyoto "global warming" treaty because it could lead to tossing over a million Americans out of work based on an unproven theory. An Ambassador Bolton would likely look at that with a jaundiced eye, as well.

And he would demand an accounting for such doings as the oil-for-food scandal which lined the pockets of some of our so-called "allies," and involved U.N. officials. And he would stand for American interests in demanding to know why the United Nations would not live up to its own humanitarian resolutions, as when it talked big, but backed down on confronting the totally inhumane and aggressive actions of Saddam Hussein.

It is probable that Bolton would ask why the United States should continue to be the largest donor to the U.N. peacekeeping forces in Africa which stand accused of about 150 instances of abuse, including pedophilia, rape and prostitution. The U.N.'s "zero tolerance" policy against "crimes of humanity" rings hollow when followed by "zero compliance" and "zero enforcement."

Nor would he likely sit idly by if Kofi Annan were to wash his hands of such wrongdoing - as when he warned the commander of the peacekeeping force in Rwanda not to get involved in preventing the massacres there. "You should make every effort not to compromise your impartiality or to act beyond your mandate, but may exercise your discretion to do so should this be necessary for the evacuation of foreign nationals."

As noted above, Bolton - who most recently has served honorably as assistant secretary of state for international organizations and as undersecretary of state for arms control and international security — is not the least bit bashful about speaking his mind on U.N. shortcomings.

He has demurred on using the old carrot-and-stick policy to get outlaw nations into line with basic decency. "I don't do carrots," he said.

Bolton has mused aloud that if the 38-story U.N. building were to lose ten stories, "it wouldn't make any difference." It is hard to argue that this is an over-the-top figure of speech, especially given that former U.N. Secretary General Boutros Boutros-Ghali, when asked how many employees worked at the U.N., responded with tongue firmly planted in cheek, "About half."

Bottom line: We have a golden opportunity here to have an intelligent, thoroughly honest and well-qualified icon of the America spirit represent us at the United Nations. Arguably he is the best since Jeanne Kirkpatrick. It would be scandalous if the Senate were cowed into rejecting him.

You may be hearing news reports that Bolton's confirmation is "expected." We would like to think so, but that could lead to a false sense of complacency. The left machinery is working overtime to deny us the representation to which we are entitled. Senators need to hear from you.


© 2019 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

1Like our page
Now that "liberalism," in its current incarnation has been rejected at the polls and elsewhere, we are told we must refer to the left as "progressives." This is another instance of turning the language on its head since it is the left that is demanding rigid adherence to...
Monday, 11 April 2005 12:00 AM
Newsmax Media, Inc.

Newsmax, Moneynews, Newsmax Health, and Independent. American. are registered trademarks of Newsmax Media, Inc. Newsmax TV, and Newsmax World are trademarks of Newsmax Media, Inc.

America's News Page
© Newsmax Media, Inc.
All Rights Reserved