Bolton

John Bolton: US Ambassador to the UN.

Why should we care? In his confirmation hearings, CNN quotes Bolton as saying:

"Now more than ever, the U.N. must play a critical role as it strives to fulfill the dreams and hopes and aspirations of its original promise to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights and to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom," Bolton said.

"This effort demands decisive American leadership, broad bipartisan support and the backing of the American public."

Other comments from Mr Bolton Below:

The Guardian:

The number three at the State Department, John Bolton, even said: 'There is no such thing as the United Nations. There is only the international community, which can only be led by the only remaining superpower, which is the United States.'

The reputable Australian Cud:

John Bolton's appointment as US ambassador to the UN is in some ways very fitting, especially considering the Bush Administration's view of that organisation. Bolton's achievements include annoying the North Koreans to the extent that they've said they will not participate in any talks in which he's a part. During the last round of talks he repeatedly insulted the regime during visits to Russia and Seoul. Whatever truth his remarks may have held, they certainly couldn't be called diplomatic. Bolton has repeatedly made remarks along the lines of, 'Diplomacy is not an end in itself if it does not advance US interests'

The story in The Cud is an interesting polemic on the nominations of Wolfowitz and Bolton as two neoconservative ideologues into positions of great diplomatic and economic power and what we should understand is occuring in the Administration with these nominations.

Bolton has told them, more diplomatically, of his aims in the UN. It is a force that needs to be heeled, like a dog, to the hip of the US.

Historians might recall them tharr olden days of the League of Nations. One element of that collapse was the American refusal to support in any way the aims of the League, despite our own presidential conception of the League. We refused to comply with the demands of the structure of the League, and that the League was beyond the realm of any one nation's needs and desires, that it was fit to serve the global political needs.

None of Bolton's statements contradict; in his mind the purpose of the UN is to sustain the interests of the US. Otherwise, the result should be the UN's dismemberment and its irrelevance in the global political realm.

Scary territory. Are we setting loose a walking bomb in the UN whose open goal is to impede and implode the structures of multi-lateral discussion and action....?