New York City, Sunday, May 15, 2005

based on watching this Sunday’s programs on the TV Channels.

For a while I thought that the Democrats in the US Senate have no right
to
reject the President’s choice for UN Ambassador to the UN. After all,
the
President is President, and the UN Ambassador is his man (or woman).
The Ambassador goes when the President goes. This is a political
appointee
and not a neutral career appointee. I did not like Ms. Veneman being
landed at UNICEF which is nominally a UN job, but the US Ambassador
position
is a US job, at the mercy of a US President. Only if the Senate thinks
him
unfit - the Senate can exercise its right of advise and consent and
refuse
to consent. Mr. McLaughlin on NBC asked bluntly his Group - “is
Bolton FIT
for the job?” - and the answer to FIT was a unanimous yes.
It was not the McLaughlin exercise that causes my writing these lines,
as he
did not bring out something new. It is rather two other remarks.
Journalist Bob Woodward defined Bolton as “a fist in your face kind of
a
guy”, but said that there is no reason to deny him the job, because he
does
not make the policy - he helps implement it for the President.
(Regarding Ms. Veneman, please see SustainabiliTank.info May 1, 2005
UNICEF)

A. Ohio Republican Senator George Voinovich described Mr. Bolton as
“the
poster child of what someone in the diplomatic corps should not be”.
Then
the argument was made that Mr. Bolton could be an obstacle to achieve
reform
at the UN. These arguments are clearly made by people that do not know
the
UN - and this, I must say, includes Senator Voinovich.

The situation at the UN is such that reform may not be the correct word
-
what is needed is REFORMATION. The problem is not just with the
secretariat
and the many unneeded dead bodies and activities carried on, year after
year.  SustainabilTank.info, in its short history has mentioned quite a
few
of these sort of problems and we know about many more. The real
problems
are with the membership of the UN. Just think of the latest two names
floated around in the Oil-for-Food scandal - a French and a British
politician - both with unpleasant track records. One who carried
favors to
Saddam when the civilized world rejected his attack on Kuwait, and the
other
who saw in Saddam as “the center of a crusade against globalization
backed
by the US”. Now, these gentlemen come from democratic members of the
UN.

Today, I saw how the Prime Minister of Egypt literally wiggled in his
seat
when having to say that Egyptians’ hatred of the US comes from years of
them
having been told to hate colonialism - this while having been given by
the
US $50 billion since 1975. When asked - “why are there no Arab
democracies?”. His Answer was “well there will be in time, in the US
it
took 200 years”. And Egypt is a state the US considers friendly. Now
going
down the line - what about the majority of states that would not pass
minimum requirements if the UN Charter would indeed become UN law?
What is a US Ambassador to do?

A US Ambassador does not make policy - he implements the policy set by
the
US Administration. The Ambassador to the UN listens directly to
directives
given by the President and to directives that reach him from the
President
via the Secretary of State - and that is all. If a President, like
this
President, decides to do away with niceties in order to achieve actions
- he
needs a bull at the UN. Bolton is a god-sent “implementer” who can be
relied upon not to smile when he has no intention to smile because
there is
no reason to smile.  SustainabiliTank.info, in its cartoon button, has
posted weeks ago, the International Herald Tribune March 29, 2005
caricature
showing Bolton, the US Envoy, as a bull scattering the UN folks. This
may
be only wishful thinking, but what if it is needed treatment when it
comes
to the halls of the UN?

B. The second remark that tipped my thoughts actually comes from the
mouth
of Mr. Mark Molloch Brown, the present Chef-de-Cabinet of the UN SG.
Mr. Brown said that in his eyes, Mr. Bolton will not be just the US
Ambassador to the UN, but actually the UN Ambassador to Washington.
This is the wisest remark made on the subject. Bolton is trusted by
the
Administration so his depictions of what has to be done with the UN
will be
heard and trusted. He may indeed, if not chastised by the attacks on
him,
turn out to be the best thing that happens to the UN at this hour of
self-soul-searching.

In what regards the issues of most importance to SustainabiliTank.info
-
sustainable development; the reduction of the dependence on oil and the
introduction of renewable sources of energy; decentralization in energy
systems in developed and developing countries; human rights; good
governance; the environment; global warming and climate change; equal
education for boys and girls; living space for the indigenous people
….
on all of these topics Bolton will not be the problem but Washington
is.
Bolton, having the reputation of a straight arrow may indeed be more
positive on these issues then a polished diplomat who will smile at
you,
promise a lot, and do nothing. We heard today on TV that the
Clinton-Gore
administration went along with the Kyoto resolutions because they knew
that
they had no intention to bring them up for ratification. Chew on this!
Was that indeed such a great deal to us?