Re: We Don’t Need an Ambassador at the U.N.
Andy, I have come to same conclusion. The Bush family is single-handedly responsible for turning the U.N., a glorified debate club of the Cold War, into a serious factor in international relations. U.N. norms now shape even the most important of our strategic decisions, such as how to dissuade Iran from proceeding in its nuclear development, and that is not good.
I’m huge fan of John Bolton, but it is self-defeating to have a U.N. ambassador who is committed to making the United Nations work, because it cannot work. Bolton helped strengthen the disastrous impression that looming threats can only be removed by the Security Council and that America should invest energy in conforming its national security policies to the U.N. system.
What we need is exactly the opposite. The right ambassador to the United Nations is one who will use obstruction to get the Security Council to stop obstructing the prevention and removal of threats to the peace.