The vantage point.
By trevino Posted in Elections — Comments (23) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
There is no United Nations. There is an international community that occasionally can be led by the only real power left in the world -- and that's the United States -- when it suits our interests, and when we can get others to go along....
This kind of mindless creation of the United Nations as something different from what it's in the United States' interest to do isn't going to sell here or anywhere else.
You know this speaker and his ilk. Or do you? Read on.
One of the primary complaints about John Bolton is that he does indeed believe in a Westphalian world: states are the principle actors; and states act according to state interests; and the ultimate determinant of the efficacy of those actions is the inherent power of the state plus the degree of support that state can mobilize amongst other states. To that end, then, the United Nations is a mere forum, a thing with no existence in itself as an independent actor or arbiter except inasmuch as such qualities are voluntarily imparted by states. The objects of policy ought to therefore be the fonts of those qualities, which is to say, the states themselves, rather than organizations which are too often artificial interpositions between states. This much ought to be self-evident, but we are apparently in an era wherein the United Nations is a sacrosanct thing -- a sort of erratically effectual god of states which, like a video-game deity, has power only inasmuch as it is paid homage and treasure. Bolton is guilty of ripping aside that veil: apparently, to participate in a thing, one must believe in it and in the myths it propagates about itself. For the Democrats, we can at least say that this is consistent: it is the same approach they take to government.
But John Bolton deviates from this norm, and is proud of having done so in his career -- and so we get this:
[T]he nature of the new world system [] was not so different from the old. It was for the moment more stable, but a reasonable forecast would be that Africa in particular had a century of border wars ahead of it. On the other hand, such was the power of the anticolonial idea that great powers from outside a region had relatively little influence unless they were prepared to use force. China altogether backed Fretilin in Timor, and lost. In Spanish Sahara, Russia just as completely backed Algeria, and its front, known as Polisario, and lost. In both instances the United States wished things to turn out as they did, and worked to bring this about. The Department of State desired that the United Nations prove utterly ineffective in whatever measures it undertook. This task was given to me, and I carried it forward with not inconsiderable success.
The breathtaking arrogance: the realization that it is the states that matter; the understanding that force counts, and counts foremost; the acceptance that the United Nations is merely a tool; the willingness to stymie that organization at every turn in the advancement of the national interest. It is no wonder indeed that the reflexive multilateralists of the left detest and despise John Bolton.
No, make that Daniel Patrick Moynihan. Is John Bolton the ideological hier of that last of the great Democrats? Certainly not. Does he share Moynihan's approach to the United Nations? Manifestly so. Building a public case that Bolton is personally abrasive doesn't begin to diminish this cardinal qualification.
« Question and answer time: the Wes Clark thing. — Comments (50) | Register for PDF New York City — Comments (0) »
The vantage point. 23 Comments (0 topical, 23 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
The US and Britain multilaterally ran West Germany and that seemed to turn out ok.
Saying that the problems in Iraq are due to multilateral cooperation is just silly.
Many counterexamples come to mind: The elections in East Timor, the first Iraq war, WWI and WWII, the current European Union, etc., etc.
When the Democrats can excoriate Bolton for saying and believing things very close to positions that Daniel Patrick Moynihan has already taken, it really should demonstrate to everyone exactly how far to the left certain moorings in the American intellectual firmament have shifted in the years since the first Bush administration. Of course, they haven't really excoriated him in that way, either. Instead they have talked about his character, his haircut, the crookedness of his tie. His managerial style. Chasing a woman around a Russian hotel and shoving letters under her door.
I have very little doubt that many of our intellectuals would much prefer to see someone like Chalmers Johnson named UN Ambassador. After eight years of Clinton many of these people moved where they had always wanted to go -- far into the Doppler-shift left.
All systems are arbitrary and can be imagined away, but measured by their impact and role, they always DO exist and have a unique characteristic. This illusion argument is the same that would be used to argue that the UN should be strengthened... to make real the illusion.
I read once a no-tax zionist leaning libertarian guy on the net years ago with a theory called NSPIC, which was the useful part of his philosophy, mad in it's brilliance. NSPIC is the "Neuro-Semantic Political Illusion Complex" and it was, is, a theory that the government doesn't exist, really, just the particular bureaucrats that, for example, might be concerned with you. The idea that the government exists is part of this NSPIC illusion. It's ludicrous in it's transparency as a vehicle for an anarchist libertarian to disrespect the state. But it was true to, for it's following and author were financial libertarian types that like to point out you don't really have to pay taxes, it's voluntary, and so really do find that it's not "government" but always some particular bureaucrat with certain limited powers of discretion and jurisdiction... the view of government really can disappear. The vehicle works.
The perspective you describe here is the same thing, though more easily done against the UN which has less authority than a national government. But it still comes down to those that want the vehicle to work and those that want to see a real UN. Some of us have a more sophisticated view that involves a more sophisticated UN after an evolutionary process... when the states are ready. If the world was full of democratic states then the UN would have a lot more potential.
the former Yugoslovia. Successfully straightened out by the international community.
Blackjack21: What does "sure..." mean concerning WMD's? Are you implying that WMD's have been found?
Also, Isn't it known that Bolton has been nominated to the UN post because he has such disdain for it? He's not proposed to fix it - He's proposed to jamb it up.
Are you implying that WMD's have been found?
Of course not. Everyone knows that no WMD's have been found. Well, except for sarin gas, mustard gas, aflatoxin, and several strains of biological agents. Oh, and many drums of insecticides in 55 gallon drums what when mixed together form a potent nerve agent. I know, they were for agricultural purposes which explains why they were stored in a bunker well underground in a military complex.
Not only was he looking to build chemical weapons to use against Americans and other western interests, but he was going to go after our ARTHROPODS as well! Seriously, as long as we're on this deviation-from-the-topic, one of the biggest failings of Republicans in the whole Iraq war has been the failure to expose and publicize the discovery of many, many WMD materials. Instead, our leaders turned weak in the knees and hurried to change the subject.
But back to Bolton. Of course he's the perfect nominee. Why? Because he's got the absolute right opinion of the U.N. Was he harsh with some of his subordinates? Did he shove another kid on the playground in 1961? Did he yell at his dog for pooping on the rug? Surely he is a monster!
are the point of this thread but: Don't you believe that if the weapons you feel exist, really did exsist post Iraq part II, the Bush administration would use them to the very fullest to promote what a good idea the war was? They don't parade your notion around because it isn't fact. It's merely a wish that Bush (The buck should stop with the Pres.) wasn't completely wrong about WMDs.
How did the left get to Chaffee and Voinovich?
On a side note:
I have noticed that you have referred to those on the left as 'intellectuals' or the 'elite' more than a few times. Lately I think of my glasses when I read those labels. I wonder if you realize the reason why many people in Cambodia who would benefit from wearing eyeglasses chose not to wear them.
The point of the post Bolton is nominated for is to practice diplomacy. The testimony of many that Bolton is lifelong JERK speaks to the point that diplomacy is hardly his strong point.
The fantasy that Bolton is going to go to UN kicking butt and taking names is a demonstration of Bush administration arrogance. The world does not have to eat doo doo from Bolton and won't. And the US will become further isolated from the world community.
But John Bolton's heathly skepticism of the UN and it's role in the world is not why I (or Chaffee, Hagel, or Voinovich, et al.) are getting cold feet over Bolton.
I commend you and RedState to defending Bolton; but when will it begin?
I've known a few. One of them quite famous: and a loathesome jerk of the highest order.
....that your particular critique of Bolton is the sole one requiring address, yes?
were not the point; they were an example.
Irregardless of my feelings, WMDs were found. The ones I mentioned above were reported in the AP, NY Times, CBS, NBC, ABC, etc. But they weren't found in sufficient quantites for the Democrats (not really sure what quantities would be sufficient). So they changed their tune from no WMDs to no "stockpiles" of WMDs.
What about the trucks that moved into Syria (and we have satellite photos) on the eve of the invasion? Carrying baby formula maybe? Well there was that tanker truck of Sarin gas that was captured entering Saudi Arabia from Syria that had to come from somewhere. And since Syria doesn't have the resources to make Sarin in large quantites, it must have come from thin air.
What about the 1st MEF? They were doing routine water potability testing during the first week of the invasion, I think it was on the Tigris, and found evidence of the chemical compounds that make up mustard gas. Chemicals that are not naturally occuring. Considering how far downstream they were, the amount of chemical dumped must have been significant.
Over a dozen artillary shells were found, most used as IED's, containing various types of chemicals including mutsrd gas and sarin gas, including one type containing sarin that the UN weapons inspectors never knew he had. That one exploded and made several marines sick. Fortunately, the design was such that the rotation of the shell in flight would mix the two chemical components of sarin (which is unstable after mixing). Otherwise there would have been many dead marines.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/s1115960.htm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0%2C2763%2C1120720%2C00.html
....that your particular critique of Bolton is the sole one requiring address, yes?
Trevino, c'mon. Didn't I write: "I (or Chaffee, Hagel, or Voinovich, et al.)"? Has any of the Republican Senators on the SFRC indicated that they wouldn't vote for Bolton because of his views on the UN? (Answer: No. Even where they have expressed reservations on policy matters, they indicated that their reservations would not preclude a pro-Bolton vote.)
I understand the desire to bash Democrats over the head with this, but if you really want to change minds on Bolton I'd suggest that you address why Republicans have become reluctanct to support his nomination. Indeed, when the only ding against Bolton was that he was Pat M.-plus, his nomination was sailing through the committee.
They're one of my particular areas of concern. I know there are plenty of liberals who aren't a member of any particular elite group, just as there are many conservatives who aren't either, but I tend to talk about the people I've known and who are closest to me. I have a point of view that I speak from, and I acknowledge that it's not all-encompassing or always entirely circumspect, but I'm just one person.
...in that the world does have to put up with our "doo-doo." Without our financial support, organizations like the UN and the WTO would be defunct. So, as long as we are paying the lion's share, we should be able to dictate a bit more. To quote Dan Moynihan once more, "any forum that would equate Burkina Faso with the United Kingdom is a theatre for the absurd." It's high time we recognize openly that some nations are irrelevant in the grand scheme of things, and should be ignored if they continue to stick their noses into the affairs of the great nations. I know that sounds arrogant, but nothing speaks louder or clearer than "realpolitik."
....my response changes by your noting (to varying degrees of accuracy) that others might share your particular concern.
As for changing minds, rest assured that there is not a single relevant Democrat who is sincerely open to that possibility here.
I agree that a causal relationship between multilateralism and failure would be very hard to prove, but I wouldn't throw the Yugo entities - or the EU for that matter - in the "success" column just yet. BTW, we even let FRANCE be involved in the West German project, and Germany still turned out OK (more or less).
How could Bolton do any more damage than the UN does to itself? Pull fire alarms? Make prank phone calls? Demand that the UN enforce its resolutions?
As for changing minds, rest assured that there is not a single relevant Democrat who is sincerely open to that possibility here.
You don't need the Democrats. You don't need me. You need Hagel, Chafee, and Voinovich. Get those three, and Bolton passes 10-8.
BTW, I'm not sure what why you charge that my characterization of your dilemma is layered with "varying degrees of accuracy." There are a lot of Republicans (possibly including Hagel, Chafee, and Voinovich) who either don't share Bolton's ideology or think that Bolton's method of expressing his ideology is counterproductive. But none of them were prepared to vote against Bolton based upon a their ideological disagreements.
Lemme see...
West Germany may have been ok, but let's not forget who was sitting on the other side of Germany.
WWI = US saves the day b/c otherwise Britain and France fall
WWII = US saves the day b/c France wiped out and Britain too weak
EU = Petty squabbling amongst nations who hate each other. I mean the predecessor to the EU was the EEC and De Gaulle hated Britain and kept it out for years.
The 1st Iraq War = Helped by other nations but won mainly by US Army. Same is true for Iraq War II.
Don't discount the possibility that the US may still be on the WMD trail. If that's the case, it's best for the US to say as little about them until they're run to ground.
Certainly the EU has a ways to go to be a fully functioning, non-dysfunctional entity. But I think the recent strength of the Euro, the strength of the European economy, and the noticeable lack of street warfare in the member states has something to recommend it, no?
John Bolton has been severely criticized by liberals because he is very critical of the United Nations and its actions. Personally, I can think of no one better to be in the UN at this time. Here's an interesting tidbit. After WWII, the United States unilaterally ran Japan. Since then, they have not made a single aggressive move like they did during the war. Here and now, The United States is working multilaterally to try and rebuild Iraq. And look at the problems arising. Of course, we are still being whined at because WMD "have not been found" (sure....) John Bolton should be confirmed as quick as possible to get into the UN and start trying to help fix it. If the UN isn't fixed soon, the world will travel further down the road to interantional chaos and ruin.