John Bolton and the U.N.

The latest drama to hit Washington, D.C. deals with the nomination of John Bolton to be the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations.

Those on the left believe that he is not the right man to represent the United States at the United Nations, while some on the left believe that he is exactly the man we need to fix the United Nations.

Whatever your view on the world, it is hard to argue that the United Nations is not in need of some major fixing. It is an idealistic institution in a world driven by realism. The idea that states can come together in a "neutral" forum and work out their differences is a nice idea in theory, but in practice is much more difficult to achieve. It is difficult because those who come together at the United Nations all have their own agendas to pursue and one never knows if what they are saying is true or not. For example, France and Russia did not want the United States to take out Saddam Hussein. The reasons they gave were not the real reasons. The real reason they did not want to see Saddam ousted is because of the financial investments they had in Iraq.

With that in mind we need someone like John Bolton at the United Nations who is ready to defend the interests of the United States above anything else. We do not need an individual who will pander to the likes of France, a country that has an inferiority complex because we had to save them twice. The allegations against John Bolton deserve to be looked into, but I do not believe that they disqualify him for the position. Not everybody likes their boss and it is easy to find disgruntled former employees who have an ax to grind. I say the Senate should exercise its "constitutional option" and confirm the nomination of John Bolton and get him on the job where he can hopefully begin to fix a corrupt institution.

Posted by Nathan Melton at May 8, 2005 3:54 PM