The UN...
There's a lot of talk about the UN going on these days. John Bolton is just one of the issues. He's got an unorthodox management style, but he's expected to be a hard-liner when it comes to confronting reform at the UN. The man is just one pawn on the table (I'd call him a knight, actually). There are far too many variables to put all of your faith (or lack thereof) into John Bolton fixing the UN. Does it even need fixing? Let's consider a few things.
John Bolton, I believe, would be an exceptional representative for the US in the UN if you are pro-war, ultra-conservative, and blame everyone but America for the problems in the UN. This makes up the vast majority of Republicans, hence their push to get Bolton in there to "stir the pot." If you believe that the war in Iraq was an immoral action, and that America should not be dictator to the world, someone more moderate would be acceptable for the US representative to the UN. This makes up everyone else in America and this is why the DEM's are bringing out all of the ammo they can against a representative with such a GOP attitude to world politics.
This is what I think...
John Bolton is just another person who represents the GOP's agenda in this country, which is: a) everything should be in the name of God; b) diplomacy is just a formal pretext, threaten war with America and you'll either see the results you want or win the war; c) America knows what's best for everyone else. Such a selfish way of thinking. It reminds me of colonialism and the ways of oppressive monarchy. The oil-for-food program seems to be the root of this call to reform the UN, but I think it's just a way to create changes that promote more American policy under the Bush administration than it is to promote world order and protect those in need on a global scale.
I believe the Republicans feel that they are going to keep their control over Congress for at least two more elections. They seem to be doing all they can to keep their political momentum, regardless of the immediate public opinion of the issue (ex. Terri Schiavo). The democrats are so damn reactive to just about every issue, they seem to be treading water rather than swimming the lake. The United States is just one country out of 191 that make up the member states of the UN. I wonder how many of them want a member of Bush's radical-right to represent the most powerful nation. I think that this administration is not only declaring it's world dominance and control of the rest of human existence, but also banking on the fact that our economic and military might can support this mentality.
What happens when the rest of the world realizes that they don't need America to prosper? What do we do when the Chinese market has enough buyers to where they can tell America, "I'm sorry, but because we oppose your ideology, your oppression, and your dominance of other nations, we won't trade with you." It is irritating that these other nations see us as some sort of necessary evil to which everyone must accept our practices and policies. Our good fortune will eventually end. I'm willing to say that if the policies set by this administration continue for ten years or more, we will most definitely see at least one major country impose very high tariffs on exported goods to America. Sort of like how we handle Cuba with imports/exports and how we dealt with Iraq before the latest war - they will choose to beat us at our own game. With our products becoming more expensive and our trade deficit growing, this is the only way the rest of the world can fight back.
The formalities and kind gestures at large state dinners will eventually come to an end as long as policies to invade other nations against the will of the rest of the world continues. Our alliance to fight the war in Iraq is a mere business deal. They give us what little international support for our actions that we need to justify in our minds that we are doing the will of the world and they get a "get out of jail free" card when they need help from the US.
Go ahead, have John Bolton promote your radical one-sided agenda in the UN. You have exactly 30 nations to help you recover from the fallout. I'm so glad that we have the political power of Moldavia, Estonia, and Tonga on our side.
John Bolton, I believe, would be an exceptional representative for the US in the UN if you are pro-war, ultra-conservative, and blame everyone but America for the problems in the UN. This makes up the vast majority of Republicans, hence their push to get Bolton in there to "stir the pot." If you believe that the war in Iraq was an immoral action, and that America should not be dictator to the world, someone more moderate would be acceptable for the US representative to the UN. This makes up everyone else in America and this is why the DEM's are bringing out all of the ammo they can against a representative with such a GOP attitude to world politics.
This is what I think...
John Bolton is just another person who represents the GOP's agenda in this country, which is: a) everything should be in the name of God; b) diplomacy is just a formal pretext, threaten war with America and you'll either see the results you want or win the war; c) America knows what's best for everyone else. Such a selfish way of thinking. It reminds me of colonialism and the ways of oppressive monarchy. The oil-for-food program seems to be the root of this call to reform the UN, but I think it's just a way to create changes that promote more American policy under the Bush administration than it is to promote world order and protect those in need on a global scale.
I believe the Republicans feel that they are going to keep their control over Congress for at least two more elections. They seem to be doing all they can to keep their political momentum, regardless of the immediate public opinion of the issue (ex. Terri Schiavo). The democrats are so damn reactive to just about every issue, they seem to be treading water rather than swimming the lake. The United States is just one country out of 191 that make up the member states of the UN. I wonder how many of them want a member of Bush's radical-right to represent the most powerful nation. I think that this administration is not only declaring it's world dominance and control of the rest of human existence, but also banking on the fact that our economic and military might can support this mentality.
What happens when the rest of the world realizes that they don't need America to prosper? What do we do when the Chinese market has enough buyers to where they can tell America, "I'm sorry, but because we oppose your ideology, your oppression, and your dominance of other nations, we won't trade with you." It is irritating that these other nations see us as some sort of necessary evil to which everyone must accept our practices and policies. Our good fortune will eventually end. I'm willing to say that if the policies set by this administration continue for ten years or more, we will most definitely see at least one major country impose very high tariffs on exported goods to America. Sort of like how we handle Cuba with imports/exports and how we dealt with Iraq before the latest war - they will choose to beat us at our own game. With our products becoming more expensive and our trade deficit growing, this is the only way the rest of the world can fight back.
The formalities and kind gestures at large state dinners will eventually come to an end as long as policies to invade other nations against the will of the rest of the world continues. Our alliance to fight the war in Iraq is a mere business deal. They give us what little international support for our actions that we need to justify in our minds that we are doing the will of the world and they get a "get out of jail free" card when they need help from the US.
Go ahead, have John Bolton promote your radical one-sided agenda in the UN. You have exactly 30 nations to help you recover from the fallout. I'm so glad that we have the political power of Moldavia, Estonia, and Tonga on our side.
<< Home