Please Visit our Sponsor (Ads open in separate window)
American hardliner’s nomination rings alarm bells at UN AT A time when the United Nations is the target of the Bush administration’s ire, especially with the conservative Republican lawmakers on Capitol Hill, the nomination of hard-edged John Bolton as America’s chief delegate has set off alarm bells in the glass-and-concrete building overlooking the East River. What’s the purpose behind the appointment of an outspoken critic of the UN? That was being asked in the lobbies by worried diplomats and UN officials. Is it something to do with the reforms taking place in the UN secretariat in the wake of the oil-for-food scandal and the cases of sexual misconduct in some peacekeeping mission? Or is the US signalling a tougher stance, particularly on Iran’s nuclear programme and the standoff with Syria? Mr Bolton, undersecretary of state for arms control, is to step into the sophisticated world of diplomacy, of which many delegates here believe he knows very little, at a time when the UN is involved with both Syria and Iran, pressing Damascus to pull its military out of Lebanon and trying to determine the extent of Tehran’s nuclear programme. The sole purpose of those reforms being pushed by a group of so-called “American friends of the UN”, headed by former ambassador Richard Holbrooke, appear to be aimed at placing such people in key positions who would help keep the UN in check. The process began with the appointment of Mark Malloch Brown, a British national, as Secretary-General Kofi Annan’s chief of staff in place of Iqbal Riza of Pakistan. Since then, Mr Malloch Brown has been making sweeping changes and his activities have received more attention in the American media than his boss, Mr Annan. Veteran diplomats worry about the direction the UN is taking as the secretary-general undertakes to mend fences with the United States, the sole superpower which he calls the “most important member of the UN”. Some say he has gone too far, citing among others the fact that Mr Annan did not waste a moment to publicly welcome the Bolton appointment, even before Mr Bolton’s confirmation by the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Democrats have vowed to put up a spirited fight against his appointment and there are reports that even some Republicans are dismayed at President Bush’s choice. These diplomats referred to what Mr Bolton once said about the world body: “If the UN secretariat building in New York lost 10 storeys, it wouldn’t make a bit of difference” and that “there’s no such thing as the United Nations.” The Bush administration was stung when Mr Annan termed the US war against Iraq ‘illegal’. Mr Bush’s congressional supporters, backed by conservative media, worked overtime to target the United Nations, digging into its records, with some even calling for Mr Annan’s resignation. Thrown on the defensive, Mr Annan’s actions on various fronts since then have been in support of the US line, in an effort to please Washington. In an interview with Dawn, Mr Sashi Tharoor, Undersecretary General of the Department of Public Information, defended the growing perception that the UN is becoming more of an extension of the US State department, saying “without the United Nations cooperating with Washington, the world body will not be able to fulfil the ambitious agenda on its plate for the world in general.” “I have to say very frankly when you have a crisis of confidence in a major donor capital we have a responsibility to address it”, said Mr Tharoor, adding a “dysfunctional relationship with Washington can do great damage as we have seen in Mr Boutros Boutros Ghali’s last years in office.” Now that Mr Annan is not looking for re-election as UN chief, “it’s not about him, it’s about the institution which is effective and viable and enjoys Washington’s support and confidence,” said Mr Tharoor. He refuted charges that the UN is bending over backwards to do America’s bidding as far as new appointments to the world body are concerned, particularly since the appointment of Mr Malloch Brown, widely considered to be a Washington insider. As regards the perception that the UN is driven solely by Washington, Mr Tharoor said “that alone cannot be the case”. He noted that the UN has to pursue its own wide-ranging agenda, and while doing that, it has to maintain its credibility in Washington to pursue its agenda. “We have an unusual degree of criticism coming from Washington. Therefore we are matching it with an unusual response. We have to assure them that the support they have given the UN is needed. If we do not do so, there will be a real risk financially and politically”, stressed Mr Tharoor. “We have made it clear to Washington that a UN that is seen as merely serving US interests will by definition not be able to serve US interests because UN’s credibility and legitimacy everywhere else in the world comes from its perceived independence and universality of its own membership. The United Nations as a whole is very much conscious of its global responsibility”, said Mr Tharoor, adding: “We pursue ideals within pragmatic realistic contexts, and we ensure that we don’t necessarily alienate the UN’s key backers”. Notwithstanding the words from Mr Tharoor, the world body’s rocky relationship with Washington seems to be drifting towards “irrelevance”, a vision once expounded by President George Bush while making the case for Iraq war during a speech at the UN General Assembly three years ago. It was one of Mr Bolton’s colleagues during the time of President Ronald Reagan, who suggested that the body move its headquarters away from New York, saying “We will bid you goodbye from New York.” Many diplomats believe that the time of that move may be getting closer. Please Visit our Sponsor (Ads open in separate window)
