John Bolton
So this morning I stumbled across a month-old Economist in the bathroom this morning, and I found myself reading about Bush's nomination for the UN, John Bolton.
After reading the article, I would be as excited to have Bolton as my UN representative as I would be to have Michael Jackson running my daycare center.
I don't really know who the audience of this blog is (besides really bored people with nothing better to do), but is there anyone out there who can explain to me why Bolton is a good choice for the UN? Preferably this response comes from a conservative who really believes what he/she is saying, but submissions from rational liberals who can see both sides are welcome.
And, if it's not too much trouble (though it always seems to be), just leave it as a comment.
2 Comments:
OK, so, to repeat the question: Can anyone please tell me why Bolton IS a good choice?
OK, so I'm a liberal, but I'm also an IR major with a pretty significant professional stake in this issue. I went to a debate on the nomination and all my roommates and I agreed that the woman arguing the pro side presented her case very poorly -- but that basically the only pro argument that can be made is that the UN is an unrealistic organization and that it needs a hardass US ambassador to inject some realism into the liberal fluff of its discussions.
The UN is founded on the principle that, as globalization progresses, states have growing economic incentives to cooperate with each other and not to go to war -- i.e. fighting interrupts trade, which is bad for everyone. (In IR, this is called liberalism.) The US has demonstrated in the last 50 years that it is not too convinced by liberalism, and that, since its army is the strongest, it should get its way most of the time. US diplomats, especially conservatives (who tend to be what IR calls realists), argue that the UN's feel-good "let's all just trade with each other and get along" treaties and agreements don't really hold any water, and that it's better to have an ambassador who is skeptical of the organization and who reminds all those liberals that relative military might is still the main determinant of international affairs.
I can get much more specific if you want me to. This is my shit.
Post a Comment
<< Home