[T]he U.N. is a hopelessly corrupt and worthless
institution whose expressions count for nothing. But that
is an awkward position for Bolton's detractors to take,
since they claim to believe in the U.N.
Turtle Bay Truth-Teller
BY JAMES TARANTO
Best of the Web
Monday, December 12, 2005
Interesting things are happening at the United Nations, where U.S. Ambassador John Bolton is showing a propensity--disturbing, no doubt, to some--to tell the truth. Last week the Voice of America reported on Bolton's response to the Security Council's refusal to pass a resolution condemning suicide bombing in which Palestinian Arabs murdered five Israelis at a mall in Netanya:
<<<
Diplomats attending the meeting say several Council members raised concerns about language in the U.S.-drafted document. Ambassador Bolton, however, blamed Algeria for quashing the measure by objecting to a passage urging Syria to close offices of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, which claims responsibility for the attack.
"Other governments had questions about particular
language. We were perfectly prepared to engage in
discussions about constructive suggestions, but Algeria
categorically refused to name Syria and the Palestinian
Islamic Jihad," he said.
The U.S. envoy later read the text of the statement to reporters, and lashed out at the Council for what he called "failing to speak the truth."
He said
"you have to speak up in response to these terrorist
attacks. It's a great shame that the Security Council
couldn't speak to this terrorist attack in Netanya, but
if the Council won't speak, the United States will."
>>> At a dinner last night (no link; we were there), Bolton told the Zionist Organization of America to expect more such unilateral veracity. He singled out for criticism a recent U.N. conference at which Israel was literally wiped off the map (well, wiped off a literal map anyway). U.N. watchdog Anne Bayefsky has a photo of the map of "Palestine" that was used in last month's annual U.N. Day of Solidarity With the Palestinian People.
Bayefsky has a photo of Kofi Annan on the dais with the map in the background. The Simon Wiesenthal Center issued a press release Friday in which it "condemns the participation" of the secretary-general in a conference that denies the existence of a U.N. member state.
We would like to know where the 43 senators--42 Democrats plus the lachrymose George Voinovich--who blocked a vote on Bolton's confirmation, forcing President Bush into a recess appointment--stand on all this. One could wave away such outrages, and indeed we're inclined to do so, on the ground that the U.N. is a hopelessly corrupt and worthless institution whose expressions count for nothing. But that is an awkward position for Bolton's detractors to take, since they claim to believe in the U.N.
They don't really believe in the U.N., of course. As we noted in April, in 1991 many of them voted to defy the U.N.'s request for troops to liberate Kuwait from Saddam Hussein's Iraq. They are "pro-U.N.," it seems clear, only when the U.N. is anti-U.S. But again, if the U.N. has "moral authority" when it takes Saddam Hussein's side over ours, how about when it seeks the obliteration of Israel?
opinionjournal.com
voanews.com
eyeontheun.org
wiesenthal.com
opinionjournal.com |
