I'm no fan of David Brooks; never have been either. But today his enabling article on John Bolton's nomination to the UN is quite sick. You can find the mendacity
here. I point out the atrocities on the flip.
But it is ridiculous to say he doesn't believe in the United Nations. This is a canard spread by journalists who haven't bothered to read his stuff and by crafty politicians who aren't willing to say what the Bolton debate is really about.
First off, we all know Mr. Bolton's feelings on the UN. Here's the money shot:
There's no such thing as the United Nations. If the U.N. secretary building in New York lost 10 stories, it wouldn't make a bit of difference.
See any difference between the two statements? If you do, it's just a canard spread by journalists who haven't bothered to read his stuff.
And now for lies about our own government:
They know we're not close to a global version of the European superstate. So they are content to champion creeping institutions like the International Criminal Court. They treat U.N. General Assembly resolutions as an emerging body of international law. They seek to foment a social atmosphere in which positions taken by multilateral organizations are deemed to have more "legitimacy" than positions taken by democratic nations.
The text of a letter from the President to Congress asking for UN resolutions to be actioned upon:
lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq
Now, I'll be the first to admit that this isn't a "slam dunk" because Brooks is talking about the GA, and not the Security Council, but isn't the role of the one to enforce the other? Hasn't President Bush subjected American forces to the whim and will of this "creeping institution?" I charge that he has, if only to reach his stated goals:
"I have asked Congress to authorize the use of America's military, if it proves necessary, to enforce U.N. Security Council demands."
-President Bush, October 7, 2002
Next egregiousness:
We will never accept global governance, third, because we love our Constitution and will never grant any other law supremacy over it. Like most peoples (Europeans are the exception), we will never allow transnational organizations to overrule our own laws, regulations and precedents. We think our Constitution is superior to the sloppy authority granted to, say, the International Criminal Court.
Yet, according to Justice Thomas, justices should be beholden to a power higher than even the Constitution. I guess we get to pick and choose when to subjugate the Constitution:
PARKER: Just moments before I placed my hand on the Holy Scripture, Justice Thomas soberly addressed me and those in attendance. He admonished us to remember that the worth of a justice should be evaluated by one thing, and by one thing alone: whether or not he is faithful to uphold his oath _ an oath which as Justice Thomas pointed out is not to the people; it's not to the state; it's not even to the Constitution, which is one to be supported, but is an oath which is to God Himself.
Mr. Brooks talks of the partisanship of the UN, and how it can be manipulated to allow one one nation to bludgeon, or even invade another!
Fifth, we know that when push comes to shove, all the grand talk about international norms is often just a cover for opposing the global elite's bêtes noires of the moment - usually the U.S. or Israel. We will never grant legitimacy to forums that are so often manipulated for partisan ends.
Lord knows that we would never place our faith in an organization that would allow one nation, over the cries of the majority of the world, to impose it's partisan will over another country.
Mr. Brooks goes on to spout about the uselessness, and toothlessness, of the UN:
Fourth, we understand that these mushy international organizations liberate the barbaric and handcuff the civilized. Bodies like the U.N. can toss hapless resolutions at the Milosevics, the Saddams or the butchers of Darfur, but they can do nothing to restrain them. Meanwhile, the forces of decency can be paralyzed as they wait for "the international community."
And promptly follows up that statement with this:
John Bolton is in a good position to make these and other points. He helped reverse the U.N.'s Zionism-is-racism resolution. He led the U.S. rejection of the International Criminal Court. Time and time again, he has pointed out that the U.N. can be an effective forum where nations can go to work together, but it can never be a legitimate supranational authority in its own right.
I guess that this paragraph means that Mr. Bolton is in a unique position to point out the uselessness of the UN, precisely because he's worked so well with the organization.
Mr. Bolton is sham of a nominee. He claims to not believe in the organization he will be paid to represent the United States in, wishing to remove more than a quarter of the building (with people in it, or not?). Yet, he has worked remarkably well with this organization, even as his proxies proclaim that it has no power or force.
Look, I know this "dressing down" isn't quite on par on some of our other esteemed posters, but Mr. Brooks just niggled me enough today to lash out.
Cheers to you all!