Bolton for the Blue

Via RealClear Politics is a an article by Amity Shlaes which, in the run-up to his confirmation vote tomorrow in the Senate, does a great job of summarizing John Bolton's performance as the American Ambassador to the United Nations, but misses making an important point, which I will have to make instead.

Here is where I have a bone to pick:

Since 1990, U.S. administrations have taken the UN more seriously. Most Americans involved, Bolton included, harbor a desire not to repeat the hypocrisy of the Cold War. Both Clinton and Bush administrations have sought to work out differences with Iraq and other nations through the UN's tools -- resolutions and Security Council discussions. In this sense the institution is at least trying to function as its framers envisioned.

...

Thus, for example, Bolton led the U.S. in deciding not to take a seat on the UN Human Rights Council this year. Cuba, China, Pakistan, Russia, and Saudi Arabia were all elected to the council. Most Bolton critics argue that the U.S. did not want to seek a seat out of fear it would be rejected because of war prisoners at Guantanamo Bay.

But there was another motive in the U.S. decision to refrain. To sit with Cuba, or even China, on a human rights body would be to show that the U.S. was, again, not serious about human rights. As Bolton also e-mailed me, "a strong UN requires a strong U.S." [bold added]

Bolton is only half-right. The "missing half" was discussed decades ago by Ayn Rand in her article, "The Shanghai Gesture" in The Ayn Rand Letter, I,14, 1:

When an institution reaches the degree of corruption, brazen cynicism and dishonor demonstrated by the U.N. in its shameful history, to discuss it at length is to imply that its members and supporters may possibly be making an innocent error about its nature -- which is no longer possible. There is no margin for error about a monstrosity that was created for the alleged purpose of preventing wars by uniting the world against any aggressor, but proceeded to unite it against any victim of aggression. The expulsion of a charter member, the Republic of China -- an action forbidden by the U.N.'s own Charter -- was a "moment of truth," a naked display of the United Nations' soul.

What was Red China's qualification for membership in the U.N.? The fact that her government seized power by force, and has maintained it for twenty-two years by terror. What disqualified Nationalist China? The fact that she was a friend of the United States.

Bolton, in making a stand about the UN Human Rights Council, was in fact helping to perpetuate the sham that is the United Nations by distracting from the real question: Why does America remain a member of the United Nations at all? There can be no "United Nations" -- of the constructive kind envisioned at first anyway -- that includes dictatorships among its members.

Given the ridiculous, byzantine mess that has been caused by decades of foolish foreign policy decisions by the United States, it is remotely possible that we could benefit in some short-term way I am unaware of by maintaining the charade just a little longer, but that is not what I think is going on here. And if it is not, it would arguably be better for Bolton not to be confirmed so the U.N. could more thoroughly and more quickly discredit itself. Or at least finish the job.

The United Nations is an organization whose "Human Rights" Council was beneath America's membership. What does that say, Mr. Bolton, about the United Nations itself? To perpetuatte the sham of the United Nations -- by helping its supporters pretend it can be reformed -- is, in fact to "repeat the hypocrisy of the Cold War"! (Although the term "repeat" is dubious as the hypocrisy has been ongoing for ages....)

Yes. Mr. Bolton probably is good for the U.N. But is that good for America?

-- CAV