October 4, 2005
AMERICANIST WHEAT FROM TRANSNATIONALIST CHAFF:
Bolton agitates audience (JESSICA MARSDEN, 10/04/05, Yale Daily News)
It was a bittersweet homecoming for United Nations Ambassador John Bolton '70 LAW '74, a former chair of the Conservative Party who returned to the Yale Political Union Monday evening amid a chorus of hisses and politically charged questions.In his address, which defended the Bush administration's foreign policy, Bolton argued that voluntary contributions from states would allow major donors such as the United States to choose to fund the U.N. programs that they believe to be the most efficient. But while fielding questions from impassioned students packed into Sheffield-Sterling-Strathcona Hall, Bolton candidly discussed issues such as nuclear weapons in Iran and North Korea, the war in Iraq and his own confirmation battles.
Noting that voluntary contributions are not yet part of President George W. Bush '68's policy on U.N. reform, Bolton said it was unfair for the U.S. to pay 22 percent of the organization's budget in exchange for one vote in the 191-member General Assembly. Agencies like the Office of the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees, which is funded almost entirely by voluntary contributions, are more efficient and more responsive to donor countries, Bolton said.
"Why shouldn't we pay for what we want, instead of paying a bill for what we get?" Bolton said.
The audience interrupted Bolton throughout his speech with loud banging on desks and hissing, the typical YPU expressions for approval and disagreement. When asked about the abuse of Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib in Iraq, Bolton said the U.S. -- not other countries or international organizations -- should hold its own citizens accountable for possible abuse.
"We don't need anybody else to judge us," he said. "We judge our own."
The answer prompted loud hissing from the audience, but Bolton offered students a question of his own.
"I'm just curious, those of you who are hissing, who do you think will judge better than us?" he asked the audience.
It's that question that will always put the transnationalist Left on the short end of elections. Posted by Orrin Judd at October 4, 2005 10:18 AM
Its called a third world government. the bush family loves the ideals of the third world with all its power over people with its mass murder and its total corruption, its the bush way and its here and now, so what new?
Then why does W keep deposing third world government and making them second world?
Posted by: oj at October 4, 2005 10:38 AMWhy would you even answer such a comment OJ. It's something anyone could read over a urinal in a NYC Westside bar.
Posted by: Genecis at October 4, 2005 11:42 AMIt's as coherent as the Miers objections.
Posted by: oj at October 4, 2005 11:51 AMMaking them second world? Thats real funny. Iraq and Afghanistan are much worse places now that US has been interfering for the past few decades, and the recent war has only made one the heroin capital of the world and the other the IED capital of the world.
Countries of the third-world are in such a rough state because it is far more profitable for rich countries to manage them as corrupted and largely poor, then as democratic, progressive, and a possible economic competitor.
If W really cared about human rights violations, he wouldn't be committing them, or he might have added about a dozen or so other countries on his invasion list, where crimes have occurred that far exceed the brutality of Saddam's regime, which was supported by Bush people for about 20 years.
OJ, i notice you like to ignore a lot of history when you make loud declarations on the holiness of US motivations and operations? Do you think there are any ways we've screwed up over the past couple decades, Latin American perhaps, where the US has acted out unilateraly with complete and brutal disregard for peaceful citizens?
Yes, our policy pre-1980s was a mistake in Latin America --as in Africa, Asia and the Middle East -- because until Reagan we didn't trust darker peoples to be capable of democracy.
You're certainly right that there are more rotten regimes for us to topple--all in good time...
Posted by: oj at October 4, 2005 12:13 PMSo if we've messed up in the past when it comes to unfairly punishing innocents, why is it unreasonable to believe now that we are doing the same things in the war on terror?
We cannot topple the most rotten regimes in the world; taking a look at a list of them, wouldnt you be surprised at how many are the result of US policy arming and backing foreign goverments that work in their best economic interest (all of latin american, much of africa)? Or they are reactions against years of imperialistic aggressions (North Korea, Iran, and other ME countries)?
What noble purpose does it serve to support brutal dictators who rule with violence, as we are doing around the world, as we speak?
Yes, we owe it to the people of places like North Korea, Cuba, etc. to remove the regimes we've left in place there. They're entitled to reap the fruits of liberal democracy just like the rest of us.
Posted by: oj at October 4, 2005 12:26 PMYou didnt answer my question.
Posted by: Franz at October 4, 2005 12:31 PMWhat noble purpose does it serve to support brutal dictators who rule with violence
Yeah, that's the question I'm always asking about the United Nations.
Posted by: uqesiton at October 4, 2005 12:37 PMFranz exposes the leftist logic which makes all rotten regimes our fault: either we supported them, which apparently makes them rotten by contact or infection or some such, or else they were forced to become rotten because of our imperialism.
Posted by: jd watson![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://brothersjuddblog.com/nav-commenters.gif)
at October 4, 2005 12:40 PM
Lessee if I get this right. If some US administration somewhere in history supported some brutal tyranny (or facilitated it, or failed to oppose it), then no future US administration is allowed to correct the error, ever.
Right, Franz?
Posted by: Mike Morley at October 4, 2005 1:03 PM"...then no future US administration is allowed to correct the error, ever."
Sure seems that way with Cuba, doesn't it? And I betcha that's one tyrrany people like Franz don't want to "correct", either.
So if we've messed up in the past when it comes to unfairly punishing innocents, why is it unreasonable to believe now that we are doing the same things in the war on terror?
This is a textbook example of the phrase "knee-jerk reaction".
Posted by: Robert Duquette at October 4, 2005 1:56 PMFranz: if the USA has managed to convert Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan into commited democracies, why is it unreasonable to believe that it is working successfully towards the same goals in the war on terror?
Posted by: Daran at October 4, 2005 3:47 PMDaran:
Realists didn't believe we could make Japan or Germany democracies, then didn't believe Slavic peoples could be made democratic, now don't think Arabs can. They're very consistent and always wrong.
Posted by: oj at October 4, 2005 5:01 PM