Adam's Apple
Senior Member
- Apr 25, 2004
- 4,092
- 449
- 48
The Vanguard of Muscular Diplomacy
Amity Shlaes, The Financial Times of London
March 20, 2005
Less than two weeks until World Bank shareholders vote on Paul Wolfowitz's nomination to head the World Bank and the protests continue to build. Naming John Bolton, a vigorous critic of the United Nations, to serve as US ambassador to the UN had seemed bad enough. But now President George W. Bush wants the head of the World Neocon Conspiracy to lead the ultimate philanthropist's bank. What is he trying to do, destroy these institutions?
The opposite, in fact. Multilateralists around the globe ought to be thrilled about these choices. These men are not going to endanger the future of the UN or the World Bank. Those futures are already in danger. Rather, the new candidates may turn out to be the institutions' salvation. For both men are strong enough to bring about change when change is necessary. Theodore Roosevelt gets cited too often in the context of the Bush administration, but this time the comparison is apt. "Speak softly and carry a big stick." If Messrs Bolton and Wolfowitz get their jobs, they will practice muscular diplomacy.
To understand the novelty of the current moment, it helps to look back a bit. A United Nations is a good idea - maybe. But long ago the UN began to veer away from its original mandate of preventing wars. By the 1970s it had made itself into a stage for anti-Americanism. By 1975 its General Assembly had passed the "Zionism is Racism" resolution, thereby denying the legitimacy of the only democratic state in the Middle East. Problems were always blamed on the US-Soviet standoff, yet after 1990 they persisted.
For full article
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/amityshlaes/as20050320.shtml
Amity Shlaes, The Financial Times of London
March 20, 2005
Less than two weeks until World Bank shareholders vote on Paul Wolfowitz's nomination to head the World Bank and the protests continue to build. Naming John Bolton, a vigorous critic of the United Nations, to serve as US ambassador to the UN had seemed bad enough. But now President George W. Bush wants the head of the World Neocon Conspiracy to lead the ultimate philanthropist's bank. What is he trying to do, destroy these institutions?
The opposite, in fact. Multilateralists around the globe ought to be thrilled about these choices. These men are not going to endanger the future of the UN or the World Bank. Those futures are already in danger. Rather, the new candidates may turn out to be the institutions' salvation. For both men are strong enough to bring about change when change is necessary. Theodore Roosevelt gets cited too often in the context of the Bush administration, but this time the comparison is apt. "Speak softly and carry a big stick." If Messrs Bolton and Wolfowitz get their jobs, they will practice muscular diplomacy.
To understand the novelty of the current moment, it helps to look back a bit. A United Nations is a good idea - maybe. But long ago the UN began to veer away from its original mandate of preventing wars. By the 1970s it had made itself into a stage for anti-Americanism. By 1975 its General Assembly had passed the "Zionism is Racism" resolution, thereby denying the legitimacy of the only democratic state in the Middle East. Problems were always blamed on the US-Soviet standoff, yet after 1990 they persisted.
For full article
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/amityshlaes/as20050320.shtml
