Ambassadors vs. Ambassador
The Unites States and the
United Nations
April 9, 2005
iranian.com
Some fifty-nine former ambassadors and officials have signed
a letter to the U.S. Senate against the nomination of John Bolton
as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. The gist of their argumentation
boils down to the fact that the nominee has always been disdainful
of multilateral diplomacy in general and the world organization
in particular.
On Friday April 8, an editotial of the New York Times added: "When
the country chooses an ambassador to the United Nations, it ought
to avoid picking someone whose bulliying style of leadership symbolizes
everything that created the current estrangement between the United
States and most of the world.”
Curiously enough in the world at large the only other people
opposed to Mr. Bolton are members of the North Korean dictatorial
government who despise the Proliferation Security Initiative, Bolton
is said to have helped to design and which is a multilateral initiative
that, among other things, drew attention to the spread of nuclear
secrets by a Pakistani scientist.
I don’t know Mr. Bolton and have not followed his career
at the State Department. Moreover I don’t mind if he is or
not confirmed, because this is certainly not the most important
problem facing the United States and the world at the present time.
The question of a radical reform of the scandal-ridden United Nations
and his Secretary-general is much more urgent and significant.
But as a retired ambassador, something bothers me with the action
undertaken by his 59 colleagues and the criticism uttered by a
part of the medias. Indeed if one follows their line of reasoning
to its very end, one would come up with the rule that diplomatic
envoys should be chosen according to their sympathy in favor of
the country and/or the international organization where they are
supposed to represent their governments. The New York Times editorial
states : "At a minimum, the United States representative to
the United Nations should be a person who believes it is a good
idea "
If this was the yardstick of diplomatic nominations, as a writer
in the French language and a long time friend of French culture,
I should have been posted in Paris and not at the United Nations
in the 1970s. Following the line supported by the above-mentioned
59 distinguished American officials and their friends in the media,
President Franklin Delano Roosevelt should have sent to pre-World
War Berlin and to the former Soviet Union ambassadors who believed
in the "good ideas" of Hitler and Stalin! Which certainly
would have been an aberration!
Actually most foreign offices avoid
to nominate ambassadors who are sympathetic to the governments
of the countries where they are to serve on the grounds that their
reports might be biased and would not reflect the reality of the
political situation. Because some European countries have deviated
from this practice for instance in the case of the Islamic Republic
of Iran, Tehran’s theocratic regime is still in power notwithstanding
the opposition of a majority of the population.
What the world organization needs in the first place especially
from democratic countries is the nomination of ambassadors capable
of imposing the implementation of basic reforms.
About
Fereydoun Hoveyda (www.hoveyda.org)
is a Senior Fellow at the National Committee on American Foreign
Policy. As a young Iranian diplomat , he was involved in the
preparatory work for the San Francisco Conference that adopted
the Charter of the U.N. (1945) In 1947 and 1948 he participated
in the drafting and voting of the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights. From 1952 to 1966 he became an international civil servant
in UNESCO's Department of Mass Communications where he specialized
in development of free flow of information in the developing
countries. From 1966 to 1970 he represented Iran in the annual
General Assembly sessions of the U.N , as Iranian deputy foreign
minister in charge of international organizations. From 1971
to 1979 , he served as Iran's ambassador and chief delegate to
the United Nations. He is the author of The
Broken Crescent: The Threat of Militant Islamic Fundamentalism (2002), The
Shah and the Ayatollah, Iranian Mythology and Islamic Revolution (2003) >>> See his
articles in iranian.com
|