What's the problem?
John Bolton is a problem for tyrants, who prefer the UN system
June 24, 2005
I am still waiting for John Bolton, the tough-talking former
Undersecretary of State for Arms Control, to be approved by the
Senate or somebody
as the next
U.S. envoy to the United Nations. Where is the glitch? Are they waiting for French
trade unionists or Zarqawi to give their approval?
A problem with Bolton, said some expert, is that he does not
"believe" in the United Nations "system". I would have laughed
reading that, had I not been munching a chocolate cake at the time.
The United Nations system - is what exactly? Pandering to the whims
of dictators? Shuffling papers around, issuing communiqués
and counter-communiqués, hand wringing and mumbling because
we do not wish to offend the beggar-bowl dictators and murderers
that litter the world and attend G-77 scumbag states summits? Going
out for lunch, presentations, workshops and "brain-storming" while
the evil rulers of Sudan and countless other places kill and murder,
then turn around to the "international community" and
feign innocence, indeed ignorance (when they are not shameless
enough to point dirty, blood-stained fingers of accusation at liberal
democracies for something or other)?
Bolton is bad because he called the ruler of North Korea a tyrant
or something perfectly apt. What is the problem? Any system that
disallows such frankness and honesty is the big problem. Bolton
is a problem for tyrants, who prefer the UN system ("Pliss,
pliss, excellency, you great lidder, black-struggle lidder of masses
and happy anti-colonial offal, pliss sign heerre excellency, for
your halliday voucher for Cancun, it's free, free, free,
go enjoy.." I don't wish to exaggerate of course. I
know senseless exaggeration and polemic can undermine my case).
Another problem with Bolton is that he is supposedly a real
shit to his subordinates and departmental juniors. Well that is
I can say as a former office worker. But we all know that every
office, every floor, department and section has its control freak,
sick shit and budding dictator. I used to work for a French-language
news agency in Tehran, which was ruled by a veritable eminence
grise who would silently glide around the office all day, looking
into this room and that, listening to conversations, seeing who
is who and what is what. I eventually had to leave, after an enormous
row wherein I was called haughty, arrogant, rude, you name it.
All I had done was to call him a peasant: so?
I had more fun working, about ten years ago, for "Iran Daily"
newspaper. Soon they asked me to write articles and editorials
-- "opinion pieces" -- and soon
after that, they asked me to stop. Who do you think you are, the
editor asked me after my first editorial (condemning terrorism
in all its forms), "the Israeli ambassador?" Marvellous.
I informed him that I would happily write opinion pieces for his
paper, but nothing against the Saudi ruler, the Hashemites, the
Sultan of Oman or Egypt. "So what
are you going to write?" he asked. I wrote a piece on Tehran
traffic, and another on trees, then resumed my translation duties,
which was better for all. Also I did not want to go in on Fridays
("We have chelo-kabab on Fridays," said the editor,
a very nice man called Sabuni, "Soapy".)
As Benedict XVI said soon after his election as supreme pontiff:
There is a dictatorship of relativism in our world. True I say,
but he should have denounced the Left, which has engineered the
rise and imposition of this agnostic relativism. It's malleable
army is the appeasement-minded mass of people who blithely tolerate
the evils of corruption, cronyism and oppression as long as they
carry the loin cloth of Left-wing and anti-American demagoguery.
People are angry that Bolton or Condoleezza Rice call North Korea
and others tyrannies, but nobody - at least nobody I have
recently talked to - is angered by the misrule that is the rule
across the Third World.
There's the Left for you: a pack of agnostic, relativist,
unprincipled, conniving trash. And just for a change, I am not