The Meaning of John Bolton



All the chatter of New York Governor George Pataki heading to Turtle Bay fell flatter than Paris Hilton's ass. Of course, the National Review's brutal cover story sure didn't help his efforts to rise as a courtier in Bush's ermine-clad inner circle of yes men and natural resource mandarins. Are northeastern moderate governors unwelcome in this new GOP? Is this their twilight hour? And, if this is thus, does that present an opportunity for an alliance with the Democratic Party? We'll keep our eyes affixed on the dark, disgustingly ambitious, John Hoynes-like Mitt Romney's quixotic run for President in '08.

Whatever the case, here we are, stuck with John Bolton, as he is presently stuck with us. Small world. Who is John Bolton? Other than the neocon's neocon, we mean (he probably has ferocious papercut scar tissue from Commentary and the National Interest), who is he really. According to the Old Gray Lady:

"Mr. Bolton, a former prot�g� of Senator Jesse Helms of North Carolina, once said that 'if the U.N. secretary building in New York lost 10 stories, it wouldn't make a bit of difference" and that "there's no such thing as the United Nations.'"

Jeese Helms had protgees? Hellspawn, you mean? Do they multiply at bacterial velocity? Do they slither 'neath cool rock at career's end, like their Master? How can we collectively stop them? Can you imagine a turgid Jesse Helms Apprentice-like scenario? The tasks would include rolling back Martin Luther King Day and manufacturing the most racial attack ads. (The sap runs strongly in The Corsair's veins)

"An aide to one ambassador at the United Nations Security Council said his boss considered the nomination 'a disaster,' but he added: 'The real question is what is Bolton's mission. Does he come here to attack the institution, or does he really come here to help the U.N.?'"

Oh, make no mistake about it, Bolton comes to kick ass and chew bubblegum, for sure. And, to be honest, The Corsair is truly conflicted about that. Actually, we are rather conflicted about Bush's entire foreign policy to date, which is having surprisingly positive results (our tragic American troop deaths notwithstanding) around the world, especially in the Middle East and Africa and of late, Eastern Europe (although History will note with a sober but melancholy realism that the brief possibility of a Soviet-US alliance --which began with Perestoika -- officially ended at the conclusion of the Orange Revolution). All serious-minded poeple who opposed The Bush Doctrine should be having this conversation with themselves. Is Bush right?

Back to the UN. The Corsair has aunts and uncles and all sorts of family members who work for have worked for the United Nations. We come from a diplomatic family; we are what is called a "diplobrat". The Corsair attended the UN School as a child. The Corsair's father was Uganda's Ambassador to the US and the UN and a counselor to Canada as well as Chair of the Law of the Seas Committee in the late 70s.

While The Corsair's formative years are deeply intertwined with the mission and recent history of the United Nations, there are deep-seeded problems within that institution that shout out to be adressed. Witness the inability of the United Nations to act on the disgusting genocide in Sudan, perpetrated by what can only be construed as Muslim fundamentalist semi-savages against black Africans. Godfuckingdamn! Kofi Annan has been reduced -- as always -- to the noxious role of fuzzy wuzzy teddy bear about the world stage issuing forth Dadaist pronouncements that he is "shocked," and "appalled."

But still ... Waiting for Godot inaction.

This from the Secretary General! The ascension of Bolton is the culmination, in a sense, of the UN's greatest sin, namely, the astonishingly bigoted "Zionism is Racism" resolution ( UN General Assembly Resolution 3379). To neocon foreign policy intellectuals the day -- that fateful day -- that the Arab tyrannies and Soviet block combined in unholy congress and ganged up on Israel was the moment the UN ceased to be taken seriously an an international body. And, after 20 years, Bolton is their sword of vengeance about to be loosed.

The scandals at the UN are massive. And why should they not be? Such is the formula of the UN. The UN is a hydra, with a thousand heads and no vertical leadership structure or oversight. Tyrannies sit alongside monarchies sit alongside democratically elected governments in fraterity. And, tyrannies -- doing what they do best -- exhibit great Machiavellian gusto in subverting rules and laws and the rules of law.

Does the UN need to be abolished? No, absolutely not; the planet needs an international body and international laws and an international criminal court to regulate the appetites of tyrants. Does the UN need a robust bitchslapping? Yes. And, in that sense, maybe Bolton -- if restrained -- might have been a good tempo, adagio, to be introduced into the overarching overture of history. Unfortunately, Bolton will not be restrained, he will be chaotic presto. And thus the opera will probably end in tragedy.