Why do Americans have to go to Calcutta to hear their U.N. Ambassador?

The extended remarks below by America’s U.N. Ambassador John Bolton, according to a Google check, appeared in India, but not in U.S. newspapers. Perhaps, if the U.S. media broadcast and printed his remarks more often, and those of the rabid despoilers of freedom and decency he confronts at the U.N., Americans would have a better understanding of the international stakes.

John Bolton has done an exceptional job representing both American interests and the needs of others around the world who are subject to or threatened by oppression. You can’t get more American than that, and we should be both proud and thankful to have his voice at the U.N. See this Heritage analysis of Bolton’s job performance.

As U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, John Bolton has proven a forceful advocate of American interests, a powerful voice for U.N. reform, and a staunch defender of the cause of human rights. He has worked closely with Congress, testifying no less than six times before House and Senate committees. Bolton has been an outspoken critic of corruption, mismanagement, waste, and inefficiency at a world body that receives several billion dollars a year from U.S. taxpayers. He has shaken up an institution that has for decades resisted change and cast a revealing light on an elite U.N. establishment that has long thrived amid a culture of complacency and secrecy.

Due to Senate gridlock, President George W. Bush sent John Bolton to the United Nations in August 2005 as a recess appointment. The recess appointment expires when the new Congress convenes in January 2007, and the President has resubmitted Bolton for confirmation. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee is expected to vote on Bolton’s nomination in early December….

Bolton has not been afraid to speak his mind and upset the status quo. Nor has he been unwilling to call a dictator a dictator, expose the rampant hypocrisy of the U.N.’s human rights apparatus, or condemn the actions of dangerous rogue regimes. Effective diplomacy requires forceful leadership and the willingness to back up tough words with action. As former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher observed in a letter of support for John Bolton, “A capacity for straight talking rather than peddling half-truths is a strength and not a disadvantage in diplomacy. In the case of a great power like America, it is essential that people know where you stand and assume you know what you say.”

Unfortunately, a few putzes in the U.S. Senate have been standing in the way. Please read Bolton’s remarks below. Then, please contact your U.S. Senator demanding an up or down vote in the Senate in December.

As the Washington Post reports, “Bolton predicts he would win Senate vote on U.N. post.” Even the Chinese appreciate Bolton. So should the U.S. Senate.

"I enjoy working with him," China's U.N. Ambassador Wang Guangya said. "Professionally he is capable, he is effective but I don't want to get into the politics of the U.S."

Now, for the news from India, we should be getting from U.S. media: [HT: Pamela]

Bolton in extraordinary outburst against United Nations
Calcutta News.Net
Saturday 18th November, 2006

The U.S. Ambassador to the UN, John Bolton, launched a scathing attack on the United Nations Friday.

Bolton was furious over the adoption by the General Assembly of a resolution which said the assembly regretted the deaths of 19 civilians in an attack by the Israeli military in the town of Beit Hanoun last week.

Despite the resolution being significantly watered down at the behest of the United States, and being passing by 156 votes to seven, Bolton launched a blistering attack on the UN, and many of its members.

"Many of the sponsors of that resolution are notorious abusers of human rights themselves, and were seeking to deflect criticism of their own policies," he said.

"This type of resolution serves only to exacerbate tensions by serving the interests of elements hostile to Israel's inalienable and recognized right to exist."

"This deepens suspicions about the United Nations that will lead many to conclude that the organization is incapable of playing a helpful role in the region," Bolton continued.

"In a larger sense, the United Nations must confront a more significant question, that of its relevance and utility in confronting the challenges of the 21st century. We believe that the United Nations is ill served when its members seek to transform the organization into a forum that is a little more than a self-serving and a polemical attack against Israel or the United States," he said.

"The Human Rights Council has quickly fallen into the same trap and de-legitimized itself by focusing attention exclusively on Israel. Meanwhile, it has failed to address real human rights abuses in Burma, Darfur, the DPRK, and other countries," Bolton charged.

"The problem of anti-Israel bias is not unique to the Human Rights Council. It is endemic to the culture of the United Nations. It is a decades-old, systematic problem that transcends the whole panoply of the UN organizations and agencies," he continued.

The United States, and Australia joined Israel in voting against the motion, together with four small Pacific island nations. All countries in Europe, including Britain, voted to support the resolution.

The original text condemned Israel over the Beit Hanoun attack and its operations in Gaza, however the adopted resolution had the General Assembly expressing, "regret."

Rather than an outright investigation of the incident the assembly resolved to form a committee, "to look into the facts." The resolution also carried a demand that the Palestinian Authority take action to stop rocket attacks on Israel.

Bolton launched his attack despite gaining these concessions.

Equally critical was Israeli Ambassador Dan Gillerman who stormed out of the session after telling members, "I caution everyone who will support this resolution. By doing so, you will be an accomplice to terror. The blood of more innocents will be on your hands."

The resolution was taken to the General Assembly after the United States used its veto to squash a similar motion in the Security Council. It was the 31st time the U.S. had used its veto at the UN to stop resolutions concerning Israel and the Palestinians.