Editorial

For the U.N., a clean break

Obama's choice of Susan Rice, a liberal multilateralist, as the U.S. ambassador represents the flip side of Bush's approach to the world body.
December 2, 2008

» Discuss Article    (22 Comments)

If former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations John R. Bolton went to Bizarro World, his counterpart there would be Susan Rice. Inhabitants of DC Comics' fictional planet are the polar opposites of their earthly doubles, and it's hard to imagine anyone who would represent a clearer break with the Bush administration's foreign policy strategies than Rice, whose selection as U.N. ambassador was announced Monday by President-elect Barack Obama.

Rice is a liberal multilateralist, and Bolton, who spent a tumultuous year at the U.N. before resigning when it became clear that he wouldn't be confirmed by the Senate in 2006, is a conservative unilateralist. She would be warmly welcomed in New York if confirmed, and would be in a strong position to rebuild the bridges burned by Bolton, which current Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad has had a tough time doing, given that he represents a deeply discredited, lame-duck administration.

Bolton's appointment was President Bush's way of thumbing his nose at the U.N. The ambassador's bullying, arrogant approach rendered him ineffective as a diplomat, but it did please a conservative wing of the Republican Party that has long despised the U.N. in the same way, and for many of the same reasons, it despises big government: It's bureaucratic, slow and rarely gets much done. Yet it's also utterly indispensable. Warts and all, it is the world's only meaningful bulwark against nuclear proliferation, human-rights violations, genocide and wars of conquest.

Unlike Bolton, Rice favors dialogue even with our most serious enemies and rivals, a philosophy she shares with the other members of Obama's foreign policy team announced Monday. Yet Rice is to the left of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, Obama's pick for secretary of State, and her fondness for intervention could put her at odds with other members of the Cabinet.

Analysts have been somewhat puzzled by the spectrum of political viewpoints represented by Obama's picks, but if there's one thing most of his defense and foreign policy choices have in common, it's that they tend to be "realists" -- favoring the use of "soft power" over military intervention, and multilateralism over unilateralism. Rice, a former senior diplomat on African affairs under the Clinton administration who is so horrified by the genocide in Darfur that she backs a U.S.-led bombing campaign or naval blockade of Sudan, will compete for Obama's ear against retired Marine Gen. James L. Jones Jr., his designated national security advisor, who is no fan of nation building or unnecessary wars. Rice could best serve her country by strengthening the U.N. as a body to police the world, not trying to give the U.S. a bigger badge.





Post Comment

Name
Enter your comments and post to forum
By participating you agree to our Terms of Service and represent that you are not under the age of 13.
 
Discussion

No further comments will be accepted.
 
1. Rick is about to enter a new world where the United Nations does more than siphon hard earned citizen taxpayer dollars from the United States. It enables rouge nations like Iran to continue its nuclear (pronounced new-clear) arms program, countries like Somalia to pirate shipping and hold them for ransom, puts Mexico as chair of the United Nations Human Rights Council, and allow genocide and terrorism to run rampant. Rick is reading the OpEd from the LA Times he is finally going to understand it as never before because Rick is about to enter......The Twilight Zone.
Submitted by: Rick
8:17 AM PST, Dec 4, 2008
 
2. Whatever credibility the LATimes had left is now gone. Is not the US the greatest bulwark against such evils? Has the board forgotten that it was the US that protected the world from genocide in WWII, ended the Cold War and has presided over the destructions of countless nuclear weapons, that the UN has failed miserably throughout the world (including Darfur) to stop atrocities instead choosing to focus on labelling the state of Isreal a racist state. In its blind hatred for the Bush Administration, the LATimes editorial board has left reason at the doorstep. It is for that reason that the LATimes paper will never again reach my doorstep.
Submitted by: Stuart
9:34 PM PST, Dec 3, 2008
 
3. The U.N. "is the world's only meaningful bulwark against nuclear proliferation, human-rights violations, genocide and wars of conquest"? Really? And here I had the silly idea that it was the U.S. Marine Corps that met that description.
Submitted by: John Knight
4:27 PM PST, Dec 3, 2008
 





Will the Sanford and Palin episodes hurt the GOP's chances in 2012? Glenn Reynolds and Katherine Mangu-Ward discuss.


   
The best in Southern California opinion journalism
In today's pages: How the budget got this bad. Oh, yes, and Jacko, of course
An international accord on global warming? The editorial board celebrates,...
more
The business and culture of our digital lives, from the L.A. Times
The webcasting deal: What took so long?
If the numbers were so stark, why did it take a virtual eternity for...
more
 

ADVERTISEMENT


ADVERTISEMENT