Gauging Bolton’s Vision of U.N.’s Role

Re “U.N. May Need Bolton’s Bitter Medicine,” Commentary, March 9: When recently asked to describe the role the U.N. can play in global disarmament, former U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix replied that the world body was less a player than a musical instrument in the hands of its member nations. If the members choose to play together in a cohesive fashion for peace and global unity, then the United Nations can serve the world as its founders intended. If his record is any indication, John Bolton will not be a team player.

Contrary to the claims of your article, Bolton has not been a strong advocate of nonproliferation nor has he worked against the spread of weapons of mass destruction. If anything, he has been a tireless champion of permanent military supremacy for the United States. Congress should reject his nomination and persuade the president to nominate a true proponent of multilateral diplomacy.

Rob Schweber

Los Angeles

Re “Bolton, Out of the Blue,” editorial, March 8: The Times states that John Bolton has “little patience for multilateral niceties” and “is a leading proponent of the administration’s go-it-alone attitude on security matters.” On the contrary, Bolton was the engineer of the Proliferation Security Initiative, signed by 60 nations.

Leonard Lamensdorf

Santa Barbara

It is truly ironic that your opening dissatisfaction with John Bolton’s nomination as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations is followed by acknowledging the U.N. corrupt handling of the oil-for-food program, much less the inept and disgraceful peacekeeping missions against genocide. Just maybe a man of forthright directness is what is needed. Bolton will not set policy, but surely he can communicate the necessity of reform to restore the U.N.’s “effectiveness and integrity.” The determination he possesses is exemplified by President Bush’s policy to bring democracy to the Middle East. Give Bolton a chance; the international community may recognize that blunt clarity may establish credibility.

Tom Barron

Westwood

In his famous “Iron Curtain” speech in 1946, Winston Churchill placed the future peace of the world in the U.N.’s hands. “If we adhere faithfully to the Charter of the United Nations and walk forward in sedate and sober strength, seeking no one’s land or treasure, seeking to lay no arbitrary control upon the thoughts of men ... the high roads of the future will be clear, not only for us but for all, not only for our time, but for a century to come.” Now, Bush has nominated as our ambassador to the U.N. John Bolton, a man who has little faith in it and would, no doubt, be glad for its demise. Comparing Churchill and Bolton, what a difference in their wisdom! What a difference in their stature!

William McCall

Arcadia

Re “Harsh Critic of U.N. Named Ambassador,” March 8: The appointment of John Bolton as U.N. ambassador is like appointing Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan to be the ambassador to Israel.

George Prida

Lawndale