1
   

The best thing I've read in some time...

 
 
Reply Fri 17 Jun, 2005 07:21 am
Bolton's Bravery
The president's choice is exactly what the U.N. needs.

By Ion Mihai Pacepa

I know the United Nations like the back of my hand. And I have good reasons to believe we badly need a tough guy like John Bolton to handle the rudderless bureaucracy that has turned against the very country that wrote the logo of its Charter: "We the People of the United Nations."

I spent two decades of my other life as a Communist spy chief, struggling to transform the U.N. into a kind of international socialist republic. The Communist bloc threw millions of dollars and thousands of people into that gigantic project. According to the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, all employees from Eastern Bloc nations were involved in espionage. The task of this espionage army was not to steal secrets but to use the U.N. to convert the historical Arab and Islamic hatred of the Jews into a new hatred for Israel's main supporter, the United States. The U.N. became our petri dish, in which we nurtured a virulent strain of hatred for America, grown from the bacteria of Communism, anti-Semitism, nationalism, jingoism, and victimology.

During the years I was Nicolae Ceausescu's national-security adviser I learned that petty tyrants cannot be handled with kid gloves. You need an iron fist.

John Bolton not only acts forcefully, he also gets results. He singlehandedly brought about the repeal of U.N. Resolution 3379 of 1975, which stigmatized Zionism as "a form of racism and racial discrimination." That resolution was the Soviet bloc's first major "victory" at the U.N. Soon after it was adopted, the Communists unleashed a vitriolic disinformation campaign portraying the U.S. as a rapacious Zionist country run by a greedy "Council of the Elders of Zion" (a derisive epithet for the U.S. Congress) that was plotting to transform the rest of the world into a Jewish fiefdom.

U.N. Resolution 3379 lasted 16 years ?- until Bolton came along. In December 1991, this unknown undersecretary of State had the guts to tell the General Assembly of the U.N. that it had been manipulated by the Communists, and to ask its members to wake up. Bolton was so well-armed with documentation, so bold, and so straightforward that he forced the U.N. to repeal its own resolution by the great margin of 111 to 25. Even my native Romania, until then the epitome of Communism, voted with Bolton.

Bolton's success did not last long. Although the Cold War was pronounced "kaput," it did not end with a formal act of surrender, like other wars, or with the defeated enemy throwing down his weapons.

Ten years after Communism collapsed, an operation identical to the one the Communists had plotted in 1975 made its appearance at the United Nations. On August 31, 2001, a U.N. World Conference on Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance opened in Durban, South Africa, to approve ostensibly pre-formulated Arab League declarations asserting that Zionism was a brutal form of racism, and that the United States was its main supporter.

The September 11 terrorist attacks came eight days after the United States had withdrawn its delegation from Durban, stating that this U.N. conference would "stand self-condemned for yielding to extremists."

It is significant that today's horrific terrorism has reenergized the Soviet bloc's former agitators around the world. Antonio Negri, a professor at the University of Padua who considered the brains of the Italian Red Brigades (a terrorist group financed by the Communists) and who served time in jail for his involvement in kidnapping Prime Minister Aldo Moro, is just one example. Negri coauthored a virulently anti-American book entitled Empire, in which he justifies Islamist terrorism as being a spearhead of "postmodern revolution" against American globalization, the new "empire" he claims is breaking up nation states and creating huge unemployment. The New York Times called this modern-day Communist Manifesto "the hot, smart book of the moment."

This is a familiar theme. For 27 years of my other life I was involved in creating various Antonio Negris throughout Western Europe and using them to spread the seductive theory of economic determinism that still defines the mindset of Europe's Left. I helped write the lyrics to the siren song according to which America, symbolizing the world's rich, is to blame for all the evils of the world. I was steeped in its rhetoric. To me today, these Cold War agitators revived by Kofi Annan's U.N. are even more disturbing than the terrorists' Kalashnikovs now aimed at us.

Nowadays it is considered bad manners to point a finger at Communist sources of anti-Americanism, but the truth is that the Soviet bloc's old U.N. bag of dirty tricks continues to bear fruit. In 2003, the U.N. expelled the U.S. from the Commission on Human Rights by the overwhelming vote of 33 to 3. By that time the United Nations General Assembly had already passed 408 resolutions condemning Israel, the only U.N. member prohibited from holding a seat on the Security Council. The cumulative number of votes cast against Israel since 1967? 55,642.

Now Annan wants to "reform" this U.N. with help from the same Communists who deformed it. On December 2, 2004, for example, he vigorously endorsed the 101 proposals of the "High-Level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change." One of the main members of this blue-ribbon panel is an old friend of mine, Yevgeny Primakov, a former Soviet intelligence adviser to Saddam Hussein. This is the same Primakov who rose to head Russia's espionage service for a time, and to sing opera ditties with Secretary of State Madeleine Albright while secretly running the infamous Aldrich Ames spy case behind her back. Another prominent member is Qian Qichen, a former Red China spy who worked under diplomatic cover abroad, belonged to the Central Committee of the Communist party when it ordered the bloody Tiananmen Square repression in 1989, rose to the Politburo afterward, and later became vice-chairman of China's State Council. And then there is Amre Moussa, the secretary general of the Arab League (and a former KGB puppet), who misses the balance of power provided by the Soviet Union and is still unable to condemn ?- to say nothing about prevent ?- terrorism.

This panel recommended that the U.N. be transformed into a Communist-style welfare organization geared to eradicate the world's poverty and its main diseases. For that, the panel concluded that the U.N.'s bureaucracy should be significantly increased, and the treasuries of its member countries additionally raided. In 1946 the U.N. budget was $21.5 million. This year it is approaching $10 billion. If Annan has his way, it will grow to over $30 billion next year, as the blue-ribbon commission wants the U.N. members to "donate" an additional $10 billion annually to fight AIDS and 0.7 percent of their GNP to reduce the debt of poor countries.

The U.N. Charter, signed in 1945, states that the purposes of the organization is to "maintain international peace," encourage "respect for human rights," and promote "freedom for all." Sixty years later the world looks quite different, but, according to Freedom House, some 2.4 billion people "are denied most basic political rights and civil liberties."

Nazism, the Holocaust, and Communism were not defeated by international organizations or by blue-ribbon commissions. They were defeated by the military actions of the United States, which is now working on crushing the evil of terrorism. The U.S., not the U.N., initiated freedom's current domino effect in the Middle East, a movement that now is even reaching into Ukraine, Georgia, and other former Soviet republics, while the U.N. is busy encouraging the growing anti-American barrage.

The U.S. is the only force on earth that has the moral authority, the experience, and the capability to reform the U.N. It is high time for Washington to take the initiative again, as it did when World War II ended.

President Bush has made clear he is interested in U.N. reform. In September 2003, he told the U.N. General Assembly, "As an original signer of the U.N. Charter, the United States of America is committed to the United Nations. And we show that commitment by working to fulfill the U.N.'s stated purposes, and give meaning to its ideals." The nomination of John Bolton as U.S. ambassador is a step toward achieving this goal. Bolton is an impatient doer. If he had been U.S. ambassador to the U.N. any earlier we might not have seen the crazily tyrannical government of Libya chairing the Commission on Human Rights, for one thing.

Bolton has said that, if the glass zoo on the East River that quarters the United Nations "lost ten stories, it wouldn't make a bit of difference." Some argue that this remark makes him unfit to be ambassador at the U.N. I strongly disagree. He gets it, and the U.N. will be all the better with an Ambassador Bolton there.

source
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 3,466 • Replies: 25
No top replies

 
Scrat
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Jun, 2005 10:52 am
But he's not pleasant! Rolling Eyes
0 Replies
 
rayban1
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Jun, 2005 11:43 am
McG

How can we persuade more people to read this article? I post this about the author which may give it more credence:

Ion Mihai Pacepa is the highest ranking intelligence officer to have defected from the Soviet bloc. His book Red Horizons has been republished in 27 countries.

* * *
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Jun, 2005 11:50 am
I read it. It's well written. But I confess I'm skeptical. How likely is it that everyone was manipulating the UN, except us? How convenient to link all of our difficulties with terrorism on our old familiar foe, communism.

Not that I'm completely dismissing it, but I remain a skeptic.
0 Replies
 
rayban1
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Jun, 2005 06:49 pm
Freeduck

So you think all the stuff on the commies is just a Hollywood myth?
0 Replies
 
rayban1
 
  1  
Reply Sat 18 Jun, 2005 09:46 am
McG

You've had 50 hits on your thread but no substantive comments from the left........I'm puzzled.......could it be that the author shoots their ill informed notions full of holes?
0 Replies
 
goodfielder
 
  1  
Reply Sat 18 Jun, 2005 06:11 pm
It's intriguing to hear from someone who spent much of their life working for and benefiting from totalitarianism. It's good to see that he finally woke up to the benefits of liberal democracy and is obviously now a firm supporter of all its tenets, in particular, freedom of expression. I, for one, am heartened.

Having said that the piece is just a bit too sucky but that's to be expected I suppose as he is writing for a particular audience.

Now that the Soviet bloc is gone I would think that it's influence has also gone. Perhaps that's why the UN is in such a shambles. Incompetence and corruption, not communism, are the problem with the UN.

Having said that it would be good if people stopped living in the past and realised that "communism" isn't the threat, the threat is totalitarianism. That big red dragon is waiting patiently in the wings watching the world's only superpower and waiting, waiting. One day the UN may indeed be redundant and not because of anything expressed in this thread.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Jun, 2005 09:50 pm
I am completely at a loss to understand why anyone -- including a former communist spy chief -- thinks that Bolton would be able to do anything to reform or rehabilitate the UN. As ambassador, Bolton would be merely one of over 100 ambassadors representing UN member states. To be sure, he would be representing the most powerful and influential of those states, but his would still be one voice among many. Furthermore, the ambassador doesn't set US policy toward the UN: that's the White House's job. Bolton, in other words, would be little more than a glorified mouthpiece for the administration -- not that there's any dishonor in that: every ambassador's job is to be little more than a glorified mouthpiece for the administration. The only difference between Bolton and, say, the American ambassador to Kenya is that Bolton would rank rather higher on the bureaucratic totem poll, he won't have to leave the US or learn a foreign language, and he doesn't have to worry about fixing visas or getting unruly American tourists out of jail.

As UN ambassador, Bolton will be able to use his somewhat-bully pulpit to level dire-yet-empty imprecations against the UN just as Daniel Patrick Moynihan and Jeanne Kirkpatrick did before him. That might get him a political job or (more likely) a cushy sinecure in a conservative groupthink tank after 2009, but he will no doubt leave the UN in pretty much the same condition that he found it. I'm sure he'll find that it's easier to abuse subordinates than it will be to reform an institution over which he has little influence in a job that has even less authority.
0 Replies
 
rayban1
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Jun, 2005 10:23 pm
joefromchicago wrote:
I am completely at a loss to understand why anyone -- including a former communist spy chief -- thinks that Bolton would be able to do anything to reform or rehabilitate the UN.


The answer to your question is within the article above. Here is the beginning of the answer:

John Bolton not only acts forcefully, he also gets results. He singlehandedly brought about the repeal of U.N. Resolution 3379 of 1975, which stigmatized Zionism as "a form of racism and racial discrimination." That resolution was the Soviet bloc's first major "victory" at the U.N. Soon after it was adopted, the Communists unleashed a vitriolic disinformation campaign portraying the U.S. as a rapacious Zionist country run by a greedy "Council of the Elders of Zion" (a derisive epithet for the U.S. Congress) that was plotting to transform the rest of the world into a Jewish fiefdom.

The second reason I wanted more participants to read the article is to draw attention to some facts about the UN as exposed by the author. Thanks for reading the article and commenting on it Joe. Furthermore Joe, I'm certain you would agree that "timing" is everything. The "TIME" is right to push for "MEANINGFUL" reform of the UN........Not the meaningLESS reform being touted by the corrupt Annan.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Jun, 2005 10:58 pm
rayban1 wrote:
The answer to your question is within the article above. Here is the beginning of the answer:

John Bolton not only acts forcefully, he also gets results. He singlehandedly brought about the repeal of U.N. Resolution 3379 of 1975, which stigmatized Zionism as "a form of racism and racial discrimination." That resolution was the Soviet bloc's first major "victory" at the U.N. Soon after it was adopted, the Communists unleashed a vitriolic disinformation campaign portraying the U.S. as a rapacious Zionist country run by a greedy "Council of the Elders of Zion" (a derisive epithet for the U.S. Congress) that was plotting to transform the rest of the world into a Jewish fiefdom.

I don't know if Bolton was single-handedly responsible for the repeal of UN Resolution 3379 (variously referred to by conservative bloggers as the "infamous," "odious," or "abominable" Resolution 3379 -- check out this Google search and see for yourself how unimaginative they are in their use of adjectives). Furthermore, I'm not sure why I should take the word of a former communist spy chief for the truth in this matter (it seems that the reliability of former communist spy chiefs is directly proportional to the extent to which they agree with one's opinion).

Be that as it may, even if Bolton was indeed the sole mastermind behind the repeal of the infamous/odious/abominable resolution, I am forced to ask: "so what?" Bolton is being touted as a guy who can "reform" the UN. Getting a resolution repealed, however, is a far cry from a thorough restructuring or reformation of an enormous international organization. The UN general assembly passes resolutions all the time -- that's simple. Reforming ossified bureaucracies is another matter entirely, and so I am still left wondering why anyone thinks that Bolton can do it by himself (frankly, his proven track record in bullying and punishing subordinates is probably a better indication of his ability to make people do what he wants than any history of resolution-passing).

rayban1 wrote:
The second reason I wanted more participants to read the article is to draw attention to some facts about the UN as exposed by the author. Thanks for reading the article and commenting on it Joe. Furthermore Joe, I'm certain you would agree that "timing" is everything. The "TIME" is right to push for "MEANINGFUL" reform of the UN........Not the meaningLESS reform being touted by the corrupt Annan.

I offer no opinion on the timing of reform for the UN. I remain, however, unconvinced that John Bolton can do anything meaningful, by himself, to effectuate that reform.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Jun, 2005 06:43 am
Do you think he should be given the chance?
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Jun, 2005 08:11 am
McGentrix wrote:
Do you think he should be given the chance?

Given the information that we currently possess, I don't think Bolton should be confirmed. But then I don't think it's a big deal one way or the other.
0 Replies
 
Atkins
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Jun, 2005 10:19 am
It's that bushy, white mustache.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Jun, 2005 10:24 am
Re: The best thing I've read in some time...
Ion Mihai Pacepa always writes excellent reports:


Quote:
As a former Romanian spy chief who used to take orders from the Soviet KGB, it is perfectly obvious to me that Russia is behind the evanescence of Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction. After all, Russia helped Saddam get his hands on them in the first place. The Soviet Union and all its bloc states always had a standard operating procedure for deep sixing weapons of mass destruction ?- in Romanian it was codenamed "Sarindar, meaning "emergency exit." I implemented it in Libya. It was for ridding Third World despots of all trace of their chemical weapons if the Western imperialists ever got near them. We wanted to make sure they would never be traced back to us, and we also wanted to frustrate the West by not giving them anything they could make propaganda with.
source: Washington Times
0 Replies
 
chiczaira
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Jun, 2005 12:44 am
Joe from Chicago is apparently unaware that the US contributes very heavily to the UN. The US contributes 440 Million a year or about 22% if the yearly money the UN operates with.
The US House, on June 18th voted 221-184 voted to cut the 440 to 220 if there were no reforms forthcoming. I am sure that Bolton would look quite good on National TV giving a speech to the UN in which he made the House threat crystal clear.

I think that JoeFromChicago forgets that we are not just one of many countries. We have a vote on the Security Council.

That is an important advantage.
0 Replies
 
goodfielder
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Jun, 2005 06:03 am
Oh - the Washington Times - good link Walter, thank you.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Jun, 2005 08:30 am
chiczaira wrote:
Joe from Chicago is apparently unaware that the US contributes very heavily to the UN. The US contributes 440 Million a year or about 22% if the yearly money the UN operates with.


You are obviously not really up to date with your informations:

http://www.globalpolicy.org/finance/tables/core/un-us-05.gif


http://www.globalpolicy.org/finance/tables/reg-budget/large05.gif
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Jun, 2005 08:33 am
US Debt to the UN:
Monthly Totals


Sums in $US, rounded to the nearest million
Totals include debt for International Tribunals and Capital Master Plan (new for 2003)
Percentages show US proportion of debt to the total UN debt in each category


31 March 2005
Regular Budget: $680 million (50%)
Peacekeeping: $743 million (54%)
Total: $1,512 million (51%)


28 February 2005
Regular Budget: $680 million (45%)
Peacekeeping: $743 million (33%)
Total: $1,512 million (38%)


31 January 2005
Regular Budget: $680 million (38%)
Peacekeeping: $728 million (31%)
Total: $1,497 million (34%)



31 December 2004
Regular Budget: $241 million (68%)
Peacekeeping: $722 million (28%)
Total: $975 million (33%)


30 November 2004
Regular Budget: $530 million (76%)
Peacekeeping: $626 million (26%)
Total: $1,168 million (37%)


31 October 2004
Regular Budget: $530 million (75%)
Peacekeeping: $552 million (23%)
Total: $1,109 million (35%)

30 September 2004
Regular Budget: $530 million (73%)
Peacekeeping: $880 million (33%)
Total: $1,459 million (42%)

31 August 2004
Regular Budget: $557 million (58%)
Peacekeeping: $864 million (37%)
Total: $1,470 million (43%)

31 July 2004
Regular Budget: $557 million (57%)
Peacekeeping: $837 million (34%)
Total: $1,443 million (40%)

30 June 2004
Regular Budget: $557 million (53%)
Peacekeeping: $486 million (41%)
Total: $1,092 million (46%)

31 May 2004
Regular Budget: $557 million (49%)
Peacekeeping: $482 million (41%)
Total: $1,088 million (44%)

30 April 2004
Regular Budget: $614 million (49%)
Peacekeeping: $480 million (38%)
Total: $1,143 million (42%)

31 March 2004
Regular Budget: $614 million (46%)
Peacekeeping: $480 million (39%)
Total: $1,143 million (42%)

29 February 2004
Regular Budget: $631 million (43%)
Peacekeeping: $828 million (41%)
Total: $1,543 million (41%)

31 January 2004
Regular Budget: $631 million (38%)
Peacekeeping: $811 million (37%)
Total: $1,526 million (37%)

etc etc etc

Source for above
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Jun, 2005 08:50 am
chiczaira wrote:
Joe from Chicago is apparently unaware that the US contributes very heavily to the UN. The US contributes 440 Million a year or about 22% if the yearly money the UN operates with.

As Walter points out, the US owes the UN money.

chiczaira wrote:
The US House, on June 18th voted 221-184 voted to cut the 440 to 220 if there were no reforms forthcoming.

We should all be so lucky as debtors to impose onerous conditions on our creditors as a preliminary to paying our debts.

chiczaira wrote:
I am sure that Bolton would look quite good on National TV giving a speech to the UN in which he made the House threat crystal clear.

If reform of the UN is so important, then why hasn't the Bush administration pushed this issue before? Why is it necessary to get Bolton in there -- rather than somebody else -- to lobby for reform?

chiczaira wrote:
I think that JoeFromChicago forgets that we are not just one of many countries. We have a vote on the Security Council.

That is an important advantage.

Yes, I know that.

And, btw, give my regards to Italgato when you get a chance.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Jun, 2005 10:25 am
joefromchicago wrote:
chiczaira wrote:
Joe from Chicago is apparently unaware that the US contributes very heavily to the UN. The US contributes 440 Million a year or about 22% if the yearly money the UN operates with.

As Walter points out, the US owes the UN money.

chiczaira wrote:
The US House, on June 18th voted 221-184 voted to cut the 440 to 220 if there were no reforms forthcoming.

We should all be so lucky as debtors to impose onerous conditions on our creditors as a preliminary to paying our debts.


Maybe the UN will kick us out?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » The best thing I've read in some time...
Copyright © 2026 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 03/12/2026 at 06:38:56