Bob Barr

U.S. Suffers with Two Off U.N. Stage

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution

December 13, 2006

Winston Churchill once described Russia as "a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma." To many modern observers, the United Nations might accurately be described as a thief dressed in a morning coat speaking in tongues. The United Nations has come to symbolize, in many respects, the impotence of the post-World War II dream that conflict could be avoided if enough people from a sufficient number of countries got together to talk ... and talk...and talk.

The price tag for more than six decades of talk at the United Nations' massive bureaucratic headquarters on the banks of the East River in New York City has been significant, especially for American taxpayers, who have footed the bill for far more of the international organization's misguided efforts than have those of any other nation.

Still, president after president, Republican and Democrat alike, have kowtowed to the United Nations, even as some have periodically criticized it. Since President Harry Truman appointed the first U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, the post often has been filled with namby-pamby diplomats whose love for U.N.-sponsored cocktail parties seems to trump their interest in upholding America's sovereignty and its national security interests.

Two U.S. ambassadors to the United Nations who did not fit the mold of the traditional striped-pants diplomat left the stage this past week. Jeane Kirkpatrick, who served in that capacity during Ronald Reagan's first term, died late last Thursday. Three days earlier, it was announced that the current U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, John Bolton, would be stepping down from the post he has held for only a year and a half.

Kirkpatrick was the first woman appointed as the permanent U.S. representative to the United Nations. The frank, sometimes biting, but always learned manner in which she presented Washington's position in international forums won her plaudits and admiration from friends and foes alike that continued to the time of her death. As a soul mate and confidant of Ronald Reagan, Kirkpatrick enjoyed credibility and influence denied many other U.S. ambassadors to the United Nations.

At the United Nations, Kirkpatrick eloquently articulated the Reagan Doctrine and its linchpin maxim that the Soviet Union was inherently evil and must be—and could be—defeated. When the time came during her tenure to blast our then-adversaries, whether Libya or Cuba, or to praise and support our allies, Kirkpatrick was the go-to woman. Kirkpatrick never let the president—or the American people—down.

Another U.S. ambassador who has never let us down is the much-criticized but, like Kirkpatrick, also eminently qualified John Bolton. Done in by squeamish Republican senators such as Rhode Island's Lincoln Chafee, and by Democrat senators afraid for partisan reasons to outwardly support him, Bolton last week announced he would step down from the post to which President Bush appointed him on an interim basis in August 2005.

Like Kirkpatrick, Bolton is the antithesis of most of what the rest of the world has come to expect in ambassadors appointed to represent their nations at the United Nations. His willingness, perhaps even his relish, to remind those at the United Nations that the United States is a free and sovereign nation and will not sit idly by as the United Nations attempts to interfere with or diminish our sovereignty or obstruct our nation's security goals is legendary.

Indeed, in one of his first speeches to the U.N. General Assembly in 2001 while he was serving Bush as undersecretary of state, Bolton did something that almost certainly no one before him had dared to do. In a speech at the start of what would become a five-year effort by the United Nations to limit civilian possession of firearms, Bolton explicitly told the entire General Assembly that there was such a thing as the "Second Amendment" to our Constitution, that it guaranteed the "individual right to keep and bear arms" and that under his watch the United States would ensure the United Nations did not diminish that right.

I was in attendance at the General Assembly when Bolton delivered those remarks on July 9, 2001, and the expressions of shock on the faces of many in the audience that an American would have the audacity to tell them there was something more important than their various international manifestos used to justify meddling in the affairs of sovereign nations was most telling. Some of them probably vowed then and there they would do whatever they could to ensure Bolton never had the chance to permanently represent the United States at the United Nations. We almost proved them wrong.

The fact that we ultimately failed to secure such an appointment for this excellent public servant is a deep loss for America's sovereignty and for the principles of freedom that both Bolton and Kirkpatrick so eloquently espoused.

Bob Barr occupies the 21st Century Liberties Chair for Freedom and Privacy at the American Conservative Union Foundation.