What's the role of US diplomacy in the UN?

[McGroarty]

Bush appointed John Bolton as ambassador to the UN. Criticism has been fast and fierce, proclaiming him as a bully and a lousy diplomat. The hubbub is amusing for sure, but I'm not clear on whether or not Bolton is a good choice. For me, the criticisms of his appointment raise the questions of whether Bolton is intended to be a diplomat, and what purpose a US diplomat serves in the UN.

I understand only two roles for political diplomats. The first is to negotiate a favorable deal where one would is unlikely by default. The second is to help market a deal being made. Are there more roles?

The first role is important when one has the weak bargaining position. The weak party needs diplomacy to get its way, but it doesn't take much charisma or manipulation for the US to say "no" loudly and repeatedly. If the US holds the upper hand militarily and economically, is there still an important role for US diplomatic bargaining in the UN?

The second role is important on the losing end of an undesireable deal. I don't anticipate the US making new uranium deals with North Korea or Iran under the current administration. I'm not sure what else would be a hard sell internally. When a smaller country has to swallow a deal it didn't want, having the US ambassador cozy up and congratulate the small country and its ambassador for random things might smooth things politically. It might make a loss easier to swallow, but is this really the only role people are worried about Bolton failing?

[Cole]

I think that the end of the United Nations is near. Now that it's clear to everybody that the UN has no control over the United States or Israel (that these countries won't allow the UN to make bad decisions for them), it's going to feel purposeless. Which of course isn't a bad thing. I'd love to see the UN fall to pieces.

Edit: It isn't a bad thing.

Edited March 13, 2005 by Cole

[Iakeo]

Bush appointed John Bolton as ambassador to the UN. Criticism has been fast and fierce, proclaiming him as a bully and a lousy diplomat. The hubbub is amusing for sure, but I'm not clear on whether or not Bolton is a good choice....

"What's the role of US diplomacy in the UN?"

What SHOULD it be? The UN is not a goverment. It therefore has no moral

grounds for being a police agency (having any enforcement power whatsoever). It

should be simply a meeting place, where sovereign nations can talk to each other.

The role of US diplomacy should be to speak for the interests of the US market-of-

ideas (the only thing for which the government has any moral concern or

moral/ethical influence).

Appeasing another sovereign entity (individual/nation) is immoral, if the "trade"

(appeasement) is a loss of value for the appeaser (which is rather the definition

of "appeasement" in my understanding).

Immorally gaining value (fraud/extortion/etc) is unethical, and no ambassador

should perform unethical acts, as he represents the ethics of a moral entity, which

we call the government of the US, who's SOLE function (should be) to protect and

enforce "the trader principle" within it's pervue.

So, what information are you looking for again with this posting?

-Iakeo

Edited March 15, 2005 by Iakeo