At least they wish they could. Today's Washington Post editorializes on the merits of a John R. Bolton ambassadorship at the U.N., or perhaps more accurately, the lack. You can sense they oppose the Bolton nomination, but find little to support their own position. Here's a sample.
But the United Nations is more than a debating club or a bureaucratic agency. At least since the end of the Cold War, it also has been a potential instrument of global security, one the United States has used effectively at times. At those moments Washington is best represented by a skilled diplomat, one more effective at working with allies and cutting the deals needed to pass resolutions than in battling political adversaries. It is in this respect that the nomination of Mr. Bolton, who is scheduled to appear before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee today, raises questions.
You see there, his nomination raises questions. After 60 years of its existence, the UN's achievements are such that it can now be called a "potential instrument" by the Washington Post. And the type of person we need as our ambassador, is "a skilled diplomat, one more effective at working with allies and cutting the deals..." Did John Kerry write this? Note to Post: We did not elect John Kerry.
Switching over to today's lead editorial, entitled Doing Better by Darfur, we find the Post has provided a concrete example why it considers the UN only a "potential instrument".
After Mr. Powell's visit last year, the United Nations Security Council passed two resolutions threatening sanctions but then never followed through; this gave Sudan's rulers a green light to kill more people.
Of course, this is no reason to give up on the UN. As we go down the page we find, it's not the fault of the UN that killing continued in Darfur. Can you guess?
The reason for the lack of follow-through was that the Bush administration made a conscious decision not to elevate Darfur's genocide to the top of its agenda. Mr. Bush did not place phone calls to the leaders of China and Russia to insist that they back tougher action...
There it is. The fault lies with George W. Bush. If only Bush were able to bring himself to make a couple of simple phone calls, all that genocidal nastiness would have been avoided. They begin their concluding paragraph,
You face genocide in Sudan with the international partners you have, not the ones you might wish to have. If the United States does not lead on Darfur, nobody else is going to...
The United States must lead, but at the Post they prefer the point man, the U.S. ambassador to the UN, be not "one of 'the strongest voices' in defense of American interests", but someone able to "cut deals". Seems to me there's something of a disconnect here. Their conclusion?
So far, there is no compelling case for denying Mr. Bush his choice.
They hold out hope, I think. Something may yet turn up, something that will allow the Post to voice the sentiment for which they have no evidence. So far it hasn't, but maybe it will today at the hearings.