Dilip da, I guess P-43 would not be interested in sending P-41 (in that matter P-42) to UN. Though in theory UN ambassador represents the country, it is a known fact that he/she follows the agenda of the present govt. Ex-presidents served as the executive head and so they will have hard time representing their successors view in the UN. As soon as the ambassadors have independent view, they are recalled. In this case it would be difficult (politically would be impossible) to recall a ex-president and what if the persons happens to his own father!!!!! There was a rumor during 2004 election that P-42 was interested in taking up the UN chief job! The bottom line is that no present president wants to send any past president to the UN! Then there will conflict between the present govt. and their views in the UN.
Ganesh --- Dilip/Dil Deka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Mr. Friedman has a good but dangerous suggestion. > True, presidents 41 and 42 are already on pension, > so it won't cost us any more. Also true is that > either will do a great job in this role. President > 42 has other engagements that keep him busy. He may > not be too keen to do this. President 41, however, > is enjoying a nice retired life in Houston and he > may be willing to help out his son. The Florida > governor could be drafted as the secretary of state > next to replace Ms. Rice and we will have a > semblance of a dynasty in USA. :-) > Dilip > ============================================================ > OP-ED COLUMNIST The Best Man for the U.N.By THOMAS > L. FRIEDMAN > > Published: April 27, 2005 > > > Fred R. Conrad/The New York Times > > ARTICLE TOOLSPrinter-Friendly FormatMost E-Mailed > Articles > > MORE COLUMNS > Thomas L. Friedman > > READERS' OPINIONS > > Forum: Join a Discussion on Thomas L. Friedman's > Columns > > > y biggest problem with nominating John Bolton as > U.N. ambassador boils down to one simple fact: he's > not the best person for the job - not even close. If > President George W. Bush wants a die-hard Republican > at the U.N., one who has a conservative pedigree he > can trust, who is close to the president, who can > really build coalitions, who knows the U.N. building > and bureaucracy inside out, who can work well with > the State Department and who has the respect of > America's friends and foes alike, the choice is > obvious, and it's not John Bolton. > > It's George H. W. Bush, a k a 41. No one would make > a better U.N. ambassador for Bush 43 than Bush 41. > > Look, John Quincy Adams went back to Congress after > he served as president. Why shouldn't George H. W. > Bush take another spin around the diplomatic dance > floor he loved so much and where he left his biggest > mark? He's already demonstrated with his parachute > jumps that he has the stamina for the job, and his > performance as a tsunami relief ambassador was a > great success. > > But there is actually an even better reason to > prefer 41 over Mr. Bolton. The White House claims it > needs the pugnacious Mr. Bolton at the U.N. to whip > it into shape and oversee real reform there. I have > only one thing to say in response to that pablum: > Give me a break. We do not need a U.N. ambassador to > "reform" the U.N. That is not what America needs or > wants from the U.N. You want to reform the U.N.? You > want to analyze its budgets and overhaul its > bureaucratic processes, well, then hire McKinsey & > Co. - not John Bolton. (Everyone knows he prefers to > torch the place.) > > "Reforming the U.N." is without question one of the > most tired, vacuous conservative mantras ever > invented. It is right up there with squeezing > "waste, fraud and abuse" out of the Pentagon's > budget. If the White House is concerned about waste, > fraud and abuse, let's start with Tom DeLay and our > own House. > > Sorry, but we don't need a management consultant as > our U.N. ambassador. What we need is someone who can > get the most out of what the U.N. does offer to > America. There is no secret about the U.N. - at its > worst it is a talking shop, where a lot of people > don't speak English and where they occasionally do > ridiculous things, like appoint Libya to oversee > human rights, and even mendacious things, like > declaring Zionism to be racism. > > But at its best, the U.N. has been, and still can > be, a useful amplifier of American power, helping us > to accomplish important global tasks that we deem to > be in our own interest. > > The U.N. still represents the closest thing we have > to a global Good Housekeeping seal of approval for > any international action. Whenever the U.S. is able > to enlist that U.N. seal on its side, America's > actions abroad have more legitimacy, more supporters > and more paying partners. > > If we had engineered more of a U.N. seal of approval > before going into Iraq, we would have had more > allies to share the $300 billion price tag, and more > legitimacy, which translates into more time and > space to accomplish our goals there. It's not a > disaster that we went into Iraq without the U.N., > but life would probably have been a lot easier (and > cheaper) had we been escorted by a real U.N. > coalition. > > In short, I don't much care how the U.N. works as a > bureaucracy; I care about how often it can be > enlisted to support, endorse and amplify U.S. power. > That is what serves our national interest. And > because that is what I want most from the U.N., I > want at the U.N. an ambassador who can be a real > coalition builder, a superdiplomat who can more > often than not persuade the U.N.'s member states to > act in support of U.S. interests. > > I can't think of anyone better than George H. W. > Bush, with his diplomatic Rolodex and instincts, or > worse than John Bolton. Mr. Bolton's tenure > overseeing U.S. antiproliferation efforts at the > State Department is a mixed bag: success with Libya, > utter failure with North Korea and Iran. But no one > can miss the teacher's note at the bottom of his > report card: "Does not play well with others who > disagree with him." > > I have no problem with Mr. Bolton's being given > another job or being somehow retained in the job he > already has. He's been a faithful public servant. > But why would you appoint him to be ambassador at an > institution he has nothing but contempt for to do a > job he has no apparent skills for? > > President 43 only needs to call home to find the > right man for the job in President 41. And if 41 > isn't available, well, then maybe he should try his > sidekick, 42. > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ Assam mailing list [email protected] http://pikespeak.uccs.edu/mailman/listinfo/assam Mailing list FAQ: http://pikespeak.uccs.edu/assam/assam-faq.html To unsubscribe or change options: http://pikespeak.uccs.edu/mailman/options/assam
