If the Dems won’t support John Bolton for UN ambassador (and they won’t), President Bush can still grant him another recess appointment—but he’d have to work without pay. Claudia Rosett proposes that we support John Bolton with more than words, at The Rosett Report.

If Congress is absolutely determined to reject the best UN ambassador the world has seen in about a quarter of a century — John Bolton — then the only alternative if President Bush wants to keep him is another recess appointment. For that, Bolton would have to work without pay. It’s enough to make a person want to suggest that if you really care about trying to do some good in the world via the UN, stop sending your kids out to collect for UNICEF, and start sending them out to collect donations to keep John Bolton in office. Bolton, from everything I have seen, is far more honest and competent on every level than UNICEF, any of the other UN agencies, or most of the senior staff walking the halls of the UN, let alone many of the UN ambassadors whose limos cruise the streets of New York.

I would normally be against any such private meddling in U.S. foreign policy, or in matters relating to the public institution that is the UN. But the State Department in 2001 blithely accepted a $31 million check from left-leaning Ted Turner to fill a gap in U.S. dues to the UN (and thus free up much larger sums of U.S. taxpayer money to flood Turtle Bay). And the UN itself has been trumpeting its joy over its ever-expanding agenda of “public-private partnerships.” These set-ups are all very bad ideas, and someone needs to be asking why on earth both the U.S. and the UN should be franchising out public policy matters (and financing) to private players with their own agendas. But without John Bolton there, no one at the UN is going to be asking about anything very much…we will see the dawn of a new era of even greater UN impunity, moral bankruptcy and financial corruption. Why should only the left wing of U.S. politics have a private hand in UN affairs?

So, in the interest of fighting fire with fire, I wonder if anyone will start a campaign to scrap the UNICEF cans (they are not all about feedling wide-eyed children; they double-billed and padded their budgets in Iraq), and start collecting for Bolton.

Here’s why we need to keep Bolton in his job: Bolton in extraordinary outburst against United Nations. (Hat tip: Atlas Shrugged.)

The U.S. Ambassador to the UN, John Bolton, launched a scathing attack on the United Nations Friday.

Bolton was furious over the adoption by the General Assembly of a resolution which said the assembly regretted the deaths of 19 civilians in an attack by the Israeli military in the town of Beit Hanoun last week. Despite the resolution being significantly watered down at the behest of the United States, and being passing by 156 votes to seven, Bolton launched a blistering attack on the UN, and many of its members.

“Many of the sponsors of that resolution are notorious abusers of human rights themselves, and were seeking to deflect criticism of their own policies,” he said. “This type of resolution serves only to exacerbate tensions by serving the interests of elements hostile to Israel’s inalienable and recognized right to exist.”

“This deepens suspicions about the United Nations that will lead many to conclude that the organization is incapable of playing a helpful role in the region,” Bolton continued.

“In a larger sense, the United Nations must confront a more significant question, that of its relevance and utility in confronting the challenges of the 21st century. We believe that the United Nations is ill served when its members seek to transform the organization into a forum that is a little more than a self-serving and a polemical attack against Israel or the United States,” he said.

“The Human Rights Council has quickly fallen into the same trap and de-legitimized itself by focusing attention exclusively on Israel. Meanwhile, it has failed to address real human rights abuses in Burma, Darfur, the DPRK, and other countries,” Bolton charged.

“The problem of anti-Israel bias is not unique to the Human Rights Council. It is endemic to the culture of the United Nations. It is a decades-old, systematic problem that transcends the whole panoply of the UN organizations and agencies,” he continued.