John Bolton once declared that the removal of the ten top floors of the UN headquarters would not make a big difference. But during the hearings of this week in the Senate, he promised to «establish closer ties between the United States and the UN» as well as to «restore confidence» between Washington and the international body. We, in the UN, do not precisely need this enchanting John Bolton. We need the old John Bolton. Only a few times along its history has the UN been able to have the consensus of its Security Council’s members, and the U.S. major diplomatic advancements have had nothing to do with the UN. The problem lies on the right of veto, which the permanent members of the Security Council enjoy - this system puts them on a par with the United States, which is generally not the case. If the UN has to continue to be a political forum to oppose the United States, the U.S. diplomats would have then to push it to one side rather than strengthening it. The UN is not able to prevent humanitarian disasters, or remove regional peace threats or stop terrorist supporting states. Large international organizations such as WTO, European Union, NATO have little to do with the UN. The United States must remember that the UN’s agenda includes its destruction and that sometimes this is more easily done from within.

Los Angeles Times (United States)

Where’s the Old Bolton When We Need Him?”, by Eric A. Posner and John C. Yoo, Los Angeles Times, April 19, 2005.