The United States ambassador to the United Nations works for the United States, not the United Nations. I know this is a difficult situation to discern, because "United" is found in both words, but here's the key:
If you're a United States ambassador to the United Nations, that means you're the ambassador for the United States. You do not work for the United Nations.
If you are unclear about the subject, then either your priorities are in the wrong place, or you're a Washington Post editorialistwho thinks that US Ambassadors serve the UN, and not the United States, when Milbank wrote:
Most Republicans skipped the hearing, leaving Democrats largely unchallenged as they assailed Bolton's knack for making enemies and disparaging the very organization he would serve.
This is the learned writing of someone who is a political reporter for the Washington Post. If they can get this basic fact wrong, what else is incorrectly reported?
As noted at NRO's The Corner:
As a dip[lomat] overseas, saw something in a Wash Post editorial on Bolton which irked me and shows the misapprehension of so many on this issue. The Post said words to the effect that `Bolton so derides the organization he would serve.' Our ambassadors don't serve the orgs to which they are posted. They serve the U.S. and U.S. interests. More importantly, they are `the President's rep to the country/institution,' not just State Department careerists on another assignment. Small but valid point.
No comments:
Post a Comment