Originally published on the CGS blog on June 7, 2007.
U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, Zalmay Khalilzad, as my colleague Scott Paul noted last month, is a breath of fresh air in Turtle Bay. New York Times U.N. reporter, Warren Hoge, picked up Scott’s sense on Wednesday.
Mr. Khalilzad, the former American ambassador to Afghanistan and Iraq, has been welcomed effusively since his arrival six weeks ago, and one frequently mentioned reason is that he strikes people as so different from John R. Bolton, the combative former American ambassador.
Ambassador Bolton not only poisoned the water for U.S. relations during his tenure as our nation’s emissary to the U.N., he sent diplomacy back to the Stone Age. While Ambassador Khalilzad is still a key member of the Bush administration, his tone and demeanor – at least during his first six weeks – is already helping repair the damage done by his predecessor. In his story, Hoge quote a long-time observer and expert on the U.N.:
“I’ve heard universally good things about Khalilzad from ambassadors,” said Edward C. Luck, a professor of international affairs at Columbia who has followed the United Nations for more than three decades. “You couldn’t have two more contrasting approaches to the job, and all of them bring up Bolton and say what a welcome relief Khalilzad is to the old approach, which was so much preaching and in your face.”
Speaking of the U.N., former Governor of Wisconsin – and Bush administration Secretary of Health and Human Services Tommy (I’m not Mr. Right ) Thompson, had the best line of the GOP Presidential debate Tuesday night. When asked how he would use President George W. Bush if he was elected president, Thompson said:
“I certainly wouldn’t send him to the United Nations.”
Kind of a sad commentary. Any former U.S. President should leave office with the global street cred to be considered as a Hall of Fame caliber emissary. Bush 43 may be the first former POTUS to be kept on the bench when it comes to addressing global challenges.
