Obama to Elevate U.N. Ambassador to Cabinet Rank

December 01, 2008

Obama to Elevate U.N. Ambassador to Cabinet Rank

In a move praised by nonprofit groups, President-elect Barack Obama has announced the selection of Susan E. Rice, a Brookings Institution scholar and former State Department official, to be United Nations ambassador.

In nominating Ms. Rice, Mr. Obama also plans to restore the position to cabinet rank, as it was under former President Bill Clinton, reports The New York Times.

In the Times article, Ms. Rice drew praise from the nonprofit Save Darfur Coalition for her advocacy on behalf of a stronger response against the fighting in Sudan’s Darfur region.

The United Nations Foundation, meanwhile, applauded both the selection of Ms. Rice and the decision to restore the position to cabinet rank, saying in a statement that it “sends an unambiguous signal to the world that the United States plans to re-engage with the United Nations at the highest levels.”

But John R. Bolton, who served as U.N. ambassador under the Bush administration, told the Times that it was unwise to elevate the position to cabinet level.

“One, it overstates the role and importance the U.N. should have in U.S. foreign policy,” he said. “Second, you shouldn’t have two secretaries in the same department.”

What do you think of Mr. Obama’s decision to make his U.N. ambassador a member of the cabinet?

— Caroline Preston

Comments

I believe this move is part and parcel of Obamas pro-arab, anti-Isreal agenda, soon to be fully realized. G_D grant I am wrong.

— kurt sax Dec 1, 04:41 PM #
Typical Illumenati action.

— vladimir Dec 2, 07:57 AM #
I believe it’s the beginning of Obama’s plan to hand U.S. soverienty to the U.N. Think of the treaties that will be signed, designed to cripple U.S. economy and end U.S. liberty.

— m_a Dec 2, 10:22 AM #
Not that I am qualified to judge the positives or negatives of this decision, but I am again shocked by the harsh illogical attacks on a move that at the least has good intentions behind it. That any US president would do anything to purposefully damage their own country is preposterous. I expected more from a community of readers that is allegedly committed to the improvement of the human condition.

— Malcolm Furgol Dec 2, 04:57 PM #
Kurt (or anyone),
The nomination or appointments of Emanuel, Geithner, Vockler, Summers, and Orszag seem to indicate that you are wrong about Obama having an ‘anti-Israel agenda.’ But say you are right. Why is that bad? Serious question. Why spit in the eye of 1/4 of the world’s population (muslims) in order to persist in our allegience with a tiny country like Israel? It would seem that giving up the ‘special relationship’ with Israel would de-motivate muslims from wanting to be terrorists. Like I said, serious question. Please share your thoughts.

— pat Dec 3, 11:46 PM #
Will the people of this country ever grow beyond a fear that seeds and produces bigotry?

— Ryan Dec 4, 10:40 AM #
You are right Pat and Ryan. Many are still acting as if we still live in the 19th century wherein the USA is telling the whole what to do instead of working with them.

— Erlinda Dec 6, 04:12 AM #
The UN job should not be cabinet level. Washington focuses so much on foreign issues, that we suffer here. We need freedom at home to run our lives and businesses at home. The UN wants to regulate and tax the US the same that Washington does to the states. Allowing local people to prosper locally is also far more important than tinkering in foreign wars and hypothetical international risks.

— Jack Dec 13, 08:08 AM #

Commenting is closed for this article.

Previous: Mileage Deduction for Volunteers Won't Change in 2009
Next: Two Charity Heads Among Leaders Advising Obama on Innovation