President Bush nominated an Afghani Muslim Zalmay Khalilzad who recommended Bill Clinton to attack Iraq in1998, as an ambassador to UN succeeding John Bolton. Zalmay Khalilzad will be the first Muslim to hold cabinet rank in the US if his appointment is approved by the new Democrat-controlled Congress.
Meanwhile in the UN Tanzanian Foreign Minister Asha-Rose Migiro who last year expressed support for Iran's nuclear ambitions, has been selected as the new deputy to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon.
Since a lot of things were not completed during 2006 in the UN, vigorous initiatives have to come forward especially dealings with Iran’s nuclear ambitions and political development in the Middle East. Last year’s Israeli attack against Hezbollah and the Security Council resolution to that effect are the major unfinished UN business.
With the beginning of 2007, the UN leadership has changed. However, the deputy to the chief in the UN seems expressive in support for Iran's nuclear ambitions, a position at odds with Security Council resolutions.
In US also the beginning of 2007 brings new ambassador to UN a US Muslim diplomat who was expressively supportive of Iraq war. In 1998 Mr. Bolton and Mr. Khalilzad both told Mr. Clinton, to ignore the UN and attack Saddam Hussein's Iraq.
It seems Bolton and Khalizad have no difference of opinion particularly on WMD. What differences the democrats can find between Bolton and Khalilzad will be very interesting. No doubt Bolton is not a Muslim where as Khalilzad is. It will be interesting to watch if his appointment is approved by new congress.
In the international arena, Khalilzad’s nomination to the UN can change the dynamics of the present US relation with many Muslim nations. However, President Bush’s subtle move letting democrats to approve or disapprove Muslim as an ambassador to the UN will draw a great lively debate polarizing US opinion not only now but also in the coming 2008 election.
Democrats have recently shown themselves progressive and courageous by letting the Muslim representative take the oath of the office in the house touching “The Koran”. They may find themselves in moral dilemma to approve the nomination. It may have political as well as social consequences.
If they approve nothing is substantial different but just replacement of a Christian. If they reject the nomination, the Muslim minority of USA will not like it. What will critics make out of the disapproval of a Muslim nominee by the US Congress? Is this right time to ask this question?
