In an era of internationalism, poking fun at foreign sounding names is no way to conduct a campaign to reform the United Nations. Yet that's the level on which American politicians -- especially Bob Dole -- are operating, His sarcastic rendition of U.N. Secretary General Boutros Boutros Ghali's name appeals to the worst instincts of American society. PNS commentator Mamoun Fandy, a professor of politics at the Center for Contemporary Arab Studies at Georgetown University, just returned from two months in Egypt.

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Well before President Clinton vowed to veto a second term for U.N. General Secretary Boutros Boutros Ghali, Bob Dole had made the diplomat's name the butt of his diatribes against the United Nations. "B-o-o-o-tros B-o-o-o-tros Ghali" Dole intoned in his acceptance speech in San Diego, stretching out the foreign sounding syllables to underscore his opposition to U.S. troops acting under foreign command.

The United Nations has many shortcomings. But making fun of Egypt's best-known figure as a way to expose them only appeals to America's basest instincts -- namely xenophobia and racism.

The irony is that this is happening in an era of unprecedented internationalism. The U.S. should not advocate free trade and greater shares in foreign markets on the one hand while encouraging xenophobia at home on the other. Unlike earlier eras when the rhetoric of U.S. domestic politics was heard at home only, now satellite dishes and the Internet beam this irresponsible talk to all corners of the globe, exposing American ignorance and bigotry for all to see.

By and large people in other countries -- including those demonized by the U.S. like Iran -- have not chosen to respond in kind. In Farsi, for instance, the word "dole" means "penis." Yet no Iranian politician has been tempted to make the obvious jokes concerning the GOP candidate's surname.

Dole is not the only politician appealing to xenophobia over reasoned argument. After leaking his opposition to Boutros Ghali's second term to the news media, President Clinton has so far failed to make a good case for why Boutros Ghali should step down. His threatening to use a U.S. veto over the issue has merely diminished world trust in U.S. policy makers.

Americans should be aware that making fun of the name of a man whose country is one of America's closest allies is highly offensive to 60 million Egyptians. It also offends Egyptian Americans like me. Who's the next target? Shalikashvili? Anyone with a name of more than two syllables? This name calling sets a dangerous tone in a multi-ethnic society that prides itself on its democratic values and the fact that the affiliation of its people is based on shared intellectual and moral values rather than race or ethnicity.

Making fun of Boutros Ghali under the pretext that the United Nations is eroding the sovereignty of the U.S. is also misguided and harmful to U.S. interests. The United Nations has always been a useful instrument of U.S. foreign policy, from the Cold War to the Gulf War. U.N. resolutions still in place against Iraq are accepted in the Arab world not because they are what the U.S. wants, and certainly not because they are what the Arab world wants, but because they represent the will of the international community represented by the U.N. and including the Arab states themselves.

If the U.S. wants to conduct a sound foreign policy, it needs the United Nations and the support of the world community. At a time when the U.S. finds itself the only superpower in the world, the U.N. actually serves as a buffer for it -- and helps distribute the costs of maintaining this position among all nations.

Americans should ask ourselves whether political leaders who denigrate foreign sounding names can actually cooperate with the U.N. and the rest of the world community. Boutros Ghali, after all, is not the problem. The problem is politicians who pander to the most ignorant and mean spirited elements in their societies.