Bush has announced his nominee for the next U.S. Ambassador to the UN: John R. Bolton, who is currently Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security. http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/03/07/news/nations.html
He is also a long-time outspoken critic of the UN. From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_R._Bolton:
Is this sound thinking? Is Bolton a good choice because of who he is? Or will he simply alienate the international community from the U.S. even further?
Should John Bolton be U.S. Ambassador to the UN?
He is also a long-time outspoken critic of the UN.
Well…I’m employed in law enforcement, yet I’ve had many, MANY letters and opinion pieces published being critical of several different police departments/actions. I even ran for office once and one of my positions was to eliminate a [specific] police department. The point is, I felt that my criticism of a field in which I belonged to enhanced my credibility. Being part of something one knows is flawed can empower one to fix those flaws from the inside.
Or not!
By the way…I lost!
I don’t see a problem.
Absolutely. Bolton is the perfect guy for the job. He’s a Democrat loved by Republicans. He’s a serious diplomat who sees through the bullshit at the U.N. and is perfectly willing to talk about it, yet wants the U.N. to succeed. I can’t think of a better choice.
Doubtless he’ll make a great scapegoat for the Right when Bush’s foreign policy screwups hork off the UN even more than ever.
“The UN won’t get behind Bush’s plans to invade Syria!”
“It’s that damn Bolton’s fault! What do you expect from a Demmycrat?!”
Ideal. He’s outstanding as one of the world’s enemies of truth.
I simply can’t think of a poorer choice. How can one be a diplomat if nobody wants to listen to you?
There’s straight talk and there’s talk that simply intends to provoke. It’s the difference between John McCain and Rush Limbaugh. Bolton squarely belongs in the latter category.
I don’t have a problem with criticizing the UN, because its an institution that does have its faults. But Bolton has a long history of senselessly provocative statements, and, what’s more, his entire record as the chief arms negotiatior for the United States has been one of a complete inability to work with other countries to achieve common goals, whether its biological weapons, nuclear proliferation, North Korea, Iran, Iraq, or a half-dozen other arms control issues.
Why in the world would someone with a proven handicap in working with other nations be promoted to the one position in US government in which working effectively with 180-plus countries is the number one job requirement?
Seeing throught the Bullshit at the UN - good
Wants the UN to succeed - Where is this clear ? Every comment of his seems to imply that the UN is useless or decorative.
Now if Bush doesn’t care about the UN… its his choice… but to send Bolton is just very very counter productive. Its one thing to be skeptical… its another to be hostile to the UN.
… forgot to add: A Nay sayer sometimes is good… and could help the UN if constructive… but Bush is certainly averse himself to Nay sayers… ironic…
Personally I can’t think of a better expression of the willingness of the Bush administration’s commitment to work with other nations.
Why do you think he “wants the U.N. to succeed”? He’s a member of PNAC and his public statements indicate he has no use for the UN except as an enforcement arm of U.S. global hegemony; that would not be “success.”
Just out of curiosity, when was the last time you posted something in GD that actually had some content?
BG: I knew you’d be along to start this thread sooner or later. 
Should Bolton be the ambassador to the UN? Of course he should, if Bush chose him. That’s what you get to do when you’re president-- choose ambassadors. Personally, though, I think some of his earlier comments will make his work difficult. It’s one thing to be “outspoken”, it’s another to be a verbal bomb thrower. He seems to have been more of the latter than the former.
I don’t really care, though, what Iran or NK thinks of him. He won’t be negotiating with them, and frankly I’d be suspicious of anyone those countries DID like. His job is to represent the interest of the US to the UN, not to any one country.
So you’re saying Cuba isn’t really pursuing bioweapons, and Iran isn’t really months away from building an atom bomb?
Yes it would be if you define “success” as Sam and others like him define success, at least in regards to the UN.
John Mace:
His vitriolic statements and belligerent stance towards those nations is not the issue here. His belligerence towards the UN itself is. Statements such as “ten floors of the UN could be removed and it wouldn’t make a difference” amongst a litany of other such statements are what make him a poor choice as ambassador to the UN. But the nomination shouldn’t come as a surprise. It’s just one more example of how much contempt the Bush administration has for the international community, international obligations and organizations, and pretty much anyone not in lock step with their ideology.
That said, his history of publically ripping into other countries that he’s supposed to be bargining with doesn’t inspire a lot of confidence in his diplomatic abilities, regardless of whom he will be negotiating with in his new job. Most everyone knows and agrees that Kim Jong Il is a tyrant, but Bolton’s inability or unwillingness to hold his tongue while involved in talks with N. Korea doesn’t speak well of Bolton’s tact, which is important whether he’s dealing with UN diplomats or asian dictatorships.
And that’s exactly what I was referring to as his “verbal bombs”. The NK and Iran positions were part of the OP, so I responded to that as well. At any rate, I’m pretty much in agreement with you on this. I wouldn’t pick him if I were president, but I still don’t begrudge Bush the authority to do so.
I’m wondering if Bush isn’t using the following strategy: Make a series of very controversial appointments that the Senate Democrats will go ape-shit over and hope they overuse the fillibuster option. That way, when he REALLY wants to get someone thru a year or two from now (like a SC justice), perhaps the Dems will be too timid to look like spoilers to use that tactic again. It certainly seems like Bush is going out of his way to nominate controversial people…
Agreed. But if I may play devil’s advocate here, I think it could be argued that those countries are so far off the map politically that they don’t “deserve” diplomatic niceties. But I don’t understand his sheer hatred and animosity towards the UN. Could the UN be any more of a lackey to American interests and still retain some semblance of credibility? His bellicose stance against rogue regimes is perhaps understandable, his hatred towards the UN isn’t.
With all due respect to the Democratic Party, when have they been anything but timid in the past five years? And didn’t I read that your congress was considering getting rid of filibusters?
There’s talk of eliminating the fillibuster for judicial nominees (not getting rid of it altogether), but we’ll see if that actually passes. The last time it was changed, IIRC, was in the 70s when the threshold was lowered from 2/3 (66 or 67, I’m not sure how they rounded off) to 60.
It’s not so much a matter of giving countries what they “deserve” as it is finding the best way to keep those countries from developing nuclear weapons. We’d entered talks with N. Korea at the time, and the point was to talk to them, not insult them, whether they deserved it or not. Knowing that they are hyper-sensitive to critisisms, especially of their leader, it didn’t do any good and possibly did much harm to have a chief diplomat spouting off, especially since whether Kim was a tyrant of not didn’t have any bearing on what he was supposed to be negotiating.
It makes me think that Bolton is more interested in seizing the spotlight and touting himself as a “straight-talking fighter of tyrants” then he is in doing his job.
I don’t think that the Dems have fillibustered a non-judicial appointment yet (I’m not even sure they can). Given how contriversial Gonzales and Negropoint were, if they didn’t do it then I doubt they’ll do it now.
Yes, and we get to second-guess him. Just like we get to second-guess his decision to appoint John Negroponte the Red-Handed as National Intelligence Director.