Should John Bolton be U.S. Ambassador to the UN?

[Loopydude]

I guess I’m with the folks who find Bolton to be a most undiplomatic excuse for a diplomat. His heart’s possibly in the right place, but when he’s prone to making comments like “If the UN Secretariat building in New York lost 10 stories, it wouldn’t make a bit of difference.”, it’s hard to see how he could bring anything constructive to the table. It’s also difficult to see how his appointment could be construed as anything but an expression of disdain for the UN body as it exists.

[BrainGlutton]

@Malodorous

I don’t think that the Dems have fillibustered a non-judicial appointment yet (I’m not even sure they can).

They can. The unique senatorial rule of “unlimited debate” extends to any subject.

[BrainGlutton]

From http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20050321&s=williams:

Some UN officials are halfheartedly trying to convince themselves that the job will make Bolton more amenable to working within the system. Sadly, they are almost certain to be disappointed. He has shown no compunction about working the system for his own and his conservative colleagues’ benefit. As far back as 1992, when he was Assistant Secretary of State for International Organization Affairs, he was trying to shake down the UN Development Program for a $2 million grant to an organization that was little more than a pension fund for a conservative colleague [see Williams, “Why the Right Loves the U.N.,” April 13, 1992].

More recently, Bolton was an assistant to James Baker when the former Secretary of State was Secretary General Kofi Annan’s (failed) representative for Western Sahara. But Bolton has remained unrelenting in his opposition, both rhetorical and practical, to the UN even as he took the money.

If there is a bright side to his appointment, it is that it will make it much more difficult for the United States to advance its agenda at the UN than if the President had appointed a real diplomat rather than someone who epitomizes American diplomacy as an oxymoron. There are lots of governments prepared to grovel to Washington, but Bolton will make it difficult to grovel gracefully.

Much of Western diplomacy at the UN, for example, consists of sweet-talking the Chinese delegation out of using their veto. Bolton, who took $30,000 from the Taiwanese to advise them on how to join the UN he despises, does not do sweet talk.

Traditionally, while Democratic envoys to the UN have also held Cabinet office, Republican appointees do not, which has made them subordinate to the State Department. However, Bolton was taking instructions from Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld even when he was in the State Department. He is unlikely to pay too much attention to the Secretary of State now, so even if Rice is sincere in the appearance that she seems to be trying to present to allies, Bolton will certainly sabotage her efforts at the UN.

The man who ordered a CIA probe on Hans Blix for not finding weapons in Iraq when ordered, who contrived the dismissal of the head of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, and who in 1999 wrote for the American Enterprise Institute of “Kofi Annan’s UN Power Grab,” has recently been trying fire Mohamed ElBaradei, chief of the International Atomic Energy Agency, for not finding nuclear weapons in Iran. Americans, and the rest of the world, should worry. If his appointment is confirmed, Bolton’s task is likely to be to bully the UN into supporting an Iraq-style fiasco in Iran or Syria.

However, that is slightly longer-term. Possibly among the immediate casualties of Bolton’s appointment will be some thousands of dead Darfurians. A resolution that would refer the continuing mayhem in Sudan to the International Criminal Court has already been stalled for months by the die-hard resistance of the Bolton faction in the State Department, but twelve members of the Security Council were cautiously optimistic that they had averted an American veto. Although it is clear that this is the one sanction actually feared by the Sudanese government and the Janjaweed militias it has employed, Bolton has already shown that in his obsessive war with the International Criminal Court, he does not care about the views of allies. Indeed, his fervent opposition to international restrictions on small-arms trade, landmines, biological weapons, child soldiers and nuclear testing suggests that he is quite prepared to accept significant casualties for his views–as long as they are other people’s.

[Voyager]

I’m not all that concerned about how he negotiates with states like NK, but more about how he negotiates with France and Italy and such. Building consensus around Armerican policy gives us cover, and internationalizes it. It’s possible that Bush policy is now so radical that no one can get other nations behind it, but other appointees could do much better. IIRC, Moynihan was not a big fan of the UN, but did an excellent job as Ambassador.

BTW, the NY Times editorial on this nomination was one of the most disdainful I’ve ever seen as a lead editorial, and closed by suggesting that Bush’s next appointment will be Ken Lay as head of the SEC.

[Frostillicus]

@John Mace

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…

If so, what a totally cynical approach to government on the part of Bush. You know, you just may be onto something!

[Rashak_Mani]

@John Mace

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…

John you might be right on this one… especially with social security becoming an unpopular proposal its time to make democrats into whiners again.

The problem is if you are correct… once more Bush is sacrificing international policies and politics of the US to gain politically at home. One always gets the impression that the Bush people don’t really care about international issues except in respect to their effects in internal politics in the USA. This is irresponsible of course and affects the US negatively in the long run no matter what.

[Malodorous]

@BrainGlutton

They can. The unique senatorial rule of “unlimited debate” extends to any subject.

I’m pretty sure that it doesn’t apply to procedural votes, which is why the Repubs could abolish judicial filibuster without that vote also being blocked by filibuster. I read today that the Repubs were putting the ANWAR drilling vote into a budget bill because that wouldn’t be subject to filibuster either.

But it’s all a nitpick anyhoo because I’m pretty sure your right, all appointments are still subject to filibuster.

@Rashak

John you might be right on this one

Again, have the Dems filibustered any controversial nominees? I don’t think so, and I haven’t heard they plan to filibuster Bolton’s. they appear to be saving it for a Supreme Court fight. So I don’t think John’s theory holds up. At least, if Bush is following that plan, it doesn’t seem to be working.

[Sample_the_Dog]

I can’t believe anyone can support Bolton.

Even if you agree with his positions, he’s going to be ineffective in his post because of them. This is another victory of dogma and ideology over common sense and a desire to get things done.

This is what comes of group-think and imperial hubris. Did we learn nothing from the Bay of Pigs?

Check out the March 28 AP article by BARRY SCHWEID: “59 American Ex-Diplomats Oppose Bolton”.

These are veteran diplomats who have served Republican and Democrat administrations. They know what they’re talking about.

BrainGlutton’s comparison to John Negroponte is on target here. Yes, Negroponte was a career diplomat, but his only experience in the Mid East was as a participant in illegally funneling weapons to Iran so they could wage war on Iraq!

This choice is stupid beyond imagining. Bush fancies himself a modern-day Gideon, thinks God is on his side and America can do whatever the hell it wants in this world.

Sadly for us and many others on this planet, he is sorely mistaken.

[BrainGlutton]

@Sample_the_Dog

Bush fancies himself a modern-day Gideon, thinks God is on his side and America can do whatever the hell it wants in this world.

Sadly for us and many others on this planet, he is sorely mistaken.

It would be sadder still if he weren’t mistaken.

[Rashak_Mani]

Surely Bolton would be better in a homeland bound office related to the UN… but as an Ambassador its too much…

Would the US like to get a Saudi Ambassador who was an outspoken opponent of Bush ? Its just plain counterproductive.

[BrainGlutton]

@Rashak Mani

Would the US like to get a Saudi Ambassador who was an outspoken opponent of Bush ? Its just plain counterproductive.

Also highly unlikely, given the intimate relationship between the House of Saud and the House of Bush.

[Rashak_Mani]

@BrainGlutton

Also highly unlikely, given the intimate relationship between the House of Saud and the House of Bush.

Well the US used to have an intimate relationship with the UN !

[mack]

@John Mace

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.

Bolton’s appointment is in no way filibuster-worthy.

Bush had to do something with him because Rice didn’t want him at the State Department. Should be interesting if it goes through.

[BrainGlutton]

Here’s another crime we can lay at Bolton’s feet, just came to my attention – from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1996:

July 8 - Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu received a hand-delivered document, “A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Security the Realm,” spelling out how Israel could abrogate the Oslo Accords, and pursue a permanent annexation of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, among other policies. The paper had been prepared for him by Richard Perle, Donald Rumsfeld, Doug Feith, David Wurmser and John Bolton.

[BrainGlutton]

According to this article from In These Times, 3/18/05, even some leading Senate Republicans have a problem with Bolton – http://www.inthesetimes.com/site/main/article/2031/:

Senate Foreign Relations Chair Richard Lugar (R-Ind.) scheduled hearings for April 7 on the confirmation of John Bolton as the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations.

Lugar signaled that he is less than ecstatic over the nomination, telling the Washington Post that he was “going to reserve any comments about the appropriateness or not of the president’s choice.” (In 1999, Lugar showed less restraint, hailing President Clinton’s choice, Richard Holbrooke, as “an excellent nominee.”) More explicit was Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.), who said, “I do have concerns, because the United Nations is a very important institution. We need to send someone to the U.N. that has the skills to work with the secretary-general.” But five days later, after a visit by Bolton, Hagel changed his mind and declared he would support the nomination.

[Sample_the_Dog]

@mack

Bush had to do something with him because Rice didn’t want him at the State Department.

<Rolleyes>*

Imagine if the business world took this approach.

“So, why did you assign that loudmouth bigot to be head of Customer Service?”

“Well, he was in Shipping and Receiving, but the Fulfillment Manager couldn’t stand him. I had to do something with him!”

*The new cutesie rolleyes just isn’t sarcastic enough

[Rashak_Mani]

[QUOTE=Sample_the_DogImagine if the business world took this approach.

*The new cutesie rolleyes just isn’t sarcastic enough[/QUOTE]

Obviously you don’t understand how it works… the problem is people like us who have reality based perceptions…

[Wake_up_call]

@Sample_the_Dog

Imagine if the business world took this approach.

But the business world has been using this approach set forth by Laurence Johnston Peter in the last century. It is called “The Peter Principal”.

Here is a true test of the integrity of the media. If Bolton gets approved to become the US Ambassador to the UN, the media should embark on such a disgrace and mockery out of him that he’d lose all credibility and will have to resign (together with all those congress people who approved his nomination).

I know … Wishful thinking on my part. But it sure would be a hell of a Wake up Call.

[BrainGlutton]

@Wake up call

If Bolton gets approved to become the US Ambassador to the UN, the media should embark on such a disgrace and mockery out of him that he’d lose all credibility and will have to resign (together with all those congress people who approved his nomination).

Wouldn’t it make more sense to start the mockery campaign before his nomination hearing?

[Rashak_Mani]

Well if Bolton misbehaves in the UN it will sure provide much more stories and outrage material than if they stop his nomination now. So maybe the press wants a bit of scandal and UN ruckus ?