01 Aug Bolton Appointed
President Bush has appointed John Bolton in a recess appointment. CNN’s story is here. The BBC has a report here.
While President Bush has gotten his way with the Bolton nomination, despite not being able to muster the 60 votes needed to break the filibuster, this is likely to be a Pyrrhic victory at best. With the looming free-for-all this fall over Security Council reform, the last thing the U.S. needs is an envoy who doesn’t seem to even have the support of his domestic government. And, coupled with scepticism as to whether Bolton can even make the type of bargains that will be necessary, the President has sought a path that may win him plaudits from U.S. conservatives, but is unlikely to lead to effective U.S. foreign policy.
This is particularly sad given recent Washington whispers for other possible candidates for the post of U.N. ambassador that had suport from both sides of the aisle. Perhaps the most interesting name floated was Newt Gingrich. But this was the road not taken.
This is also particularly troubling given the gravity of issues facing the U.S. and the U.N. come the opening of the General Assembly this fall. Between Security Council reform, the ongoing Iraqi situation, and nascent crises such as the possible collapse of Haiti’s government, we need someone in the U.N. who actually wants the U.N. to succeed in its tasks, who understands the mechanisms of international organizations, and who has the diplomatic clout to rally support behind U.S. interests.
No one has ever made a credible claim that John Bolton is that person.
Update:
I edited this post to weed out a typo caught in the comments.
“[T]wo-thirds of the Senate needed for confirmation”? You mean, majority of the Senate required to change the rules on filibusters of nominations, or 60 votes required to end a filibuster.
“While President Bush has gotten his way with the Bolton nomination, despite not being able to muster the two-thirds of the Senate needed for confirmation.”
First of all, one requires a bare majority of 50 to confirm. The Democrats, without precedent, were subjecting Bolton to a filibuster which requires 60 votes to break.
If Democrats wanted to play procedural hardball, President Bush one-upped them.
And by the way, two-thirds of 100 is 60, not 66; no wonder you’re a lawyer and not a whip.
Hey Everyone,
Let’s play nice here. Blogging is a dangerous activity- no editors, instant publications, typos and errors are inevitable (I have committed far more than most). So cut Chris and myself (and all other bloggers) a break for small typos like this. Corrections are welcome, but snarky comments are not.
Fair enough. You caught my typo. But what of my argument?
You’re right: sorry. I posted the second snarky comment. As it turns out, I made a math error as well: “And by the way, two-thirds of 100 is 60, not 66; no wonder you’re a lawyer and not a whip.” I should have switched the 60 and 66. I think Newt would have been a horrible pick; he’d use it to jumpstart a Presidential run. He’d be representing himself, not the United States. Plus, compared to Bolton, Newt knows nothing about the UN or international law: he’d get frustrated and try shutting the UN down, methinks. “[1] We need someone in the U.N. who actually wants the U.N. to succeed in its tasks, [2] who understands the mechanisms of international organizations, and [3] who has the diplomatic clout to rally support behind U.S. interests.” As for [1], I agree with your use of language. We need someone who wants the UN to succeed in its tasks, not just someone who wants the UN to suceed. Bolton’s criticisms of the UN are that it doesn’t live up to the ideals of the Charter. Who but him will better hold the UN accountable for its failures and show it the tough love… Read more »
I’m hoping that John Bolton will turn out to be a “Nixon-going-to-China” kind of guy. That is to say, no one expected the fiercely anti-Communist Nixon to ever open diplomatic relations with China. But when he did, other anti-Communists had to fall in line.
Maybe John Bolton will surprise us, too. Who knows. But I also read that lots of the groundwork for U.N. reform has been somewhat set. So perhaps John Bolton will not be able to cause too much damage (even if he wanted to cause any damage).
Let’s just hope for the best.
I’m not sure I understand Prof. Borgen’s position. Bush got his way… so? That’s a bad thing? He’s the president, he appointed his ambassador to the U.N… there’s absolutely nothing Pyrrhic about it. Rather the democrats obstructed with false arguments and now lost. If there are officials at the U.N. who plan to respond to Bolton as someone without the backing of the U.S., they do so at their own peril. As for security council reform, are you serious? Nothing will happen — no countries will be added, unless it takes the form of a nebulous “we plan to add countries ten years from now” resolution. Finally, as for understanding the mechanism of the IO’s — perhaps what we don’t need (assuming arguendo that Bolton does not understand the IO mechanisms, which I dispute) is someone too comfortable with the current workings of the IO’s, but someone to take a fresh look into the corridors. Further, the entire argument that such is such is the wrong person, that X has the wrong temperment, that Y hasn’t proven himself is so out of line with the American experience as to be nearly dangerous. In U.S. history it’s precisely those people who… Read more »
Had the privilege of watching the video footage of Bolton’s most controversial comments on the UN from 1994. It seems quickly forgotten that the terms on which we were with the UN then, and the terms on which we are with the UN now, are drastically different. A primary reason was the work of the CLinton Administration, especially of Ambassador Holbrooke in the later years, who became close to annan. Strong relations with the UN was a priority for that Administration. But the worldviews of the Bush and Clinton Adminstrations are drastically different. The Utopianism of the Clinton Administration saw the UN and international law as an engine, where as the Hobbesian views and acts of the Bush Administration see the UN as a convenient tool for diplomatic purposes, but far from an engine, and certainly not a trusty engine at that. The UN, for all intensive purposes, seems to fit both niches in US foreign policy. The crossroads we are witnessing right now is whether the UN is one or the other. Or at least, that is how UN diplomats and media members who subscribe to the global community utopianism that CLinton once propounded, and continues to propound. Really,… Read more »