Centerfield

I agree...

I have struggled with this becuase I strongly, strongly feel that the President should get the cabinet he chooses, but Bolton, IMO, meets the grossly unqualified criteria. Would McDonald's hire the creators of "Super Size Me?" No, of course not, because they are opposed to the mission of the company. The UN Ambassador needs to be somebody that is committed to the mission of the UN. By speaking out, Powell is doing what he has always done: serving his country well.

If Hagel opposes the nomination and McCain doesn't run, the Senator from Nebraska will be high on my list of candidates to possibly support for the Presidency in 2008.

This reminds me of Bush's first choice for the Homeland Security secretary. Not only was he grossly underqualified, but he also reminded me of a high school bully. Bolton would be a complete disaster.

The UN Ambassador needs to be somebody that is committed to the mission of the UN.

Regardless of Bolton's qualifications, that's absolutely and completely wrong. That's like saying that the U.S. ambassador to China needs to be somebody who is committed to the interests of the Chinese.

The U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations needs to be someone who can effectively represent and advocate U.S. interests on our behalf.

The U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations needs to be someone who can effectively represent and advocate U.S. interests on our behalf.

That's true. But the U.S. is also in a unique position. We're the most powerful nation in the world in every sphere -- economic, military, diplomatic. As the only remaining superpower, we have a broader world leadership interest than any other nation.

In other words, it's in our interests that the whole world improve. Otherwise nasty things happen in nasty places. And we're the ones who send the Marines in to clean it up.

We do often need to shake things up in the world body and take some controversial stands. But it's possible to do that without a kind of general attitude of arrogance and hostility that we see in some quarters.

I don't see a difference between the two neccesarily, Tully.... Why would we be apart of that organization otherwise? I also don't see the parallel in your comparison... The U.S. Ambassador to China doesn't need to support China's interests, but he does need to be committed to furthering a relationship with the Chinese. I don't think Bolton sees the importance of world diplomacy or even understands it, regardless of his qualifications.

Mathew,

Did the U.S. Ambassador to Japan in 1940 need to be committed to furthering a relationship with the Japanese? Or the German Ambassador at the same time?

The Ambassador's job is to represent the U.S. position to the other country. To a lesser extent, they need to honestly and accurately convey the thinking of the other country to the U.S., but there are plenty of other players on the scene to do that.

If we were to have a U.N. Ambassador who thinks everything is hunky-dory at the U.N., then that Ambassador will NOT be an effective force for change. The U.N. is riddled with both structural and administrative faults. When Libya can be the chairman of the U.N. Commission on Human Rights, something is very, very wrong.

Major structural reform does not come from politely tinkering around the edges. Major change (which the U.N. desparately needs) only comes from speaking honestly about the severity of the problems and strongly confronting those who resist change.

"...speaking honestly about the severity of the problems and strongly confronting those who resist change."

I think the problem is he doesn't do that, right? The allegations are he did quite the opposite.

And comparing the ambassador of the U.N. to the Japanese and German ambassadors is a little different, in that the U.N. is not a state actor. But, point taken, the U.S. representative should represent our interests there, but someone hostile to the organization won't get much done. Just as someone hostile to any nation in which they practice diplomacy would never get things done there.

Pat,

Yes, the Ambassadors to Germany and Japan in 1940 should have been committed to furthering the relationship between those countries and the United States of America. We should be diplomatic even at times of war... How do you ever get to peace if you are not? I am not saying that anybody in the roll of UN Ambassador either to the body itself, or to another country, should not represent the best interests of the United States... Of course there is going to be disagreement. However, individuals in those rolls should be committed to diplomacy. You are twisting my words... Because one believes in a mission that does not mean that we always agree in how that mission is to be implemented. For instance, I think the UN and US agreed on what needed to happen in Iraq, but disagreed on the methods that should be used to get there. I fully expected the UN representative of the United States to make the case for war, but in a diplomatic manner.

Major stucural reform doesn't happen by tinkering around the edges, but you can be diplomatic and make sweeping change at the same time. Furthermore, I think by entering the situation with the opinion that the UN is worthless, and I believe that is what Bolton would be doing, would hurt his ability to work with those that he needs to work with in order to accomplish the reform you speak of. It is simple common sense.... We must enter modern day negotiations with the rest of the world, with the goal of furthering not only our own interests, but the world's interests. Pushing ideological positions at any cost will get us absolutely nowhere and inhibit our ability to do what we need to do in regards to foreign policy, especially in the Middle East.

I have not seen anything that would lead me to believe Bolton would be effective at the UN, because quite frankly he comes from the wing of the Republican Party that has advocated American withdrawal from that organization. How do you reform something that you don't believe in? John Bolton would be a slap in the face to diplomacy.

Scott,

Exactly!

As I said, I wasn't speaking to Bolton's qualifications at all. One way or another.

I was speaking to the idea that our ambassador to the UN needs to be a "go long, get along" kind of person dedicated to defending the status quo at the U.N. Just as our 1938 ambassador to Germany certainly didn't need to support the Nazi party, our ambassador to the UN doesn't at all need to be "committed to the mission of the UN."

BTW, in the formal rankings of diplomacy, "ambassadors" represent the sovereign or the head of state, NOT the nation. Lesser rankings represent the nation. The US did not regularly use the rank of Ambassador until around the end of the 19th century, and for purposes of egalitarianism since mostly used the rank of Ambassador for all embassy heads to the exclusion of the lesser ranks, as sending lesser-ranked officials ("envoys" and "ministers") as embassy heads implies lesser nation status and was considered insulting. But this is why the power to appoint ambassadors is a power of the Presidency.

So let's be clear--the job of the US ambassador to the UN is to be the personal representative of the President to foreign powers. Not of Congress, and not of the nation. Of the President. We're seeing some more of the perpetual fight over the same Senate "advice and consent" powers used to hold up judicial appointments.

If the UN is not a "state actor," we don't need to send an ambassador at all.

"If the UN is not a "state actor," we don't need to send an ambassador at all."

Tully,

The UN is not an autonomous state actor, but a collection of states brought together to promote peace and security in the international community. Which means the UN has no authority to wage war or pursue its own interests (although at times some would like it to be that way). An ambassador is appropriate in such an environment where international cooperation is essential.

I don't think anyone is saying that the UN ambassador need to be a "go along, get along" type of diplomat...

It's a state actor by definition, Scott, whether conglomerate or otherwise. That it is a large conglomerate doesn't change that.

I don't think anyone is saying that the UN ambassador need to be a "go along, get along" type of diplomat...

Except the Dems on the committee? Why are the Dems making such an argument over Bolton's purported inability and/or unwillingness to not stir the waters, to tell sweet lies, and/or to otherwise kiss ass? Biden in particular has been very vocal on that point. To me, Bolton's bluntness is actually a point in his favor. Are the Dems afraid such an approach might be effective in achieving some reforms? We've had over half a century of the smooth types. That's how we got here.

And why otherwise would it be important for Bolton personally to "committed to the mission of the UN," as you put it? In fact it's not important at all, and could present a clear conflict with his actual commitment--that of personal representative of the President.

All of the objections I have heard--including yours--fall into one of two categories. Either the speaker objects to Bolton on ideological in-fighting grounds (which is pure partisanship) or on the grounds that he's not a smooth enough diplomat in their personal opinions, that he is essentially incompetent. Yet those objections too seem to be mostly based on personal and partisan animus and ad hominem mud-slinging--under previous administrations Bolton performed admirably in the Middle East, at the State Dept. and Justice and USAID, and even in the UN itself under James Baker.

Blunt he is. Incompetent he is not. Both the1 diplomats at the UN and the committee members understand quite well the realities of diplomacy--and whom an ambassador actually represents. Bolton cannot damage the US much at the UN. All he can really damage is Bush. If the Dems honestly thought that Bolton would be a disaster for Bush, they'd be approving him with a smirk and a smile. As the GOP did with Madeline Albright.

One definition of insanity is to keep doing the same thing but expect a different result. That's the U.N. That's relying on diplomacy when the other country (Iraq, Iran, North Korea, to name a few) repeatedly lies and breaks their diplomatic agreements.

Diplomacy is a lovely thing. It can help resolve all sorts of problems. It should always be our first resort. But when it is proven not to work, when one country (say, North Korea, Iraq, or Iran) are proven to have lied REPEATEDLY and dishonored treaty promises that they made, then continued diplomacy serves only to empower and embolden the dictators who run those countries.

Also, diplomacy only works when you have clear communications. Remember the (unfounded) controversy over whethen the U.S. diplomat to Iraq in 1991 may have accidentally made Saddam believe we wouldn't object to his invasion of Kuwait. Our President (and most of the Congress) has deep suspicions of the U.N. and its competence and ability to perform its tasks. If our U.N. Ambassador does not adequately convey those political realities, then we risk serious miscommunications, with serious consequences. Bolton accurately reflects President Bush's attitude to the U.N. That's what we need in an Ambassador, whose job (as Tully points out) is to speak the views of the head of state.

The UN is not soveriegn, so I don't think we can claim it's a state actor. States within the UN play the most crucial part. Or am I missing something here?

I don't disagree there need to be changes to the way the UN does business, but they are largely ineffective when problems arise that involve the great powers. They're even worse off when situations don't involve the great powers. I wouldn't depend on this guy if it was my choice, but it's not, so I say unless more facts come out showing he's more than just an unliked guy, let him do his gig. If he's half the d**chebag everyone says he is, we'll know soon enough. And I don't see how he could do anymore damage to the UN than is already present.

Just how about someone who is not a jerk who will prove to be an embarrassment in the first place. I find it very hard to believe that others better qualified are not available for consideration.

Define "qualified," Marcus. Bolton is qualified by the President wanting Bolton to represent him to the U.N. He's also qualified by service as an ambassador under two other administrations, as well as extensive foreign policy experience at other postings. His professional record is excellent.

So instead he's being Borked on personal dirt, of which there is no shortage on anyone who has spent a few decades in Washington. (When there is a shortage, that's no problem--it can and will be manufactured to order.) The single most determinative sign of Borking is exactly that--the use of personal and character innuendo to attack a nominee. rather than any substantive examination of their professional record, or any serious examination of policies.

I think it depends on who you ask when you speak of Bolton's admirable past peformances... Many of those colleagues at State, Justice, and USAID don't have many nice things to say about him and have spoken out against his nomination. I DO see some personal mudslinging that has become standard procedure in any confirmation, but I think there is more to the case against him than the fact that he yells at his employees.

And Pat, again you miss my point... It's not the message, it is the person behind it. Are you telling me that John Bolton is the only person who can adequately represent the President's point of view at the UN? They couldn't have found someone who hasn't made a practice of going to ideological think tanks and commenting that if ten floors where missing from the UN, it would not matter? So what about Negroponte and Danforth? Because I see a whole helluva lot of difference in the qualifications of those men versus Bolton, and I don't see how they misrepresnted the President.

It's not the message, it is the person behind it.

Exactly! And that person is Bush. It is Bush's privilege to decide who represents him to the U.N., not the privilege of Congress. The reception Bolton is getting is unprecedented for a UN ambassador appointee, and it isn't the nominee that's the reason, but the nominator. The flap is a reflection of the current atmosphere on the Hill. Let's run a quick check here....

Danforth had zero foreign policy experience save a brief bit as peace envoy to Sudan, and resigned after a few months. We know how well that Sudan thing worked out. Negroponte--does Iran-Contra ring a bell? Remember who was in charge of the Honduran end for Reagan, who set up the gun pipeline to the Contras? Richard Holbrooke--as U.S. advisor to Indonesia, actively supported the invasion of East Timor. 200K dead during a 27-year occupation. Madeline Albright--beloved by Kim Jong Il for helping him get his nuke plants. Hey, there's a legacy for you! And reviled by UN SecGen Boutros Boutros-Ghali, who said of her "She seemed to have little interest in the difficult diplomatic work of persuading her foreign counterparts to go along with the positions of her government.

Would those be the qualifications we're talking about? Yeah, I'm ranting a bit, but the point is that Bolton has more experience than most, fewer minuses, and is Bush's choice. Complaining about rough edges and throwing up the Armageddon effort against him seems a bit quaint and parochial when you consider his predecessors in the position.

Of our last several U.N. ambassadors the best was probably Bill Richardson, but he was a short-timer simply marking time for a cabinet post. The most effective was probably Jeanne Kirkpatrick, known for her blunt and uncompromising take-no-prisoners approach. The very attitude Bolton is accused of posessing.