John Bolton shows how much
respect he has for the UN
During the 2000 election campaign, George W. Bush described himself as "a uniter, not a divider". One would assume from this statement that he would therefore seek consensus on issues of great importance: national security, constitutional law, judicial nominees, and international relations.
Of course, it was all a giant lie.
In the latest affront to the citizens of the United States, it's constitution, and to every other sovereign nation in the world, Bush has unilaterally installed as Ambassador to the United Nations the notorious John Bolton. Before we examine the manner of his appointment, let's meet this certifiable, frothing-at-the-mouth, war-mongering lunatic.
Bush introduced Bolton thus:
I'm sending Ambassador Bolton to New York with my complete confidence. Ambassador Bolton believes passionately in the goals of the United Nations Charter, to advance peace and liberty and human rights. His mission is now to help the U.N. reform itself to renew its founding promises for the 21st century. He will speak for me on critical issues facing the international community. And he'll make it clear that America values the potential of the United Nations to be a source of hope and dignity and peace. White House press conference, Aug 1 2005
Here, in his own words, is John Bolton's opinion of the United Nations:
There is no such thing as the United Nations. There is an international community that occasionally can be led by the only real power left in the world and that is the United States when it suits our interest and we can get others to go along. 1994 Global Structures Convocation, New York, NY.
I kid you not; you can even watch a video of him saying this, as well as several other diplomatic gems, such as:
The Secretariat building in New York has 38 stories. If you lost 10 stories today, it wouldn't make a bit of difference. Ibid.
I particularly love the part where his voice starts to crack as he jabs his finger and bellows:
The United States makes the U.N. work when it wants to work. And that is exactly the way it should be, because the only question... the only question for the United States is "What's in our national interest?" ...and if you don't like that, I'm sorry, but that is the fact.
From a country that likes to think of itself as the leader of the free world, this is a shamefully ignorant and selfish statement to make.
Bolton's Reputation
During the Senate confirmation hearings (see below), numerous colleagues from Bolton's past came forward to testify that he is a bully, hounding people whose opinions he doesn't like. One woman described (under oath) being chased through the corridors of a Moscow hotel by Bolton, who disliked a position paper she had written. One colleague described Bolton as a "quintessential 'kiss-up, kick-down' kind of guy," and confirmed his reputation as a vindictive, blundering pig-headed lout. Bolton is currently under investigation for demanding the sacking of a lower-level employee who disagreed with him. The White House refuses to release the documents that could shed light on this situation.
Bolton's Appointment
As a means of checks and balances, the U.S. Constitution requires the appointments of ambassadors and high-ranking judges to be confirmed by a Senate. Nominees are typically grilled for days on their past statements and opinions on certain topics. In the words of one Senator Chuck Schumer, "The burden is on a nominee ... to prove that he is worthy, not on the Senate to prove that he is unworthy."
Bolton was grilled for several days in front of a Senate subcommittee, which eventually sent his nomination to the full Senate without a recommendation. Considering that the subcommittee was stacked in favor of Republicans, this was a remarkable vote of no confidence in Bolton. Senate Democrats subsequently blocked the senate from a vote on Bolton by filibuster.
The filibuster (endless speech-making) is a technique available to the party in the minority; a supermajority is required to end it. This ensures that there is no tyranny of the majority: minority parties can, under extraordinary circumstances, use this technique to forestall progress.
Predictably, the Republicans cried foul, claiming that this was an unprecedented affront beneath the dignity of the senate, and that it was shamefully to delay such an important nominee due to partisan politics.
Of course, this was complete crap: Clinton's nominee for U.N. Ambassador (Richard Holbrooke) was blocked by a procedural maneuver by a single (Republican) senator for fourteen months, not because he wasn't suited to the job, by instead as a protest over an unrelated State Department employee.
The Constitution gives the President the power to make a recess appointment, which installs the nominee without Senate confirmation, for a limited term. The idea is to give the President the flexibility to make an emergency appointment without having to recall the entire Senate, which was quite an ordeal when the Constitution was created.
Clinton offered Holbrooke a recess appointment, but he refused, stating that being sent to the U.N. without the approval of the U.S. Senate would leave him hopelessly compromised; not having the full authority of the government behind him.
Today, Bush used a recess appointment to install Bolton. This was entirely legal, and there is no question that the President has the authority to do so.
Personally, I find it telling that we are reduced to evaluating the actions of the President by asking "is it legal or not?" -- as if "not breaking the law" was the only yardstick by which we are measuring him. For someone who prides himself on "moral character" and being "a uniter, not a divider", Bush certainly can be accused of hypocrisy (there's that word again!)
The Mesasge This Sends
At a time when the United States is seeking to regain it's reputation as a leading democracy, Bush's use of the recess appointment sends a clear message to the rest of the world: he doesn't need his government's authority to do what he wants. Democracy and due process are optional.
I particularly like Hal Crowther's take on the situation:
Bolton is simply the Republican fist with its middle finger held erect, a calculated insult aimed at Democrats, the media and the world -- a rude gesture of unprecedented arrogance and defiance. Is this a coarse joke, irony served White House-style? For America's most visible and sensitive diplomatic post, they offer the ultimate anti-diplomat, an obnoxious bully so incapable of diplomacy or common tact that he offends everyone he encounters, Democrat or Republican, ally or enemy....
"Making him ambassador is like thumbing our nose at the UN, and foreign diplomats understand that."
There are a number of conspiracy theories surrounding just why Bush is so desperate to get Bolton to the U.N. The scariest of these relates to Bolton's association with the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), a conservative think-tank which was urging a U.S. invasion of Iraq as early as 1998. John Negroponte was considered the leading hawk on an Iraq invasion; Bolton apparently had a thing for.... Iran. Watch this space.
