Republican Senator George Voinovich was the sole GOP member on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to balk at President Bush’s nomination of John Bolton to be the United States Ambassador to the United Nations. His opposition, along with that of every Democratic member of the committee was based on well founded fears that Bolton’s abrasive, even obnoxious demeanour, his confrontational style, arrogance and bluster, would detract from our efforts to effect management reform at the U.N and would not be in the country’s best interests. There were, in short, many better choices available. The Senate failed to pass the nomination out of committee and Bush responded, as he usually does, by thumbing his nose at the committee and making Bolton a recess appointment.
Bolton’s appointment expires in January and must be confirmed by the Foreign Relations Committee and after that by the full Senate for him to continue to serve as U.N. Ambassador. In the many months since his recess appointment, Mr Bolton has, in practice, fully vindicated Senator Voinovich’s worst fears; however, the senator has changed his mind and now expresses his intention to vote to approve Bolton’s nomination when it comes up again. Such is the manner in which those who perform this Administration’s heavy lifting end up sounding either utterly foolish or incoherent - or both.
Voinovich states that he is impressed with Bolton’s forceful advocacy of America’s positions at the U.N. Lack of forcefulness, of course, was never one of Bolton’s identifiable flaws. A glaring deficiency in the diplomatic art was much more of a concern and, here, Bolton has not disappointed, as a recent article in the New York Times makes clear.
A key objective of the U.S. and a priority for Bolton is to effect much needed management efficiencies at the U.N. However, even representatives from countries friendly to the U.S. and sympathetic with its aims in this regard voiced strong off-the-record misgivings and frustration at Bolton’s bull-in-a-china-shop approach which has succeeded in alienating those whose support he needs to bring the reforms to fruition. The result is failure. Somewhere along the line this guy’s mother forgot to tell him about honey being better than (or at least needs to be employed along with) vinegar to get what you want - a fatal flaw in an ambassador, surely.
In the end of course it doesn’t much matter who is U.N. Ambassador. The U.S. is still the lone superpower, the Bush Administration’s daily efforts to diminish it notwithstanding. Countries will listen to the Ambassador from this country because they cannot afford not to. In that sense the U.S. could put a trained monkey in the position and we would still have enormous influence to get want we want on the Security Council, where it really counts. Where we will lose out are on those issues involving reform at the U.N. itself and of the machinery that makes it tick. Here, Bolton’s appointment will cost us much.
On the other hand, Bolton really is a perfect metaphor for the incompetence and hubris of the Bush Administration. Loud, ruthless, clueless and ultimately ineffective, Bolton may be a disgrace as a key ambassadorial representative of our nation, but as the face of the Bush Administration, a better choice is hard to imagine.
0 Responses to “How to Lose Friends and Influence at the U.N.”