Trib changes its tune on John Bolton at UN

[southsider2k5]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion...1,6224603.story

 

Speaking of John Bolton ...

 

Published July 25, 2006

 

 

Just about a year ago, this page carried an editorial on President Bush's recess appointment of the congenitally controversial John Bolton as U.S. ambassador to the congenitally lethargic United Nations. We headlined that editorial "The Bolton embarrassment." Why?

 

Bush had ramrodded Bolton into the job during a congressional recess because a divided Senate wouldn't confirm him. We said the question going forward was who would be embarrassed by Bolton's work--those who supported Bolton for his direct, driven style or those who loathed him for his lack of deference to the UN and its culture of mutual respect (read: inertia).

 

The most influential voice opposing Bolton wasn't that of any Democratic senator, but rather that of George Voinovich, an Ohio Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Voinovich sided with those who said Bolton would be a bullying hothead, harmful to U.S. interests.

 

Last week, writing in The Washington Post, Voinovich reversed field. After monitoring Bolton closely, Voinovich wrote, "My observations are that while Bolton is not perfect, he has demonstrated his ability, especially in recent months, to work with others and follow the president's lead by working multilaterally. In recent weeks I have watched him react to the challenges involving North Korea, Iran and now the Middle East, speaking on behalf of the United States.

 

"I believe Bolton has been tempered and focused on speaking for the administration. He has referred regularly to `my instructions' from Washington, while also displaying his own clear and strong grasp of the issues and the way forward within the Security Council. He has stood many times side by side with his colleagues from Japan, Britain, Canada and other countries, showing a commitment to cooperation within the United Nations."

 

Bolton's recess appointment expires at the end of this year, but the Foreign Relations Committee has scheduled a hearing on removing the asterisk from his title for Thursday. That could lead to a Senate confirmation vote, possibly in September.

 

That's good. The Senate should speak, confirming Bolton or declaring its lack of confidence in him. A world with too many simultaneous hot spots should know that America's ambassador to the UN has the confidence of the president, and the Congress, for whom he speaks.

 

Bolton still has vocal critics. A headline in Sunday's New York Times summed up the dichotomy: "As praise grows at home, envoy faces UN scorn." The complaints of the diplomats quoted sound familiar: Bolton is impatient for reform of an organization that has wallowed in oil-for-food corruption--and that has flirted with irrelevance due to its chronic failure to confront thugocracies. Bolton stakes out hard-line positions. Bolton is unwilling to compromise.

 

Of course, one person's stubborn blockhead is another's reformist provocateur. When Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice announced Bolton's nomination in March 2005, she noted that "some of our best ambassadors" to the UN have been those with "the strongest voices," such as Republican Jeane Kirkpatrick and Democrat Daniel Patrick Moynihan.

 

Voinovich argues that if he and his Senate colleagues don't confirm Bolton at a time when he's spearheading so many U.S. priorities, that decision will "jeopardize our influence in the United Nations and encourage those who oppose the United States to make Bolton the issue."

 

Voinovich is right. Bolton went to the UN having to prove himself. He's done that.

[kapkomet]

 

Wow.

 

The parisan hacks are going to come out and talk about what a "terrible" job he's done... and "he needs to go" (thanks Dodd, you schmuck) - he's really done a stand up job, IMO. And it's good that someone else recognizes it.