Time to take the keys away from the UN

[Tylergal]

Times on Line, UK.

Bolton’s exit is necessary, but still a loss
Bronwen Maddox: World Briefing
From the moment on November 9 when the Democrats won back the Senate, John Bolton’s job as US Ambassador to the United Nations was over.

His resignation yesterday may help the US to shake off its reputation for confrontational diplomacy. But although Bolton was the living symbol of that approach to his opponents, the image was unfair, if judged by his behaviour in New York rather than his past as a conservative ideologue. The US’s quiet return to the UN began during his tenure; if Bolton didn’t always encourage that shift, he didn’t stop it either.

At his best in the UN he mastered more detail than many, helped to push through a tough resolution on North Korea, and was relentless in attacking the UN’s distaste for its own accountability. His worst failing was that he was too much of a maverick to fully represent the US position.

The Administration might have found it worthwhile dumping him, even if the Democrats hadn’t won Capitol Hill, as he had become too controversial a symbol. But that brings the loss of one of the few UN insiders to get some purchase on its own failings.

When President Bush appointed Bolton in August 2005, while Congress was in recess, it was seen by many as an extravagantly provocative move. Many capitals took the choice of an over-fluent critic of the UN as a message that the US, already struggling in Iraq, still did not need friends.

But in that reflex of outrage, Bolton’s critics failed to register that his appointment was, at best, a sideways move, away from the heart of policy making. The move reassured conservatives that their views would still shape foreign policy, and yet it detached Bolton from the hour-to-hour debates.

He was more familiar with the UN than any US ambassador for years, with the possible exception of Thomas Pickering (who was UN Ambassador from 1989 to 1992).

That stemmed partly from his international experience working for George Bush Snr, who had appointed him as Assistant Secretary for International Organisational Affairs in 1989, a position that carried an unspoken mandate, among others, of curtailing the US’s funding for abortion overseas. Bolton’s appointment was partly a gesture to conservatives on the Hill, led by the late Senator Jesse Helms.

For both Bush and his father, then, Bolton has been valuable as a symbol to reassure the right of the Republican Party about policy.

Yet, despite fulfilling that role, he was something of an outsider. A fireman’s son from Baltimore, he was proud to share some of the tenets of “movement conservatives”, such as the belief that the federal government has an irrepressible tendency to interfere in the life of its citizens; and that abroad, the US should resist totalitarianism in all forms.

In New York, although his views on Iran were at the extreme hawkish end of the spectrum, he was on the edge of policy making, which has been driven by Nick Burns, Under Secretary of State.

He clashed on this and other issues — including the International Criminal Court — with several European governments, and had distinctly cool relations with the British delegation led by Sir Emyr Jones Parry. But many officials found it possible — and even necessary — to go around him to Washington to determine US policy.

In the rhythm of UN life, he also set his own jarring tempo; dinners were scheduled early so that he could get to bed before 10pm, to rise before 5am.

But as the US began to turn to the UN on North Korea, Lebanon, and Darfur, as well as Iran, he helped it to change course. His most valuable role may have been pushing the UN to account for its spending. He pressed Kofi Annan, the Secretary-General, to make a formal declaration of his wealth, something the UN had begun to require of its staff, but which Annan had not done, as not a member of staff. Of all the battles Bolton picked, he attracted the most flak last year when he pushed the UN to commit to more accountability. It is not in many diplomats’ interests to do that so aggresssively.

His exit is a necessary loss for the US; it is also a loss for the UN.

[LouiseVargas]

I liked John Bolton although I was determined not to like him because of all the hoopla surrounding him. He did an excellent job. I agree it's a shame to lose him as a diplomat. He was excellent in looking out for our interests.