Sometimes the way this administration thinks
truly mystifies me.
President George W Bush gave notice yesterday that America's hawks are still a force to be reckoned with when he nominated an outspoken hardliner as his ambassador to the United Nations.
...News of his nomination shocked many at the UN, a frequent target for his criticism.
To the distress of Whitehall, he is a passionate opponent of the International Criminal Court and has long been scornful of Europe's bid to use diplomacy to force Iran to abandon its nuclear ambitions.
The secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice, said she and Mr Bush had asked "John to do this work because he knows how to get things done".
She hailed him as a "tough-minded diplomat" and, in a clear reference to his outspoken reputation, said that "through history some of our best ambassadors have been those with the strongest voices".
North Korea has been less diplomatic, branding Mr Bolton "human scum".
Let me see if I understand this correctly. One of the clearest signals the American public have sent Bush has been that they trust the U.N. and wish to see more international cooperation between us and them. The public consistently and overwhelmingly supports multilateralism. And most people, including administration officials, believe it would be extremely helpful if more countries where brought into the Iraq reconstruction and Middle East peace as a whole. Last month, Bush spends a week in Europe assuring the international community of his new found multilateral inclinations. The diplomatic community eyes him warily but hopefully. The administration then proceeds to nominate one of the most notorious critics of multilateralism, and specifically the United Nations, to the country's key U.N. post.
What are they thinking? Are purposely trying to antagonize the international community? Do they seriously believe that Bolton will be a very effective ambassador given his historic distain of the organization he is supposed to be working with? Or is this yet another attempt to somehow discredit the U.N. still further? Or better yet, is Bush still determined to convince the world that he has never made a mistake?
Whatever the reasoning, its hard to see the political upshot of this for the Republicans. Already, they are not trusted by the American people when it comes to foreign policy, and much of this is chiefly related to the belief amoung Americans that they are not overly interested in working diplomatically with other countries--that they are, in fact, ineffective when it comes to foreign policy. The appointment will provide yet more ammunition for the Democrats when it comes election time.
Bolton's Greatest Hits
In 2001, Jesse Helm's says of him: "John Bolton is the kind of man with whom I would want to stand at Armageddon, if it should be my lot to be on hand for what is forecast to be the final battle between good and evil in this world."
He appears to be very interested in providing Helms with an Armegeddon to do so. He is one of the few people left in the world who still advocates returning to Tiawan a seat in the United Nations. He has written, "diplomatic recognition of Taiwan would be just the kind of demonstration of U.S. leadership that the region needs and that many of its people hope for... The notion that China would actually respond with force is a fantasy, albeit one the Communist leaders welcome and encourage in the West."
Unfortunately, it appears that his testimony may be somewhat compromised. According to the Washington Post (April 9, 2001) Bolton received payments amounting to $30,000 from the Tiawanese Government for research papers on the possibility of their country's being seated in the UN.
One of many Bush operatives in 2000 during the Palm Beach recount. Reporters snap pictures of him counting hanging chads.
MoralQuestionsBlog.com