For the second time, Senate Democrats have blocked a vote on John Bolton’s nomination to become the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. The 54-38 vote fell six short of what was required.
The sticking point is that Democrats have requested pertinent documents that could shed light on several of Bolton’s past actions. An Associated Press story explains:
Democrats say they want to determine whether Bolton improperly used intelligence to intimidate officials who disagreed with his views. They also suspect the Syria documents could bolster their case that Bolton sought to exaggerate intelligence data. And, they want to see if he misled the Senate during his confirmation hearings when he said he was not involved in the preparation of that Syria testimony.
Another dynamic at work is apparently festering resentment among some senators in both parties that the White House is stiffing the institution in a high-handed way. The White House, not surprisingly, claims the Senate is trying to breach the executive’s prerogatives and need for confidentiality.
Strike two: Today’s failure to force a vote is clearly a setback for President Bush, who evidently selected Bolton out of a desire to “reform” the U.N. in the neoconservative Republican way. That means serve notice on the organization who’s going to be in charge and who had better get in line and follow orders.
The problem with this approach, of course, is that it’s sure to rub nearly the entire rest of the world the wrong way. That, in turn, will ensure that even some countries that might agree certain aspects of the U.N. need straightening out will instead dig in their heels and refuse to cooperate.
What’s called for is skillful diplomacy by people not known from the git-go to be disdainful and dismissive of the United Nations. That pretty much leaves Bush and his administration out. It certainly rules out sending a hotheaded, foul-tempered and arrogant bully to represent the U.S.
Unless they really are stupid, Bush’s people must know this. If Bush’s people are aware of this, we can only conclude their real agenda is not to reform the U.N. but to engineer conditions under which they can withdraw the U.S. from it, without having to pay an unacceptable political price at home. To ensure that, they would have to set up a scenario in which most Americans feel thoroughly alienated from the U.N.
The thought probably follows that if the U.S. were to withdraw, the U.N. would be so weakened that in due time it would become a nonentity and die.
While the U.N. is far from perfect, it has genuine, enduring value. That’s true not only for the U.S. but for the whole world. It’s too important to be “reformed” by Bush and the people who brought us the Iraq debacle. It’s already got too many problems, without having Bolton thrust into it.
That may happen whether the Senate votes him in or not. Bush can make a recess appointment that would install Bolton for one year ending in January 2007. Fortunately, that would probably not be enough time for even Bolton and the anti-U.N. right wingers behind him to do the U.N. in for good.
