Diplomacy: USA - President's Men: Bolton appointed UN Ambassador, Annan welcomes him to serve in 190-ambassador cohort at UN

Well, now, Bolton is in and has been welcomed by UN Secretary General, Kofi Annan. Many who wanted Bolton in, also wanted Annan out, some even wanted the UN out of the US. Bush, of course, held steady on all the fronts of his policy - what's been called by expert Ivo Daalders "the Bush Revolution." As to the UN and Annan, Bush works for incremental change, and he backs people who may have made mistakes, as long as he doesn't consider the errors to have been lethal. Bush resolutely backs Annan, as he has backed Bolton, Roberts, and Rove. Annan, Roberts, and Rove have problems pending resolution: the first for the Oil=for-Food scandal with Saddam Hussein, the second for not articulating the "mainstream philosophy" determined by Sen. Schumer, and the third for cluing reporters into the disloyalist cell of Kerry-schemers in the CIA (Palme, and her plant Wilson, for a short damaging hitch) - so, at least the allegations go.

U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan said the manner in which Bolton was given the post will not affect their working relationship.

"It is the president's prerogative and the president has decided to appoint him through this process for him to come and represent him. And from where I stand, we will work with him as the ambassador and representative of the president and the government," Annan said in a morning press conference.

"We look forward to working with him, as I do with the other 190 ambassadors, and we will welcome him at a time when we are in the midst of major reform," Annan said.

Bolton was accused of getting upset with weak-willies held over from the platitudinous State Department staff of President Clinton and Secretary Albright. Bush's first Secretary of state, Colin Powell, was incapable of reining these people in and weeding them out, and conducted a relatively weak version of the President's revolution in foreign policy. Bolton had a key frontline portfolio on nuclear proliferation and international security. He may have become exasperated for good reason. I certainly do give him the benefit of the doubt regarding the cloud of gnatlike whining complaints by those who couldn't stand the heat of Bolton's kitchen. Same now at the UN: don't work with him if you're not loyal to his policy horizon for the job, and stay away if you can't handle the emotional tone of his work-style when the going gets ruff.

But Democrats were never able to establish that his actions crossed the line to out-and-out harassment or improper intimidation.

Hard Job for a Hardnose, by Suzanne Nossel, American Prospect, August 1, 2005 (originally published July 1, 2005). Here's a longish quote of hardcore info, minus the annoying leftish packaging preceding and following it in Nossel's article:

While ambassadors to the UN are called “permanent representatives,” they are anything but: Most serve between three and six years. The vast majority of UN ambassadors from around the world are among their nations’ top one or two diplomats, and their rivals for that slot are often stationed in Washington. The UN position can be a capstone to a great career, or -- as was true for Egypt and Russia’s current foreign ministers -- a stepping-stone to higher office.

The U.S. ambassador to the UN holds a seat even more prestigious than that of his counterparts in that the position is subject to legislative confirmation. Very few democracies have their parliaments weigh in on this kind of appointment (Belize and Bolivia are exceptions). At times the UN ambassador post has also had cabinet rank. These marks of additional status, including particularly the political stamp of approval, have become integral to the job of representing the United States at the United Nations.

Ever since the Senate rejected membership in the League of Nations in 1920, Congress has exercised strong oversight of the United States’ involvement in world bodies. It manages our role in the UN in numerous ways. Congress appropriates the money for the United States to pay its dues. Senators and other political players outside the State Department frequently weigh in with political considerations when the United States is deciding whether to exercise its Security Council veto. At this point, a piece of legislation (Representative Henry Hyde’s UN Reform Act of 2005, a meticulously detailed mandate covering everything from political to managerial reforms) is wending its way through Congress. And it’s not the first of its kind: Congress has long passed laws affecting UN reform and U.S. dues to the world body. We are also unusual in that our Congress must ratify every treaty before the United States can become party to it. Congress frequently dispatches the Government Accountability Office (formerly known as the General Accounting Office) to inspect specific aspects of how U.S. contributions to the UN are being used.

Amid this swirl of political oversight (and second-guessing), the job of U.S. ambassador to the UN is, not surprisingly, also inherently political. While most ambassadors to overseas posts get confirmed and sent on their way, Bolton, as UN ambassador, would have to deal with Congress continuously throughout his tenure. He would deal with a series of issues uppermost in the minds of members, including the UN’s role in Iraq and Sudan and U.S. participation in the International Criminal Court.

But a good UN ambassador not only represents the United States at the United Nations but also represents the UN in Washington. The ambassador translates UN proposals and debates into terms that Capital Hill can understand. He or she hears out members of Congress and ensures that their concerns get heard at the UN. For the UN community, the U.S. ambassador is a conduit to its most important shareholder, conveying information, eliciting reactions, and shaping how issues are received.

When reform tops the UN agenda, as is the case this year, Washington’s interest becomes more focused than ever. The last time the UN undertook major reforms, in 2000, U.S. Ambassador Richard Holbrooke received visits from more than a dozen members of Congress and their staffs to New York. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee held its first-ever out-of-town hearing, in Manhattan, on the subject of the UN. Reciprocally, the ambassadors on the Security Council were invited to Washington to brief the committee. Those meetings paved the way for a historic agreement that lightened the U.S. obligation to the world body in return for repayment of U.S. back dues. Reconciling the UN reform legislation now pending on the Hill and the reform proposals under consideration at the UN would require at least as much two-way diplomacy, if not more.

Guardian UK selects brief reactions to Bolton's appointmentSenate Democratic Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev). Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, (R-Tenn). UN Secretary General Kofi Annan. azil's U.N. Ambassador Ronaldo Mota Sardenberg.
Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Dick Lugar, (R-Ind). Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass).
Sen. George Voinovich (R-Ohio). Sen. Dianne Feinstein, (D-Calif). Sen. George Allen (R-Va). Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-Md). Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill). Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass). Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va). Sen. Frank R. Lautenberg (D-NJ). That's 8 Delaycrats, 1 Turncoat Republican - Voinovich, 3 Republicans, a Brazil UN Ambassador, and UN Secretary General. A rather narrow and biased survey, even considering the source.

UN's new officer in Washington, by Betsy Pisik, Washington Times, August 1, 2005.

Besides a new US Ambassador to the UN, the UN has named a new officer (from the State department) for the UN Information Center in Washington, DC (which costs the UN $10 million a year), but which allows for more rapid and clearer communication between the UN and US government departments and, of course, Congress.

Bush Appoints Bolton as U.N. Envoy, Bypassing Senate, by Timothy Williams, The New York Yimes, August 1, 2005.

That's all folks! - Owlb







Link