Bolton or Nada

Democrats in the Senate have been mercilessly attacking John Bolton ever since he was nominated by President Bush to serve as United States ambassador to the United Nations. Their primary objections to Bolton are (1) his allegedly abusive management style; (2) his alleged inability to negotiate with international leaders due to the aforementioned style; and (3) his alleged disdain for the very institution (the UN) that he should be serving.

Yesterday in the Washington Post Lawrence Eagleburger former Secretary of State under the first President Bush answered those objections to my satisfaction.

(1) Regarding Bolton’s management style: “I can say only that in more than a decade of association with him in the State Department I never saw or heard anything to support such a charge. Nor do I see anything wrong with challenging intelligence analysts on their findings.”

(2) Regarding Bolton’s effectiveness: “On Dec. 16, 1991, I spoke to the U.N. General Assembly on behalf of the United States, calling on the member states to repeal the odious Resolution 3379, which equated Zionism with racism. As I said then, the resolution ‘labeled as racist the national aspirations of the one people more victimized by racism than any other.’ That we were successful in obtaining repeal was largely due to John Bolton, who was then assistant secretary of state for international organizations. His moral outrage was clearly evident as he brilliantly led and managed the successful U.S. campaign to obtain sufficient votes for repeal. The final vote, 111 to 25, speaks volumes for the success of his "direct" style.”

“Bolton's impressive skills were also demonstrated at the time of the Persian Gulf War, when he steered a critical series of resolutions supporting our liberation of Kuwait through the U.N. Security Council.”

(3) Regarding Bolton’s attitude toward the UN: “Given what we all know about the current state of the United Nations, it's time we were represented by someone with the guts to demand reform and to see that whatever changes result are more than window dressing.”

So what’s really bothering the Senate Democrats? Robert Novak in today’s Chicago Sun Times pointed to the fact that “Bolton's undeniable conservative ideology has antagonized the State Department's liberal cadre and its senatorial defenders. His hard line on Fidel Castro has alienated (Christopher) Dodd, whose long-term goal has been normalization of U.S.-Cuba relations.”

Washington Post reporter Dana Milbank noted that Democrats have "assailed Bolton's knack for making enemies and disparaging the very organization he would serve." Jay Nordlinger noted in the National Review:

“That encapsulated perfectly the Democratic mindset. You see, we Neanderthals think that the purpose of the U.S. ambassador to the U.N. is to serve the United States, particularly its foreign policy, as made by the government's executive branch. It is the other view that the U.S. ambassador is to serve the United Nations--to be part of that clique, that bureaucracy. That is why Barbara Boxer and others shudder so at Bolton's "contempt" for the United Nations. They love that body, and value it as a check--or a brake--on U.S. foreign policy.”

There you have it. Democrats revere the UN more than the US. I say let Bolton reform the place if he can, or let the Democrats make it a Party funded “think tank” where they can criticize the US to their heart’s content.