John Bolton: The Right Stuff?

The Senate is scheduled to vote Tuesday on Bush's recent nomination of John Bolton as the US's new ambassador to the United Nations. The only problem with this nomination is: John Bolton doesn't even believe in the organization that he would be representing us at.

The White House has been pushing hard for Bolton, launching a campaign of promotion in an attempt to silence outcry by Democrats.

Bolton's nomination has pitted Democrats, who say his appointment would damage U.S. national interests, against Republicans, who call him a foreign policy realist who will help push U.S. calls for overhauling the United Nations.

One way or the other, it is alarming that such a man actually said things like, "If the UN Secretariat building lost 10 stories, it wouldn't make a difference." (Not to mention a lot of other government officials are saying things about him saying those things as well.)

Perhaps the most apt critique of his nomination to this post was offered by Sen. Joseph Biden who said, "I have always voted against nominees who oppose the avowed purpose of the position for which they have been nominated."

Okay, so this guy isn't a big fan of the UN. But still, is that the same as saying he is against what the UN stands for? True, if he gets chosen to represent us at the UN, he will probably try to tow the "go-it-alone" stance that we have all come to know and love from the Bush administration, however, many conservatives like Condoleeza Rice believe that he will be the best advocate for reform in the UN that we have seen yet.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, who...defended John Bolton as President Bush's nominee to become ambassador to the world body, pointed to numerous corruption scandals as proof the organization's growing paralysis, the BBC said Saturday.

This is a tough call. There has already been a letter drafted by sixty-two former American diplomats begging with the Senate not to appoint Bolton to the position.

The former American diplomats said the candidate has an "exceptional record", but stressed he is wrong the man for the job.

"John Bolton's insistence that the U.N. is valuable only when it directly serves the United States, and that the most effective Security Council would be one where the U.S. is the only permanent member, will not help him to negotiate with representatives of the remaining 96 percent of humanity," the letter read.

Although I do believe the UN itself has slowly become weak, dysfunctional organization, I still don't trust a man with such clear animosity towards the actual purpose of the UN. That is, to foster cooperation, trust, and collective security among the nations of the world. In the end, to think that Bolton will somehow single-handedly put a stop to corruption and stagnancy is not realistic. Also, we don't need someone that will merely advocate US policy over international policy. We need someone that is willing to say to the other represented nations, "the US is tired of seeing this organization fail to live up to its potential." And I think Bill Clinton is just the man to do it; from the Office of the Secretariat, that is.