Not all is bas news in the USA. The Seattle United Nations Association is a very active one and has come out strongly against confirming the position of John Bolton as the US Ambassador to the UN. They say,
John Bolton was named as U.N. Ambassador in 2005 as a recess appointment by the President, despite Senate opposition. This opposition was based on the assessment that John Bolton had neither the temperament nor the diplomatic skills necessary for a U.N. ambassador and that he was, in fact, contemptuous of the U.N. Senator Voinovich, was, at the time, outspoken in his criticism of Bolton's capacity to serve. Now, Senator Voinovich claims that he will support Bolton's confirmation because his performance during his year at the U.N. has been satisfactory and has not borne out earlier criticism. We believe that Senator Voinovich is incorrect in this appraisal. Analysis of Bolton's performance and behavior at the U.N. during his year of tenure has confirmed his unsuitability to continue as U.N. Ambassador. He has been combative and disdainful of his colleagues and high-level U.N. officials. He has impeded the process of U.N. reform and even acted against current administration policy, requiring intervention by the Secretary of State and even the President. This has led to the growing suspicion, untenable for a U.N. ambassador, that his public statements may not always be trusted to represent the policies of his own Secretary of State or his President.
The following constitute examples of this deleterious behavior.
1. Ambassador Bolton has made public statements contemptuous of the U.N., including assertions that it did not really exist, that the U.S., not the U.N., was the only real global power, and the derisive remark that the U.N. building in New York could be reduced in size without affecting productivity.
2. Ambassador Bolton has sabotaged constructive U.N. reform by insisting on over 300 last minute changes in a laboriously crafted U.N. reform document, causing confusion and anger among U.N. delegates, and resulting in a watered down plan which he has later disingenuously cited as evidence of an organizational failure.
3. Ambassador Bolton has opposed the U.N. Millennium Development Goals, requiring both Secretary of State Rice and President Bush to intervene to reassert U.S. commitment to these goals.
4. Ambassador Bolton has been undiplomatic and arrogant in his public criticism of high-level U.N. officials including Louise Arbour, the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights, and Mark Malloch-Brown, the U.N. Deputy Secretary General.
5. Ambassador Bolton has shown contempt for the U.N. Human Rights Council by missing all but one of 35 negotiating sessions on its development, and then by being one of only 4 U.N. ambassadors voting against its creation. This led to the Swiss U.N. ambassador to characterize his behavior as "intransigent and maximalist."
6. Ambassador Bolton has been publicly unsupportive of negotiation with Iran on its nuclear development program. His now well known statement about not doing "carrots" has been seen as reflecting his opposition to negotiations, and, as such, contrary to Secretary of State Rice's policy to enter with other European partners, into give and take negotiations with Iran on this subject.
7. Ambassador Bolton was instrumental in an attempt to withhold U.N. dues if the agency did not adopt his reform proposals. He then attempted to interrupt the biennial funding cycle, which would have ended in U.N. paralysis. Again, he had to be reined in on this issue by his own Secretary of State.
8. In the face of the genocide in Darfur, Ambassador Bolton showed callous disregard as the only Security Council member who did not accompany his 15 other Security Council colleagues on a mission to Darfur in June 2006. Rather, he traveled to England to deliver a speech in which he criticized the U.N. Deputy Secretary General.
9. He has voiced strident opposition to the very concept of international law, thereby expressing disdain for the international courts that exist within the framework of this law.
10. Over 30 U.N. ambassadors of countries friendly to the U.S. have raised concerns about his obstructive behavior.
We believe that the above provides ample evidence, deriving from his current interim tenure at the U.N., that John Bolton does not possess the qualities essential for a U.N. ambassador. Further, we believe that his behavior has been deleterious to effective U.N. functioning and is unworthy of being the representative of the United States. Our country was instrumental in the creation of the United Nations, the International Declaration of Human Rights, and was a signatory to many of the international treaties and conventions, which Bolton has opposed or chosen to ignore.
Comments