Still the Wrong Man
for the U.N.
EDITORIAL, NYTimes on
the Web, July 30, 2006
When President Bush nominated John
Bolton as ambassador to the United Nations last year, we argued that this
convinced unilateralist and lifelong disparager of the United Nations should not
be confirmed. The Senate agreed. Mr. Bush sent him to New York
anyway, using the constitutional end run of a recess appointment. That
appointment expires in January.
Now the Senate is being asked to confirm Mr. Bolton again. With one of last
year’s critics, George Voinovich, Republican of Ohio, having recently changed
sides, confirmation seems more likely. But after a year of watching Mr.
Bolton at work, we still believe the Senate should reject his nomination.
As ambassador, Mr. Bolton’s performance has been more restrained than many of
his opponents feared. He has, as far as we know, faithfully carried out
any instructions he was given. And on some issues, like this spring’s
botched reform of the United Nations’ human-rights monitoring body, Mr. Bolton
was right not to accept a bad result.
But over all, American interests at the U.N. have suffered from Mr. Bolton’s
time there, and will suffer more if the Senate confirms him in the job. At
a time when a militarily and diplomatically overstretched Washington needs as
much international cooperation as it can get — on Iraq, on Iran, on North Korea
and now on the latest fighting between Israel and Lebanon — Mr. Bolton is a
liability, not an asset at the United Nations.
No ambassador, however tactful and multilateral-minded, can persuade other
countries to change their votes on high-profile issues in the face of contrary
instructions from their home governments. But some of the most important
business that goes on in the U.N. does not fall into that category. On a
wide range of issues — winning the support of smaller countries for needed
management reforms, mobilizing a strong international coalition to halt genocide
in Darfur, attracting wider European support for stabilization and economic
development in Iraq — an effective ambassador can make a huge difference.
Mr. Bolton, by temperament and conviction, is far too dismissive of the results
that can be achieved by this kind of traditional diplomacy. That is what
makes him the wrong man for the job. America desperately needs to repair
the alliances and relationships damaged by the shoot-from-the-hip diplomacy of
the Bush first term. It simply cannot afford to write off the possibility
of winning back hearts and minds at the United Nations.
|
