The big news this morning is that President Bush has accepted U.N. Ambassador John Bolton’s letter of resignation. As many have pointed out, this development is no great surprise — as Martini Republic put it, “This time it’s not to spend more time with the family. It’s for want of votes.”
In one sense, the reaction from the blogosphere is predictable — many a conservative blogger is calling this a “sad day” for the U.S., while the left is saying “good riddance” — Firedoglake has even posted a YouTube video of the Peanuts kids dancing.
What exactly Bolton has done wrong while serving as ambassador is not terribly clear; the knock against him seems to remain his brusque manner and outspoken disdain for the institution, as it was before his recess appointment, which is an issue itself. But nor is it clear what Bolton might get done that another U.N. Ambassador could not — and I think anyone would be hard-pressed to single out anything meaningful he has accomplished. One pro-Bolton blogger tried to do just that, but if the list doesn’t put you to sleep, you may find some irony in a conservative citing U.N. resolutions as “accomplishments.”
The theme of futility can be found in on both sides of the political divide. Here’s American Footprints, arguing that this is why Bolton was the wrong pick in the first place:
Bolton has been consistently ineffective in terms of achieving desired objectives, and most parties (including his cohorts in the Bush administration) prefer to circumvent his involvement rather than invite to the table. From forging beneficial arrangements with Libya, to advancing the non-proliferation regime, it has proven easier to get things done without him around.
At A Blog For All, Lawhawk recognizes the fact that Bolton has changed little, but gives him credit just for trying:
The ambassador position is not meant to advance the UN position in the US, but vice versa. Bolton understood this, and this meant tackling the issues of rampant corruption in the Secretariat and pushing for action on Darfur and other human rights crises. It meant standing up for the rights of our allies, including Israel that came under constant attack from Islamic terrorist groups, and the UN General Assembly instead sought to limit Israel’s response. Bolton tried to deal with Darfur, and ran into roadblocks in the form of China and Russia. The same thing happened on the issue of Iran’s nuclear program, which continues to proceed at full speed.
As the headline of this post indicates, the general atmosphere, at least on the right, is one of disappointed acceptance. Perhaps the most succinct is Allahpundit at Hot Air:
Not a surprise, really. Bad things happen when you lose your majority.
But there are a few on both sides who badly overstate the importance of this development. On the left, we have Middle Earth Journal calling Bolton a “national disaster for the country.” But the clear winner of this dubious contest is Macsmind, on the right, who writes:
Expected, but simply a foretaste of what danger the Democratic Party will be putting the country in in the next two years. … As for that ass-clown Rino Lincoln Chafee, if there were a death penalty for being a moral coward I would happily throw the switch.
Wow. If there was a death penalty for being a moral coward, the first order of business would have to be be removing cowardice from the list of capital crimes. Also, I’m not sure that “cowardice” best describes Chafee’s opposition to Bolton — is “obstinacy” not enough?
But back to the point — what danger does he refer to? I assume he means the Iranian nuclear program, and a nuclear Iran would indeed be a dangerous development. But there’s a lot more to it than John Bolton. Other than the fact that he currently occupies the ambassador position, why is he our last hope? Assuming Iran can be stopped at the United Nations, that is — isn’t the problem with the U.N. supposed to be that it’s ineffective?
It is possible that Bolton’s known dislike for the U.N. hampered his ability to work with other ambassadors and effect change, though the list of resolutions linked above indicates they can at least stand to be in the same room together. It’s also possible that U.N. incompetence and corruption simply cannot be overcome, or at least couldn’t in the last two years. As we try to advance our interests in the organization, so do fairweather friends such as China, Russia, France and non-friends such as Venezuela and, of course, Iran. Shouldn’t we expect a stalemate?
Whether Bolton was good for the country or bad for the country I don’t know enough to say. But one ambassador — let alone the Walrus himself — is not the difference between success (however that’s defined) and failure (which the U.N. seems quite good at).
Photo credit: This site.
