The UN, New York City, August 2, 2005

This is a sequel to SustainabiliTank.info articles:
- TWO FOR JOHN BOLTON, May 15, 2005,
- CSD 13: “The Color of Water” and “Waiting for Bolton”, April 27, 2005.

In above articles we took the position that the President is entitled to have his choice when picking a representative to the UN: as this position has no permanency beyond the term of the presidency. Also, we said that the UN is in need of reformation and not just reform. The non-diplomatic characteristics of Mr. Bolton, in speaking clearly, and without unnecessary niceties, for the US President, could be an asset for the UN. Further, as Mr. Mark Molloch Brown put it - Mr. Bolton would be well positioned also as UN Ambassador to the US - in his personal position as a fully trusted man, who has the ear of the US President.

Today Mr. Bolton presented his credentials to the UN Secretary General, followed by the new Ambassadors for Malaysia and Uruguay.

The Washington Post writes: “President Bush installed John R. Bolton as ambassador to the UN employing the presidential power to make temporary appointments to break through a wall of Democratic opposition to Bolton’s confrontational brand of conservatism. Frustrated by the refusal of Senate Democrats to permit a final vote on Bolton’s nomination, Bush said he resorted to the 17-month recess appointment to circumvent ‘partisan delaying tactics’ in Washington and to send a resounding message that the White House is serious about reforming the United Nations.”

The Washington Post editorial starts by saying that the President was “within his rights” in what he did … having thwarted the usual process under which the Senate gets to vote on a president’s nominee, it takes a bit of chutzpah for Democrats now to cry foul at Bush’s decision to exercise his other option”. Having said this, for balance, the Washington Post editorial also puts forward: ” Democrats are correct in noting that Mr. Bolton will go to the UN under less that optimal conditions. An ambassador who lacks the explicit support of Congress speaks less securely for the nation than one who enters the UN Security Council with the senate’s blessing. But, again, whose fault is that?”