Nomination for U.N. ambassador too extreme

House Editorial

"Put aside politics," President Bush urged senators Thursday — put aside politics and confirm Bush’s nomination of John Bolton for U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations.

Putting aside politics has become a familiar battle-cry for the president in respect to his nominations — Congress has repeatedly delayed votes for judicial nominations, and Tuesday the Senate Foreign Relations Committee delayed voting on his nomination to allow for more time to investigate Bolton, a controversial undersecretary of state — and rightfully so. Allegations have been made that cast Bolton’s leadership style in a very negative light and he has openly scorned the United Nations.

The committee is voting on its recommendation to Congress of whether to confirm Bolton as ambassador. A tie vote is the same as a no-vote. The vote is non-binding and the committee can send Bolton’s nomination to the Senate floor without a recommendation. The foreign relations committee is made up of 10 Republicans and eight Democrats and is split along party line. Sen. George Voinovich (R-Ohio) crossed indicated he would cross the line Tuesday if it came to a vote, causing the delay.

The ideal goal of politicians is to best represent their constituents, and while the president may think that asking senators to put aside politics and do what he wants them to do will make a stronger nation, it will really cripple the United States’ political processes. Despite Bush’s urgings, politics are what prevents extreme nominees from being able to do the damage they are capable of.

The blame for the partisan bickering of this nomination can only be laid at the White House door. The president should certainly nominate individuals who he thinks are best for the job and will advance his agenda, but he would be much more successful in having his candidates appointed and as a president overall if his nominees were moderate conservatives, rather than alarming extremists.

Bush’s nomination of a man who has said "There is no such thing as the United Nations," and "If the U.N. secretary building in New York lost 10 stories, it wouldn’t make a bit of difference," is a logical and unfortunate progression of the anti-United Nations sentiment the Bush administration possesses. Bolton’s statements make it clear that he has no respect for the organization and, while this may be a positive to the president, it would make Bolton an extraordinarily poor ambassador.

Bolton is, by many accounts, a hothead who has little respect for the opinions of others. He calls for an increase in U.S. leadership at the United Nations, but his version of strong leadership may well become belligerency and bullying, or worse — nonexistent. Bolton is not known positively to U.N. delegates, and that could easily translate into a lack of respect and therefore, a lack of influence.

If the goal of the administration is to cause problems at the United Nations so it can be perceived as a defunct organization, Bolton is the man for the job. With permanent U.S. seats on major committees, Bolton’s style could easily destroy the United Nations’ ability to accomplish anything — a political move that could be used to drum up anti-United Nations sentiment in the United States.

The Senate should continue to fight Bolton’s appointment until the president makes a more reasonable nomination. He will undoubtedly blame politics for his frustration, but politics, not mindless voting, is what the country needs.