The times, they are a changin'
 

As a result of the 2006 election outcomes, a number of unresolved issues are making the news. Many of them are not likely to deserve a dedicated topic, so I have opened this one for those.

The first article I noticed today is that Bolton's formal approval as our UN Envoy is very unlikely.

Bolton

Personally, I felt Bolton was an "in your face" choice for our UN representative and just another example of the "go it alone" foreign policy of this administration. I'm not an unconditional supporter of the UN, but I prefer that they are "with us rather than agin' us."

To clarify, will the lame duck Congress be able to confirm him before the newly-elected members take office?

And if they do, what can the 2007 congress do about it (if anything) once they take office?

As UN Envoy has Bolton done or said something you disagreed with or that you found offensive?

What type of person would you want, someone more like former President Carter, a person who is weak in the eyes of other nations? I will take an "in your face" kind of guy when the stakes are as high as they are.

I can't speak for elphaba, but i guess i'd want someone who doesn't think the u.n. is a lost cause.

I agree. There is alot to fault with the UN, but diplomacy requires a capacity to address the important geo-political and humanitarian issues, as well as the many institutional issues on UN shortcomings, in a manner that demonstrates some level of civilitly towards those with whom you diagree. That is not one of Bolton's strengths, to say the least.

One need only ask the Canadian ambassador who he publicly and harshly criticized when she raised possible US human rights violations regarding secret detention facilites in Europe (which Bush has acknowledged) and the rendtion of "alleged" or "suspected" terrorist to countries where they are systematically tortured.

The lame duck Senate doesnt even have the votes to get his nomination out of committee. The best (or worst) Bush can do is another recess appointment, which would keep Bolton around until the new Congress convenes in January.

Dc,

Here is something else to make you laugh.

Personally I don't have fantasies of diplomats sitting around a fire singing Kum Ba Ya. For sure diplamacy requires civility, but most important it requires resolve and fortitude. Both of which are Bolton's strenghts. When lives and freedoms are on the line diplomacy is for the tough.

I know you will be tempted but I fully understand the problems with making generalizations, calling me names, etc, etc, won't add value to the discussion, but to be an effective diplomat one has to understand the cultures of the people they are dealing with. People from the middle east percieve those willing to easily compromise as weak, they have no respect for those they percieve as weak. If you are percieved as weak, diplomacy will fail. Bolton is just the kind of guy we need at this time in the UN.

Are you saying we should have someone like Canada's UN Ambassador? Or, give an example of who you think would do a better job than Bolton and why?

Ace...a diplomatic can have "resolve and fortitude" without being offensive or belittling of others.

Examples: John Danforth, Bush's first UN amabassador, the former Senator from Missouri and Bill Richardson, Clinton's first UN ambassador, the current Governor of New Mexico. They both had far better diplomatic skills than Bolton.

diplomacy: the conduct by government officials of negotiations and other relations between nations....skill in managing negotiations, handling people, etc., so that there is little or no ill will; tact.

Greece’s U.N. Ambassador Adamantios Vassilakis: “He is not an easy man to get close to. … Some people have the possibility to build consensus. Others operate in other ways.”

Peru’s U.N. Ambassador Oswaldo de Rivero: “He lives in another world, with this belief that he is morally superior and the U.S. is more moral than all the countries around the world. It is a pity.”

An ambassador with close ties to the Bush administration: “My initial feeling was, let’s see if we can work with him, and I have done some things to push for consensus on issues that were not easy for my country. … But all he gives us in return is, ‘It doesn’t matter, whatever you do is insufficient.’ … He’s lost me as an ally now, and that’s what many other ambassadors who consider themselves friends of the U.S. are saying.”

A European diplomat: “A lot of us wonder what his real agenda is. First, we think maybe he wants things to fail because then he can say, ‘We cannot reform this place.’ The other question is, does he really reflect the position in Washington? That is always the question: Is it Bolton or is it Washington?”

If you offend your "friends", can you really be an effective diplomat.

Aceventura:

Example of Bolton's incompetance: When we were trying to get China and Russia to help with the sanctions against North Korea, Bolton made a joke to the representatives from these countries that N. Korea's representative had a temper tantrun like Kruschev. The Russian representatives were immediately offended - and this did not help with getting them on our side.

Bolton is an idiot, who has said many times that he basically doesn't believe in the UN, so why should he represent the US to the UN?

Bolton was one of the idiots who only gets the intel he wants. He withholdes information that could go against his policies. He was and is instrumental in the which hunt for the Iranian nuclear weapons. He even accoused Cuba of transfers of biological weapons with absolutely no evidence (intelligence officials were forced to shut Bolton up). As for Bolton and the UN, Bolton says, "The Secretariat building in New York has 38 stories. If it lost ten stories, it wouldn't make a bit of difference."

He's probably not the worst choice, but he's not the best by any means.

The letter below, opposing the nomination of John R. Bolton to serve as permanent U.S. representative to the United Nations, is signed by 64 former U.S. diplomats, State Department officials:

"Soft shoe" diplomacy has failed over and over and over again in regard to the Middle east. There has never been peace in the Middle East during my life, it seems you guys want more of the same, I don't. If what we have been doing hasn't worked, trying to be nice, trying to make everybody happy, I say it is time for a new day, I like Bolton and supported his nomination. I realize his days are numbered, I just hope you realize that all those former diplomats failed in regards to the Middle East and peace.

It's not his firmness or doggedness that people reject. It's the way he seems to be a walking (sorry, swaggering) expression of American arrogance and unilateralism. He's been openly negative about the UN and its ability to do anything. We wouldn't send an ambassador to, say, Mexico who thought that Mexico was worthless and would never amount to anything. Such beliefs would seriously undermine our nation's interests there.

Of course, the Administration's interested in having a lousy relationship with the rest of the world so they can play the "Lone Defender of American Against the Forces of Evil" card. Having such a divisive presence in the UN accomplishes that nicely. But those days are over. Part of what America just communicated is that it doesn't like how the Administration has held us separate from our international allies. By way of the proxy-vote of the congressional confirmation, America just voted down on Bolton.

I hope he's replaced by a freaking pit-bull. I don't want any "soft shoe" diplomacy either. But whoever goes in there needs to be able to build consensus and work with other nations, which is a skill Bolton not only lacks, but openly scorns.

I don't get how representing American interests acts as divisive. You really think that countries like Russia and China (or the broader UN) are working for the betterment of mankind? No, they are working to curb US influence, especially how it relates to Iran and North Korea. Release the hounds I say.

We don't want to release the ratarded hounds. That's the point. I have no problem with a pit bull being our rep, but if the pitbull is half blind and barks at walls, it's time to get a new dog.

Ok.
Well, I'm just gonna come out and say it...



I don't like his mustache.

What's wrong with Mr. McNee? He seems to have good credentials, he just doesn't put his foot in his mouth a la Bolton.

Problem with honesty? So - if I am a general F***-up, your form of diplomacy would be to come in and tell me how great I am ...?:confused: And you think that would make me change?:confused:

When I played Highschool football during the summer, at first everyone hated our coach because he told us things (truth) we did not want to hear. At the end of the year, with one loss, we all loved him. He was a tough SOB, didn't always say things in a sensitive manner, but more important was that he cared and in the end we figured that out.

Not to change the subject, and please explain this to me in another thread....

If China is working to curb our influence and is a "bad guy", then why do we send so many jobs there and why are they given "most favored nation" status by us?

Just curious, I always hear from the right how China hates us, yet they love shipping our jobs over there.... seems to me that's a bad thing to be doing, building your enemy's fortunes.

Its not a matter of honesty....Bolton's approach to diplomacy is disdain for anyone who disagrees with him....which ultimately hurts US interests, rather then advancing US interests.

And the UN is not like a footballl team, where the coach is an authoritative figure and the players are subservient.

edit: or maybe it is a good analogy. Bolton acts like the rest of the UN should be subservient to him...even our allies.

Do you want allies? Nations that want to trade with you, and believe that supporting the USA is in their best interests?

Or do you want a congress of nations, all of whom have in the back of their minds "The USA is trying to screw us. Let's undermine the USA at every step."

For decades, the USA has had the ability to claim "we are actually trying to make the world a better place". Now every single action of the American government is presumed to be some machination to boost the power of the American Empire. Mainly because the US foriegn policy is actually behaving that way.

So now the USA is has a huge manpower commitment -- boots on the ground -- locking down a large amount of it's ability to project threat in Iraq. I've seen arguements within the nations that are currently supplying troops in Afghanistan to pull out, in order to tie down more American troops -- because they don't trust what the USA will do if it wasn't tied down.

The USA might be able to sustain it's Imperlialist ambitions, take on Iran, North Korea, Iraq, Afghanistan, and probably some revolt in the Latin American client states, if it shifted to a full-scale war footing. You know, the draft, tax levels above 50%, rationing, hyper-inflation to deal with the debt, etc.

Of course, there are alternatives. Like convincing the world that the USA isn't a wild cannon, using other nation's troops as "boots on the ground" to help with occupations and reconstruction (peacekeeping), and generally realizing that "resolve and fortitude" won't do it alone.

Don't get me wrong -- scorched earth policies, making deserts and calling it peace can be used to avoid the "boots on the ground" problem. It worked for Germany and England for quite a while.

What is not a matter of honesty? Are you referring to the assesment of the UN, or something else? I was referring to the assesment of the UN.

Hyperbole on your part? I don't agree with your statement.

If you saying he has a disdain for corruption and those who want to use the UN to promote terror and hate in the world then I agree. There are in fact countries and people in the world worthy of disdain. Is your approach to pretend they are o.k. I would rather deal with a person who up front says they don't like me rather than a person who pretends but has another agenda.

There is a fundemental question underlying this discussion and as usual we would answer that question differently. Can diplamacy work without power or the threat of force to back it up? I say no.

The UN will do someone's bidding. Nations with no power or force are subservient to those with power or force. How do you figure there is no authoritive figure(s) controlling the UN? Those who lead coalitions understand that they have to keep those under them under control in order to win.

Football can be used as an analogy for everything.

First, let me say that I won't be shedding a tear to see Bolton. I opposed his being placed in the UN to begin with. I'm still torn if I'm happier to see Rumsfeld leave or Bolton (in the near future) get replaced. However, I came acrossed this interesting defense of Bolton from non-other than Alan Dershowitz.

A public advocate for the United States
Leave it to Dershowitz to give me pause and think about my opinion on a guy like Bolton. At this point, I'm wrestling with his argument, but I think I'm still leaning to Bolton needing to be ousted. As the thread develops I believe my thoughts will crystalize.

Keep trying things, maybe you'll hit one.

It's not "toughness" we dislike Bolton for. It's not "brutal honesty". It's arrogance and derision toward the very notion of diplomacy.

The disdain he holds the UN in has been widely documented. I see where you've typed "I disagree", but you haven't really said what you've seen that has you feel that way, so it's hard to do much more than say, "Well, I disagree back, and lots of people feel the way I do, and you and the President appear to be the only ones to feel the way you do, so..." But I am interested in seeing some evidence for your attitude toward the man, if you have some.

You use concepts like "disdain he holds", "derision towrds the very notion of diplomacy", "arrogance", others comment on the way he walks, how he scorns diplomacy, etc. with no support other than saying it is well documented. How do I argue when you and others simply give exhagerated general statements. I have not seen the things you and others describe. It seems Dershowitz has not seen it either. Some of the things you describe are highly subjective, and some assume you can read the man's mind. My very first post in this thread was a question - what has he done that you and others find so offensive?

When some one wrote about his criticisms of the UN, I agreed that he did it, and I think it needed and still needs to be done. When someone said he made a comment that offended Russia, I give you that one, it was inappropriate

I can understand Democrats saying we don't like his personality, but why not say that? Why try to demonize the man?

I can even understand the "disdain" the Democratic party has for Bush and therefore the knee-jerk "disdain" for people he nominates for appointed office, but I was hoping I could believe Pelosi when she said she would bring civility to Washington. I guess that will be after the derision Democrats have for the very notion of civility.:icare:

Its interesting how you choose to see the Dershowitz comments, but not the comments by 64 former US diplomats or the comments from current allied UN diplomats that describe the arrogance and disdain and how such "diplomatic" style is counter to US interests.

Rhode Island moderate Republican Senator Lincoln Chafee has just come out against the Bolton nomination, which would stop it in committee during the lame duck session.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/11/...ess/index.html

Mr. Milk Mustache Man might need to consider drumming up a book deal, or contacting the obvious advertising opportunity with the Milk Association.

Just trying to be helpful. :)

I gave a reason for how I saw the comments by 64 former US diplomats.

It's sacrificing nationalistic ideals for profit. Honestly, it's one of the main problems I have with the current republican mindset. China is more dangerous than the USSR ever was, simply because where the USSR was cut off from most of the world, people seemingly can't move fast enough to bring China in, despite having nearly as bad/as bad human rights violations as the former Soviet Union.
---

More on topic, I liked the Bolton nomination, because I think the UN is a dinosaur, and I think Bolton was the right person to show just how little the current administration thinks about the UN. He would treat it like the joke it is. But this nomination issue brings forward a problem that might be come more and more commonplace-namely, the virtual shutdown of gov't when the pres and congress are split. I honestly see nothing of note being accomplished in the remainder of Bush's term. Little was done even with him having control of congress (at least nominally). Now, it will be a big cockblock contest, with both sides trying to make sure nothing is accomplished while blaming the other. Added to this will be people preparing themselves for the upcoming presidential elections, and Bush will become the lamest of lame duck presidents.

To the contray, the Bolton nomination shows that Bush wants to actually get something done through the UN. When the stakes are high, I think we are better served by a diplomat who is feared than by one who is loved.

Other posters have shown a level of naivety when it comes to understanding what prevents war. The fact of the matter is -fear- is the number one reason why an aggressive county avoids war. To prevent aggressive countries from making war, you need a guy who can go in and not so subtly let them know that the consequences of aggressive action or war is too high. When you have diplomats, who went to diplomat school, and read diplomat books, taught by wanna be diplomats in ivory towers, you get diplomats who are loved and get laughed at behind their backs.

If Bush wanted to treat the UN like a joke, he would have nominated someone like Jimmy Carter. I think Bush has a clearer understanding of what is at risk than he gets credit for. It appears that the Democratic Party is in a fog and still wants to play political games, including sending the message to the world that we won't stand strong in the UN and in our reslove against aggresive countries. This too me, right now is one of the biggest issues that will have the biggest impact on bringing peace to the Middle East. Our enemy is celebrating Bush's defeat, now they want further evidence of our weakening resolve. The Democratic Party needs to step up and send the right message to our enemy, they need to confirm Bolton even if they don't like his mustache.

Thanks for sharing your self-proclaimed better understanding of what prevents war and what makes for effective diplomacy than "others" of us here.

Its exactly that kind of arrogance that Bush displays in his approach to foreign policy that has raised anti-American sentiments around the world to levels never seen before.

If all you've got is to put words in your opponents' mouths, then you've already lost the argument. NOBODY has said we want a wuss in the UN. Yet you keep claiming that Bolton's aggressiveness is what people object to.

But, hey, keep repeating it. Someday it might be true.

What are you thanking me for? it has been well documented that I am "arrogant", "mean spirited", and an all around bad person - show me how I am wrong on the issue at hand.

I often start with good intensions, wanting to be open minded and to get a better understanding of how others think, but I get increasingly frustrated, I think Bush does too. We see the world in "black and white" many see the world in shades of "grey". Those who want to kill us, those who want to steal the freedoms of others, ain't gonna be splitting hairs. Noone has given a good reason in my opinion to not confirm Bolton.

Please summarize what people object to? I am either obtuse or the reasons given have been vague.

Did you read about Saturday's UN veto by Bolton?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...111200209.html

The US was the only nation with the courage to veto the resolution. Why? Or, do you thing the veto was wrong?

ace, I get the impression that you haven't read anyone's posts in this thread but your own. Scroll up and read. That should give you an adequate overview of what people object to about Bolton's attitude toward the UN.

Let's say, I disagree with you that the Middle East is a black-and-white issue. I also disagree with Bush and Bolton and Israel's one-way-ness about the whole thing. For Israel, it's a matter of survival, and that puts them in a fairly unilateral spot. I can understand that. I don't understand why the US has to be so blindly unilateral with them.

IMO, Israel did some things during the recent conflagration that were morally questionable, and I'm not against holding them to account for that. So in that sense, I'm not for the veto.

Look--that we vetoed something speaks to exactly the arrogance and jingoism I'm talking about. There's no interest on Bolton's part to build consensus, to come up with solutions that people can agree on. In his world, there are allies and enemies, and you cozy up with the former, and bomb the everliving shit out of the latter, and that's just absolutely how it is. I'd like to have somebody representing us on the international stage who has some flexibility in their view of the world. A rigid view is death.

Also, notice that you're spinning this as a matter of "courage". Consider that it's not that we were the only ones with the courage. Maybe we were just the only ones who wanted it to go that way. That's sort of what "veto" means, after all.

IMO, you were wrong in suggesting that "others simply give exhagerated general statements.....".

As many of those here that you describe as "naive" have said repeatedly, our diplomats should be tough. honest and aggressive....just not ARROGANT and OFFENSIVE to the point of being conter-productive.

For further examples of "what people object to", I refer you again to the letter from the 64 former US diplomats. You dont have to agree with it, as you obviously dont ...but they were explitict in expressing their concerns, with examples of how Bolton's style and actions have hurt US interests on several issues.

And the US veto of an anti-Israel resolution is nothing new and has nothing to do with Bolton. The US has vetoed nearly every anti-Israel resolution since Truman was president. In fact, I think you are showing your own naivete if you think this demostrates Bolton's effectiveness.

I think we all agree that the UN is not helpful when it comes to Isreal-Palestinian issues. For the last 40 years, the US has worked on Mid East peace through direct diplomacy, not through the UN. Jimmy Carter, who you mock, personally negotiated the Camp David Accord that established peace between Israel and Egypt and recognized palestian rights. Reagan had his own Mid East envoy, to work outside of the UN (gasp...its was Rumsfeld) and Dennis Ross, who as Bush Sr.'s and Clinton's Mid East envoy, was the one who brokered the deal that lead to Israel closing settlements in the occupied territory. It was unfortunate that the Palestians but so much faith in a crooked terrorist like Arafat or the Clinton/Dennis Ross efforts would have brought the region much closer to peace.

You summed up here a very important point about our current implementation of foreign policy and the Bush administration's attitude towards conflict and dispute resolution. Fortunately for us all, we will now see some maneuvering away from these stringent and punitive measures that disregard the value and input of the rest of the planet in favor of diplomatic and incentive based negotiations. Can John Bolton "go with the flow" and prove himself able to engage and compromise as well as he bullies? That remains to be seen but I, for one, am willing to give him the chance. If not? He will need to be reined in or he will have to go. Where WE need to be stubborn and uncompromising is in our resolve to nurture the multilateral alliances we had before the war and to leave behind the ridiculous posturing and "bulldozer" attitude we have had not only toward our enemies, but toward our traditonal allies, as well. And I agree with you, rb, this is a life or death matter. As convinced as the war patriots are that with enough threats and bombing they will effectively squelch the threat of Islamic radicalism, they couldn't be more wrong. This is a new sort of conflict, and if we continue on that course we might as well roll out the red carpet for Osama and invite him to set up HQ in the Lincoln bedroom.

Here is where I agree with Bolton when he said:

“For 50 years on a bipartisan basis, we have tried to keep the UN out of the Middle East conflict because it is not an honest broker....

The UN is overwhelming anti-Israel and US support of resolutions that condemn Israel (when they deserve to be condemned) would only provide incentive for some countries to act on those anti-Israel sentiments.

The Isreal-Palestinian issue is best left to direct diplomacy as has been our policy for 50 years, where we can pressure Israel without weakening them in the eyes of their arab neighbors.

"Arrogance" is a subjective concept it can not be clearly measured.

"Offensive" is a subjective concept, it can not be clearly measured.

"counter productive" is a vague, who knows what it means?

The actions of the US have historically been called arrogant, offensive and counter productive in the Middle East. These comments often come from those who want to wipe Isreal off of the face of the map, and then the US. It comes from those who want to steal liberty control other people. We saw those kinds of comments regarding our veto Saturday. The nexsus in my logic says, if some percieve our UN Ambassidore as arrogant and offensive, so what! In fact, if everyone liked our UN Ambassidore I would wonder what was wrong with him or her. Advesaries and political opponents use those terms to get leverage, not to solve problems.

The Democratic Party won the mid-term elections, they got Rumsfeld, they are going to get a "new direction", heck, they are going to get an increase in the minimum wage (which appears to be #1 on their to do list), now I say it is time for the Party to stop playing political leverage games. If Bolton has not represented us in a manner worthy of our expectations, lets get rid of him. If he has been failing, we should be able to point to specifics, not generalities. Perhaps I am in the "fog", cause I simply don't see what you and the majority sees.

As usual this has been interesting. I just wish the stakes were not so high, the things being done can lead to a more peaceful world or WWIII.

Ace....all I can say is that diplomacy is not an exact science and your rationale for Bolton's confirmation seem equally subjective to me.

But it has been interesting and no offense intended :)

edit: I just have to add that, in the lame duck session of Congress that will begin tomorrow, Repubs will be "playing political leverage games" as well. The Bolton nomination will be just one of many.

times are and are not changing.

on bolton: his appointment was an extension of the attitude particular to the neocons relative to the un. that attitude was, and is: fuck you.
this manly man nonsense--bolton is a manly man--is simply idiotic.
but after 4 days in a hotel television watching station (they called it a room, but they didn't fool me...) i have to say that i am amazed--appalled at the level of sustained idiocy that is television "news" and understand more than i did before where such idiotic views of--say--john bolton come from.

i think that the quality of infotainment on the cable news networks is SO bad---SO bad--that they really have to be viewed as a threat to the charade that is american democracy....and i am not overstating this....because anything like a democracy presupposes an informed citizenry...and you are NOT informed by television.
you are provided with moving images.
if you confuse that with information, then you are not much more advanced than an infant watching a pretty mobile spin over his head from a viewpoint shaped by a crib.
pretty moving pictures.
ooo.


cable news networks provide an illusion of information.
what kind of relationship to the world do they fashion?
they are entirely composed of truncated footage handled in a simple-minded manner that relies on the movement of images to give you the illusion that the "real" is being reflected in it---this is glossed with two registers of empty moronic commentary--one by the reporters, most of whom standing doorways waiting for important people to walk by so as to give the illusion of connection between the potted infotainment they sandwich over the images of white boys in suits walking across thresholds---and another, even stupider gloss is provided by the anchors.

everything is presented in a way that treats the limitations of commercial television like natural horizons that shape without particular problem or loss the way in which "reality" functions.

the frequent gatherings of television-sanctioned idiots for crossfire-like exchanges of short pithy cliches that is fobbed off as debate between political positions are, somehow, even dumber than the running non-coverage of television style pseudo-events.

within the context of these gatherings of television-sanctioned idiots for crossfire-like exchanges of pseudo-information actually manage to stage what passes for meaningful debate within this joke of a pseudo-democracy.

it is only within the frames provided by these idiots wearing glasses (you know, "intellectuals" in that kinda pol pot sense)--and ONLY within the frames provided by them--claims about questions like whether john bolton is manly or not even begin to make sense.
outside of these frames, the claim appears to be...well, nothing.
it is nothing. it means nothing. it says nothing.

but the vacuity of this particular claim is really not important.
what seems to me much more important is the degenerate nature of television in america as a news source.
i think this is a huge problem.
i think we, as a public, should consider organizing a viewer's strike.
i think we should turn the television off for a week.
more than that. longer than that.
turn it off.
.
turn it off:
read.
do something else.
listen to music
talk to people
fidget
anything.

we should organize a collective withdrawal of consent from underneath this stream of sustained crap, this lobotomy instrument.
i would think that the major news networks could be brought to their commerical knees by a week of viewer strike action particularly if it was accompanied by threats of other such actions.

seriously....
how do you put up with television as an information source?
why do you put up with it?
what possible reason is there to accept it?

shifts in the composition of congress are presented on the same level as infotainment about britney spears and k-fed or anna nicole smith and the problems she has with her mother. footage of iraq is no different from footage of college football games. it is astonishing. you put up with it. it is normal.
i dont get it.