Advertisement
I couldn’t help but notice Senators alternating one Republican followed by one Democrat to ask John Bolton scripted questions on the first day of his confirmation hearings on Monday. The hearing seemed like a well orchestrated formality without much fanfare until it was temporarily suspended by a group of pink protestors.
The Republicans praised his multilateral efforts in the past. The Democrats chastised him for admonishing Intelligence Analysts who didn’t return his desired conclusions along with his stated disdain for the United Nations.
This ping-pong drama went on for hours, and in the end most callers into C-SPAN were playing the same game. Public debate thus far has fallen into our usual dual world perspectives. Everything in political America now a day arrives in only two choices. Red or Blue, Republican or Democrat, Conservative or Liberal, and so on and so forth…
Bolton’s supporters spin his opinionated views on multilateralism, the UN, and anything else as an indication of his needed strength to reform the UN. Bolton’s opponents point to those same views as proof of his disdain for these very institutions he now professes to support and wants to serve.
Last week I saw former UN Secretary General Boutros Ghali on Al-Jazerra, the Arab satellite channel, giving an interview on his relationship with the US while at the UN. One thing struck me listening to him; our Government never had any problems getting its views to him very clearly.
This fact alone nullifies the point that an opinionated person is needed to offend the world’s diplomatic core at the UN in order to get the President’s reform message through. By President Bush signing off on a list of reform measures to be read out by his UN Ambassador in New York, the message will reach all 191 member states of the UN very clearly. The only question is whether the President will include democratizing the UN Security Council in those reforms or not.
Bolton exhibited the quintessential ‘team-player’ attitude when asked about his published views on Taiwan and how they differed from the President’s public position. As a former Senior Vice-President at the American Enterprise Institute, he supported full UN membership for Taiwan. President Bush favors “Observer-Status” for Taiwan at the World Health Organization which functions as the UN’s Health Agency. When Bolton was asked, he said that he understands and will fully fight for the President’s position.
In an administration that values loyalty, John Bolton is well on his way to become a contender for Secretary of State if Condi moves up to perhaps VP? One need only read Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neil’s book, the Price of Loyalty, to understand what loyalty means to Bush 43.
Under Secretary John Bolton deserves credit for working “Pro-Bono” with Texas’s greatest diplomat, Secretary James Baker III at the UN. His multi-lateral efforts to stem arms proliferation at the State Department’s Office of Arms Control and Security Policy are highly commendable. And its efforts like these that allow many Americans to sleep more comfortably at night post 9/11.
The Senate should instead of debating John Bolton’s personal views, ought to be debating his effectiveness as a negotiator in selling his diplomatic colleagues from other nations that their national interests are congruent with America’s national interests. After all how often does an Ambassador define policy unilaterally without the Government that appoints him? John Bolton deserves his constitutionally protected right to hold any personal view he wishes, but he doesn’t deserve his appointment if he can’t fulfill its duties.
With Social Security and Judicial appointments leading domestic policy discussions and the War on Terror leading our foreign policy discussions; Americans are finding it more and more difficult to exercise constructive politically civil dialogue.
One of the effects by the founding fathers making Article I of the Constitution refer to Congress is to illustrate the preeminent influence this body has on our civil dialogue as a democracy. In this politically bitter atmosphere with our nation experiencing two back-to-back hotly contested elections; is it too much to ask the Senate to raise the level of debate.
Mohamed Elibiary
President & CEO of The Freedom and Justice Foundation
freeandjust.org
The Republicans praised his multilateral efforts in the past. The Democrats chastised him for admonishing Intelligence Analysts who didn’t return his desired conclusions along with his stated disdain for the United Nations.
This ping-pong drama went on for hours, and in the end most callers into C-SPAN were playing the same game. Public debate thus far has fallen into our usual dual world perspectives. Everything in political America now a day arrives in only two choices. Red or Blue, Republican or Democrat, Conservative or Liberal, and so on and so forth…
Bolton’s supporters spin his opinionated views on multilateralism, the UN, and anything else as an indication of his needed strength to reform the UN. Bolton’s opponents point to those same views as proof of his disdain for these very institutions he now professes to support and wants to serve.
Last week I saw former UN Secretary General Boutros Ghali on Al-Jazerra, the Arab satellite channel, giving an interview on his relationship with the US while at the UN. One thing struck me listening to him; our Government never had any problems getting its views to him very clearly.
This fact alone nullifies the point that an opinionated person is needed to offend the world’s diplomatic core at the UN in order to get the President’s reform message through. By President Bush signing off on a list of reform measures to be read out by his UN Ambassador in New York, the message will reach all 191 member states of the UN very clearly. The only question is whether the President will include democratizing the UN Security Council in those reforms or not.
Bolton exhibited the quintessential ‘team-player’ attitude when asked about his published views on Taiwan and how they differed from the President’s public position. As a former Senior Vice-President at the American Enterprise Institute, he supported full UN membership for Taiwan. President Bush favors “Observer-Status” for Taiwan at the World Health Organization which functions as the UN’s Health Agency. When Bolton was asked, he said that he understands and will fully fight for the President’s position.
In an administration that values loyalty, John Bolton is well on his way to become a contender for Secretary of State if Condi moves up to perhaps VP? One need only read Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neil’s book, the Price of Loyalty, to understand what loyalty means to Bush 43.
Under Secretary John Bolton deserves credit for working “Pro-Bono” with Texas’s greatest diplomat, Secretary James Baker III at the UN. His multi-lateral efforts to stem arms proliferation at the State Department’s Office of Arms Control and Security Policy are highly commendable. And its efforts like these that allow many Americans to sleep more comfortably at night post 9/11.
The Senate should instead of debating John Bolton’s personal views, ought to be debating his effectiveness as a negotiator in selling his diplomatic colleagues from other nations that their national interests are congruent with America’s national interests. After all how often does an Ambassador define policy unilaterally without the Government that appoints him? John Bolton deserves his constitutionally protected right to hold any personal view he wishes, but he doesn’t deserve his appointment if he can’t fulfill its duties.
With Social Security and Judicial appointments leading domestic policy discussions and the War on Terror leading our foreign policy discussions; Americans are finding it more and more difficult to exercise constructive politically civil dialogue.
One of the effects by the founding fathers making Article I of the Constitution refer to Congress is to illustrate the preeminent influence this body has on our civil dialogue as a democracy. In this politically bitter atmosphere with our nation experiencing two back-to-back hotly contested elections; is it too much to ask the Senate to raise the level of debate.
Mohamed Elibiary
President & CEO of The Freedom and Justice Foundation
freeandjust.org