Chief of Police of Malibu

So today, Lincoln Chafee stood up to the powers that be in the Republican party, which he’s done only enough to make him my second-favorite Republican senator (after Arlen Specter, who has spoken truth to power more frequently and on more notable topics).  This time it was to delay again the committee vote on confirmation of John Bolton as UN Ambassador.  Bolton has actually been acting UN Ambassador for over a year now, since President Bush took advantage a rule that lets him actually violate the provision of the US Constitution that the US Senate "advise and consent" to executive nominations.  As you may know, if a position needs to be filled while congress is not in session to give (or withhold) its advice or consent, the president may appoint someone during the recess who may serve until the end of that particular congress (when the new congress is seated, which will be this coming January).

I heard lots of terrible things about Bolton when he was first appointed that made me think he was bad for the job (though the principal disqualification was his nomination by Bush, who mostly seems to make terrible picks for appointments, or undermines anyone halfway decent whom he gets accidentally, like Colin Powell or Paul O’Neill). 

But now that Bolton has had 13 months at the UN, I say that we can put all that aside, and judge him on his accomplishments.  Has he gotten Iran to back down on its nuclear weapons?  No.  Has he gotten North Korea to halt its nuclear weapons program?  No.  Has he gotten the UN to crack down on genocide in Darfur?  Not really–the UN is supposedly going to come in and take over the peacekeeping force currently run by the African Union and give it the actual muscle and teeth to protect the people of Darfur from their own government, but the resolution the Security Council adopted says they’ll only do it if the Sudanese government agrees–that’s like asking an abusive husband for permission to come into his house and protect his wife from him.  Why would he ever agree?  And why did Bolton ever let the security council pass something so guaranteed to fail?  Perhaps because he’s incompetent (like Michale Browne), perhaps because he just yelled at the ambassadors from the other countries on the security council, instead of trying to persuade them.  Perhaps Kanye West was right when in discussing the response of Bolton’s boss to Hurrican Katrina he blurted out "George Bush doesn’t care about black people!"   I’m not going to be the judge, but is our guy at the UN, and he didn’t make the right thing happen.

In fact, I don’t know where he was during the negotiations over the cease-fire and UN force for Lebanon, but that almost fell apart when they French, who were supposed to lead the force, could get out of the security council straightforward permission to actually shoot and fight if they had to (there’s a great story that I haven’t seen people pick upon–the French were the ones bashing the UN because it didn’t want to let them fight aggressively!).

And I certainly have not seen Bolton make any effort to get the UN or any of its member states to help share the task of policing Iraq.  I also haven’t seen him denounce destabilizing dictators like Pervez Mussharaf whose military junta has been fomenting an insurgency in another attempted democracy the US set up with its army: Afghanistan.  Maybe Bolton’s done better on economic issues.  Has he gotten the UN’s economic organs to bolster pressure on China to let its currency float?  No.  Has he used his role as a US representative and influence with other countries involved with trade talks and promote furthering of agreements on world trade de-regulation?  If he has, it didn’t work.  Has he opened up the floodgates of US aid for women’s health in poor countries of the world that had been held back by a ban on providing funding to UN or other organs that provide contraceptives?  No.

So what has John Bolton done that would prove wrong everybody who said he was going to be ineffective?  Unlike most executive appointees, he’s had a trial period, and can be remove in 4 months just by the Senate sticking to its decision to withhold its consent, instead of flip-flopping on the subject.  Most executive appointees are accepted pretty much sight-unseen (especially in this administration, which has had control of Congress and refused to turn over much information about several appointees, including Bolton) and they can only later be removed by Congress by impeachment, which is an extreme measure and incredibly time-consuming and costly.

So why should the Senate now confirm Bolton, besides out of a slavish loyalty to a president who’s picked a lot of terrible appointees and terrible policies that have led us into a no-win war and an enormous deficit?  I can’t think of a good reason–and I hope Lincoln Chaffee and other sensible senators will continue to agree with me unless we see evidence otherwise.