The New Republic

The last nominee for ambassador to the United Nations about whom The
New York Times was frantic was Daniel Patrick Moynihan. In fact, it
was frantic about him twice. The first time was in November 1970,
when Moynihan's name was, for a brief moment, floated as a likely
candidate. The Times was quick to declare him the "wrong man for
the u.n." The right man was Charles Yost, a foreign servant for
nearly four decades so discreet as to be almost invisible.Moynihan never made clear why he did not then take the post. Did he
initially decline it because of the opposition mustered against him
on West 43rd Street? Who knows. In the end, President Nixon, who
had asked Eugene McCarthy to take the post before Moynihan, sent
the name of George Bush pere to the Senate--and, as Moynihan
quipped in his book A Dangerous Place (which is what he considered
the United Nations), the Times did not say he was the wrong man.

After serving (quite magnificently) for two years as ambassador to
India (in the tradition of John Kenneth Galbraith), Moynihan was
named to the U.N. post by President Ford. Again, the Times found
fault with the designee: "[T]he prospect of Mr. Moynihan at Turtle
Bay has aroused among some friends of the United Nations genuine
doubts about United States policy toward the world organization,
and especially toward third world countries." The Times was
carrying on what one could only call a vendetta against Moynihan for
what were then surprising insights on race but are now--forgive the
metaphor--white bread. But Moynihan was confirmed. I can still
recall the bitter derision of the foreign affairs elite at
Moynihan's insistence on putting the United States "in opposition"
to the malevolent bargains the Soviets were then making with "the
nonaligned," that label itself a lie.

The present envoy to the United Nations, John Bolton, has served as
a recess appointment since the summer of 2005, not because he
couldn't get a majority of the Senate to back him (he could) but
because the majority leadership couldn't manage the 60 votes to
block a filibuster. (When I was a child, liberal Democrats saw the
filibuster as antidemocratic and reactionary.) President Bush is
once again dispatching Bolton's name to the Senate. And, once again,
the Times is apoplectic. Last year, it editorialized, "[T]his may
be the first time a world superpower has used its top United
Nations post as a spot for the remedial training of a troublesome
government employee."

But the fact is that Moynihan and Bolton were cut from the same
cloth: a bit pugnacious in their patriotism, realistic about the
moral and practical limits of world-organization diplomacy,
clear-headed about the fact that some nations sitting across the
table from us at the United Nations are actual enemies. Bolton
understands, as Moynihan did, the futility of the U.N.'s. grand
bureaucracies and plastic procedures. When there is a crisis, the
U.N. apparatus is mobilized to pass a resolution. A resolution is
almost the be-all and end-all of the United Nations. No one seems
to pay much attention to the consequences or whether there are
consequences at all. Like Resolution 1559, passed two years ago. It
stated quite clearly what was supposed to happen in southern
Lebanon--namely, the disarming of Hezbollah and all other militias.
And let us not forget its requirement that the secretary-general
make a report "within thirty days" on progress toward the
resolution's goals. Of course, he couldn't have reported more than
nothing. This instance of impotence is not an exception to the
rule; it is the rule.

An honest U.S. ambassador recognizes the logic of U.N.
decision-making. Fred Ikle called it "semantic infiltration." You
undermine your position by adopting your adversaries' language.
What the U.N. is most often discussing is wording-- wording that
bridges positions. But these wordings that bridge positions are, as
Moynihan understood and Bolton understands, often deep
falsifications.

The internationalization of decision-making through the United
Nations is said to be the only basis for legitimate
decision-making, especially when it comes to the use of force. In
Darfur, just as one instance, the internationalization of the
process has thus far meant no U.N. force at all. I'd bet that last
week's decision not to put Resolution 1701 explicitly under Chapter
7 guidelines will mean that no one will disarm Hezbollah. Verbal
compromise turns out to be the refusal to act, or the refusal to act
decisively. In any case, Bolton has rejected the basic proposition
about the internationalization of decision-making on several
occasions. His point was that political legitimacy derives only
from democratic processes. Since so few of the states in the United
Nations operate through these processes, there is little legitimacy
in the United Nations at all, particularly on extreme questions
like force.

Now, Bolton has made an issue of the Oil-for-Food scandal,
management reform, membership in ancillary agencies (for example,
whether notorious human rights- abusing states--like China and
Cuba--should be elected to the new U.N. Human Rights Council; they
were), and other matters like corruption, the sexually abusive
behavior of U.N. peacekeepers, et cetera. It is not that he hasn't
accepted compromises. He has. But the American U.N. lobby (there is
one) is content, even eager, to leave the bloated, corrupt, and
often unethical norms of the organization be. It certainly doesn't
want a searchlight focused on them. This lobby is very hostile to
Bolton's confirmation.

It is really quite unseemly for the Democratic minority to be
stalking Bolton's nomination. It isn't as if the U.N. post is a
judicial appointment, where the separation of powers implies
greater senatorial prerogatives in exercising "advice and consent."
The U.N. ambassador is really a representative of the president in
international affairs. Of course, most Democratic senators oppose
the president's foreign policy. But they are in the minority. And
do they have the right to sabotage a nomination that expresses--for
better and for worse--the president's views?

In the year he has served, Bolton has been exemplary on many issues,
the most significant of which are the Security Council's attempts
to persuade North Korea and Iran to suspend their nuclear
adventures. His work resulted in unanimity among the five permanent
members of the Council. He has riveted the attention of member
states on elections in the Congo and the deteriorating
circumstances in Burma. He continues to press for more effective
initiatives on the genocidal situation in Sudan. Bolton's dexterity
resulted in the establishment of both budget and management reforms
that were very long overdue. Quotidian, you might say. But his
ability to address high issues and routine ones is a rarity in the
bureaucracy.

Alas, Bolton was one of James Baker's gang who went to Florida to
snatch the state's electoral votes from Al Gore. I personally
resent those who engaged in that venture. But the fact is that Bush
is now president, and his administration is peopled by many of his
enthusiasts who flew to Tallahassee after November 7. Florida is no
longer relevant.

Still desperate to finish off Bolton's appointment, his antagonists
have fixed on matters of character. He is a "bully," they say. And,
indeed, some accounts of his brusque treatment of government
intelligence analysts are troubling, if true. But that's now old
news. His handiwork in Turtle Bay--co- writing resolutions with
France, to take the most recent example--is hardly the mark of a
blustering zealot. And do the Democrats imagine that the Clinton
administration was all geniality? Do Democrats see Hillary Clinton
as amiable? Which brings me to another former U.N. ambassador,
Richard Holbrooke--one of the most accomplished diplomats of our
time. I hope that the next Democratic president appoints him
secretary of state. But, if Bolton is rejected because he's a
bully, let me tell you that Holbrooke will have trouble, too.

By martin peretz

share this article on facebook or twitter print this article