John Bolton is outta there!
darkcrow
Posts: 1,102
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/6207054.stm
Controversial US envoy quits post
Mr Bush was for him, but Democrat senators were not
The US ambassador to the United Nations is to leave his post when his temporary appointment runs out.
John Bolton looked unable to win the necessary Senate support for him to continue in the job.
Democrats in the chamber, who objected to his combative approach at the UN, were due to reject his nomination.
He is the second high-profile member of President George W Bush's team to leave after the Republicans fared badly in last month's mid-term elections.
Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld left shortly after the 7 November polls.
Mr Bolton took up the UN posting last year during a Congressional holiday after his nomination stalled in the Senate.
It was a procedural manoeuvre that avoided the need for him to be confirmed until the end of this year.
That procedure cannot be repeated, and the new climate in Congress would make it all but impossible for him to win a two-thirds majority of senators.
The incoming chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Democratic Senator Joe Biden, had already said he saw "no point in considering Mr Bolton's nomination again".
'Ideal'
Mr Bolton's critics said a man who once declared there was "no such thing" as the UN was hardly a suitable choice to join the body.
The president appointed ambassador Bolton because he knew he would represent America's values and would take head-on problems at the United Nations
White House spokeswoman
Profile: John Bolton
His nomination incensed many former US ambassadors - 102 of whom signed a letter urging senators to reject his nomination.
But his admirers said he was a bright, hard-working realist - whose scepticism about the UN's role made him an ideal envoy, particularly when the organisation was in need of deep reform.
A White House spokeswoman said that among Mr Bolton's accomplishments, he assembled coalitions addressing North Korea's nuclear activity, Iran's uranium enrichment and reprocessing work and the horrific violence in Darfur.
He personified Washington's view of the UN, says the BBC's diplomatic correspondent, an institution that was viewed as being wasteful and ineffective at best and, at worst, as inimical to America's wider global interests.
Controversial US envoy quits post
Mr Bush was for him, but Democrat senators were not
The US ambassador to the United Nations is to leave his post when his temporary appointment runs out.
John Bolton looked unable to win the necessary Senate support for him to continue in the job.
Democrats in the chamber, who objected to his combative approach at the UN, were due to reject his nomination.
He is the second high-profile member of President George W Bush's team to leave after the Republicans fared badly in last month's mid-term elections.
Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld left shortly after the 7 November polls.
Mr Bolton took up the UN posting last year during a Congressional holiday after his nomination stalled in the Senate.
It was a procedural manoeuvre that avoided the need for him to be confirmed until the end of this year.
That procedure cannot be repeated, and the new climate in Congress would make it all but impossible for him to win a two-thirds majority of senators.
The incoming chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Democratic Senator Joe Biden, had already said he saw "no point in considering Mr Bolton's nomination again".
'Ideal'
Mr Bolton's critics said a man who once declared there was "no such thing" as the UN was hardly a suitable choice to join the body.
The president appointed ambassador Bolton because he knew he would represent America's values and would take head-on problems at the United Nations
White House spokeswoman
Profile: John Bolton
His nomination incensed many former US ambassadors - 102 of whom signed a letter urging senators to reject his nomination.
But his admirers said he was a bright, hard-working realist - whose scepticism about the UN's role made him an ideal envoy, particularly when the organisation was in need of deep reform.
A White House spokeswoman said that among Mr Bolton's accomplishments, he assembled coalitions addressing North Korea's nuclear activity, Iran's uranium enrichment and reprocessing work and the horrific violence in Darfur.
He personified Washington's view of the UN, says the BBC's diplomatic correspondent, an institution that was viewed as being wasteful and ineffective at best and, at worst, as inimical to America's wider global interests.
DOWNLOAD THE LATEST ISSUE OF The Last Reel: http://www.mediafire.com/?jdsqazrjzdt
http://www.myspace.com/thelastreel http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=19604327965
http://www.myspace.com/thelastreel http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=19604327965
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
Too bad the Democrats will force us to have a watered down, weak ambasador.
Too bad the Bush administration lacks the will to fight for him. They deserve the most scorn. Bolton carried their water without question, even though he likely didn't agree with many of their positions. Condi Rice has done almost nothing to help him. They totally threw him under the bus. What a bunch of assholes.
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
why?
Absolutely right. But politics will trump demonstrated competence everytime.
exactly. the UN sucks and is full of people who wont do shit. I guess we need to drop to their level.
http://www.reverbnation.com/brianzilm
I can live with that. why havent I seen you in the Obama thread?
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
better eurotrash than trailertrash
http://www.myspace.com/thelastreel http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=19604327965
I'd like to Clinton working for the UN someday. However, he'll have to wait for at least 5 years to take over for Kofi Annan. His sucessor has already been appointed. Ban Ki-Moon, South Corea's Minister of Foreign Affairs was like a month ago to be the next Secretary General.
About Bolton, well for the international community is good news. Personally, I'd like to see the US having an ambassador who actually believes in UN's role...
LOL I know. Ditto
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
Well, from what I know it has been really tough to work and get some compromises from Bolton. For example, the Millenium Development Goals are THE most important goal the UN system has ever set, yet it was extremely hard to get Bolton's signature on strenghtening developed countries compromise with the Millenium Declaration. I mean if you don't believe in what could be one of UN's biggest achievements it doesn't make much sense to be in the organization, I think...
Did the UN get Bolton's signature? Were the questions he was asking and issues he was bringing up valid? Did he add anything to the process? Everything I've read about Bolton is that he has been (surprisingly) good at his job. His private thoughts on the UN are just that, private.
My personal take is that the UN is useless in it's present form. I still back Canada being a UN member because I hold out hope that the UN can change and become useful. Should this ban me from ever working with the UN? Is the UN so sacred that it should not be open to criticism? Should those working for the UN be complete yes men?
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
Actually I can't -mostly cause I lost the newspaper article- remember his objetctions to the MDG's renewed commitment (sp?), but it had to deal with increasing international aide in order to achieve MDGs. Also, he didn't have much of an insight about many of UN's work. The General Assembly is a tiny part of the whole organization.
Of course that people working for the UN don't have to be "yes men", I wouldn't condone it either; there has to be critical thinking and questioning. Actually if you take a look at the latest UN appointments you'll find criticism, but understanding at the same time. For example, Mr. Kemal Dervis, who was appointed last year UNDP's General Administor, wrote a brilliant proposal to reform the UN Security Council. And there's a huge wind of change in the organization. The UN is being reformed as we speak.
And may I tell you that the UN is sooo not useless. Maybe if we strictly refer to the Security Council, we can agree that is has not been working properly; but the UN do so much more. I mean, UNDP comprises like 60 different agencies which are devoted to solve and help creating solutions for many issues like poverty, AIDS; children's rights, etc, etc. There are agencies like UNDP, FAO, UNICEF, WHO, ILO and many other that do crucial work all throughout the world. Sadly the General Assembly and the Security Council steal all the headlines...
Apologies for my english
Caterina
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
Thanks for the compliments about my english.
The thing with the UN Security Council is that the organism is outdated; chiefly because it is still operating under a "cold war framework". The geopolitical and economic map has changed a lot and nowadays permanent seats don't reflect such maps. The most "out there" examples are China, India and -to a lesser degree- Brasil. These countries have a say on today's global affairs, so it would be logic to have them included in the Security Council.
Yet, the key issue is to create a new system for the veto powers. It is obvious that permanent members won't give away veto powers, but something should be done, in order to prevent the many of zero sum situations we see in the SC... for example I like this reform proposa, it is realistic and would reflect more accurately our world's situation:
http://www.cgdev.org/doc/books/better_globalization/chapter3.pdf