Warren Hoge at the New York Times last month reported: "[O]ver the past month, more than 30 ambassadors consulted in the preparation of this article, all of whom share the United States’ goal of changing United Nations management practices, expressed misgivings over Mr. Bolton’s leadership."

Besides the German and Swiss Ambassadors, who proudly attached their names to their complaints, we don't know who these 30 Ambassadors are or which countries they represent. But we now know of one Ambassador who is not among them and is not afraid to stand up for Bolton against, well, everybody else: Ambassador Stuart Beck of Palau.

Now the last thing I want to do is smear or demean Palau. If I were less sensitive, I could just as easily write this post for humor in a bitingly sarcastic tone. Instead, I’ll take the serious, analytical tone: I question the value of Palau’s endorsement and its independence of the Bush Administration and Republicans in Congress.

Let's start with the latter. Palau is entirely dependent on the U.S for national defense. The U.S. is obligated by treaty to defend Palau from foreign threats, and for its part, Palau has no military of its own.

Of course, that didn't stop Palau from participating in the so-called coalition of the willing that invaded Iraq. According to the Washington Post, Palau offered the U.S. use of its harbors and airports for Operation Iraqi Freedom; of course, the small Pacific island nation is nowhere near Iraq and has no strategic value, so the U.S. politely declined. But that didn't stop the White House from listing Palau as a participating coalition member.

Earlier this year, Palau was one of 3 countries out of 191 U.N. member states to vote against the Human Rights Council with Bolton.

Palau also rakes in over $150 million per year in foreign aid from the U.S. - that's nearly twice the amount of annual government expenditures. And the government is by far the largest employer of the country's work force.

Those sweet numbers in aid, though, could come to a screeching halt when the Free Association Compact between the U.S. and Palau expires in or around 2009. Palau is rightly frightened of being left to fend for itself without U.S. assistance. On nearly every issue except climate change, which threatens low-lying Palau’s very existence, Palau shows great deference to the White House.

So, there's reason to take Palau's endorsement with a grain of salt. But let's be honest: even if Ambassador Beck thinks Bolton is the bees knees, his support doesn’t begin to make up for the alliances Bolton has damaged with key allies, such as those reported on by Hoge in NYT and Colum Lynch in the Washington Post.

There are plenty of countries whose economic ties help us prosper, whose military and intelligence cooperation helps keep us safe, and whose diplomatic influence substantially amplifies our own. With all due respect, Palau simply isn’t one of them.

As they weigh their votes on the Bolton nomination this month, senators should consider how the ill will between Bolton and other Ambassadors could impact U.S. foreign policy. Palau’s support – which would surely transfer over to any potential successor that President Bush could choose for Bolton – doesn’t figure into the equation.