There also remains the possibility that the president will use his presidential signing statement to pay Bolton after a second recess appointment.  See "The Bully may still get your lunch money."

The lawyers who looked at this for you probably didn't consider this possibility because they're only interested in analyzing the law, not President Bush's concept of un-Law.

Posted at December 1, 2006 12:13 PM in response to What's Next for Bolton?

Nudnik -

Your cudgel for bashing the UN is blunt and inelegant. You blame the UN for the failings of its Member States; America is one of them, and we've slipped on our international obligations in the context of the UN repeatedly.

Let's go through your list:

- Peacekeepers raping and trafficking in women:
It's not hard to realize that the unwillingness of the US and other major military powers to contribute to peacekeeping is the problem. When we have to rely on highly unprofessional militaries, it's not shocking that we get highly unprofessional results. In any event, the US has disrupted all efforts to hold anyone accountable for international criminal acts, especially under a blue helmet.

- "Peacekeepers who allow Hezbullah to rearm"
The job of the UNIFIL was to oversee the line between Israel and Lebanon - not to enforce an arms embargo. Can't criticize a mission for failing to fulfill a mandate it wasn't given.

- "Tolerating the Taliban"
It's not the job of the UN to pick and choose the governments of its Member States. In any event, our current administration was happy to negotiate with the Taliban about pipeline routes prior to 9/11.

- Flatfooted tsunami response
This is the worst slander there is. In the zones where the UN was able to respond quickly - Sri Lanka and Thailand - they did a fine job. In the Aceh region of Indonesia, the UN and *the entire international humanitarian assistance community* were persona non grata because of the Indonesian military's ineffectual warfighting against the Free Aceh Movement. You can't criticize the UN for failing to respond in a place where they weren't allowed to go - a situation the United States happily acquiesced in for the duration of Megawati-imposed martial law until the tsunami occurred.

- Poverty
The UNDP and other specialized agencies have made measurable contributions to the alleviation of poverty and the accomplishment of the Millennium Development Goals - any criticism you wager here would apply just as much to USAID, the MCC, or any other US mechanism for poverty alleviation.

- Rwanda, Bosnia
The Clinton team's most fundamental foreign policy failures. Especially for Rwanda, see everything that Romeo Dallaire says in "Shaking Hands with the Devil" about the lack of Security Council leadership exerted by a post-Somalia Clinton administration.

- Fleeing Iraq
Breathtaking. A terrible terrorist attack that killed dedicated international civil servants. An American military unwilling to guarantee protection of UN operations. Sleep easy at night, sir.

- Women's rights
Again, we were happy enough with the Taliban until 9/11. Meanwhile, where else but UN fora has it been possible to promote a pro-women, pro-reproductive health agenda in response to the Bush administration's international abstinence-only insanity that is bad for women and men the world over?

You may not be kidding, but you simply can't be taken seriously.

Posted at November 21, 2006 12:33 PM in response to A Birthday Note

I really can't agree with this idea at all. Bolton has a strong role in setting policy for UN reform. And the policy he has been setting seems to be oriented toward disrupting serious efforts to improve the international organization. Leaving him in place guarantees constant setbacks for improving the institution.

Posted at November 12, 2006 6:27 PM in response to Bolton in DC Trying to Save His Job

I believe that this is all governed by the United Nations Participation Act, as amended in 1949.  Indeed, representatives can be appointed to vote the US position in fora other than the Security Council or General Assembly, although in some important cases, they must receive the advice and consent of the Senate.

Posted at September 28, 2006 1:33 PM in response to The bully may still get your lunch money

Thanks for your remarks Transhuman.

1. I think you underestimate the variance of Republican thinking on the arms control issues. As I noted, GOP Senator Pete Domenici called out Bolton and said he should be fired in 2004.

2. When referring to key states, I was pointing in particular to Venezuela's quest for a seat at the Security Council, which at this stage looks likely to succeed. I think having Venezuela on the Council is a good thing, and I've blogged about it. But many in the GOP won't think so given their revulsion for Chavez. Bolton's likely failure in this area could hurt him in Republican esteem.

Other examples may exist, though nothing is leaping to mind off the top of my head.

3. I don't see this as a done deal. Despite the flat-footed response to last year's battle, he was never confirmed by the Senate. I think that Dems can make the GOP pay for renominating Bolton if they act smart.

Posted at July 21, 2006 7:46 AM in response to Stop Bolton v2.0

Steve -

Are you leaving out the possibility that Bush will just re-recess appoint him in January 2007?  Is he able to do that between Congresses?  His appointment ends when the current Congress ends.  But, unless this is going be the battle of the lame ducks, Annan vs. Bolton, it's something to be worried about.

Posted at February 12, 2006 3:09 PM in response to John Bolton Takes Page Out of Communist Chinese Leadership Book on Rewarding Friends with Access