Comments

You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name

Your e-mail (optional)

Website (optional)

	My Original Nic Pic-a-Nic Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Foto

Submit your comments on this article

Home Front: Politix

Ex-US diplomats round on Bolton

2005-03-29

Fifty-nine former US diplomats have written to the chairman of a key Senate committee in protest at the nomination of John Bolton as ambassador to the UN. The diplomats, who served under both Republican and Democrat presidents, described Mr Bolton, a known critic of the UN, as "the wrong man" for the job. They urged the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to block his appointment. Mr Bolton served as under-secretary of state responsible for arms control during President Bush's first term. Chief among the objections was Mr Bolton's stated view that the UN "is valuable only when it directly serves the United States". In addition, Mr Bolton was criticised for his record as US arms control supremo. He had an "exceptional record" of undermining potential improvements to US national security through arms control, the diplomats complained.

Meaning he didn't bow to "international concencus"

Among the most senior signatories was Arthur Hartman, former ambassador to France and the Soviet Union under Presidents Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan and assistant secretary of state for European affairs under President Richard Nixon. Princeton Lyman, a former ambassador to South Africa and Nigeria, Monteagle Stearns, US representative in Greece and Ivory Coast, and Spurgeon Keeny Jr, Jimmy Carter's deputy director of arms control, also signed the letter.

The "usual suspects"

Mr Bolton requires approval from the foreign relations committee - made up of 10 Republicans and eight Democrats - before being told he can head to the UN's New York headquarters. Announcing his nomination at the start of March, US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice described him as a "tough-minded diplomat" with "a proven track record of effective multilateralism". But the former diplomats insist his hard-line views on states such as Cuba and Syria, as well as previous paid employment for the government of Taiwan, make him an unsuitable candidate. "Given these past actions and statements, John R Bolton cannot be an effective promoter of the US national interest at the UN," they wrote. "We urge you to oppose his nomination."

Posted by:Steve

#17 Sounds like John Bolton is the right man for the right job at the right time. The squealing going on confirms the choice as good. It is my sincere hope that at the confirmation hearings in the Senate Committee, events and major failures of these ass clowns come out into the open. Bolton does not have to be nice, just respectful and straight forward in his answers and his view of his job at the UN.

Posted by: Alaska Paul 2005-03-29 8:16:19 PM

#16 Its time to realize our strength, and to have the graciousness of strength.

Frankly, I'd rather have 'respect due to strength' first. The "gracious" part is then affordable.

Posted by: Pappy 2005-03-29 8:00:12 PM

#15 Was Penis J. Envy on the dip list?

Posted by: Dennis Kucinich 2005-03-29 7:23:53 PM

#14 John Bolton, a Retief for our age.

"Looks like another threat to world peace . . . send the envoy."

Posted by: Mike 2005-03-29 5:12:10 PM

#13 Names somewhat reminiscent of Ambassadors Straphanger, Muehl, Crodfoller, and other geniuses of the Corps Diplomatique Terrestrienne. For an antidote to the various diplomatic headlines read Keith Laumer's Retief stories.

LH, I agree with you that we need to "have the graciousness of strength." But there are still times when one has to tell people off, especially given the stench coming out of the Oil For Food program.

Posted by: mom 2005-03-29 4:27:03 PM

#12 some points of fairness -

1. Do y'all really think that populist beer drinkers were qualified for the state dept in the '60s and '70s? Cmon it mainly WAS the thurston howells who had the skill sets and the interest in foreign policy. If anyone was kept out of the foreign service by the favoritism to the thurston howell set, it was mainly jewish intellectual types. A very different east coast perhaps, but still east coast.
2. again in all fairness, these are guys who coulda gone into banking etc. Instead they accepted placements as economic affairs officer in lower slobovia, or south hellhole, with no particular assurance of getting to Rome or Paris. I mean they sacrificed, in their own way. Ive met some FSO types, and they are NOT unpatriotic.

3. What the hell was wrong with Carter's policy to France?

4. I applaud the wolfie nomination. Im not sure about Bolton - saw a good article the other day - said Bolton nomination is meant to follow tradition of Moynihan and Kirkpatrick nominations - tell it like it is to the UN, and be damned. But now IS NOT 1975 (daniel patrick) or 1981(Kirkpatrick). Then we were outnumbered and outvoted in the UN, and under pressure. We are STRONG now - WE pushed out Butros, and we may be on the point of pushing out Kofi. We've just won a couple of wars. Other folks want to reconcile with US. Now is NOT the time to be abrasive, to tell everybody off. Its time to realize our strength, and to have the graciousness of strength.

Which isnt to say Bolton wont pleasantly surprise. But count me with the skeptics. (of course the other line is that this is just Condi getting Bolton out Foggy Bottom)

Posted by: Liberalhawk 2005-03-29 4:05:15 PM

#11 Wow! This is proof positive that Bush has made the right choice. If this many EX-diplomats that carried on the failed foreign policy are against Bolton then Bush must be on the right track. The State Department is/was riddled with people who got along by going along and shunned anybody who rocked the boat or took anything from their rice bowl. Sounds like Condi and Bolton will ruffle some diplomatic feathers over at State and in the unâ¦..GOOD! It has been a LONG time coming!

Posted by: Cyber Sarge 2005-03-29 3:32:36 PM

#10 Here's old Spurgeon himself explaining what a great job we did negotiating with the Norks until the evil Bush came along. Which supports my guess that Spurgeon is part of the East Coast Establishment. (Of course, it could be some other Spurgeon Keeny, I suppose.)

Posted by: Matt 2005-03-29 2:15:28 PM

#9 Bolton is anathema to this crowd which further confirms that he is a great pick. I don't think these clowns realize just how far the mood has shifted. We don't revere them as senior statesman. Many of them were complicit in the erosion of America's international position in the past decades. (Ambassador to France in the Carter administration?) They would do well not to stick their heads too far above the parapet.

Posted by: Classical_Liberal 2005-03-29 2:14:06 PM

#8 Yeah, real long odds against these three staggering out of the Shalimar Lounge on Martin Luther King Boulevard after sucking down a couple of forties...

Posted by: tu3031 2005-03-29 1:52:51 PM

#7 sounds like guys whose wife is named Penelope or Muffy

Posted by: Frank G 2005-03-29 1:38:10 PM

#6 It's a bunch of guys whose lifelong ambition has been to be quoted by the BBC, or perhaps even, gasp, LeMonde.

"My father always used to say, 'Spurgeon, you're not really a member of the East Coast Establishment until you've been quoted by the European press.'"

Posted by: Matt 2005-03-29 1:21:10 PM

#5 Thurston Howell IV . . . Sounds like he upsets the right kind of people.

Posted by: SR71 2005-03-29 1:18:58 PM

#4 Who names their kids that?

Pretentious liberals...

Posted by: Raj 2005-03-29 1:18:51 PM

#3 Sounds like Perry Mason's client list...

Posted by: Fred 2005-03-29 1:02:55 PM

#2 Princeton? Monteagle? Spurgeon? Who names their kids that?

Posted by: tu3031 2005-03-29 12:44:13 PM

#1 Arthur Hartman, Princeton Lyman, Monteagle Stearns, Spurgeon Keeny Jr.

Those names look like they came out of Fred's anonymous poster name generator. I'm surprised they don't have 4 digit numbers following them.

Posted by: Mrs. Davis 2005-03-29 12:36:11 PM

00:00