John R. Bolton: Political Bully or Savvy Reformer?

On March 7, 2005, Condoleezza Rice announced President Bush’s nominee for U.S. ambassador to the United Nations: John R. Bolton.

Since then, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, the press, and the public have debated Bush’s choice, with some lauding Bolton as the perfect candidate and others criticizing his credibility. Perhaps the most notable critic is Senator George V. Voinovich, the only Republican on the Foreign Relations Committee to vote against him.

Voinovich’s vote on May, 12, 2005 caused a committee deadlock. Voinovich joined the eight Democrats who oppose Bolton to create an even lineup against the nine Republicans that support him. The vote prevented the committee from advising the Senate on the matter, and some say that the missing recommendation may cause other Republicans to defect.

Bolton’s fate is now in the hands of the Senate, which can approve the nomination with just 50 votes.

The argument

Democrats say that John R. Bolton, the undersecretary of state for arms control and international security affairs, is unfit to be U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. They claim that Bolton is intolerant and abusive to coworkers with differing viewpoints, that he reinterprets intelligence information to fit his views, and that he has tried to get rid of intelligence analysts who disagree with him.

While Senator Voinovich has not validated all of these critiques, he agreed that Bolton is "bullying" and "arogant" and suggested that President Bush could do far better in filling the sensitive and vital position. But Bush seems to feel that Bolton’s haughtiness is an asset. At a press conference in April, Bush was quoted as saying: "If you’re interested in reforming the U.N. like I’m interested in reforming the U.N., it makes sense to put somebody who’s skilled and who’s not afraid to speak his mind at the United Nations."

But how feasible is it for the U.S. ambassador to achieve reform? The task may not be viable for even the most shrewd and confident of ambassadors.

Can the ambassador reform the U.N.?

The Bush administration would like to revamp the U.N. Human Rights Commission. Currently, members are chosen from regional delegations, allowing countries with major human rights violations like the Sudan and Libya to participate; Bush would like to see the General Assembly elect commission members instead. Further, the White House would like to create a powerful agency to investigate corruption within the UN bureaucracy.

But some say that the U.S. ambassador has very limited powers when it comes to changing the structure of the United Nations. Changing the U.N. charter requires agreement among two-thirds of the General Assembly, and, ultimately, the U.S. ambassador has just one vote.

But others argue that the U.S. has substantial power since it pays for one-quarter of the U.N. budget. And Bolton’s supporters maintain that he has been successful in using diplomacy and negotiation to influence the U.N. in the past.

Is Bolton the best person for the job? What do you expect from those whom we don’t elect but whom our elected president appoints? Should the public have more of a say in the appointment of its ambassador to the U.N.?

What do you think?

WomenMatter is a place to discuss life issues with other women. We don’t want to wedge women apart, but rather bring them together to dialogue. To log onto one of our online forums, click here.

WomenMatter encourages women to educate themselves on the issues and then approach their representatives with ideas.

Even though the election is over, your voice is vital. Make sure your leaders know what’s important to you. To see how your representatives vote and to contact them, click here.

WomenMatter is dedicated to empowering women to participate in the political process. To do this we have invested in the most in-depth NONPARTISAN information, because we trust each woman to make up her own mind.

• We track nine issues every week and update this website several times a week.
• We launch after school GirlsMatter Clubs in middle and high schools to grow the next generation of politically aware women through a full curriculum and startup kit on girlsmatter.com.
• We do continuous research to make sure that we are meeting the needs of women across the country of all ages, races, incomes, preferences, and religions.
• We provide partnerships with nonpartisan organizations that provide services to women and advocate for them.

We offer all our services free of charge without memberships or subscriptions. To help us maintain this work - not just in election years but as a continuing part of women’s lives - please make a tax deductible donation, click here.

Update Posted on: 5/15/2005