Bolton resigns

http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/12/...n/edbolton.php

Quote:

John Bolton's decision to resign as America's envoy to the United Nations was a wise move. He averted a distracting and divisive fight at a time when both Congress and the Bush administration have better things to do. He has also provided President George W. Bush with an opportunity to show the kind of bipartisan leadership he talks about so frequently and exercises so seldom.
An ambassador to the United Nations should be someone who believes the organization deserves to exist. Bolton has always been hostile to the United Nations, and to the whole spirit of consensus-seeking diplomacy it embodies. When Democrats and moderate Republicans kept Bolton's nomination tied up in the Senate, Bush characteristically insisted on having his own way by giving Bolton an interim appointment while Congress was out of session.
But the interim appointment was about to expire, and the battle would have had to begin all over again once the new Congress arrived. Attempts to get the lame duck Senate to confirm Bolton ran aground when Lincoln Chafee, the Republican senator from Rhode Island, refused to support the nomination in the Foreign Relations Committee, leaving Bolton's fate hung up on a tie vote.
Chafee is the prime example of a moderate Republican who was popular with his constituents but who lost his seat because of Bush's hard-edge partisanship and insistence on having his own way in Iraq. The White House was left contemplating schemes to keep Bolton at work without Senate confirmation - like making him deputy ambassador and leaving the top job unfilled.


The United Nations doesn't need any further proof of how little the Bush administration thinks of it. And the Bush administration doesn't need to insult the world at a time when it is becoming increasingly clear how much help America needs to stabilize Afghanistan, extricate itself from Iraq and curb the nuclear appetites of North Korea and Iran. Bolton's withdrawal gives the president a chance to improve his relationship with both the United Nations and Congress. There are plenty of experienced, internationalist Republicans who could get near-unanimous support in the Senate and send a signal to the world that Bush understands that the United States is not the only nation on the planet whose opinion matters.

Well-well, it's very (not really) surprising news indeed. John Bolton, the current US's ambassador of United Nations has recently resigned and I see this as good thing, since he was appointed as permanent representative, he does nothing diplomatic and almost no different with Bush in term of being unilateral.

Anyway, despite his hostile diplomatic attitude toward UN, and not forgetting, revising the entire draft of World Summit 2005 few weeks before the d-day, he's very powerful diplomat indeed. I actually dont have a lot of knowledge of american diplomats, what do you think of his resignation? Also, do you prefer an ambassador such as Bolton, or the softer ones?

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Yes, of course, diplomats are supposed to carry out their national interest, but what differs them are they approach to other, and dont forget about bureaucratic approach, we shouldnt seen state as single entity because the national interest could be considered as agreement between the officials.

Also, were the diplomats chosen before Bolton also tend to bash UN unilaterally? My lecturer even said that he is not even diplomatic.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

The problem of Bolton is, he is putting pressuring UN too much and being famous as UN-bashing ambassador. And also, his unilateral diplomacy raises critic even in bush administration itself. CMIW.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.