Ambassador Bolton

Well, kids, it has come to pass.

On the first business day after this Congress has closed session, Bush decrees John Bolton as the new US Ambassador to the UN. Some will call Bolton "controversial," some will call him "dangerous," "manipulative," "vindictive." Others will point to potential rewritings of important WMD intelligence in the build-up to the war in Iraq [Look, this is old hat establishment, now. We should simply call all of The Administration's "intelligence" "Editorializing." Everybody in there does it. It's like baseball and doping for these guys].

But now we must all call him "Ambassador."

Reasons why Ambassador Bolton is a Bad Idea:

• Bolton's statements and continued non-reverence for the goals of the UN work counterproductively to the UN's needs. Bolton's purpose will be to represent, aggressively, "tirelessly," as he has said, the interestes of the United States, which are not the same interests as the UN.
• The installation of a man who has strongly and agrily questioned the purpose for the UN's existence will make other nations less-likely to want to collaborate and compromise on important, vital global needs. The UN is an ideal- it is a lumbering, slow moving and corrupt giant- but the purpose of it is to level out the global political playing field. This is, of course, exactly what the US does not want. When Bolton says that the UN is irrelevant, he means that the UN threatens the US' status as benefactor to and controller of the globe.
• Bolton's non-confirmation will have some effect with his perception in the UN- some will view him as only a partially legitamate voice of Stateside representation. This will actually be only a minor hindrance, though- most of th beaurocrats within the UN will take little notice; this will only be pulled out if Bolton continues his combatative stance against the UN while serving there.
• Bolton's anger management problems will make an awkward working environment for his staffers in the UN.

Reasons why this doesn't matter:

• It's already happened.
• The UN is highly corrupt and in need of serious reform and transparency. Bolton wants reform to come in the form of Dismantlement or Disempowerment. As the voice of an aggressor from a country that is by far the largest benefactor of the UN, he might inspire positive change. This is not a method I admire or desire. But in the event of a stronger, more universal reformed UN, it could be a good thing. Bolton will likely push for reforms that very directly build upon American interests and locking American power.
• The duration of his tenure, until Congress reconvenes in Jan. 2007, will be only 17 months. While a lot can happen in 17 months; it's unlikely that the US will go to another elective war, given the hindsight concerns of this one. So at least Bolton hopefully can't screw us in that way.

The AntiCentenarian believes that even the nomination of John Bolton for this position is an aggressive, anti-internationalist political maneuver; and find it to be reprehensible. However. It has been done. We can do little else now other than wait. He is not a permanent institution in the UN for the US, though he might be very damaging.

There are other, greater concerns to reconnect in our activism: The Plame Affair is the greatest.