This John Bolton issue has been interesting. Aside from the fact that he looks shabby (as, frequently, do I), I have no particular feelings about the man one way or the other, except that regardless of whether he’s a jerk or not, he’s certainly been jerked around more than is really fair. That he’s hung in there this long is testament to… well, to something. Possibly to inordinate stubbornness, which may or may not be a good thing.
But today I read an interesting article that, based on everything else I’ve heard and read so far, seems to put the whole issue of his nomination to the UN in perspective. The Washington Post today has an article about the dueling committee reports that will follow Bolton to the Senate Floor. The minority report says a host of dreadful things about him, including that he “repeatedly sought the removal of intelligence analysts, tried to stretch intelligence to fit his views, exhibited abusive behavior to subordinates and gave misleading testimony to the committee.” Concludes the report, “It is not in the interests of the United States to have Mr. Bolton represent our country at the United Nations.”
Indeed. But what else would we expect from the minority? The majority report paints a largely different picture. Its author said that “most of the allegations turned out to be groundless or overstated, and that Bolton had proved to be a hard-working policymaker.” Hooray for hardworking policymakers! What could possibly be the cause of the wide variance in the two reports? Mere politics?
Probably. But a comment by Sen. Richard Lugar, chair of the committee that heard Bolton’s confirmation and normally a very level-headed individual, gives me pause. Lugar said that Bolton had “strong views and a blunt style that, frankly, sometimes rubbed people the wrong way.”
In other words, it’s a shame when you don’t get along with your boss, but that’s no reason not to give the guy a job. And certainly Bolton’s tactless personal style is no reason to deny him continued employment in this administration, which is not always known for hiring the best people around when there’s somebody else available who isn’t as good but holds the right opinions. Bolton certainly fits that description.
But the UN Ambassador is, as the title implies, an ambassadorial position. It’s diplomacy. It’s about making nice with people you don’t really like because that’s what it takes to get things done. You don’t hire an ambassador to go off to a foreign country and be rude, disrespect the culture, and get up in peoples’ faces. That’s not how diplomacy works. If he rubs people the wrong way, his effectiveness is going to be greatly diminished.
It’s not about his politics, really (although one could question the wisdom of hiring as UN Ambassador a person who has said the U.S. should pull out of the UN). It’s about his style. Diplomatic posts have always been more about style than substance—why else would presidents give the plum diplomatic posts to friendly, easy-going types who happen to be major campaign donors? If it mattered how experienced they were (Bolton is certainly experienced) the Senate would never stand for such patronage. But it doesn’t matter. What matters is how willing the individual is to absorb and respect the culture of the place he or she (or both, since the spouse is an equal player in any ambassadorial household) is being sent to, and how polite and easy-going he or she can be when relating U.S. desires to the leadership of that other country.
Bolton may be experienced, and he may (certainly does) have the right politics by this administration’s yardstick. But it’s one thing to “rub people the wrong way” as the undersecretary of state, and another thing entirely (a much worse thing) to do so when trying to negotiate for the U.S. in a body already hostile to our positions. For that reason alone, Bolton is not suited to this post.
No comments:
Post a Comment