US President George W. Bush's appointment of UN critic John Bolton to be US ambassador to the world organization was an in-your-face gesture, to Congress and to the global community.
It comes at a sensitive time on Capitol Hill, where Bush needs the support of senators for his nomination of John Roberts to the Supreme Court.
Internationally, it comes during a new round of fragile six-nation talks in Beijing aimed at persuading North Korea to abandon its nuclear ambitions. Bolton's depiction in 2003 of North Korean leader Kim Jong-il as a tyrant contributed to Pyongyang's boycotting of an earlier round of talks.
Bolton was undersecretary of state at the time.
The new ambassador arrived in New York on Monday with built-in handicaps. He lacks the stature that comes with Senate approval. And he starts out as a lame duck, allowed to serve only until January 2007 under terms of the constitutional provision Bush invoked to install him.
But the job and the times were too important to wait, Bush said as he used his authority to make appointments during a congressional recess, bypassing the Senate.
Nearly all presidents have used this power, usually to fill minor posts although president Dwight Eisenhower initially filled three Supreme Court vacancies this way.
In Bolton's case, Republicans blamed partisan politics for Democratic delaying tactics that blocked the nominee, noting a majority of the Republican-run chamber supported him. Democratic leaders blamed the White House for failing to release documents they said were important for the Senate's consideration.
Bush, displaying his own streak of stubbornness, refused to back down.
Dispatching Bolton, a conservative who has been repeatedly critical of the UN in the past, to claim the US seat in the world body was confrontational on its face.
"John Bolton is a walking diplomatic time bomb and he's proved that over his career. The fact that he could not get confirmed by the Senate tells the rest of the world this isn't the best we could do," said Robert Boorstin, who served on the National Security Council in president Bill Clinton's administration.
"What will be noticed is the contrast between Bolton and Jack Danforth, who was a tremendously good UN ambassador at a very, very difficult time," said Boorstin.
The post had been vacant since Danforth, a Republican and former senator from Missouri, retired in January.
Next month, the UN is expected to consider a wide-ranging series of reforms, and administration officials said it was important to have Bolton on the job before then.
The organization is wrestling with several proposals to expand the permanent membership of the Security Council from its current five. White House spokesman Scott McClellan said no US decision on expansion has yet been made -- other than for Japan to get a seat.
In a small ceremony at the White House, Bush said Bolton would "defend our nation's interests with character and resolve."
"He will speak for me on critical issues facing the international community," Bush added.
In what was seen by some as a signal that Bolton would be on a short leash, both Bush and the new ambassador emphasized that he would serve under Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, who looked on approvingly.
At the Capitol, Bush's use of the recess-appointment authority for a nominee who had failed to win Senate confirmation was sure to raise the ire of senators, who take their "advice and consent" role seriously -- particularly members of the opposition party. And it did.
Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada called the appointment "the latest abuse of power by the Bush White House" and said that Bolton takes the post "with a cloud hanging over his head."
Some Republicans weren't too happy, either, although they generally said they understood Bush's rationale.
"I understand why the president had to do this," said Senator George Allen of Virginia, adding: "I think it's unfortunate that he had to use this option."
Observers in both parties saw the move as a signal that Bush now feels confident he has the votes for Roberts' confirmation when the Senate returns from its August recess, suggesting he might not have been as brazen otherwise.
Some of the issues in the Supreme Court debate also marked the Bolton controversy, namely the White House refusal to release certain records sought by Democrats.
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers