The political cartoons and editorials that celebrate the Democrats' success in forcing the resignation of John Bolton as U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations suggest to me a short term triumph of partisanship--with no lasting partisan advantages to go with it--and likely long term damage to the international interests of the United States.
Foreigners are not adept at reading subtle refinements in American politics. They don't see this as just a Democratic "gotcha" that wins a day's embarrassment for the President. Rather, they see in it a sign of weakening American resolve on several key subjects that one thought were endorsed by both U.S. political parties, including the war against terrorists, containment of North Korea's nuclear ambitions and the cause of internal reform at the United Nations itself.
Bolton was punished because Democrats wanted to deny him appointment two years ago, based on previous disagreements, and they were frustrated by the president's subsequent recess appointment of him. Bolton cannot be faulted for his actual service at the U.N., which was exemplary of firm, but supple diplomacy. He didn't win a string of victories for the Bush Administration; he won them for America. Are there Democrats who would like to chastise him, for example, for exposing the new U.N. "Human Rights Council," whose members consist of many of the world's worst human rights violators?
Not likely.
Don't worry about John Bolton, he is a survivor and has a following of admirers. Worry instead about America's position at the U.N. The only way to salvage that position now is to appoint--as a bi-partisan choice--a new ambassador with the same policies and resolve as Bolton.
