Jon Kyl, August 9, 2005

Last week President Bush exercised his constitutional authority to designate a major public official, without Senate approval, while the Congress is not in session. He used this "recess appointment" to finally name John Bolton as U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, after nearly six months of delay, obstruction and outright harassment of Bolton by some Senate Democrats.

No document was too obscure, no past incident too minor, for a small group of senators who simply disliked Bolton to filibuster his nomination, preventing an up-or-down vote that all sides agree he would have won handily.

Filibustering a presidential nomination is within the power of any group of at least 40 senators; but it is a power that should be used sparingly, lest presidents come to see Senate "advice and consent" as a dead-end for their nominees, resulting in many more recess appointments. The irony is that, in forcing President Bush to fill America’s seat at the United Nations in this way, the Democrats actually marginalized the role and authority of the Senate. Their endless requests for classified documents that even Clinton administration veterans conceded should remain confidential quickly became a transparent ploy that made it hard to take seriously their concerns that Bolton was too blunt and undiplomatic. It is true he does not suffer fools gladly and is more than willing to administer "tough love" when necessary, but it is just those qualities that President Bush thought would be useful at the United Nations.

Rampant anti-Americanism, impotence in the face of genocide in Africa, and a culture of corruption among its senior leadership have battered the UN’s image and credibility. Now, like Jeane Kirkpatrick and Daniel Patrick Moynihan before him, Bolton is in a position to press for reforms long resisted by the UN bureaucracy, and help establish a clarity of purpose for the organization’s unique role.

Moynihan and Kirkpatrick, both Democrats serving in Republican administrations, brought a vigorous defense of U.S. policy, freedom and democracy to a UN that in the 1970s and 80s was dominated by leftist Third World dictatorships and rife with Cold-War America bashing. As Peter Beinart of the New Republic has put it, "Unlike his predecessors, who had listened politely while America was defamed, Moynihan denounced the tin-pot dictatorships running wild at the United Nations." The future Senator from New York was also one of the first to observe that Soviet communism would collapse under the weight of its own contradictions, hardly a diplomatic thing to say. When Kirkpatrick took the job in 1981, the Soviets had recently invaded Afghanistan, and the 444 day national humiliation of the Iranian hostage crisis was a fresh memory. Kirkpatrick vigorously denounced America's critics, responding to their lectures about "imperialism" with lectures of her own, on democracy.

Bolton, whose diplomatic skills were given short shrift in the heat of his confirmation process, already has an impressive resume as an advocate for peace and freedom, with a proven record of preventing the spread of weapons of mass destruction and prodding the United Nations to repeal its odious Zionism-equals-racism resolution. He is serious about the war on terror, cleaning up corruption at the UN, and - like most Americans - doesn’t appreciate being pushed around by nations that are not democracies, do not respect human rights, and are not helpful in combating violent extremism.

To me, that sounds like exactly the kind of person we want representing the United States at the United Nations. Somebody has to stand up for America - how about the U.S. Ambassador?

Senator Jon Kyl, a Republican, represents Arizona in the U.S. Senate. He serves on the Senate Judiciary Committee, the Finance Committee, and the Energy and Natural Resources Committee.