It seems as though President Bush is indicating he will make a recess appointment of John Bolton as Ambassador to the United Nations.

Would it surprise any of you that in 2002--before the Iraqi War-- Bolton orchestrated the firing of the head of a global arms-control agency, Jose Bustani?
The reason, according to a former Bolton deputy, was that Bustani was trying to send weapons inspectors to Baghdad. That might have helped diffuse the crisis over alleged Iraqi weapons and might have undermined a U.S. rationale for war.AP Probe on Bolton Finds Disturbing Links to Iraq War

Would it also surprise any of you that in July 2003 the United Nations' highest administrative tribunal condemned the Bustani removal, calling it "unlawful" and an "unacceptable violation" of principles protecting international civil servants? [URL=http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_timeline_of_the_2003_invasion_of iraq_outing_of_jose_bustani]Outing of Jose Bustani and the Role of John Bolton[/URL]

Questions for debate:

1. If Bolton becomes the U.N. Ambassador, will his role in removing Jose Bustani affect his influence at the United Nations?

2. Since a U.N. tribunal has already indirectly condemned Bolton for being a primary player in an unlawful act, will this have any effect on reducing his influence as Ambassador?

3. Do these actions disqualify Bolton to represent the United States at the U.N?

Not so sure it matters now:








The Story


So, John Bolton is now the U.S. ambassador...

This looks like an admission of defeat on Mr. Bush's part. The Senate will reconvene in a month; if Mr. Bush were confident he could win the vote, he'd wait out the Senate. But the Bolton nomination just wasn't going to obtain approval from the Senate, and I think that Mr. Bush recognized that. This gives him a face-saving way out. He doesn't have to withdraw the nomination. Mr. Bolton will be pretty much ignored by the UN, because they know that he really doesn't have the support of the entire nation. They'll deal with him on immediate tactical issues, but for strategic issues, they'll put off action until a real replacement comes in. Moreover, they know that Mr. Bolton hates the UN and will attempt only to disrupt its efforts, so for the most part, I think they'll just stonewall him. For the next 18 months, the American role in the UN will be a dead one.

I happen to agree. The president knew that he would be unable to force feed Bolton to the Congress, so he made his last-ditch effort to appoint him by using "his Constitutional authority." The president is of the same party that has been condemning the Democrat's filibuster as being "unconstitutional," even if the president has this privy it does not serve America. What is best for America is for the president to not go over the head's of Congress and appoint someone they feel has reasonable doubt not to appoint.

My goodness! Such rhetoric. One can only wonder how long it will be here before someone starts an "impeach Bush" thread over him doing this dasterdly thing....

Fact is Presidents use recess appointments all the time. This article in the Washington Post details some of them. So, there's nothing unusual here at all.

As far as the UN turning a blind eye to Bolton, hence the US, good luck on that one. Kofi Annan has already stated that he views Bolton as the legitimate representative of the US government and pledged to work with him. We'll see.

In any case, this takes this little skirmish off the table and the Senate Democrats are going to have to find something else to obstruct.

I didn't say unusual.

What I did say was that if the Congress feels it necessary to hold off on a vote, they must have had a good reason in which to do so. Granted, I am no big fan of filibusters, but for the president not to hand over documents and expect the vote to be in Bolton's favor is mad.




I think you are right, unless of course they feel it necessary to hold a post-nomination filibuster to refuse to vote for anything else unless Bolton is recalled.

That would be 100% Grade A rhetoric if the democrats were in control of the house and senate. How is it possible that the dems are obstructing this issue when both the house and senate are republican controlled?

There are a couple of things going on here. First of all the Democrats dug in on this nomination. After lodging a litany of unsubstantiated claims against Bolton, they were going to filibuster the nominee. You need 60 votes to end debate and twice the votes were not there. Despite the rhetoric about Congress “rejecting” the nominee, Bolton never received a vote.

Frankly, his position is not important enough to waste any more time on and a recess appointment is a good way of moving on. Democrats do not fact any “stonewalling” backlash for holding up the nomination, and it is no damage to Bush by using the recess appointment.



Dayton, I believe you understand the filibuster process. It is very easy for the minority to hold things up. They only need 41 votes. Democrats have had little trouble finding 41 votes.

Of course. And I've heard about the Gang Of 14 too. A filibuster on Bolton was off the table months ago.

Now, back to the democrat obstructionists...

Read your link again, DR. The "gang of 14" agreement only applied to judicial nominations. Bolton is not a judicial nomination and he was indeed filibustered.

Dayton, that was for judicial nominees. There were two votes to end the debate and they both failed. That is precisely what a filibuster is, if you did not know. According to "the deal" Democrats are free to filibuster anything they want except judicial nominees (unless there is an “extraordinary circumstance”).

2. Since a U.N. tribunal has already indirectly condemned Bolton for being a primary player in an unlawful act, will this have any effect on reducing his influence as Ambassador? A UN Tribunal should have zero bearing on the standing of an American diplomat. Even an ambassador to that very organization. We are a nation of laws. The UN inspector complains that Bolton tried to "order him around." Well, good. Hope he keeps it up.

3. Do these actions disqualify Bolton to represent the United States at the U.N?
I don't think so. As Mark Steyn put it this March:

Sure, Bush has thrown Bolton a bone and gave him an *asterisk* position as U.N. Ambassador proving once again in this Administration gross incompetence gets you kicked upstairs. No wonder Dubya ran so many businesses into the ground until Daddy got him a job that even he can't put out of business.

Though Lord knows the boy is trying.

For all the GOP talking points that the Democrats "obstructed" John "I Am the Walrus" Bolton, one has to wonder why Dubya couldn't wait a month and let Frist force the Dems into a "up or down vote?"

Could it be that Johnny-boy didn't have as many "yea" votes as the Bushies had hoped for and a recess appointment looks a lot better than a "nay" vote with Republicans joining Democrats to send the nomination down in flames?

Nahhh....that COULDN'T be. Enjoy your 17 months, John-boy!

Nope, that wasn't it. At the most there were 3 Republicans that may have voted against Bolton, not enough to stop his approval. Simply put, why battle another filibuster on a nominee that most people do not care about? The only people outraged about this are not exactly "Bush's base."

You have missed the point. Recess appointments by themselves are not dastardly. As you pointed out, they happen all the time.

What doesn't happen all the time is a recess appointment to the United Nations--as Ambassador no less--of someone who has, as part of his extremely questionable resume, been implicated in orchestrating an unlawful act.

Boltons' dastardly acts are convincingly illustrated below.

BOLTON INSTRUMENTAL IN FIRING THE MAN WHO EXPOSED TRUE U.S. MOTIVES FOR IRAQ

C'mon Aquilla, I think even you would agree that, as recess appointments go, this one was pretty high profile. I looked at the WaPo link and didn't see any appoints of that level of significance.

Bush got what he wanted, now I guess the next 17 months will be the "try before you buy" period for Bolton to show his love for the U.N..

I really think people are making a mountain out of a molehill with this issue. To me it really doesn't matter who Bush appoints as ambassador to the UN because whoever it is is still going to follow the policies of the Bush Administration. It doesn't matter if this guy was as crazy as the left says he is or as perfect as the right says he is. To keep his job he is going to do what Bush wants and that would be no different if someone else was chosen. So how about we calm down about the rhetoric? Even if Bolton is a terrible choice (i don't think he is) its not like the UN does anything of significance. That corrupt world body of dictatorships and authoritarian nations is nothing more than an establishment where tyrants can maintain their interests. So why don't we focus on how we are going to fix the UN because the person who relays the information from the president really doesnt make a difference.

Doc??? You are kidding with me right? That list has Circuit Court and Supreme Court Justices, at least one cabinet level appointment, and assistant Attorney General... And you think the UN post is more significant than any of those? Good one, Doc. You almost had me going there.

A Poll I saw mentioned today on another site shows that 70 plus percent of the American people disapproved of this "no big deal, happens all the time" type appointment. A filibuster is only effective with enough votes to back it. So if Bush was sure it he had enough votes to overcome that, why not wait?

You picked some pretty good examples to illustrate your points, Carlitoswhey.

Although I do believe that the Bolton appointment is a joke, I'm not laughing much. Bolton is not representing some commission in the U.N. He is representing the U.S. No matter how little of an opinion you have for the U.N., the fact remains that Bolton represents the United States. And do you know what that means?

That the joke's on us!

Actually, I missed the Eisenhower appointments (darn scroll bar). The circuit appointments I would put under the UN ambassador in significance, personally but I'm guessing we disagree on that. The Commerce appointment I would put on par with the UN. We are talking two centuries of appointments here Aquilla, given the circumstances surrounding the appointment(not to mention the volume), yes its exceptional. I will concede my previous point that the Bolton appointment isn't the *most* exceptional of the recess appointments, however.

I am happy you "saw a poll." I am not sure you understand a filibuster. You only need 41 votes and there are 45 Democrats. The Democrats had block this forever. There were enough "yes" votes to approve Bolton(50), but not enough to end debate (60). In other words Democrats would not allow Bolton to come to a vote because (despite the rhetoric) he was going to be approved in an up and down vote. Despite all the allegations the Democrats never found a smoking gun on the guy. It is all hearsay and conjecture based in partisanship.

Two years from now, I would like to see a poll than asks Americans to name the US UN ambassador. I would be stunned if 30% of Americans could name Bolton.

1. If Bolton becomes the U.N. Ambassador, will his role in removing Jose Bustani affect his influence at the United Nations?

Given the power of the purse held by the United States, any UN ambassador will have a tremendous amount of influence in the UN. But having a proven track record of animosity toward the United Nations, the appointment is a statement about how seriously the United States takes the United nations.

3. Do these actions disqualify Bolton to represent the United States at the U.N?

They don't disqualify Bolton. Bolton's appointment represents the United States government view about the United Nations and improved democracy in international relations. Instead of trying to reform an organization that has many types of values to our world, it is to be used as a symbolic thumbing the nose at the world and an assertion of a return to a balance of power foreign policy and a departure from collective security. I personally think this path is as fraught with peril as it was in the first decades of the previous century.

Then Clinton, with his 140 recess appointments sure suffered a lot more "defeats" than Bush has, right???

I think that the President got tired of the obstructionism with respect to Bolton and just decided to cross that item off his agenda and move on to bigger and better topics.

Bolton is in until 2007 and if he does a good job (which is highly likely), he'll be confirmed in 2006 for the remainder of Bush's term. One of the best ways to prove that one can do a job is just..... do it.

The UN will not ignore Bolton because the UN cannot afford to ignore the USA. Furthermore, the UN's record of incompetence, appeasement, and corruption is a matter of record and if Bolton shakes up that organization in a positive way, he should be commended for it (as should President Bush).

While the UN members sip champaign and feast on caviar (while illegally double parked throughout NYC), genocide continues in Sudan and in other African countries.

It's high time someone like Bolton deliver their size 12 Johnston and Murphys to that organization's behind.

Bush has bigger fish to fry that petty squabbles with the democrats who have acted like spoiled children ever since the GOP took over the congressional majority. They have been the party without an idea beyond "just say no" to any initiative the Bush administration comes up with. Bush had the power to put Bolton in and he used it. Good for him.

Eeyore, I'm sure you could name the last two US Ambassadors to the UN and describe how much influence they had over UN decision making...

The fact of the matter is, this appointment doesn't mean much at all. Bolton going to an organization that he has criticized in the past is ironic, but it certainly will not be very significant.

Ambassadors take their cue from the President and enforce the President's foreign policy decisions, not the other way around.

The poll was a simple sidebar to the discussion on my part (given that some here are saying it's really no big deal that Bush has yet again done an end around). The poll was from MSNBC. As for the filibuster...I am also aware of the numbers involved but while watching the hearings, I seem to recall a few of the Dems were going to give Bush his appointment. I also seem to recall several Republicans that weren't so sure they'd vote for Bolton and that was when the vote was delayed. Up to that point the chairman had planned on ramrodding it through until it became clear that some within his own party might vote against Bolton.



How is this relevant to the discussion? The poll I cited was about President Bush's actions, not about the nominee in particular. You're probably right though about how few could name Bolton in two years. Sadly you could probably get similar numbers for everyone below the President. That many Americans have the attention span of gnats is not news to me nor is the fact that many Americans can't be bothered to pay attention to mundane matters such as who is speaking for them inside and outside this country.

As I understand it, the problem lay in the President's refusal to permit the release of documents that the Senate requested as part of the confirmation process. A healthy confirmation process should include a proper examination of the past behavior of the nominee. The White House refused to permit that examination. The entirely reasonable conclusion was that the White House had made it impossible to conduct a healthy confirmation process, and therefore the nomination could not be voted on until the documents had been released.

I am completely at a loss here. Even though maybe the appointment of Bolton without the support of the Senate is legal, that doesn't change the fact that this person shouldn't be in the U.N. as the ambassador of the U.S.

Left move away from all the politics in the U.S. (Democrats v.s. Republicans etc) and try to see what effects this appointment will have in international politics.
To say it bluntly, from the start of Bush's first election, the credibility of the U.S. has been under fire. The view of the U.S. as "the most free and democratic country in the world" has been under a lot of pressure during Bush's administration. The scandals surrounding the first elections of G.W.B., the unjustified "War in Iraq". the U.S. attitude towards the U.N. The Abu Graib scandals, the prisons in Guantanamo bay, the ASPA. The statement of Bush that "If you are not with the U.S. you are against it". The Kyoto agreements. Rumsfelds statements about the "Old Europe". The eceonomic struggle between the U.S. and Europe regarding steel. The lack of diplomacy during much Bush's period. All these things have led a lot of people in, for example, Europe to believe the U.S. is completely astray and possibly an important factor in destabalizing the world.

And now we have a new "negative" development: the appointment of John R. Bolton. A man who is known for disliking multilateral organisations and is a known U.N. basher. What a man to have appointed as the ambssador for the U.N.!! What do you, the American people, think something like that would do for the U.S. credibility in the world?

Everbody in the world knows that the U.S. is the most advanced and strongest military force in the world. Everbody knows that within the world economy the U.S. plays an important role. But at the same time people also are becoming frightened of the abuse of power the U.S. is portraying to this very day. People are changing their views about the U.S.. Once a lot of people saw the U.S. as a "beacon of light", but nowadays some people are beginning to dislike the U.S. international policies and are beginning to regard the U.S. as one of the most dangerous and corruptive players in the whole world. Apart from that a lot of people in know (and they are both for or against the U.S.), all agree on the fact that the U.S. today can be characterised as being arrogant.

The U.S. should use their economic and political power to help maintain stability in the world, instead of forcing their will upon the world. One of the most important platforms to achieve this is through the U.N. As long as a Bolton will be ambassador, a lot of people will keep on seeing the U.S. as an obstacle, which in time could lead to a undermining of the U.S. position as the only superpower in the world.

As I understand it, the democrats are employing a "tactic" of endlessly requesting more and more documents which have, in the past, been private and within the jurisdiction of the executive branch.

The WH's position is one related to separation of powers. Congress does not have unlimited rights over the executive branch and there has been, recently, a constant struggle between those two co-equal powers.

The democrat's position was not "reasonable". It was designed specifically to come up with an excuse to oppose the nomination of Bolton just like the same democrats are using the exact same tactic to oppose Roberts for the USSC.

Congress has an obligation to advise and consent on the president's choices. But, they also have an obligation to vote on the nominee. The democrats did neither. They have employed a "just say no" strategy related to anything the Bush administration proposes and have, through the filibuster, refused to even give many of his nominees, including Bolton, and up or down vote.

If people oppose Bolton they have the right to vote "no". Many democrats and one republican would have done so.

But refusing even a vote is an underhanded and cowardly tactic. Unfortunately, those two words have come to best described the democrat party of 2005.

Bolton was simply acting as the instrument of US foreign policy. He was given a mission, and he accomplished that mission. If you don't like the mission, then please speak with Dubya. There is otherwise no evidence that Bolton did not follow his marching orders, so no basis for any opposition to him in that regard. I am otherwise inclined to think that UN officers and officials, as well as the other UN ambassadors, understand the "marching orders" nature of the activity in question and will not make the issue personal to Bolton.

Which brings me to the CSPAN reruns of the Bolton nomination hearing[s] that I had the singular pleasure [sarcasm] to watch last night [because I had nothing better to do]. Maybe it was indeed only because I had nothing better to do, but upon further review, if I had been Bolton, I would have (1) not answered about half of the questions propounded, and (2) otherwise been far more hostile in some of my responses. As I said above, and this is something that I and proposed US S.Ct. nominee Roberts can attest to as lawyers, we and Bolton are simply mouthpieces [not an insult, it is our job]. And just as with lawyers, so too with Bolton, it was singularly inappropriate to have asked him [and for him to have answered] questions concerning just what he thought of this or that policy, or this or that strategy. I am not saying that it would not help if he or anyone else was in a position [as it were] to offer constructive advice and recommendations, but ultimately, it is the government's foreign policy and strategy, and not his. And if the mouthpiece is to be effective, then he ought not be saying anything that goes against that policy and strategy. And if the Dems have a problem with policy and strategy, then they need to speak with Dubya and the Republicans in Congress and not the mouthpiece nominee. Regarding the hostility part, I can say that I "admired" his tact in responding to some of the more ridiculous questions. For example, our friend from Wisconsin [I cannot recall his name] was asking Bolton about Rwanda, more specifically, about what he would have done differently. For the admiration part, I admired his not second-guessing the Clinton administration's handling of Rwanda [saying that he was not there at the time and that it was otherwise not clear whether anything significant could have been done given the timing and the logistics]. For the hostility part, I would have reminded the good Senator that Rwanda occurred while a Dem was in the White House and that I otherwise didn't hear or see any Dems in Congress grilling the mouthpieces of that Dem administration in the manner that I am being grilled today.

The Bustani affair is otherwise a non-issue, or at least it should be. First, the vote was 48-7, with 43 abstentions, or something like that. There was otherwise nothing "illegal" in what he did, and if the UN says otherwise, then please cite the chapter and verse that proves the alleged illegality. The "indirect" condemnation was otherwise simply a matter of the UN entrenched technocrats taking care of their own. That such is the case is made plain by the reality that UNSCOM and UNMOVIC had jurisdiction over the inspections and not Bustani. The reality at the time was that Saddam had done just about all he could to interfere with and spy on the UN inspectors, and after they were withdrawn for precisely that reason, ole Bustani starts his own initiative to get his own inspectors into Iraq. One wonders whether, if integrity of the institution and the process were the concern, why Bustani was trying to get someone other than UNMOVIC inspectors into Iraq. Oh, sorry, to put the above vote into perspective, there need only have been 18 no votes to ensure that Bustani remained in his employment. So he only had to get 18 out of 98 votes.

This about sums it up, Gordon Prather, on Bolton [http://www.antiwar.com/prather/?articleid=6292]:

"On May 6, 2005, in an interview with the staff of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Lawrence Wilkerson, the chief of staff to former Secretary of State Colin Powell, reportedly charged that "Mr. Bolton overstepped his bounds in his moves and gyrations to try to keep Mohamed ElBaradei from being re-appointed as IAEA head."

Wilkerson said Bolton was "going out of his way to badmouth him, to make sure that everybody knew that the maximum power of the United States would be brought to bear against them if he were brought back in."

Again, either Bolton was acting according to instructions when he did so, or he did not. If the former, then there is simply no valid basis upon which to make the affair personal to him. He was just doing his job. And if the US does indeed intend to bring to bear its "maximum power" against El Baradei and/or the IAEA, then I see nothing wrong with Bolton otherwise giving the man and the entity fair warning, at least if Bolton was instructed to do just that.

Lastly, here is where one learns to not even trust the so-called educated and sophisticated. Immediately following the two above-cited paragraphs is this paragraph:

"According to the Washington Post, the US also halted all intelligence-sharing with the IAEA, and allegedly bugged ElBaradei, hoping to obtain information that could be used against him."

Yeah, the US halted, and not John Bolton. So why, Gordon, are you making it personal to him [with the title of the piece being "Bolton, The Unlawful"].

So the real question has nothing to do with John Bolton. The real question is how those concerned will treat the US, of which John Bolton is simply a mouthpiece and servant.

Your attempt to clear Bolton of any wrongdoing because he was just following his "marching orders" is laughable. By your logic, G.Gordon Liddy and his fellow Watergate burglers should have been found not guilty because they received their orders from the White House. Your post indicated you are a lawyer. Does that mean that you can destroy evidence in a trial if your client gives you your "marching orders" to do so? Of course it doesn't. But that is exactly what you are asking us to believe.

KivrotHaTaavah, your defense of Mr. Bolton is that he was just following orders. I reject that defense on the grounds that anybody in a position of power exercises considerable personal judgment over how to exercise that power.

Let's take a reversed-scenario analysis. Let's just suppose the Mr. Bolton really is just a mouthpiece, a know-nothing nebbish who merely regurgitates whatever has been programmed into him by his boss. Well then, we certainly wouldn't need Senate confirmation for such a position, would we? We could just run down to the unemployment office and grab somebody off the line there, rehearse him in his lines, and get off paying far less than we now do.

Of course, that's an absurd situation. We pay big bucks for the talent that goes with a UN ambassadorship, because we expect an ambassador with expertise and judgment. We expect that he'll be able to make lots of decisions without consulting the President over each and every one of those decisions. And we expect him to take responsibility for every decision he makes. Sure, it's fine to pass off decisions that came down from above. But many of the objections to Mr. Bolton concern actions that he took on his own initiative. There are people who say that he's hard to work with, tactless, and most undiplomatic in his behavior. We really don't want to appoint an undiplomatic person to a diplomatic position, do we? Put him in customer service for a software company, but good lord, don't put him in a diplomatic position!

Are you suggesting that the US Ambassador to the UN should tout his "own" ideas, not the official policy of the United States as articulated by the President?

Such an ambassador would deserve to be fired.

With respect to the diplomacy of the UN, that depends. If the UN were actually legit, not irrelevant, not corrupt, and not nearly utterly worthless, your premise would be correct.

But, alas, it's all of those things and more. Therefore, we need a pit bull in that job, not just another go-along, mamby-pamby, diplomat who is afraid to rock their boat.

Bush wants to shake them up. Frankly, if he can't succeed, I strongly favor the US pulling out of that obsolete organization entirely. And I have my doubts that Bolton (or anyone) can reform that organization in any meaningful way. But at least Bush is giving it his best shot by putting a guy in place who sees the REALITY of that group and what needs to be done.

Well, KivrotHaTaavah,
Your above post is prophetic, whether or not you meant it to be. You said that aside from the vote to remove Bustani "there was otherwise nothing 'illegal'".
That is absolutely correct.

But, so what?

The vote to remove Bustani I show below to be completely in violation of international law.

Quoting directly from the full text of the judgement on the matter (International Labor Organization, Administrative Tribunal, Judgement #2232):
Paragraph 16 states, "...given the circumstances of his (Bustanis') case, he has good grounds for asserting that the premature termination of his appointment (i.e. the vote to remove)...contravened the general principles of the law of the international civil service." (italics added)

The Tribunal awarded Bustani compensation, damages, and costs.

Paragraph 3 of the judgement names the United States as the Member State that submitted the no-confidence motion and called for the "...convening of a special session...with an agenda which was to include a 'decision related to the tenure of the current Director-General (Bustani)'..."

These proceedings were all found to be illegal. Something about denial of due process, and not being afforded the opportunity to present a defense before an independent and impartial body.

Please reference the complete judgement and a separate legal analysis of the judgement below:

FULL TEXT OF BUSTANI JUDGEMENT (CHAPTER... )

LEGAL ANALYSIS OF BUSTANI JUDGEMENT (...AND VERSE! )


Finally, to provide you with a dozen or more sources as to who orchestrated all of this, just do a Google search yourself with the keywords "Bustani Bolton". John Bolton is placed at the head of this operation by no less than two of his own senior staff, diplomats including Bustani, and other sources.

My point here is not to make a civil case against Bolton. The legal judgement was made against the organization that Bustani was removed from, not against Bolton, even though Bolton was the architect of the removal.

My point is to illustrate that Bolton has utter contempt for the rule of law.

He has made that more than obvious in this case. His disdain for international organizations is well-documented. This gives him no right, however, to pick and choose the international laws he decides to follow.

His complete lack of respect for the rule of law reflects his Cowboy mentality and clearly shows that he has no business representing the United States in the international arena.

schmed:

I read the judgment, and speaking of due process, I find the judgment lacking any and all indicia of the same. The OPCW was the responding party, and not the US, and not John Bolton. So if one believes in this thing called due process, hard to blame either the US or John Bolton since both were never made respondents to the proceedings, were never afforded the opportunity to make their case in the usual manner, etc. Or do only some of us enjoy the right to due process of law?

And re the original motion, from the judgment:

"This motion was supported by 17 members, but five voted against it and 18 abstained. The two-thirds majority of all Executive Council Members required for decisions on "matters of substance" was not reached and the motion was therefore not adopted."

So, the original vote was 17 he goes, and 5 he stays, and 18 abstentions. I will let you decide whether we ought to be counting abstentions as constituting a vote. Otherwise, we'd have had our two-thirds.

And then there's:

"The evidence on file and the applicable texts indicate that although the convening of the Special Session of the Conference of the States Parties was procedurally correct, and although the Conference does indeed have a broad competence, under Article VIII, paragraphs 19 and 21, of the Convention, to examine all problems lying within the scope of the Convention, "including those relating to the powers and functions of the Executive Council and the Technical Secretariat", and to appoint the Director-General, the reasons put forward in announcing what can only be described as the dismissal of the Director-General were extremely vague. Admittedly, the Permanent Representative of the United States to the OPCW had informed the Director-General, on 28 February 2002, of his Government's criticisms regarding the Director-General's management, and had asked him to resign. The "concerns" entertained by the United States were expressed in a paper published on 1 April 2002 by the US Department of State, and some of its grievances were highlighted by the US Permanent Representative in his statement to the Special Session of the Conference of the States Parties: poor financial management, abdication of transparency, destruction of staff morale, negligence and, in general, betrayal of the trust placed in him by the States Parties. It was on the basis of those charges, to which the complainant responded, that the Conference took its decision, and it may be assumed that the majority of its Members intended to endorse those views by voting in favour of the impugned decision, having been convened for a special session at the urgent request of the United States. However, the decision itself merely indicates that the Conference is determined "to work for the preservation and effective functioning of the Organization and the Convention, which are put in jeopardy by the lack of confidence in the present Director-General of the Technical Secretariat". Thus, the motion that was voted on was a genuine no-confidence motion, with no other basis than the threat which the complainant's conduct and management posed to the Organisation."

That sounds an awful lot like everything was lawful. And never mind the wholly disingenous [and entirely familiar to American jurisprudence] casting of the circumstance in terms other than the reality. As I said, first UNSCOM and then UNMOVIC had jurisdiction over the inspections. Bustani's attempt to have his own inspectors go to Iraq infringed on the jurisdiction of UNMOVIC [and the UN Security Council]. And for those familiar with American jurisprudence, there is no greater sin than to infringe on the jurisdiction of another while in the process of exceeding your own. And what some otherwise call "technicalities," others in the know call preservation of the integrity of the system [without which we are not only without hope but are also a nation of men and not law].

The basis for the decision otherwise appears to be:

"The possibility that a measure of the kind taken against the complainant may, exceptionally, be justified in cases of grave misconduct cannot be excluded, but such a measure, being punitive in nature, could only be taken in full compliance with the principle of due process, following a procedure enabling the individual concerned to defend his or her case effectively before an independent and impartial body. In this instance, the complainant had no procedural guarantee, and given the circumstances of his case, he has good grounds for asserting that the premature termination of his appointment violated the terms of his contract of employment and contravened the general principles of the law of the international civil service."

He had no what? No procedural guarantee? But didn't they just say that "the individual concerned [is entitled] to defend his or her case effectively before an independent and impartial body? So show me that the individual in question did not have that opportunity, by reciting all of the failures with respect to the same, and never mind the single inane line about procedural guarantee. My Constitution has that same guarantee and my clients do not prevail with respect to claims of being deprived of the same merely by pointing to the guarantee, as they need to instead demonstrate that they were IN FACT deprived of due process of law. A citation to civil service law would otherwise have been most helpful, and would have been included in any civil service dispute [here, in the UK, and in India, to name just three places that have a civil service system].

And you've heard some say that Roe v. Wade has zero basis in the constitution and constitutional law [code for the usual framework applied], so let me just say that the judgment has no basis in law whatsoever, and that's not my fault, it's theirs for not doing something more than simply reciting a legal conclusion without any statement of the findings of fact necessary to support that conclusion. To take just one example, where are the factual findings to support the claim that the tribunal was not independent and impartial? Of course, there cannot be such a finding, given the 7 no votes and the 40-some absentions [and never mind the other 40-some votes for termination]. And his right to make a defense? From the judgment itself: "It was on the basis of those charges, to which the complainant responded, that the Conference took its decision, and it may be assumed that the majority of its Members intended to endorse those views by voting in favour of the impugned decision, having been convened for a special session at the urgent request of the United States." See those words....To which the complainant responded? So please tell us what prevented him from making a full and complete response/defense so that the ILO might enter the wholly necessary findings of fact.

As you said...."something about"....so call it the pot [the ILO] calling the kettle [the OPCW], black [the ILO's decision appears to be even more vague than the allegedly vague statement of charges proferred against Mr. Bustani; even your commentator noted the vagueness of the decision in certain respects].

Now back to the matter of votes, or should I say, for the let's blame Bolton, The Unlawful crowd, nice of you to claim him as the architect but, again, if he was following orders, then not his fault. But more importantly, how about those other 40-some votes in favor? Were they too acting unlawfully, and if so, where is the by the personal name condemnation of all of those casting the 40-some votes in favor of termination? Yes, I know, once again a case of selective outrage [and since someone mentioned something about not remembering or recalling Bolton's name, just who can the name other 40-some who casted votes in favor of termination, but I digress...].

Lastly, if the holding of the special session was improper, the judgment says that it was not, but if it had been, not our fault. We merely asked for the same. It was the UN itself that conducted the special session.

Sorry, one more. I don't regard the threatened US pullout as any more akin to blackmail, bribery, and/or extortion than I regard Mr. Pujol's hypothetical demand for a guaranteed $30 million over five years or else he leaves St. Louis as constituting the same. Our membership in that organization and in various sub-organizations within that organization is entirely and wholly voluntary. The other member States are otherwise free to bid us a fond adieu and farewell, should they so desire.

Sorry, even one more. You might try reading the late Chaim Herzog's speeches before the UN Security Council in connection with the complaint submitted to that body by Uganda, the OAU [Organ. African Unity], etc., following the proudly successful conclusion of Operation Jonathan [wherein Israel stood accused of a flagrant violation of Uganda's sovereignty]. As Chaim related on 12 July 1976 [excerpt taken from the UN's provisional verbatim record on that proceeding]:

"And we now have the ominous news that the Ugandan government is applying the threat of blackmail to foreign nationals in Uganda in connection with the current proceedings in the Security Council. In other words, for the first time in history a direct attempt is being made by threats of blackmail of the most ominous character to influence the proceedings in this Council.

How can this Council pass over in silence? How can it ignore a blatant attempt to influence this body? How can the members of this Council ignore this flagrant attempt to interfere with their national sovereignty? This whole sordid affair condemns not only the Ugandan government but all the countries which have spoken out against the Israeli rescue mission during this debate. They have ignored the basic cause of this issue, namely the hijacking of the plane, and, for reasons of political expediency, they have not even had the good grace to say one word about the fate of an old lady of seventy-five dragged out of the hospital, in all probability to the horrible fate that has been meted out to tens of thousands of Ugandans, a fate the nature of which has been described by the Foreign Minister of Kenya in the letter he addressed to you today, Mr. President."

Bolton merely said that we might very well bow out. He did not try, on behalf of the government of the United States of America, or otherwise, to blackmail foreign nationals inside the US so that he/we might obtain a more favorable result re the OPCW and Mr. Bustani. And so there can be no mistake, the UN did pass over in silence the flagrant attempt on the part of Uganda that was noted by the late Mr. Herzog. Pity that the ILO seemed to forget that prior and well-settled precedent.

Lastly, I know that we ought not to make things personal here, but to speak of utter contempt of the rule of law in relation to things UN is simply the proverbial height of absurdity. The UN is the living embodiment of contempt for the rule of law. So if that's what you think of Bolton, and if the same is true, then he should feel right at home in the UN.

Erasmussimo:

I am not disputing that matters such as treatment of subordinates, the ability to think on one's feet [as it were], etc., are not relevant. And, yes, they were, in part, the subject of the hearings. But just as much, if not more, time was spent on matters such as what would you have done with respect to Rwanda [not any UN ambassador's call to make, and never mind person or party], show us your success re the North Korean problem [the idiot who asked that question is only fit to be dog-catcher, and sorry to all dog-catchers, as I mean to insult the idiot and not you], etc. Oh, sorry, there was Ms. Pelosi's "the UN does not exist." It does not. True there is an organization called the UN, but there is no united nations as a living, practical, reality. So on that score the man simply spoke the truth. And ultimately, the US' job in the UN is to serve our interests. And that is what the man said. Maybe it would have helped if Ms. Pelosi would have recalled that if the US decided to adopt a humanitarian interest in starving people, then Mr. Bolton could claim that we could take the lead in the UN re the same since it was in our interest. So Ms. Pelosi's real criticism was of Bush/Republican policy, and not Mr. Bolton.

Re the subordinates. Depends on just which subordinates we are talking about. The State Department has its own entrenched people and ideology, and like it or not, accept it or not, both Dem and Repub administrations have often had as much trouble with resistance from the lifers at State than they have had with foreign nations and international organizations [and owing to the fact that some, many, at State continually fail to realize that they serve the Executive branch and not themselves and their own interests/opinions].

Lastly, re his abrasive style. Fine. That's okay with me. Here is another abrasive man, one that we would have been blessed and/or lucky to have as our ambassador to the UN:

http://www.frontpagemag.com/articles/authors.asp?ID=1534

And it was indeed John Bolton who played point guard in our effort to have the Zionism is racism nonsense relegated to the trash heap wherein the same belongs, yes? And the Zionism is racism nonsense is what, for years, had destroyed any hope of any resolution of the Israel/West Bank/Gaza problem, yes? I consider the repeal of the infamous UN General Assembly Resolution 3379 to be a major accomplishment, and a testament to Bolton's ability to play well with others [at least on occasion].

Oh, and going back to Entebbe, Operation Jonathan, and the UN Security Council proceedings respecting the same, more Chaim Herzog before the UN Security Council:

"Mr. President:

From a purely formal point of view, this meeting arises from a complaint brought against the government of Israel. However, let me make it quite clear that sitting here as the representative of the government of Israel, as I have the honor to do, I am in no way sitting in the dock as the accused party. On the contrary, I stand here as an accuser on behalf of free and decent people in this world. I stand here as an accuser against the forces of evil which have unleashed a wave of piracy and terrorism which threatens the very foundations of human society. I stand here as an accuser of all those evil forces which in their inherent cowardice and abject craven attitude see blameless wayfarers and innocent women and children-yes, even babes in arms-a legitimate target for their evil intentions. I stand here as an accuser of the countries that because of evil design or lack of moral backbone, have collaborated with these bloodthirsty terrorists.

I stand here as an accuser of all those in authority throughout the world who for reasons of cynical expediency have collaborated with terrorism. I stand here as an accuser of this world organization, the United Nations, which has been unable, because of the machinations of the Arab delegates and their supporters, to coordinate effective measures in order to combat the evil of world terrorism. I stand here as an accuser of those delegations to this organization which for reasons of political expediency have remained silent on this issue, an issue which is bound to affect each country in this organization. In so doing, they have themselves become accomplices.

Seated in the dock today with the accusing finger of enlightened world opinion directed against them are the terrorist organizations which are plaguing this world, and whose representatives have been seated here by the world body with rights equal to those of member states. In the dock are all those countries who have collaborated with the terrorists and who have aided and abetted them. There stand here accused those countries which have blocked every international move to deal with this plague of terror which besets the world.

In the dock before us stand members of all those countries—they are all-too-numerous—who cry to the high heavens when they are affected by terrorists, who fulminate at this Security Council table when their citizens or diplomats are threatened, and who remain silent when the same happens to citizens of other countries. Some of them do not even have the doubtful grace to remain silent; they have the wicked effrontery to join in the condemnation of a country which tries to prevent these acts. In the dock before us are the representatives of all those countries who stood and applauded the entry into the hall of the General Assembly of a gun-toting terrorist [the late Mr. Arafat] who, according to the President of Sudan, personally gave the order to execute the American and Belgian diplomats bound hand and foot in the basement of the Saudi Arabian embassy in Khartoum on March 1, 1973.
***
Israel's action at Entebbe in order to release its hostages has given rise to a worldwide wave of support and approval, such as has rarely been seen from every continent, including Africa, from every walk of life, from countries hostile as well as friendly to Israel. The ordinary man and woman in the street has risen behind us and proclaimed "enough" to this spectre of terror, has cried out "enough" to this world body of pontificating diplomats, in which on so many occasions moral cowardice and cynical expediency have combined to drag it down to the depths to which it has plunged.
***
In more ways than one, this organization is in the accused stand today. Mankind will judge it by its behavior on this occasion because never has the issue been clearer, never has the issue been more clear-cut. There will be no excuse in history for this body or for the constituent members of this body if it fails to condemn terrorism. The issue before this body is not what Israel did at Entebbe Airport; the issue before this body is its own future in the eyes of history.
***
This is the country [Libya] which has for years acted as paymaster of international terror movements, Arab and non-Arab, throughout the world.

This is the country which has been condemned by Sudan and Tunisia only recently for its acts of terror and for the sinister and dangerous part it has played in planning to assassinate the leaders of these states and to overthrow their governments.

This is the country whose ambassador was expelled but a few days ago by the government of Egypt for its subversive activities.

It is, I submit, a disgrace to this world organization that the representative of this world sponsor of terrorism is seated as a member of the Security Council, the purpose of which is to encourage the maintenance of international peace and security.
***
I submit, sir, that under the provisions of Article 23 of the Charter, the Libyan government is disqualified from membership on the Security Council. Furthermore, under Article 27, paragraph 3, Libya, as a party to this dispute, is disqualified from voting on this issue. The Libyan government's activities are utterly irreconcilable with its membership in this body, and indeed had the principles of the Charter been adhered to in this body, a member representing this world center of terror would not have been sitting in this body.
***
In many ways this is a moment of truth for this organization. If it will seize this opportunity courageously and without flinching to join hands in a war against international terror for the benefit of ordinary men and women throughout this world, then it will be serving the purpose for which it was established. It can yet retrieve, perhaps in small measure, the prestige and good will which it has dissipated by becoming hostage to despots and extremists.

The murder of eleven Israeli athletes in Munich 1972 moved the Secretary-general to demand of the General Assembly to devise measures for the eradication of the scourge of terrorism off the map of the world. The Arab states and their friends managed to "bury" the subject through their "automatic majority." Today the question of international terrorism is before the Security Council, not the General Assembly.

If the Council fails to seize this opportunity which has been granted it to eliminate the scourge of terrorists, kidnappers, hijackers and blackmailers from our midst, then it will plunge to the lowest depths in the eyes of mankind and will disappear in history as yet another great and tragic lost opportunity in history.
***
We come with a simple message to the Council. We are proud of what we have done because we have demonstrated to the world that in a small country in Israel's circumstances, with which the distinguished members of this Council are all too familiar, the dignity of man, human life and human freedom constitute the highest values. We are proud not only because we have saved the lives of over one hundred innocent people-men, women and children-but because of the significance of our act for the cause of human freedom.

We call on this body to declare war on international terror, to outlaw it and eradicate it wherever it may be. We call on this body, and above all, we call on the member states and countries of the world to unite in a common effort to place these criminals outside the pale of human society and to place any country with them which cooperates in any way in their nefarious activities.

In calling this body to action, I cannot ignore its limitations which are daily demonstrated by the fact that this body has sat silent through fifteen months of the greatest tragedy besetting the world today in the Lebanon, while a nation is torn apart, tens of thousands are killed, tens of thousands more are wounded, and the cup of human suffering overflows daily.
***
We are proud to have given the lead in this struggle against international terrorism. This debate, which is an opportunity for the world to take action on this issue, can affect the lives of every man and woman in the world. Those countries which fail to take a clear and unequivocal position on this issue for reasons of expediency or cowardice will stand damned by all the decent people in this world and despised in history.

There is a time in the affairs of man when even governments must make difficult decisions guided not by considerations of expediency, but by considerations of morality. Israel was guided by these considerations in risking much to save its citizens. May we hope that others will be guided by these principles too?..."

And so ends the excerpts re bashing the UN. But Chaim also bashed some member States, well, and the UN as well:

"The move by the organization of African Unity to bring this complaint to the Security Council must appear to be completely incongruous were one's senses not completely dulled by the utter incongruity of the proceedings of this organization. The deliberations on this occasion will doubtless be no exception.

Let me recall to my African colleagues the text of a resolution of the Council of Ministers of the OAU in 1970:

The council of Ministers of the Organization of African Unity, meeting in its fourteenth ordinary session in Adis Ababa, Ethiopia, from 27 February to March 1970, having heard the declaration made by the Foreign Minister of Ethiopia regarding the repeated sabotage and hijacking of civil aircraft thereby endangering the safety of passengers, conscious of the disastrous consequences resulting from such criminal acts of international air travel,

1. condemns all attempts and acts of hijacking of civil aircraft;

2. calls upon all Stalest undertake strict measures to protest civilian air travel from being endangered;

3. appeals to all States to apprehend and punish such criminals in order to ensure the safety of international air travel.

How do they reconcile their attitude with the text of a resolution on this very issue which they all accepted? Here we are again being selective. Do the member states of the OAU not realize that by condoning acts of piracy and hijacking they are laying themselves open to such acts on their own airlines and in their own countries? Are we to understand that there is to be a selective cataloguing of hijacking, of international murder, of piracy, of brutality and of brigandage according to the race, color or continent to which the murderer or transgressor belongs?

We, the Jewish people, are only too familiar with this type of selective behavior and with the awful catastrophe and doom which it brings to those who engage in it [note what he said, not the awful catastrophe and doom brought on the victims, but on those who engage in such conduct].
***
Is the representative of the Soviet Union not aware that since 1945 the Soviet Union has blocked every attempt on the part of Israel to bring its case to the Security Council? For twenty-two years we have had no remedy in this Council because of the Soviet veto. We are used to cynicism in this body, but the cynical question of the representative of the Soviet Union—"Why did we not complain to this Council?"—when he knows in advance that, without regard to the substance of the claim, he would have vetoed it, is, I submit, the height of cynicism.

I note the Soviet representative's concern for the inviolability of African territory and I sincerely trust that his touching concern will be reflected in Soviet Union policies and actions.

The representative of the Soviet Union talked about aggression and the inviolability of territorial integrity and national sovereignty. On these subjects I defer to him, considering the Soviet Union's very considerable record in these respects in Hungary, in Czechoslovakia and in the other countries in Eastern Europe. My colleague from China could doubtless elaborate on this subject [think Tibet, etc.].

Let me assure the representative of the Soviet Union that the people of Hungary in 1956 and Czechoslovakia in 1968 would have been only too delighted if the Soviet intervention had been to save a hundred hostages and had been of a duration not exceeding fifty-three minutes, as was the case at Entebbe. At that time the Soviet Union went to great pains to explain its position. Sergei Kovalev, in "Sovereignty and the International Duties of Socialist Countries," published in Pravda on September 26, 1968, explained the Soviet Union's justifications of such actions as follows: "Those who talk about the 'illegal' actions of the allied socialist countries in Czechoslovakia forget that in a class society there is not and cannot be law that is independent of class."

In a civilized society there is not and cannot be law that is independent of the loftiest principles of man—namely, freedom and dignity of man. That, my colleague from the Soviet Union, was the principle that Israel was defending at Entebbe.
***
I listened to the remarks of the representative of Pakistan. Frankly, I would have accorded them more respect if they had not come from the representative of a regime which has locked up its entire political opposition in gaol. Here was the miserable apparition of the representative of a state whose own people were brutally driven out of Uganda by the racist regime of Idi Amin falling over himself to ingratiate himself with the oppressors of his own kith and kin. How despicable can one be?
***
I note too...that the government of Egypt has co-sponsered the resolution of the Organization of African Unity to bring this matter before the Council. Let me remind the Council that the government of Egypt released the cowardly assassins who shot Prime Minister Wasfi Tal of Jordan on the steps of the Sheraton Hotel in Cairo and then drank his blood. In 1970 the Egyptian government released the terrorists from the Black September organization who had landed the hijacked Pan American jumbo plane at Cairo Airport and had blown it up at the airport...

I listened carefully to the long drawn out point of order made yesterday by the representative of Libya, and I must admit that I quite appreciate his concern-which he expressed again today. Who but the representative of Libya, a country which has been the paymaster and haven of international terrorism, would want to avoid a discussion in this Council on the evil of international terrorism?"

If John Bolton does half the job of Chaim Herzog, I for one, will be proud that he is my nation's ambassador to the UN.

KivrotHaTaavah, I will not defend all of the objections raised against Mr. Bolton; it's a big world and everybody has their own reasons for coming to a conclusion, and I don't share the opinions of many people. My primary concern is that a diplomat should above all be diplomatic, and Mr. Bolton is the living antithesis of diplomatic-ness. Mr. Bolton has demonstrated a management style based on temper tantrums, shouting at people, seeking the removal of those who disagree with him, and other, shall we say, strong-armed methods. This approach works well in some venues, but the very last place we want it is in a diplomatic venue. It seems quite certain that Mr. Bolton will antagonize most other diplomats and therefore fail to obtain their cooperation. This in turn will render him -- and the USA -- impotent in the UN. You don't win votes by yelling and screaming at people, or by threatening them. I expect that Mr. Bolton's tenure at the UN will be marked by a complete failure to accomplish anything. He may, however, be quite effective at torpedoing any action taken by the UN and reducing it to inaction. This, I fear, may well be Mr. Bush's intent.

Just a little new news on Bolton for our entertainment.

President Sends Bolton to U.N.; Bypasses Senate



This was very sad to see someone that doesn't believe in or respect in the institution be promoted to that said institution. One can only hope the 18months go by quick without any bumps in the road created by Bolton.

RESPONSE TO KIVRO---PART I


KivroHaTaavah,

Thank you for your extensive and researched response. I must admit I was initially overwhelmed by the magnitude of your post. Many issues require a detailed response. For this reason I have broken down my reply into installments. Below, for your review, I respectfully submit Part I.




1. DUE PROCESS


First, you are making a claim for due process where one does not exist. Neither Bolton nor the U.S. were named in the case. And no judgements were rendered against them in the proceeding. They needed no opportunity to defend themselves since they faced no charges. Therefore, since neither Bolton nor the U.S. were part of the proceedings, they have no due process claims at all.
But, I think you already knew that.

Maybe your point was to establish Bolton as somehow being exonerated of all involvement by showing that he was not named in this particular civil case. But, if you recall, in a prior post I explicitly stated: "My point here is not to make a civil case against Bolton." But, you knew that, too.

Your real point, however, was, and is, to claim that Bolton is beyond criticism.

You made an obviously false claim of due process to try to hide Bolton behind an illegitimate cloak of immunity.

Your logic is that Bolton can't be blamed because
he wasn't given a chance to defend himself in a
proceeding in which he wasn't charged. Huh?


Well, in fact he has been blamed, he is being blamed, and he will continue to be blamed in the future. No amount of false logic can change that.

Let me make two points perfectly clear to you:

1. Boltons' due process was not violated at all by him not being mentioned in the Bustani case. And you knew that.

2. Boltons' due process will not be violated here just because we freely debate the full extent of his involvement in the matter.

RESPONSE TO KIVRO---PART II


2. CONTEMPT FOR THE RULE OF LAW







So, KivrotHaTaavah,

Because you believe that the U.N. is the "living embodiment of contempt for the rule of law", then it would be O.K. for somebody who also has contempt for the rule of law, i.e. Bolton, to be our Ambassador. In fact, he should even "feel right at home in the U.N."

So, since the U.N. doesn't respect the rule of law, and its' Ambassadors don't have to respect the rule of law , then, by your wonderful reasoning, it must follow that resolutions passed by the U.N. need not be respected either.

Wow! You just gave Sadaam Hussein all the justification he ever needed to violate every single U.N. resolution that was ever passed.

Now, I'll leave it to the wisdom of the readers to judge whose reasoning they think is absurd.

Saddam Hussein needed no justification to violate every UN resolution passed against him. He did it because there was nobody willing to enforce the said resolutions. Thats one of the reasons that the UN's power and influence over world affairs is minimal at best.

Bolton may be a "tough" guy...but that is what the UN needs. For too long we have allowed the UN to dwindle into an organization that allows corrupt authoritarian governments to run the show and protect their own interests. No reform has been made and its purpose of spreading democracy and civil rights throughout the world has been lost. We need an ambassador that sees the flaws of the UN and has the gumption to address the world organization and tell it that change is needed. If Bolton can rock the boat and change the status quo in which is puts the interests of the United States and democracy as a whole first...then he would be an excellent choice for Ambassador.

However, again it seems that the point that Amlord and I have made has been lost through all this painful rhetoric. Bolton's job depends on his ability to follow the policies of the Bush Administration. This would be just the same for any other person nominated. The exaggeration of Bolton's influence has grown immense when truthfully he only relays the wishes of the President.

Schmed:

My "due process" objection is less a legal objection and more a moral one. Here you and some others are blaming Bolton when the undisputed facts otherwise show that: (1) according to the judgment, the tribunal was lawfully convened and constituted; (2) Mr. Bustani had notice and was given the opportunity to appear and defend and, according to the judgment, did in fact do so; (3) the tribunal has the power to terminate in the exceptional circumstance, and (4) a vote was taken and 40-some other delegates voted in favor of termination [i.e., they determined that the exceptional circumstance did exist]. So how is Bolton showing utter contempt for the rule of law when the tribunal was lawfully convened and constituted, there was notice and the opportunity to appear and defend, the tribunal had the power to terminate in the exceptional circumstance, and 40-some other delegates found the exceptional circumstance and voted in favor of termination?

Although I have not stated the matter as directly as I am going to now, as I said, our membership in the UN is voluntary. So there is nothing wrong with Bolton, on behalf of the US of A, reporting that unless a, b, c, and d, happens, it's an adieu and fond farewell for us. In contrast, the point that the late Chaim Herzog made was that Uganda did not threaten to leave the UN, it instead directly threatened foreign nationals in Uganda in an effort to influence a UN Security Council proceeding [hoping that the threat to the foreign nationals would induce their UN delegates to follow his lead for purposes of protecting the health, safety, and welfare of their threatened citizens residing in Uganda]. Like the US, Uganda had then and has now, the right to do the former, but it did not then and does not now have the right to do the latter.

And kindly go back and read the judgment and then your commentator's remarks.

Again, the judgment, in pertinent part:

"The possibility that a measure of the kind taken against the complainant may, exceptionally, be justified in cases of grave misconduct cannot be excluded, but such a measure, being punitive in nature, could only be taken in full compliance with the principle of due process, following a procedure enabling the individual concerned to defend his or her case effectively before an independent and impartial body. In this instance, the complainant had no procedural guarantee, and given the circumstances of his case, he has good grounds for asserting that the premature termination of his appointment violated the terms of his contract of employment and contravened the general principles of the law of the international civil service."

Now, your commentator:

In a proper case, the Conference has authority to terminate the appointment of a Director-General and it would appear that that authority can be exercised in the absence of a recommendation by the Executive Council.

The Tribunal did not offer any guidance as to the type of behaviour that would constitute grave misconduct of a degree sufficient to justify termination. Presumably, it did not consider it necessary to enter upon this matter in view of the fact that it had already determined that the termination was wrongful (because the requirements for due process had not been met and the Conference's resolution was not properly framed)."

Re the so-called guarantee, from the judgment:

"The evidence on file and the applicable texts indicate that although the convening of the Special Session of the Conference of the States Parties was procedurally correct, and although the Conference does indeed have a broad competence, under Article VIII, paragraphs 19 and 21, of the Convention, to examine all problems lying within the scope of the Convention, "including those relating to the powers and functions of the Executive Council and the Technical Secretariat", and to appoint the Director-General, the reasons put forward in announcing what can only be described as the dismissal of the Director-General were extremely vague. Admittedly, the Permanent Representative of the United States to the OPCW had informed the Director-General, on 28 February 2002, of his Government's criticisms regarding the Director-General's management, and had asked him to resign. The "concerns" entertained by the United States were expressed in a paper published on 1 April 2002 by the US Department of State, and some of its grievances were highlighted by the US Permanent Representative in his statement to the Special Session of the Conference of the States Parties: poor financial management, abdication of transparency, destruction of staff morale, negligence and, in general, betrayal of the trust placed in him by the States Parties. It was on the basis of those charges, to which the complainant responded, that the Conference took its decision, and it may be assumed that the majority of its Members intended to endorse those views by voting in favour of the impugned decision, having been convened for a special session at the urgent request of the United States....

So, the convening of the underlying tribunal was procedurally correct and the tribunal has the power to terminate in the exceptional circumstance. Which brings us to the claim that the reasons given for the decision were extremely vague. If I concede that such is so, then no cause for you to celebrate, given that the usual relief granted in such circumstance is a remand so that the underlying tribunal can enter the not so vague determination [the long settled legal presumption is that the tribunal followed the law in entering its judgment, so, if we use your logic, the reviewing tribunal itself showed utter contempt for the law]. So if due process of law is your concern, then you might ask why the underlying tribunal was not given the opportunity to more specifically state its reasons.

And I'll take you one better. Let's look at the charges themselves. Were they vague as well? Well, they were published in a paper and stated to the special session. Bustani responded to those charges. One otherwise wonders why, if the charges were so vague, Mr. Bustani [and his legal team, if he had one] did not ask for more particulars [the judgment is silent on that point, and one would tend to think that if he had asked for more particulars with no sufficient response to his request, that the same would appear in the judgment since such would bolster the judgment].

The claim of vagueness is otherwise disingenous at best. Everyone knew what was involved, and we can put aside all else. As I related, UNMOVIC had jurisdiction over the inspections. Mr. Bustani said never mind to the same and proposed sending his own boys into Iraq to do some inspecting. In light of the circumstance, I would call that grave misconduct and that explains why, to answer your commentator's "presumably", no discussion of just what the exceptional circumstance is or might be is contained in the judgment [i.e., if they had stated the specifics more specifically, no way in the world that more than a few us do not find grave misconduct and agreement with termination in this exceptional circumstance].

And what I find more than disingenous is that Bolton's critics in this regard are charging him with knowledge that he did not have at the time. Neither he, nor you, nor I, knew back then whether Ba'athist Iraq had WMDs. If Bustani had had his way, he would have sent in his own people, who simply did not have the requisite background and experience re Iraq to handle the job properly, and we and the rest of humanity ran the risk that Bustani's boys would have found nothing, declared Iraq clean [as it were], and sanctions and all the rest ended. Of course, hindsight tells us that that might not have presented much danger [though I remain convinced that as soon as the microscope was turned off, Saddam would have reverted to form]. But no matter, because hindsight wasn't alive and well at the time Bolton acted in the manner you call utterly contemptuous of the law. And despite what the logically challenged may think, the fear at the time did include the concern that Saddam would partner up with our al-Qaeda and/or other terrorist friends and provide them with the means to carry out a WMD attack. And spare me the, Saddam was a secularist who did not and would not tolerate al-Qaeda in Iraq. Who cares about that? Remembering as always, that the enemy of my enemy is my friend. Saddam didn't have to love al-Qaeda, didn't have to want and let them into his country on something more than a rather temporary basis, he simply need have come to the conclusion that the US was his enemy, that the US was al-Qaeda'a enemy, and that even though he and they would be acting towards differing ends and for different reasons, they could nevertheless prove quite useful to him, if properly controlled and handled.

Lastly, re the utter contempt. Again, what about the 40 others who voted "aye?" I would assume that those souls will not hold this affair against Bolton. And no reason why anyone else should hold to this opinion of utter contempt. The reviewing tribunal did not call it utter contempt, and as they and the rest of those familiar with things legal would agree, at worst, we didn't have contempt, we had legal error. US District judges and Circuit Court of Appeals judges engage in the same all the time. Rarely, if ever, does one accuse those jurists of utter contempt of the law. I would simply submit that partisan politics and personal animosity account for the difference in treatment.

While spreading democracy might be the goal of the USA it is not and never was that of the UN.

Charter of the United Nations



While their needs to be reforms within the UN from the corruption that has happened recently, as well as allowing certain members countries being allowed to have a seat on the UN Human Rights Commission for example. While some day in the future I would not mind Libya sitting on the Human Rights Commission, they first need to show to the world that they have changed.

But sending Bolton up to work with other Ambassadors at the UN is like sending Mike Ditka to the Senate.

Ditka Spikes Illinois Senate Run

RESPONSE TO KIVRO---PART III

BOLTON VIOLATES THE CHEMICAL WEAPONS CONVENTION









KivrotHaTaavah,

Your 2 paragraphs above are summarized as follows:

1. The U.S. threatened pullout from the OPCW was not blackmail, bribery, or extortion.

2. Bolton did not try, on behalf of the U.S. or otherwise, to blackmail foreign nationals with respect to the OPCW or Mr. Bustani.


The applicable section from the judgement of the ILO Tribunal is paragraph 16. The judgement further cites Article VIII paragraphs 46 and 47 of the Chemical Weapons Convention (The OPCW is the treaty-impleme