Bolton Resigns as U.N. Ambassador

President Bush Expresses Disappointment Over Failed Nomination

Washington Post staff writer Colum Lynch, who covers the United Nations, was online Monday, Dec. 4, at 2 p.m. ET to discuss the resignation of John Bolton as U.S. ambassador to the U.N.

The transcript follows.

____________________

Washington, D.C.: Did he resign to avoid the upcoming political battle, or was it related to the job itself? Would he have stayed if he felt he could be confirmed?

Colum Lynch: I believe Amb. Bolton resigned to avoid the bruising, and probably unsuccessful, effort to be confirmed by the Senate. He has previously expressed a desire to be confirmed by the Senate. But it looks as though his chance of getting a hearing before the full senate looks dim. Please look at our web story on this for the details.

_______________________

Bethesda, Md.: I get the impression that Bolton wasn't really all that bad as U.N. Ambassador-- one has the suspicion that he was done in by his ideological allies, who made overly ambitious claims about what he would or could do.

Colum Lynch: I think Bolton's colleagues on the U.N. Security Council have been quite complimentary in their assessment of his tenure at the UN. Japan's U.N. ambassador Kenzo Oshima today credited Bolton with spearheading the council's effort to condemn and sanctions North Korea's missile and nuclear tests. He has also come under criticism from some of the same diplomats for downplaying the U.N. achievements, and demanding UN officials desist from criticizing US policies. But I think his prospects were harmed by the mixed support for his nomination within the Republican party and the rise of the democrats.

_______________________

Long Beach, Calif.: While I personally hate the Neo-con approach of "my way or the highway" Bolton did bring the single benefit (outweighed by other negative neo-con factors) of not coddling the bureaucracy of the U.N. Any chance we'll get an ambassador who will do the same while building bridges? (Bolton was only able to burn bridges in the process)

Is it possible that a hard hitting, straight talking coalition BUILDER exists?

Colum Lynch: I think the US will be hard pressed to find another Bolton. He was in a way the anti-diplomat.

_______________________

Philadelphia, Pa.: Are there names of possible replacements being floated yet?

Colum Lynch: There have been a number of names floated since the mid term election dimmed Bolton's prospects for nomination. Zalmay Khalilzad, the US ambassador to Iraq, and formerly US ambassador to Afghanistan has been mentioned. Another one floating around U.N. circles was George Mitchell, a Democrat, which doesn't seem likely. I've even heard Lincoln Chaffee, the Republican Senator from Rhode Island(at least till the end of the year), mentioned--But that sounds even less likely. So, the real answer is we have no idea.

_______________________

Little Rock, Ark.: Is this another wounding blow to the tragedy of "Cowboy Diplomacy"?

Colum Lynch: I think this will usher in a more traditional diplomatic style at the UN than we have seen over the past year.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: Although Bush has the choice of whom he nominates, any idea if the Dems have someone in mind that they would be likely to confirm?

Colum Lynch: It's possible, but I'd be very surprised.

_______________________

New York, N.Y.: Bolton was a disgrace at the U.N. - do you think Bush will appoint another U.N.-hater to the U.N.?

Colum Lynch: I'll just pass on this statement

_______________________

Silver Spring, Md.: How much influence does the ambassador to the U.N. really have? In 2002-2003 it was Powell and Bush and others who went to discuss Iraq. Is this a symbolic position, or does it carry real weight in the U.N.?

Colum Lynch: I think a US ambassador to the UN has less power than under the Clinton Administration, when Madeleine Albright, Bill Richardson and Richard Holbrooke held cabinet rank--giving them a seat at the policy table. But even though the post has been downgraded, a skillful diplomat, like Bolton, can have an important impact on policy. I'll give you an example: When the UN General Assembly President Jan Elliason announced an agreement to create a UN human rights council Bolton met with the press to highlight the councils shortcomings. His public remarks made it politically difficult for the Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to support the council after that, even if she wanted to. Of course, Bolton's skepticism about the organization has been borne out. In its first months, it has found ample time to criticize Israel's policies, but to do nothing to condemn rights abuses by others, particularly Sudan or Burma

_______________________

Toronto, Canada: How about Bill Clinton? It would help him keep out of trouble.

Colum Lynch: Interesting idea? It was certainly make my job interesting. His name was previously floated as a possible secretary general--though his chances were next to zero, since he comes from a big power. But I'd say not going to happen.

_______________________

Los Angeles, Calif.: Does Mr. Bolton's resignation damage the U.S. position on North Korea? So far, he and the Japanese Ambassador (Mr. Oshima) have been the strongest proponents for action against the U.N. How will Mr. Bolton's resignation affect negotiations?

Colum Lynch: Hard to say but don't think so, at least in the short term. The UN piece of the North Korea diplomacy has played out here, and the center of gravity has moved to negotiations involving US, China, Russia, South Korea, Japan, North Korea.

_______________________

Austin, Tex.: Any chance he will continue to serve "pending the appointment of a successor," which could take many, many months?

Colum Lynch: no, I think that his announcement today probably rules that out. though I don't have that confirmed

_______________________

washingtonpost.com: Thank you all for joining us.

_______________________

Editor's Note: washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control over Live Online discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions. washingtonpost.com is not responsible for any content posted by third parties.