Michael Chandler, a visiting fellow in terrorism research for Risk Management Solutions, writes this morning about the nomination of John Bolton:

The allegations to-date, of “intel intimidation” and being a managerial bully would hardly seem approriate for any senior manager, not just the person heading up the U.S. Mission to the UN, overseeing the workings of people dealing with such sensive matters. …


As someone who has spent a number of very rewarding years working for the UN, I agree that change is necessary and that it is long overdue. There are also a number of friends and colleagues in the organisation, the ‘modernists’ or ‘reformers’, who agree with such sentiments. But it won’t be done with a sledgehammer or a “size 9 boot”. …


Mr. Chandler, who served for two years as chairman of the United Nations monitoring group on Security Council sanctions on Al Qaeda, was famously quoted [link goes to Cooperative Research’s dossier] in 2003:

“Nothing has come to our notice that would indicate links between Iraq and al-Qaida,” said Michael Chandler, the committee’s chief investigator.


[The A.P. story on June 26, 2003 continues: “Nowhere in the 42-page draft (by Chandler’s U.N. investigative group) is there any mention of Iraq or claims that it served as a safe haven for al-Qaida.”]


Below, more on Chandler’s views today on the U.N. and Bolton:

Chandler writes further from his perch as a contributor to the Counterterrorism blog:

One also must also be clear on what one means by “…the UN!” There is both the organisation made up of the member states and there is the UN Secretariat which services the needs and supports the work of the General Assembly, the Security Council and the office of the Secretary- General, to say nothing of the many other elements. i.e. WHO, WFP, UNHCR, etc.

If change is to be achieved and the changes effective, it will require leadership and teamwork – of the highest possible quality and standard. Is John Bolton the man for such a task – that surely is the question?


The allegations to-date, of “intel intimidation” and being a managerial bully would hardly seem approriate for any senior manager, not just the person heading up the U.S. Mission to the UN, overseeing the workings of people dealing with such sensive matters.

Nor do the allegations reflect the sort of skills that one normally associates with a good ‘team leader’.

One could argue that the “man-mangement skills” of the ‘nomination’ are an internal matter for the U.S. Government. But, as they are likely to colour the line that subordinates are directed to take in the various meetings and committees that are part and parcel of the day-to-day workings, if they are not right they will prove counter productive.

Arrogance is not the order of the day. Leadership is essential for the future of the UN, and that leadership has to come from the member states, particularly from the members of the “Permanent Five”.

But in such a diverse organisation, with so many national interests at stake, and with the need to build a level of trust and re-acquire respect, internationally, as never before, it would seem that whoever is to be nominated as the Permanent Representative of the US to the UN needs to be an outstanding team leader. One who is fair yet firm (when necessary), who can listen to and manage other ideas and points of view, as well as being a real diplomat and statesmen.

Such “leadership” is crucial if the UN is to be an effective organ against terrorism, the non-proliferation of WMD and a global force for the benefit of ALL mankind.


Concurrently, The Washington Note blog reports this morning on “the Feingold standard”: “Bolton Surpasses What it Takes to Get Feingold ‘Nay’.”

Feingold’s standards for “rejecting” a nominee have been met — and he is now convinced that Bolton engaged in behavior harmful to the national interest in his last position.

TWN just wanted to emphasize the points here that those who keep painting this opposition to Bolton underestimate two things: first, the internal discomfort in Republican ranks with Bolton and secondly, that not all Democrats were on board at the beginning or are on board now (but they may all soon be. . .)


TWN quotes from Sen. Feingold’s “[v]ery powerful and informed statement.” My excerpt:

I think he’s a lousy leader. And there are 100 to 150 people up there that have to be led; they have to be led well, and they have to be led properly. And I think, in that capacity, if he goes up there, you’ll see the proof of the pudding in a year.


____________________________________________


Note: War and Piece had a very good write-up yesterday on Bolton. “[R]ead Suzanne Nossel on Bolton’s lack of leadership leading to the US losing control of the agenda at the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty review conference, which wrapped up yesterday. Bolton didn’t prepare for it because he was too busy lobbying for the past six months for a high level job in Bush II. …” Read it all.

0 0 votes
Article Rating