UN Credentials Committee Can Reject Bolton

[dmr]

Oh, if only this would happen .... < sigh >

http://www.btcnews.com/btcnews/1050#more-1050

8/1/2005
UN Credentials Committee Can Reject Bolton

Mark Levey @ 10:58 am
By Mark Levey

The UN doesn’t have to accept John Bolton’s credentials. This may come as a rude surprise to George W. Bush, who this morning appointed Bolton U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, despite his rejection several weeks ago by the Senate. The unintended consequence of Bolton’s appointment, which is creating a lightning rod at the UN for resentment, anger and fear of Bush Administration foreign policy, is a possible move by the General Assembly to limit U.S. actions in the Middle East and Persian Gulf.

It is likely that one or more General Assembly member states will challenge Bolton’s credentials. In that case, under Articles 27-29, he will be seated provisionally until the nine members of the Credentials Committee can vote on the question. (See an introduction to the Credentials Committee responsibilities here, and the UN General Assembly Rules of Procedure here(pdf file).)

The members of the Credentials Committee appointed at the 59th session are:

Benin
Bhutan
China
Ghana
Liechtenstein
Russian Federation
Trinidad and Tobago
United States
Uruguay

This could force what Bush likes to call an “up or down” vote on the issue, and likely Bolton’s first direct conflict with Russia and China at the UN. It is unclear how the smaller states on the committee might vote.

More at link ...

[merh]

1. I wish, I wish, I wish, I wish, I wish, I wish, I wish .....

Wouldn't that be awesome, if the world let the weed know that they rejected him!

[KoKo]

2. No one on that list though that would challenge, methinks.

Uruguay, Benin, Bhutan, Ghana, Trinidad, Tobago?

China doesn't want to stir up Bush about trade even though they are buying our bonds to float our debt. Russia seemed to have some relationship with Poppy who was over there last year, but they aren't going to want to have Bush jumping on them...and then there's US.

Are these tiny little countries who are left going to defy China and Russia and the US who will vote for itself. :shrug:

I wish....it could be that this could happen. But, I think they need our money for dues to keep the funding for UN. I wouldn't hold my breath.

Many of us e-mailed members of the UN Security Council begging them not to allow Bush to Invade Iraq. We watched C-Span for the interviews with Kofi Anan where we hung on his every word. I thought he was going to stop it. But, we were allowed to invade anyway.

Hopefully Fitzgerald will have something on Bolton with the Plame Leak or he will implode on his own?

[dmr]

3. I agree with you

We dangle our money and power over the heads of countries when we want our way. They may hate it, but they capitulate each time.

One of the things that come to mind with China is UNOCAL, they want it and am wondering if this administration will clear the way for its purchase.

What do you think of this statement from the article?

It is far more likely that the General Assembly may take this opportunity to attempt to impose conditions on U.S. international actions, such as its occupation of Iraq and any arm twisting it may attempt to force the world body to authorize military action against Iran. No doubt, many delegates would welcome a low-risk opportunity to send a clear message to the US that Bolton’s notoriously undiplomatic methods are unwelcome. Representation in the world body is not an internal US matter - the UN chooses who it finds acceptable among its own representatives.

[KoKo]

6. I guess it could depend on how much they want to cross

crazy Bush. But the graph before your quote says it would be "almost unimaginable." I think Bush has found a way to buy off or compromise almost everyone. And remember Great Britain is involved in Iraq, too. I just don't see any of those countries wanting to bring up what we did in Iraq. Maybe the article is thrown out there as hope...but who needs more discouragement after last week and now this...:shrug:

While challenges are not infrequent, actual rejection of the credentials of UN representatives is extraordinary. In the last 30 years, the committee rejected the credentials of Burmese and Cambodian UN representatives because of serious doubts about the legitimacy of the regimes and factions that sent them. While Bolton is widely feared and disliked among diplomats, Bolton’s outright rejection by a majority of the committee would be stunning, almost unimaginable.

[nankerphelge]

4. Can you imagine the moronic howling...

of the freeptards and other republican dregs? As someone that respects the UN as an institution, I almost think it might be more damaging for other countries to point out the incompetence than if they just let him sit there for two years and ignore him.

[Rex]

5. Resentment, anger and fear

The BFEE feeds off of these three things.