Several academic and professional opportunities have presented themselves. Given that they involve social scientists and policymakers whose work I’ve long admired, I want to devote as much of my time, attention, and resources to them. Something must be sacrificed, and unfortunately, the blogosphere must be it.
James has been kind enough to keep OTB’s door open to me. At this point, I doubt that I’ll make any comebacks, but I truly appreciate the hospitality. And I truly appreciate the support that many readers have provided me for the past couple of years. Cheers.
Foreign Policy has partnered with the Fund for Peace to issue the first annual Failed States Index. Here’s the Top 20:
Rank
Country
1
Cote d’Ivoire
2
Congo
3
Sudan
4
Iraq
5
Somalia
6
Sierra Leone
7
Chad
8
Yemen
9
Liberia
10
Haiti
11
Afghanistan
12
Rwanda
13
North Korea
14
Colombia
15
Zimbabwe
16
Guinea
17
Bangladesh
18
Burundi
19
Dominican Republic
20
Central African Republic
No real surprises here. What’s equally unsurprising (though nonetheless appalling) is how little coverage the press is giving the high-ranking countries:
I’d venture to guess that some of the disparities are even more severe than the graph suggests. For instance, many recent stories on Bosnia have focused on the Srebrenica massacre’s tenth anniversary. While some accounts have touched on continuing national problems, most haven’t specifically highlighted the critical idea of state failure.
Down the table, it’s interesting to note that the Philippines stands at #56 — right above Iran, Cuba, and Russia. Surely, the possibility of impeachment doesn’t help its cause. And last year’s shameful capitulation to terrorists should be among the factors that contribute to its ranking.
For additional information on tax simplification, see this earlier post. And if you’ve ever wanted to know the origin of the term “red tape” — something that I learned today — click here.
There’s no doubt that Ebert still loves movies, which is admirable given that he’s reviewed more than 5,200 of them over the past 38 years. But maybe he loves them too much. Consider his recent double take on the lame Adam Sandler remake of The Longest Yard. Ebert gave the movie a “thumbs up” on TV, but then second-guessed himself after spending a week at the Cannes Film Festival. “I can hardly bring myself to return to The Longest Yard at all, since it represents such a limited idea of what a movie can be and what movies are for,” he wrote. Fair enough. But thenâand this is what bugs usâhe still gave the movie three stars on the wishy-washy grounds that it “more or less achieves what most of the people attending it will expect.”
Granted, Ebert usually reserves four stars for genuinely outstanding movies, except when he lets special effects cloud his judgment, as in the case of The Cell (”One of the best films of the year”) or Dark City (”a triumph of art and imagination”). But he’s downright promiscuous with the three-star rating, awarding it to almost a third of the movies he reviews.
To be fair, Ebert has a reasonable, if almost existentialist, explanation for his grading system:
Star ratings are the bane of my existence, because I consider them to be relative and yet by their nature, they seem to be absolute.
Ebert’s problem is that he tries too hard to adapt his review to the movie. With a summer blockbuster, he gives the benefit of the doubt, recognizing that mindless entertainment rules the season. With a presumed Oscar contender, he elevates the standards. I think that critics should certainly bear in mind the aim of a movie and have, as it were, a sense of humor. But they should also remember that, with such an approach, they run the risk of being terribly sloppy. And, within a span of hundreds of movies a year, the inconsistencies will become abundantly clear — very quickly.
Except for Ebert, most of the critics on my reading list (A.O. Scott of the New York Times, Kenneth Turan of the Los Angeles Times, and David Denby of the New Yorker, among others) don’t use ratings, and I tend to prefer it that way. I like going through an entire review without the distraction of, and the temptation to rely solely on, a grade. Sure, I visit Rotten Tomatoes, too. But I use it mainly as a tool to find fresh perspectives and always with the understanding that the numbers are flawed. In any event, it’s much more satisfying to take in a full deconstruction of a movie and understand all of the nuances.
British intelligence officials, frustrated by their failure to quickly crack the worst terrorist attack here since World War II, have sought help from counterparts in the United States and two dozen European allies to develop possible leads, European counterterrorism officials said Sunday.
The contacts included an extraordinary, private meeting in London on Saturday, convened by Scotland Yard and MI5, Britain’s domestic intelligence agency, that brought together senior law enforcement and intelligence officials from the United States and the two dozen European countries, three participants and several others with knowledge of the session said.
European participants said they were struck by how little was known about the attacks, which hit three trains in the London Underground and a double-decker bus on Thursday.
The investigation into the coordinated bombings, which left at least 49 people dead and more than 700 wounded, is now the largest criminal inquiry in British history.
The call for help was unusual coming from Britain, which is regarded by other European countries as often having access to more and better quality intelligence because it is part of a long-established, Anglophone intelligence-sharing agreement with the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand.
But the two-hour session also indicated that the British officials running the complex inquiry were frustrated because they had few breaks, few leads and no suspects in the 48 hours after the attack, the most important investigative period after a terrorist bombing.
While such international cooperation is always welcome, the slow pace and limited progress are disconcerting. A copycat attack may be planned. Terrorist cells may become emboldened. Clues may disappear.
More generally, intelligence-gathering difficulties may ultimately reflect the terrorists’ more effective adjustments. That they essentially replicated the Madrid strategy in another European city — and confounded numerous governments, including those with high-quality counterterrorism operations, in the process — may indicate just how much they’ve been able to perfect their craft. It’s frightening to think that they may have distanced themselves further from authorities, especially when you consider the low costs of creating mayhem.
I may be (and hope that I am) wrong on this score. Otherwise, trouble may lurk right around a nearby corner.
The most senior candidate nominated so far is Marek Belka, prime minister of Poland. A former economics professor and finance minister, Mr Belka was previously the Polish representative on the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq.
Mexico has named Angel Gurria, respected multi-lingual former finance minister, who has advised several development institutions.
In an interview with the FT earlier this year, Mr Johnston, a Canadian former minister, suggested his successor come from Asia. The OECD, which grew out of the organisation that administered the Marshall Plan in post-war Europe, has historically been weighted towards Europe and North America.
South Korea has already nominated Han Seung-soo, a highly regarded former diplomat and minister, who was president of the United Nations’ General Assembly in 2001-02. Mr Han, who was economics professor at Seoul National University before entering politics in 1988, has been minister of foreign affairs, trade and finance.
But Japan, the second biggest contributor to the OECD, is expected to nominate a candidate this week. Yoriko Kawaguchi, former foreign minister, has been mentioned as a candidate.
Speculation has grown in Paris that Tokyo may later field a more heavyweight candidate, such as Heizo Takenaka, one of the chief architects of Japan’s economic reforms, who is currently entangled in restructuring the country’s post office system.
The 5-4 Kelo v. New London decision may have split the Supreme Court, but it’s drawn virtually universal opposition. First, the religious right fears for their places of worship:
In the aftermath of a Supreme Court ruling two weeks ago in favor of using eminent domain for development that increases a city’s tax base, many Christian groups are warning supporters that the tax-exempt status of churches may make them targets, often citing the attempt to take a plot of land from the Cottonwood Christian Center in Los Alamitos.
Many legal experts say the fears are unfounded, and a federal appeals court ultimately blocked the condemnation of Cottonwood’s property. But calling the decision evidence that the court is out of touch, several Christian groups have seized on the ruling as a potent new motivation to fight for a conservative to replace Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, who is retiring.
Second, as John Fund observes, civil rights groups fear for their neighborhoods:
In 1954 the Supreme Court declared in Brown v. Board of Education that racial segregation in public schools was unconstitutional. But that same year it also ruled in Berman v. Parker that government’s power of eminent domain could be used to seize property in order to tear down “blighted” areas.
It soon became clear that too often urban renewal really meant “Negro removal,” as cities increasingly razed stable neighborhoods to benefit powerful interests. That helps explain why 50 years later so many minority groups are furious at the Supreme Court’s decision last month to build on the Berman precedent and give government a green light to take private property that isn’t “blighted” if it can be justified in the name of economic development.
Within a week of the Supreme Court’s 5-4 decision in Kelo v. New London, Rep. John Conyers, the ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee and the longest-serving member of the Congressional Black Caucus, pronounced himself “shocked” to be joining with conservatives in backing a bill to bar federal funds from being used to make improvements on any lands seized for private development. He noted that the NAACP, Operation PUSH and the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights all believe “this court opinion makes it too easy for private property to be taken and [this is a practice] that has been used historically to target the poor, people of color and the elderly.” The measure blocking federal funds passed the House by 231-189. A companion resolution condemning the Kelo decision was approved 365-33. Only 10 of the 43 members of the Congressional Black Caucus and only two members of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus voted against the latter measure.
As Fund later suggests, Justice Clarence Thomas actually anticipated such opposition in his dissent.
When Kelo came out, the main theme revolved around private ownership. See, for instance, this Christian Science Monitor article, which describes homes, trailer parks, and family investments. But, as time passes, the decision is evolving into a symbol of community definition. Will the government destroy the values and the composition of our neighborhood even if it doesn’t seize my property?
It’s a subtle distinction that has considerable political ramifications. Most notably, grassroots mobilization becomes easier to do, which in turn raises the odds of passing seizure restrictions.
Catholic bishops on Sunday refused to join mounting calls for the resignation of embattled Philippine President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo. They instead urged the creation of a fact-finding commission or initiation of impeachment proceedings to look into corruption and vote-rigging allegations against her.
“In the spirit of humility and truth, we declare our prayerfully discerned collective decision that we do not demand her resignation,” said Archbishop Fernando Capalla, president of the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines, an organisation of more than 90 bishops.
While my general preference would be to reduce church influence in political affairs there, I’m at least heartened that the bishops struck the right note. Now, I only wish that a powerful voice would make the overarching case: constitutional procedures would strengthen democratic institutions, even if they may sometimes provide culpable leaders some political breathing room.
Mrs Macapagal’s critics are hesitant to file such a complaint because they fear they cannot muster enough numbers in the House of Representatives to endorse one to the Senate, which will try the case. Most House members belong to parties that are part of the ruling coalition supporting the president’s administration.
In the same vein, responsible public figures must explain that, if representatives obstruct, they can be punished in the next election cycle. I realize that my argument sounds awfully naive, given the cold realities of developing-world governance. But, at some point, people need to stand up for a healthy democratic culture and institutional recourse — things that would have far more long-term benefits and be far more revolutionary than just another extraconstitutional ouster.
Tomorrow marks the tenth anniversary of the Srebrenica Massacre, prompting appropriate remembrances in the press. The Australian starts with the grave failures of the United Nations, particularly Kofi Annan:
Annan was in charge of UN peacekeeping operations in 1995 when Serbian forces led by General Ratko Mladic entered the so-called UN “safe area” and in front of a force of 600 Dutch blue helmets, began rounding up Muslim men and boys for the wholesale slaughter that lay just ahead.
As head of peacekeeping, Annan had been part of the UN leadership that considered the option of sending NATO air power against the advancing Serbs. The final decision not to militarily confront the Serbs – despite repeated requests for close air support from the Dutch commander – amounted to a death sentence for thousands.
[...]
“The tragedy of Srebrenica will haunt our history forever,” Annan concluded. “The cardinal lesson of Srebrenica is that a deliberate and systematic attempt to terrorise, expel or murder an entire people must be met decisively with all necessary means.["]
R. Nicholas Burns, the Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs, explains what must now be done to close this harrowing chapter:
The United States is sending a presidential delegation to mourn the victims of this war crime. An important question is, who will represent the Serbs? Serbian President Boris Tadic has offered to attend, along with leaders of his country. A clear statement of contrition on behalf of the Serbs would be the best step toward regional reconciliation. An even more dramatic and fitting gesture would be the arrest and extradition to the War Crimes Tribunal in The Hague of Gen. Ratko Mladic, who ordered the murders. I told President Tadic and Prime Minister Vojislav Kostunica in Belgrade recently that the United States is prepared to undertake a new and expanded relationship if they capture Mladic. They say they are willing. Let us all hope so. I also told them that until he is brought to justice in The Hague, the United States will not support their wish to join NATO’s Partnership for Peace. The Balkans cannot return to normality until the stain of Srebrenica is wiped away.
The Boston Globe combines the two themes in a solid editorial:
[...] The failure of Dutch soldiers in a UN peacekeeping contingent to protect the victims left a stain on the reputation of the United Nations. What has become yet more of a humiliation for the international community is the failure, after a decade, to arrest the two men responsible for the slaughter and deliver them to the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia in The Hague, where they stand accused of genocide and crimes against humanity.
The troops doing the killing were led by General Ratko Mladic, acting under orders from the Bosnian Serb government headed by Radovan Karadzic. As long as Mladic and Karadzic remain at large, genocidal killers elsewhere — such as members of the Sudanese government behind the continuing genocide in Darfur — may assume that they, too, can expect impunity. Muslims around the world will be tempted to regard the two fugitives as evidence that the West is not serious about enforcing a universal standard for the punishment of crimes against humanity, particularly when the victims are Muslim.
But the most noteworthy piece comes from Edward Joseph, who served in the Balkans from 1992 to 2003. He lists three lessons from his experiences:
First, not all those who enter the world of peacekeeping and nation building do so out of noble motives. The U.N. is hardly the only international organization that attracts people (particularly from countries with limited opportunities) who are motivated, instead, by the pay, which is reliable and relatively high. Even Westerners often decide whether to join a U.N. or other mission after checking out the level of the per diem, which is often taken as tax-free income. Someone who is primarily interested in financial or career gains is unlikely to rock the boat, even if it’s flagrantly off course.[...]
Second, even the vast majority who are motivated by the desire to do good may still find their principles compromised or confused by organizational loyalty. Many on the staff of the senior U.N. official in the former Yugoslavia, the Japanese diplomat Yasushi Akashi, internalized his overarching priority: to protect the U.N.’s neutrality and “even-handedness” by avoiding the use of force against the Serbs.[...]
Like so many on the U.N. staff, the headquarters official had put protecting the organization above protecting civilians. Ironically, such action instead left the U.N.’s reputation in tatters. Unfortunately, senior U.N. officials still peddle the line that the Secretariat was merely the “servant” of a divided Security Council that failed to provide the U.N. with enough resources in Srebrenica. In fact, the Secretariat independently resisted any use of force in Bosnia, including NATO airpower that could have more than compensated for shortfalls on the ground. For the sake of current and future U.N. missions, it is essential that the organization not turn explanations about Srebrenica into excuses.
The third and least understood factor in collective passivity toward evil is the prevalent taboo against “getting emotional” about death and tragedy. While there is always a risk of rushing to judgment or allowing particularly graphic evidence to cloud decision-making, the greater risk is from exaggerated clinical detachment. Without a sense of guided outrage, of empathy for the victims of abuse, organization staff, even human rights workers, are prone to “move on” and accept it when bureaucracies shrug their shoulders.
Absolutely.
In June, after Serbia and Montenegro transferred twelve indictees to the Hague, the State Department released $10 million of previously-withheld aid. Such cooperation certainly needed to be recognized (whether through financial assistance or some other channel). But, at this point, I wonder how the Bush administration plans to entice Tadic’s government to make additional efforts to extradite Mladic and other high-profile war criminals. Does it intend to increase aid? Does it have other ideas? Burns doesn’t specify the next course of action, yet it may be the most important part of finally achieving justice.
Philippine President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo faced intense pressure Friday to step down as 10 of her cabinet members and former president Corazon Aquino added their voices to those demanding her resignation.
Arroyo, trying to weather allegations that she cheated in the last election, sought to preempt a cabinet mutiny earlier in the week by firing her entire team. But the month-old leadership crisis escalated dramatically when disaffected cabinet secretaries, including most of her top economic advisers, announced at a morning news conference that it was Arroyo who must go.
Hours later, Aquino also broke with the president, urging her to make the “supreme sacrifice.” A moral icon since she replaced longtime dictator Ferdinand Marcos 19 years ago, Aquino said in a televised statement, “I am asking the president to spare our country and herself.”
In recent days, Arroyo has lost crucial support from both the country’s influential Roman Catholic Church and the junior ranks of the often restive military, which has launched more than a half dozen coup attempts in the last two decades.
The Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines, which holds its annual retreat this weekend, was expected to release a statement further increasing the pressure on Arroyo. A call by the Church for her resignation would be a crushing blow in this overwhelmingly Catholic country.
To avoid chaos in the capital, the armed forces and Manila police placed the metropolitan area on the highest state of alert. Senior military commanders repeated their pledge that the armed forces would remain neutral in the political standoff.
Arroyo, speaking in a taped message released late in the day, accused her detractors of subverting the country’s laws. “Their actions cause deep and grievous harm to the nation because they undermine our democratic principles and the very foundation of our constitution,” she said. She insisted she would stay in office and soon name a new cabinet to work on improving the economy.
The president’s critics have demanded she account for her role in a vote-fixing scandal, which erupted after tapes surfaced of wiretapped conversations she held last year with a national election commissioner. The recordings appear to indicate they conspired to ensure Arroyo would win a second presidential term by at least 1 million votes.
I find Arroyo’s actions utterly problematic, and they likely warrant removal. But, on a more fundamental level, I’m once again disturbed with the way that the entire country is handling the scandal. Mass demonstrations, military pronouncements, church declarations — every major step is being taken outside the realm of the constitution.
If you read the entire article, you’ll notice that the legislature is conspicuously absent. And it’s doubtful that the Post made a mistake there: for the most part, I think that appropriate political representatives are either sidelined or overshadowed. Yet, if the Philippines wants to retain stability and strengthen democratic institutions, the constitutional process should be fully functioning at the heart of the affair.
This point may seem nit-picky. But, as I’ve argued in the past, it’s critically important in the Philippine case because national security hinges on democratic order. Given the fragile country’s involvement in the War on Terror, the entire region has a stake in how Filipinos manage their latest presidential crisis.
Nike is using photos of Kobe Bryant for the first time since his arrest two years ago for an alleged assault on a female employee at a Colorado resort.
The ad appears in Sports Illustrated.
Prosecutors dismissed a rape charge against Bryant last September after the woman who accused him refused to go ahead with the case. Bryant publicly apologized to her without admitting any guilt.
A civil suit filed by the woman against Bryant was settled out of court. Its details were not released.
“Nike agrees with most NBA observers that Kobe ranks among the very best players in the NBA, and his training and preparation are key elements of his game,” said Nike spokesman Rodney Knox.
He said the ad in the Sports Illustrated was the first to use Bryant’s image since his arrest. Earlier this year Bryant’s name appeared in an ad.
It’s an expected turn of events. With the case almost a year behind us, a celebrity of Kobe’s caliber was bound to grace magazine pages again, especially as a representative of a sports-oriented company. What’s worth noting is the timing: the ad comes in the basketball offseason, with no fanfare. Obviously, Nike wants to get the public slowly reacquainted with its spokesperson before bombarding the airwaves with him.
Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, whose rise to power after 3/11 sparked debate about whether Spaniards bowed to terrorists, has a Financial Times op-ed on the London bombings:
Terrorism can only be defeated by a collective response on the part of the international community. In pursuing their criminal cause, terrorists do not hesitate to abuse the multiple possibilities afforded by todayâs world and its technologies to spread their ideology of death and to move quickly the information, people and objects they require to carry out their crimes. Terrorism has thus become a global threat that requires a global response.
We must begin by making an effort to comprehend the conditions that facilitate the spread of fanaticism and support for terror. We cannot ignore conflicts that have become entrenched or the enormous economic, political and social divides in many societies, which occasionally serve as false pretexts for terrorist violence. It is unrealistic to aspire to peace and stability in a sea of universal injustice.
The appropriate forum to consolidate the political consensus against terrorism has to be the United Nations. The organisation must be given the means â including a legal framework and the operational tools â to lead the international fight against terrorism, enabling it to be waged more effectively.
One wonders which United Nations has been on the Prime Minister’s watch. The UN that’s been concerned with terrorism since its League of Nations days has done nothing but work on “a legal framework.” It says so on its web site:
[T]he United Nations and regional inter-governmental organizations have dealt with terrorism from a legal and political perspective. Since 1963, the international community has elaborated 12 universal legal instruments related to the prevention and suppression of international terrorism.
But, more broadly, the problem with the UN approach is that it’s fundamentally misguided: its terrorism unit is housed within the Office on Drugs and Crime. While terrorists are engaged in pretty much every kind of nefarious activity, I highly doubt that the world can defeat them with the exact same techniques as those used for organized crime, corruption, and money laundering.
It’d be one thing if the Prime Minister were calling on world leaders to rethink the mission of the UN. But that’s not what he’s doing. When he writes that “we must do away with ring-fenced judicial and policing systems that criminals continue to exploit for their ends,” it’s clear to me that he wants to perpetuate the status quo rather than change it. As such, his proposals appear woefully inadequate.
Walt Disney Co.’s incoming chief executive and its leading rebel shareholder declared a truce Friday, the most dramatic sign yet that the new boss is committed to sweeping aside the ill will that festered under outgoing CEO Michael Eisner.
The agreement between Robert A. Iger, the new chief, and Roy E. Disney brings to a close one of the nastiest executive-suite dogfights in recent corporate history, one that led last year to Eisner being stripped of his chairmanship.
Disney and longtime lieutenant Stanley P. Gold, both ex-directors, agreed to drop a lawsuit alleging that the selection process leading to Iger’s promotion was “a sham.” In return, Roy Disney will be given the honorary title of director emeritus, a post that carries no voting power or rights to attend board meetings.
Regarded by many Disney loyalists as the caretaker of his uncle Walt’s legacy, Roy Disney also will be given a consulting contract and an office on the company’s Burbank lot.
The entertainment giant took note of Roy Disney’s “longtime devotion” to the company. Gold and Disney, for their part, expressed confidence in Iger’s leadership and gave a nod to Eisner’s contributions to the company.
The pact came on the heels of Iger’s dismantling of Disney’s powerful strategic planning department, widely viewed by upper management as Eisner’s tool to exert control over virtually every aspect of the Disney empire. Iger, who was named CEO-elect in March after serving as Eisner’s second-in-command, was applauded inside the company for acting swiftly to resolve a situation that was hurting executive morale.
Although he does not formally take the reins until Oct. 1, Iger is silencing critics who said he lacked the backbone to steer a new direction for a company over which Eisner had cast an imposing shadow. During his 21-year tenure, Eisner was lauded for his creative decisions but criticized for letting personal feuds interfere with the operation of the company.
As part of his drive to set a new tone for Disney, Iger already is making overtures to Pixar Animation Studios Chairman Steve Jobs, whose strained relationship with Eisner contributed to a breakdown in talks to keep alive the lucrative partnership behind such computer-animated hits as “Finding Nemo” and “Toy Story.”
Interesting. Of course, while the strategic planning department was the predominant issue among many investors, the Pixar agreement was the predominant issue among many fans. On that score, Disney still has some ways to go.
[Note: My thoughts and prayers extend to the British, whose compassion and resilience I've admired since my days at Oxford.]
Tim Naftali makes the rather persuasive case that, in an ideal world, Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff would have refrained from raising the terror alert and calmly beefed up police presence instead. But his op-ed closes with a whimper:
Yet Chertoff’s raising the alert today struck the wrong balance between promoting vigilance and calming irrational fears. That’s because his department is trapped by the claims that Vice President Dick Cheney, in particular, made leading up to the 2004 election about a Republican monopoly on counterterrorism. By overpromising securityâand implying that Democrats neither understood terrorism nor were prepared to fight itâthe Bush administration has given itself little choice but to overshoot in response to any terrorist attack anywhere. Chertoff’s response today was about one thing: cover. If there is an attack on the Washington Metro tomorrow, the federal government will be able to say to commuters, “Well, we warned you.”
I can somewhat agree that campaign rhetoric affects counterterror decisions. But I suspect that any national leader — Republican or Democrat — would have done something similar to Chertoff’s moves regardless of the political environment. In the face of crisis, public figures inevitably resort to the symbolic. It’s what many people, overwhelmed with emotion, find reassuring. When a three-year-old dies from a stray bullet, politicians immediately call for a reassessment of gun laws. When a celebrity becomes diagnosed with a rare disease, legislators immediately fund new scientific research. For every tragedy that takes place, there’s an injunction, a moratorium, or some other imprecise policy recourse at the government’s disposal. And, almost every time, it falls prey to the temptation of “overshoot[ing]” as the entire world watches.
I don’t mean to excuse Chertoff. Rather, I simply emphasize that, if you consider the Bush administration to be especially guilty of engaging in counterproductive symbolism, you need to outline a lot more than just its recent electoral tactics.
President George W. Bush is unlikely to seek a recess appointment for John Bolton in the near future, increasing the sense that his nomination for US ambassador to the United Nations is running out of steam.
A senior administration official suggested that a recess appointment — a presidential confirmation of an official while the Senate is in recess — would antagonise relations with Democrats ahead of what is expected to be a contentious Senate debate over filling a vacancy on the Supreme Court.
The debate over Mr Bolton has been overshadowed since Justice Sandra Day O’Connor announced last week her pending retirement from the Supreme Court. The White House is now gearing up for a battle to find a replacement.
It’s the obvious — and the wise — political decision. Setting aside the substantive dimension of Bolton’s nomination, the White House cannot afford to be hamstrung by a relatively insignificant ambassadorship. It must focus on the vacancy that will have long-lasting impact and help define the Bush presidency. In any event, Bolton’s chances are near zero, and the populace is more concerned with the Supreme Court than with the UN bureaucracy.
Actually, Republicans should be thankful that Bolton preceded O’Connor. The timing gives Bush yet another opportunity to show moderation — to make a concession, then call for civility. By moving away from the recess appointment, he appears willing to bargain. If you combine this gesture with the fact that the filibuster deal may hinder the Democrats, then the GOP may enjoy a few early advantages.
