"They chose to obstruct this confirmation, even though he enjoys majority support in the Senate This stubborn obstructionism ill serves our country and discourages men and women of talent from serving."

So said President George W Bush of the resignation of his hawkish lieutenant at the United Nations, John Bolton, early this week.

Did the appointment of Bolton as ambassador to the UN early last year really go down well with the Senate? Not quite. In fact, the relationship between the White House and the Democrats was so acrimonious that Bush could only appoint Bolton during the congressional recess in August 2005. The president who had preached so much about building a lasting democracy in Iraq was himself unwilling to face a revolt in his own backyard.

In the aftermath of the ill-planned and brusquely executed war against Iraq, many of the hawks surrounding Bush have been increasingly dismissive of global civil society, seeing it as standing in the way to "world peace and security", as if it is a menace second only to Iran and North Korea.

The UN, demanding a Security Council resolution to sanction the war, became the clearest bogeyman. Prior to March 2003, Bush's men had accused that the effort to rid the Middle East of a megalomaniac dictator was being bogged down in procedural policies, bureaucratic formalities, and Security Council votes. Disciples of neoconservatism the world over were in uproar too.

'Only real power'

Bolton once disparagingly remarked that if the 38-storey UN building "lost 10 storeys today, it wouldn't make a bit of difference". He also said there was "no such thing" as the UN and called the US the world's "only real power".

I, of course, would not go as far as to say Bolton had always been disdainful of international treaties and organisations. He would, in a typical neo-con fashion, support them wholeheartedly as long as such mechanisms served American interests.

For one, he won widespread praise for establishing the Proliferation Security Initiative, a voluntary agreement supported by 60 countries which attempts to interdict shipments of fissile material.

But his vociferous opposition to the US ratification of the statute of the International Criminal Court brought him into direct confrontation with a number of European leaders. Boldly but tactlessly telling the world that he did not do carrots, Bolton criticised sharply countries that tended to engage in negotiation with "rouge states".

Paradoxically, he was pragmatic enough to work closely with Ambassador Wang Guangya of China on North Korea. After all, another fall-out with the world over the issue would only bring an abrupt end to his already short stint at the UN.

Wang will surely miss Bolton, and so will the Japanese Ambassador Kenzo Oshima, who sees Bolton's abrasiveness and his neo-con ideologies as in line with Tokyo's foreign policy goals. He also said it was "really disappointing" to lose an "exceptionally skillful diplomat". Well, one man's meat is another man's poison.

Act of vengeance

Bolton might have his vision of a better, more accountable UN, but his aggressive manner to obstruct the UN reform programmes last year was invariably interpreted as an act of vengeance. Kofi Annan, in an interview with the BBC recently, expressed the missed opportunity to do more to prevent the Iraq War from happening.

Annan did not duck the about the oil-for-food scandal, but questioned if there was a concerted effort by some rightwing forces within the UN to discredit him because he had been seen to attempt to thwart the war plan. The Secretary-General need not have sounded despondent, for such tactics are always the last resort of the neo-cons when they fail to force through their agenda.

Annan, naturally, expressed no misgivings, saying only that as a representative of the US government, Bolton tried to work effectively as he could. I am sure he made the remarks with dry eyes.

But the bleak future of Iraq is beyond doubt, a reality that Bush and Tony Blair have finally faced up to. At their joint press conference yesterday, Bush began by saying that he always appreciated the British prime minister's advice.

Doublespeak? After all, Kendall Myers, a senior State Department analyst disclosed that the influence of the British government on US policy in recent years was typically ignored. This should be a wake-up call to any neo-con apologist who still harbours a faint hope of his or her view being taken noticed by Washington
.
Cook the running dog after the rabbit is caught. If Donald Rumsfeld and Bolton, who Ian Williams of Asia Times describes as a 'well-trained attack dog', can be sacrificed, who is really unexpendable?

For anyone who hosts a farewell dinner for Bolton, it would be wise to keep the carrots off the menu.