Questions of diplomacy at home and abroad

President Bush leaves today for an eight-day trip to Southeast Asia, his first time out of the country since his party suffered major election defeats.
It is important for him to be able to present himself as the man who is still in charge during bilateral meetings with heads of state, including two meetings with Russian President Vladimir Putin, and during sessions of the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation forum and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations
It is also important for the opposition at home -- Democrats and Republicans alike -- to reacquaint themselves with the tradition that they don't criticize the president when he is out of the country.
President Bush must be clearly perceived during his trip as the elected leader of a super power, not an embattled politician.
When he returns, another matter of international diplomacy will face the president and the Senate. It is the fate of John Bolton as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations.
Bush gave Bolton a recess appointment as ambassador last year, after his confirmation was stalled in the Senate. The appointment runs out with this term of Congress, meaning the end of the year.
Like U.S. Sen. George Voinovich, we opposed Bolton's appointment last year. And like Voinovich, we now believe that enough things have changed that Bolton should be confirmed to serve out the last two years of the president's term.
A dangerous world
Events in Iraq are even more tenuous now than then, and the nuclear programs of North Korea and Iran are even more serious threats to world security. At the same time, Bolton has shown himself, while not a model of diplomacy, to be more of a diplomat than had been suspected.
At this point, Bolton's confirmation vote is being blocked in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, not by Voinovich, but by Sen. Lincoln Chafee, R-R.I., who was defeated last Tuesday. Chafee should reconsider and allow Bolton to stand before the full Senate for a hearing and confirmation vote.
That said, the president should realize that elections have consequences and, by virtue of the impending change from Republican to Democratic hands, some of his appointments are likely to face strong opposition. That's a political reality rooted in the Constitution, which subjects a president's nominees to the advise and consent of the Senate.
While we believe the best course of action now would be Senate confirmation of Bolton, the worst course would be for the president to attempt an end-run around the Senate.
There has been a suggestion that Bush could leave the post of ambassador open and name Bolton an acting or deputy U.N. representative.
Such an action would not only be inconsistent with any reasonable reading of the Constitution, but it would send a message to the world that the chief U.S. delegate to the United Nations was not even an ambassador in name. His every act and pronouncement would be suspect.