John Bolton, President Bush's nominee for US ambassador to the United Nations, speaks after being introduced by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. Mr. Bolton has been a UN critic. SHAUN HEASLEY/REUTERS
Tough Love or Tough Luck for the U.N.
Could the White House possibly have the nerve, they asked, to appoint the renowned U.N. critic to the post? Answer: Yes.
|
John Bolton, President Bush's nominee for US ambassador to the United Nations, speaks after being introduced by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. Mr. Bolton has been a UN critic. SHAUN HEASLEY/REUTERS |
President George W. Bush has appointed John Bolton, who has been serving as the undersecretary of state for arms control, as the ambassador to the United Nations. Bolton is among the most hawkish of Washington's "neoconservatives," and his appointment immediately triggered a chorus of groans and exasperated forehead-slapping from Democrats and foreign governments alike. The immediate conclusion is that the Bush administration is out to destroy the United Nations -- but if for no other reason than that we're talking about someone Pyongyang has felt necessary to label "human scum," the appointment deserves a closer look.
The United Nations may seem tangled, indecisive and inefficient at times. But that's not an argument for junking it or dispatching a one-man wrecking crew to the Security Council. If Bolton is to be the next ambassador, he must show that he is willing to work within the world community. If Bolton's past speech and actions are any indication, there is fat chance of that happening.
Since Bolton's nomination, comments he made against the United Nations keep cropping up: If the United Nations' 38-story headquarters in New York "lost 10 stories, it wouldn't make a difference,'' he said in 1994 at a WFA panel discussion. In 2000 He said that the inner-circle Security Council needed only the United States as its core permanent member "because that's the real reflection of the distribution of power in the world.'' Now he says he was just joking.
I'm sure the U.N. took it as a joke Mr. Bolton.
Joking or not, President Bush's nomination of the self-described bomb thrower to the sensitive diplomatic post raises new doubts about his administration's second-term commitment to repairing international alliances. Known as a "hawk's hawk", Mr. Bolton, the tough-on-terrorism undersecretary of state for arms control and international security, has been an architect of US policy in Iraq and is a notorious UN-basher. (Bolton keeps a model hand-grenade on a table in his office and counts his work on the 1991 repeal of a UN General Assembly resolution equating Zionism with racism as a career highlight)
Mr. Bolton, is a protégé of Bush family ally James Baker, who was Ronald Reagan's secretary of state. During the Reagan years he supported the right-wing Nicaraguan contras and he held a series of posts in the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) before winding up as one of Attorney-General Edwin Meese's top aides.
In that capacity, he resisted all efforts by Congress to investigate the Justice Department role in the Iran-Contra affair, as well as efforts by Sen. John Kerry to investigate drug and gun-running by the Nicaraguan contras in the mid-1980s.
His effectiveness gained him a promotion under President H.W. Bush to the position of assistant secretary of state for international organisations, a post he held until 1993 when he joined first the right-wing Manhattan Institute and then the neo-conservative-dominated American Enterprise Institute (AEI), home to such prominent hawks as former UN Ambassador Jeanne Kirkpatrick, former Defense Policy Board Chairman Richard Perle, and Cheney's spouse, Lynne Cheney. (Bolton later rose to senior vice president at AEI, a position he used during the latter half of the 1990s to speak out strongly in favor of fully normalizing ties with Taiwan, from which he had received money at the time, according to the Washington Post.)
U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice speaks while
introducing John R. Bolton (R), President George W. Bush 's nominee for
U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations , at the State Department in Washington
March 7, 2005. REUTERS/Shaun Heasley |
Bolton was the inspiration for the Bush administration's proliferation security initiative (PSI), which seeks to curtail the sale and trade in weapons materials through such things as joint ship inspections. And Bolton was seen as effective in negotiating European and Asian participation in the PSI - even though it is a signature Bush administration "coalition of the willing" initiative that sidesteps the UN.
"His idea was to create a new initiative without any international institution participation at all, so it's hard to see that as a recommendation for making him ambassador to the UN," says Nancy Soderberg, a security expert at the International Crisis Group in New York.
Not surprisingly, Vice President Dick Cheney pressed for Bolton's appointment to the UN, according to Washington sources - a fact that has some observers highlighting both the vice president's continuing influential role in foreign affairs, and the continuing influence of the foreign policy establishment's neoconservative wing.
Bolton opposes treaties that hint at limits on U.S. power: an international criminal court that might try American GIs, limits on small-arms sales, and antiballistic missile pacts. As a working diplomat he tangled with North Korea, denouncing its leadership on the eve of six-country talks, and has chided Europe's overtures to negotiate an end to Iran's nuclear ambitions as too soft. He is a well-known advocate for asserting American muscle. Just as Pyongyang agreed to enter multilateral talks on its nuclear program as the administration had demanded, Bolton described life in North Korea as a ”hellish nightmare”, and accused its leader, Kimg Jong Il, of being a ”dictator” or ”tyrant” running a ”dictatorship” or ”tyranny” no less than a dozen times. Not very diplomatic, but all things being equal, if the shoe fits......
Some U.S. and Asian analysts said the speech appeared designed to provoke Kim to boycott the meeting. Indeed, the North Korean media described Bolton as ”rude human scum” and a ”bloodthirsty vampire” and demanded that he be withdrawn from the delegation that was to take part in the talks. Bolton did not show up. But, if Bush now gets his way, he will soon find himself at the heart of all U.S. multilateral diplomacy. And that might just be our "tough luck".
In today's world diplomacy needs to rule, not violence, not derision, not one man's cocksure assessments of the world at large. When a country won't even talk to the man, what chance does America have of working with other nations..
Are we being led to Armageddon?
”This is like putting the fox in charge of the henhouse,” said Heather Hamilton, vice president of program for Citizens for Global Solutions (CGS), formerly the World Federalist Association, who called Bolton the ”Armageddon nominee”.
The Armageddon allusion was to Bolton's long-time loyalty to former ultra-right Sen. Jesse Helms who, on retiring from public life, described Bolton as ”the kind of man with whom I would want to stand at Armageddon, if it should be my lot to be on hand for what is forecast to be the final battle between good and evil in this world.”
”His nomination sends exactly the wrong message to the world about the Bush administration's willingness to work with other countries and in multilateral institutions. There's no one who has a greater track record of offending other countries, including our closest allies,” she said.
Tough Love or Tough Luck? Some Senate Republicans have expressed concern regarding his nomination as ambassador to the UN. Senator Chuck Hagel of Nebraska told The New York Times "We need alliances, we need friends. To go up there and kick the U.N. around doesn't get the job done."
Given his history of far-right positions, Secretary of State Colin Powell was reported to have been deeply skeptical of Bolton when Cheney suggested him for the undersecretary position. Cheney, however, insisted.
Within State, Bolton led the drive to renounce the U.S. signature on the 1998 Rome Statute that created the new International Criminal Court (ICC), the first permanent tribunal with jurisdiction over war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide.
When Bush decided to withdraw the U.S. signature to the treaty, Bolton prevailed on Powell to permit him to sign the formal notification to Annan, an act he later described to the Wall Street Journal as ”the happiest moment of my government service”.
At the same time, Bolton was also engaged in a lengthy row with U.S. intelligence agencies over his public charge that Cuba had an offensive biological warfare program. His assertion became an embarrassment after anonymous intelligence officials and retired senior military officers, including the former head of the U.S. Southern Command, told the media that no such evidence existed and charged that Bolton was politicizing intelligence. (most people call that lying)
In July 2003, Bolton was poised to testify to Congress that Syria's alleged program to develop weapons of mass destruction had developed to such an extent that they threatened regional stability, an assertion which reportedly provoked a ”revolt” by U.S.. intelligence analysts, who insisted that the evidence did not warrant such a conclusion. (please refer to the previous paragraph for an explanation of what this is called)
Powell complained to his closest aides that Bolton was undercutting him and appeared to be taking orders from Cheney and the Pentagon, rather than from his State Department superiors. If that is true, then would you not extrapolate that into Bolton would be taking orders for UN issues from Cheney and the Pentagon too?
But one theory, and I guess you could call this "tough love", Bolton was sent to New York by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to exclude him from the inner circle he wanted to command. But the ambassador's job is still a prime pulpit for explaining American views.
Bolton is often referred to in the media as a "neo-con," which is not accurate. His first priority is that, democratic or not, other countries do what Washington tells them. So he's more properly a nationalist American or nationalist conservative. That would be "nat-con."
Sen. John Kerry said, ``If the president is serious about reaching out to the world, why would he choose someone who has expressed such disdain for working with our allies? . . . Quite simply, Mr. Bolton's nomination carries with it baggage we cannot afford.'' Kerry also said that Bolton's nomination ``is just about the most inexplicable appointment the president could make to represent the United States to the world community.''
The current undersecretary of state's "stated attitude toward
the United Nations gives me great pause," said Sen. Joe Biden of Delaware.
It's "a disappointing choice and one that sends all the wrong signals," said Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada.
The UN, he said [Bolton], "requires American leadership to achieve successful reform".
That aroused instant dismay at the UN, where negotiations are in progress for an ambitious program of reform to be put before a world leaders' summit in September.
John Bolton wrote in 1999, "United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan has begun to assert that the U.N. Security Council is "the sole source of legitimacy on the use of force." If the United States allows that claim to go unchallenged, its discretion in using force to advance its national interests is likely to be inhibited in the future." ... "The absence of a visible threat, previously supplied by the Soviet Union, has led dreamers in the international strata to believe that force is no longer a serious option for responsible nations, except to swat the occasional dictator and prevent human rights abuses. The somewhat less dreamy do not share those naive beliefs, but they nonetheless see in the Annan doctrine an opportunity to dramatically limit the military autonomy of nation-states, particularly the United States."
U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan, told reporters Tuesday afternoon "It is a president's prerogative to name his ambassadors." "I have worked well with all previous representatives from the U.S. and I look forward to working with Mr. Bolton."
Asked whether he thought the appointment was a hostile act by President Bush, Annan laughed and said, "I'm not sure I want to be drawn on that one."
Bolton talking about former President Clinton' s presidency said, "with a national election a year away, we should insist that candidates in both parties address Annan’s challenge. This is not just a theoretical debate. In the long run, it is far more important than the issue of American arrears to the United Nations, which the media never tire of. If the Annan doctrine is left unanswered, we will soon hear about "emerging new international norms" that will make it harder and harder for the United States to act independently in its own legitimate national interest. And we will wait in vain for our adversaries to follow those 'norms'."
In Bolton's case, it very well could be a we're damned if we do
and damned if we don't scenario.
--end--