Undersecretary of State John R. Bolton, an outspoken arms control expert who rarely muffles his views in diplomatic nuance, is President Bush's choice to be U.S. ambassador to the United Nations.
The UN is usually the realm of Diplomats. John Bolton is not a Diplomat.
Mr Bolton was scornful of efforts by Britain, France and Germany to persuade Iran's ruling clerics to abandon their nuclear weapons ambition by diplomacy.
Mr Bolton believed that Teheran should be isolated by United Nations sanctions and, if it would not back down, confronted with the threat of military action. He was also uncompromising about North Korea, describing life in the Stalinist dictatorship as a "hellish nightmare". Pyongyang responded by calling him "human scum".
Offering encouragement to those of us who don't believe the UN should be encouraged down their current path, AEI head Chris DeMuth said "In some ways John is the opposite of a State Department person. He doesn't think diplomacy should be an end in itself." Another AEI colleague said "[Bolton] rejects completely the notion that foreign policies are good to the extent that the Belgians like them."
So, Bolton appears to be a hard-headed National Interest Realist. Or, an "assertive nationalist", as Lawrence Kaplan described him in TNR.
Some other notables....
Bolton called the ICC "a product of fuzzy-minded romanticism" and "not just naïve, but dangerous". He also called signing the letter than renounced US entry into the ICC "the happiest moment of my government service".
On North Korea: "A sounder U.S. policy would start by making it clear to the North that we are indifferent to whether we ever have "normal" diplomatic relations with it, and that achieving that goal is entirely in their interests, not ours. We should also make clear that diplomatic normalization with the U.S. is only going to come when North Korea becomes a normal country."
On the United Nations: "Moreover, many Republicans in Congress - and perhaps a majority - not only do not care about losing the General Assembly vote but actually see it as a "make my day" outcome. Indeed, once the vote is lost, and the adverse consequences predicted by the U.N.'s supporters begin to occur, this will simply provide further evidence to many why nothing more should be paid to the U.N. system."
He also once said: "There's no such thing as the United Nations. If the U.N. secretary building in New York lost 10 stories, it wouldn't make a bit of difference."
I'd imagine that will make some waves at the UN, where they prefer their Diplomats more....diplomatic. Indeed, this may be the point, as there have been rumors that the appointment of John Bolton would presage an early retirement by Kofi Annan. One might recall that John Danforth claimed the US was "not suggesting the resignation of the secretary-general"...and then retired about a month later. Thereafter...
Some UN officials had privately begun considering [how] Annan would resign. One involved Washington's choice to replace Danforth, who is himself stepping down as America's UN envoy.
"If John Bolton is sent here as ambassador to hound the secretary-general then the decision not to resign would have to be reevaluated," said one UN official close to Annan.
If UN reform was a priority for the Bush administration, one could hardly choose a more forceful advocate than John Bolton, who has been outspoken on the need for it...
The secretary general, the Security Council, the U.N. Human Rights Commission, the General Assembly, and the yet-unborn investigative commission are all now loose in the field, in every case to the detriment of American dominance.
Failure to understand the opinions of American critics leads inevitably to the wrongheaded view that the problems facing the United Nations today are primarily monetary, caused by the fact that the United States and other countries are withholding part of their assessed contributions. In fact, the Clinton administration itself seems to assert that, if only Congress would appropriate enough money, reform would sweep the United Nations. But this facile "solution" does not take into account the fact that the U.N.'s real problem today is a crisis of legitimacy, not of money, and it was caused, in part, by grave doubts about the world organization within the United States.
[...]
I believe that the United Nations can be a useful instrument in the conduct of American foreign policy. ... No one, however, should be under any illusions that American support for the United Nations as one of several options for implementing American foreign policy translates into unlimited support for the world organization. That is not true now, and it will not be true for a long time to come, if ever.
That, I think, is a healthy view of the UN: One useful tool among many, to be regarded with as much skepticism as one would give any democracy of wolves.
One doesn't appoint a hardliner to appease the Belgians, so realignment is obviously afoot. It will be interesting to see what reform measures this appointment presages. Very interesting, indeed.
It's okay if you hate the UN and think it's useless or evil or should be destroyed. That's your choice. However, such opinions do not make you a suitable candidate for Ambassador to the U.N.
Let's be clear: a sharp skepticism of the United Nations does not constitute "hate". In this essay, John Bolton addressed the foreign misunderstanding of US skepticism about the UN. Apparently, his explanation should be delivered to some of the US Left, as well...
For many around the world, including close friends and allies of the United States, the skepticism of many Americans, especially members of Congress, about the United Nations is puzzling. In virtually every other nation, support for the United Nations at both the popular and policymaking levels is almost unquestioned, at least rhetorically. [...] The contrasting attitudes of American skeptics are unique to the United States, deep-rooted, and will not change any time in the near future. Skepticism about the United Nations is another aspect of what scholars have termed "American exceptionalism," the idea that the United States is, simply stated, different from other countries.
I completely agree, and I would like to explain here why that difference accounts for the opposition and hesitancy about the United Nations being voiced in Congress and among segments of the American public.
[...]
Because Americans generally are skeptical about their own government, can it be any surprise that many are less than enthusiastic about the United Nations, an organization that includes 184 other governments? Moreover, the principle business of the United Nations is governmental business, legitimately so in most cases, but it is certainly rare to find genuine capitalists walking the U.N. halls. This deep philosophical disjunction between the prevailing ethos of the United Nations and the fundamental American approach to governance is not something that will change in the foreseeable future.
Secondly, Americans well remember the abuse heaped upon them, their country, and their values at the United Nations during the period 1960-90. Although it was member governments heaping the abuse, not the United Nations as an organization, the image created is durable. One can say "the world has changed," as indeed it dramatically has since those days, but the hostility engendered over approximately three decades will not dissipate overnight.
Note: "I believe that the United Nations can be a useful instrument in the conduct of American foreign policy."
The fact that the UN is frequently confused, tainted by interests completely at odds with US values, and largely ineffectual is not "hate". It's obvious.
UPDATE [Dale]: Apparently, Mr. Bolton is a wildly popular choice with the UN itself.
Rice phoned U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan this morning to give him a "heads up" on the appointment, said U.N. spokesman Stephane Dujarric.
"The Secretary General warmly congratulates Mr. Bolton and looks forward to working with him on U.N. reform and many other issues," Dujarric said. Asked if the United Nations had concerns about Bolton's history of criticizing the international organization, Dujarric said, "I don't know about previous bias he might bring" to the new job. But he said that the United Nations would welcome a tough reformer. "We do want to be held accountable."
Yeah. I bet.
The interesting thing about this is that it very possibly indicates something very different about Mr. Bush's attitude to the UN than you might think.
You don't select a hard-line UN reformer as Ambassador to that body because you think it's a worthless organization at worst, and a bothersome nuisance at best. You select a guy like Mr. Bolton because you believe that a reformed UN, one that is accountable, and that takes a realistic view of the legitimacy of non-democratic governments, might be a great force for good.
So, rather than giving the assignment to a cipher who's content to go along with the buiness-as-usual attitude at the UN, you pick someone who is willing to push the UN towards a more realistic assessment about how the world works. Someone who is willing to make the case for promoting consensual government, and to act against tyrannical states when necessary.
In my mind, this indicates to me that the Bush Adminsitration is serious about attempting to make the UN more relevant, not less.
"The secretary general, the Security Council, the U.N. Human Rights Commission, the General Assembly, and the yet-unborn investigative commission are all now loose in the field, in every case to the detriment of American dominance."
Um, that doesn’t sound healthy at all. What kind of fake-assed libertarian are you?
One who is skeptical of a body which attempts to subvert US sovereignty. One who believes that the current alternatives to US dominance are unappealing. One who believes that the UN is largely constituted of member-Nations who have less than noble intentions with respect to the US.
I think the Q and O guys prefer the term neo-libertarian anyway, as do I. Still the term dominance does make me wince. That is until I think what the alternative to dominance is, at least as long as it resembles what we are now and not some Roman Empire redux. My guess that is what Jon means.
"fake assed"?? I guess that blogging (sitting all those hours) takes it toll. But how would he know? Jon, better fix those curtains. ;)
None of those organizations ever held their true responsibilities in high regard. I think it is time we stopped trying to fool ourselves about them. Need we go into the litany of who are members and chairs of these orgs.
John R. Bolton U.S. Statement at Plenary Session Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security Affairs UN Conference on the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All its Aspects July 9, 2001
[...]
We do not support measures that prohibit civilian possession of small arms. This is outside the mandate for this Conference set forth in UNGA Resolution 54/54V. We agree with the recommendation of the 1999 UN Panel of Governmental Experts that laws and procedures governing the possession of small arms by civilians are properly left to individual member states. The United States will not join consensus on a final document that contains measures abrogating the Constitutional right to bear arms.
That’s another point in his favor, Jdege. I can’t imagine any US President—of either party—would have sent a representative with different orders, though. While they’re willing to trim them around the edges, even the Democrats would be unwilling to give up the entire 2nd Ammendment to the UN.
The problem I have with Bolton as our UN Ambassador is the gaping distance between his view of the UN (whether hate or not) and the views of a majority of Americans. Virtually every poll in the last 50 years reveals Americans support the UN and even feel it should be strengthened. Bolton would not represent America at the UN, even if he represented the U.S. government.
He’s not really supposed to represent "the views of a majority of Americans". A Presidential appointee is supposed to represent the foreign policy of the President.
What’s more, both Bush and Bolton have indicated that they think the UN is valuable, and should be strengthened. Which, apparently, puts them in the mainstream of american thought.
Ahhhh! About time! Diplomacy has its place, and should never be left behind entirely (but maybe sometimes temporarily..). But the UN in general, and our place as the world’s only superpower and greatest benefactor (true also in regards to the UN budget) needs some bolstering. Too much diplomacy and not enough adherence to the underpinning principles has made the place way, way too soft. Give ’em hell, Patton, er, Bolton.
———————————————————————————————————————— Should Kofi Annan Resign?
Yes 37% No 26% RasmussenReports.com
———————————————————————————————————————— Did Hussein Use Oil-for-Food Program to Bribe Countries Such as France and Russia?
Yes 42% No 12% RasmussenReports.com
———————————————————————————————————————— Did Some Countries Oppose U.S. Invasion of Iraq Because they were being Bribed by Hussein?
Yes 39% No 23% RasmussenReports.com
————————————————————————————————————————
Thursday February 17, 2005—Thirty-seven-percent (37%) of Americans have a favorable opinion of the United Nations. That’s down from 44% in a November survey.
If the Rasmussen Report’s website is any indication of their professionalism as a survey company (I’ve never heard of them before), then I think the statement stands that Americans strongly support the UN. To my knowledge, all credible polling companies (Pew, Gallup, Zogby, etc.) still report a majority support of the UN among Americans.
