News » March 18, 2005

Bolton vs. United Nations

Bush’s mad cop–bad cop ruse

By Ian Williams

Bolton: A bad choice.

Senate Foreign Relations Chair Richard Lugar (R-Ind.) scheduled hearings for April 7 on the confirmation of John Bolton as the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations.

Lugar signaled that he is less than ecstatic over the nomination, telling the Washington Post that he was “going to reserve any comments about the appropriateness or not of the president’s choice.” (In 1999, Lugar showed less restraint, hailing President Clinton’s choice, Richard Holbrooke, as “an excellent nominee.”) More explicit was Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.), who said, “I do have concerns, because the United Nations is a very important institution. We need to send someone to the U.N. that has the skills to work with the secretary-general.” But five days later, after a visit by Bolton, Hagel changed his mind and declared he would support the nomination.

Bolton’s appointment clearly makes a mockery of the kiss and make-up European tour of George W. Bush and Condoleezza Rice. Along with Bush’s nomination of Paul Wolfowitz to head the World Bank, the president’s choice of Bolton reveals the skull beneath the skin of administration foreign policy. Appointing someone who has repeatedly gone on the record saying that the United Nations should not exist—or that, at least, the United States should not be part of it—is hardly a diplomatic response to the crucial discussions currently taking place on reforming the organization.

Bolton has publicly dismissed international law and treaties, since they may inhibit American freedom of action. In 1997, he wrote in the Wall Street Journal, “Treaties are ‘law’ only for U.S. domestic purposes. In their international operations, treaties are simply ‘political’ obligations.”

Five years ago, he accused U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan of a power grab; now he’s supposed to work with him on U.N. reform, and seek cooperation from him for help in extracting the United States from Iraq. Bolton’s other hobby horses include opposition to the International Criminal Court (“a product of fuzzy-minded romanticism [that] is not just naive, but dangerous”), and the conventions on landmines, small arms trade and child soldiers. He also opposes the nuclear test ban treaty—except when it applies to Koreans, Iranians and the like.

With the appointment of Bolton, the rest of the world will now see American foreign policy as it really is, without the smooth interface of Colin Powell, who so often performed on the world stage as a good cop in a bad cop administration.

In addition to dealing with the dubiously multilateral position of the Rice State Department, and coping with the neocon imperialist fantasies of Wolfowitz at the World Bank, foreign diplomats will be faced with the noisily unilateral Bolton.

Despite having spent time at neoconservative think tanks and groups like the American Enterprise Institute and the Project for a New American Century, there is nothing neo about Bolton’s conservatism. As befits a former U.N.-basher for the Heritage Foundation, Bolton’s roots are in an old, nativist and deeply reactionary tradition, as suggested by his closeness to his longtime patron, former Sen. Jesse Helms (R-N.C.). Woolly neoliberal idealism about exporting democracy isn’t his style, as he demonstrated when as part of the Bush legal team he strode into a library in Florida in 2000 and announced, “I’m here to stop the vote.”

Fringe groups have long seen the United Nations as an instrument of a foreign conspiracy to take over the United States. Their strident views have, like so many conservative inanities, now become mainstream. Bolton’s nomination is just the culmination of this process. “Move America Forward,” which describes itself as “the organization leading the effort to evict the United Nations from American soil and halt American funding of the U.N.,” has announced it will lobby the Senate and “rally public support for John Bolton’s nomination.”

Bolton wants the United States on top, and any potential threats to that supremacy removed. Which is why one item high on his personal agenda will be to get the very United Nations that he does not believe in to enforce the non-proliferation treaty (which he does not believe in either) in Iran—which he does sincerely believe to be a pivot of the Axis of Evil.

The only effective counter to this agenda will be senators brave enough to stand up and say that this country and the world are better served by a functioning United Nations, which does indeed have a primary role in avoiding world conflicts.

In the preamble to the Declaration of Independence, its drafters cited “a decent Respect to the Opinions of Mankind,” to explain what they were doing. The nomination hearing allows the Democrats and the sane Republicans to show a similar respect, not just to the opinions of mankind, but to the majority of American men and women who have profound reservations about John Bolton.

• Help In These Times publish more articles like this. Donate today!
• Subscribe today and save 46% off the newsstand price!

• subscribe to print magazine

• stay in touch with our email newsletter

  Subscribe to our regular weekly e-mail newsletter. It's packed with updates on recent and upcoming stories, events, campaigns and things every progressive should be informed about.

   

• email this article to a friend

  Your Name Your Email Recipient Email

  Personal message Thought you might be interested in this article from In These Times.

   

  Please help us prevent spam by verifying the word you see in the image above

  Send to multiple recipients. Just separate each email address with a comma.

• Reader Comments

  Amazing.Just when you think the Re-party has ruined everything,they find something else.However,having watched the Re-party’s Bizarro World foreign policy over the past four years,this really should come as no surprise.

      Not only do Re-partisans follow W.,so do many Democrats…out of morbid curiosity.I’m just waiting for January 20th,2009,when W.turns the country over to his hopefully Democratic successor.At that point he will grab his chin and pull off the rubber mask to reveal…Andy Kaufman.

  Posted by wwoods on Mar 18, 2005 at 8:27 PM

  Given the UN’s (and Kofi’s) utter failure to respond to the genocide in Rwanda and now Sudan, it is hard to imagine it is really a useful organization (other than for pilfering money as they did in pre-war Iraq).

  But we do need at least one world body. Perhaps we should establish an alternative that could be effective? One that distinguishes regimes such as North Korea (ruthless dictatorship) vs the civilized democracies of the world. It is foolish and unproductive to give dictatorships the same representation as democracies.

  Just my opinion. I would love to hear other peoples thoughts!

  Posted by Stephanie on Mar 18, 2005 at 8:42 PM

  It’s just all so perfectly poetic at this point. Isn’t it though?

  Posted by Winston on Mar 18, 2005 at 9:59 PM

  <It is foolish and unproductive to give dictatorships the same representation as democracies.>

  what about ‘democracies’ that support dictatorships whenever it suits their personal interests? 
  Do you remember who supported Saddam when he was fighting
  Iran? What about what is happening in South America?

  If the U.N. is supposed to be democratic then you have to have EVERYONE siiting down at the table to negotiate. That is what it’s all about, is a forum for nations to work out their differences other than on the battlefield, and to step in where it is absolutely necessary.

  You can’t forget that the US has undermined many U.N. resolutions, as mentioned in the article.

  Posted by Northman on Mar 18, 2005 at 10:31 PM

  I think it is outrageous that a paid shill for the UN is allowed to publish his views here, without disclosing his commercial relationship with the UN. A bunch of piece have come out on this “payola pundit” of late, most recently:

  http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=17373

  Posted by Rand Gromma on Mar 19, 2005 at 1:07 AM

• extended discussion >>>Continued...

  Discussions with more than 5 comments are continued on our special discussion page to encourage continuity and ease of use. There are currently 20 posts.

Also featured Which Comes First: Growth or Clout?
How to Turn Your Red State Blue
Wake Up!

Full contents
Previous issues
Subscribe and save!

Also by Ian Williams

• Bushs War Against the Military
  George W. Bush so often invokes his nominal title of “commander in chief”… morePosted on October 24, 2004
• Deserter at the Helm!
  On September 11, 2001, I lived in downtown Manhattan near the World Trade… morePosted on September 14, 2004
• The Sorrows of Dogma
  The 9/11 commission is confirming what Paul O’Neill, Richard Clarke, Bob Woodward and… morePosted on May 14, 2004
• Re-United Nations
  U.S. admits U.N. role necessary for laying the electoral groundwork in IraqPosted on February 2, 2004
• Not So Special
  Protests question Bush-Blair lovefestPosted on November 21, 2003