John Bolton’s recent appointment as the United
States’ ambassador to the United Nations came only after an
embarrassing and unexpected storm of controversy, when a few
Republicans on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee expressed
reservations about sending Bolton to the United Nations.
Yes, Republicans.
For those itching to point the finger at partisan hackery and
dirty politics, they will do well to remember that concerns over
Bolton can be found on both sides of the aisle.
In his years at the State Department, Bolton acquired a
reputation as a bit of a loose cannon. Eventually, Richard
Armitage, deputy to then-Secretary of State Colin Powell, felt he
had to watch over Bolton and personally clear his speeches. This
information comes from three State Department officials.
Just before the six-party talks with North Korea ““ that
is, when the United States and a host of other countries from the
region met with North Korea to discuss that country’s rather
frightening nuclear program ““ Bolton gave a controversial
speech in South Korea. In the speech, Bolton strongly denounced
North Korea and its leader, and infuriated the North Koreans.
Naturally, I’m not going to defend North Korea, but it
strikes me as a bad idea to rankle and denounce a country on the
eve of a major diplomatic endeavor, especially one in which nuclear
weapons are involved.
When the State Department official in charge of the six-party
talks did not defend Bolton, but stated that only the Secretary of
State and the President can speak for America, Bolton reacted
angrily.
In fact, accusations of angry reactions, from trying to get
subordinates fired or ending telephone conversations by slamming
down the phone, are a common theme when exploring Bolton’s
past.
So Bolton is undiplomatic and possibly a loose cannon. But will
he be effective when it comes to reforming the United Nations? One
can imagine that his tough stances, such as comments that
“there is no such thing as the United Nations,” will
impede his efforts. Condoleezza Rice has hired her own advisor on
U.N. reform, rather than letting Bolton handle it.
In one realm where the United Nations draws fire, Bolton will
only add to the problem. Many claim the organization is ineffective
in solving humanitarian crises, such as the genocide in Rwanda or
the current crisis in Sudan. Bolton, however, sees such
intervention as beyond our national interest, the sort of
activities in which we should not engage. In short, Bolton opposes
humanitarian intervention on national security grounds, and the
United Nation’s controversial passivity suits him rather
well.
But perhaps most important, is the message this appointment
sends.
This controversy has arisen from Bolton’s reputation for
unprofessional behavior, his deeply critical stances on the United
Nations, and his questionable judgment while at the State
Department, such as his speech in South Korea, precipitated this
controversy. Bolton is the sort of person who sees the United
Nations as an inexcusable restraint on U.S. power, and he echoes
the hostile sentiments of the far right.
And now, he will represent the United States without the backing
of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. What sort of message
does this send to the rest of the world?
Nenni graduated in 2005 with a degree in political science
and is a member of Bruin Democrats.