John Bolton's Greatest Hits Are Failures

The Nation: Outgoing U.N. Ambassador's Tenure Was A Disaster From Diplomacy Perspective

(The Nation)  This column was written by Ian Williams

---

In a rare midterm election in which foreign policy was a major issue, it is not too much of a stretch to say that American voters put U.N. Ambassador John Bolton out of office. Bolton's resignation from his unconfirmed recess appointment at the U.N. removes the residual fear that the Bush team had something up its sleeve to bypass senatorial resistance to his confirmation. The White House had claimed the support of a bipartisan silent majority for his appointment — even though it was vociferous defections from GOP ranks that helped thwart his confirmation.

In fact, Bolton's determination to hang on up to this point suggests that his obsession with the United Nations is as serious as Ted Haggard's with sin: He just can't keep away from it. For three decades of work at conservative think tanks and at the State Department, Bolton has angled for appointments that would in some way keep him grappling at close quarters with the organization even if they sometimes involved him in contradictory positions.

Even when the Bushes were out of office, Bolton filled in his time working with former Secretary of State James Baker when he was appointed U.N. special envoy for the Western Sahara. The Moroccan annexation of the territory has been on the U.N. agenda for more than 30 years and a standing invitation to complaints about the organization's ineffectiveness; Bolton has been remarkably reticent to highlight it.

Bolton's other job in exile was to advise the Taiwanese government on how to get into an organization that he had spent decades advising the United States to get out of. No sooner had he arrived at the U.N. in 2005 than he cooked up a deal with Beijing's ambassador to scuttle the efforts of Germany, Japan and India — all US allies — to get permanent seats on the Security Council. He may have had a point about the undesirability of the changes — but a more diplomatic envoy would not have left American fingerprints so messily obvious.

From the White House point of view, Bolton's appointment appeased the know-nothing foreign policy crowd while rewarding his longstanding loyalty to the Bush dynasty. That loyalty had been shown most memorably in 2000, when the man who has spent the past year preaching democracy to the members of the United Nations strode into a library polling place in Florida yelling, "I'm with the Bush-Cheney team, and I'm here to stop the count."

To be fair, while Bolton's tenure has from the standpoint of any rational diplomacy been a disaster, it has not been an unmitigated one. He has been a very well-trained attack dog, always coming to heel when the White House wanted and chewing his own words when necessary.

One of his proudest achievements in his previous job at the State Department was to "unsign" the treaty that committed the United States to the International Criminal Court, and then to bully and browbeat small countries across the world into signing agreements not to extradite U.S. citizens to its seat in The Hague. And then this year he had to allow a Security Council resolution setting the Court's prosecutors on the perpetrators in Darfur.

As pious commentators talk about how effective he was, it is worth remembering that while he was in charge of arms control, North Korea joined the nuclear club and that, according to him and Bolton and his allies, Iran is about to. It is an achievement — but of a dubious sort for an alleged arms control maestro. To be fair, within the Administration, he reportedly opposed the U.S.-Indian nuclear deal, although he remained silent on Israeli nuclear capabilities.

[bushrocks1]

Would I send my son to this war? You might ask would I send him to World War II? Or Vietnam? Maybe you would distinguish those conflicts and whether you would send your son to fight in them. But that question is misdirected in a very important way: I can't command my son to go to war. He has to make that choice. So the better question would be: would I volunteer to fight in Iraq, WW II, Vietnam? Would I volunteer to fight in any war? Respond if drafted? I don%u2019t know. I'm not equivocating, only addressing that it is a hypothetical. To a hypothetical, I can answer, sure I'd fight. But I have nightmares of battle (from my past life as a Jacobite). So how do I feel toward those who do volunteer? Impressed and maturely knowing that many things go into their decision. But I do strongly believe that a country that can't find those men is doomed. The fact that we can find them is one reason why I say there is no failure in Iraq. Objectively, I also believe it for other reasons. An attempt to establish democracy in the Middle East is a bold, brilliant, noble effort, facing a high chance of failure. That's why I greatly respect and admire those who have made the attempt--the Bush administration. They have been resolute, something I have not seen in my lifetime. They may not succeed, for reasons outside their control or fault: traitors on the home front being a big one. Now those traitors have apparently occupied the high ground. Yet... we're still in Iraq. Why?...I'm waiting.

Firstly, people should not view Bolton being forced to resign as a Democrat Vs Republican thing.

Both parties had doubts about Bolton and both parties ultimately decided that he shouldn't be put into the position.

Bolton only has himself to blame.

For many years, Bolton has been making negative comments about the UN - and while some of those comments are truly deserving, many of them go beyond what an Ambassador to the UN should say.

Quotes from Bolton:
"There is no such thing as the United Nations. There is only the international community, which can only be led by the only remaining superpower, which is the United States."

"The Secretariat building in New York has 38 stories. If it lost ten stories, it wouldn't make a bit of difference."

"American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council."

Good riddance John Bolton - the UN and the United States doesn't need you.

notblue wrote:

"The United nations is corrupt and impotent, they do nothing to further the interests of the U.S.. Mr. bolton was the only person with backbone in a sea of jellyfish."

Time for you to wakeup.

Firstly, the UN isn't there to further the interests of the United States or any other country for that matter.

The purpose of the UN is to bring all countries together to work for peace.

The US, Britain, Israel, Russia or any other country for that matter, does not own the UN.

Secondly, the reason why the UN is "impotent" is because of the Permanent Members of the Security Council - that includes the United States.

The UN does need to be reorganized and rebuilt - the vetoe power should be stripped from the Permanent Members of the Security Council and all countries should be made members of the Security Council.

Until that happens, the Permanent Members will continue to bully the UN so that it can't do the job that it is supposed to be doing.

As for being corrupt, they are about as corrupt at the Republican and Democratic Parties.

No large "group" or "organization" does not have an element of "corruption" about it.

[bushrocks1]

Would I send my son to this war? You might ask would I send him to World War II? Or Vietnam? Maybe you would distinguish those conflicts and whether you would send your son to fight in them. But that question is misdirected in a very important way: I can't command my son to go to war. He has to make that choice. So the better question would be: would I volunteer to fight in Iraq, WW II, Vietnam? Would I volunteer to fight in any war? Respond if drafted? I don%u2019t know. I'm not equivocating, only addressing that it is a hypothetical. To a hypothetical, I can answer, sure I'd fight. But I have nightmares of battle (from my past life as a Jacobite). So how do I feel toward those who do volunteer? Impressed and maturely knowing that many things go into their decision. But I do strongly believe that a country that can't find those men is doomed. The fact that we can find them is one reason why I say there is no failure in Iraq. Objectively, I also believe it for other reasons. An attempt to establish democracy in the Middle East is a bold, brilliant, noble effort, facing a high chance of failure. That's why I greatly respect and admire those who have made the attempt--the Bush administration. They have been resolute, something I have not seen in my lifetime. They may not succeed, for reasons outside their control or fault: traitors on the home front being a big one. Now those traitors have apparently occupied the high ground. Yet... we're still in Iraq. Why?...I'm waiting.

[marcodele]

I don't think it is a blame game to learn from our mistakes. "Those who don't learn from their past mistakes are destined to repeat them."

Crystal Mountain is a term Rush Limbaugh uses, as does Fox Network, as an updated slam on the "Ivory Tower" stereotype. I think the Dems are almost as guilty as the neocons for this current mess. But just because somebody comes from a perspective of educated debate doesn't mean they reside on a "crystal mountain."
Of course, when you have your own hate-filled neocon talk show where nobody ever presents an opposing view, I guess that's better than an ivory tower or a crystal mountain.

The name calling and stereotypes, such as Dems on a "crystal mountain" seem to spew out of the mouths of those who have been so blinded by the right for the last six years all they really did was be cheerleaders of death in the middle east.

[marcodele]

rain = reign

They are providing solutions, they took over congress. Rumsfeld = out. Daddy's friends hired to tell Junior his strategy not working.
Ethics probes into the Delays, Foleys, and all the other "core family value" hypocrites.

[notblue]

To marcodele

What about all the threats that Clinton was privey to during his rain, oh that's right he was a Democrat so that doesn't count.

Were there not any Democrats in congress prior to 911?

I guess according to you, Bush was the only one that got to look at the pre 911 intelligence. Certainly if a Democrat had he could have saved the day. Are you sensing any sarcasm?

It's time for the left to get off it's cystal mountain and actually provide solutions instead of the never ending blame game.

[marcodele]

To Notblue:

"The 9/11 attack is proof they will not go away."

Hello? Is there a 'there' in there? The Hart/Rudman Report warned of that attack. Condoleeza Rice testified before congress that she ignored that report because she considered it "an historical" document. The previous administration knew there was a terrorist threat, but the Bush gang was too busy formulating secret energy (a.k.a. oil) policies in its first nine months.

Yes, hindsight is 20/20, unfortunately. But the Hart/Rudman report was FORESIGHT, which was ignored by this current bunch. Colin Powell also had the FORESIGHT to warn Bush that invading Iraq could be a mistake.

And when a President presents any congress with lies about weapons of mass destruction and uranium from Africa, they usually assume the American president is telling the truth. That's why there was support for the war: Bush lies.

[mrthornman]

JB is GONE. Get over it.

[notblue]

To Marcodele,

The 911 attack is proof they will not go away and it's more hindsight blaming on your part.

your Iraq statement is more of the same hindsight genious, why won't the left admit they voted for the same war looking at the same intelligence, sad.

As usual you had to take the low ground with name calling, not surprising.

[marcodele]

"Easy Money." Isn't that the Republican mantra?

I don't think reporters get "easy money." Daniel Pearl sure didn't, did he?

[Syndicate]

I liked Bolton And Mr. williams is an idiot. I should have been a reporter. Easy money.

[mrthornman]

notblue:

It is not a liberal or conservative question. Bolton was simply not the best choice for the job. Period.

[mrthornman]

perception5:
The transcript below is from July 2006. The "personal committment" by Bolton was later revealed to be a paid speaking engagement at a right wing think tank. This is your hero that would save Darfur!?!


FEINGOLD: Getting a U.N. peacekeeping mission into Darfur has been a high-level U.S. priority and I just want to ask why you didn%u2019t travel with other Security Council members to Darfur when they went to Sudan earlier this year. Is that some indication of the importance of the issue to you? Could you say a bit about that?

BOLTON: Yeah, I had long before the timing of that mission was scheduled made a personal commitment in the United Kingdom. A lot of people had gone to a lot of effort to put that in place and I didn%u2019t feel that I could break the commitment as a matter of my personal word. Instead, I sent our alternative representative to the Security Council, Ambassador Sanders, who was with the delegation through its entire trip in Ethiopia, Sudan, and Chad.

FEINGOLD: This thing was a personal commitment of a business nature. This was not a personal commitment in the sense of your own family.

BOLTON: Right, that%u2019s correct.

[marcodele]

"The Islamic extremists will not go away if we just ignore them."

So in other words, if a bi-partisan committee provides Bush and Rice with a report that says "Islamic extremists planning to attach U.S. buildings using planes as weapons" they shouldn't have ignored it like they did?

You can rant about the same old "left" rant all you want, but the same old "right" rant seems to forget who ignored the terrorist threat in the first place.

We went to Iraq on the false pretenses of "weapons of mass destruction" and "uranium from Africa." We didn't invade Iraq because "we can't ignore terrorists."

You've got the right wing nut job play book down to memory.

[notblue]

The United nations is corrupt and impotent, they do nothing to further the interests of the U.S.. Mr. bolton was the only person with backbone in a sea of jellyfish. The left will not pull there heads out of the sand, they will not admit we are in a global war to fight terror. The left believes anyone appointed by Bush Administration or the Republicans are wrong period. There is no civil discussion only the same old blame Bush rants. Hopefully the left will realize that we have to fight these evil jihadists before it's too late. The Islamic extremists will not go away if we just ignore them.

[marcodele]

Perception: While you're trying to answer that last question, could you also provide a list of initiatives that Mr. Bolton proposed for Sudan?

[marcodele]

Perception: Your boys have been in total control for six years. What did they do about Sudan? Nothing! Halliburton saw no potential profits there. So why didn't your boys do something in the past six years about the genocide in Sudan?

[perception5]

Oh great!...... the foxes are running around the UN now. Thanks.........liberal DEMs and your pals our liberal MSM wolfpack.
People are being killed around the world, Sudan, and the UN is only interested in more corruption, phony Global Warming reports, and human rights reports......
UN "do something" and stop talking!!!

[marcodele]

So Junior says goodbye to another buttkisser from Daddy's friends list. His use of recess appointments, both with Bolton and Circuit Judge John Pickering, both blew up in his face. Let's hope W has learned enough in the past six years to help him manage all his inheritences with better results than he managed the United States. Now, who's gonna pay for this mess?