US ex-diplomats slam Bolton nomination
Letter from 59 former envoys implores the Senate not to confirm John Bolton as ambassador to the UN.
When US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's March 7 announcement that the blunt-spoken and controversial John Bolton would be the Bush administration's nominee for US ambassador to the UN, some supported the idea as a much-needed means of shaking up the status quo.
But far more have come out against the move.
Now, 59 former US diplomats have added their voices to the din by sending a letter
urging the Senate to reject Mr. Bolton's nomination. The letter to Sen. Richard Lugar, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, states that Bolton "is the wrong man for this position." It also chides Bolton for his "insistence that the UN is valuable only when it directly serves the United States."
The Foreign Relations Committee must consider the nomination before it goes to the full Senate for confirmation. Lugar has scheduled hearings for April 7.
The ex-diplomats have served in both Democratic and Republican administrations. Those who signed the letter include:
* Arthur A. Hartman, ambassador to France and the Soviet Union under Presidents Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan and assistant secretary of state for European affairs under President Richard M. Nixon;
* James F. Leonard, deputy ambassador to the United Nations in the administrations of President Gerald Ford and Carter, Ford's successor;
* Princeton N. Lyman, ambassador to South Africa and Nigeria under Presidents Reagan, George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton;
* Monteagle Stearns, ambassador to Greece and Ivory Coast in the Ford, Carter and Reagan administrations;
* Spurgeon M. Keeny Jr., deputy director of the Arms Control Agency in the Carter administration.
The Associated Press reports that the ex-diplomats said Bolton "had an 'exceptional record' of opposing US efforts to improve national security through arms control."
Bolton's bold and often-abrasive style has has earned him many critics over the years. In a now-famous 1994 speech at the World Federalist Association, Bolton declared that "there is no such thing as the United Nations." He added: "If the UN secretary building in New York lost ten stories, it wouldn't make a bit of difference."
In the wake of the announcement of Bolton's nomination,
The New York Times ran an editorial which let a collection of Bolton's quotes make their case that Bolton "is a
terrible choice at a critical time."
The
Times ended the editorial by "wondering what Mr. Bush's next nomination will be."
Donald Rumsfeld to negotiate a new set of Geneva Conventions? Martha Stewart to run the Securities and Exchange Commission? Kenneth Lay for energy secretary?
In a
lengthy profile of Bolton, the left-leaning political newsletter
Counterpunch writes:
During his career Bolton has never minced words when it comes to his opinions about the United Nations. While his straight-shooting has clarified his opinions on US moral and political supremacy and on what he sees as the dubious legitimacy of the United Nations, Bolton also sees the United Nations as an institution that can be manipulated, exploited, and controlled.
But, Bolton also has his admirers, many of whom point out that he follows in a tradition of blunt US ambassadors to the UN, including Daniel Patrick Moynihan and Jeanne Kirkpatrick, who, they argue, left the UN a better organization than it was when they started.
In an opinion piece against the nomination, Peter Beinart, editor of the New Republic and
Washington Post columnist,
explains how this tradition appeals to many on the right.
When Condoleezza Rice announced his nomination, she specifically invoked Moynihan and Kirkpatrick. Numerous right-leaning commentators have done the same. To some members of Congress, sending a man who has repeatedly trashed the United Nations to be America's representative there seems perverse. But for neocons with a sense of history, that's precisely the point.
One person seemingly delighted with the nomination is conservative columnist Robert Novak, who wrote that the move "
shocked the liberal foreign policy establishment."
Bolton's critics in the Foreign Service had hopes he would be swept out of Foggy Bottom in Bush's second-term changing of the guard. That he instead was nominated for the world's most visible diplomatic post suggests the President means business in confronting the UN's corruption. It also confirms that Bush is properly attuned to his conservative base.
President of neoconservative Center for Security Policy Frank Gaffney Jr. writes in
National Review Online that Bolton will bring the UN just what it needs from the US: a little "
tough love."
... it would appear that the UN's admirers recognize not only that George W. Bush is determined to shake things up on the East River, but that such a shakeup is in order. The savvier of them may also appreciate that John Bolton is uniquely capable of persuading the Republican majority in Congress that such an effort is worth making – and that it has a reasonable chance of rebuilding the United Nations into an institution worthy of further, generous American support and involvement. The price may be a sustained dose of tough love, but it is one that must be paid.
Business Week reports that Bolton's nomination may not be such a bad thing, because "he may prefer to try to overhaul rather than keelhaul the UN."
Business Week writes that Bolton "may even help the beleaguered UN Secretary General Kofi Annan
keep his current job."
If confirmed after his Senate hearing on Apr. 7, Bolton may play a constructive role in a new UN effort to transform itself. Many of the recommendations in the breathtakingly broad reform package that Annan unveiled on Mar. 21 could almost have been written by the White House. The UN boss hopes to win approval for the reforms before his term ends in 2006, perhaps starting as early as this September. That would bolster his record, which has been marred by such controversies as the alleged mismanagement of the Iraq Oil-for-Food program. Some analysts believe the Bush administration's decision to nominate Bolton may actually be a way to gain more support on the right for a softer, more multilateral foreign policy approach.
The Financial Times suggested that in a May 9
editorial.
Mr. Bolton is hardly likely to re-invent himself as a born-again multilateralist. But if US policy were to be changed in that direction by the decision-makers in Washington, it would carry more weight with the UN's many critics on the Republican right if it came out of the mouth of Mr. Bolton.
Although his nomination is expected to be confirmed, Bolton "will likely
face heated questions from Democratic Party lawmakers in the US Senate hearings," reports
Voice of America.
Also...
•
Oil-for-food report expected to criticize Annan (
The Times of London)
•
US and China: A relationship reconsidered (
The Economist)
•
An Islamist march blocked in Egypt; police arrest 100 (
The Los Angeles Times)
•
Panel's report assails C.I.A. for failure on Iraq weapons (
The New York Times)
• Feedback appreciated. E-mail
Matthew Clark.
|
RSS feed