Bolting Bolton
Day in, day out, John R. Bolton, seen as a bull in a china closet, appears to be losing ground quickly in his pursuit of becoming the next American ambassador to the United Nations, an organisations he detests. His lacklustre personality and performance have reflected badly on his ardent supporter, President George W. Bush who, together with his senior aides, appears to fight a last-ditch battle to win the confirmation for the controversial undersecretary of state for arms control when the Senate Foreign Relations Committee convenes on May 12. In fact, some Republican members of the committee seemed to be having second thoughts about Bolton's suitability for this all-important position. A single Republican defection, which now seems more likely than earlier in April, could deny him the position.
Such an outcome could be very damaging to Bush, whose approval rating stands now at 44 per cent, primarily because of the poor state of the American economy and the high gasoline prices which have record a 43 per cent increase in a year.
In short, the president can ill-afford such a drastic outcome, thereby raising once again concern about his stacking up the international deck with unpopular hawks from his administration. First, there was Paul Wolfowitz, the deputy secretary of defence considered the mastermind of the unpopular Iraq invasion, who was named president of the World Bank. Whether he can do it again with Bolton appears more doubtful as the nomination process drags on.
Bolton had been accused by a female member of his staff of trying to dismiss her following a policy disagreement they had. He has also been accused of trying to compel other intelligence analysts to doctor their findings to suit his hawkish views, especially on Cuba, China, Iran and Syria. The New York Times revealed that more officials will be interviewed about these accusations and others by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee before it votes on the nomination on May 12.
"The new interviews are intended to gather more information about the allegations that Bolton intimidated intelligence analysts, bullied subordinates inside and outside government, and sought to inflate assessments of efforts by Cuba, Syria and other nations to acquire dangerous weapons."
Even former secretary of state Colin Powell, who was ostracised by the Bush hawks, had been reportedly expressing reservations about Bolton's nomination in private conversations with some Republican members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee which has to endorse his nomination before the entire Senate can vote on it.
The most astonishing revelation that has emerged since his nomination was Bolton's disdain of the United Nations. His infamous view of the United Nations, which alone should disqualify him from attaining that nomination, reads: "You think that there is any possibility in this country that a 51,000-person bureaucracy is going to be supported by most Americans, you better think again. The secretariat building in New York has 38 stories. If you lost ten stories today, it wouldn't make a bit of difference. The United Nations is one of the most inefficient, intergovernmental organisations going. UNESCO is even worse, and others go downhill from there.
"The fact of the matter is that the international system that has grown up, and again, I leave out the World Bank and the IMF, because I do think they're in a separate category, has been put into a position of hiring ineffective people who do ineffective things, that have no real world impact. And we pay 25 per cent of the budget."
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, who announced the Bolton nomination, alluded to Bolton's reputation when she noted that "some of our best ambassadors" to the United Nations have been those with "the strongest voices", such as Jeane J. Kirkpatrick and Daniel Patrick Moynihan.
Although it is generally acknowledged that the United Nations is in urgent need of reform, probably as many other state bureaucracies elsewhere, the ambassador of a key member whose reputation has been irreparably tarnished by his deplorable actions and utterances cannot possibly be effective in such a mammoth undertaking.
The Bush administration can do better by bolting Bolton to some other corner within the Beltway, rather than placing him at the forefront of international diplomacy, much to the chagrin of the world community. Any exaggerated meddling with the United Nations structure will send wrong waves worldwide, and especially in the Middle East where the world body has been a keen player especially in the Arab-Israeli conflict; after all, it is a member of the Quartet that supervises Mideast peacekeeping.
Any meddling with the United Nations, especially its crucial resolutions for settling the decades-old Arab-Israeli conflict or its taking care of hundreds of thousands of Palestinian refugees, is going to send the wrong signals which the Bush administration can ill-afford at this time when it is hoping to mend its ties with Europe and the Arab world. There are many more suitable Americans who qualify for this position than the proposed lightning rod.
This article was published in the Friday-Saturday, April 29-30, 2005 edition of the Jordan Times. It is used here with permission.
