Bolton Faces the Firing Squad

Bolton Faces the Firing Squad: A confirmation hearing without confirmation?

by TORY HOEN AND SAM COCHRAN
College Hill Independent
April 17, 2005

JUST AS REPUBLICAN members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee prepared to approve the nomination of John Bolton as U.N. ambassador on a party-line vote, Ohio Senator George Voinovich dropped the bomb. Following nearly two weeks of confirmation hearings, Voinovich announced Tuesday, April 19 that he did not feel comfortable voting for Bolton, foiling the plans of his Republican brethren. Voinovich's sudden change of heart coupled with the urgings of Republican Senator Chuck Hagel of Nebraska prompted committee chairman Richard Lugar, Republican Senator of Indiana, to postpone the vote until early May, after a one-week recess, thus affording more time to weigh the pros and cons.

Them's Fighting Words

The relationship between the current US Under Secretary of State for Arms Control, John Bolton, and the international community has been tenuous at best. Bolton's past criticisms of the United Nations range in tone from harsh—hereferred to the International Court of Justice as a "pretend court"—to harsher—"if [the UN headquarters] lost 10 stories today it wouldn't make a bit of difference"—to slightly psychopathic—"there is no such thing as the UN." Bolton has been equally undiplomatic in his statements regarding international leaders. A 2003 speech in which Bolton characterized life in North Korea as a "hellish nightmare" threatened discussion with Kim Jong Il over the nation's nuclear program only days after a round of intensive negotiations that ended with North Korea agreeing to six-party negotiations on dismantling this program. In return, North Korea refused to continue negotiating with Bolton, whom the country referred to as "human scum" and a "bloodsucker."

Rhetoric, however, is only one cause for disqualification raised by Democratic members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, who are conducting Bolton's confirmation hearings. Testimony by Carl Ford Jr., a former chief at the State Department's bureau of intelligence and research, highlighted a dispute between Bolton and intelligence official Christian Westermann in which Westermann's objection to Bolton's assertion that Cuba had developed a biological weapons program led to his dismissal. The incident, Ford asserted, offered evidence of the nominee's antagonistic behavior towards those of divergent opinions, in addition to his overall irrational temperament. Ford, a conservative Republican and enthusiastic Bush supporter himself, compared Bolton's treatment of his employee to that of an "800-pound gorilla devouring a banana."

Until Voinovich's announcement, Rhode Island Senator Lincoln Chafee—once the single skeptical Republican on the committee—was expected to cast the pivotal vote. While Senator Chafee has said Bolton would not be his first choice for the job, his reluctant support of the nominee would have, against the unanimous disapproval of Democratic committee members, sent the nomination to the Senate as a whole, where a favorable vote, given the comfortable Republican majority, is all but certain.

Bring Out The Wrecking Ball

Given Bolton's well-known criticisms of the United Nations' very existence, many dubious critics have wondered how Bolton could ever have received a UN ambassadorial nomination. Not surprisingly, Bolton has long been a beneficiary of the Bush administration. In 2001, despite the vocal opposition of 43 Democratic senators, Bolton was confirmed as Under Secretary of Arms Control and International Security. Regardless of his privileged position in relation to the Bush Administration—he is often called "Cheney's protégé"—his nomination is based on more than personal and ideological ties.

During an April 13 debate at Brown University hosted by Americans for Informed Democracy, Ruth Wedgwood, Professor of International Law and Diplomacy at Johns Hopkins University, argued that Bolton is a realist, not a cynic, qualifying him for the job. The US post in the Security Council, she reasoned, must be filled quickly. Because Bolton has the President's confidence, his presence in the Council may help to facilitate greater communication and consensus-building between the United Nations and the US government. Wedgwood also stressed the importance of partisan continuity in the post. In order to prevent the deterioration of the Security Council into "a sideshow of US partisan politics," a Republican should fill the position, newly vacated by Republican Senator John Danforth.

Despite allegations that Bolton has repeatedly abused his power in order to silence his opponents, he is nonetheless considered by many to be a capable diplomat with a profound range of foreign policy experience. His participation in the formation and successful operation of the Proliferation Security Initiative, his supporters believe, suggests that he has the ability to work cooperatively as part of a multilateral team. The PSI program, which has effectively identified and secured several caches of banned equipment and nuclear materials, came into existence only after Bolton worked to recruit 10 allies (including Australia, France, Germany, Japan, and the United Kingdom) to form the core of the group.

Finally, despite his hard-nosed persona and his controversial statements, Bolton is credited with being a go-getter who may be the only person capable of facilitating much-needed UN reform. In reference to Bolton's "10 stories" comment, Wedgwood maintained that there is truth behind Bolton's tirades: 25 percent of the UN's budget could be allocated more efficiently and a large proportion of the understaffed institution is no longer functioning competently. Despite great opposition from the Democratic Party, UN officials have been fairly receptive to the idea. According to the Associated Press, Abdallah Baali, the UN representative from Algeria, commented in March, "when [Bolton] joins the United Nations he will certainly adapt his views to the United Nations, and I am sure we will work together in a very constructive way." In general, UN diplomats are poised to cooperate with Bolton. When questioned about Bolton's history of demeaning the very institution to which he has been nominated, Argentine ambassador Cesar Mayoral retorted: "People change."

A Ploy For The Future

At greater question here is the future of the United Nations as a peacemaking institution, specifically, the Security Council, which has been the subject of much maligning and seems to be primed for reform. Wedgwood noted that "after a decade of moral heartbreak" that witnessed tragedies in Bosnia, Rwanda and most recently Sudan, the United Nations now suffers from demoralization and remorse over past inaction. Given the rise of terrorism as an issue of international import, the Security Council must leave past mistakes behind and prepare to take new actions. According to the New York Times, during an April 16 newspaper conference Condoleezza Rice explained, "It is no secret to anyone that the United Nations cannot survive as a vital force in international politics if it does not reform—if it doesn't reform its organizations, if it doesn't reform its secretariat, if it doesn't reform its management practices." Given UN Secretary General Kofi Annan's alleged inability to facilitate reform, Bolton's presence in the United Nations could, on the one hand, help to initiate the process. Still, his aggression and US-centric attitude could, on the other hand, further undermine the rapidly declining power of the institution.

Bolton's opponents argue the latter, asserting that his bullying leadership style would only exacerbate the problems that originally created estrangement between the United States and the international community. Mort Halperin, the US Advocacy Director of the Open Society Institute who argued against Wedgwood during the debate at Brown, explained: "Bolton has made it clear in everything he's written and everything he's done that he does not believe in reforming the UN." Bolton, critics charge, has never believed in the institution, nor will his pending nomination change his stance. Halperin, among others, fears that Bolton's entry into the United Nations is a mere ploy for the United States to gain more leverage over the institution or, even worse, work to dissolve it.

Bolton supporters applaud his voice, however blunt, as the harbinger of change—once elected he will, they believe, behave like an ambassador. "If I'm confirmed," Bolton announced during his April 11 confirmation hearing, "I look forward to working closely with this committee to forge a stronger relationship between the United States and United Nations, which depends critically on American leadership. "Such leadership," he continued, "must be earned by putting to rest skepticism that so many feel about the UN system."