John Bolton is indefensible
Washington Post today published a column by Anne Applebaumanne titled "Defending Bolton,". I read it with great amusement. It is apparent that Bolton is indefensible. John Bolton is rude, arrogant, and extremely hawkish who often adds his personal opinions to policy positions while articulating them and confuses the audience about what is indeed US policy. Since his positions are often more bellicose than those of the government's, he actually makes the Bush administration look more war mongering than it really is.
Applebaumanne's defense of Bolton has three key arguments; (1) UN is undemocratic and a problematic institution, (2) Bolton has often written about the dangers of international organizations and the threat they pose to sovereignty of states and (3) since he is thick-skinned he will not be too upset by the hatred that will inevitably be directed at him. She actually appreciates his undiplomatic characteristics and has nothing positive to offer about Bolton's credentials as a diplomat. It is like applauding the appointment of a barber to the position of surgeon general.
The fundamental problem with Bolton is that he is a diehard unilateralist and strong believer in the use of military force. The UN is premised on the two principles of multilateralism and peace which clash with Bolton's approach to foreign policy. The two are so much out of synch that they are likely to spend more time going after each other than working together. In her confirmation hearing, Secretary of State Condileeza Rice twice mentioned that "the time for diplomacy is now". One wonder what she meant by that.
I think Bolton's defender misses both the politics behind the Bolton appointment and real issues at stake.John Bolton is the darling of the Christian right and he has been foisted on the Bush administration by them. In exchange for their support, the Christian Right demands among other things an important job for John Bolton. Before Condileeza Rice was appointed Secretary of State, Bolton was nominated as the deputy. The first thing that Rice did after her nomination was to essentially say no to Bolton. He did not get the NSA job either and since then the Bush administration has been searching for a position for him.
His appointment as US Ambassador to the UN clearly indicates that neither UN nor diplomacy have any major role to play in Bush's foreign policy. The US's problems with the UN [particularly its refusal to look the other way on the issue of Israel] and its steady resistance to acting as foreign policy agent for the US are well known.
In order for the US to work effectively with the UN, Bush should have chosen a person with impeccable personal credentials who could rise above the mutual dislike between the UN and the US and forge a working partnership and help initiate reforms at the UN. But John Bolton will alienate the UN, fuel anti-Americanism and the strong personal dislike that he will incite towards himself will undermine the ability of the US to work closely with the UN.
The US needs UN support in Afghanistan and Iraq and Bolton could jeopardize that. This is not a wise move.
Applebaumanne's defense of Bolton has three key arguments; (1) UN is undemocratic and a problematic institution, (2) Bolton has often written about the dangers of international organizations and the threat they pose to sovereignty of states and (3) since he is thick-skinned he will not be too upset by the hatred that will inevitably be directed at him. She actually appreciates his undiplomatic characteristics and has nothing positive to offer about Bolton's credentials as a diplomat. It is like applauding the appointment of a barber to the position of surgeon general.
The fundamental problem with Bolton is that he is a diehard unilateralist and strong believer in the use of military force. The UN is premised on the two principles of multilateralism and peace which clash with Bolton's approach to foreign policy. The two are so much out of synch that they are likely to spend more time going after each other than working together. In her confirmation hearing, Secretary of State Condileeza Rice twice mentioned that "the time for diplomacy is now". One wonder what she meant by that.
I think Bolton's defender misses both the politics behind the Bolton appointment and real issues at stake.John Bolton is the darling of the Christian right and he has been foisted on the Bush administration by them. In exchange for their support, the Christian Right demands among other things an important job for John Bolton. Before Condileeza Rice was appointed Secretary of State, Bolton was nominated as the deputy. The first thing that Rice did after her nomination was to essentially say no to Bolton. He did not get the NSA job either and since then the Bush administration has been searching for a position for him.
His appointment as US Ambassador to the UN clearly indicates that neither UN nor diplomacy have any major role to play in Bush's foreign policy. The US's problems with the UN [particularly its refusal to look the other way on the issue of Israel] and its steady resistance to acting as foreign policy agent for the US are well known.
In order for the US to work effectively with the UN, Bush should have chosen a person with impeccable personal credentials who could rise above the mutual dislike between the UN and the US and forge a working partnership and help initiate reforms at the UN. But John Bolton will alienate the UN, fuel anti-Americanism and the strong personal dislike that he will incite towards himself will undermine the ability of the US to work closely with the UN.
The US needs UN support in Afghanistan and Iraq and Bolton could jeopardize that. This is not a wise move.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home