John Bolton Nomination
Looks like John Bolton’s UN nomination is this week’s DC and blogosphere sturm und drang. Bill Kristol weighs in at The Weekly Standard.
I got in an tough argument two weeks ago with a couple of close friends about Bolton. Both men have absolutely first-class experience in developmental aid, in working with NGOs, and in working with the UN. They are both suspicious of Bolton and believe he lacks the diplomatic finesse to do two things (1) cooperate with the UN agencies that do work (eg, UNHCR) and (2) genuinely address the reform issues (eg., corruption). Confrontation, they argue, can only go so far. The results they see from Bolton are either (1) further polarization (producing more dysfuntion, animosity, and diplomatic difficulties for the US) or –not likely, but possible– organizational collapse,
I disagreed. I’m a UN reformer–with a long train of paper supporting that position. Here’s my quick sketch of a “Bolton strategy” in UN reform. There’s an assumption behind it– that Bolton doesn’t want to destroy the UN– and I don’t think he does. Change it? Kristol puts it this way: After Bolton’s approved as ambassador “…he can go to New York as ambassador to the United Nations and get to work chopping 10 stories off the Secretariat building.” Chop (cut waste and egos) isn’t destroy. But here’s what I think is a more useful indicator. Bolton understands that the War on Terror is a long-term project. Yes, he’s a committed member of the Bush team– the Bush team knows its Job One is winning the War on Terror.
I think the Bush team knows a functioning, accountable UN is an ally in the War on Terror. I put it this way in a column a couple of weeks ago:
Reform is in America’s interest. Winning the War on Terror means not only military victory, but economic and political stability in the hard, chaotic corners where terrorists hide. A credible United Nations would play an extremely useful role in this process.
The short Bolton strategy:
(1) Until the mess, stench, and corruption in Secretary-General’s office are removed, further polarization is inevitable. No bureaucracy moves unless either led or pushed. Annan is not providing leadership– the Volcker report damns him for mismanagement. That means push.
(2) Push, however, must have a direction. That’s why Bolton needs to have a plan on hand– one that stresses responsibility and accountability. His basic argument: Oil for Food didn’t feed people, it fed thugs pocketbooks.
Here’s how I put it in a recent column:
Successful aid operations require more than financing and coordination capabilities, however. They require moral credibility. I am certain that the United Nations’ corruption will affect legitimate non-governmental organization aid and development programs crucial to many Third World countries, in the same way honest businesses suffered negative political and media consequences after Enron and Global Crossing’s corporate crimes were exposed.
That’s the pitch to sincere UN staffers — you want to do the job right, let’s do it right.
(3) Push necessarily entails a form of confrontation– and Bolton has the rep and spine to handle both the overt and covert ends of diplomatic jousting. I know, my friends argue Bolton is a shove, not a push. A tough cop reputation is a plus.
UPDATE: Via ABC News– “Bolton pledges to strengthen UN.”
John R. Bolton, a blunt diplomat whose nomination as U.S. ambassador to the U.N. is opposed by most Democrats and some in the foreign policy establishment, pledged Monday to help strengthen an institution that has occasionally “gone off track.”
The Bush administration is committed to the success of the U.N., Bolton, the undersecretary of state, said on the first day of his confirmation hearing before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. He told lawmakers that “we view the U.N. as an important component of our diplomacy.”
I agree that Bolton is one part of Bush’s plan to fix the UN. Those concerned that Bolton not a team player must have overlooked his roll in the formation, tasking, and activities of the Proliferation Security Initiative. According to Bolton, the PSI was necessary because “proliferators and those facilitating the procurement of deadly capabilities are circumventing existing laws, treaties, and controls against WMD proliferation.” Unlike the existing UN proliferation-prevention regime, “PSI is not diverted by disputes about candidacies for director general, agency budgets, agendas for meetings, and the like.” In other words, the PSI was intended to act, not socialize. Shipments of WMD, piracy in the Pacific and Indian oceans, and the like violate international law. No need to meet in New York, caucus in Geneva, and study the matter further in Paris – just get your ships and reconnaissance resources out there, coordinate with each other, and start picking up the criminals. It was through PSI procedures that the US, working with Germany, Italy, and the United Kingdom, was able to divert a ship carrying banned uranium centrifuge equipment for Libya. The Jamahiriya noticed and authorized revolutionary leader Muammar Abu Minyar al-Qadhafi to give up the nation’s nuclear program. Does Bolton play well with others? If his record with the PSI is any indication, he does a fair job. He was able to recruit ten allies for the core group: Australia, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Spain, and the United Kingdom. Other nations have provided support on an ad hoc basis. If Bush wanted to sink the UN, he’d appoint Brent Scowcroft as ambassador…
Comment by The Kid — 4/11/2005 @ 8:17 pm
I suppose, in a fashion, the Administration assessment the UN can be a worthwhile ally in the war on terror is true enough, assuming the UN (and more importantly, its member states) cares enough about “winning” the war on terror to make changes necessary to contribute to victory. But I’m not sure that what the UN’s member states believe or think that at all. Most of Europe, which presumably has a huge stake in this war, behaves as if appeasement and accommodation are the paths to winning, or, more importantly, “security.” China has even less interest in our winning. Most of Africa, Asia and South America are wholly indifferent, and the Middle East is populated with governments clearly against us. Outside of the “major regional powers” of the UK, Japan and Australia, we’re left with damned few allies with political heft. It’s a nice thought, but until the member states believe the US winning the war on terror (since their behavior suggests very strongly they view this as the US’s war) is in their interest, reforming the UN doesn’t make much sense. Especially if all we do is “reform” the UN so that it’s a more effective vehicle for member states rooting against us (France & China especially).
Comment by Tim — 4/11/2005 @ 8:50 pm
I think that bluntness is the only way to make these people understand that we really expect the UN to get back to what it is supposed to be doing. At this point, I don’t think it’s worth saving, but if we are ever to get better results than what Colin Powell was able to secure before we went to war in Iraq, we’re going to have to make it clear that we don’t intend to get rolled again. If we aren’t willing to back Bolton, we might as well nominate Barbara Boxer as our ambassador for all the good it will do.
Comment by AST — 4/11/2005 @ 9:28 pm
When Arab countries talk about reform — and they REALLY do want the UN reformed — what they mean is a majority-rules election process, where if you get a whole bunch of little mullah-ocracies who each vote “Israel Bad/Palestine Good”, then the majority of votes will rule the day, and it will be OK to nuke Tel Aviv. Until someone talks about what to do about all those thug-ocracies that snuck in while no one was watching, I’m not much interested in reforming the rest of the institution.
Comment by NahnCee — 4/11/2005 @ 10:56 pm
The UN is built on a contradiction: it equates free nations with the un-free. So long as grabbing power is the only requisite for UN membership, the UN will never have moral legitimacy, and dissolution is the only proper course of action. It may be possible to build an international agency with those countries that share the goals of promoting and protecting individual freedom, but such an institution cannot, and should not, include the enemies of freedom.
Comment by Gerry — 4/12/2005 @ 12:25 am
Confrontation may only go so far, but total non-confront (refusal to face up to and handle) goes backwards, fast. Witness the current debacle.
Comment by Brian H — 4/12/2005 @ 1:03 am
The Bolton nomination also serves a domestic political purpose, as a flypaper strategy for obstructionists.
Comment by sammler — 4/12/2005 @ 5:12 am
“So long as grabbing power is the only requisite for UN membership, the UN will never have moral legitimacy” Not so. It’s knowing where to push, and how. Consider this question, “Under what conditions should a nation forfeit its sovereignty?” Simply to get the question asked at the United Nations would help. As a journalist, I wrote that question to Annan in 2002 and received no answer.
Comment by sbw — 4/12/2005 @ 5:47 am
Concur Nahncee’s Analysis: Bolton good, BUT unless and until the GANGRENE of corruption and cronyism among thugocracies and tyrants is dealt with, it is far preferable to CLOSE the UN. Period. Convene a meeting to plan the successor to the UN. Invite the Universal House of Justice, Haifa, Israel.
Comment by Carridine — 4/12/2005 @ 6:27 am
“blogosphere sturm und drang?” We need a new word. How about ‘blogoshperics’? 3,000 google hits and rising.
Comment by moptop — 4/12/2005 @ 7:15 am
“Bull in a china shop” - as someone deemed what Bolton would look like at the U.N. - I say ‘oooh yeah! - have at em!’ A committed internationalist, I did a semester long internship at the U.N. What I learned? Not to go to work at the U.N…. Totally agree about the top ten stories…
Comment by Miriam — 4/12/2005 @ 8:26 am