Seeking Common Sense in a World Gone Mad
HOME ABOUT Got Comments? Submit them here!
Bolton Bulletin
by Akaoni
I believe it’s time for me to air my feelings toward the Bolton situation.
For those of you who haven’t been following the story, John Bolton, currently Under Secretary of
State for Arms Control, has been nominated for the position of Ambassador to the United Nations
by the Bush Administration. Mr. Bolton has shown himself time and again to be an incredibly poor
choice, never the less the Bush Administration with its “win at any cost” mentality has pushed on.
I’m not going to detail all of Bolton’s statements and deeds (or perhaps mis-deeds) in this post,
you can find adequate information at the NYT, and Steve Clemons’ blog has covered the
nomination more thoroughly than I ever could. I will give my take on the situation however.
Although it has been Mr. Bolton’s temper and temperament, including abuse of underlings, which
have been one of the major critiques of the Bolton candidacy, I believe that those qualities, while
not positive characteristics, are not the most damning strikes against Mr. Bolton. Admittedly, a
man who easily blows his top, abuses subordinates, and generally steamrolls anyone who might
disagree with him, consequences be damned, may not be the person most appropriate for one of
the most important diplomatic positions in the United States Government. Still, if this was the only
flaw in Mr. Bolton’s character, I would probably not oppose his nomination so vehemently.
Unfortunately, there are many more damning skeletons in Mr. Bolton’s closet.
Diplomacy requires at times…well…diplomacy. I believe Mr. Bolton to be incapable of this. I
found a very illustrative example of Mr. Bolton’s diplomatic deficiency on The Washington Note
(Steve Clemons’ site) this morning.
- Here is a short vignette I learned recently via email discourse with several sources who are
close to senior leadership in the G8 countries.
In the Fall of 2004, John Bolton was given the task of communicating U.S. administration
policy on Iran -- and commenting on the prospect and process of European negotiations
with Iran -- at a Washington meeting of certain G8 principals.
Normally at such U.S.-chaired meetings, there is lots of discussion, lots of investment in
consensus-building, back and forth commentary, etc.
At this meeting, however, Bolton simply "quickly stated administration policy and that was
it. He stopped. No more discussion. He gave 'one read' of the policy and refused to do
more."
In other words -- and I have confirmed this bizarre incident -- John Bolton read the
administration's policy from a prepared text, but he refused to distribute that text -- and he
refused to read the statement again.
He had read the statement once, fast -- and would not read it again.
And then, as they say, there was silence. . .total dumbfounded silence.
As it turned out, administration policy that Bolton was articulating, reluctantly as he did
not support it, is that the administration was communicating to Europe that while it
suspected and predicted that the negotiation process between the EU and Iran would fail,
the U.S. would not object to what was underway.
The wording of the once-read statement of policy by Bolton was carefully crafted so as to
give the Europeans license, from the American point of view, to proceed with Iran --
without formally attaching a positive expectation from the U.S. about the process.
Bolton didn't like the policy, so he wouldn't hand out copies of it. And he would only read
the statement once. . .fast.
This is not mature behavior.
Mr. Bolton does not play well with others; he does not tolerate dissent, and is barely able to
carry out orders, even when they come from the highest levels. One only has to look at the
attitude of the U.S.’s main ally in the so-called “War on Terror.” Mr. Bolton’s “tough” and
“uncompromising” attitude has actually led British to ask that Mr. Bolton be removed from
sensitive negotiations. Although the Bush Administration denies the following, this is how
Newsweek told the story:
On several occasions, America's closest ally in the war on terror, Britain, was irked by
what U.S. and British sources say were efforts by Bolton to undermine promising
diplomatic openings. Perhaps the most dramatic instance took place early in the U.S.-
British talks in 2003 to force Libya to surrender its nuclear program, NEWSWEEK has
learned. The Libya deal succeeded only after British officials "at the highest level"
persuaded the White House to keep Bolton off the negotiating team. A crucial issue,
according to sources involved in the affair, was Muammar Kaddafi's demand that if Libya
abandoned its WMD program, the U.S. in turn would drop its goal of regime change. But
Bolton was unwilling to support this compromise. The White House agreed to keep Bolton
"out of the loop," as one source puts it.
Mr. Bolton was not only not part of the solution in talks to disarm Libya; he was part of the
problem. So much so that the British requested that he be kept “out of the loop!” And they
want him to be Ambassador to the U.N??? This is not the only case of Mr. Bolton
alienating allies. Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic, to name a few, have also been
the subject of Mr. Bolton’s wrath.
Mr. Bolton has been similarly out of step when dealing with countries such as North Korea,
and Cuba.
When dealing with North Korea, Mr. Bolton delivered an incendiary speech in Seoul which
used language which was not approved by Jack Prichard, point man in dealing with North
Korea, or Tom Hubbard Ambassador to South Korea. When Prichard tried to clean up the
mess, Mr. Bolton, true to form, went ballistic.
When analyst, Christian Westerman, suggested that Mr. Bolton change language in a speech
concerning Cuba and WMD, to more accurately reflect intelligence on the subject, Mr.
Bolton again threw a fit and sought to have Westerman reassigned or removed.
Time and time again Bolton’s rigidity and intransigence have stood in the way of negotiation
and cooperation. He has “cherry picked” intelligence for information supporting his
positions, and sought to discredit anyone who called him on it. He’s pissed off allies and
enemies alike. This man is uniquely unqualified for the post of ambassador to the UN.
Now, if this is not enough, the final straw may lie in Mr. Bolton’s use of NSA intercepts,
an item of contention in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Mr. Bolton has
apparently requested NSA intercepts on ten different occasions. Some suggest that this is
quite unusual, especially for an Under Secretary, and the intercepts may have been used to
monitor conversations of individuals opposing Bolton in the State Department. Senators
Biden, Lugar, and Dodd have all requested that the intercepts in question be released to the
Foreign Relations Committee. These requests have been denied by the State Department.
Thus this final item may remain under cover. I don’t know if this final administration move
will secure the nomination or scuttle it by undermining the authority of Lugar and co.
If Mr. Bolton is indeed confirmed, it is my opinion that United States interests and our
ability to pursue those interests will be severely impaired. The White House touts Bolton as
a tough minded reformer. I doubt that any reforms will take place under Bolton’s watch.
Reform takes cooperation, something Bolton obviously knows little about.
Comments? Email Akaoni: akaoni@babblemur.com