Bolton's recess appointment as US ambassador in United Nations

John Gershman is Director of the IRC's Global Affairs Program and co-Director of Foreign Policy in Focus, the IRCs flagship international project conducted in cooperation with the Institute for Policy Studies. John's research and writing focus on terrorism and counter-terrorism, regional economic integration, the politics of economic development, and reform of multilateral development banks. He has extensive experience, and is widely quoted in the press regarding U.S. foreign policy in Asia.

• Global Affairs Program at the International Relations Center http://www.irc-online.org
• Foreign Policy In Focus http://www.fpif.org

Shahram Vahdany - Let's begin at the beginning. Why was the  nomination of John Bolton to ambassador to UN delayed?

John Gershman - The main issue for many Democratic senators and some Republicans was there were two sets of issues. One was John Bolton's performance while in the State Department; he was linked to efforts to suppressing intelligence that contradicted Bush administration's official view on Iraq. And secondly that Bolton had made many comments that were very dismissive and disrespectful of the United Nations. On those grounds, people were questioning whether he would be a good ambassador.  The second set of issues was that he was not open and honest with the Senate Foreign Relations Committee when it questioned him about his potential role in Iraqi intelligence issues. As a result, a number of senators had additional questions they wanted him to answer; they also wanted release of documents relating to Bolton and intelligence operations and the administration refused to turn over those documents and, therefore, the Democrats refused to allow a vote to be taken.

Shahram Vahdany - So, because the senate did not act, that's why the president could appoint Bolton to the ambassadorship?

John Gershman - Since the Senate did not act on his nomination, the president could appoint him once the senate had gone into recess. That's why we have a recess appointment.

Shahram Vahdany - Why did the Senate foreign relations committee send this to the floor? How many senators are in that committee, how many from each side?

John Gershman - There are 18. Ten Republicans, eight Democrats. First, the Senate committee has hearings and votes on whether or not to send a nomination to the floor for the vote for the full Senate. The committee had a vote but there was not an agreement to have a full vote on the Senate floor because the administration would not release the documents Democratic senators were interested in seeing and Bolton was only very narrowly passed out of the Senate committee.

Shahram Vahdany - I heard that about 45 senators objected to his nomination.

John Gershman - That's correct. {mosgoogle right}

Shahram Vahdany - And this is unprecedented.

John Gershman - This is the first time both that there was so much opposition for the UN ambassador. It's also  the first time that a UN ambassador has been appointed as a recess appointment in the history of the US.

Shahram Vahdany - Had he been rejected by Senate, could Bush still do this?

John Gershman - Technically, he could have if the Senate had voted him down; the president could have still appointed him. That also would have been unprecedented. That's never happened for a post like this.

Shahram Vahdany - Some say, what would be the difference between Bolton and whoever else was nominated by the administration. He still has to follow the administration's policy. Why so much attention on Bolton?

John Gershman - This is true, that anyone who would be in that position would have to be a spokesperson for the administration. But I think that ignores a couple of things: one is that on a number of issues this administration actually has competing approaches. For example, when John Bolton was still in the State Department he had a very different approach to North Korea than his boss, at the time Secretary of State Colin Powell. Bolton also had a different approach to dealing with China than his boss did. So even though the administration ultimately articulates a unified position there are competing currents, there are different approaches to some issues both in terms of the approaching the UN and to approaching a particular issues such as WMD or particular countries such as North Korea and Iran that are likely to be involved with the UN in some way. In that context it would make a very big difference whether you have someone who was committed to multilateralism, was committed to a genuine kind of approach to dialogue and debate as opposed to one which was more confrontational, more supportive of military intervention in, say, North Korea. And those differences are significant.

Shahram Vahdany - What are the foreseeable effects of Bolton in the UN?

John Gershman - The concern is that his presence will make it very difficult to achieve the kind important reform that Kofi Annan and others, even in some cases, share with the Bush administration. Because John Bolton has been so critical of the UN he may not be able to convince the US Congress that the UN has made the kind of reforms that it has identified and that are shared by a large range of people. The reforms include reshaping the UN's human rights commission and peace-building mission. There are a range of issues and Bolton's focus is more likely to be on just the administrative and financial reforms which, while important,are not the really critical reforms that are necessary to make the UN able to respond effectively to the challenges we face in the 21st century. Secondly, Bolton's history suggests he is not going to be an effective diplomat. He hasn't demonstrated particularly strong diplomatic skills and being the UN ambassador requires working with the other permanent members of the Security Council, the other members of the Security Council, the leaders of the G77 and working with UN staff; Bolton himself has not demonstrated any particular set of diplomatic skills.