Shahram Vahdany - There is a rumor that Bolton would replace Annan. How realistic is this.

John Gershman - I think that's highly unrealistic. I don't think John Bolton would want the job. I don't think that members of the general assembly would accept somebody like him and so I think that's highly unrealistic. The other rumor is that former president Bill Clinton is interested in the post of Secretary General. I think that's more likely even though I don't think it's particularly likely.

Shahram Vahdany - Let's talk about Bush making this major decision at this time while Judge Roberts's confirmation is going to the Senate. Do you think this was a wise decision by the Bush administration?

John Gershman - I think that the appointment of John Bolton was a bad choice on many grounds of which this question of approving the nomination of John Roberts would have been one. But, I think we have to recognize that the logic that dictated this appointment was really a political logic within the Republican party that John Bolton is seen as a important representative of a particular wing of the Republican party and that they wanted him to be playing an important, prominent role, especially since Condoleezza Rice, the Secretary of State, was not willing for him to play a prominent role within her department. The UN ambassador was one of the few posts that would be available. While it seems to be a somewhat irrational move given the other issues that the administration is facing such as securing the nomination of John Roberts to the Supreme Court, I think that the political logic of responding to the interests of a wing of the Republican Party is the real logic that's operating here.

Shahram Vahdany - Do you think this was a sort of message to the Senate by the administration that if we don't get what we want, we will impose our will nevertheless?

John Gershman - I think that it's definitely not so much toward the House, because the house doesn't really have a role, but toward the Senate which has the role of confirming nominations. I mean this is not the only controversial nomination that Bush has made as a recess appointment. Early in his first term he appointed Roger Noriega as Assistant Undersecretary of State for Latin America despite his controversial position and debate. I think has been willing to do this in the past. I think he wants to demonstrate that the executive is really in command in areas of foreign policy. I think on that side the Democrats and even Republican senators who were opposed to the Bolton nomination have to be a little upset. At the same time it's also an indication of weakness. It's an indication that the Bush Administration could not get the nomination passed. So, I think for a number of senators they also see this as a sign of weakness and that the Bush Administration was again pushed into this for the internal political logic of the Republican Party rather than it was being a good strategic step. So I think the senators come out looking like fairly good folks in this case, I think they'll be somewhat happy that Bush went ahead and did it even though its clearly a slap in the face at the constitution powers.

Shahram Vahdany - Is it likely that in the case of Roberts the "nuclear option" will be used?

John Gershman - I don't think so, I think Roberts has clearly been vetted and is going to be seen as a clearly acceptable candidate by a number of Democrats. I think he is not a candidate who is going to be seen as an extreme candidate the way Robert Bork was in the 1980s. I don't expect that they will exercise that level. The Democrats will ask, and the Republican Party has started to provide documents that Roberts produced when he was in the Justice Department in the 1980s. I think there will be a fairly full and comprehensive evaluation of him and his role and I fully expect the Democrats will want him to come up for at least a hearing in the Senate, at least the Justice Committee. Unless they find something horrific in his record I think the presumption is that they will at least not oppose if not in fact support his nomination.

Shahram Vahdany - Let's talk about the other side of this situation. In the view of the international community, what message has been given to the international community and the UN in particular?
 
John Gershman - I think the message is fairly clear and on that one can at least appreciate that the Bush Administration is being honest. And that message is that they have very little respect for the UN. That the US is, at least in military terms, the unquestioned power in the world and that they really are only interested in the UN to the extent that it can serve as a tool of US foreign policy. I imagine and we've already seen evidence of this, which is clearly going to be seen as a slap in the face of the UN staff, of member countries and citizens of member countries that the US would appoint someone who is so dismissive and disrespectful of the UN, of international agreements and arms control treaties. To make him the UN ambassador is clear disrespect. And I think the one positive thing coming out of this is that because the American people and a large number of senators were so clearly opposed to Bolton's nomination that it's very clear that this is a decision of the Bush administration and not a reflection of the values of the American people and shows, I think, that any significant positive reforms at the UN are really going to have to be forged out of an alliance between the American people and representatives of other countries that in fact do care about the UN. This has to be clearly seen as a sign of disrespect and the fact that the Bush Administration is engaging, is playing foreign policy as if it was a bully and not really committed to genuine international cooperation.

Shahram Vahdany - Some believe that the Administration has signed Bolton's statement about the UN. That, indeed, we don't see the UN as a separate entity from the States.

John Gershman - Yes. I mean I think there's one unknown factor at this moment with respect to Bolton. Bolton's boss is Condoleezza Rice who has in general pursued a very different approach toward the UN. She's much more pragmatic. She's not a major fan of a lot of what the UN does. But she does see international cooperation pragmatically as an important part of US foreign policy, and has not been openly disrespectful of the UN the way Bolton has. And I think the question is who's going to give John Bolton his marching orders once has in the UN. Is it going to be Condoleezza Rice? Or is it going to be Bolton's ideological comrades in arms who would basically like to see the UN dramatically scaled back or shut down. And that's going to be the real test. If Condoleezza Rice is able to exercise her role as his boss then we might see a slightly different John Bolton in performing his job as UN ambassador. I'm not optimistic about that, but it is possible. And that remains the big unknown question; is the extent to which Bolton has a certain amount of freedom to be able to determine his approach to the UN or, he will really be implementing policy as determined and established by Condoleezza Rice. And if the latter case is the situation we might see something a little bit different. But I think yes, in general, the idea, even if the Bush Administration would not use the same exact rhetoric that John Bolton has used, the essence is basically the same. If the US is intent on strengthening its unilateral ability to shape out of any foreign policy and that multilateral institutions are primarily important to the degree that they can help the US do that.