MWC News - A Site Without Borders - - Bolton On The Top Floor?

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.

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 - 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.

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.

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.

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.

John Gershman - Somewhere in the neighborhood of 20–25 % of expenses. Part of that depends on how you count peacekeeping expenditures and so forth, but the US pays around a fifth of the overall UN budget.

John Gershman - The US, with the exception of some peace keeping expenditures, largely paid up its dues. It had gone into arrears in the 1990s and that was largely because the US congress and in particular Senator Jesse Helms had held back payments of US dues to the UN. In the aftermath of 911, the Bush Administration fairly rapidly caught up the arrears in the US dues to the UN. But now there's some new legislation that so far has not passed but has attempted to pursue the same kind of strategy that the republicans did in the 1990s which is to hold US dues hostage to pressure the UN. This hasn't been passed or approved but the sentiment is still there and the congress can make it difficult for the Administration to maintain being current. And I think John Bolton has close ties to members of Congress who have pursued this strategy. I think one of the tests of his ability as UN Ambassador will be whether he can convince those members of Congress to not pursue that strategy, If has not able to do that or is unwilling to do that then I think well see that has pursuing the kind of strategy we would expect which is to weaken the UN.

John Gershman - Absolutely. She objected to both this US legislation and seems to have convinced Bush that this is bad legislation. And that's where I think one of the real significant differences is, and whyit's a little unclear exactly how Bolton will act as UN Ambassador because Rice's approach to the UN is different to that of John Bolton . It will be interesting to see who really gets to call the shots.

Shahram Vahdany - We thank you for your time and hope to speak with you soon.

Write Comment

Please keep the topic of messages relevant to the subject of the article. Personal verbal attacks will be deleted. Please don't use comments to plug your web site. Such material will be removed. Just ensure to Refresh your browser for a new security code to be displayed prior to clicking on the 'Send' button. Keep in mind that the above process only applies if you simply entered the wrong security code.
Name:
E-mail
Homepage
Title:
BBCode:
Comment:
Code:*
	I wish to be contacted by email regarding additional comments