Bolton's Abscess Appointment
Don Kraus and Sam Stein
Tompaine.com, Web Exclusive
July 29, 2005As Congress prepares for its upcoming August
break, signals have emerged from the White House that President Bush will give
John R. Bolton a recess appointment to the post of U.S. ambassador to the United
Nations. For a while now, it has been clear that such a move would be damaging
to both Bolton and the United States. Now, however, the appointment seems likely
to have harmful ramifications for President Bush as well.
The reason is straightforward. According to reports from MSNBC, John Bolton has
testified to the grand jury investigating the outing of CIA operative Valerie
Plame. Not only is it possible that Bolton may have lied about this testimony in
a questionnaire he filled out for his confirmation hearing, but the linkage to
the Plame affair places Bolton, yet again, into a scenario in which intelligence
was doctored for the sake of political gain. In fact, according to an
investigation by the State Department Inspector General, Bolton’s office was
responsible for the placement of the Niger uranium claims in the State
Department’s December 2002 “fact sheet” on Iraq’s WMD program; claims that have
since been exposed as baseless.
For the Bush administration, this means prolonged attention to the Karl Rove
saga and yet another member of its “inner circle” associated with an emerging
conspiracy. For Bolton—whose credibility is already so damaged it couldn’t
possibly be made worse—the Plame linkage is yet another reason why he would do
more harm then good at the United Nations. Undoubtedly, Bolton’s primary
diplomatic asset—his proximity to the president—will be diminished as the
administration distances itself from those involved in the leak.
And yet, as reported in The Washington Post and all but confirmed by Nebraska
Sen. Chuck Hagel, the White House will likely go ahead with a recess appointment
of Bolton, potentially as soon as this Saturday (July 30, 2005). Such a course
of action, now more than ever, will be an utter blow to U.S. foreign policy
interests and America’s position within the international community.
In addition to Bolton’s potential involvement in fixing the facts to the policy
in the run-up to war, objections to Bolton are as pertinent today as they were
when the nomination was announced on March 7. Simply put: The Senate has
recoiled at the prospect of sending an abrasive individual with a history of
politicizing intelligence to be America’s chief diplomat at the United Nations.
Of course, Bolton and the United Nations were not a harmonious pairing in the
first place. Bolton has questioned the United Nations' existence, disparaged
international cooperation and scoffed at paying U.N. dues. But for the most
part, principled members of Congress worried that Bolton’s lack of credibility,
patience and diplomatic experience (not necessarily his anti-U.N. ideology)
would make him a liability at the world body.
That lack of credibility and ineffectiveness which made senators so apprehensive
to being with—and compelled Sen. George Voinovich, R-Ohio, to call Bolton “the
poster child for what someone in the diplomatic corps should not be”—will only
be exacerbated should Bolton be sent to New York without congressional approval.
In the words of Sen. Pat Roberts, R-Kan., a recess appointment “would weaken not
only Mr. Bolton but also the United States.”
In an extremely bleak scenario, Bolton—should he end up at the United Nations—
may have to present America’s case for action against threats from North Korea
or Iran. In these instances, Bolton’s reputation for advancing his own agenda
and manipulating intelligence already represent tremendous obstacles for
building international consensus. Add in the new revelations about his role in
the Niger uranium claims, and the fact that he would be at the United Nations
without the support of the public he serves, and Bolton would be utterly
ineffectual in such crises.
The lack of credibility that would accompany a recess appointment of John Bolton
would be damaging in instances other than hypothetical rogue state standoffs. It
would also be disastrous during the U.N. revitalization process that is
currently underway.
At the upcoming September summit, world leaders will meet to discuss not only
how to improve the United Nations, but also what security means in the 21st
century, how issues such as peacekeeping and development must be dealt with, and
the ways in which the international institutions can play a valuable role in the
era of global interdependence. It is a historic opportunity for President Bush
to support making the United Nations into a strong and effective 21st-century
institution that can be a valuable partner for American foreign policy.
Yet the comprehensive U.N. reforms that best suit America’s interests—including
a recommitment to international economic development, a Democracy Fund, and a
revamped, credible Human Rights Council—would be extremely difficult to achieve
should a recess-appointed Bolton be in charge of negotiations. Not only will
many in Congress be skeptical of Bolton’s agenda, but the international
community would wonder who, exactly, Bolton was representing. The distrust would
be paralyzing, particularly if Bolton holds U.S. dues hostage in exchange for
U.N. concessions.
The dangers of a recess appointment are clear. The additional damage that such a
course of action would cause to Bolton’s credibility will handicap him at the
United Nations and damage the United States’ negotiating capacity at a time when
the future of the United Nations is at stake. Emerging stories of Bolton’s
less-then-honest recounting of grand jury testimony and association with the
Plame investigation simply add to the problem. America needs an ambassador who
can help fix what’s wrong with the United Nations without abandoning what’s
right; an ambassador who can champion American policy without damaging America’s
reputation, an ambassador who has the ability to build alliances without
resorting to doctoring intelligence. Bolton was not that ambassador to begin
with. A recess appointment only makes him worse.
Don Kraus is executive vice president of Citizens for Global Solutions .
Sam Stein s a Communications Associate at Citizens for Global Solutions i
READ ON THE TOMPAINE.COM WEBSITE
|