Tuesday, May 31, 2005
In Bolton's own words
Hello, everypeoples. Have you noticed the hubbub surrounding the stern, Bushy-stached fellow sitting before the Senate in recent weeks? That's one John Bolton, the president's nominee for American ambassador to the United Nations.
A lot of my reading has tried to inform me about who Bolton really is. The Senate hearings have portrayed him as fully contemptuous of the UN, arrogant and brash with colleagues, and overbearing. Since I think it's a wholly separate discussion as to whether 'nice guy score' is a major criterion in selecting this confused country's UN ambassador, I decided to read what Bolton had to say himself. The following quotes and paraphrases come from his essay "The Creation, Fall, Rise, and Fall of the United Nations", in Cato Institute's 1997 book Delusions of Grandeur: The United Nations and Global Intervention.
Bolton's central argument can be summed up in these two points:
-Is Bolton's approach extreme? Do the times call for it?
-Is it morally tenable?
-If Bolton considers the UN an instrument of American foreign policy, how would he ask leaders of other nations, rich and poor and in-between, to use the UN? "You ought to do whatever suits America best"?
-If global change (poverty, disease, human rights) is to occur, how does Bolton's framework address it? How does that contrast with the 'parliament of man' approach that would posit the UN as a governing body greater than any nation?
-If American interests hold others down, could the UN deal with this injustice?
A lot of my reading has tried to inform me about who Bolton really is. The Senate hearings have portrayed him as fully contemptuous of the UN, arrogant and brash with colleagues, and overbearing. Since I think it's a wholly separate discussion as to whether 'nice guy score' is a major criterion in selecting this confused country's UN ambassador, I decided to read what Bolton had to say himself. The following quotes and paraphrases come from his essay "The Creation, Fall, Rise, and Fall of the United Nations", in Cato Institute's 1997 book Delusions of Grandeur: The United Nations and Global Intervention.
Bolton's central argument can be summed up in these two points:
- "American foreign policy must be based on identifying out vital national interests and then advancing and defending those interests around the world." (45)
- For America, the UN is "an instrument of American policy, not a policymaker itself." (49)
- The Secretary General must deliver on reform. At the time of his writing, Kofi Annan was only a candidate for this position. However one judges Annan's performance (I am not qualified to do that), Bolton cares about a couple things. One, the SecGen must see the world "the way we do." Two, the SecGen "is not the president of the world." Nor is he "Mr. Friend of the Earth." (Exact quotes.) And, "most definitely of all," he commands no army. He is only an administrative officer. [All citations from 55.] So what sort of reform does Bolton want to see? According to the rest of the essay, he wants
- More responsible spending within the UN
- Hands off of America pursuing its interests
- Non-expansion of power. (Small-government, I guess.)
- Stick with traditional UN peacekeeping. The guys in blue helmets should deliver humanitarian aid and use peacekeeping troops only in the most urgent situations. American soldiers must never serve under UN command. Nor should America share intelligence with the UN, since that degrades the nation's ability to act independently when it wants to.
- Leave the Security Council as is. America should be the leader of the Council, and it should always have a veto, "the single greatest protection the United States has in the UN." (57)
- Reform management and spending. Bolton proposes to eliminate "wasteful overstaffing; overlapping agency jurisdictions; endless and duplicative international conferences, meetings, and publications; and corruption and favoritism in contracting and procurement." Less government, JB says. Nor can the UN have its own revenue base--this would give rise to UN independence and would be "completely unacceptable".
- Face reality. Understand what the UN must be--a tool in the American foreign policy kit. It is one of America's options, but not necessarily the most important one.
-Is Bolton's approach extreme? Do the times call for it?
-Is it morally tenable?
-If Bolton considers the UN an instrument of American foreign policy, how would he ask leaders of other nations, rich and poor and in-between, to use the UN? "You ought to do whatever suits America best"?
-If global change (poverty, disease, human rights) is to occur, how does Bolton's framework address it? How does that contrast with the 'parliament of man' approach that would posit the UN as a governing body greater than any nation?
-If American interests hold others down, could the UN deal with this injustice?
Wednesday, May 25, 2005
A million barrels daily. 1,000 miles. That's some shaft.
Today, a new oil pipeline traveling from the land-locked Caspian Sea to the Mediterranean opened. It starts in Azerbaijan and ends in Turkey, passing through Georgia. It has been a 10-year project and has cost $4 billion US. Although British energy corporation BP is the lead shareholder at 30%, it should come as a surprise to no one that the US has been an ardent supporter of the line.
Why? Not just because America's excited about kicking up global temperature a couple Kelvin. Because, according to the Guardian, most Caspian oil exports have traditionally gone through Russian pipelines. So with this new pipeline, America has a new oil tap--one that is neither Middle Eastern nor Russian.
It's a sizable tap indeed. When the pipeline's working at full capacity (which it won't be until the end of the year--the pipe's too big), it will be delivering 1 million barrels of crude a day. That amounts to 1% of global oil production, according to Australian Broadcasting Corporation.
How does this fit into American foreign policy? Well, State Department spokesman Richard Boucher says that "The BTC pipeline will reinforce the sovereignty and prosperity of Azerbaijan and Georgia. BTC will further integrate Azerbaijan and Georgia into the international free market economy and promote their development, while advancing our shared goal of developing multiple oil and gas export routes."
Don't forget, Mr. Boucher, that the US has passing few friends in the Middle East. Beyond a few filthy rich oil moguls and a smattering of CIA-lovers like Ayad Allawi, the Middle East contains attitudes ranging from irate militancy at worst and (I suspect) mumbling resignation at best. Nor is Russia as close as Bush would like it to be after his sophomoric recent visit to eastern Europe. According to CNN's story, Russia has long opposed the pipeline.
Boucher implied as much when he described the pipeline opening as "a major success for the US goal of enhancing and diversifying global energy supplies." Of course the US wants to diversify (never, however, with sustainable or non-fossil fuel sources)--it needs to diversify among its friends.
Will Azerbaijan and the other poor nations located nearby benefit? I certainly hope so. Some sobering stats:
Why? Not just because America's excited about kicking up global temperature a couple Kelvin. Because, according to the Guardian, most Caspian oil exports have traditionally gone through Russian pipelines. So with this new pipeline, America has a new oil tap--one that is neither Middle Eastern nor Russian.
It's a sizable tap indeed. When the pipeline's working at full capacity (which it won't be until the end of the year--the pipe's too big), it will be delivering 1 million barrels of crude a day. That amounts to 1% of global oil production, according to Australian Broadcasting Corporation.
How does this fit into American foreign policy? Well, State Department spokesman Richard Boucher says that "The BTC pipeline will reinforce the sovereignty and prosperity of Azerbaijan and Georgia. BTC will further integrate Azerbaijan and Georgia into the international free market economy and promote their development, while advancing our shared goal of developing multiple oil and gas export routes."
Don't forget, Mr. Boucher, that the US has passing few friends in the Middle East. Beyond a few filthy rich oil moguls and a smattering of CIA-lovers like Ayad Allawi, the Middle East contains attitudes ranging from irate militancy at worst and (I suspect) mumbling resignation at best. Nor is Russia as close as Bush would like it to be after his sophomoric recent visit to eastern Europe. According to CNN's story, Russia has long opposed the pipeline.
Boucher implied as much when he described the pipeline opening as "a major success for the US goal of enhancing and diversifying global energy supplies." Of course the US wants to diversify (never, however, with sustainable or non-fossil fuel sources)--it needs to diversify among its friends.
Will Azerbaijan and the other poor nations located nearby benefit? I certainly hope so. Some sobering stats:
- In Azerbaijan, the infant mortality rate is about 82 for every 1000 live births. (Abortion by poverty, one might call it.) Compare this number with 5/1000 in Netherlands and 6.3/1000 in Cuba (CIA World Factbook)
- 49% of the roughly 8 million people were under the poverty line in 2002.
- Per capita income (per person) is less than $1000 a year, although it has been rising since 1999. (The poverty line in the United States for1 person is $9,570.)
