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?
Comments:
<< Home
This is a great topic, and since I have not been very engaged in this controversy, your summation of his positions is really helpful.
Bolton's views fall mostly in the realist camp of international political philosophy. Realists, as I learned in PS20, believes state decisions are always rational, elite-driven, and power seeking. There is anarchy on the world stage, and international institutions like the UN don't solve this problem, since the same power struggles take place within the organization. This was (and may still be) the dominant view of foreign policy, since it described the world so well following WWII (it inspired the creation of National Security Advisor).
This realist view clearly conflicts with liberalism's belief that conflict is rooted in misunderstanding and a UN can get people to sit down and solve these problems and thus form international norms.
Few people believe realism perfectly explains foreign affairs, and Bolton is probably no exception. "American interests," especially in this globablized world, is a tricky calculation that probably requires international discussion, and the UN may still serve as a forum to fully establish our "interests" as well as convince others to join us.
Although realism posits amoral international politics, Bush's rhetoric has been idealistic, and most conservatives would contend American power has been good for the world. Even as we supported dictators during the 70s and 80s, it was under the belief that communism was the greater evil. We have provided much aid and essentially provided defense for much of Western Europe (in part enabling them to fund their lavish social welfare programs). Bolton may argue that our interests are in sync with the democratic world's.
I think, in the end, Bolton possesses mainly one of two competing American impulses, best exemplified by Kerry's doublespeak in the debates. He wanted to pass a "global test" before taking military action and yet promised never to let American interests be determined by other countries. While we want multilateralists, why assume our motives are less pure interests less important than those who oppose us?
They just want more power after all.
Bolton's views fall mostly in the realist camp of international political philosophy. Realists, as I learned in PS20, believes state decisions are always rational, elite-driven, and power seeking. There is anarchy on the world stage, and international institutions like the UN don't solve this problem, since the same power struggles take place within the organization. This was (and may still be) the dominant view of foreign policy, since it described the world so well following WWII (it inspired the creation of National Security Advisor).
This realist view clearly conflicts with liberalism's belief that conflict is rooted in misunderstanding and a UN can get people to sit down and solve these problems and thus form international norms.
Few people believe realism perfectly explains foreign affairs, and Bolton is probably no exception. "American interests," especially in this globablized world, is a tricky calculation that probably requires international discussion, and the UN may still serve as a forum to fully establish our "interests" as well as convince others to join us.
Although realism posits amoral international politics, Bush's rhetoric has been idealistic, and most conservatives would contend American power has been good for the world. Even as we supported dictators during the 70s and 80s, it was under the belief that communism was the greater evil. We have provided much aid and essentially provided defense for much of Western Europe (in part enabling them to fund their lavish social welfare programs). Bolton may argue that our interests are in sync with the democratic world's.
I think, in the end, Bolton possesses mainly one of two competing American impulses, best exemplified by Kerry's doublespeak in the debates. He wanted to pass a "global test" before taking military action and yet promised never to let American interests be determined by other countries. While we want multilateralists, why assume our motives are less pure interests less important than those who oppose us?
They just want more power after all.
# posted by 
: 6/11/2005 02:04:00 PM
: 6/11/2005 02:04:00 PM
To add to my last post, Bolton's past, inflammatory rhetoric makes it difficult for him to function effectively as an ambassador. He would not have been my choice.
However, an ambassador is there to reflect the Bush Administration's policies, so Bolton will be much more constrained in his comments than when he was simply a foreign policy analyst. Thus, he should pass in the Senate, and Democrats should save their energy for the upcoming Supreme Court fight.
-Brad
Post a Comment
However, an ambassador is there to reflect the Bush Administration's policies, so Bolton will be much more constrained in his comments than when he was simply a foreign policy analyst. Thus, he should pass in the Senate, and Democrats should save their energy for the upcoming Supreme Court fight.
-Brad
# posted by : 6/11/2005 02:16:00 PM
: 6/11/2005 02:16:00 PM << Home
