THE BUSH administration has had a rough time in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee with its attempt to reconfirm unilateralist John Bolton as ambassador to the United Nations. When Bolton was originally nominated in August 2005, he lost Senate confirmation, mainly because of opposition from Sen. George Voinovich, R-Ohio, and was later appointed during a Senate recess. Unfortunately, Bolton likely will now be confirmed; Voinovich's change of heart since Bolton's original appointment as well as his subsequent Washington Post editorial praising the nominee threaten to help Bolton secure the position. Bolton's past record and present inaction, however, demonstrate that he remains unfit for any public office, much less an ambassadorship to the United Nations. All U.S. senators must oppose him, again.
Both in the past and in the present, Bolton's lack of responsibility in regards to providing Congress with essential documents has been unacceptable. During the Iran-Contra crisis, Bolton -- then assistant attorney general for congressional affairs under President Reagan -- advocated not complying with congressional demands for records in the scandal. How did Bolton rationalize his already shady actions? He insisted that the independent Senate Judiciary Committee not be allowed to look at the "highly classified" files since they did not have the security clearance to view them. Bolton's actions were similarly inexcusable when he invoked executive privilege in refusing to give the Judiciary Committee reports on Justice Rehnquist's tenure at the Justice Department in the 1970s. In 1986 and 1987, when Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., asked for information regarding Iran-Contra in drug smuggling and gunrunning, Bolton deliberately delayed providing the information and even worked with Republican senators to prevent sending information at all.
Bolton certainly has an international record -- that of a deconstructionist. Since the 1970s, Bolton has worked to destroy international organizations and treaties. Consistently a war hawk, Bolton has opposed the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, the International Criminal Court and the addition of a verification clause to the bioweapons convention. If that's not enough, he has also opposed international treaties on landmines, biological weapons, small arms trade, nuclear weapons testing, missile defense and child soldiers. Why anyone would want child soldiers to die as a result of landmines is beyond the logic of the American public, and Bolton's belief that worldwide anthrax proliferation is in America's best interests isn't a popular view either. More recently, Bolton's inaction in regards to a U.N. peace proposal in Lebanon and Israel resulted in hundreds of civilian deaths and a de-facto loss for one of our country's strongest allies.
In a 1997 editorial in The Wall Street Journal, Bolton declared that international treaties were "law only for U.S. domestic purposes," adding that "treaties are simply political obligations." True to his word, the only international proposals that he has actively supported were U.S. controlled -- NATO, the anti-rogue Security Proliferation Initiative and the "coalition of the willing" in Iraq, which is now embroiled in a civil war. He has shown anything but support to international agreements that are not immediately beneficial to the United States or its lock-step allies, regardless of advancements in human rights around the world.
Bolton's misguided policies are bad enough, but oftentimes his quick temper sets him back as well. In last year's Foreign Relations Committee hearing for his nomination, Sen. Lincoln Chafee, R-R.I., compiled evidence that Bolton harassed U.S. officials who opposed his opinion on weapons issues. Carl Ford, Jr., a former chief at the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research, asserted that Bolton is a bully and a "serial abuser" of lower-level officials who do not agree with him on the weapons potential of Cuba and other nations. Bolton earned an early reputation as having an abrasive personality during law school according to a New York Times interview with a fellow colleague -- a detrimental trait when it comes to persuasion, understanding and amicability towards foreign representatives and cultures. According to Reuters, diplomats who opposed his nomination last year have written that his current tenure has only confirmed their fears.
Bolton's public rejection of the legitimacy of the United Nations as an institution makes his nomination all the more shocking. In a 1994 speech to the World Federalist Association, Bolton claimed that "there is no such thing as the United Nations," and that "if the UN secretary building in New York lost 10 stories, it wouldn't make a bit of difference." He has even recommended that the United States stop making payments to the United Nations. Now, in a flip-flop move, Bolton wants the United Nations to be bear the brunt of the Lebanese reconstruction effort.
A one-sided, go-it-alone approach is not what we need in the world's largest multilateral organization, especially these days. If the Bush nomination doesn't fail and Bolton receives the reappointment, America will be one step closer to carrying out Bolton's agenda -- we will again be forced to stand alone.
Adam Silverberg is a Cavalier Daily Opinion columnist. He can be reached at asilverberg@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
PATEL: Personal development courses support students beyond the gradebook
By Heer Patel | 4 days agoThe University must rethink its approach to education beyond traditional major-specific requirements and mandate personal development courses.
EDITORIAL: Commercialization threatens U.Va.’s educational mission
By Editorial Board | 5 days agoAfter all, measuring the University’s worth in terms of accrued capital, operational efficiency and numerical rankings molds this space into just another cookie-cutter institution.
YOUNIS: Why every U.Va. student should say yes to English
By Ayat Younis | January 9, 2025Every student at the University, regardless of their primary field of study, can professionally and academically benefit from engaging with the English department.
