[Mb-civic] Nastiness is not the issue in Bolton's battle

[Michael Butler]

FT.com     
 
Click Here to Print
      EMAIL THIS | Close
 
Nastiness is not the issue in Bolton's battle
>By Max Boot
>Published: April 27 2005 20:38 | Last updated: April 27 2005 20:38
>>

Watching the manure pile up in the John Bolton imbroglio, I am reminded of
Ronald Reagan's old punchline: "There must be a pony in here somewhere." But
it is not easy to find. If you rely on senators' public pronouncements, Mr
Bolton's nomination as US ambassador to the United Nations is in jeopardy
because he is not nice enough. That is a new one.

Nomination battles, admittedly, are known for introducing new standards for
office holders. John Tower's failed bid to be defence secretary in 1989
meant that public drunkenness was now a disqualification.

The near-failure of Clarence Thomas's nomination to the Supreme Court in
1991 added sexual harassment to the list.

The withdrawal of Zoe Baird's name for attorney-general in 1993 made failure
to pay nanny taxes a no-no. But do we really want to add a "mean streak" to
the list of disqualifications?

If we did, America's most effective diplomatists would have been out of
office. Dean Acheson, Henry Kissinger, Jeane Kirkpatrick, James Baker and
Richard Holbrooke, among others, were all tough customers. And they are
exactly what you need to deal with the hard cases who rule much of the
world. No milque toast need apply for UN ambassador or any other demanding
diplomatic job.

Mr Bolton has been an effective diplomat and bureaucratic operator precisely
because he has not tried to win any popularity contests. He has fought for
his beliefs and usually prevailed. As an assistant secretary of state in
1991, for instance, he helped push the UN General Assembly to repeal its
infamous "Zionism is racism" resolution. More recently, as undersecretary of
state, he marshalled an impressive coalition behind the Proliferation
Security Initiative designed to stop the spread of nuclear weapons.

I do not see eye-to-eye with Mr Bolton on everything. His animus towards the
International Criminal Court - which led him to antagonise valuable allies
through his insistence they sign treaties pledging not to refer US soldiers
for prosecutions - seems excessive. And he has never been known as a fan of
nation-building or humanitarian interventions, which I believe are necessary
in the post-September 11 world. But he seems a good choice to help drain the
UN cesspool and nothing from his recent confirmation hearings makes me think
otherwise.

I discount unverified allegations by an anti-Bush partisan that, as a
private citizen, Mr Bolton pounded on her hotel-room door in 1994. Same with
claims that he yelled at a co-worker in the early 1980s. Even if true, so
what? More serious are charges that he misused intelligence and intimidated
analysts who disagreed. But these accusations break down on close
examination. In both instances cited so far, which concern Mr Bolton's
speeches about the dangers posed by Cuba and Syria, he pushed initially for
tougher language than the intelligence community was comfortable with. But
when the CIA suggested toning down his remarks, he complied. His
unwillingness to blindly accept initial CIA judgments should be applauded,
not reviled, in light of numerous commission findings that US spooks are
often clueless.

Critics make much of his purported threat - never carried out - to fire
Christian Westermann, a State Department analyst who disagreed about whether
Cuba was developing weapons of mass destruction. They neglect to mention
that Mr Westermann sent Mr Bolton's draft speech for review to the CIA with
a cover letter claiming the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and
Research disagreed with his conclusions, when no official determination had
been made. Mr Westermann's own boss then apologised to Mr Bolton for Mr
Westermann's "entirely inappropriate" conduct.

These are not reasonable grounds for rejecting Mr Bolton's nomination. All
the harumphing about Mr Bolton's character is only a pretext. The real issue
is that liberal Democrats, certain Republicans and their State Department
allies are angry at Mr Bolton because he has been a committed champion of
George W. Bush's "unilateralist" foreign policy. But as a "top Senate
Democrat" told Time magazine: "We can't argue that this guy is unfit just
because he's said mean things about the UN. Don't forget, most Americans
agree with him." So instead of debating the real issues, Democrats and some
Republicans are making Mr Bolton's personality the issue. That's, umm, not
very nice.

The writer, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, writes a
column for the Los Angeles Times; he appears here by special arrangement
with that paper
>
>
>
 
 
 
Find this article at:
http://news.ft.com/cms/s/da3522fe-b74b-11d9-9f22-00000e2511c8,ft_acl=_ftaler
t_ftarc_ftcol_ftfre_ftindsum_ftmywap_ftprem_ftspecial_ftsurvey_ftworldsub_ft
ym_ftymarc_ic_ipadmintool_nbe_poapp_printedn_psapp_reg,s01=1.html
 
Click Here to Print
     EMAIL THIS | Close
 Check the box to include the list of links referenced in the article.