Will the Real John Bolton Please Stand Up?

A Plain-Spoken Man at the Right Time
By Ruth Wedgwood
For the United Nations to be taken seriously in Washington, and for Secretary-General Kofi Annan to have a partner in reform, there has to be a real U.S. presence in New York. John Boltons nomination comes after a decade in which weve had moral heartbreaks in Bosnia and Rwanda, for which there was an inadequate response by the United Nations. In Iraq, the United Nations did not take the security problems on the ground seriously, and, alas, the Oil for Food program failed to create an effective humanitarian exception to economic sanctions.

Today, the United Nations faces a new set of security challenges. The Security Council must do things it has never done. Deterrence is no longer effective against nonstate actors, and the combination of irresponsible states and weapons of mass destruction (WMD) could be lethal.

So this nomination is important. Ive known John Bolton for a long time. At this time, in this place, it makes sense to put him in this job. Bolton has President George W. Bushs confidence. When Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice travels abroad, she benefits from the fact that people know she speaks for Bush. Bolton has the same advantage and has pledged to work with Annan on reforming the United Nations. And it sometimes pays to have somebody who is hard-charging, even hard-nosed, in a job where they can put together a coalition.

Bolton has a depth of experience. He has served as assistant secretary of state for international organizationsa job in which one does much of what the U.N. ambassador does. He put together the Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI) to interdict WMD shipments on the high seas. It is a collaboration of the countries that want to participate in maritime exercises and intelligence sharing. Its been a great success.

Some of Boltons positions that seemed controversial in the past now seem timely in hindsight. It was an article of faith among old-fashioned arms controllers that U.S. policy must tow the line on the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty (ABM), from which the Bush administration withdrew in 2002 to pursue national missile defense. But in view of recent North Korean missile developments, the idea that the United States should explore missile-defense technology is no longer dismissed as unthinkable, even by those on the political left.

The United Nations needs the kind of transparency expected by democratic governments, with a freedom of information act, an inspector general in every agency, and a personnel system that rewards competence and allows recruitment based on merit. The United Nations needs a transparency that will inspire people in the United States and elsewhere to support the organization.

Do you accomplish that through tough love or through yielding consensus? Its a combination of the two. But, at timesthis is where Boltons reputation for pungent speech comes init pays to say things clearly and plainly and to set a standard. How you reach consensus thereafter is another question.

Diplomats dont talk like regular people. Individuals change when they get inside the United Nations. Most deliberation takes place in informal consultations; its different from public speech making and oratory. Bolton is tough-minded about what it takes to sustain a viable institution over the long haul, and he can be a partner to Annan on the needed reforms. He should be confirmed.

Bolton Cannot Be Effective
By Morton Halperin
Weve already heard the case against Boltons nomination. All the attributes Professor Wedgwood has said the position requires describe someone other than Bolton. Shes already made the case for me about the United Nations importance for U.S. security interests. We need someone who can work effectively with other governments and who can come back to Washington and keep congress supportive of the United Nations. Thats exactly the opposite of what John Bolton is.

Why do I think that John Bolton cannot do the job Professor Wedgwood and I agree needs to be done? Not because of his temperament, but because of the views he has expressed over the course of his career. During his confirmation hearings, he had whats called in Washington a confirmation conversion, in which he suddenly discovered the importance of the United Nations. But he cant walk away from what hes already said.

Weve all heard his quotes about how knocking off 10 stories of the U.N. headquarters wouldnt matter, and that the U.N. Security Council should only have one permanent member: the United States. Bolton has shown no understanding of the importance of the United Nations and has said many times that the global body is not an institution central to U.S. security. Hes also said essentially that theres no such thing as international law, and that the United States should not be bound by it. The PSI reflects and epitomizes that sentiment. Its an attempt to deal with proliferation, not by law, but by states coming together and simply asserting the right to do things. It may have interdicted one or two boats, but to describe it as successful flies in the face of whats happened while Bolton has been in charge of arms control and nonproliferation policies at the State Department.

Yes, we have managed to renounce the ABM treaty, and Bolton negotiated a treaty with the Russians that limited strategic offensive nuclear weapons. People debate whether that treaty is useful for one second or not at all. It requires the United States to reduce its arms by some, but not very much, by the date at which the treaty expires. The next day there is no obligation at all. Thats John Boltons great contribution to arms control.

While Bolton has been in charge, North Korea has moved from possibly having two nuclear weapons to probably having 810, and the capacity to develop more. The United States got a deal with Libya on its WMD programs only after Bolton was taken off the case at Libyas request. In the case of Iran, he argued for many months that we should not put any carrots on the table and simply threaten Iran after successfully invading Iraq. The administration has now repudiated that policy, and it is encouraging the Europeans to move ahead with both carrots and sticks.

Bolton has said that peacekeeping is a bad idea. The Bush administration in fact voted for three new peacekeeping operations and the extension of peacekeeping operations in Uganda. Bolton said the happiest day of his life was when the United States withdrew its signature from the International Criminal Court (ICC). Yet the Bush administration just acquiesced in the Security Council in the referral of the Darfur situation to the ICC. Its hard for me to imagine John Bolton sitting there as the U.S. representative and not vetoing that resolution.

Someone who has said that international law has no meaning and that the United Nations is a meaningless organization, cannot forge consensus in New York. A person for whom the model for cooperation is the PSI and not the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty is not the person to represent the United States at the United Nations.

Dont Underestimate Bolton
Ruth Wedgwood responds
High-level U.N. officials Ive spoken to dont share such shock and chagrin about Bolton. They know him, they know what hes said, and theyve read his op-eds.

Reducing U.S. and Russian nuclear warhead arsenals by two thirds over 10 years counts for something. And Boltons leadership of the G-8 global partnership against WMD proliferationwhich will seek $20 billion to supplement Nunn-Lugar programs and help mop up the leftover former Soviet WMD programswas also worth doing.

In the world in which the United Nations operates, the United States has become the necessary ingredient for any long-distance projection of force. Whether its logistics into East Timor for Australian troops or intervening in Afghanistan, the United Nations cannot operate without the United States. In that sense, as an enforcement agency, the Security Council most often is dependent on the sole superpower. Its the responsibility of other countries to contribute more. Even if Boltons statement was expressed in a sassy tone, it is still true.

What about the 10 stories quote? Most U.N. insiders say that they can think of at least 10 superfluous floors and believe that, overall, a quarter of U.N. staff and resources could be better used. Three quarters of the U.N. regular budget goes to social and economic commissions and studies, which certainly could be reduced. Only a quarter of the budget goes to political affairs, peacekeeping, Security Council, or secretary-general affairs. United Nations assistance to democratic elections in Iraq, Afghanistan, Sierra Leone, Cote dIvoire, and Liberia is limited to 10 headquarters staff. The U.N. inspector generals office has only 12 investigators.

The United Nations is very hard to change from within. Few secretaries-general have been willing to run against the General Assembly. Its not in their interest to do so. I hate to say it, but its sometimes by threatening to condition dues that one effects change. Thats how former U.S. Sen. Nancy Kassebaum got the consensus rule for U.N. budgets in the mid-1980s. That is how the U.N. resolution equating Zionism with racism was finally repealed under Boltons watch in 1991. Its a reform process that requires goodwill inside but a real mustering of troops outside. Does one speak differently as a diplomat than one would on The O’Reilly Factor? Of course.

Does He, or Doesnt He?
Morton Halperin responds
Part of the problem is that were told that Bolton doesnt believe what he said previously, or that he was previously using hyperbole. I believe that Bolton believes what hes said.

I agree that we need coalitions of the willing, legal authority for what we do, and the willingness to do it, because the United Nations is not capable of carrying out actual military operations. But that is the very formulation that Bolton attacked in a 1999 Weekly Standard article called, Kofi Annans UN Power Grab. In it, he states explicitly that the United States doesnt require the permission of the U.N. Security Council. He said we needed to struggle against Annans position that the Security Council must be restored to a preeminent position as the sole source of legitimacy on the use of force. Annan said unless that was true we were on a dangerous path to anarchy.

Thats not only true, but it is embodied in the U.N. Charter, a treaty the United States ratified and that most Americans think we should therefore obey. Mr. Bolton says we only have to obey the charter domestically, not internationally, because international treaties have no force. Thats certainly not the view of the United Nations.

That doesnt mean that there arent circumstances in which the United States cannot act without Security Council approval. I believed it was correct to do so in the case of Kosovo, although Bolton did not. He actually argued with Bill OReilly, who tried to persuade him that we had an obligation to intervene. But the basic principle is that the legitimacy for the use of force comes from the Security Council, except in extraordinary situations when you cannot get the Security Councils approval. But Bolton believes that the entire doctrine is wrong, because it inhibits the United States ability to use force whenever it wants toand for that matter, anyone elses right to use force.

In other words, the core of what he believes totally repudiates the notion that the basic objective of U.S. policy should be to build international institutions and international law that, over time, make the United States and the world more secure. He believes that idea is fundamentally misguided. Its a legitimate intellectual position, but a person holding that view cannot be an effective U.S. ambassador to the United Nations.

Dont Reduce Bolton to Sound Bites
Ruth Wedgwood responds
The relationship between U.S. foreign policy choices and Security Council votes is a complicated one. Ironically, sometimes the possibility of unilateral action is needed to push the Security Council to act; sometimes not.

Thats an ambiguity that is good to have. Sen. John Kerry said during the 2004 presidential campaign that he doesnt need a permission slip to defend the United States. If you stipulate that intervention is needed for any reasonwhether its to protect democracy, or to stop genocide, or to prevent WMD from spreading to terrorist networksshould the United States never intervene unless it can get France to vote in its favor? Its a real dilemma. You cant take an absolutist position that you are simply a creature of the Security Council, because the council wont always deliver. If the council is expanded to include Germany, India, Brazil, Nigeria, or Indonesia, its going to be even more difficult to get all the ducks lined up in a row.

The question of what is international law? is one for lawyers to debate. Its harder now to create workable international law than it was in the past. In 1914, the United States was one of several coequal world powers. Today, it is the sole military superpower, and there are many more countries, which makes conference diplomacy much more difficult. For example, an otherwise admirable treaty banning anti-personnel landmines wouldnt make any allowances for the Korean demilitarized zone, so the United States did not sign. I dont think one should assume that just because Americans have trouble with a particular treaty then they are against international law. People who take international law seriously should take its substance seriously.

If Only Bolton Agreed
Morton Halperin responds
Again, I agree with Professor Wedgwood. The problem is that John Bolton does not.

The United States cant absolutely bind itself to the Security Council. When I was in government, I fought very hard for intervention in Kosovo, and I think we did the right thing. But it was a struggle, because I thoughtas I think now President Bush does, because hes learned over the last four yearsthat it is preferable to rely and build upon the international institutions and legal structures that exist. Bolton says theyre all nonsense. Bolton says the International Court of Justice is a sham court. The Bush administration is now implementing a decision of that court at the same time that it is limiting Americans willingness to accept its jurisdiction.

What to do without Security Council support is a hard question. But you have to believe its a hard question to be the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. Bolton doesnt think its a hard question at all. Thats what Bolton said publicly time and againup until his confirmation hearing before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. There might be many jobs in government that Bolton is suited for, but he should not be the person representing the United States in the Security Council.

Whats Wrong with Speaking Clearly?
Ruth Wedgwood responds
Just because Bolton has argued forcefully, whether in op-eds or giving talks at the American Enterprise Institute, dont assume he has a simple mind. Hes more complicated than that. Sometimes, in a kind of Hegelian dialectic, you simply need to take a clear position knowing also that theres another side, but that the back and forth will lead you to a good synthesis. In Washington politics, thats true too.

Supporting the United Nations requires speaking plainly about what needs to be improved. Bolton is smart as aces and knows a huge amount about the organization. Both the left and right need to embrace the cause of transparency and understand the difficulties the United States sometimes faces in getting treaties that suit its circumstances and common problems. Bolton doesnt miss that for a moment.

You Either Believe in the United Nations, or You Dont
Morton Halperin responds
Contrast Bolton with the late Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan, who served as ambassador to the United Nations in the 1970s. Like Bolton, Moynihan was bombastic, a person of strong will prepared to take on the institution. But the difference was that Senator Moynihan made members of his staff walk around every day with the U.N. charter in their pockets. He believed international law was the key to strengthening U.S. security. He saw that the United Nations is an institution with many weaknesses that needed to be addressed. But one of the reasons he did that effectively was because he was trying to reform an institution he believed in deeply.

I do not object to the characteristics of Bolton; that hes going to take things on, that hes going to be tough, that he will be bombastic. What I object to is that he does not believe the United Nations is needed to advance the security interests of the United States and must be reformed for that reason. He said that for the first time only at his Senate Foreign Relations hearing, and I dont believe that he has converted or changed. Even if he has changed, he has said the opposite for so long and that is so deeply ingrained that he cannot be effective, despite the fact that he has the other characteristics the position requires.

This exchange is drawn from a debate hosted by Brown Universitys Watson Institute for International Studies on April 13, 2005.