THE BELGRAVIA DISPATCH: Some Context on Bolton

April 12, 2005

Some Context on Bolton

Read the opening statement on John Bolton's nomination to be UN Ambassador from the guy who should be Secretary of State, Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Richard Lugar. It goes into depth on the one subject the next UN Ambassador will have to be our point man on, reform of the UN itself. It says little about Bolton himself and nothing at all of Lugar's opinion of Bolton.

You don't need an advanced degree in Lugarology to figure out that Bolton is not one of the chairman's favorite people (compare the tone of his statement yesterday to that of his statement opening the confirmation hearing of the last UN Ambassador, John Danforth). He'll back Bolton because he believes the President ought to have the executive branch appointees he wants, but if enough stuff about loose-cannon behavior at the State Department comes out, and is believed, to get Bolton in trouble Lugar won't exert himself to save this nomination.

I can't be the first person to notice, by the way, that Bolton's former boss Colin Powell is conspicuous by his silence on this nomination. Some of the things reported about Bolton's conduct with respect to, say, the North Korea negotiations reflect rather badly on Powell. They suggest a Secretary not fully in control of his own department -- not the first suggestion we had along those lines, of course, but still.

What do I think about Bolton? Well, like Greg, I tend to think of his being sent off to New York as a demotion for him. I also think it reflects Bush's preference for recycling familiar faces into prominent jobs, and the influence of the Vice President. Like Lugar I think a UN Ambassador should work on UN reform and otherwise do and say only what the Secretary of State tells him to, and if Bolton sticks to that he'll be fine. If he doesn't, and especially if he veers away from administration policy in public, he'll get fired.

Posted by at April 12, 2005 05:12 PM | TrackBack (8)

Comments

I don't think you can discount the idea that the appointment has shock value, and the administration is hoping to scare the UN into reforming. Whether anyone has throught about this appointment beyond the immediate impact... Well, one can hope. I don't think the UN is exactly priority one in this administration.

Posted by: Appalled Moderate at April 12, 2005 11:07 PM | Permalink to this comment

AM-
Concur.

Posted by: Tommy G at April 13, 2005 12:17 AM | Permalink to this comment

Darn ... I was just going to blog about that opening statement. I really do admire Richard Lugar.

Posted by: praktike at April 13, 2005 12:52 AM | Permalink to this comment

I admire Richard Lugar in many ways, but does that mean he clearly deserved to be Secretary of State? I do not think so.

Given Rice's experience on the NSC, as the National Security Advisor, and close relationship to the President, she was clearly the favorite and I do not see how anyone can nitpick that.
Cabinet Choices are generally about choosing the most qualified person, under the assumption that the appointee will be loyal to the President. This President puts an even higher value on loyalty. In any contest involving loyalty, its hard to see how Lugar could beat Rice. If anything, Lugar has been a little bit too willing to criticize Bush. He has been conspiciously absent when it comes to supporting Bush on many issues and has taken some potshots along the way too.

Posted by: Dundare at April 13, 2005 04:11 AM | Permalink to this comment

The Washington Note post to which BD referred focused primarily on Bolton's negative characterization of North Korea as an impediment to US diplomatic efforts there, and construed this as Exhibit A in the Bolton as "loose cannon" meme. Thank God for all such loose cannons who are willing to call a tyranny a tyranny!

We must forgo all futher moves to appease evil in the world. Does this mean a crusade to stamp out evil regimes? By no means. Politics remains the art of the doable. But when we deal with a regime like North Korea's, we do it with pinched noses, acknowledging the stench in the air. We don't pretend that the air smells good.

So long as North Korea brays its provocative, false rhetoric, the US ought to maintain its own provocative, true rhetoric. We ought unyieldingly to portray the North Korean regime for the vile pigsty that it is, only toning down our rhetoric when the North Koreans tone down theirs.

To this end, I find the controversy surrounding Bolton to be a little mystifying. He merely remarked that people are starving under the brutal Kim regime. And for this he is criticized by the establishment as a "loose cannon." Something is wrong when the global hegemon acts afraid of a two-bit tyrant like Kim. Kim and his ilk throughout the world should fear the US, watching their words around us, not vice versa.

Our foreign policy goal towards the Kim regime should be the demise of same, plain and simple. Any deals cut with North Korea should come at their begging behest and not our own. I advocate ending talks with North Korea at once. Simply tell them we're no longer interested, and that any use of force on their part will result in the destruction of their country. Implement a stringent policy of containment, and, if need be, embargo. If at some point they want to beg us for a deal, we'll listen. Otherwise they can go to hell.

I understand that the implosion of the Kim regime will pose risks for all players. But we must also understand that the implosion of that regime is ultimately inevitable and necessary. A serious foreign policy with respect to North Korea will be formulated with this necessary outcome in mind. Meanwhile, any engagement with the Kim regime should be predicated on self-imposed behavioral changes from the regime itself, beginning with an end to the fire-breathing rhetoric that the North Koreans customarily employ.

Sorry for co-blogging!

Posted by: Arthur Ian Knight at April 13, 2005 07:59 AM | Permalink to this comment

If he doesn't, and especially if he veers away from administration policy in public, he'll get fired.

Yeah, because if there's one hallmark of this administration, it's swift and decisive "accountability moments" for screw-ups in high places. What world do you people live in, and what color is the sky there?

Posted by: SomeCallMeTim at April 13, 2005 03:57 PM | Permalink to this comment

From every account I read, Bolton was forced onto Powell, who had to face a Cheney/Rumsfeld stooge as his number two in addition to having to constantly face Cheney/Rumsfeld. Has anybody ever suggested that Powell was ever fully in control at State? It seems to me that his integrity always came because he persevered in spite of such impediments as Bolton. But what does this all imply for Bolton at the UN? From all accounts Rice has had just as chilly relations with the Cheney/Rumsfeld faction as her predecessor. She does have considerably more sway with the president than Powell did, however, so she was able to refuse Bolton as her number two, and had him replaced with Zoellick. But if he acted completely independently of Powell, will Rice's connection with Bush be enough to keep Bolton under control? (As Djerejian says, the UN ambassador should "do and say only what the Secretary of State tells him to".) I'm highly skeptical.

Posted by: P Chaffee at April 13, 2005 05:04 PM | Permalink to this comment

The UN amb. takes orders from the pres, and those delegated by the Pres to give orders. It seems to me that there will be many times where, with conflicting currents flowing through the Admin, and a lack of specific instructions, a Bolton would articulate a Cheney/Rumsfeld line, where a Rice line might be more diplomatic. Rice is a good soldier, though, and so we'll never hear about her annoyance when he does so.

WRT reform, it seems to me that a variation of good cop/bad cop is always the better way to get the UN to reform, and that by definition, the good cop ought to be the person in the amb chair. Thus, I predict that B will be no more effective at reform than D (or someone of similar stature and inclination) would have been, but much more energy will be expended, and political capital shifted (from general populace to Repub. base) than need be the case.

Posted by: CharleyCarp at April 14, 2005 01:01 AM | Permalink to this comment

I continue to be stunned that the Bush team can't or won't find people who are more qualified and/or less controversial.

Is there really so little talent at his disposal?

Posted by: Mark-NC at April 18, 2005 12:06 AM | Permalink to this comment

	« A Little Energy \| Main \| A Small Corner of the War Effort » April 12, 2005 Some Context on Bolton Read the opening statement on John Bolton's nomination to be UN Ambassador from the guy who should be Secretary of State, Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Richard Lugar. It goes into depth on the one subject the next UN Ambassador will have to be our point man on, reform of the UN itself. It says little about Bolton himself and nothing at all of Lugar's opinion of Bolton. You don't need an advanced degree in Lugarology to figure out that Bolton is not one of the chairman's favorite people (compare the tone of his statement yesterday to that of his statement opening the confirmation hearing of the last UN Ambassador, John Danforth). He'll back Bolton because he believes the President ought to have the executive branch appointees he wants, but if enough stuff about loose-cannon behavior at the State Department comes out, and is believed, to get Bolton in trouble Lugar won't exert himself to save this nomination. I can't be the first person to notice, by the way, that Bolton's former boss Colin Powell is conspicuous by his silence on this nomination. Some of the things reported about Bolton's conduct with respect to, say, the North Korea negotiations reflect rather badly on Powell. They suggest a Secretary not fully in control of his own department -- not the first suggestion we had along those lines, of course, but still. What do I think about Bolton? Well, like Greg, I tend to think of his being sent off to New York as a demotion for him. I also think it reflects Bush's preference for recycling familiar faces into prominent jobs, and the influence of the Vice President. Like Lugar I think a UN Ambassador should work on UN reform and otherwise do and say only what the Secretary of State tells him to, and if Bolton sticks to that he'll be fine. If he doesn't, and especially if he veers away from administration policy in public, he'll get fired. Posted by at April 12, 2005 05:12 PM \| TrackBack (8) Comments I don't think you can discount the idea that the appointment has shock value, and the administration is hoping to scare the UN into reforming. Whether anyone has throught about this appointment beyond the immediate impact... Well, one can hope. I don't think the UN is exactly priority one in this administration. Posted by: Appalled Moderate at April 12, 2005 11:07 PM \| Permalink to this comment AM- Concur. Posted by: Tommy G at April 13, 2005 12:17 AM \| Permalink to this comment Darn ... I was just going to blog about that opening statement. I really do admire Richard Lugar. Posted by: praktike at April 13, 2005 12:52 AM \| Permalink to this comment I admire Richard Lugar in many ways, but does that mean he clearly deserved to be Secretary of State? I do not think so. Given Rice's experience on the NSC, as the National Security Advisor, and close relationship to the President, she was clearly the favorite and I do not see how anyone can nitpick that. Cabinet Choices are generally about choosing the most qualified person, under the assumption that the appointee will be loyal to the President. This President puts an even higher value on loyalty. In any contest involving loyalty, its hard to see how Lugar could beat Rice. If anything, Lugar has been a little bit too willing to criticize Bush. He has been conspiciously absent when it comes to supporting Bush on many issues and has taken some potshots along the way too. Posted by: Dundare at April 13, 2005 04:11 AM \| Permalink to this comment The Washington Note post to which BD referred focused primarily on Bolton's negative characterization of North Korea as an impediment to US diplomatic efforts there, and construed this as Exhibit A in the Bolton as "loose cannon" meme. Thank God for all such loose cannons who are willing to call a tyranny a tyranny! We must forgo all futher moves to appease evil in the world. Does this mean a crusade to stamp out evil regimes? By no means. Politics remains the art of the doable. But when we deal with a regime like North Korea's, we do it with pinched noses, acknowledging the stench in the air. We don't pretend that the air smells good. So long as North Korea brays its provocative, false rhetoric, the US ought to maintain its own provocative, true rhetoric. We ought unyieldingly to portray the North Korean regime for the vile pigsty that it is, only toning down our rhetoric when the North Koreans tone down theirs. To this end, I find the controversy surrounding Bolton to be a little mystifying. He merely remarked that people are starving under the brutal Kim regime. And for this he is criticized by the establishment as a "loose cannon." Something is wrong when the global hegemon acts afraid of a two-bit tyrant like Kim. Kim and his ilk throughout the world should fear the US, watching their words around us, not vice versa. Our foreign policy goal towards the Kim regime should be the demise of same, plain and simple. Any deals cut with North Korea should come at their begging behest and not our own. I advocate ending talks with North Korea at once. Simply tell them we're no longer interested, and that any use of force on their part will result in the destruction of their country. Implement a stringent policy of containment, and, if need be, embargo. If at some point they want to beg us for a deal, we'll listen. Otherwise they can go to hell. I understand that the implosion of the Kim regime will pose risks for all players. But we must also understand that the implosion of that regime is ultimately inevitable and necessary. A serious foreign policy with respect to North Korea will be formulated with this necessary outcome in mind. Meanwhile, any engagement with the Kim regime should be predicated on self-imposed behavioral changes from the regime itself, beginning with an end to the fire-breathing rhetoric that the North Koreans customarily employ. Sorry for co-blogging! Posted by: Arthur Ian Knight at April 13, 2005 07:59 AM \| Permalink to this comment If he doesn't, and especially if he veers away from administration policy in public, he'll get fired. Yeah, because if there's one hallmark of this administration, it's swift and decisive "accountability moments" for screw-ups in high places. What world do you people live in, and what color is the sky there? Posted by: SomeCallMeTim at April 13, 2005 03:57 PM \| Permalink to this comment From every account I read, Bolton was forced onto Powell, who had to face a Cheney/Rumsfeld stooge as his number two in addition to having to constantly face Cheney/Rumsfeld. Has anybody ever suggested that Powell was ever fully in control at State? It seems to me that his integrity always came because he persevered in spite of such impediments as Bolton. But what does this all imply for Bolton at the UN? From all accounts Rice has had just as chilly relations with the Cheney/Rumsfeld faction as her predecessor. She does have considerably more sway with the president than Powell did, however, so she was able to refuse Bolton as her number two, and had him replaced with Zoellick. But if he acted completely independently of Powell, will Rice's connection with Bush be enough to keep Bolton under control? (As Djerejian says, the UN ambassador should "do and say only what the Secretary of State tells him to".) I'm highly skeptical. Posted by: P Chaffee at April 13, 2005 05:04 PM \| Permalink to this comment The UN amb. takes orders from the pres, and those delegated by the Pres to give orders. It seems to me that there will be many times where, with conflicting currents flowing through the Admin, and a lack of specific instructions, a Bolton would articulate a Cheney/Rumsfeld line, where a Rice line might be more diplomatic. Rice is a good soldier, though, and so we'll never hear about her annoyance when he does so. WRT reform, it seems to me that a variation of good cop/bad cop is always the better way to get the UN to reform, and that by definition, the good cop ought to be the person in the amb chair. Thus, I predict that B will be no more effective at reform than D (or someone of similar stature and inclination) would have been, but much more energy will be expended, and political capital shifted (from general populace to Repub. base) than need be the case. Posted by: CharleyCarp at April 14, 2005 01:01 AM \| Permalink to this comment I continue to be stunned that the Bush team can't or won't find people who are more qualified and/or less controversial. Is there really so little talent at his disposal? Posted by: Mark-NC at April 18, 2005 12:06 AM \| Permalink to this comment		Reviews of Belgravia Dispatch "Best 9/11 Commentary" "Always-Worth Reading" --Andrew Sullivan "Awake" --New York Times "Must-read list" --Washington Times "Pompous Ass" --an anonymous blogospheric commenter Recent Entries UPDATE: Comments re-enabled. Thanks! The UBL Tape In-House Note Wanted: More Troops Questions Re: a Post-Sharon Israel Zbigniew Brzezinski Speaks The Former Secretaries Meet POTUS DeLay Steps Aside The Rancid Stench of L'affaire Abramoff The End of the Sharon Era? Search Search this site: Advanced Search About the Author Email the Author English Language Media New York Times Financial Times The Economist The Times The Spectator Daily Telegraph The New Yorker Washington Post New Criterion Washington Monthly New Republic National Review The Atlantic Harpers The Guardian Weekly Standard The Nation WSJ Opinion Real Clear Politics Foreign Affairs Commentariat Foreign Affairs Foreign Policy Le Monde Diplomatique National Interest Non-English Language Press Le Figaro Le Monde El Pais Pravda U.S. Blogs Andrew Sullivan Instapundit Mickey Kaus Josh Marshall Oxblog Katrina vanden Heuvel Armavirumque Daniel Drezner Kevin Drum Romenesko James Taranto Volokh Conspiracy &C (TNR) The Corner Laura Rozen Innocents Abroad Juan Cole Tom Maguire Matthew Yglesias Chequer-Board Spencer Ackerman Wonkette Brad DeLong The American Scene Eric Martin Mark Kleiman Winds of Change Jon Henke American Footprints Steve Clemons Jack Balkin Cunning Realist Democracy Arsensal Crooked Timber Austin Bay Becker-Posner James Wolcott UN Dispatch Matt Drudge Phil Carter Clive Davis Obsidian Wings Bainbridge America Abroad Red State Huffington Post The Plank Nikolas Gvosdev Times Watch Mitchell Report Columnists Tony Blankley David Broder David Brooks Roger Cohen Maureen Dowd Fred Hiatt Jackson Diehl Thomas Friedman Bob Herbert Jim Hoagland Richard Holbrooke David Ignatius Robert Kagan Michael Kinsley Charles Krauthammer Nicholas Kristof Paul Krugman Robert Novak Mark Steyn Sebastian Mallaby Frank Rich John Tierney John Vinocur George Will Anne Applebaum The Reliable Source Washington Whispers Howard Kurtz Think Tanks AEI Baker Institute Brookings Carnegie Cato CFR CSIS Heritage IISS Intl Crisis Group USIP Law & Finance Barron's Bloomberg Bruce MacEwen Bull and Bear Wise CBS Marketwatch Contrary Investor Corporate Counsel Blog Corp Law Blog D.C. Toedt Deal Lawyers Blog Financial Sense Forbes Fortune Hussman Funds Gretchen Morgenson Floyd Norris Safe Haven SCOTUS Blog The Street 10b-5 Daily Yahoo Finance Security Janes Fed. American Scientists Defense Tech Global Security Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists Books LRB NYRB NYT Book Review Paris Review TLS Granta Grand Street The City Curbed Gawker Lockhart Steele NY Magazine Nick Denton NY Post NY Press New York Observer Tribeca Trib Walk Through Village Voice Western Europe Eursoc Fistful of Euros France Ceteris Paribus L'Ombre de l'Olivier United Kingdom Samizdata Germany Davids Medienkritik Italy 1972 JimMomo Ideazione Walking Class Netherlands Peaktalk Spain Barcepundit Iberian Notes Central and Eastern Europe CIS/FSU Registan Russia JRL Moscow Times Scraps of Moscow Siberian Light The Russian Dilettante Armenia Blogrel East Asia Howard French China Simon World Danwei China Matters Peking Duck ESWN Japan South Korea Marmot Middle East Egypt Baheyya Arabist Big Pharaoh Israel The Head Heeb Lebanon Across the Bay Lebanese Blogger Lebanese Abroad Lebanon Matters Lebop Bliss Street Journal American in Lebanon Beirut Spring For Lebanon Syria Amarji Josh Landis Syria Exposed B.D. In the Press The Sunday Times(UK)"If It Makes America Look Bad It Must Be True, Musn't It?" The Guardian "Trial and Error" Online Journalism Review "Feeling Misquoted? Weblogs Transcripts Let the Reader Decide" Online Journalism Review "Bloggers Rate the Most Influential Blogs" (see chart) The Sunday Times (UK) "Rise of the Virtual Soapbox" MORE" Archives January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 April 2003 March 2003 February 2003 January 2003 Categories Area Studies Beltway Banter Books Department Cultural Missives Euro-American Relations In-House News Iraq Legal Matters Mailroom Media Monitoring Middle East--Iran Middle East-Peace Process Philosophy Presidential Politics Terrorism U.S. Foreign Policy Syndicate this site: Powered by

	© 2004 Belgravia Dispatch