HOME	Your Most Trusted Source of Foreign News and Views About the United States

August 5, 2005

Original Article (English)

Taking advantage of a Congressional recess, President George W. Bush on August 1 forced through the appointment of controversial hawk John Bolton to be U.S. ambassador to the United Nations.

Fifty-six-year-old and a graduate of Yale law school, Bolton was Bush’s schoolmate. During the disputed 2000 presidential election, Bolton, was a "capable" member of the Bush legal team and performed meritorious service in winning a lawsuit for Bush. After Bush moved to the White House, Bolton was appointed Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security.

At the State Department, Bolton emits a hawkish air. Many people claim that he is "too haughty, and abuses his power to bully others," that "he has never been on good terms with his former superior Colin Powell" and that he has the "bad habit of coercing and retaliating against his subordinates."

In handling international relations, he always plays hardball. He once professed that the relationship between the United States and the world is like that between a hammer and a nail - and that the United States likes to pound whoever it wants. He especially despises the United Nations and opposes the payment of Washington’s overdue U.N. membership fees. One of his famous remarks goes like this: "The U.S. Secretariat Building in New York has 38-stories. If you lost 10 stories today, it wouldn't make a bit of difference." This implies that the United Nations is useless.

Due to the behavior of this, "by no means good and honest person," as he has been dubbed by the U.S. media, much criticism has been expressed. During Senate discussions over the past five months, many Republicans joined with Democrats to express their opposition, and up to their adjournment for recess, Bolton had failed to "pass."

His opponents have two main complaints. First, the conduct of this fellow is problematic, and second, this man is too "hawkish" and is therefore not suitable for the post. In the opinion of his opponents, the main task for the new U.S. ambassador to the U.N. should be to build bridges and improve relations with the U.N., which have worsened as a result of the Iraq war. Judging by Bolton’s words and deeds, he will not only fail to fulfill this task, but the result may turn out to be just the opposite.

Under the circumstances, to achieve his own goals Bush could not but take advantage of the Congressional recess and legally bypass the Senate. The unusual move is an exception in the history of the United Nations.

Why does Bush want to appoint Bolton so badly? The main reason is that as Bush's "loyal ally," Bolton can guarantee that Bush's foreign policy will be resolutely implemented in the United Nations.

In a sense, what people oppose in regard to Bolton is precisely what Bush needs. During Bush's first term, the U.S. government found itself at odds with the U.N. and subject to strong condemnation at home and abroad. Bush decided that the U.S. had no intention of abandoning the U.N.  Rather, Washington wanted to reform and to have better control over the global organization.

To tame the United Nations, it is imperative [for Bush] to send a "strong man." When he accepted the appointment, Bolton indicated in an undisguised manner that he would spare no effort in promoting U.S. values at the United Nations, and make it serve U.S. interests.

A Big Hello from Kofi

Experts say the timing of Bolton's appointment is by no means accidental, with the United States ready to submit the Iranian nuclear issue to the U.N. Security Council. On the issue of preventing nuclear proliferation, Bolton has all along adopted a tough stand toward Iran and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. Bolton's arrival at the U.N. makes it possible to accelerate U.S. plans.

Of course, Bush's forced appointment of Bolton once again sends this signal to the world: The United States will continue to pursue a tough foreign policy and will not stop acting unilaterally. In a statement, members of the U.S. Democratic Party say that while Bush is pushing democracy around the world, he bypasses Congress and turns his back on U.S. democracy. "The White House is abusing power." The Bush administration even takes willful "unilateral actions" at home, let alone toward other countries.

Someone described the appointment as Bush releasing a "hawk" to the United Nations. Bush most likely seeks greater control and use of the U.N. But will the formidable U.N. become unfailingly obedient to the White House? With regard to the appointment of Bolton, U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan, while courteously welcoming him, said bluntly, “As a country's ambassador, he should always bear in mind, that there is still the need to consult with 190 other members, and actions can be taken only with the consent of the overwhelming majority.”

Of course, people still need time to observe Bolton and can even hope that he will reorient himself in a "dovish" direction. Otherwise, U.S. relations with the U.N. and even with most nations could worsen further. The U.N. is the U.N. It is not ruled by the voice of U.S. alone, still less the Oval Office.