War Without End

Alpha · Last edited by Alpha on Tue Dec 05, 2006 11:04 pm; edited 22 times in total

AJC Appreciates Ambassador Bolton Service

http://www.ajc.org/site/c.ijITI2PHKoG/b.851561/apps/nl/content2.asp?content_id={5FD2B964-804E-40F2-9EA6-769A121D0DF8}&notoc=1

December 4, 2006 – New York – The American Jewish Committee expresses its deepest appreciation to Ambassador John Bolton for his dedicated and able service as the United States Permanent Representative to the United Nations. Over the past 15 months, Ambassador Bolton led the U.S. efforts in one of the most challenging arenas for American diplomacy. He has done so with skill and courage.

AJC has supported the UN from the very beginning, embracing the lofty ideals enshrined in its charter. However, the world body has too often strayed from its founding principles and become a tool for the advancement of political agendas at odds with both the UN Charter and American national interests. As the U.S. chief envoy to the UN, Ambassador Bolton spared no effort to reform the UN and steer it back to the right path.

AJC is particularly grateful for Ambassador Bolton’s efforts to rectify the longstanding institutional bias against Israel at the UN. In this regard, we will never forget the key role he played in the revocation of the infamous resolution 3379 equating Zionism with racism.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Israel's UN ambassador slams Qatar, praises Bolton:

http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/wake-up-america-your-government-is-hijacked-by-zionism/2006/05/27/israel-s-un-ambassador-slams-qatar-praises-bolton-says-he.php

DID 'JINSA JOHN' BOLTON OUT VALERIE PLAME?:

http://www.boomantribune.com/story/2005/10/28/194938/44

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.democrats/browse_frm/thread/24a5c4e3246ac49b/6697897836893ffe#6697897836893ffe

'JINSA John' Bolton provided untruthful information:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/thenewswire/archive/2005/07/it-seems-unusual-that-mr_4852.html

Do a search for JINSA at www.google.com

---------------------------------------------------------------------

JINSA (Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs) Israel first operative John Bolton named as US Ambassador to the United Nations (UN):

http://www.robert-fisk.com/articles114.htm

Here is the 'Men from JINSA and CSP' article from 'The Nation' (by Jason Vest) which Fisk mentions in the above article:

http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20020902&s=vest&c=1

JINSA John Bolton gave Valerie Plame's name to Neocon Libby:

http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/wake-up-america-your-government-is-hijacked-by-zionism/2005/07/15/rove-gate-who-leaked-to-the-leakers-this-isn-t-about-rove.php

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Is JINSA Israel first operative John Bolton the unnamed individual in the AIPAC scandal?:

"A source close to the defense said that one of the U.S. officials involved, who has not been indicted, was recently appointed to a senior Bush administration post. The source, who asked not to be identified, would not name the official"

http://www.virtualjerusalem.com/news/usnews/?disp_feature=xETxtD.var

"Bolton has had a long-standing sympathy for Israel and has taken pains to develop friendships with Israeli officials. One of his close Israeli friends is Ron Prossor, the director-general of the Foreign Ministry, who served previously in Washington. "

http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=611141

"Perle today chairs the Defense Policy Board, Feith is an Undersecretary of Defense, and Wurmser is special assistant to the Undersecretary of State for Arms Control, John Bolton, who dutifully echoes the Perle-Sharon line. According to the Israeli daily newspaper Ha'aretz, in late February,

U.S. Undersecretary of State John Bolton said in meetings with Israeli officials ? that he has no doubt America will attack Iraq and that it will be necessary to deal with threats from Syria, Iran and North Korea afterwards.

On Jan. 26, 1998, President Clinton received a letter imploring him to use his State of the Union address to make removal of Saddam Hussein's regime the ?aim of American foreign policy? and to use military action because ?diplomacy is failing.? Were Clinton to do that, the signers pledged, they would ?offer our full support in this difficult but necessary endeavor.? Signing the pledge were Elliott Abrams, Bill Bennett, John Bolton, Robert Kagan, William Kristol, Richard Perle, and Paul Wolfowitz. Four years before 9/11, the neocons had Baghdad on their minds."

http://www.amconmag.com/03_24_03/cover.html
_________________
The Expulsion of the Palestinians, 1947-1948 - http://www.robincmiller.com/pales2.htm

News - http://www.astandforjustice.org

--------------------------------------------

Treason at a high level: Pentagon Zionists, AIPAC and Israel:

http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/wake-up-america-your-government-is-hijacked-by-zionism/2004/09/08/treason-in-high-places-pentagon-zionists-aipac-and-israel.php

JINSA Zionist operative John Bolton said that US will deal with Syria and Iran after Iraq, for Israel, of course:

http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/middle-east-and-asia/2003/02/17/we-ll-deal-with-syria-iran-after-iraq-war-john-bolton.php

The above is right in accordance with the 'A Clean Break/war for Israel agenda of the Likudnik (JINSA/CSP/PNAC) Neocons such as Richard Perle, Douglas Feith and David Wurmser who co-authored the 'A Clean Break'/war for Israel document.

Congressman Jones had used James Bamford's 'A Pretext for War' book as guide in the questioning of Richard Perle. More about the 'A Clean Break'/war for Israel agenda (as conveyed by James Bamford on pages 261-269 of 'A Pretext for War' can be read after scrolling down to such at the following URL):

http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/wake-up-america-your-government-is-hijacked-by-zionism/2005/02/11/a-clean-break-from-james-bamford-s-a-pretext-for-war.php

JINSA/PNAC Zionist extremist Richard Perle lies to Congressman Walter Jones about the 'A Clean Break' agenda (which one can listen to via the audio link for the Armed Services Committee hearing from April 6th, 2005 at the following URL):

http://gorillaintheroom.blogspot.com/2005/04/operating-off-different-agenda.html

Jewish JINSA/PNAC Neocon (Richard Perle) Calls for the Invasion of Iran for Israel:

http://gorillaintheroom.blogspot.com/2005/05/perle-calls-for-invasion-of-iran.html

The Bush-Bolton Plan to Bomb Bushehr (for Israel)

http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/wake-up-america-your-government-is-hijacked-by-zionism/2005/05/15/the-bush-bolton-plan-to-bomb-bushehr-for-israel.php

John Bolton - The Armageddon Man (from JINSA):

http://www.alternet.org/story/21730/

Ex-State Dept. Intel Chief Calls Bolton 'Kiss-up, Kick Down'

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/04/13/1356207

War with Syria and Iran is apparently on the horizon after just hearing on CNN that John John Bolton will be the new US Ambassador to the UN (read about John Bolton and his association with JINSA via the following URLs):

http://www.robert-fisk.com/articles114.htm

Here is the article from the 'The Nation' that Fisk refers to in the above article:

http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20020902&s=vest

Additional material at following URL:

http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/wake-up-america-your-government-is-hijacked-by-zionism/2005/02/11/a-clean-break-from-james-bamford-s-a-pretext-for-war.php

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=263941

Sharon Wants Iran, Libya,
And Syria Disarmed Next
Ha-aretz Daily
2-18-3

Prime Minister Ariel Sharon said yesterday that Iran, Libya and Syria should be stripped of weapons of mass destruction after Iraq. "These are irresponsible states, which must be disarmed of weapons mass destruction, and a successful American move in Iraq as a model will make that easier to achieve," Sharon said to a visiting delegation of American congressmen.

Sharon told the congressmen that Israel was not involved in the war with Iraq "but the American action is of vital importance."

In a meeting with U.S. Undersecretary of State John Bolton yesterday, Sharon said that Israel was concerned about the security threat posed by Iran, and stressed that it was important to deal with Iran even while American attention was focused on Iraq.

Bolton said in meetings with Israeli officials that he had no doubt America would attack Iraq, and that it would be necessary thereafter to deal with threats from Syria, Iran and North Korea.

Bolton, who is undersecretary for arms control and international security, is in Israel for meetings on preventing the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

Bolton said Syria would get a chance to prove it was behaving in a way worthy of the international community and that dealing with North Korea had not been pushed aside, but postponed.

Bolton said the United States was striving to get a new UN Security Council resolution regarding Iraq and that the result of the vote would affect the U.S.'s relations with Western Europe and Russia, after the war in Iraq.

Bolton also met with Foreign Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Housing and Construction Minister Natan Sharansky.

Sharansky warned Bolton that the Quartet's (U.S., UN, European Union and Russia) plan for the Israelis and Palestinians deviated from President Bush's vision.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Neoconservatism is a Jewish Movement (but not all Jews support it) as 'democracy' and liberty/freedom' propaganda is used to mask the war for Israel agenda:

http://www.vdare.com/misc/macdonald_neoconservatism.htm

Bush's Inaugaral Address: The Israeli Connection Continues

http://www.thornwalker.com:16080/ditch/snieg_inaugural.htm

http://www.nowarforisrael.com

http://www.thornwalker.com/ditch/snieg_oilwar.htm#1

Even Israelis Say that the Iraq war was for Israel:

http://www.counterpunch.org/avnery04102003.html

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: "JINSA Reports" <info@jinsa.org>

To: jinsareports@lists.jinsa.org, jinsareports-www@lists.jinsa.org

Subject: JINSA Report #475 The Hon. John Bolton

JINSA
1779 Massachusetts Ave., NW
Suite 515
Washington, DC 20036

202-667-3900
202-667-0601 Fax
March 8, 2005

JINSA Report #475

The Hon. John Bolton

Rarely do the words "United Nations" and "fun" occur for us in the same
sentence; nor the words "United Nations" and "effective progress."
However, the nomination of John Bolton to be US Ambassador to the UN
makes us hopeful for the first time in a long time that the institution
in which so many hopes have been so wrongly vested for so many years
might be better vested now.

Mr. Bolton ? a member of the JINSA Board of Advisors when not in public
service ? is one of very few people in Washington who can tick off
specific accomplishments. He is responsible for withdrawing US
participation in the outmoded ABM Treaty with the agreement of Russia;
withdrawing the US signature from the treaty on the International
Criminal Court with its provisions that contradict the US Constitution;
withdrawing the US signature from the unworkable Kyoto Treaty;
spearheading the UN rescinding of the infamous "Zionism is Racism"
resolution. And, lest one think all of his accomplishments are in the
negative, John Bolton is author and executor of the Proliferation
Security Initiative (PSI) ? a vastly underappreciated multinational
operation to halt illicit trade in nuclear materials.

PSI deserves a closer look. It is a focused program to solve an
existing problem using existing legal authorities and international law
frameworks, including UN Resolution 1540. It began with eleven
partners
? Australia, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, Poland,
Portugal, Spain, the UK and the US. That represents a fair percentage
of Old Europe including those who were unalterably opposed to US action
in Iraq, proving that Mr. Bolton can build coalitions around
agreed-upon
principles.

The PSI partners are democratic countries, but Mr. Bolton has also been
the architect of the Six Party Talks on North Korean nuclear
capabilities. In that case, he formed a coalition of regional
neighbors, not all democracies, directly affected by North Korean
activities ? China, Russia, Japan, South Korea ? plus the US and North
Korea.

In terms of the United Nations, the repeal of "Zionism is Racism" is a
clue to Mr. Bolton's attitude toward the institution. He is not, as
his
critics claim, "anti-UN," but rather unwilling to overlook the obvious
problems of an institution with a democratic mechanism (a General
Assembly with voting power) driven by undemocratic nations seeking to
use the form for undemocratic purposes. The repeal was essential, he
told a JINSA audience at the time, because even though General Assembly
resolutions have no force of international law, they set the moral
standard. It was wrong, he said, to have enshrined in the Assembly
such
a flagrant untruth. It was his mission to fix it.

And therein lies the "fun." It isn't clear that the UN can be "fixed,"
but it is clear that the path to "effective progress" lies in a US
Ambassador to the UN with the ability to define discrete problems, an
ability to form coalitions to resolve those problems, and most
important, a clear moral compass defining democracy as a higher order
of
government. John Bolton does and he can and it will be fun to watch
him
take those skills to Turtle Bay on behalf of American interests and
American allies, including Israel.

To view this JINSA Report online click on the link below.
http://www.jinsa.org/JINSAReports/2880

___________________________________________________

To unsubscribe from JINSA Reports, visit:

http://www.jinsa.org/lists/unsubscribe.html

And to subscribe to any JINSA mailing-list:
http://www.jinsa.org/lists/subscribe.html

Access past JINSA Reports at: http://www.jinsa.org/

Comments? Send e-mail to info@jinsa.org

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2005 16:44:53 -0700
From: "Jeff Blankfort" <jblankfort@earthlink.net> View Contact Details
Subject: When you get John Bolton you also get JINSA

The Hon. John Bolton

The Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs JINSA Report #475 March 8, 2004

Rarely do the words ?United Nations? and ?fun? occur for us in the same sentence; nor the words ?United Nations? and ?effective progress.? However, the nomination of John Bolton to be U.S. Ambassador to the UN makes us hopeful for the first time in a long time that the institution in which so many hopes have been so wrongly vested for so many years might be better vested now.

Mr. Bolton - a member of the JINSA Board of Advisors when not in public service - is one of very few people in Washington who can tick off specific accomplishments. He is responsible for withdrawing U.S. participation in the outmoded ABM Treaty with the agreement of Russia; withdrawing the U.S. signature from the treaty on the International Criminal Court with its provisions that contradict the U.S. Constitution; withdrawing the U.S. signature from the unworkable Kyoto Treaty; spearheading the UN rescinding of the infamous ?Zionism is Racism? resolution. And, lest one think all of his accomplishments are in the negative, John Bolton is author and executor of the Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI) - a vastly underappreciated multinational operation to halt illicit trade in nuclear materials.

PSI deserves a closer look. It is a focused program to solve an existing problem using existing legal authorities and international law frameworks, including UN Resolution 1540. It began with eleven partners - Australia, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Spain, the UK and the U.S. That represents a fair percentage of Old Europe including those who were unalterably opposed to U.S. action in Iraq, proving that Mr. Bolton can build coalitions around agreed-upon principles.

The PSI partners are democratic countries, but Mr. Bolton has also been the architect of the Six Party Talks on North Korean nuclear capabilities. In that case, he formed a coalition of regional neighbors, not all democracies, directly affected by North Korean activities - China, Russia, Japan, South Korea - plus the U.S. and North Korea.

In terms of the United Nations, the repeal of ?Zionism is Racism? is a clue to Mr. Bolton?s attitude toward the institution. He is not, as his critics claim, ?anti-UN,? but rather unwilling to overlook the obvious problems of an institution with a democratic mechanism (a General Assembly with voting power) driven by undemocratic nations seeking to use the form for undemocratic purposes. The repeal was essential, he told a JINSA audience at the time, because even though General Assembly resolutions have no force of international law, they set the moral standard. It was wrong, he said, to have enshrined in the Assembly such a flagrant untruth. It was his mission to fix it.

And therein lies the ?fun.? It isn?t clear that the UN can be ?fixed,? but it is clear that the path to ?effective progress? lies in a U.S. Ambassador to the UN with the ability to define discrete problems, an ability to form coalitions to resolve those problems, and most important, a clear moral compass defining democracy as a higher order of government. John Bolton does and he can and it will be fun to watch him take those skills to Turtle Bay on behalf of American interests and American allies, including Israel.

http://www.jinsa.org/articles/articles.html/function/view/categoryid/650/documentid/2880/history/3,2359,650,2880

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

March 22, 2005

John Bolton and the Corruption of Think Tanks; David Brooks on Conservative Sleaze

I have found some more on John Bolton's think tank management controversy. Think tanks are usually organized as 501c3 organizations -- organized for the public good but increasingly they are becoming money laundering operations for lobbyists or corporate consulting shops. It seems that John Bolton helped the National Policy Forum move well down this path.

The National Policy Forum of which John Bolton was President was stripped of its non-profit 501c3 status. Foreign money, mega-conference fundraisers, inappropriate political activity, possibly laundering foreign funds into political activities. John Bolton was an architect of this insidious mess.

Many conservatives have genuine concerns about the management of the United Nation's after the "Oil-for-Food" scandal, even though it's clear that the U.S. delegation to the U.N. knew what was going on.

But Bolton is a guy whose own past management experience and the blurring of legal lines in his own organization sounds a lot like what Bernie Ebbers would have looked for in his team at WorldCom or Ken Lay at Enron.

Here is an excerpt of a much longer brief worth reading:

A decade later Bolton was again entangled in money laundering schemes to support Republican candidates, but this time it involved money channeled from Hong Kong and Taiwan to the Republican Party by way of a "think tank" linked to the Republican National Committee (RNC).
In 1995-96 Bolton served as president of the National Policy Forum (NPF), which, according to a congressional investigation, functioned as an intermediary organization to funnel foreign and corporate money to Republicans.

The NPF had been established in 1993 in anticipation of the 1994 general election. Founded by the RNC's chairman Haley Barbour a few months after he assumed the party's chairmanship, the forum was organized as a nonprofit, tax-exempt education institute, although the IRS later ruled that NPF was a subsidiary of the RNC and not entitled to its requested tax-exempt status.

A congressional investigation into foreign money and influence in the 1996 presidential campaign brought to light the role of the NPF, which, according to a minority report of the congressional committee, channeled $800,00 in foreign money into the 1996 election cycle after having also used the same mechanisms to fund congressional races around the country in 1994.

When John Bolton became NPF president in 1995, the forum began organizing "megaconferences" as a hook to raise money for the party. These conferences brought together Republican members of congress, lobbyists, and corporate executives to discuss matters that were frequently the object of pending legislation. An NPF memo laid out the funding strategy: "NPF will continue to recruit new donors through conference sponsorships. ... In order for the conferences to take place, they must pay for themselves or turn a profit. Industry and association leaders will be recruited to participate and sponsor those forums, starting at $25,000."

Today, David Brooks has a stunningly good critique on the corruption of the conservative establishment titled "Masters of Sleaze." Brooks does not mention Bolton, Barbour and the National Policy Forum, but these could easily be other chapters in a David Brooks book on the subject.

Brooks writes:

Back in 1995, when Republicans took over Congress, a new cadre of daring and original thinkers arose. These bold innovators had a key insight: that you no longer had to choose between being an activist and a lobbyist. You could be both. You could harness the power of K Street to promote the goals of Goldwater, Reagan and Gingrich. And best of all, you could get rich while doing it!
Before long, ringleader Grover Norquist and his buddies were signing lobbying deals with the Seychelles and the Northern Mariana Islands and talking up their interests at weekly conservative strategy sessions - what could be more vital to the future of freedom than the commercial interests of these two fine locales?

Before long, folks like Norquist and Abramoff were talking up the virtues of international sons of liberty like Angola's Jonas Savimbi and Congo's dictator Mobutu Sese Seko - all while receiving compensation from these upstanding gentlemen, according to The Legal Times. Only a reactionary could have been so discomfited by Savimbi's little cannibalism problem as to think this was not a daring contribution to the cause of Reaganism.

Brooks best punch at the conservative establishment that has embraced sleaze and right-wingism:

As time went by, the spectacular devolution of morals accelerated. Many of the young innovators were behaving like people who, having read Barry Goldwater's "Conscience of a Conservative," embraced the conservative part while discarding the conscience part.
I think Bolton really is in trouble. I'm sending a note to David Brooks today to share this column with him but also to let him know that standing up for better moral performance of our political leadership -- on the right and the left -- is patriotic and important.

John Bolton cut his teeth in the world of big money intrigue that David Brooks describes -- and that makes him the wrong guy to pursue American interests at the United Nations at this point in the UN's history.

-- Steve Clemons

March 21, 2005
http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/000390.html

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/032205J.shtml

Bolton vs. United Nations
Bush's Mad Cop-Bad Cop Ruse
By Ian Williams
In These Times

Friday 18 March 2005

Senate Foreign Relations Chair Richard Lugar (R-Ind.) scheduled hearings for April 7 on the confirmation of John Bolton as the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations.

Lugar signaled that he is less than ecstatic over the nomination, telling the Washington Post that he was "going to reserve any comments about the appropriateness or not of the president's choice." (In 1999, Lugar showed less restraint, hailing President Clinton's choice, Richard Holbrooke, as "an excellent nominee.") More explicit was Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.), who said, "I do have concerns, because the United Nations is a very important institution. We need to send someone to the U.N. that has the skills to work with the secretary-general." But five days later, after a visit by Bolton, Hagel changed his mind and declared he would support the nomination.

Bolton's appointment clearly makes a mockery of the kiss and make-up European tour of George W. Bush and Condoleezza Rice. Along with Bush's nomination of Paul Wolfowitz to head the World Bank, the president's choice of Bolton reveals the skull beneath the skin of administration foreign policy. Appointing someone who has repeatedly gone on the record saying that the United Nations should not exist-or that, at least, the United States should not be part of it-is hardly a diplomatic response to the crucial discussions currently taking place on reforming the organization.

Bolton has publicly dismissed international law and treaties, since they may inhibit American freedom of action. In 1997, he wrote in the Wall Street Journal, "Treaties are 'law' only for U.S. domestic purposes. In their international operations, treaties are simply 'political' obligations."

Five years ago, he accused U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan of a power grab; now he's supposed to work with him on U.N. reform, and seek cooperation from him for help in extracting the United States from Iraq. Bolton's other hobby horses include opposition to the International Criminal Court ("a product of fuzzy-minded romanticism [that] is not just naive, but dangerous"), and the conventions on landmines, small arms trade and child soldiers. He also opposes the nuclear test ban treaty-except when it applies to Koreans, Iranians and the like.

With the appointment of Bolton, the rest of the world will now see American foreign policy as it really is, without the smooth interface of Colin Powell, who so often performed on the world stage as a good cop in a bad cop administration.

In addition to dealing with the dubiously multilateral position of the Rice State Department, and coping with the neocon imperialist fantasies of Wolfowitz at the World Bank, foreign diplomats will be faced with the noisily unilateral Bolton.

Despite having spent time at neoconservative think tanks and groups like the American Enterprise Institute and the Project for a New American Century, there is nothing neo about Bolton's conservatism. As befits a former U.N.-basher for the Heritage Foundation, Bolton's roots are in an old, nativist and deeply reactionary tradition, as suggested by his closeness to his longtime patron, former Sen. Jesse Helms (R-N.C.). Woolly neoliberal idealism about exporting democracy isn't his style, as he demonstrated when as part of the Bush legal team he strode into a library in Florida in 2000 and announced, "I'm here to stop the vote."

Fringe groups have long seen the United Nations as an instrument of a foreign conspiracy to take over the United States. Their strident views have, like so many conservative inanities, now become mainstream. Bolton's nomination is just the culmination of this process. "Move America Forward," which describes itself as "the organization leading the effort to evict the United Nations from American soil and halt American funding of the U.N.," has announced it will lobby the Senate and "rally public support for John Bolton's nomination."

Bolton wants the United States on top, and any potential threats to that supremacy removed. Which is why one item high on his personal agenda will be to get the very United Nations that he does not believe in to enforce the non-proliferation treaty (which he does not believe in either) in Iran-which he does sincerely believe to be a pivot of the Axis of Evil.

The only effective counter to this agenda will be senators brave enough to stand up and say that this country and the world are better served by a functioning United Nations, which does indeed have a primary role in avoiding world conflicts.

In the preamble to the Declaration of Independence, its drafters cited "a decent Respect to the Opinions of Mankind," to explain what they were doing. The nomination hearing allows the Democrats and the sane Republicans to show a similar respect, not just to the opinions of mankind, but to the majority of American men and women who have profound reservations about John Bolton.

Alpha

Bush Nominates UN Critic Bolton as UN Envoy

58 minutes ago Politics - Reuters

By Saul Hudson

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Bush (news - web sites) on Monday nominated John Bolton, a blunt long-time critic of the United Nations as the new U.S. ambassador to the world body.

The decision surprised many U.N. diplomats and upset Democrats in Congress, who had hoped for a less contentious choice as the U.S. representative at a time of tense U.N.-Washington relations.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice announcing the nomination at the State Department, said: "The president and I have asked John to do this work because he knows how to get things done. He is a tough-minded diplomat."

Bolton, 56, who has been undersecretary of state for arms control and international security since May 2001, has been a leading hawk against Iran (news - web sites) and North Korea (news - web sites) as the Bush administration sought to halt their nuclear weapons programs.

Bolton's nomination must be confirmed by the U.S. Senate, where Democrats were expected to bring up dismissive comments he has aimed at U.N. effectiveness and a disdain for some international treaties.

"The (U.N.) Secretariat building in New York has 38 stories. If it lost 10 stories, it wouldn't make a bit of difference," Bolton said in a 1994 panel discussion sponsored by the World Federalist Association.

Sen. Barbara Boxer (news, bio, voting record), a California Democrat and member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, cited this quote at the 2001 confirmation hearing for Bolton for his current post as evidence that he was outside the U.S. mainstream.

In his first term Bush was accused by many countries of taking a go-it-alone attitude and launched the Iraq (news - web sites) war despite failing to secure support from the 15-member Security Council.

Since the 2003 Iraq invasion, the United States has worked more closely with the United Nations -- especially over Iraqi elections -- but it has been less supportive of Secretary-General Kofi Annan (news - web sites) than other major powers during a scandal over the Iraq oil-for-food program.

If approved, Bolton will succeed former U.S. Sen. John Danforth, who resigned in December.

ANTIPATHY TO U.N.

Several envoys to the U.N. Security Council privately expressed astonishment that Bush would name someone who had expressed such antipathy toward the United Nations.

From 1989 to 1993, when Bolton was an assistant secretary of state dealing with the United Nations and other international bodies, he irritated diplomats who said they felt he lectured them what to do rather than negotiated with them.

But one senior council diplomat, who asked not to be named, also said Bolton's high standing among conservatives in the U.S. administration may be a plus. "It's like the Palestinians having to negotiate with (Israeli Prime Minister) Ariel Sharon (news - web sites). If you have a deal, you know you have a deal," he said.

U.N. spokesman Stephane Dujarric said in New York that Annan warmly congratulated Bolton. "I don't know about what previous biases he may bring here. We have nothing against people who do hold us accountable," the spokesman said.

But Sen. John Corzine, a New Jersey Democrat, said Bolton was the wrong choice when the United States was seeking to repair diplomatic ties frayed in Bush's first term.

"Now, when bridge-building and strengthening of alliances are so critical to our national security, he is a poor person to serve as a conciliator at the United Nations," he said.

Bolton, who keeps a model hand grenade conspicuously on a table in his office, stressed what he called "his support for effective multilateral diplomacy" when he appeared with Rice for the nomination announcement.

"Close cooperation and the time-honored tradition of frank communication is central to achieving our mutually-held objectives. The United Nations affords us the opportunity to move our policies forward together with unity of purpose," he said. (Additional reporting by Evelyn Leopold and Irwin Arieff at the United Nations)

Alpha · Last edited by Alpha on Wed Mar 09, 2005 6:40 pm; edited 1 time in total

Published on Monday, March 7, 2005 by the Inter-Press Service

Bush Appoints Right-Wing Extremist to UN Post
by Jim Lobe

WASHINGTON -- In a breathtaking victory for right-wing hawks, U.S. President George W. Bush has nominated Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security John Bolton to become his next ambassador to the United Nations.

Bolton, widely considered the most unilateralist and least diplomatic of senior U.S. officials during Bush's first term, will have to be confirmed by the U.S. Senate where some Democrats, a few of whom were said to be stunned by the nomination, are expected to put up a fight.

One aide called the nomination ”incredible”, particularly in light of recent indications, including his talks with European leaders at the end of last month, that Bush and his new secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice, intended to pursue a more multilateralist policy in his second term and was determined to smooth the rougher diplomatic edges of his foreign policy team.

That notion had been bolstered by Rice's choice of Trade Representative Robert Zoellick, a long-time pragmatist and ”realist”, as her deputy despite Bolton's efforts, backed by Vice President Dick Cheney, to take the job.

The fact that he failed in his quest was taken as a clear sign that Rice was indeed moving toward a more multilateralist policy in defiance even of Cheney, the undisputed the leader of the coalition of aggressive nationalists, neo-conservatives, and Christian Right activists that dominated foreign policy from the Sep. 11, 2001 al-Qaeda attacks on New York and the Pentagon until after the Iraq invasion.

Rice's acquiescence, if not agreement, to serve as her representative at the U.N., however, will require foreign policy analysts here to reassess that judgment.

”This is like putting the fox in charge of the henhouse,” said Heather Hamilton, vice president of programmes for Citizens for Global Solutions (CGS), formerly the World Federalist Association, who called Bolton the ”Armageddon nominee”.

The Armageddon allusion was to Bolton's long-time loyalty to former ultra-right Sen. Jesse Helms who, on retiring from public life, described Bolton as ”the kind of man with whom I would want to stand at Armageddon, if it should be my lot to be on hand for what is forecast to be the final battle between good and evil in this world.”

”His nomination sends the exactly the wrong message to the world about the Bush administration's willingness to work with other countries and in multilateral institutions. There's no one who has a greater track record of offending other countries, including our closest allies,” she said.

Despite a round, bespectacled face, ruddy cheeks, and a thick, drooping blonde moustache that give him an avuncular appearance, Bolton is known to be confrontational, combative, and humourless.

He began excoriating evil in the Reagan administration when, despite a lack of experience in developing countries, he held a series of posts in the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) before winding up as one of Attorney-General Edwin Meese's top aides.

In that capacity, he resisted all efforts by Congress to investigate the Justice Department role in the Iran-Contra affair, as well as efforts by Sen. John Kerry to investigate drug and gun-running by the Nicaraguan contras in the mid-1980s.

His effectiveness gained him a promotion under President H.W. Bush to the position of assistant secretary of state for international organisations, a post he held until 1993 when he joined first the right-wing Manhattan Institute and then the neo-conservative-dominated American Enterprise Institute (AEI), home to such prominent hawks as former UN Ambassador Jeanne Kirkpatrick, former Defence Policy Board Chairman Richard Perle, and Cheney's spouse, Lynne Cheney.

At a 1994 WFA panel discussion, Bolton asserted that, ”if the U.N. (secretariat) building in New York lost 10 stories, it wouldn't make a bit of difference”.

By the time former Secretary of State James Baker tapped him to serve as a senior member of the G.W. Bush legal team in Florida after the 2000 election, Bolton had become senior vice president at AEI, a position he used during the latter half of the 1990s to speak out strongly in favour of fully normalising ties with Taiwan, from which he had received money at the time, according to the Washington Post.

He also advocated withdrawing from the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty and railed against ”nation-building”, international arms-control agreements, and threats supposedly posed to U.S. sovereignty by the United Nations and its Secretary-General Kofi Annan. At one point, Bolton suggested simply halting U.S. payments to the world body.

Bolton is also a long-time activist in the Federalist Society, an association of right-wing, nationalistic lawyers who have been particularly opposed to the application of international or foreign law in their decisions, a practice that they say threatens U.S. sovereignty.

The Society is also strongly opposed to non-governmental organisations (NGOs) that seek the adoption of international law and standards in the United States. Along with AEI, the Society sponsors ”NGOWatch” which seeks to expose such efforts, as well as the funding sources of NGOs that take such positions.

Given his history of far-right positions, Secretary of State Colin Powell was reported to have been deeply sceptical of Bolton when Cheney suggested him for the undersecretary position. Cheney, however, insisted.

But within just a few months, it became clear that Bolton was far more in tune with the neo-conservative hawks around Cheney and Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Pentagon hawks than with Powell's relatively moderate positions and demeanour.

In the summer of 2001, he shocked foreign delegations and non-governmental organisations (NGOs) at the U.N. Conference on the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons when he announced that Washington would oppose any attempt to regulate the trade in firearms or non-military rifles or any other effort that would ”abrogat (e) the constitutional right to bear arms.”

He played a similar role several months later when, amid the public shock that followed the Sep. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks and the anthrax scare, Bolton single-handedly sabotaged a U.N. meeting to forge an international verification protocol designed to put teeth into a treaty on bio-weapons.

When he had finished, he reportedly told his colleagues, ”It's dead, dead, dead, and I don't want it coming back from the dead.”

Within State, Bolton led the drive to renounce the U.S. signature on the 1998 Rome Statute that created the new International Criminal Court (ICC), the first permanent tribunal with jurisdiction over war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide.

When Bush decided to withdraw the U.S. signature to the treaty, Bolton prevailed on Powell to permit him to sign the formal notification to Annan, an act he later described to the Wall Street Journal as ”the happiest moment of my government service”.

At the same time, Bolton was also engaged in a lengthy row with U.S. intelligence agencies over his public charge that Cuba had an offensive biological warfare program. His assertion became an embarrassment after anonymous intelligence officials and retired senior military officers, including the former head of the U.S. Southern Command, told the media that no such evidence existed and charged that Bolton was politicising intelligence.

In July 2003, Bolton was poised to testify to Congress that Syria's alleged programmes to develop weapons of mass destruction had developed to such an extent that they threatened regional stability, an assertion which reportedly provoked a ”revolt” by U.S.. intelligence analysts, who insisted that the evidence did not warrant such a conclusion.

Powell frequently complained to his closest aides that Bolton was undercutting him and appeared to be taking orders from Cheney and the Pentagon, rather than from his State Department superiors.

In a speech in Seoul that same month, for example, just as Pyongyang agreed to enter multilateral talks on its nuclear programme as the administration had demanded, Bolton described life in North Korea as a ”hellish nightmare”, and accused its leader, Kimg Jong Il, of being a ”dictator” or ”tyrant” running a ”dictatorship” or ”tyranny” no less than a dozen times.

Some U.S. and Asian analysts said the speech appeared designed to provoke Kim to boycott the meeting. Indeed, the North Korean media described Bolton as ”rude human scum” and a ”bloodthirsty vampire” and demanded that he be withdrawn from the delegation that was to take part in the talks.

Bolton did not show up. But, if Bush now gets his way, he will soon find himself at the heart of all U.S. multilateral diplomacy.

Copyright © 2005 IPS-Inter Press Service

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jim Lobe discusses Bolton appointment on 'Democracy Now':

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/03/09/1448225

Alpha

Bush Reportedly to Nominate Hard-Liner as U.N. Ambassador
The Associated Press

Monday 07 March 2005

WASHINGTON - Undersecretary of State John R. Bolton, a controversial Bush administration figure whose strong statements on North Korea's nuclear program irked the leaders in Pyongyang, is President Bush's choice to be the next U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, three government officials said Monday.

Bush, already viewed suspiciously in some sectors of the United Nations for his pre-emptive attack in 2003 on Iraq, reached out to a tough lawyer and arms control expert who rarely muffles his views in diplomatic nuance.

Last month, for instance, in a strongly worded speech in Tokyo, Bolton lashed out at China before an international audience for not stopping its munitions companies from selling missile technology to Iran and other nations the United States considers rogue states.

He also took the lead in strongly opposing plans of European allies to lift an 15-year embargo and sell weapons to Beijing.

In his current post as undersecretary for arms control and international security, Bolton, 56, has traveled the world several times over in the past four years, mostly to try to halt the spread of dangerous technology.

Before the 1991 Persian Gulf war, as an assistant secretary of state for international organizations, Bolton collaborated with then-Secretary of State James A. Baker III in organizing an alliance with European and Arab countries for the war with Iraq that liberated Kuwait.

Bolton, who has served as Washington's top arms control official, would succeed former Sen. John Danforth, who retired in January.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice informed the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Sen. Richard Lugar, R-Ind., and the senior Democrat, Sen. Joseph Biden of Delaware, of the selection. She also notified U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan, said a government official knowledgeable about the situation.

Bolton must be confirmed for the post, which is being filled temporarily by Anne Patterson, a career foreign service officer, who took over for Danforth.

North Korea was so incensed by his public denunciations of their nuclear weapons program that it refused to negotiate with him and he was removed from the U.S. delegation to the now-dormant talks.

An attorney, Bolton has been under secretary of state for arms control and international security since May 11 and earlier held a variety of high-level government jobs at the departments of Justice and State under Republican administrations.

Bolton has been a sharp critic of autocratic regimes, such as the one in Pyongyang, and of many proposed international agreements.

Danforth, a former U.S. senator from Missouri, served on the job for just six months. He left on Jan. 20, at the end of Bush's first term, saying he wanted to return to his home in St. Louis and spend time with his ailing wife.

Bolton was born in Baltimore and graduated from Yale University and Yale Law School.

-------

Alpha

Putting Israel First

Justin Raimondo

Mar 06, 05

http://www.antiwar.com/blog/index.php?id=P1894

My friend Arthur Silber points me toward the ravings of one Kay Arthur, a popular "Christian Zionist" author and minister, at the convention of the National Religious Broadcasters:

"Perhaps the most startling moment of the morning was an appearance by popular Christian Zionist author, Kay Arthur of Precepts Ministries. 'I love America,' Arthur said, her voice quivering with emotion. 'But if it came to a choice between Israel and America, I would stand with Israel.' While the crowd applauded tepidly, I looked around and saw more than a few faces cringing with embarrassment. Arthur went on to read excerpts from the Book of Revelations, painting a surreal image of Jesus seated in a throne floating above Jerusalem, rapturing all the world's true believers up to Heaven. She left the fate of unreconstructed Jews to the imagination."

Israel's amen corner in the U.S. is going to be doing a lot more cringing if David Corn, columnist for The Nation, is right. He cites a Washington Post report by David Ignatius that "more than a half-dozen officials in the Bush administration who are apparently suspected of leaking classified information to AIPAC have had to retain defense lawyers," and writes:

"Six Bushies on the run? That sounds like major news. But no details have leaked out. So let me contribute in my own small way. A reliable source of mine reports that he recently chatted with one of the principle figures in the investigation and that this fellow said the AIPAC scandal was about to "blow up," meaning there would be new, noteworthy developments that presumably would generate headlines. The person talking to my source was in a position to know and in a position to hope for the opposite. Consequently, I would assign a fair degree of confidence to this person's prediction. If that comes to pass, perhaps the Washington media will finally get around to providing more thorough and penetrating coverage of this potential scandal."

Here, at the intersection between religion, ideology, and treason, is where American politics gets truly ... weird. One thing I have to wonder is how and why anyone who is genuinely and sincerely pro-Israel would want to get mixed up with such nutballs. Kay Arthur is the Ward Churchill of the pro-Israel Right, and yet she is intimately connected with all sorts of pro-Israel coalitions and action groups. The Israeli government sent an official representative to the NRB convention.

Alpha

John Bolton: Unilateralism Personified

March 8, 2005

President Bush yesterday named neoconservative, unilateralist hawk John Bolton as the next U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. By nominating Bolton, whose contempt for the United Nations is infamous, President Bush is sending the wrong message to the international community at precisely the wrong time. During an era in which the world faces threats of nuclear proliferation from Iran and North Korea, and a humanitarian crisis in Darfur, President Bush recklessly spurns multilateral assistance toward solving urgent and serious problems. The appointment of John Bolton will undermine our security and standing in the world.

Like naming a felon as the chief of police. Chas Freeman, the U.S. ambassador to Saudi Arabia under the first President Bush, said naming Bolton to the U.N. job was "the equivalent of dropping a neutron bomb on the organization." Bolton once opined that "There's no such thing as the United Nations," and that if the U.N. building in New York "lost 10 stories it wouldn't make a bit of difference." In 2000, Bolton said, "If I were doing the Security Council today, I'd have one permanent member [the United States] because that's the real reflection of the distribution of power in the world."

Reflects Bush's misguided approach to the United Nations. The senselessly provocative appointment of Bolton, whose loathing for the United Nations is unmatched even within the Bush administration, is a gift to the most caustic isolationists on the right. As Danielle Pletka of the American Enterprise Institute said, "While John's voice may at times be abrasive, the principles he represents are clearly those of the president." The selection of Bolton reflects one of the Bush administration's fundamental foreign policy goals: to restrain, undermine, and delegitimize the world's most valuable institution for multilateral problem-solving. By so doing, Bush is squandering an opportunity to strengthen and improve the U.N. so that it can better serve a broad range of our interests – from intervening in humanitarian crises to enforcing international agreements against the proliferation of nuclear weapons.

"Ambassador Bolton" is an oxymoron. As the United States' chief emissary to the world's most significant international body, Bolton is much more likely to offend than to persuade our adversaries to bridge critical differences. Bolton is no diplomat. He once answered a question about U.S. policy toward North Korea by grabbing a book from the shelf – The End of North Korea – and saying, "That is our policy." And there was the time that Bolton was ordered back to the United States just before crucial six-nation talks with North Korea because he thoughtlessly called Kim Jong-Il "scum." As Joseph Cirincione of the Carnegie Endowment put it, "Bolton has been totally unapologetic about his radical prescription for dealing with the proliferation threat. The main problem is that it hasn't worked anywhere."
Daily Talking Points is a product of the American Progress Action Fund.

To visit the Talking Points archives, please click here .

RSS Feed for American Progress Action Fund.

Alpha · Posted: Tue Mar 08, 2005 10:27 pm Post subject: Guardian article

http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,1432580,00.html

Alpha · Posted: Tue Mar 08, 2005 10:32 pm Post subject: Re: Guardian article

Alpha

http://www.counterpunch.org/nimmo03082005.html

March 8, 2005

War is Peace
John Bolton to the UN
By KURT NIMMO

In Bushzarro world, where up is down and logic is irrational, Bush nominates a man as ambassador to the United Nations who believes there is no United Nations. "There's no such thing as the United Nations," John Bolton declared in 1994. ''If the U.N. secretary building in New York lost 10 stories, it wouldn't make a bit of difference.'' Like the character Bizarro created by Otto Binder, Bolton Bizarro has a brain apparently functioning at a level of a kid -- or more accurately, Bolton Bizzaro operates on the level of a playground bully minus Ritalin.

In response to a media mention of the above quote, State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said: "I wouldn't call it 'rather peculiar'. This is a man who in the past has worked very closely with the United Nations on a number of issues. He's always called for the UN to be more effective." Indeed, more effective at becoming irrelevant, as Bolton's boss so famously declared.

Jesse Helms commented on Bolton's irrational bully-boy stance when he told the neocon criminal organization, the American Enterprise Institute, "John Bolton is the kind of man with whom I would want to stand at Armageddon." Considering Bolton's take on international treaties -- he never saw one he didn't want to send through a paper shredder -- Armageddon may not be entirely out of the question.

For Bolton Bizarro, as senior vice president of the American Enterprise Institute, the idea of international law, specifically the International Criminal Court (ICC), is "a product of fuzzy-minded romanticism [that] is not just naive, but dangerous." So ecstatic was Bolton over the decision of the United States to become an outlaw nation -- sending a letter U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan on May 6, 2002 renouncing the Rome Treaty, signed by Clinton on December 31, 2000 -- he told the Wall Street Journal it was "the happiest moment of my government service." In Bushzarro world, there is nothing wrong with the crime of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and the crime of aggression -- in fact, as the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan demonstrate, such crimes are to be considered normal behavior between states. In renouncing the ICC, the United States joined such enlightened nations as China, Iraq, Libya, Yemen, Qatar, and Israel in refusing to abide by the ICC.

In Bushzarro world, the lack of evidence a nation is producing weapons of mass destruction is evidence that nation is bristling with WMD and plans to use them. Iraq is the obvious example of this upside down cake of logic, however Bolton has decided to add Cuba to the batter. "I believe the case for the existence of a developmental Cuba (biological weapons research and development) effort is strong," Bolton declared, minus absolutely any evidence. "Those are the usual, ridiculous lies that this man habitually makes about Cuba," responded Lazaro Herrera Martinez, first secretary of the Cuba Interests Section in Washington. "It is ridiculous to say that Cuba poses a threat to the national security" of the United States. In fact, as history demonstrates, the United States has attempted to undermine the national security of Cuba for decades, including the use of weapons of mass destruction against the small and harmless island nation. Over the years, according to numerous sources, the United States has covertly used hemorrhagic dengue fever, African swine fever, Q fever, blue mold, and rust disease against humans and crops in Cuba. (See William H. Schaap, Bioterror: Manufacturing Wars the American Way. )

"At a meeting of diplomats in Europe before the Iraq war, Bolton was 'so outrageous' in his opinions about Iraq that the normally staid diplomats were openly rolling their eyes in disbelief, according to one ambassador who attended," notes Newsday. In Bushzarro world, this is precisely the sort of person for the job of representing the United States in an international forum, especially a forum that sorely needs its building renovated by ten stories. No doubt eyes will be rolling back in saner heads for the next four years.
In fact, since Israel and the United States are connected at the hip, Bolton Bizzaro is the ideal choice for ambassador, especially considering the United Nations, routinely outraged by Israel's wanton slaughter of innocent Palestinians, has issued nearly as many resolutions against the tiny outlaw state as the International House of Pancakes serves up hotcakes on Saturday morning. Referencing his notorious curriculum vitae, Bolton admitted his fondness for Zionism. "Indeed, one highlight of my professional career was the 1991 successful effort to repeal the General Assembly's 1975 resolution equating Zionism with racism, thus removing the greatest stain on the UN's reputation," Bizarro Bolton proudly confessed. Never mind that more than a few people in the world consider Zionism a particularly racist colonial manifestation, essentially an apartheid philosophy -- in fact, the United Nations, realizing Zionism is a form of racism, passed Resolution 3379, referencing a 1973 resolution condemning "the unholy alliance between South African racism and zionism," and also a 1963 resolution which determined that "any doctrine of racial differentiation or superiority is scientifically false, morally condemnable, socially unjust and dangerous."

Of course, in Bushzarro world, racist nations are democracies and warmongers are ambassadors of peace. If anything, the nomination of John Bolton to serve as ambassador to the United Nations demonstrates that the Bushcons are determined to not only slice ten stories off the UN building but also make a mockery of international law -- a process well under way as we cross the Rubicon of Bush's second term -- and possibly realize Jesse Helm's dream of ushering in Armageddon with John Bolton riding on a white horse beside the Christian Zionist Lord, His eyes "as a flame of fire and his vesture dipped in blood bear[ing] the name, King of kings and Lord of lords. Followed by the armies of heaven, He will smite the nations and cause the Beast and the False Prophet to be cast into the Lake of Fire." (Rev.19:11-21, Joel 3:9-14, Ps.2:2-3).

In the current context, the nations smited will be Syria, Iran, North Korea, and Cuba, per Bush's expanding and contracting "axis of evil" roster.

Kurt Nimmo is a photographer and multimedia developer in Las Cruces, New Mexico. Visit his excellent no holds barred blog at www.kurtnimmo.com/ . Nimmo is a contributor to Cockburn and St. Clair's, The Politics of Anti-Semitism. A collection of his essays for CounterPunch, Another Day in the Empire, is now available from Dandelion Books.

He can be reached at: nimmo@zianet.com

Alpha

From: rbleier@igc.org

To: "rbleier" <rbleier@igc.org>
Subject: *I.Williams: Bush's perverse UN pick
Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2005 12:40:09 -0500

The erstwhile Ian Williams on Bolton. This is as good as it gets. The consensus was, he writes, that, "not even Bush could be as crassly insouciant about the views of the rest of the world. This week showed that once again, the world has underestimated the President."

The point I haven't seen elsewhere (indirectly hinted today on Democracy Now) is the dilemma Bolton presented to Bush-Cheney. What were they going to do with him once Condy insisted that she wouldn't accept him as deputy, the job he wanted? We learned weeks ago that the deputy position would go elsewhere. So Bolton was left dangling until Cheney decided it was better to give the finger to the UN and the rest of the world than to lose Bolton's war mongering abilities. --RB

The Nation

Bush's Perverse UN Pick

by IAN WILLIAMS

[posted online on March 8, 2005]

http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20050321&s=williams

The nomination of John Bolton to be US ambassador to the United Nations is a resounding declaration of American contempt for the organization and the rest of the world. When Condoleezza Rice forced Bolton out of his niche at the State Department, it was taken worldwide as a positive indication of the prospects of multilateralism in Bush's second term, in some measure compensating for the retirement of Colin Powell--not least since no one was sure how much of a multilateralist Rice is.

Some playful souls scared colleagues by suggesting that Bolton could end up as UN ambassador, but the consensus was that not even Bush could be that crassly insouciant about the views of the rest of the world.

This week showed that once again, the world has underestimated the President.

Bolton's nomination sends a message to the Europeans that on his recent European tour Bush was only kidding about a joint approach to global threats. It sends a message to the rest of the world that the United States will not listen to them, but will pursue its own obsessively theological agenda in the teeth of almost universal opposition.

Some UN officials are halfheartedly trying to convince themselves that the job will make Bolton more amenable to working within the system. Sadly, they are almost certain to be disappointed. He has shown no compunction about working the system for his own and his conservative colleagues' benefit. As far back as 1992, when he was Assistant Secretary of State for International Organization Affairs, he was trying to shake down the UN Development Program for a $2 million grant to an organization that was little more than a pension fund for a conservative colleague [see Williams, "Why the Right Loves the U.N.," April 13, 1992].

More recently, Bolton was an assistant to James Baker when the former Secretary of State was Secretary General Kofi Annan's (failed) representative for Western Sahara. But Bolton has remained unrelenting in his opposition, both rhetorical and practical, to the UN even as he took the money.

If there is a bright side to his appointment, it is that it will make it much more difficult for the United States to advance its agenda at the UN than if the President had appointed a real diplomat rather than someone who epitomizes American diplomacy as an oxymoron. There are lots of governments prepared to grovel to Washington, but Bolton will make it difficult to grovel gracefully.

Much of Western diplomacy at the UN, for example, consists of sweet-talking the Chinese delegation out of using their veto. Bolton, who took $30,000 from the Taiwanese to advise them on how to join the UN he despises, does not do sweet talk.

Traditionally, while Democratic envoys to the UN have also held Cabinet office, Republican appointees do not, which has made them subordinate to the State Department. However, Bolton was taking instructions from Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld even when he was in the State Department. He is unlikely to pay too much attention to the Secretary of State now, so even if Rice is sincere in the appearance that she seems to be trying to present to allies, Bolton will certainly sabotage her efforts at the UN.

The man who ordered a CIA probe on Hans Blix for not finding weapons in Iraq when ordered, who contrived the dismissal of the head of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, and who in 1999 wrote for the American Enterprise Institute of "Kofi Annan's UN Power Grab," has recently been trying fire Mohamed ElBaradei, chief of the International Atomic Energy Agency, for not finding nuclear weapons in Iran. Americans, and the rest of the world, should worry. If his appointment is confirmed, Bolton's task is likely to be to bully the UN into supporting an Iraq-style fiasco in Iran or Syria.

However, that is slightly longer-term. Possibly among the immediate casualties of Bolton's appointment will be some thousands of dead Darfurians. A resolution that would refer the continuing mayhem in Sudan to the International Criminal Court has already been stalled for months by the die-hard resistance of the Bolton faction in the State Department, but twelve members of the Security Council were cautiously optimistic that they had averted an American veto. Although it is clear that this is the one sanction actually feared by the Sudanese government and the Janjaweed militias it has employed, Bolton has already shown that in his obsessive war with the International Criminal Court, he does not care about the views of allies. Indeed, his fervent opposition to international restrictions on small-arms trade, landmines, biological weapons, child soldiers and nuclear testing suggests that he is quite prepared to accept significant casualties for his views--as long as they are other people's.

The Darfurians should be praying for long and protracted confirmation hearings for America's most undiplomatic ambassador. They should also be praying that Rice will seize the time to effect a compromise. It should not be difficult for sane senators to question the fitness of a putative UN ambassador who in 1994 asserted that "there is no such thing as the United Nations" and later that "if the UN Secretariat building in New York lost ten stories, it wouldn't make a bit of difference."

War Without End

The global war against terror, news about the illegal invasion of Iraq, the corporate puppet presidents, the war criminal Tony Blair, September 11th 2001, the USS Liberty and New World Order crimes against humanity.

JINSA ISRAEL FIRSTER JOHN BOLTON NAMED AS US AMBASSADOR