| Author | Message | | Alpha | | Posted: Sat May 14, 2005 5:07 pm Post subject: Jewish Groups Support 'JINSA John' Bolton as UN Diplomat |
| Jewish Groups Support 'JINSA John' Bolton as UN Diplomat
http://www.clevelandjewishnews.com/articles/2005/05/13/news/local/bcover0513.txt
By: MARILYN H. KARFELD Senior Staff Reporter
John Bolton, UN ambassador nominee, meets with Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon in 2003. PHOTO/AVI OHAYON/GPO
Major Jewish organizations are strongly supporting the nomination of John Bolton as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, a fact that has flown under the public radar.
Thus far, the discussion in the Jewish community as well as nationally has centered on Bolton's alleged bullying behavior toward his subordinates.
During confirmation hearings before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, senators heard testimony that Bolton, undersecretary of state for arms control, repeatedly intimidated or tried to fire those intelligence analysts who disagreed with him. Other critics complained about his anti-UN statements and less-than-diplomatic negotiations on international issues.
However, the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), B'nai B'rith International (BBI), the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, and the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA) all back Bolton's nomination.
Most of the organizations have written letters to Sen. Richard Lugar, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, or to Bill Frist, Senate majority leader, endorsing Bolton's confirmation as UN ambassador.
The Jewish groups all cite Bolton's forceful role in the successful 1991 U.S.-led effort to repeal a 16-year-old United Nations resolution equating Zionism with racism. The Jewish organizations also emphasize that Bolton will be able to reform the UN.
In his letter, Abraham Foxman, ADL national director, called Bolton "a man of principle and integrity." Daniel S. Mariaschin, BBI executive vice president, said Bolton can have an "immediate and important impact" on efforts to reform the UN.
Republican Sen. George Voinovich of Ohio, a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, stunned his own party in April when he asked the committee to delay its scheduled vote on Bolton's nomination to allow more time to consider complaints about his verbally abusive behavior.
The vote was rescheduled for Thursday morning, May 12, after this article went to press.
Prof. Michael Scharf, director of the Frederick K. Cox International Law Center at Case Western Reserve University, an expert in international criminal law, worked with Bolton in the State Department from 1991-93. Scharf was the attorney adviser for UN affairs and Bolton, then assistant secretary of state for international organization affairs, was his client.
While Scharf praises Bolton's achievement in repealing the UN resolution equating Zionism with racism, he feels Bolton would not make a good UN ambassador.
Revoking the UN Zionism resolution, which Scharf says he and Bolton worked on for an entire year, "changed the whole environment at the UN for the Mideast peace process. While that resolution was on the books, it was all about bashing Israel."
But, Scharf notes, Bolton did not point to that success when the Senate committee asked him his top accomplishment. Instead, he cited the unsigning of the Rome Statute, which created the International Criminal Court. While 99 nations have ratified the statute and belong to the ICC, the U.S. does not.
Bolton does not believe "international law is real law," says Scharf. "He thinks it's all political commitments that can be broken at will."
That emphasis, the Case professor says, illustrates why Bolton is not the right man to be the top U.S. diplomat at the UN. To Bolton, revoking the Zionism resolution "paled in comparison to being able to try to wreck the ICC," Scharf adds.
"That's a sad reflection of where his priorities are and what kind of leader he would be if confirmed. In 1991, he was willing to use the UN to constructively try to make it a better institution. By January 2001, in revoking the ICC, he's become a human wrecking ball, seeking to repeal international institutions rather than to reform them."
Having worked with Bolton, Scharf has concerns about how effective he'd be at the UN. "You need a really savvy negotiator, not a bully. Bolton has only one diplomatic tool, the club."
Voinovich is not giving any interviews on the Bolton nomination, says his spokesperson Marcie Ridgway. He won't address any specific issues about Bolton, including his leadership on revoking the Zionism resolution.
Rather, Voinovich's main concern was about Bolton's interpersonal skills, Ridgway adds. "He needed some more time to review some of the allegations and to look at the record. It's the committee's job to vet the nominee. It's better for Mr. Bolton to attend to these allegations personally, versus letting it go to the Senate floor and be a free-for-all."
However, Ridgway also noted that while Voinovich "went into the hearings as a ‘yes' vote, he did not come out a ‘no' vote. That's an important point."
In his letter to Frist, Malcolm Hoenlein, executive vice chairman of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, said he worked with Bolton in the past and found him to be "a paradigm of integrity, intelligence and consistency. He was not at all as portrayed in the media of late."
Jewish organizations have also focused on Bolton's support for Israel while he's been at the State Department. While AIPAC did not send a letter endorsing Bolton, and the organization is not actively lobbying for him, they do favor his nomination.+
"John Bolton has stood for a strong U.S.-Israel relationship and understands the important role that the UN plays in world affairs today," Andrew Schwartz, AIPAC press secretary, told the CJN. "He will be a superb representative of American interests at the UN."
Bolton is speaking at AIPAC's May 22-24 policy conference in Washington, D.C.
In their endorsements, the Jewish organizations point to Bolton's diplomatic experience and high principles.
"It is not clear that the current problems of the UN can be ‘fixed,'" wrote Tom Neumann, JINSA executive director, in his letter to Lugar. But, "the path to effective progress lies in a U.S. ambassador with the ability to define discrete problems ... form coalitions ... and most important, (with) a clear moral compass defining democracy as a higher order of government." When not a government employee, Bolton has been a member of JINSA's board of advisers.
In addition to being instrumental to the U.S. withdrawing its signature from the treaty setting up the ICC in The Hague, Bolton was responsible for the U.S. pulling out of the "outmoded" Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty with Russia and the "unworkable" Kyoto Protocol on fighting climate change, said Neumann.
The ambassador-nominee is also the architect of the six-party talks on North Korea's nuclear capabilities and the author of the nuclear Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI), Neumann noted.
Tom Casey, director of the State Department press office, says it makes sense that Jewish organizations are backing Bolton. "I don't think you'll find anyone in this administration who is a stronger friend of Israel." Overturning the Zionism equals racism resolution "changed the ways the UN has dealt with Israel and Israeli-Palestinian issues."
Although critics point to Bolton's seeming disdain for the UN, Casey says Bolton, like others in the administration, recognizes that while it needs serious reform, the UN is central to the U.S.'s international leadership role.
He pointed to Bolton's work on PSI, a global effort to track and interdict nuclear weapons of mass destruction. Last year, Bolton helped persuade the UN Security Council to approve resolution 1540, a nuclear non-proliferation pact.
The White House holds conflicting views on the UN, Scharf points out. When the administration needs the UN, they view it as very good. But when the UN gets in the way of U.S. foreign policy, the Bush administration views it as an obstacle and inconvenience.
"At some point the U.S. needs an exit strategy from Iraq," Scharf says. "The UN will be that strategy. We need a diplomat there who can achieve that."
—with reporting from Ellen Schur Brown
Bolton played leading role in repealing Zionism is racism resolution in UN.
"John Bolton has stood for a strong U.S.-Israel relationship."
Andrew Schwartz, American Israel Public Affairs Committee
Anti-American Protests Spread through Islamic World
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/wake-up-america-your-government-is-hijacked-by-zionism/2005/05/14/anti-american-protests-spread-through-islamic-world.php
Last edited by Alpha on Sun May 15, 2005 12:00 am; edited 2 times in total | |  | | Alpha | | | | Alpha | | | | Alpha | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Sun May 15, 2005 11:39 am Post subject: Bolton: Iran's Actions Threatening U.S. |
| Bolton: Iran's Actions Threatening U.S. - Tuesday, Feb. 8, 2005
A senior U.S. official said Monday he was consulting Arab states in the Persian Gulf to coordinate policies in light of the perceived threat of Iran's nuclear ambitions.
John Bolton, the State Department's top international security official, said countries in the region were "well aware" of the threat posed by Iran, which maintains its nuclear activities are for peaceful energy purposes.
"Their repeated support for terrorism makes it particularly dangerous if they were to acquire a nuclear weapon," Bolton told reporters.
"Whether they would use it directly as the government of Iran or whether they would transfer it to a terrorist group leaves us very concerned," said Bolton, undersecretary of state for arms control and international security.
...
Bolton stressed that the United States advocated a Middle East free of nuclear weapons and dismissed the possibility of nuclear threats from Israel.
"Israel has a particularly close relationship with the United States and I think that more than anything else is what convinces us that there is no threat from use of Israeli nuclear weapons," Bolton said.
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2005/2/8/ | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Sun May 15, 2005 8:21 pm Post subject: The Bush-Bolton Plan to Bomb Bushehr |
| http://www.wanniski.com/PrintPage.asp?TextID=4359
May 14 2005
Memo on the Margin
The Bush-Bolton Plan to Bomb Bushehr
Memo To: Republican Senators
From: Jude Wanniski
Re: With Tony Blair’s Support
Buried down in today’s New York Times report on President Bush reaffirming his unqualified support for John Bolton as U.N. Ambassador is the reason why almost all of you are ready to vote for his confirmation.
“Republicans are hoping to shame Democrats into a quick vote on Mr. Bolton. They argue that he needs to be in place by June so that the United States will have the latitude it needs to press its concerns about Iran's suspected nuclear weapons program before the Security Council.”
Why the big rush? My reliable sources tell me it is because there is a timetable that makes it urgent for Bolton to be ready for action in June in order to cripple the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) as part of the plan to bomb the Iranian nuclear-power plant at Bushehr. That’s because Bushehr, under construction with Russian supervision, will soon be ready to receive the Russian fissionable material enabling it to produce power. In 1981, remember Republican Senators, Israel bombed the Osiraq nuclear power plant near Baghdad just before it was to be fueled by its French contractors. Once fueled, bombing is out of the question because of the radiation that would be emitted, with clouds traveling who knows where.
Of course you must know by now that at the time the Israelis blew up Osiraq, the situation was quite different. We were in the midst of the Cold War, the United States was supporting Iraq in its war against Iran, and the Russians were supporting Iran. So when the billion-dollar Osiraq plant went up in smoke (with the help of the neo-cons who were already occupying the Pentagon in that first year of the Reagan administration), there was no reaction from Russia because the Israelis were essentially bombing us!! We also know by now that Iraq did not have a nuclear weapons program at the time, but only began its (unsuccessful) clandestine effort after Osiraq.
The same is now true of Iran. If a month or two from now you are advised by President Bush that it is necessary to take out Bushehr to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, you would have to wonder if the neo-cons and their Likud allies in Tel Aviv aren’t simply threatening World War III on a faulty premise. Wouldn’t you. The situation now is quite different, with Bushehr a Russian project in Iran.
On a recent, quite incredible FoxNews special, Lieut. General Thomas McInerney said we are already moving aircraft carriers into positions from which we could strike. He was then asked: “If you had to put a percentage on it, the chances that the US will eventually have to take military actions against Iran, what would you put it at?” to which McInerney replied casually: “Well, I would put one percent of using ground forces, boots on the ground in Iran, I would put up 50 percent on a blockade and I would put up fifty to sixty percent on precision air strikes on their nuclear development sites.” He also observed casually that Iran wouldn’t dare take on the United States. Perhaps the 60 million Iranians would greet our bombers with garlands and sweets. Do you see what I mean? FoxNews, as you may know, is commonly known as "The War Channel," for similar work it did in promoting the war against Iraq.
Is Iran this kind of threat to anyone? As far as I can tell, ladies and gentlemen of the GOP Senate, the answer is “absolutely not,” at least as long as they remain members in good standing of the NPT, which means they will permit the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to inspect intrusively and constantly, as they have been doing. It has been the mission of John Bolton and his underling, Stephen Rademaker, to “reform” the United Nations in a way that dissolves the NPT and the need for the IAEA, not only to pave the way for the bombing of Bushehr, but also to get out from under the NPT provisions that require all the nuclear-weapon powers to make progress toward making the world a nuclear-free zone.
If you wish to really understand what’s going on, instead of getting briefed by the same people who briefed you prior to the invasion of Iraq, please read Dr. Gordon Prather’s commentaries on the crisis just around the corner. First, on WorldNetDaily.com, he writes Strengthen the NPT -- Or Else, in which he walks us through the misinformation that Bolton, Rademaker and the neo-cons have been spreading on Iran’s alleged violations of its treaty obligations. Dr. Prather, who by the way came to Washington under the patronage of Sen. Pete Domenici, Republican of New Mexico, and is no left-wing liberal, also penned a second column today for antiwar.com, Bush-Blairs Nutty U.N. Proposal, which you have to read to realize how “nutty” it is.
There is also today on the antiwar.com website today an overview of this looming crisis that I highly recommend, as it was highly recommended to me by Dr. Prather, The Iran Crisis in Global Context. If you and your staffs do take my suggestions seriously and go to these links, I think you may have greater doubts about the Bolton nomination than you have now. If you have any doubts about Dr. Prather, check with your colleague, Senator Domenici, who was instrumental back in getting Prather an appointment as the Army’s chief scientist during the Reagan administration.
This isn’t too much to ask, is it? For good measure, I’d hope those of you who are reading this memo to the GOP Senators and are among their constituents would urge them to take a second look before they send Bolton to the United Nations. His mission is not to clean up the so-called “Oil-for-Food Scandal” or promote UNICEF gift cards. It is to bomb the nuclear facilities in Iran after undermining the work of IAEA and the need for the NPT. | | | | | ©2002-2009 WarWithoutEnd.co.uk |
