Not a single neocon left unrewarded: Bolton to UN

[Moses]

Bush Nominates Hard-Liner as U.N. Ambassador

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

Published: March 7, 2005

Filed at 2:46 p.m. ET

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Undersecretary of State John R. Bolton, an outspoken arms control expert who rarely muffles his views in diplomatic nuance, is President Bush's choice to be 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 whose strong statements have irked leaders in North Korea and China.
Advertisement


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.

In a measure of the partisan hackles Bolton has raised in the past, the Senate confirmed him to his current post by 57-43, with all the votes in opposition coming from Democrats. The vote was on May 8, 2001.

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, 2001 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.

[Moses]

March 7, 2005

Bush Picks Critic of U.N. to Serve as Ambassador to It

By BRIAN KNOWLTON,
International Herald Tribune

WASHINGTON, March 7 - President Bush is nominating Undersecretary of State John R. Bolton, a blunt-spoken hawk with a history of skepticism toward the United Nations, to be the United States ambassador to the organization, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice announced today.

"The president and I have asked John to do this work because he knows how to get things done," Ms. Rice said. "He is a tough-minded diplomat, he has a strong record of success, and he has a proven track record of effective multilateralism." ....


But the choice of Mr. Bolton, who has long demonstrated a preference for a direct approach to diplomacy, appeared likely to raise concerns abroad and rattled some Democrats.

Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts asked in a statement, "if the president is serious about reaching out to the world, why would he choose someone who has expressed such disdain for working with our allies?" And the Senate minority leader, Harry Reid of Nevada, called the nomination a "disappointing choice and one that sends all the wrong signals."

Mr. Bolton, 56, is considered one of the administration's leading conservative hawks. He pressed the case for war with Iraq. And he has been witheringly critical of autocratic countries including North Korea, Iran, Syria and Cuba.

Today, Mr. Bolton promised to work closely with members of Congress to advance Bush's policies and said his record showed "clear support for effective multilateral diplomacy." [Insisting on it to replace Clinton's approach w/ North Korea, but advocating unilateral approaches in every other case]

"The United Nations affords us the opportunity to move our policies forward," [meaning, likely, sanctions against their "regime change" targets] said Mr. Bolton, who acknowledged that in the past he has been critical of the organization.

Scott McClellan, the White House spokesman, twice today appeared to allude to Mr. Bush's desire to see changes at the United Nations, underscoring the president's "strong commitment to making sure that multilateral organizations are effective." [What's with the disingenuous use of the word "multilateral"?]

The United Nations is at a delicate point, under fire over abuses of the Iraq oil-for-food program and allegations of sexual abuse by United Nations peacekeepers in Congo. This has added to harsh criticism of the organization by some American conservatives.

Nor has the Bush administration yet completely moved past tensions dating from the Iraq war. Mr. Bolton himself has led an administration effort to oust Mohamed ElBaradei as head of the International Atomic Energy Agency; critics have said the administration was angered that Mr. ElBaradei did not take a tougher stance on Saddam Hussein's nuclear ambitions for Iraq ["nuclear ambitions?"] .

One analyst, Nile Gardiner, a security specialist at the conservative Heritage Foundation, suggested that Mr. Bolton's tough approach might be controversial in places but that was exactly what the administration wanted at the United Nations.

"John Bolton will be a U.S. ambassador who aggressively pursues the U.S. national interest at the United Nations, which includes fundamental reform of the U.N., and bringing the U.N. kicking and screaming into the 21st century," he said. "The White House has chosen someone who will be tenacious and aggressive in pursuing the president's goals."

Yet, Mr. Bolton's past comments on the world body seemed dismissive. He has been widely quoted as saying at a 1994 conference that "if the UN secretariat building in New York lost 10 stories, it wouldn't make a bit of difference."



....Mr. Bolton's confirmation hearings appear sure to generate controversy, possibly even among some Republicans [Was this a slap in the face/knife in the back to Lugar/Hagel?], although few expect the nomination to be blocked. Mr. Reid, the Democratic Senate leader, said Mr. Bolton would have "much to answer for" during confirmation hearings.

"At a time when President Bush has recognized we need to begin repairing our damaged relations with the rest of the world," Mr. Reid said in a statement, "he nominates someone with a long history of being opposed to working cooperatively with other nations."

Some diplomatic observers saw Mr. Bolton as an odd choice.

"Mr. Bolton is seen as among the most hawkish of President Bush's advisers, and as among those who are most sympathetic toward unilateral action, and perhaps least sympathetic toward a multilateral approach to things," said Robert Hathaway, director of Asia studies at the Woodrow Wilson International Center in Washington.

"Certainly, many people around the world will see this nomination as raising questions about the president's sincerity in wanting to work in a cooperative fashion, a multilateral fashion," he said.

After a period in which the Bush administration has emphasized a desire for international cooperation, underscored by the president's trip to Europe, the nomination of Mr. Bolton appeared to show that hard-liners on foreign policy still carry clout in a clearly divided administration.[divided?-- I think the neocons clearly prevail] Mr. Bolton has been championed in the past by Vice President Dick Cheney.

David Abshire, a former colleague of Mr. Bolton when he was at the American Enterprise Institute and a former ambassador to NATO, defended the nominee's plainspoken ways. "I think it's important to keep in perspective that while he was undersecretary of state working against proliferation, it was his job to be extremely blunt," he said.

Mr. Abshire said Mr. Bolton's position in the first Bush administration involved "alliance building," and he added, "When he's at the U.N., where collegial relations are important, he's got that kind of experience."

And Jeane J. Kirkpatrick, who served as the United Nations ambassador under President Ronald Reagan, said in 2003 that Mr. Bolton "loves to tussle," adding, "He may do diplomatic jobs for the U.S. government, but John is not a diplomat."

In 1999, Mr. Bolton called for full diplomatic recognition of Taiwan and said the notion that "China would actually respond with force is a fantasy."

His hard line, and blunt talk, on nuclear negotiations with North Korea has roiled the Bush administration's already-difficult dealings with the government there.

In July 2003, as delicate six-party talks including North Korean were about to start, Mr. called Kim Jong Il, the North Korean leader, a "tyrannical dictator" of a country where "life is a hellish nightmare."

North Korea responded furiously, saying that "such human scum and bloodsucker is not entitled to take part in the talks" and that Pyongyang no longer considered Mr. Bolton to represent the administration. The State Department removed him from its delegation.

Mr. Hathaway of the Wilson Center said other parties to the Korean nuclear talks had at least privately challenged Mr. Bolton's confrontational approach. But he also noted that the United Nations, for now, "is not where the action is on the North Korea question."[No, but they do plan to go after Iran, apparently-- as planned-- the European rapprochement another deceptive feint by Bush]

Mr. Bolton also raised concerns when he was quoted by the Israeli newspaper Haaretz in early 2003 as saying that the United States, after defeating Iraq, would "deal with" Iran, Syria and North Korea. And in June of that year he told the BBC that in the case of Iran, "all options are on the table."

In a 2002 interview with The New York Times, Mr. Bolton was asked about what seemed to be mixed signals from the Bush administration on North Korea. He grabbed a book from a shelf and laid it on the table. Its title: "The End of North Korea."

"That," he told the interviewer, "is our policy."

Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company

[POA]

As surreal as this might sound, there is an upside to Bush nominating someone like Bolton: an actual diplomat might be able to convince people that are wavering that Bush isn't as vile as he truly is.

However, Bolton has no diplomatic talent whatsoever, and I've never heard of anyone claiming to be a diplomat that is so utterly incompetent. This actually makes it much easier for the rest of the world to unify (more than they already are) against the Bush administration.

[Moses]

It does make things rather obvious, but I fear it also indicates that the Bush Administration has more things up their sleeves, like, perhaps, the Hariri assasination, -- they regard themselves as hugely successful so far in their neocon agenda. It looks like they are sticking to their war plans for Iran (go to the UN for sanctions, yada yada) and the media will likely ramp up a dysinformation campaign to go with all of it.

[Moses]

"Placating the right" is excuse dropped into this Borger article:

---

US names hawk as ambassador to UN

Julian Borger in Washington
Tuesday March 8, 2005
The Guardian

European hopes that the Bush administration would bring a more multilateral approach to its foreign policy were dealt a blow yesterday with the nomination of an outspoken hawk as America's ambassador to the UN.

John Bolton, the nominee and a former undersecretary of state for arms control, has built a reputation for public disdain for international treaties and organisations, including the UN.

He told a conservative audience 11 years ago: "The [UN] secretariat building in New York has 38 storeys. If it lost 10 storeys, it wouldn't make a bit of difference."

Announcing his nomination, the secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice, 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."

Although his previous job at the state department had nothing to do with it, Mr Bolton asked to be allowed to sign an official letter in 2001 withdrawing the US from the treaty establishing the international criminal court.

More recently, Mr Bolton led Washington's campaign to oust Mohamed ElBaradei from his post as the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, because he had not ruled Iran in violation of its international obligations.

Mr Bolton's nomination, which is likely to be the subject of a bitter confirmation fight in the Senate, is potentially bad news for British diplomats at the UN.

Their Washington colleagues dreaded dealing with him, because of his sometimes blustering manner and his vigorous opposition to international conventions Britain supports, such as the international criminal court, the comprehensive test ban treaty and the anti-ballistic missile ban.

In 2001, Mr Bolton also scuttled a protocol intended to strengthen the biological weapons convention, declaring it was "dead and is not going to be resurrected".

"He was the administration's most vocal critic of arms control agreements," said Lee Feinstein, a foreign policy strategist during the Clinton administration, who works at the Council on Foreign Relations thinktank. "It's interesting to pick someone like Bolton at a time when the [UN] secretary general has made a decision to address a number of US concerns."

However, one UN official said the appointment might have a positive impact if it accelerated the process of internal reform. "Being known as a critic isn't necessarily a bad thing, if it's constructive," the official said.

Mr Bolton's nomination jarred with recent signals from the White House that it was prepared to pursue a multilateralist approach to its relations with the rest of the world in its second term.

President Bush and Ms Rice were conciliatory during recent trips to Europe, and European diplomats pointed to the appointment of several moderate figures to top jobs at the state department.

But one former state department staffer said: "This is a politically bold move by Condi to placate the right, because she has been coming under attack lately.

"She's buying political space on the right but she's also getting an expensive headache."

[Moses]

ajc.com > Opinion

OUR VIEW

Bush's U.N. choice a loose cannon

Published on: 03/07/05

Since his re-election, President Bush has toned down his rhetoric, traveled to Europe to confer with allies and in general tried to pro-ject a more cooperative image to other nations made nervous by American aggressiveness.

Then he went and named John Bolton as America's ambassador to the United Nations, a step that threatens to undo much of his earlier work.

Most Americans don't recognize Bolton's name or know his reputation, but his record is all too well known in capitals around the world.

In diplomatic circles, Bolton is known as a rigid man who rejects compromise, makes unfounded assertions and accusations and provokes confrontation.

As undersecretary of state for arms control and international security, for example, Bolton claimed with absolutely no evidence whatsoever that Cuba was producing biological and chemical weapons for possible use against the United States.

With so many valid criticisms of Cuba available, simply making stuff up shouldn't be necessary.

In the past, Bolton has also harshly attacked the United Nations. It is one thing to be critical of the United Nations' performance — the agency deserves much of its reputation as an incompetent bureaucratic bungler. But Bolton has questioned the very reason for its existence, which makes him an odd and perhaps even destructive choice for Bush.
 <br> 

---

 <br>Find this article at:
www.ajc.com/opinion/content/opinion/0305/08edbolton.html
 <br> <br>

[Moses]

Israeli UK rag says:


Bush sets a hawk loose in the UN

By Alec Russell in Washington[/b]
(Filed: 08/03/2005)

President George W Bush gave notice yesterday that America's hawks are still a force to be reckoned with when he nominated an outspoken hardliner as his ambassador to the United Nations.

With his blunt ways, John Bolton, the outgoing under secretary of state for arms control and international security, has delighted the American Right over the past four years but dismayed diplomats of the old school.

News of his nomination shocked many at the UN, a frequent target for his criticism.

To the distress of Whitehall, he is a passionate opponent of the International Criminal Court and has long been scornful of Europe's bid to use diplomacy to force Iran to abandon its nuclear ambitions.

The secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice, said she and Mr Bush had asked "John to do this work because he knows how to get things done".

She hailed him as a "tough-minded diplomat" and, in a clear reference to his outspoken reputation, said that "through history some of our best ambassadors have been those with the strongest voices".

North Korea has been less diplomatic, branding Mr Bolton "human scum".

[Moses]

NEWSMAKER-Bolton Choice for U.N. Stirs New Controversy
Mon Mar 7, 2005 06:23 PM ET
By Carol Giacomo, Diplomatic Correspondent

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Once dubbed the State Department's "most dangerous man," U.S. ambassador-designate John Bolton would bring an aggressive, sometimes abrasive style to the United Nations that appears at odds with President Bush's new focus on cooperation and diplomacy.

Bolton has a long history of criticizing the United Nations, has sometimes doubted that European and Asian allies could be counted on to back U.S. positions and has often spoken out so bluntly he was considered political dynamite.

But he is a favorite of conservatives who value his committed hard-line ideology, incisive legal mind and the single-minded passion with which he seeks to turn those views into U.S. policy, often with great effect.

Bolton is an unapologetic advocate of assertive American global leadership. Some analysts said appointing him U.N. envoy may be the best way to ensure U.N. reform takes place and that it is credible to American conservatives.

... Danielle PLetka, vice president of the pro-Bush American Enterprise Institute, where Bolton once worked.[3 paragraphs of Pletka praise omitted]



Some Republicans said there was talk at the weekend that Bolton, who has close ties to Vice President Dick Cheney, would replace departing Undersecretary of Defense Douglas Feith.

Apart from policy contributions, Bolton helped ensure Bush's key political victory. He was on the team former Secretary of State James Baker took to Florida in 2000 to count "chads" in a disputed presidential election the U.S. Supreme Court decided for Bush.
(rest at link)

[Moses]

A top Republican foreign policy official close to the administration said that it was well understood that Mr. Bolton might alienate Europeans, but that Mr. Cheney had pushed for him for the United Nations job.

Another Republican foreign policy official said the administration was also ignoring the warnings of Senator Richard G. Lugar, the Indiana Republican who is chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. This official said Mr. Lugar had told the administration that Mr. Bolton could not be confirmed for a job that had been discussed earlier, deputy secretary of state.

Mr. Lugar did not issue a statement, and an aide said he had assured Ms. Rice that the nomination would be considered swiftly and fairly. But with the Foreign Relations Committee balanced between 10 Republicans and 8 Democrats, it was not clear whether his nomination might be blocked.

Supporters said Mr. Bolton would be able to convince the Senate and the public that he was committed to a reformed United Nations working effectively. Ms. Rice noted that he had been an assistant secretary of state for international organizations 15 years ago, serving as a liaison with the United Nations and helping to press for repeal of the resolution that equated Zionism and racism.

"John Bolton is personally committed to the future success of the United Nations," Ms. Rice said, "and he will be a strong voice for reform at a time when the United Nations has begun to reform itself to help meet the challenging agenda before the international community."

---

David D. Kirkpatrick contributed reporting from Washington for this article, and Warren Hoge from the United Nations.

www.nytimes.com/2005/03/08/politics/08bolton.html?pagewanted=2&th

(Weissman's byline- his headline: Bush nominates "weapons expert". he sucks.)

[POA]

March 10, 2005
An Unforgivable Choice as UN Ambassador
The Pathological John Bolton

By LARRY BIRNS

Pathetically enough, the chair that Adlai Stevenson once sat in is now scheduled to be filled by John Bolton, which must be considered a cruel piece of humor on the part of the White House. While the Bush administration ostensibly has set out on a campaign to reform the United Nations, astonishingly enough, it just has nominated Bolton to be the U.S. ambassador to the international body. Akin to calling in the clowns, those familiar with his record believe that there is no one in U.S. public life today more ill-suited for that position than Bolton. His nomination reflects nothing less than an affront to the American people, the diplomatic community and people of goodwill everywhere. It is not a matter that he is too conservative; rather, it reflects the concern generated by his stint as Under Secretary for Arms Control and International Security in the first Bush administration where he was demonstrably its most extremist member.

By selecting an individual who has spent the last decade repudiating basic norms of international cooperation and civility, his appointment is tantamount to an absolute rejection of multilateral cooperation and U.S. accountability. Throughout his outrageous career in public life, no one has been more notorious for their right-wing ideology and no one has more consistently disgraced this country's good name than Bolton, with his rants, inventions, outrightlies and bumptious formulations. As a result, he has been a repeated embarrassment to this nation's international reputation. The fact that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice signed off on his nomination indicates the lamentable lack of standards that her tenure will likely take and that she will figure to be an illiberal factor in international diplomacy. Inevitably, his appointment will trigger an uproar in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and in other venues where foreign policy issues are a matter of serious concern.

As a senior State Department official during Bush's first term, Bolton mocked the fundamental value of the UN as well as the broader international community by successfully leading the push for this country to reject U.S. support of the International Criminal Court (ICC), as well as seeking the exclusion of social policy efforts from international development aid. Within the Bush administration, he was quickly embraced by the rest of the clutch of ferocious hawks that eventually came to include Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, Deputy National Security Advisor Elliot Abrams and Director of National Intelligence John Negroponte. This group has given U.S. foreign policy an extremely right-wing tilt where it has emphasized unilateralism, the continuation of the U.S. saber rattling and the rejection of relativism along with accountability for various U.S. overseas initiatives.

Disdain for Multilateral Cooperation

"There is no such thing as the United Nations," portentously declared John Bolton to a panel of the World Federalist Association in 1994, and then added, "The secretariat building in New York has 38 stories. If it lost ten stories, it wouldn't make a bit of difference." The contradiction between the crudity, if not banality, of his beliefs and the importance of his new appointment could not be more stark.

Undermining recent attempts at fence-mending diplomacy with Washington's traditional but recently estranged European allies, Bush's bizarre appointment demonstrates that this administration plays by very perverse rules. As multilateral efforts are underway to diffuse nuclear threats in Iran and North Korea, Bolton's involvement, as has been seen in negotiations with both countries, only have escalated tensions. After the U.S. Congress passed the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty in 1999, he described supporters of that document as "misguided individuals following a timid and neo-pacifist line of thought."

In May 2002, Bolton outlandishly came out with a bombshell charge, with no supporting evidence, that Cuba not only possessed "at least a limited offensive biological warfare research development effort," but had provided such technology to "other rogue states." When challenged by Senator Christopher Dodd (D-CT) to produce his evidence before a hearing of the Senate's Foreign Relations Committee, he declined to appear. His charges were so bereft of any substance or even a tincture of verisimilitude that even his Bush administration colleagues rushed to disavow any association with them. In addition to refutations by then-Secretary of State Colin Powell (who said "we didn't actually say it [Cuba] had some weapons") and former commander-in-chief of the U.S. Southern Command Gen. Charles Wilhelm (who claimed that he never had received any evidence to support Bolton's claim), Rumsfeld indicated to reporters that he was unaware of any links connecting Cuba's biomedical industry to bio-weapons research. Despite being called upon to do so by several senators, Bolton refused to attend a Senate hearing where he could present any evidence of Cuba's alleged bioweapons program, a rather telltale admission that he would be unable to substantiate his charge under sworn testimony. The dearth of any compelling evidence linking Cuba's highly lauded pharmaceutical industry to terrorism was eventually confirmed by a 2004 wide-ranging Congressional investigation, which peeled away at the last vestiges of credibility behind Bolton's assertions.

[POA]

No Accountability for the U.S.

Throughout Latin America, Bolton repeatedly has betrayed a total lack of comprehension of the policy consequences of his rhetoric and his near-illiteracy regarding the fundamentals of a democratic polity. In a 1998 article in the conservative publication The National Interest, he insisted that the International Court of Justice (ICJ) gave an "erroneous" ruling by determining that the U.S. had violated Nicaragua's sovereignty through its clandestine military operations against a Sandinista administration, which had cost the small Central American country several billion dollars and with which it ostensibly had normal diplomatic relations. Similarly retreating from any U.S. accountability for its actions overseas, Bolton opposed the international indictment of former dictator Augusto Pinochet for atrocities during his seventeen years of tyrannical rule in Chile, in which thousands were kidnapped, tortured and killed by the CIA-facilitated regime. Bolton's reasoning was that, "Chileans made their choice, and have lived with it."

International cooperation does not exactly harmonize with Bolton's edict that the U.S. government must be free to act without restriction or accountability. His comments show utter disregard for any possible victims of the adverse consequences of U.S. foreign policy and an unwavering commitment to preemptive intervention and unilateralism. Bolton's staunch opposition to multilateralism is an outright rejection of the central ideals of the United Nations, a body where he now aspires to join a long line of distinguished U.S. public figures that have held that position. To think that this bizarre figure will occupy the chair in which once sat Stevenson may give some indication of the bottom feeder that the Bush administration has reached down to appoint.

The Bolton nomination reinforces the notion that the Bush White House is incapable of selecting well prepared professionals of a moderate outlook to high public office, be it in the executive branch, the bureaucracy or the judiciary. It seems that its nominees require an ideologically in-your-face component that is both insulting to the intelligence of the American people and highly revealing of how little President Bush respects the process of selecting qualified candidates to high offices. Rather, he continues to trash and radicalize this function with irresponsible and entirely inappropriate appointees. The U.N. will face a fierce challenge if Congress finds the Bolton nomination acceptable and confirms him, thus guaranteeing an epoch of the vulgarization of U.S. representation to that body.



More from John Bolton, in his own words:

On Washington's adherence to multilateral international accords: "Treaties are law only for U.S. domestic purposes. In their international operation, treaties are simply political obligations" (Op-Ed in The Wall Street Journal, November 17, 1997).

On International Law: "It is a big mistake for us to grant any validity to international law even when it may seem in our short-term interest to do so ­ because, over the long term, the goal of those who think that international law really means anything are those who want to constrict the United States" (Insight Magazine, 1999).

On the how the ICC would affect U.S. senior civilian and military leaders: They would become "the potential targets of the politically unaccountable Prosecutor created in Rome" (The National Interest, Winter 1998).

On the Bush administration's decision to withdraw from the ICC: Bolton asked and was granted permission to sign his name on the letter notifying the UN of Washington's actions even though he played no official role in the decision-making process. He later told The Wall Street Journal, it was "the happiest moment of [his] government service."

On advocating market reforms over efforts to improve basic living standard in developing countries: He criticized the Clinton administration for continued funding of "programs on international population control and environmental matters rather than fundamental economic policy reforms in developing countries" and assailed then Vice-President Al Gore for his "preference for condoms and trees instead of markets" (Op-Ed in the Washington Times, June 25, 1995).

On the UN: Bolton reasserted his scriptural fidelity to unilateralism, writing that if Washington were to overly legitimize the UN, "its discretion in using force to advance its national interests is likely to be inhibited in the future" ("Kofi Annan's UN Power Grab," 1999, WeeklyStandard).

On Weapons Treaties: During a 2001 UN Conference on Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons, Bolton told delegates that Washington was opposed to any move to restrict civilian access to weapons or a treaty that would serve to "abrogat[e] the constitutional right to bear arms."

On efforts to add a negotiated verification process to an international bio-weapons ban: He told conference participants that the provision was, "dead, dead, dead, and I don't want it coming back from the dead."

Larry Birns is director of the Council on Hemispheric Affairs.

[Moses]

Bolton's Baggage

....Bolton will face a spirited confirmation battle in the Senate, where four years ago his nomination as the new Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security was approved by a vote of 57-43. All fifty Republicans voted to confirm Bolton, joined by Democratic hawks Ben Nelson, Zell Miller, Joseph Lieberman, Mary Landrieu, Russell Feingold, John Breaux, and Evan Bayh.

---

Middle East Restructuring with Israel at the Center

Bolton is an outspoken hawk on U.S. policy in the Middle East, and has since the mid-1990s been closely associated with neoconservative organizations and pressure groups that are close to the right-wing Likud party in Israel – including the Project for the New American Century, American Enterprise Institute, Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs, and the Committee for Peace and Security in the Gulf (CPSG).

Bolton boasts that one of his most important achievements was the central role he played at the State Department in 1991 in leading the successful campaign to repeal the 1975 General Assembly resolution equating Zionism with racism, "thus removing the greatest stain on the UN's reputation."

Self-identified as a bipartisan group whose members are prominent in U.S. international policy circles, the Committee for Peace and Security in the Gulf was launched by neoconservatives in 1998 as part of their incipient campaign to build support for regime change in Iraq. Underwritten by the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation and organized by the neoconservative Center for Security Policy, CPSG called on Washington to adopt a "comprehensive political and military strategy for bringing down Saddam and his regime." Working closely with Ahmad Chalabi's Iraqi National Congress (INC), CPSG, which was co-chaired by Richard Perle, included most of the charter members of the Project for the New American Century (including Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith, Dov Zakeim, and Peter Rodman) and an array of AEI scholars, including Richard Perle, Jeffrey Gedmin, Michael Ledeen, Joshua Muravchik, David Wurmer, and John Bolton.20

Along with other Bush administration officials, Bolton was on the board of advisers of the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs before joining the administration. JINSA supports a "peace through strength" policy to support Israel and works to build "strategic ties" between the U.S. military and U.S. military contractors with Israel. Other administration figures associated with this militarist organization that aims to strengthen the military-industrial complexes in both Israel and the United States are Richard Cheney, Douglas Feith, and Paul Wolfowitz.

Two months prior to the Iraq invasion, Undersecretary of State for Arms Control John Bolton traveled to Jerusalem to meet with former Prime Minister Netanyahu and Prime Minister Sharon to discuss strategies for "preventing the spread of weapons of mass destruction." No mention was made of the widely accepted fact – although never mentioned by the United States – that Israel is the only nuclear power in the Middle East. Instead, the undersecretary for disarmament affairs focused on the Bush administration's disarmament targets following the planned invasion of Iraq. Bolton in February 2003 said that once regime change plans in Iraq were completed, "it will be necessary to deal with threats from Syria, Iran, and North Korea afterwards."21

With respect to Syria, Bolton has been the administration's attack dog. Without offering any evidence to support his allegations, Bolton in May 2003 said that the Bush administration "knows that Syria has long had a chemical warfare program" including maintaining a "stockpile of the nerve agent sarin and is engaged in research and development of a more toxic and persistent nerve agent."

What's more Bolton raised alarmist claims that Syria "is pursuing the development of biological weapons and is able to produce at least small amounts of biological warfare agents."22 Soon after the Iraq invasion and despite the fact the no WMDs were found in Iraq, Bolton warned Syria, Libya, and Iran that "the cost of their pursuit of weapons of mass destruction is potentially quite high."

[Moses]

Contras and Cuba

When he worked as an assistant attorney general under Edwin Meese, Bolton thwarted the Kerry Commission's efforts to obtain documentation, including Bolton 's personal notes, about the Iran-Contra affair and alleged Contra drug smuggling. Working with congressional Republicans, Bolton also stonewalled congressional demands to interview deputies of then-Attorney General Edwin Meese regarding their role in the affair.23

Also while at the Justice Department, Bolton refused to provide internal documents to the Senate during the confirmation hearings for the nominations of Rehnquist, Scalia, and Kennedy to the Supreme Court.24

Speaking before an audience at the Heritage Foundation in May 2002, Bolton made the case that Cuba should be included among the axis of evil countries because of its development of biowarfare capacity. Cuba is world renowned for its biomedical industry, but according to Bolton the industry was concealing a WMD project. He charged that Cuba has "at least a limited offensive biological warfare research development effort" and that it has "provided dual-use technology to other rogue states."

Providing no evidence for his allegations, Bolton said that Cuba was involved in the sales of illicit biowarfare technology at least in part as a way to boost its cash-short economy. Other administration officials, when pressed, declined to support Bolton 's charges against Cuba. Bolton 's claims that Cuba was developing biological weapons and that Syria possessed WMDs were completely unsubstantiated by leading officials.

Bolton never complied with congressional demands to provide documentation on the Cuban assertion, and the CIA effectively blocked Bolton's appearance before the Senate regarding his allegations about Syria's weapons of mass destruction. A congressional investigation of Cuba's alleged WMD program found no evidence to back Bolton's assertions.25

Cornering and Confronting the Dragon

One of the long-running divides in the Republican Party is between those who favor constructive engagement with China and those who propagate an alarmist view of China. John Bolton is a leading figure in the confrontationalist " China lobby," sometimes called the Blue Team. In the post-WW II period, the China lobby was most closely associated with the old guard right and militantly anticommunist organizations like the American Security Council.

Today, the China lobby finds its home in the neoconservative think tanks and policy institutes, notably the American Enterprise Institute and the Center for Security Policy. With such figures as John Bolton, it has also found a home in the Bush administration. Bolton and other administration figures, such as CIA director Porter Goss and Donald Rumsfeld, are warning that China increasingly represents a military threat not just to other Asian countries but to the United States itself.26

Bolton is not only one of the administration's leading hawks on China policy, he is also its strongest advocate of Taiwan 's independence and of U.S. defense of Taiwan. Bolton has close professional and personal ties in Taipei. According to an investigative report by the Washington Post ( April 9, 2001 ), Bolton was on the payroll of the Taiwan government before joining the Bush administration. Bolton received $30,000 for "research papers on UN membership issues involving Taiwan " at the same time he was promoting diplomatic recognition of Taiwan before various congressional committees.27

In 1999 Bolton, speaking as an AEI scholar, said that "...diplomatic recognition of Taiwan would be just the kind of demonstration of U.S. leadership that the region needs and that many of its people hope for. The notion that China would actually respond with force is a fantasy." Bolton joined a prominent group of neoconservatives and traditional conservatives who signed a statement jointly sponsored by the Project for the New American Century and the Heritage Foundation that lambasted the Clinton administration for its failure to offer unequivocal support of Taiwan. The statement, whose signatories included William Kristol, Elliott Abrams, Richard Perle, I. Lewis Libby, Edwin Meese, William Buckley, Jeane Kirkpatrick, Paul Weyrich, James Woolsey, and Paul Wolfowitz, called for a state-to-state relationship with Taiwan.28

Before joining the administration, Bolton was a contributing columnist for the Taipei Times. When Taiwan 's first lady Wu Shu-chen visited Washington in what was widely regarded as a quasi-official state visit, Bolton , described by the Taipei Times as "an ardent friend of Taiwan ," held a lengthy personal discussion with President Chen Shui-bian's wife. At the time of his election, Bolton charged the Clinton administration of a policy of "strategic ambivalence" that left Taiwan vulnerable to Chinese invasion. According to Bolton, the U.S. should defend Taiwan against any possible provocation by China, including in the frontline islands of Kinmen and Matsu.

At the time of Wu Shu-chen's visit, both Taiwanese and U.S. officials said the visit was not a private one and she would not be meeting with U.S. government officials. The first lady addressed a forum at AEI in which she called for the country's admission to the United Nations as an independent nation – a prospect that China has said it would not tolerate given that it considers Taiwan to be a "renegade" province. Wu Shu-chen was also awarded the Democracy Service Medal by the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), a neoconservative-led institution that depends almost exclusively on U.S. government funding.29 Presenting the award was Rep. Christopher Cox, a "China Lobby" member who has worked closely with Bolton on China and is a member of the Congressional Taiwan Caucus.

Like many neoconservatives, Bolton charged that the Clinton administration practiced "disdainful diplomacy toward the Republic of China on Taiwan " while giving preferential treatment to the Palestinian Authority. The neoconservative camp generally regards U.S. policy toward Taiwan as a bellwether for the degree of U.S. commitment to Israel. According to Bolton, writing in January 2000 for AEI: "That the PLO is a more consequential player [than Taiwan ] in the United Nations speaks volumes... [about] the organization's detachment from reality."30

In July 2003, during the run-up to the six-nation talks with North Korea, Bolton described President Kim Jong Il as the "tyrannical dictator" of a country where "life is a hellish nightmare." North Korea responded in kind, saying that "such human scum and bloodsucker is not entitled to take part in the talks.... We have decided not to consider him as an official of the U.S. administration any longer nor to deal with him." The State Department sent a replacement for Bolton to the talks.31

[Moses]

Legal Sleaze

John Bolton, a Yale-trained lawyer, rejects the legitimacy of international law – at least when international conventions, treaties, and norms constrain what he regards as U.S. national interests. Bolton also has a record of questionable legal and ethical dealings at home.

As an associate at the high-powered Covington law firm, Bolton in 1978 worked with Sen. Jesse Helms and the National Congressional Club, the senator's campaign-financing organization, to help form a new campaign finance organization called Jefferson Marketing. According to the Legal Times, Jefferson Marketing was established "as a vehicle to supply candidates with such services as advertising and direct mail without having to worry about the federal laws preventing PACs, like the Congressional Club, from contributing more than $5,000 per election to any one candidate's campaign committee." After its formation, Jefferson Marketing became a holding company for three firms – Campaign Management Inc., Computer Operations & Mailing Professionals, and Discount Paper Brokers.

Together with another Covington attorney, Brice Clagett, Bolton later represented the National Congressional Club and Jefferson Marketing – which were treated as a single legal entity – in various lawsuits filed against it by the Federal Election Commission (FEC) – all of which led to a $10,000 fine levied by the FEC against the National Congressional Club in 1986.

In 1987 the National Congressional Club reported a debt of $900,000, with its major creditors being Richard Viguerie, Charles Black, Jr., Covington and Burling, and the DC law office of Baker & Hostetler – all of which maintained good relations with the right-wing political action committee as their debts for service offered went unpaid. Jefferson Marketing was the PAC's largest creditor, with more than $676,000 due from the National Congressional Club. By the end of the decade, FEC documents showed that Helms' political action committee owed Covington $111,000. But this was not considered a major concern for Covington, according to firm spokesman H. Edward Dunkelberger, Jr.32

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."

Corporate representatives professed surprise at the size of the contribution request. "It's pretty astounding," said one invitee. "If this doesn't have "payment for access' (to top GOP lawmakers) written all over it, I don't know what does."

Bolton also made sure that handsome contributors received their money's worth. In another NPF memo, two NPF employees told Bolton that, in return for a $200,000 donation by US West, the telecommunications company should be assured that the policy issues that most concern them should be incorporated into the NPF agenda for their upcoming telecommunications "megaconference."

In addition to the continuing money laundering, during John Bolton' tenure as NPF president, the forum received a $25,000 contribution from the Pacific Cultural Foundation. Both Barbour and Bolton expressed their appreciation in a letter to the Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative, which functions as Taiwan 's embassy in Washington. According to one communication with Taiwan 's official representative in Washington, it was noted that the "generous contribution" would enable the forum "to continue to develop and advocate good international policy."

Bolton left his position at the National Policy Forum shortly before Congress launched its probe into whether the group illegally accepted foreign contributions. No charges were ever filed as a result of the congressional hearings, which according to the Democratic Party minority members of the committee didn't devote adequate resources into the investigation of NPF operations.33

[Moses]

    Intel: Did Bolton Try to Intimidate Spies?
    By Mark Hosenball
    Newsweek

    11 April 2005 Issue


Bolton: Influencing intelligence?

   Bush critics in the Senate are hunting for evidence to derail or delay confirmation of State Department official John Bolton as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. Foreign Relations Committee staffers are looking into charges that Bolton attempted to intimidate or victimize two career intelligence officials for what he viewed as their insufficiently alarmist analyses of intel on purported Cuban biological weapons. Committee investigators have contacted both the State Department and the intel community seeking records and witnesses. But Bolton's opponents are unsure if they will be able to make their case in time for Bolton's confirmation hearing Thursday.

    Accusations that Bolton pressured intel specialists on Cuba have circulated since at least 2003, when congressional intelligence committees looked into allegations that intel analysts were urged to issue alarming reports about Saddam Hussein's unconventional weapons. The hearings produced little evidence of that. But State Department WMD analyst Christian Westermann testified that he tangled with Bolton about a speech on Cuban germ warfare. According to a Senate intel committee report, Westermann says he sent the CIA an e-mail proposing changes in Bolton's speech. Bolton later got a copy of the e-mail, "berated" Westermann and tried to have the analyst transferred. Westermann wasn't reassigned.

    The second case Bolton's congressional critics are examining involves a senior intelligence-community Latin America analyst. Congressional and administration sources say Bush foreign-policy aides - including Bolton and Otto Reich, a top policymaker on Latin America - tried to have the analyst, who today serves undercover, fired. They then tried to block him from being promoted because they believed he was too soft on Cuba, and because he was once assigned to President Bill Clinton's National Security Council. Reich tells NEWSWEEK that he believed the analyst's work was "unreliable." Reich says he discussed his views with Bolton and "other colleagues" and that he wrote a secret letter to the analyst's bosses critiquing the expert's work. But a former official says George Tenet, who was then CIA director, resisted pressure from Bolton and Reich, and the analyst was ultimately promoted. Some Senate Democrats hope to persuade at least one Republican on the Foreign Relations Committee to vote against Bolton's confirmation, which could deadlock the panel and delay - or even block - his U.N. nomination from reaching the Senate floor. Bolton declined to comment.