Learn about our streaming media
Now Playing:Up Next:
View our complete schedule
There are many ways to support Chicago Public Radio.Learn how to support Chicago Public Radio
4:05 PM CST
|
|
|
Learn about our streaming media |
|
Now Playing: Up Next: View our complete schedule |
|
There are many ways to support Chicago Public Radio. Learn how to support Chicago Public Radio |
|
Nov 20, 2008 4:05 PM CST |
|
|
|
|
||||||||
| Programs |  |
Events | |
Listener Services | |
About Us | |
Press Room | |
Contact Us |
|
Europeans must be confounded. Only last month our newly remodeled commander in chief, visiting the continent, assured Old and New Europe alike that the United States now plans to rule, not by imperial ultimatum and threat, but by working in sensitive and respectful concert with our allies. No longer would Washington ride roughshod over their preferences, such as working through international institutions like the United Nations. In Brussels after the presidential visit, I found a more hopeful mood than I had seen in years. Let's wait and see, avowed my European friends. Maybe the cuddly rhetoric portends a real change in policy. Maybe so. But our friends across the Atlantic must now be wondering why the Bush Administration this week nominated a living symbol of American antipathy to the UN—second only to the moribund Senator Jesse Helms—as our next ambassador to the UN. Has John Bolton—a hardliner in various posts in the Reagan and Bush Administrations, and bane of Colin Powell's tenure as secretary of State—changed his stripes? If he is confirmed by a skeptical Senate, will new boss Condoleeza Rice be able to rein him in, even though he was reportedly nominated under pressure from Dick Cheney and was surely not her first choice? To hear a sampling of Bolton's publicly stated positions is to appreciate how far outside the American mainstream, let alone any international consensus, he stands. Among his proclamations are the following: . There is no such thing as international law. . Treaties do not bind the United States; nor does customary international law. . The United States has no legal obligation to pay its U.N. dues. . If the U.N. Secretariat building in New York had ten stories lopped off, it “wouldn't make a bit of difference.” . The UN Security Council should have only one permanent member—the US. . The International Criminal Court is an emotional construct at odds with the real world. . The U.S. should recognize Taiwanese independence; the notion that China would respond with force is a “fantasy.” . Human rights are a threat to American freedom of action, and international human rights groups a menace to American democratic choice. Now, if Bolton were nominated to some university chair, such views might be considered merely the provocative excesses of a brilliant but eccentric intellect, welcome in the halls of academe because they are certain to engender spirited debate. But the UN is not a mere debating society. It is a place where diplomatic friends—which even the superpower needs in a troublesome and complex world—are made and lost. If John Bolton speaks and votes what he thinks, he will succeed only in generating friction, not friendship and cooperation. As Nebraska Republican Senator Chuck Hagel observes, “We need alliances; we need friends. To go up there and kick the UN around doesn't get the job done.” Not to worry, say optimists. Secretary Rice affirms that her man Bolton is now “personally committed to the future success of the United Nations.” Well, if we can have a new Bush, why not a new Bolton too? A more credible comment comes from a Chinese official, who diplomatically observes that American foreign policy is made in Washington, not New York. Maybe Bolton can follow instructions from headquarters. Maybe he can be diplomatic. But one wonders. During sensitive negotiations in August 2003, he called North Korean leader Kim Jong Il a “tyrannical dictator” of a land where “life is a hellish nightmare.” True enough, but not exactly diplomatic. North Korea was moved to reply that Bolton was “human scum” with whom it would refuse to deal. One suspects that this outlandish nomination is motivated more by domestic politics—catering to the President's rightwing base—than by any consideration of foreign policy. If it is to be stopped, the eight Democrats on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, who include Illinois's Barack Obama, will need to stiffen their collective backbone. If they can win over the vote of at least one moderate Republican, such as Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island, the result would be a 9-9 tie, ordinarily enough to block a nomination. Few presidential nominations are worth a fight over confirmation. But sending our chief UN critic to the UN is not in the interest of American foreign policy. However well it may play in Texas, it should not win the consent of the Senate, whose constitutional responsibilities summon it to a higher calling. Doug Cassel is Director of the Center for International Human Rights of Northwestern University School of Law. Views expressed are those of the author, and not necessarily those of Northwestern University, the Center of International Human Rights, or Chicago Public Radio. |
|
|
|
©1998-2006 WBEZ Alliance, Inc. All rights reserved. | |
|
|||
