Al's Opinions

I’ve just been reading some articles about the nomination of John Bolton to be the Ambassador to the United Nations for the United States. Some articles contain words of praise for Bolton, others condemnation. Both the pro-Bolton and anti-Bolton articles show agreement with the fact that Bolton is blunt-speaking, tactless, and contemptuous of the United Nations and of International Law. Pro-Bolton writers state that the United Nations needs to be shaken up and that a dose of Bolton would be good medicine. Anti-Bolton writers view the appointment as a big, big mistake, in which George W. Bush shows his own contempt for the United Nations and his decision to continue conducting this nation’s foreign policy without any attempt to obtain support from the UN.

Mr. Bush has made conciliatory speeches in recent weeks, indicating that he would like to have UN support for this nation’s foreign policy initiatives. How can his words be squared with the Bolton nomination?

It looks to me and others that Bolton’s nomination to the UN post is a move by Condoleezza Rice, the new Secretary of State, to get the man out of town. When Colin Powell left, many neocons hoped that Bolton would be elevated to Deputy Secretary of State. Instead, Rice chose Robert Zoellick, a former colleague while she was National Security Advisor. Zoellick, unlike Bolton, is a realist and an experienced diplomat.

Score one point for Rice, zero for Cheney and the Neocons. Award Bush a muddle.