"A capacity for
straight talking rather than peddling half-truths is a strength and
not a disadvantage in diplomacy," wrote Margaret Thatcher in a
letter of support for John Bolton. "In the case of a great power
like America, it is essential that people know where you stand and
assume you know what you say."
It is unfortunate that the words of the former British prime
minister, who has strongly backed Bolton's nomination to be U.S.
ambassador to the UN, have not been heeded by his detractors on
Capitol Hill. Instead, they have embarked upon an odious campaign
of character assassination that has undermined American interests
on the world stage.
The campaign to discredit Bolton has been ugly and undignified. It
culminated this week in a 54-to-38 cloture vote, just six votes
short of the 60 needed to beat a Democratic filibuster and bring
Bolton's confirmation to a final vote on the floor. The Democrats
are refusing to allow an up-or-down vote of the Senate unless the
White House provides documents relating to Bolton's handling of
intelligence assessments of Syria.
This request is both unrealistic and irresponsible, and, if
carried through, would compromise U.S. intelligence gathering in a
highly sensitive region. The Bush Administration is now pushing for
a further vote in the Senate, while holding out the prospect that
Bolton may be sent to the UN on a recess appointment, a highly
unusual move.
Nearly six months have passed since the United States has had an
ambassador at the United Nations. In the meantime, the threat of a
nuclear-armed Iran looms large on the horizon, thousands continue
to be slaughtered in the Sudan, and dictators and tyrants continue
to find refuge in the halls of the UN. The oil-for-food scandal
continues to unfold, with a growing number of UN officials
implicated, and horrific peacekeeping abuses in the Congo remain
largely unchecked and unpunished.
The U.S. badly needs a powerful voice at the UN at this time, both
to advance the much-needed reform agenda, and to aggressively push
American interests at the Security Council.
Those who have used the Bolton nomination as a political football
have done a huge disservice to American taxpayers, who are pumping
$3 billion a year into the UN system, and expect accountability and
strong representation. Bolton's opponents are also helping to
perpetuate the survival of the ancien régime at the helm of
the United Nations, a regime resistant to change and submerged in a
culture of corruption and anti-Americanism.
Bolton's critics seem strikingly out of touch with an American
public that is tired of seeing their money squandered by a
bureaucratic elite in Turtle Bay that sneers at U.S. policy. The
recent revelation that UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan may have
actively intervened on behalf of a Swiss company (the employer of
his son Kojo) that was bidding for an oil-for-food contract, will
further undermine the legitimacy of the world body in the eyes of a
disillusioned American public.
Last week's overwhelming 221-to-184 vote in the House of
Representatives in favor of the UN Reform Act sent a clear signal
to Annan and the UN establishment that change is on the way, and
that U.S. funding for the United Nations will be dramatically cut
unless the institution is fundamentally reformed. As Rep. Henry
Hyde (R.-Ill.), chairman of the House International Relations
Committee eloquently put it, the vote was a clear rebuttal of "a
mindset in the upper realms of diplomacy that worships at the altar
of the United Nations."
There is little doubt that the UN's comfortable bureaucracy fears
Hyde and his UN reform juggernaut. They also fear Bolton, who is
similarly committed to serious reform of a declining institution
that no longer maintains the trust of the American people. The
United States needs a revolutionary at the UN, not a Neville
Chamberlain, a diplomatic warrior who will aggressively pursue the
national interest rather than appease an international consensus.
In short, it needs a "straight talker" like Bolton.
Nile Gardiner,
Ph.D., is a fellow in Anglo-American security
policy at The Heritage Foundation.
First appeared in Human Events