Bolton's Abscess Appointment

Don Kraus and Sam Stein

July 29, 2005

As Congress prepares for its upcoming August break, signals have emerged from the White House that President Bush will give John R. Bolton a recess appointment to the post of U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. For a while now, it has been clear that such a move would be damaging to both Bolton and the United States. Now, however, the appointment seems likely to have harmful ramifications for President Bush as well.

The reason is straightforward. According to reports from MSNBC, John Bolton has testified to the grand jury investigating the outing of CIA operative Valerie Plame. Not only is it possible that Bolton may have lied about this testimony in a questionnaire he filled out for his confirmation hearing, but the linkage to the Plame affair places Bolton, yet again, into a scenario in which intelligence was doctored for the sake of political gain. In fact, according to an investigation by the State Department Inspector General, Bolton’s office was responsible for the placement of the Niger uranium claims in the State Department’s December 2002 “fact sheet” on Iraq’s WMD program; claims that have since been exposed as baseless. 

For the Bush administration, this means prolonged attention to the Karl Rove saga and yet another member of its “inner circle” associated with an emerging conspiracy. For Bolton—whose credibility is already so damaged it couldn’t possibly be made worse—the Plame linkage is yet another reason why he would do more harm then good at the United Nations.  Undoubtedly, Bolton’s primary diplomatic asset—his proximity to the president—will be diminished as the administration distances itself from those involved in the leak. 

And yet, as reported in The Washington Post  and all but confirmed by Nebraska Sen. Chuck Hagel, the White House will likely go ahead with a recess appointment of Bolton, potentially as soon as this Saturday (July 30, 2005). Such a course of action, now more than ever, will be an utter blow to U.S. foreign policy interests and America’s position within the international community.

In addition to Bolton’s potential involvement in fixing the facts to the policy in the run-up to war, objections to Bolton are as pertinent today as they were when the nomination was announced on March 7. Simply put: The Senate has recoiled at the prospect of sending an abrasive individual with a history of politicizing intelligence to be America’s chief diplomat at the United Nations. Of course, Bolton and the United Nations were not a harmonious pairing in the first place. Bolton has questioned the United Nations' existence, disparaged international cooperation and scoffed at paying U.N. dues. But for the most part, principled members of Congress worried that Bolton’s lack of credibility, patience and diplomatic experience (not necessarily his anti-U.N. ideology) would make him a liability at the world body.

That lack of credibility and ineffectiveness which made senators so apprehensive to being with—and compelled Sen. George Voinovich, R-Ohio,  to call Bolton “the poster child for what someone in the diplomatic corps should not be”—will only be exacerbated should Bolton be sent to New York without congressional approval. In the words of Sen. Pat Roberts, R-Kan.,  a recess appointment “would weaken not only Mr. Bolton but also the United States.” 

In an extremely bleak scenario, Bolton—should he end up at the United Nations— may have to present America’s case for action against threats from North Korea or Iran. In these instances, Bolton’s reputation for advancing his own agenda and manipulating intelligence already represent tremendous obstacles for building international consensus. Add in the new revelations about his role in the Niger uranium claims, and the fact that he would be at the United Nations without the support of the public he serves, and Bolton would be utterly ineffectual in such crises.

The lack of credibility that would accompany a recess appointment of John Bolton would be damaging in instances other than hypothetical rogue state standoffs. It would also be disastrous during the U.N. revitalization process that is currently underway.

At the upcoming September summit, world leaders will meet to discuss not only how to improve the United Nations, but also what security means in the 21st century, how issues such as peacekeeping and development must be dealt with, and the ways in which the international institutions can play a valuable role in the era of global interdependence. It is a historic opportunity for President Bush to support making the United Nations into a strong and effective 21st-century institution that can be a valuable partner for American foreign policy.

Yet the comprehensive U.N. reforms that best suit America’s interests—including a recommitment to international economic development, a Democracy Fund, and a revamped, credible Human Rights Council—would be extremely difficult to achieve should a recess-appointed Bolton be in charge of negotiations.  Not only will many in Congress be skeptical of Bolton’s agenda, but the international community would wonder who, exactly, Bolton was representing. The distrust would be paralyzing, particularly if Bolton holds U.S. dues hostage in exchange for U.N. concessions.

The dangers of a recess appointment are clear. The additional damage that such a course of action would cause to Bolton’s credibility will handicap him at the United Nations and damage the United States’ negotiating capacity at a time when the future of the United Nations is at stake. Emerging stories of Bolton’s less-then-honest recounting of grand jury testimony and association with the Plame investigation simply add to the problem. America needs an ambassador who can help fix what’s wrong with the United Nations without abandoning what’s right; an ambassador who can champion American policy without damaging America’s reputation, an ambassador who has the ability to build alliances without resorting to doctoring intelligence. Bolton was not that ambassador to begin with. A recess appointment only makes him worse.