The Impossibility Of Neoconservatism: John Bolton Vs. The World

I am greatly encouraged that a huge fight has been ignited over the confirmation of John Bolton to be the US ambassador to the United Nations. It is very startling but very encouraging that a number of Republican senators have publicly come out against voting for Bolton. And this is actually very necessary, since Bolton is a very, very dangerous man for this job. There really is a lot of evidence for this - and also the fact that Bolton has not, in truth, been dedicating his life to reforming the UN. Rather, he and his neoconservative colleagues are dedicated to undermining the UN - as if it is bad enough already! StopBolton.org, founded by Citizens For Global Solutions, provides much information about this subject. They proclaim John Bolton as, "remarkable consistent in his contempt for international cooperation and his inability to exercise discretion in his work." And that is just the truth, however hard you might take it. Because John Bolton, rough around the edges, has two agendas. One of them is to dismantle the UN and provide for the United States to completely withdraw from the international community, and the other is to get rid of anyone (no matter the cost) who gets in his way. Here's some proof of this attitude:

"Denoucning the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court was the happiest moment of my governmental service career."

_{The Wall Street Journal, 2002}

^Okay, undoubtedly the ICC is corrupt and flawed as an organizational entity. But Bolton himself just flip-flopped and now he's turning around say, "Oh, I'm ready for the job! We need to have American leadership!" So first he *rejects* leadership by applauding his own decision to renounce the ICC Rome Statute, *but* uhp! then he goes and turns around and says that we need American leadership.

"We do not support the promotion of international advocacy activity by international or non-governmental organizations, particularly when those political or policy views advocated are not consistent with the views of all member states."

_{Statement to the UN Conference on the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons and All Its Aspects, 9 July 2001}

^ Now, what Bolton really means here is that if the views of the NGO in question are not with his views, then negotiation is no longer possible. This is obviously showing what I said earlier, that John Bolton is willing to step over anyone, ruin anyone's reputation, and stop at nothing to get what he wants. He's really not representing anything over the UN except neoconservative ideology. Its ridiculous how they operate, but the neoconservative idealogues simply do not have diplomacy on their agenda. Its shown directly in the quote above - you know what it is? "It's my way or the highway" is truly their standard operating procedure. Oh, and its all of them by the way. Just look at Bush's 2002 State of the Union. "You're either with us or you're against us." Real good definition of the War on Terror, huh? See, this is how they work. There's no diplomacy for the right wing - there's no compromise, there's no middle ground. Not at all. And these characteristics are also embodied by John Bolton himself. It is either his way or no way. Now Bush is just so unabashedly proud of this, since he's arrogant like that, but this is really...really...scary to me.

"Support for the International Criminal Court concept is based largely on emotional appeals to an abstract ideal of an international judicial system."

_{Statement before the House International Relations Commmittee, 2000}

^ So, what do I have to say about this? Well, now we see outright anger and disgust coming from Bolton at the exact concept of the International Criminal Court. This is outrageous really because of the fact that it shows how neoconservatives talk the talk of "The UN is a critical orguh-nii-zay-shun" but do not walk the walk. Its really obvious now, and I don't understand how Bolton can work for an organization that he doesn't believe in. And he said that his comments were back in the 1990s, but his above quote is from 2000. So he hasn't changed. People like him don't change.

"The Senate vote on the [Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty] is also an unmistakeable signal that America rejects the illusionary protections of unenforceable treaties."

_{The Jerusalem Post, 1999}

^ Now this quote is harder to digest. As hard as it is to say, what Bolton says here *does* have some truth in it - that the CTBT will be ineffective without enforcement on the part of the UN, the US, and the rest of the member states. But John Bolton himself shows literally no initiative on nuclear proliferation, regardless of the participation (or lack thereof) of the United Nations. It is really disheartening, to be honest, because it is nuclear proliferation that is the most critical security issue over the next few years. For Bolton to outrightly expose the fact that he will not commit to this is ridiculous, outrageous, and frankly very scary. And this is why John Bolton is unacceptable - this is why I cannot have any faith or confidence in him. Bolton's ideology gets in the way of his job, and that is not permissible. While what he says may have some truth to it, having an attitude of contempt and selfishness will not improve the situation.

"There is no such thing as the United Nations. There is an international community that occasionally can be led by the only real power left in the world and that is the United States, when it suits our interest and we can get others to go along."

_{1994 Global Structures Convocation}

^ Wow...this one is one of the most disturbing. And extremely disheartening. "There is no such thing as the United Nations" is the true neoconservative ideology. See, I think that most of the neocons (especially here in the US) are put into a bit of a tough position. They can't exactly *verbalize* their views that they would prefer dismantling the UN rather than reforming it because saying something like that would be socially unacceptable...but nor can they abandon their core beliefs of a unipolar world with the US as the sole superpower. See - Bolton's true ideology is revealed in this quote..."when it suits our interest". The neocons know that they have to dismantle the UN to get what they want. But there is a distinct conflict inherent here. Neoconservatives know in their inner core that the existence of the UN will continue to be a detriment to their greed and power, so they must dismantle it. In essence, the UN is antithetical to their interests of money, power, and greed.

Now, to be fair, I understand that the UN is a deeply flawed organization. I *know* that it has suffered many failures over the past decade and a half, and of *course* it is in desperate need of reform. But what I'm saying here is that the neoconservative agenda will only serve to make the situation worse. I would not endorse the neoconservative and imperalist agenda to offset the damage that has been created as a result of the UN's numerous failures. That's all. I just think that the neoconservative agenda of greed, money, power, and imperialism will only serve to make the current situation much worse than it already is...as if it *can* become worse. John Bolton is representative of the "we don't care, screw you, it's my money and power and I want it" agenda, and his prescence at the UN will only further accentuate that. That's really all we get with people and neocons like John Bolton who really do not have the UN's interests at heart (as most definitely shown in the quote above).

I frankly think that the neoconservatives have been put into a very difficult position in the world today. They can't exactly *verbalize* what they all believe because that would be deemed to be socially acceptable and would only alienate them from everyone. But neither can they abandon their core prinicipals...so what do they do? They lie, steal, cheat, and play as dirty as they get. And some don't even have to put up a facade like that - some of them, like John Bolton, reveal how freaking dangerous they are when they say what they say. Here's some more from this maniac:

"If I were redoing the security council, I'd have one permanent member because that's the real reflection of the distribution of power in the world."

_{National Public Radio with Juan Williams, 2000}

^ Need I say more? Of *course* that's the real distribution of power in the world....but is that what he wants? He *needs* that status quo. He *wants* to preserve it - it is *vital* to his neoconservative agenda! It is so obvious. For John Bolton and the neocon halo of power surrounding him, such a reform would be greatly welcome because it would be the equivalent of putting the US in complete control of the UN - and this would be extremely dangerous, and what's more significant is that it would not offset the problems of the UN - structurally and otherwise. Think about that - he'd have one permanent member of the security council. That permanent member could overrule *anything* and *anyone* and if it was from the US and under this government...I doubt that it would be anyone with a respectable record nor would it be anyone who was not a radical neoconservative. And this is so dangerous...to think that someone would *want* to dismantle the UN in order to promote their agenda...its mind-boggling to me. The neocons...they have no conscience.

"General Assembly resolutions and international conference declarations, (such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Agenda 21, and the Millennium Declaration) are 'mind-numbing.'

_{Policy Review. Bring Back the Laxalt Doctrine, 2000}

^ This is just sad...Read the article that Bolton authored to see what I mean...

---

Let's examine John Bolton's record of *actions* now, not just his rhetoric. In his past, John Bolton has...

• Attempted to reassign two intelligence analysts who challenged his policy conclusions
• Made an unusal number of requests for transcripts of secret conversations involving high-level US intelligence officers
• Angered British officials with maverick Iran policy
• Tried to fire officials for attempting to tone down Iraq WMD information
• Not forwarded crucial intelligence information to Colin Powell, former US Secretary of State
• Put relations with North Korea on the line, then lied to the US Senate about it. This claim was also verified in this story by the New York Times in which Thomas C. Hubbard, former ambassador to South Korea, affirms the allegations.
• Greatly exaggerated WMD evidence, in this letter to Rep. Chris Shays (R-CT)
• Allegedly harrased a USAID worker
• Allegedly threatened to fire a woman who requested maternity leave

So you make the decision. You want this neoconservative idealogue to be representing your country at the UN where he will only worsen the current status quo and further *his* agenda?

I think not.