A Plain-Spoken Man at the Right Time
By Ruth Wedgwood
For the United Nations to be taken seriously in Washington, and for Secretary-General Kofi Annan to have a partner in reform, there has to be a real U.S. presence in New York. John Bolton’s nomination comes after a decade in which we’ve had moral heartbreaks in Bosnia and Rwanda, for which there was an inadequate response by the United Nations. In Iraq, the United Nations did not take the security problems on the ground seriously, and, alas, the Oil for Food program failed to create an effective humanitarian exception to economic sanctions.

Today, the United Nations faces a new set of security challenges. The Security Council must do things it has never done. Deterrence is no longer effective against nonstate actors, and the combination of “irresponsible states” and weapons of mass destruction (WMD) could be lethal.

So this nomination is important. I’ve known John Bolton for a long time. At this time, in this place, it makes sense to put him in this job. Bolton has President George W. Bush’s confidence. When Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice travels abroad, she benefits from the fact that people know she speaks for Bush. Bolton has the same advantage and has pledged to work with Annan on reforming the United Nations. And it sometimes pays to have somebody who is hard-charging, even hard-nosed, in a job where they can put together a coalition.

Bolton has a depth of experience. He has served as assistant secretary of state for international organizations—a job in which one does much of what the U.N. ambassador does. He put together the Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI) to interdict WMD shipments on the high seas. It is a collaboration of the countries that want to participate in maritime exercises and intelligence sharing. It’s been a great success.

Some of Bolton’s positions that seemed controversial in the past now seem timely in hindsight. It was an article of faith among old-fashioned arms controllers that U.S. policy must tow the line on the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty (ABM), from which the Bush administration withdrew in 2002 to pursue national missile defense. But in view of recent North Korean missile developments, the idea that the United States should explore missile-defense technology is no longer dismissed as unthinkable, even by those on the political left.

The United Nations needs the kind of transparency expected by democratic governments, with a freedom of information act, an inspector general in every agency, and a personnel system that rewards competence and allows recruitment based on merit. The United Nations needs a transparency that will inspire people in the United States and elsewhere to support the organization.

Do you accomplish that through tough love or through yielding consensus? It’s a combination of the two. But, at times—this is where Bolton’s reputation for pungent speech comes in—it pays to say things clearly and plainly and to set a standard. How you reach consensus thereafter is another question.

Diplomats don’t talk like regular people. Individuals change when they get inside the United Nations. Most deliberation takes place in informal consultations; it’s different from public speech making and oratory. Bolton is tough-minded about what it takes to sustain a viable institution over the long haul, and he can be a partner to Annan on the needed reforms. He should be confirmed.

Bolton Cannot Be Effective
By Morton Halperin
We’ve already heard the case against Bolton’s nomination. All the attributes Professor Wedgwood has said the position requires describe someone other than Bolton. She’s already made the case for me about the United Nations’ importance for U.S. security interests. We need someone who can work effectively with other governments and who can come back to Washington and keep congress supportive of the United Nations. That’s exactly the opposite of what John Bolton is.