John Bolton

Time Magazine was justifiably correct in labeling John Bolton as the “anti-diplomat” in their 10 Questions column. It seems that Bush nominated him for his potential to shake up and reform the U.N., or maybe more accurately, use it as a method for enacting U.S. agenda globally. Luckily he never received the proper nomination to enjoy the full title as permanent ambassador. The democrats were firmly against him, as well as several key republicans. He has very little respect for the U.N. and resolves too quickly for action rather than talking things over. In a glaring example, in 2003 Bolton was removed from the U.S. delegation to the six-party talks over the nuclear program in North Korea after using extreme and damaging language to describe the state of North Korea. The point of diplomacy is to open up the possibility for change through decent and tactful communication; not to shut down the other party through insults and bullying. Bush seemed to think this is what the U.N. needed when he appointed Bolton, and Bolton’s comments published recently in TIME magazine only verify this. The following is a question sent in by a reader and Bolton’s answer:

Given the U.N.’s endemic inertia, corruption and competing national agendas, do you think it still serves America’s national interest to be a member?

It does, although it’s not a body that I would rest our foreign policy on. The U.N. [however] can be a useful instrument of American foreign policy.

Wow.