So Much for the Charm Offensive

Even by the standards of the Bush White House, Bolton’s appointment is an in-your-face assault on the international community and diplomacy. This is the man who so irked North Korea that a spokesman referred to him as “human scum” and refused to negotiate further until Bolton was replaced. The North Koreans had their reasons for making such a statement. During the Clinton administration, Bolton, then working for the right-wing American Enterprise Institute (AEI), said, “We should also make clear that diplomatic normalization with the U.S. is only going to come when North Korea becomes a normal country.” Those are not the words of a diplomat or somebody capable of negotiating, but of a dictatorial bully who has no business representing anybody on the international stage.

Bolton’s proponents like to paint him as outspoken and honest, but he has a history of saying the wrong thing and undermining efforts towards international cooperation. Bolton is the man who headed up US opposition to the International Criminal Court, saying, “It is an agreement that is harmful to the national interests of the United States, and harmful to our presence abroad.” Bolton was involved in US opposition to the landmine treaty. He was one of the chief hawks on Iraq. He led the charge to have the president of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Mohamed El Baradei, removed for not finding nuclear weapons in Iran. He called for a CIA investigation of Hans Blix when Blix failed to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Bolton is not a man who can work easily in the international community, because he is viewed with mistrust--and, sometimes, with open disdain.

Harvard Professor Graham Allison said of Bolton in an NPR interview, "Whatever else one says about Bolton, one of the words never applied to him that ever I’ve heard is diplomatic. In the arenas he operated in as under-secretary of state, he managed to be very polarizing and was generally not very successful at building coalitions and consensus.” That isn’t exactly a flattering appraisal of the man likely to be the USA’s next representative at the UN. It is more flattering than the article the Village Voice ran about him, but not by much.

The United Nations has been trying to put a happy face on this appointment, but European diplomats are looking on it with dismay. In a year when the United Nations is due for review and reform, the presence of a powerful force who has worked tirelessly to undermine them can be viewed only as a negative influence. Organizations under attack tend to close ranks, which will hamper reform. In that light Bolton can be seen only as a negative influence sent to weaken an organisation that he and his bosses have long held in contempt.

There is little doubt that Bolton will lead the neo-conservative attack on the United Nations and other multilateral institutions. He has a long history, both within the US government and without, of leading such attacks. His appointment is very much part of what George W. Bush meant when he spoke of spending political capital after the last US election. It is a continuation of US hegemony, disdain for international laws and treaties, and the "with us or against us" attitude that has defined the Bush government.

The Bolton appointment, even if by some chance it is not confirmed, shows just exactly how false the recent “charm offensive” really was. Although there were clues, like Bush refusing to speak to audiences that hadn’t been vetted in France and his insistence that military action against Iran was “still on the table,” the Bolton appointment is bound to be seen in the international community as an assault on the UN instead of an attempt at diplomacy.

That puts Canada in a difficult position once again. As seen in the Bush cabinet’s reaction to the Martin government’s recent refusal to officially sign on to Ballistic Missile Defence (a program that counted Bolton as one of its chief boosters), the United States very much expects Canada to go along with its policies. At a time when there is much concern about non-trade issues affecting decisions on trade between the two countries, the US is moving ever more quickly towards a foreign policy that Canadians have previously found untenable.

Canada’s history, and Paul Martin’s stated goals, do not mesh well with the reality the Bush White House is working to create. An example of this is the continued crisis in Darfur. The United Nations has been working towards a resolution to try Sudanese officials and Janjaweed Militia members in the International Criminal Court (ICC). The US was reported to be softening its stance against such a resolution. Bolton despises the idea of the ICC, though, and is unlikely to support any resolution including the ICC. More than that, his appointment signals that the Bush regime is in agreement with Bolton, making such a resolution unlikely.

Where does that leave Paul Martin? He has been supporting such a resolution for quite some time. It very much seems that whenever Canada dares to defy Washington we suffer threats of repercussions. How can our government support multi-lateral institutions and initiatives when those same institutions and initiatives are being constantly undermined by our closest neighbour; and when that neighbour continually threatens us through trade restrictions and tightened security at the border?

Bolton is vindictive and completely uncompromising. While those are definitely not assets for anybody who aspires to diplomacy, they are likely to cause more problems for Canada than for European countries. Europe has the buffer of distance from the United States. It also has the advantage of being a reasonably independent economic power. Canada not only lacks the buffer of distance, but the misguided economic policies of the last two decades have linked us to the US and left us vulnerable to bullying. How are we to oppose the misguided policies that Bolton represents?

The decision by George Bush and Condoleeza Rice to appoint John R. Bolton to the position of Ambassador to the United Nations signals the end of the charm offensive that ostensibly began with Bush’s visit to Ottawa. This appointment should also send a signal to Paul Martin and his government that the Bush government is no friend to Canada or the international community. Such a signal should cause any sensible leader to begin backing away from close ties with a country that clearly does not consider itself part of the international community, but instead above that community, immune from its laws, and indifferent to its well being.

It is far past time that we quit paying even lip service to the policies of a country that has continually refused to accept that the rest of the world does not exist to serve it. The United States has shown its true colours once again with this appointment.

So much for the charm offensive.

[Proofreader's note: this article was edited for spelling and typos on March 13, 2005]

Options