Bolton, Sudan and the UN
REVIEW & OUTLOOK, The Wall Street Journal
April 7, 2005 — John Bolton’s confirmation as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations can’t come soon enough. At the very least, his well-known candor would shed welcome light on the reality that this is an institution where the French and others come together to score political points against the U.S.
The latest example is the Security Council’s resolution late last week to refer Sudanese war-crime suspects to the International Criminal Court. The ICC is anathema to the Bush Administration, which is understandably not enthralled with the prospect of American citizens coming under the jurisdiction of a world court brought to you by the same institution that sponsored the Oil for Food program. In opting not to veto the resolution, but rather to abstain, the U.S. swallowed its objections to the ICC for a greater good: the chance to hold someone to account for the mass murder in Darfur and to perhaps prevent more people from dying there.
The greatest irony here is that for more than a year the U.S. had been virtually alone in trying to get the Security Council to take tougher action on Darfur. France and China, which have extensive oil interests in Sudan , weren’t interested, nor was Russia, which didn’t want to jeopardize its arms trade. A U.S. proposal to set up (and pay for) an African-run war-crimes court met with tepid interest in African capitals after Paris made it clear that the move would come at the price of European aid and trade.
The ICC referral was thought up by France, which jumped at the chance to shift the focus away from its own Darfur abdication and embarrass the U.S. At the last minute, however, Britain replaced France as the resolution’s sponsor when France couldn’t swallow a provision exempting U.S. citizens from prosecution in any Sudan case to come before the Court. Never mind that France itself has exercised its option under the treaty that established the ICC to exempt French citizens from any prosecution for seven years.
Meanwhile, the “stop Bolton” movement has shifted into high gear, in anticipation of Mr. Bolton’s confirmation hearing, originally scheduled for today and now postponed until next week. The George Soros-funded Open Society Policy Center and a pro-U.N. group called Citizens for Global Solutions held a press conference Monday to unveil an anti-Bolton ad campaign. Mr. Bolton, Global Solutions’ Web site says, has “dedicated his life to undermining the United Nations.” The groups are running ads in Rhode Island to intimidate GOP Senator Lincoln Chafee into opposing Mr. Bolton.
Citizens for Global Solutions is the gussied-up name for the former World Federalist Association, an outfit that has long campaigned for a world government to which mere nations would be subservient. To say that it’s been on the fringes of American public discourse is to be unfair to the fringes.
Meanwhile, Mr. Soros has been saying for two years that, since the Soviet Union is no longer around, the U.S. is now the greatest threat to world peace. He spent some of his billionaire pocket change to make that case to the American people last year on behalf of John Kerry. He lost. But now he doesn’t want the President who won to be able to name the advisers he wants, such as Mr. Bolton. Who’s really “out of the mainstream?”
One rap being used against Mr. Bolton is that two years ago it fell to him, as a senior State Department official, to put his name to the letter informing U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan that the U.S. would not participate in the ICC. “This is the happiest day of my government service,” said Mr. Bolton, who apparently is not supposed to relish doing the wishes of a President he agrees with. Given the cynical way the ICC is being used in Darfur — to deflect attention from the U.N.’s failure to stop the Khartoum government’s depredations — Mr. Bolton strikes us as the more sincere multilateralist.
Interestingly, some of the smarter folks at the U.N. seem to agree. Mark Malloch Brown, the new chief of staff to Kofi Annan, paid us a visit last week and said he looked forward to having Mr. Bolton “as the U.N.’s ambassador to the U.S.”
Mr. Malloch Brown is leading the cavalry that’s been called in to save Mr. Annan’s job, and he is experienced enough to know that the U.N. can never achieve its goals without an engaged America. Whoever runs the U.N. is going to need U.S. support for reform that can restore its credibility among the American taxpayers who finance so much of its operations. A man with Mr. Bolton’s political credentials stands a better chance than most of forging an American reform consensus.
The debate over Mr. Bolton’s nomination isn’t between “multilateralists” and Americans who want to go it alone in the world. It is between those who want the world to act effectively when it should against the world’s bullies and those who’d prefer to settle for the U.N.’s usual empty speechifying.