Nomination of John Robert Bolton to be the Representative of the Unites States of America to the United Nations--Continued
NOMINATION OF JOHN ROBERT BOLTON TO BE THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA TO THE UNITED NATIONS--Continued
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I rise today in opposition to the nomination of Undersecretary of State John Bolton as United States Ambassador to the United Nations, an institution which he has openly and repeatedly disdained.
A number of factors have led me to this decision, but they fall into several broad categories: Mr. Bolton's apparent abuse of the intelligence process and of his subordinates; his opposition to peacekeeping and other fundamental functions of the United Nations; his disdain for the institution itself; his opposition to important nonproliferation efforts; and the poor judgment he has displayed on key foreign policy questions.
Furthermore, there is the nomination process itself as it has been carried out in this case. Despite repeated requests from the Foreign Relations Committee, the executive branch did not provide key documents concerning Mr. Bolton's requests to learn the identities of 10 U.S. officials who were cited in intelligence intercepts.
The administration's failure to provide requested and relevant documents distorts the nomination process.
Although handicapped by a lack of information and candor, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee examined the charges that Undersecretary of State Bolton abused the intelligence process by seeking to have those who dared to dissent removed.
The evidence demonstrated a clear pattern of conduct that led 9 out of 18 members of that committee to vote against confirmation.
The minority views of the committee report on the Bolton nomination reached four firm conclusions on this matter:
One, Mr. Bolton repeatedly sought the removal of intelligence analysts who disagreed with him.
Two, in preparing speeches and testimony, Mr. Bolton repeatedly tried to stretch intelligence to fit his views.
Three, in his relations with colleagues and subordinates, Mr. Bolton repeatedly exhibited abusive behavior and intolerance for different views.
Four, Mr. Bolton repeatedly made misleading, disingenuous, or nonresponsive statements to the committee.
We have to examine these conclusions in terms of the position for which Mr. Bolton is now being considered as the United States voice at the United Nations.
In his approach to intelligence, Mr. Bolton clearly sought to stretch the analysis to meet his world view rather than stretching his world view to accommodate other possibilities.
This is an extremely dangerous way to look at the world, as the 9/11 Commission and others have shown us.
Even more damaging, Mr. Bolton apparently used his position to attempt to intimidate subordinates and even to have analysts fired who dared to disagree, on such critical issues as the alleged development of weapons of mass destruction in Cuba and elsewhere.
Crying wolf about weapons of mass destruction is an extremely dangerous habit. The United States will be living with the consequences of poor intelligence and unfounded allegations regarding Iraqi weapons of mass destruction for years to come.
The United Nations was at the center of the WMD debate over Iraq and it will be at the center as we seek to address North Korea and Iran as well.
We cannot afford to be wrong about weapons of mass destruction again, and we cannot afford to have at the helm a man who has deliberately exaggerated intelligence regarding these devastating weapons.
There is also the question of pressuring colleagues and subordinates, even attempting to get people fired.
In response to Mr. Bolton's tactics as Undersecretary for Arms Control and International Security, Secretary of State Colin Powell reportedly came down to ask the analysts to continue to ``speak truth to power.'' I applaud Secretary Powell for this step, but he should have never had to take it.
The Senate Intelligence Committee briefly addressed this issue of pressuring and seeking to remove analysts last year. However, we addressed this question only superficially, as I pointed out then in the committee's additional views on ``The U.S. Intelligence Community's Prewar Intelligence Assessments on Iraq.''
Even worse, our committee fell into the same trap of discouraging dissent. As I wrote then, ``the conclusion section in the [committee] report rebukes the analyst for the temerity of raising a policy question with a State Department Undersecretary.''
That analyst did the right thing. Policy questions should be raised. In fact, they should be welcomed.
If more questions had been asked, we might not have had a distinguished Secretary of State testifying at the U.N. with apparent certainty about weapons in Iraq that did not, in fact, exist.
The recent Silberman-Robb report from ``The Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities of the United States Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction'' concluded that ``the Intelligence Community was dead wrong in almost all of its prewar judgments about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.''
One of the key recommendations of the commission was to ``preserve diversity of analysis'' and to encourage debate among analysts.
These are the very impulses that Mr. Bolton apparently tried to stifle. These are the very impulses that we need most.
Mr. Bolton has been nominated to be our representative to the United Nations. In that seat, he will effectively become our representative to the world.
It is not a position that he has highly valued in the past. He famously remarked that ``The secretariat building in New York has 38 stories. If you lost ten stories today it wouldn't make a bit of difference.''
Mr. Bolton has since explained that he was merely using a metaphor. I think most of us realized that. The point is that the metaphor that he chose indicates his low regard for the institution.
Mr. Bolton has stated that ``there is no such thing as the United Nations,'' he has flatly rejected the idea at least once that the U.S. should pay its U.N. dues, and he has expressed his desire to see the Security Council reduced to one member, namely the United States.
Mr. Bolton is correct when he argues that the United Nations cannot be effective unless the United States plays a leading role. The League of Nations showed us that. Where he is mistaken is his fundamental confusion of leadership with domination.
A security council of one would leave us with no allies, no friends, and no supporters.
As we have seen with tragic clarity in Iraq, we are stronger when we have allies, and we are more effective multilaterally than unilaterally.
In its domestic policies, the Bush Administration has posited an ownership philosophy that implicitly tells us, ``We are all alone in this.'' Mr. Bolton represents the international wing of that school of thought.
We see this very clearly with the issue of peacekeeping. This nominee has stated that he opposes the use of peacekeepers in civil conflicts because he does not regard civil conflicts as ``threats to international security.''
Mr. Bolton testified against United Nations involvement in the Congo, where at least 3 million people have died, and he opposed the U.N. civil administration missions in East Timor and Kosovo.
Humanitarian issues aside, civil conflicts have a tendency to spill over borders, just as the conflicts in Sudan, Rwanda, Uganda, and the Democratic Republic of Congo have all become intertwined.
Moreover, civil conflicts can lead to failed states and failed states are very much a threat to national security.
We cannot have a representative to the U.N. who opposes one of its most basic and important functions.
Mr. Bolton has also dismissed the role of international law. In the late 1990s, he stated:
It is a big mistake for us to grant any validity to international law even when it may seem in our short-term interest to do so--because, over the long term, the goal of those who think that international law really means anything are those who want to constrict the United States.
I believe that international law means something.
I believe that international law is very much in our national interest, and I believe that this perspective from our potential ambassador to the United Nations is as damaging as a White House legal counsel or Attorney General who dismisses the Geneva Convention as quaint and obsolete.
Most disturbing of all, Mr. Bolton has criticized any `` `right of humanitarian intervention' to justify military operations to prevent ethnic cleansing or potential genocide.''
That tells us Mr. Bolton has learned nothing from the bloodstained lessons of history, including the unforgivable failures of both the United States and the U.N. in Rwanda in 1994.
President Bush has rightly called the crimes in Sudan genocide. Secretary Rice recently echoed that judgment. The Administration has said that it has been blocked by other members of the Security Council in its attempts to do more to stop the killing in Darfur.
Is the United States going to appoint as our ambassador a man who not only belittles the U.N. but denies that it can or should intervene to prevent genocide? What possible message does that send on Darfur?
Another absolutely central United Nations function is the fight against the proliferation of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction. Mr. Bolton has undermined nonproliferation efforts, not strengthened them.
Recently, 102 former ambassadors and high ranking diplomats wrote Senator Lugar to express their deep concern over the Bolton nomination. They declared ``John Bolton has an exceptional record of opposition to efforts to enhance U.S. security through arms control.''
We are witnessing the results of the Bolton approach right now at the Non-Proliferation Treaty conference in New York. By all reports this conference is making little progress toward creating a stronger, safer non-proliferation regime.
A former senior Bush administration official told reporters, ``Everyone knew the conference was coming and that it would be contentious. But Bolton stopped all diplomacy on it six months ago.''
We cannot have our representative at the U.N. stopping diplomacy. He should be shaping it.
Finally, there is the question of judgment, a key quality in a diplomat.
Mr. Bolton was effectively banished from negotiations with North Korea after he launched into public attacks on their government and its leader on the eve of discussions. The State Department was forced to call Mr. Bolton back and send a replacement to the talks.
I cite this example not because North Korea does not merit criticism: By virtually any measure, it is one of the worst governments in the world.
But during Mr. Bolton's tenure, North Korea's nuclear weapons program has expanded, negotiations have deteriorated, and the situation has grown substantially more dangerous.
Ultimately, we return to Mr. Bolton's vision of the world and of the role of the U.N.
Let me conclude by turning to Samantha Power, one of our nation's foremost scholars of genocide and an astute observer of international relations.
Dr. Power has written:
It is unclear what the Bush Administration has in mind by shipping Bolton to New York. The appointment has been spun as ``Nixon goes to China.'' Nixon, however, actually went to China: the visit was compatible with his world view. Bolton, by contrast, seems averse to compromise, and is apparently committed to the belief that the U.N. and international law undermine U.S. interests.
The United Nations is in need of reform. The same could be said of many of our own government institutions, as we are attempting to do with the intelligence community, for example.
The United States should be a positive influence in transforming the U.N. to meet the needs of the 21st century. But John Bolton is not the person for the job.
I cannot help but contrast John Bolton to John Danforth, a true statesman, a true soldier in the campaign to end the killing in Sudan, and a gracious and skilled United States representative to the United Nations.
John Danforth was unanimously approved for that position. Mr. Bolton is mired in a controversy of his own making over his suspect qualifications.
I cannot vote for a representative to the United Nations who demeans the institution, who works against non-proliferation, who abuses the intelligence process and its analysts, who dangerously inflates assessments of weapons of mass destruction, who rejects the value of peacekeepers and their role in civil conflicts, and who undervalues the principle of international law itself.
http://thomas.loc.gov/