Rhode Island and John Bolton

By: Morton H. Halperin

The author is the Executive Director of the Open Society Policy Center in Washington, DC, and served in the administrations of Presidents Johnson, Nixon and Clinton.

Rhode Island has played a critical role in our nation's history many times – the first state to declare independence from England, the first to prohibit slavery, the last to ratify the Constitution because it lacked a Bill of Rights. More recently, it has sent respected representatives to Congress like Claiborne Pell, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and author of the Pell Grant program that helps fund higher education for America's youth. As a young man, Pell served as a diplomat at the San Francisco Conference that created the United Nations. Throughout his distinguished career he worked to build a constructive US relationship with the UN.

History has decreed that Rhode Island will once again play a decisive role in an important issue facing our nation and its relationship with the United Nations because one of Rhode Island's current senators, Lincoln Chafee, is likely to cast the deciding vote on whether John Bolton becomes the next US ambassador to the United Nations.

The issues at stake are much bigger than whether John Bolton – the individual – will be confirmed. In terms of his personal qualities it seems virtually undisputed that Bolton has repeatedly displayed volcanic and most undiplomatic explosions of temper and mean-spiritedness toward subordinates. His Republican colleague in Colin Powell's State Department, Carl Ford, called Bolton "a serial abuser" who "abuses his power and authority over little people." Powell's chief of staff said that Bolton would be "an abysmal ambassador." A person more at odds with the gracious, thoughtful Claiborne Pell can hardly be imagined, even if Bolton didn't loathe the United Nations that Claiborne Pell helped create.

Personal fitness aside, the larger issue is the relationship we want with the United Nations. Should we send someone to the UN who wants to destroy it, or insist upon a different, better ambassador who wants to reform it? Do we want a UN that is less politicized and more effective, or do we want to just tear it down? Bolton has zero credibility on caring about and wanting to improve the United Nations. He once said you could tear down 10 floors of the UN headquarters and it would not make a bit of difference. One of the leading groups supporting Bolton's nomination has formally called for kicking the UN out of the United States. John Bolton is their man. Should he be ours?

When informed of Bolton's attitudes toward the UN over 80% of Rhode Island voters say they want his nomination rejected according to a recent Zogby International poll. In the weeks since the Committee delay on this nomination, every allegation concerning Bolton and his behavior has been confirmed and shown to be part of a pattern.

Chafee has said that the President is entitled to choose his ambassadors. Everyone agrees with that in a normal situation. But the Framers of the Constitution did not give the Senate the power to reject ambassadors merely to have it serve as a rubber stamp. And the Rhode Island voters whose ancestors refused to even ratify the Constitution until government power was restrained by a Bill of Rights did not send Senator Chafee to Congress to serve as a rubber stamp. The Bolton nomination has provoked unprecedented controversy and opposition – including dramatic opposition from within President Bush's own State Department. This is not the "normal" nomination.

Nominating John Bolton was a slap in the face of the United Nations. Voting to confirm him would be a slap in the face of 80% of Rhode Island voters who want an ambassador who will help reform the UN rather than work to destroy it. Senator Chaffee is in a happy situation where the evidence, what his conscience must be telling him, and the wishes of the voters all coincide. On the other side is only White House arm-twisting and right-wing pressure. Senator Chafee should honor the wishes of his Rhode Island constituents and the life work of Claiborne Pell and vote "no" on John Bolton.