RSSUsing PayPal
Enough Talk: Bolton Wants Real Muscle on Darfur but Suggests No Course of Action
Share / Recommend - Comment - Print - Tuesday, Oct 11 2005, 6:31PM
CLOSE 
SOCIAL WEBSITES
http://digg.com/submit?phase=2&url=http://twn.riverlab.com/archives/2005/10/enough_talk_bol/&title=Enough Talk: Bolton Wants Real Muscle on Darfur but Suggests No Course of Action&topic=political_opinion" target="_blank">Digg
Del.icio.us
Reddit
Facebook
Newsvine
Stumble UponEMAIL THIS ARTICLE
John Bolton has preempted a Security Council briefing on Darfur. It was over Bolton's ambivalence about coordinated international action in the case of genocide that Senator Russell Feingold -- a staunch believer that the President should nearly always have the team he or she wants -- decided to oppose Bolton's nomination to the United Nations.
During the Battle over Bolton, the U.N. Security Council voted to refer war crimes suspects from Darfur to the International Criminal Court. The United States abstained in that vote -- but most believe that had Bolton been Ambassador at that time, America would have opposed the referral.
Stygius has more on this.
John Bolton may be sending a signal that he prefers action to words. But at the same time, he has not suggested a course of action for Darfur that can be taken seriously. In the mean time, it seems appropriate to know more -- and to monitor the growing, gnawing horror there.
Bolton's behavior reminds me of what the AFL/CIO told me once when I worked in Senator Jeff Bingaman's office, when the Democrats had slipped into the minority. I was working on a number of policy matters involving labor and was trying to get some new ideas and "solutions" on the table. An AFL representative chided me, saying that "We are about telling the American public what the problems are. This isn't our time to fix things."
Shame on them.
I am waiting for John Bolton to show more of himself in this new job, but if he is there to obstruct and to complain -- but not there to constructively engage, innovate, and fix problems -- then Bolton Watch will be launched, not to taunt him but to expose and make transparent his every move.
Some Bolton observers have written to suggest that this stuff is old now -- and that Bolton is doing a reasonably good job. My objection to Bolton was never exclusively his personal behavior or demeanor. It was his perspective, his record of performance, his judgment about the ethics of non-profits and partisanship, his lack of respect for the system of checks and balances in government, his subversion of the Secretary of State's foreign policy initiatives, and his desire to lead this nation towards reckless and unnessary potential conflicts and even wars.
John Bolton is hampered where he is -- but not completely so. The Darfur briefing in the scheme of things is small, though many will disagree. It is small, compared to what are likely to be enormous collisions in the Security Council over Iran and other matters.
However, Bolton needs to be pushed to be a constructive force in the U.N. If there is too much talk and not enough action -- then produce the action. Inspire it.
But don't just silence those who want to make sure that global neglect of Darfur is not allowed to stand.
-- Steve Clemons
« Previous Article - Galima Bukharbaeva: Listen Again to Her Uzbekistan Report» Next Article - Chastened Proponents of the Iraq War Huddle Together
Bolton Watch:
Sounds like a great idea to me. Steve, you report it, I'm sure we'll be eager to read it. No other media appears to be following the UN anymore at all.
Mr. Clemons,
Do you still stand by your reporting on the imminent arrival of Jeff Gedmin to the USUN Mission? If so, what do you make of Al Kamen's piece this morning?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/11/AR2005101101605.html
I'm sorry I don't buy Bolton's wanting to "do" something about Darfur. I just don't. Sudan has seemed to be playing nice with regards to GWOT and that is more important to the administration than thousands and thousands of dead in Darfur. Of course, I don't know whether I would actually trust the Sudanese government to give good intel on terrorists - doesn't seem to be in their long-term interests.
I agree that the stance of "actions over words" for Darfur is counterproductive. Short of robust forceful intervention, strong and unified international pressure is the next best thing -- and can be quite powerful. It was quite important for the Security Council to ask the International Criminal Court to prosecute those responsible for the genocide, and I applaud the Bush admin for letting it go forward. We need the strongest measures we can get, but an all-or-nothing approach leaves us with ... nothing.
Steve - found some background on why Bolton objected to Darfur briefing.
..."It's possible to glean, however, even from these skimpy reports, what might be the real reason for [Bolton's] opposition to hearing Mendez's briefing. One of the accusations Mendez was going to make before the council -- and then made only to reporters -- was that the Sudanese government was not cooperating with the prosecutor of the International Criminal Court looking into alleged war crimes in Darfur. In April, the U.S., by abstaining from a Security Council vote, gave the ICC jurisdiction over crimes committed in Darfur, and in today's Post article, a "senior U.S. official" said that Bolton's actions yesterday had nothing to do with his opposition to the tribunal. But Bolton has been a fierce critic of the ICC, trying to drown it whenever he can."
Gail Beckerman 10/11/05 http://www.cjrdaily.org/archives/001903.asp
And when is Bolton going to be indicted for lying to the Senate?
On a somewhat related topic, what has Bolton said regarding Burma being discussed in the Security Council?
BOLTON WATCH I'm all in favor of keeping Bolton in our crosshairs. The man is unscrupulous and bloated with self importance. He actually qualifies in my book for a pre-emptive strike. Why wait to launch Bolton Watch?
He lied to the SFRC. He is not duly appointed, if you accept Alexander Hamilton's opinion on the importance of Congressional oversight and consent to the president's nominees.
Why are he and Bush the only ones to fine tooth comb opponent's credentials, but not their own?
I'm ready for Bolton Watch, let's roll.
Darfur, a small problem.
I think that hits the nail on the head Steve, though I don't think it was the nail you wanted.
Darfur and the genocide in Sudan, and the genocide in Riwanda, and the Genocide in the former Yugoslovia, etc all were intractable problems that were not important enough for real resources, i.e. boots on the ground. Sad isn't it. I thought the holocaust was it. Never again, I thought. I now think I will see many more genocides - and many people of good will, great intellect, and the best of intentions standing by because, well the answer is not easy or clear.
Sad.
A small problem, exactly.
Ciao,
David Grey Stahl
--
P.S. Thanks for the wonderful site and information.
Reader Comments (10) - post a comment