October 2, 2007
John Bolton: He’s not a neo-con
Going straight from New York to Blackpool is a disorientating experience - a journey from the centre of western civilisation to its very edge. There are a couple of similarities, however. They are both seaside towns, full of tourists and neon lighting. After that, I’m struggling.
I was in Blackpool for the Tory Party conference. The main topic of conversation there is the possibility of an election in Britain. But the most interesting event I went to (apart from the Foreign Policy Centre event I spoke at, obviously) was a fringe meeting on "interventionism - and the lessons of Iraq and Afghanistan." The big draw there was John Bolton, America’s former UN ambassador, who can usually be relied upon to offend large parts of the audience.
Over the years, I’ve seen most of America’s leading neo-cons in actions - and their styles differ markedly. Paul Wolfowitz is diffident and rather bookish in manner. Richard Perle is a bully, but can also speak persuasively. Bill Kristol is combative - but also intellectually agile and keen to engage in debate. John Bolton, however, had always struck me as a charmless thug. I once saw him addressing a high-level conference, full of reasonably sympathetic Europeans. Even they were shocked by Bolton’s raw nationalism and open contempt for much of his audience. On that occasion, even some of the Americans in the audience were embarrassed. One of them said to me afterwards, "I think John has forgotten that technically his job description is diplomat."
So I was surprised to see a more emollient Bolton yesterday. Perhaps the sea air had a mellowing effect. His manner was courteous, even if what he had to say was pretty brutal.
The first thing that struck me is that it is a mistake to call Bolton a neo-con. He is an American nationalist, who is interested in power - and has none of the neo-con interest in namby-pamby concepts like human rights and democratisation. His take on Iraq is that America had accomplished its mission, the moment Saddam Hussein was killed. All attempts at "nation-building" were futile and counter-productive. Bolton is not in favour of a rapid American withdrawal from Iraq. But his reasons are purely strategic. He wants to block the rising power of Iran. And he is pretty openly in favour of bombing Iranian nuclear facilities.
By contrast, Bolton is opposed to humanitarian intervention in Darfur - let alone, Zimbabwe. The reason is simple. There is no American national interest at stake. I tried to tempt him into a denunciation of the UN. But, on this occasion, he was reasonably reserved. He simply argued that the Security Council is now dysfunctional, because it is falling back into Cold War style deadlock - with Russia and China routinely opposing western proposals. It struck me that one thing that Bolton and Mahmoud Ahmedi-Nejad, the Iranian president, agree about is that the Security Council is useless - albeit for different reasons.
At the moment, Bolton has a particular bee in his bonnet about North Korea - he thinks that western diplomacy is based on wishful thinking. And he is scathing about the "naive", South Korean attempt at a rapprochement. (The FT leader this morning took rather the same line.) On North Korea, Bolton revealed an unexpected aspect of his personality. He can be quite funny. He said of Kim Jong Il - "He will have no problem promising to give up his nuclear weapons. He has promised that several times already." What Bolton left unstated yesterday, is what precisely he proposes to do, if diplomacy with North Korea really is futile.
New York the centre of western civilisation? Well, it is east of Hollywood, where they make westerns, but since those are viewed in Blackpool as well, you might just be right.
Posted by: PL | October 2nd, 2007 at 3:44 pm | Report this commentI feel that’s a little unfair on Blackpool it has a cool theme park. A supercasino would be much better however.
As for John Bolton, I think that given another open display of his nationalism he should be sidelined in the way he deserves. Such an unconstructive and narrow view ultimately harms American interests, we all know that. We need a well respected and powerful United States as other more ominous powers emerge and the type of American attitude he holds is not the attitude everyone else in the world needs to hear.
Posted by: Guy A | October 3rd, 2007 at 11:38 am | Report this comment“His take on Iraq is that America had accomplished its mission, the moment Saddam Hussein was killed”
so he’s not just a narrow-minded nationalist… he’s also a fool…
…just how does creating a failed state where terrorists can recruit, shelter and proselytise serve even the US’s narrowly-defined interests?
Posted by: jonesey | October 5th, 2007 at 10:52 am | Report this commentTwo reasons why Bolton is taken for a NeoCon:
1-) Blind support for the Zionists
If Bolton were an American nationalist he would realise that the American national interests have been ill-served by her blind one-sided alliance with Tel Aviv.
He and the rest of NeoCons could possibly be termed Israeli nationalists except that their extremism will eventually harm the Jewish people too.
2-) Arrogance bolstered by ignorance
Calling the S Koreans naive (implying that he knows best) is just another NeoCon trait. They called everybody else naive before they invaded Iraq and stuck to their illusions that people will be dancing in the streets and welcoming the Yanks.
P
Posted by: Pacifist | October 9th, 2007 at 1:35 pm | Report this commentI would also agree with Mr. Bolton on Darfur,
The US has no National Security interest at stake there, and should therefore waste no lives
to end it. However I would have no problem with
money, sanctions and or weapons for the oppressed group(s) there.
And he is also right on North Korea, they wont give up their nuclear weapons because it would immediately take them off the table as a valid negotiator for anything.
Posted by: jonathan | October 18th, 2007 at 4:08 pm | Report this commentThey would have nothing to threaten anyone with except war with the south, and ultimately China and the US dont want that, so it probably wont happen. And the South Koreans ARE naive, their sunshine policy has not accomplished a darn thing. If you give a bully preferential treatment, he will not change his ways.
As for Bolton is not a neo-con - he made himself several denials to that effect in a fairly recent BBC interview. btw - how can anyone have sympathy for such a man? he displayed such content for the BBC journalist, and for anything non-american. How could Bush send him to the UN if his motives were not to prevent the UN from functioning?
And you’re prob right to say he’s an American nationalist who’s interested in power. But that doesn’t he didn’t share some of the hubris of some other neocons - he was one of the signatory on that infamous letter from that neocon think tank (forgot the name) sent to Bill Clinton urging him to use the force to remove Saddam in 1998.
And Jonathan - I cannot quite agree with you. If the liberal democraties - meant to stand for the values put down in their constitution and all that stuff - do not try to act when a genocide is happening or defend oppressed people then who will?
I’m not saying you should systematically send military force (in most cases, this is a bad idea) but surely they are means to coerce brutal regimes. In Africa, putting pressure on the African Union is a start - many African countries do not want the genocide tag and are making progress to develop and have thus an incentive to keep their neighbours in peace.
As a more general point on this, I do feel some sort of guilt and shame that Rwanda happened, that Darfur is happening that Kosovo happened (though there actions were taken). I do not want to have to explain to my children that genocides and other barbaric behaviour can still take place today in this world, especially if you happen to live in a place that has no strategic interest to anyone - or worse can be a pawn to some big power.
Posted by: Anonymous | October 18th, 2007 at 7:30 pm | Report this comment