This will hurt lots of feeble souls in the German media and in German politics: President Bush nominated undersecretary of state John R. Bolton to be the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations.
JOHN R. BOLTON, of all people!!! The German élites are not amused...
"Mr. Fischer, you get out of here. NOW!"
This guy prefers blunt talk instead of nuanced diplomatic babble, which has become the cornerstone of Germany's highly successful multilateral foreign policy! Members of the German media, known for their courtesy and politeness against Arab dictators and (while they existed) communist leaders, dismissively label Bolton a "neoconservative hardliner" (Financial Times Germany), "right-wing hardliner" (TAZ), and "hawk" (SWR).
Just a few quotes to show the truly evil, neocon nature of this man:
On the International Criminal Court:
America's posture toward the ICC should be "Three Noes": no financial support, directly or indirectly; no cooperation; and no further negotiations with other governments to "improve" the ICC. Such a policy cannot entirely eliminate the risks posed by the ICC, but it can go a long way in that direction.
The United States should raise our objections to the ICC on every appropriate occasion, as part of our larger campaign to assert
American interests against stifling, illegitimate, and unacceptable international agreements. The plain fact is that additional "fixes" to the ICC will not alter its multiple inherent defects, and we should not try to do so. The United States has many alternative foreign policy instruments to utilize that are fully consistent with our national interests, leaving the ICC to the obscurity it so richly deserves. Signatories of the Rome Statute have created an ICC to their liking, and they should live with it. We should not.
OHMYGOD - Bolton opposes the poster child of the European Left, the ICC!!
On Iran's nuclear ambitions:
Washington has dismissed a United Nations report that finds no evidence Iran has been seeking atomic weapons.
John Bolton, the top US arms control official, said the International Atomic Energy Agency assessment was "impossible to believe". He said Iranian efforts to acquire nuclear capabilities only made sense as part of a weapons programme. ...
Mr Bolton, speaking at a dinner for the US publication The American Spectator, threw scorn on Tehran and the IAEA.
"After extensive documentation of Iran's denials and deceptions over an 18-year period and a long litany of serious violations of Iran's commitments to the IAEA, the report nonetheless concluded that "no evidence" had been found of an Iranian nuclear weapons programme," he said. ...
The tone of Mr Bolton's statement, our correspondent adds, indicates the US is prepared to take on the UN's nuclear body and state contrary conclusions.
Mr Bolton had wanted to confront Iran in the UN Security Council, while others, including the Europeans, have sought quiet diplomacy to resolve the issue.
See what I mean? This guy hasn't got a clue about the virtues of European style "quiet diplomacy". All of Germany knows that the only language the Iranian mullahs understand is "quiet diplomacy".
On the UN
Because Americans generally are skeptical about their own government, can it be any surprise that many are less than enthusiastic about the United Nations, an organization that includes 184 other governments? Moreover, the principle business of the United Nations is governmental business, legitimately so in most cases, but it is certainly rare to find genuine capitalists walking the U.N. halls. This deep philosophical disjunction between the prevailing ethos of the United Nations and the fundamental American approach to governance is not something that will change in the foreseeable future. ...
What, then, does the foregoing analysis mean for the United Nations, and for America's role within the organization? It means primarily that the rest of the world should have realistic expectations that the United Nations has a limited role to play in international affairs for the foreseeable future. ...
No one ... should be under any illusions that American support for the United Nations as one of several options for implementing American foreign policy translates into unlimited support for the world organization. That is not true now, and it will not be true for a long time to come, if ever.
Gasp! Bolton dares to limit the support for the UN, in clear violation of the directive of a great statesman, German foreign
genius minister Joschka Fischer:
... the United Nations has an outstanding role to play, as it possesses an indispensable resource, and this is legitimacy. Only the United Nations can justify the use of military means ... The UN, with its numerous subsidiary organizations, has at its disposal the instruments needed to bring about security, peace and development. It has over the decades acquired experience of conflict prevention, crisis management, nation building and reconstruction. Today a great African statesman, Secretary-General Kofi Annan, is the face the public associates with the credibility and experience of the United Nations.
I rest my case. Bolton has identified himself without any doubt as a member of the "Donald H. Rumsfeld School of Politics", which gives a damn about European appeasement policy and has the guts to say so.
No chance for admission into the distinguished halls of the "Joschka Fischer School of Politics"...
Update: This piece ("Tough-talking Bolton: just what the UN needs") by Cathryn J. Prince in the Christian Science Monitor deserves your special attention:
"When President Bush nominated John Bolton to be US ambassador to the United Nations, many diplomats shuddered.
Apparently many of these diplomats, who raised questions about the appointment under cloak of anonymity in news reports, can't believe Mr. Bush would name someone who hasn't shown the UN any respect. Respect needs to be earned. And, since Kofi Annan became Secretary-General, the world body has been a breeding ground for scandal and ineptitude and has not earned that respect." (...)