AGGreen
Guest
|
 Posted: Tue Aug 19, 2008 5:56 pm Post subject: Confronting the Threat |
 |
|
Confronting the Threat
By Reut R. Cohen
FrontPageMagazine.com | 8/19/2008
Ambassador John Bolton made a reputation as a forceful advocate for American
interests both during his tenure in the State Department and as U.S.
Ambassador to the United Nations. Since partisan leftists deprived the
nation of his service, Bolton has acted as an expert spokesman on foreign
policy, from North Korea and Iran to Europe and the Middle East. Reut R.
Cohen sat down with Bolton to discuss the monumental changes in foreign
policy over the last few weeks. -- The Editors.
Cohen: Thank you very much for agreeing to do this interview with us. We
appreciate your time.
Bolton: My pleasure.
Cohen: In light of recent events with Russia and Georgia, how would you
grade the presidential administration's response with the Georgia/Russia
conflict? What are the long-term implications of the Russians' actions?
Bolton: Well, I think the administration was very slow to react when the
Russian troops moved in, and the failure to respond quickly was a signal of
indecision and really a lack of any coherent response. And I think that
encouraged the Russians to push further ahead. They certainly could have
done whatever they wanted to do militarily, but if there were any chance for
restraining them politically, the administration lost that.
Since the president got back from the Olympics, rhetorically at least, he's
been much clearer of the extent of the US opposition and the potential
consequences. But we're still a long way from responding effectively. I
think what we need to do is call a meeting with NATO and the foreign
minister level and reverse the decision from the Bucharest NATO summit this
spring and put Georgia and Ukraine on the path to NATO membership. There are
a lot of other implications from this and other former states of the former
Soviet Union, and we need to be very clear to the Russians that they cannot
act militarily like this with impunity.
Cohen: You have also been critical of the Bush administration on both North
Korea and Iran. If you had the President's ear, what course of action would
you advise in each of these troubled foreign policy areas?
Bolton: Yeah, I don't think either Iran or North Korea will give up their
nuclear weapons programs voluntarily. Whatever chance diplomacy might once
have had perhaps with Iran combined with very substantial sanctions, I think
that opportunity is gone. So with respects to both countries, our options
are very limited. I think with North Korea we have to apply a lot more
pressure on China because China does have the ability to force North Korea
to give up this nuclear program. We have not taken that approach,
unfortunately, but I think that's the way that I would certainly propose to
go.
With respect to Iran, we've had five years of failed European Union
diplomacy and that leaves us with very few options. Regime change would be
the preferable option, and I think that regime is weak. I think there is a
lot of opposition to it inside Iran. But we have to be honest with ourselves
regime change isn't something you can do overnight. It may well be for that
reason that we're at the last resort which is the use of targeted force
against Iran's nuclear program. I don't think President Bush is going to do
that during his office but I think that really puts the pressure on Israel
to make a decision whether they will use force, and I think they are very
serious about considering it. The only other alternative is an Iran with
nuclear weapons and I think that's a very undesirable alternative.
Cohen: In this case you feel that removing the regime by military means
would be the best route to go?
Bolton: No, you wouldn't remove the regime by military means. You would
support dissident Iranians both inside the country and in the diaspora
around the world. I don't think the regime is as stable as people may think
on the outside. There is a lot of dissatisfaction with the economy, there is
a lot of dissatisfaction among the young people who know that they could
have a different kind of life, and three is a lot of ethnic dissatisfaction.
So I think the possibilities are there. I don't think it would in any way
require military force by the United States.
Cohen: So you do believe that there could be a diplomatic solution to the
Iranian ambition for nuclear weapons?
Bolton: No, as I said, after five years of failed European diplomacy, we
really don't have very many desirable alternatives. Regime change by
supporting the Iranian dissidence is one. But it may take too long. And that
leaves us with the last choice which is the choice of targeted military
force against Iranian nuclear weapons sites.
Cohen: In your recent book, you discuss that, like the UN, the U.S. State
Department is another department with an out of control bureaucracy. On page
448, you wrote that "what happens at State, where too much of the permanent
bureaucracy thinks it is responsible not just for implementing policy, but
for setting it, no matter what the president of the moment thinks...." How
do you think the state department has interfered with the goals of the
current presidential administration?
Bolton: In both the cases of North Korea and Iran, it's not so much they
interfered with them as they have captured the secretary of state. Secretary
Rice now channels their view and because of her dominant position within the
administration the irony is that the state department has now reversed the
president's own state abuse from his first term and gotten the
administration to pursue the preferred policy of the state department. And
that's not untypical, especially in Republican administrations. And I think
the point is that the democratic legitimacy the president possesses is what
gives him the authority under the constitution to make policy. The State
Department legitimacy comes only to implement those policies. So, in effect,
the citizens vote and they get a foreign policy very different than the one
that they voted for, that's a fundamental problem for democratic theory.
Cohen: To what do you attribute the growing anti-American sentiment across
the world? And do you even think there is an anti-American sentiment growing
across the world?
Bolton: I really don't think the anti-American sentiment is growing. You
know if you look, for example, at Europe where people have said that
administrative policy on Iraq has made America very unpopular, just look at
the recent elections. Schroeder has gone Merkel. This phrase about Schroeder
is incomplete - it probably should say "Schroeder is gone, Merkel is much
more friendly to the US." Most dramatically of all, Chirac in France
replaced by Sarkozy. Even though Blair has been replaced by Brown in Great
Britain, there's no fundamental change there. And the biggest irony of all
is the Berlusconi, very pro-American, is back in Italy. You know, public
opinion polls in these countries go up and go down, and the real test is how
their leadership behaves because that's ultimately what governs relations
between nations. And I think that we've seen a shift in the past few years
towards, clearly, more pro-American regimes.
Cohen: What has been the biggest challenge for you in position of US
ambassador to the UN?
Bolton: The hardest thing is to try to maintain advocacy of America's
interest when so many Europeans are ready to compromise and give in, for
example, on questions of Arab-Israeli issues. And that is a continuing
challenge. I don't regard it as difficult, in a sense, because it should be
easy for an ambassador to represent America's interest. But this is a
problem in the foreign service when they often find it difficult to do that.
Cohen: In regards to the Israeli-Arab issue, especially with regards to Iran
and their repeated calls to annihilate Israel and to wipe it off the map,
what do you think Israel is considering doing in light of opposition from
the European Union?
Bolton: I think they are trying to decide whether to use military force
against Iran, and I think despite the opposition of the Europeans, the
Israelis will make their own decision. I don't know what the decision is
going to be, but I have no doubt that if they think, as I believe they do,
that Iran represents an existential threat to the State of Israel that
Israel will do what it feels is necessary to represent its independence.
Cohen: You have an amazing reputation for being very blunt and very
straightforward with your colleagues. How does that work for you?
Bolton: Well, I think most people appreciate it-you know, in America
plain-speaking is a virtue. And I think those who don't, it's not so much
they object to the straight-forwardness of the language; it's that they
object to the substance the policy. You know, that's what diplomats ought to
do is argue for American policy and American interests, and if that's
unappetizing to some countries, well, that's a problem they're going to have
to deal with.
Cohen: Would you ever consider running for public office?
Bolton: I don't think so, I don't think that's for me.
Cohen: Those are all of the questions I have for you. Again, I sincerely
appreciate your time and I look forward to hearing you on Tuesday night.
Bolton: Thank you very much.
Ambassador John Bolton will be appearing this evening, August 19, at 7:30 at
the Bevery Hilton Hotel. For more information about this event contact
stephanie@horowitzfreedomcenter.org. |
|
