US Democrats seek to block John Bolton as American UN Envoy by Reuters / Associated Press / Bloomberg 10:11am 12th Apr, 2005   Washington. April 20, 2005    "Senate Panel Postpones Vote on U.N. Nominee", by Douglas Jehl. (New York Times)    A surprise last-minute defection by an Ohio Republican forced the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to postpone a vote that had been scheduled for Tuesday on the nomination of John R. Bolton as ambassador to the United Nations.    The chairman of the panel, Richard G. Lugar, Republican of Indiana, reluctantly agreed to put off any vote until next month to allow a review of what Democrats portrayed as troubling new accusations that cast doubt on Mr. Bolton's temperament and credibility..    14 April 2005    "Disaster, Not Diplomacy", by Richard Cohen. (The Washington Post )    .. I have until now withheld my first - and only - impression of John Bolton, probably destined to be the next US ambassador to the United Nations: He's nuts.    I recognize that, as a diagnosis, the word leaves something to be desired. But it is nevertheless the impression I took away back in June 2003 when Bolton went to Cernobbio, Italy, to talk to the Council for the United States and Italy. Afterward he took questions. Some of them were about weapons of mass destruction, which, you may remember, the Bush administration had claimed would be found in abundance in Iraq but which by then had not materialized.    The literal facts did not in the least give Bolton pause. Weapons of mass destruction would be found, he insisted. Where? When? How come they had not yet been discovered? The questions were insistent, but they were coming, please remember, from Italians, whose government was one of the few in the world to actively support the US invasion of Iraq.    Bolton bristled. I have never seen such a performance by an American diplomat. He was dismissive. He was angry. He clearly thought the questioners had no right, no standing, no justification and no earthly reason to question the United States of America. The Bush administration had said that Iraq was lousy with WMD and Iraq therefore was lousy with WMD. Just you wait.    This kind of ferocious certainty is commendable in pit bulls and other fighting animals, but it is something of a problem in a diplomat. We now have been told, though, that Bolton's Italian aria was not unique and that the anger I sensed in the man has been felt by others. (I went over to speak to him afterward, but he was such a mass of scowling anger that I beat a retreat.) Others have testified to how he berated subordinates and how, to quote Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), he "needs anger management." From what I saw, a bucket of cold water should always be kept at hand.    The rap against Bolton's nomination as U.N. ambassador is that he has maximum contempt for that organization. He once went so far as to flatly declare that "there is no United Nations," just an international community that occasionally "can be led by the only real power left in the world - and that's the United States." He has expressed these sorts of feelings numerous times over the years - so much so that it is not clear whether he has been rewarded with this appointment or punished with it. Whatever President Bush's motive, the fact remains that he has not sent the United Nations an ambassador so much as a poke in the eye. Still, no U.N. ambassador makes policy; he merely implements it. Bolton, no matter what his views, can do only limited damage.    But there are things that the United States will want done at the United Nations - and Bolton is the wrong guy to get them done. After all, once an ambassador is instructed as to a policy or personnel issue, it is up to him or her to implement it. That means constructing the argument, persuading opponents, flattering friends. It means, in short, diplomacy.    After Bolton's appearance in Italy almost two years ago, I wrote a column expressing my dismay. I did not, however, know for sure if what I had seen was typical of him - although others said it was. Now, though, it is clear that he is often as he was that day - abrasive, insolent and so insufferably self-righteous that he cannot allow the possibility of his being wrong.    Why the Bush administration would want such a person at the United Nations is beyond me. As always, the administration is entitled to great leeway when it comes to presidential appointments. If it wants a neocon, fine. If it wants a hard-liner, fine. If it wants a U.N.-trasher, it can have that, too. But it should not have someone who will be ineffectual in implementing its own policies - who, if he is himself, will alienate other delegates and further isolate the United States.    This is what Bolton did one glorious spring day on the shores of bella Lake Como. What he will do on the shores of the non-bella East River on a cold, gray day in New York will be far, far worse. Bolton's is not a bad appointment. It's a downright disaster.    Apr 11, 2005    "Democrats seek to block Bush Nominee as UN Envoy", by Saul Hudson and Vicki Allen.    WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Democrats sought to block President Bush's pick for U.N. ambassador at a confirmation hearing on Monday that focused on allegations the nominee tried to have intelligence analysts removed from their posts after disagreeing with him.    Bush's choice of John Bolton, a blunt detractor of the world body, has been a lightning rod for criticism of the president from Democrats who complain he has forged a "go-it-alone" approach to U.S. foreign policy. Bolton is now the top U.S. diplomat for nonproliferation.    Democratic senators zeroed in on Bolton's efforts in that capacity to reassign analysts in 2002 after they differed with him on Cuba's alleged weapons programs and apparently undercut his position. One analyst was a chemical and biological weapons intelligence expert at the State Department; the other worked on the National Intelligence Council.    "There is -- to state this bluntly Mr. Bolton -- a concern that your ideological predisposition relating to some of these issues have clouded your judgment. That is what we're talking about," said Joseph Biden of Delaware, the ranking Democrat on the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee.    Bolton, a hard-line favorite with Bush's conservative base, said the same accusations had already been investigated and dismissed by a congressional intelligence committee.    He acknowledged, however, that he had asked that one of the analysts be moved to another post because he objected to the expert going behind his back to oppose his position. He also had one conversation complaining about the other analyst, he said.    The eight Democrats on the 18-member panel also said Bolton's appointment would undercut Bush's assertions he wants to repair diplomatic ties frayed over the Iraq war.    Democrats, who are all expected to oppose the nomination, hoped to persuade at least one Republican on the committee to vote against Bolton in hopes of blocking the nomination.    But Senate aides said they expected the committee to approve the nomination along party lines, sending it to the Republican-controlled Senate, which will likely confirm him..    April 12, 2005    "Democrats' Bid to Stop Bolton as UN Envoy Hinges on Credibility. (Bloomberg)    John Bolton's nomination to become ambassador to the United Nations may hinge on whether Senate Democrats can prove he tried to pressure intelligence analysts to change reports to conform to his political views.    Senators Joseph Biden of Delaware, Chris Dodd of Connecticut and other Democrats on the Foreign Relations Committee yesterday attacked Bolton during seven hours of questioning, saying his alleged attempt to pressure two analysts compromised the integrity of U.S. intelligence-gathering. They also said he's too contemptuous of the UN to be effective.    So far no Republicans, who outnumber Democrats on the panel 10-8, oppose President George W. Bush's nominee. Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island, the lone committee Republican whose vote has been in question, told reporters yesterday that while Bolton's `credibility is still an issue,'’ he's ‘inclined'’ to vote in favor of the nomination. `The key word is `inclined,’ said Chafee, who told the Providence Journal on April 8 he planned to support Bolton.    Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts, Bush's rival in the 2004 election, sent an e-mail to supporters asking them to help persuade Chafee to oppose Bolton's nomination, and Kerry's Internet site placed ads on Rhode Island Web sites. Rhode Island voted for Kerry last year and Chafee is up for re-election next year.    A tie vote would block Bolton's nomination until the committee decided whether to hold a second vote on sending the nomination to the full Senate without an endorsement.    Senators Biden and Dodd said Bolton sought to have State Department analyst Christian Westermann and an unidentified CIA analyst re- assigned after they refused to approve a Bolton speech that they said contained unsupported intelligence about Cuba's biological weapons capability.    Bolton, 56, told the Senate panel he wanted to shift Westermann and the CIA analyst to different jobs because they went behind his back in seeking endorsement of their analysis from another agency. Their conduct ``was unprofessional and broke my confidence and trust,'' Bolton said. Carl Ford, former head of the U.S. State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research, told Senate investigators that Bolton tried to have Westermann and the CIA analyst removed from their jobs, Dodd said at the hearing. Ford will testify when the hearing resumes today. `The idea that government officials might be suppressed from dissenting views in intelligence matters is a very, very serious matter in these days,'' Biden said.`There is a danger such action can cause a chilling effect, an effect that may ripple across the intelligence community.''    Bolton, State Department undersecretary for arms control and international security, has been an outspoken UN critic and a proponent of the view that the U.S. should advance its national interests and pay little heed to critics abroad. In a 1999 article, Bolton said UN Secretary General Kofi Annan's claim that only the Security Council can legitimately authorize the use of force might inhibit the U.S. ability to protect its own interests.    Bolton would take the UN post as the administration tries to improve relations overseas and curb the spread of nuclear and chemical weapons. The US administration is working with the U.K., France and Germany, as well as the UN, to clamp down on Iran's nuclear research. The U.S. also wants to lower its share of peacekeeping costs, change the world body's governance and end genocide in Sudan.    Bush is also seeking to repair relations with Europe after invading Iraq in March 2003 without the UN's blessing. The administration disregarded requests to give UN inspectors more time to find banned weapons of mass destruction before invading Iraq in 2003. No stockpiles of such weapons have been found.    Senator Kerry said the Westermann issue is important given what Kerry said was the administration's shaping of intelligence data to make the case for going to war with Iraq in 2003.    Sending Bolton to the UN would be `like sending a bull into a china shop,'’ said Senator Biden. `A serious concern has been raised about your attitude toward dissenting views.’    Dodd, Barbara Boxer of California and other Democrats on the panel also questioned Bolton's temperament. Dodd cited Bolton's alleged `abusive treatment'’ of Westermann..    12 April 2005    "Senators challenge Bolton on Contempt for UN", by Marjorie Cohn. (TruthOut)    John Bolton refused to come clean at his confirmation hearing in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee yesterday, playing down his contempt for the UN and for international law. Bolton, who claimed in 1994, "there is no such thing as the United Nations," pledged to forge a "close partnership" with the UN if confirmed as US Ambassador to the United Nations.    Senator Barbara Boxer (D-Cal) confronted Bolton with a videotape of a 1994 speech in which he said, caustically, "If the U.N. Secretariat building in New York lost 10 stories, it wouldn't make a bit of difference." Boxer said, "I see the anger, the hostility. What we saw here was the real John Bolton."    Boxer then observed, "My overall assessment, Mr. Bolton, is that you have nothing but disdain for the United Nations. It's hard for me to know why you'd want to work at an institution that you said didn't even exist."    Bolton, Bush's most controversial nominee among many, explained his statement that the UN "does not exist" with his theory of "the fallacy of false concreteness" - the United Nations does not exist apart from the member states which comprise it. Senator Barack Obama (D-Ill) turned Bolton's characterization back on him, saying it follows that we should not then blame the United Nations for the corruption in the oil-for-food program - the responsibles were member states, not the UN itself. Conservatives have recently used the oil-for-food scandal to discredit the UN.    The major theme that ran throughout the questioning was that Bolton is an ideologue who manipulates intelligence to fit his own analysis, and his acrimonious temperament may pose a threat to our security.    Obama challenged Bolton for his overstatement of Syria's aggressive capabilities, saying, "The CIA had to reign you in." He criticized Bolton's claim that Libya surrendered its weapons of mass destruction program as a result of watching the US get tough with Iraq. Obama contended that diplomacy convinced Libya. Senator John Kerry (D-Mass) pointed out that Bolton may have actually tried to scuttle the diplomatic dialogue between the US and Libya. Bush also shuns diplomacy in favor of bullying less powerful nations.    In North Korea, Iran and Syria "we can't afford to cry wolf," Obama told Bolton. "If we gild the lily and overstate our case," said Obama, it will harm our troops abroad and our national security.    Kerry also zeroed in on whether Bolton might make us less safe, saying, "We've just come off the most massive intelligence failure in history." Kerry maintained it's vital to the security of the American people to know whether Bolton was a party to that failure.    Much of the questioning focused on Bolton's allegation that Cuba had a biological weapons program, and his retaliation against two intelligence experts who challenged his now-discredited view. Bolton insisted his differences with the two were procedural, that they had gone behind his back with their suggested changes to his proposed speech. The Senators successfully established that Bolton really quarreled with the content of the criticism.    Bolton had wanted to say, "The United States believes Cuba has a developmental offensive biological warfare program and is providing assistance to other to rogue state programs." After it was vetted by numerous intelligence agencies, the language was softened to say, "Cuba has at least a limited offensive biological warfare research and development effort. Cuba has provided dual-use biotechnology to other rogue states." Cuba, which has an advanced biomedical program, adamantly denies it has ever had a biological weapons program of any sort. And ironically, two months after the Sept. 11 attacks, Bolton vehemently opposed the Protocol to the Biological Weapons Convention that would have required member states, including the US, to submit to inspections of their biological weapons.    Bolton denied trying to have the two men who disagreed with him fired. Members of the Senate committee, however, spoke with seven intelligence officials who contradicted Bolton's assertion. One said Bolton had dismissed the opinion of Christian Westermann, the chief bioweapons analyst at the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research, as "a midlevel INR munchkin analyst." Boxer noted that this "midlevel munchkin" was a war hero who served in the US military for 23 years.    The toughest questions didn't come just from the Democrats on the committee. Republican Senator Chuck Hagel from Nebraska, referring to Iraq, asked Bolton, "How could the UN weapons inspectors be so right and us so wrong?... How could the UN inspectors be right and how did we miss it?" To bolster the case for war with Iraq, Bolton pushed for Bush to include in his State of the Union address the false statement about Iraq seeking uranium from Niger, over the opposition of the State Department.    When Senator Russ Feingold (D-Wis) asked Bolton whether the United States made a mistake by failing to stop the genocide in Rwanda 11 years ago, Bolton had no substantive response. "We don't know if it was logistically possible to do anything different," Bolton replied. "Your answer is amazingly passive," Feingold told Bolton.    Senator Joseph Biden (D-Del), the ranking Democrat on the committee, said he had "grave concern" about Bolton as UN ambassador. "We need a strong voice in New York who knows the UN and who can advance our reform agenda," Biden asserted. "And I fear that knowing your reputation - and your reputation is known well at the UN - people will be inclined to tune you out." Biden was concerned that sending Bolton to New York would be "like sending a bull into a China shop."    April 11, 2005    (Don Kraus is executive vice president of Citizens for Global Solutions . This article was originally published on TomPaine.com on April 5, 2005).    Sixty years ago, when the United States led in the establishment of the United Nations, we had a vision that attracted others—a vision of equality, justice and opportunity for all. If we lose sight of this founding principle, a principle fundamental to U.S. values, we will lose the support of other nations when we need it most. John Bolton, the Bush administration’s nominee for ambassador to the United Nations, does not believe in this vision, nor in the United Nations itself—except as an occasional prop for American self-interest.    Bolton, who has said that, “There is no such thing as the United Nations,” and “There is no reason to consider treaties as ‘legally’ binding,” clearly does not understand that working with other nations increases our strength, expands our options, and shares the costs and risks (listen to Bolton in his own words at www.stopbolton.org). President Bush has recognized the need for international cooperation and admitted to faults in his first term’s “go-it-alone” foreign policy strategy. After re-election, he stated, “second terms in the White House open the way for second thoughts,” adding that he “is determined to work as far as possible within the framework of international organizations” charting a new course for his second term.     Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice echoed the president’s message throughout Europe, saying, “It is time to open a new chapter in our relationship, and a new chapter in our alliance.”  Back in Washington, she brought her own team into the State Department and denied its leading ideologue, Undersecretary of State John Bolton, a promotion. The message was clear: We were returning to a pragmatic foreign policy that values international cooperation.    And then the sky fell. Secretary Rice announced John Bolton’s nomination to the post of UN ambassador.  Many were shocked, not only because Bolton’s beliefs are antithetical to the very position for which he was tapped, but because the move appeared so inconsistent with the hopeful direction in which the second Bush term began.      Beltway watchers have speculated that Vice President Cheney engineered this dramatic U-turn. After all, the administration still owes Bolton a political debt for his role in halting the Florida recount in the 2000 elections. Cheney, who consistently voted to cut funding for the United Nations while a member of the House, perhaps saw Bolton as an ally in opposing the new multilateralism of Bush’s second term. Additionally, Bolton, a protégé of Jesse Helms, would be particularly adept at deploying anti-UN voices in Congress—like Tom Delay—to champion a unilateralist agenda.     Although the Bush administration’s motive is still unclear, the consequences of Bolton’s nomination are unambiguous.  Bolton’s legacy could be ending the United States’ 60-year relationship with the United Nations—an outcome relished by his supporters, precisely because it comes at a time when real UN reform is within reach.    In March, Secretary General Kofi Annan released a report entitled In Larger Freedom , promoting a reform agenda to be considered by world leaders at the 60th anniversary summit scheduled for September. Bolton would be a divisive character to have at the United Nations in the midst of this fragile reform process. He carries baggage that will further split the U.N. Security Council, rather than unite it behind American interests. Bolton, who said, "If I were redoing the Security Council today, I'd have one permanent member (the United States),” would alienate allies like Japan and Germany who are lobbying for permanent representation in an enlarged Council. Bolton’s ardent position calling for “diplomatic recognition of Taiwan,” as “just the kind of demonstration of U.S. leadership that the region needs,” would harm the U.S.-Chinese relationship at the Security Council, on which China is a veto-carrying permanent member.    Those familiar with international diplomacy understand the potential damage a man like Bolton can do. This is why 61 diplomats (49 of whom served in Republican administrations) have signed onto a letter opposing the Bolton nomination. They voiced concern with Bolton’s career in government service during which time he led the campaign against ratification of the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, blocked international efforts to limit sales of small arms in internal wars, negotiated a toothless treaty with Russia on eliminating nuclear weapons, and managed U.S. opposition to the Landmine Treaty.    Bolton has also been a longtime opponent of the International Criminal Court. In 2002, he delivered the order withdrawing U.S. support from the ICC treaty, and called it, “the happiest moment of my government service.” Last week, the Security Council voted to give the Court jurisdiction to try the mass murderers and war criminals responsible for the genocide in Darfur, a conflict that has cost the lives of 300,000 Sudanese. Despite President Bush’s concerns about the ICC, the United States abstained from using its veto, and allowed the resolution to pass. If Bolton were the current U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, it is impossible to imagine this outcome.    Bolton’s supporters have said that he would be a strong voice for the United States at the United Nations. They have likened the nomination as a “Nixon goes to China” situation, believing that this long-time U.N. critic would be a constructive voice for U.N. reform.  However, when Nixon went to China, he truly believed it was in the United States’ interest to mend fences. Bolton has spent his career, both in and out of government service, caustically disparaging the United Nations and belittling international agreements.    This week, the Senate will consider whether John Bolton is the right person for the job. When Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., originally heard about the nomination ,he said, “We need alliances, we need friends. To go up there and kick the U.N. around doesn't get the job done.” But one week later, after meeting with Mr. Bolton, Sen. Hagel found reason to rescind his earlier comments and support the nomination. Reasonable senators should not be fooled by a confirmation conversion and must look beyond partisan politics. If the Senate is serious about repairing America’s global standing and getting other countries to do their share in solving the world’s most pressing problems, its only choice is to decisively reject this nomination.    (Simon Weber of Citizens for Global Solutions contributed to this piece).    March 29, 2005    "Ex-Diplomats to urge rejection of John Bolton as U.N. Ambassador". (The Associated Press)    A group of former American diplomats plan to send a letter to urge the Senate to reject John R. Bolton's nomination to be the next United States ambassador to the United Nations.    "He is the wrong man for this position," the group of 59 former diplomats say in the letter, addressed to Senator Richard G. Lugar, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Mr. Lugar, Republican of Indiana, has scheduled hearings for April 7 on Mr. Bolton's nomination. "We urge you to reject that nomination," the former diplomats said in a letter dated Tuesday that was obtained by The Associated Press.    The former diplomats have served in both Democratic and Republican administrations, some for long terms and others briefly. They include Arthur A. Hartman, ambassador to France and the Soviet Union under Presidents Carter and Reagan and assistant secretary of state for European affairs under President Nixon.    Others who signed the letter include Princeton N. Lyman, ambassador to South Africa and Nigeria under President Reagan, the elder President Bush and President Clinton; Monteagle Stearns, ambassador to Greece and Ivory Coast in the Ford, Carter and Reagan administrations; and Spurgeon M. Keeny Jr., deputy director of the Arms Control Agency in the Carter administration.    Their criticism dwelt primarily on Mr. Bolton's stand on issues as the State Department's senior arms control official. They said he had an "exceptional record" of opposing American efforts to improve national security through arms control. But the letter also chides Mr. Bolton for his "insistence that the U.N. is valuable only when it directly serves the United States." That view, the letter says, would not help him negotiate with other diplomats at the United Nations.    Amnesty International USA.    U.S. President Bush recently nominated former Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security John R. Bolton to be the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations. Many of Mr. Bolton's views, however, are counter to U.S. traditional support for international law and human rights. For example, Mr. Bolton has opposed U.S. support for international law and the United Nations and has raised objections to international war crime tribunals such as in former Yugoslavia, Sierra Leone, and Rwanda. These points of view spoken by one of the top U.S. foreign diplomats not only undermines U.S. traditional support for the rule of law and human rights but could also threaten the safety of American citizens abroad. Urge your Senator to seek clarification on John Bolton's views.    Background    While Amnesty International USA (AIUSA) takes no position on the appointment of individual nominees, the organization has concerns about some of Mr. Bolton’s policy positions regarding international law, prosecution of war criminals, and UN peacekeeping.    In the last decade, Mr. Bolton has spoken widely about his opposition to international law and the United Nations, discrediting positive developments in human rights and the rule of law. In the late 1990s Mr. Bolton said, for example, "it is a big mistake for us to grant any validity to international law even when it may seem in our short-term interest to do so-because, over the long term, the goal of those who think that international law really means anything are those who want to constrict the United States."    Looking specifically at international human rights laws, one can see the burgeoning impact this has had on encouraging the promotion and realization of human rights. According to a study done by the UN Centre for Human Rights in 2001, 80% of UN member states have ratified the six major human rights treaties. Judiciaries around the world cite international human rights law to support their domestic decisions. One recent example is Egypt, which released prisoners held under the Emergency Act, citing the recommendations it received from the UN committee with oversight of country implementation of the Convention Against Torture.    U.S. opposition to international law, however, could have a tangible negative effect on foreign government support for international law and potentially put American citizens at risk abroad. If, for example, foreign governments see that the United States continues to flout support for the Vienna Convention on Consular Rights (VCCR), which requires governments to allow foreign citizen detainees to communicate with their consulates, they may be less inclined to support the VCCR as well. In some instances, the only thing standing between the mistreatment of U.S. citizens being detained is the ability to ask for the assistance from American consular officials.    Regarding prosecution of war criminals, Mr. Bolton has raised serious objections to UN-sponsored tribunals to prosecute war criminals in the former Yugoslavia, Rwanda, and Sierra Leone, most of which received bipartisan congressional support at the time. In 1995, for example, Mr. Bolton discredited attempts at international prosecution of war criminal from the former Yugoslavia, saying: “one need not condone the practices of executions, ethnic cleansing, systematic rape as a tactic in warfare, torture or any other abuses, however, to wonder if show trials will really change much of anything.” Mr. Bolton also criticized efforts to bring Chile’s General Pinochet to justice. For example, Mr. Bolton said, “After all, the Pinochet affair reinforces the fact that providing realistic exit strategies to dictators (including insulation from prosecution) can make the return to democracy more likely, not less.”    Although the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (Tribunal) has encountered difficulties, the Tribunal has been far from the “show trial” Mr. Bolton alluded to. As of November 2003, proceedings have been completed or are ongoing for about 90 persons, most of whom were in leadership positions or responsible for large numbers of crimes. These prosecutions also include Serbs such as two Bosnia Croats, Vinko Martinovic and Mladen Naletilic, that were found guilty of crimes against humanity and war crimes and sentenced to 18 and 20 years’ imprisonment respectively.    A full amnesty or insulation from prosecution for government officials involved in crimes against humanity can also have serious negative effects. Impunity for such war crimes can discourage support for rule of law or worse encourage renewed fighting. According to an independent expert, “For example, in a quick bid to end the first brutal Liberian civil war and in the face of massive crimes committed against civilians, U.N. and West African leaders agreed to a peace plan that dispensed with justice and rushed an election that installed warlord Charles Taylor as president in 1997. Not surprisingly, within a short time, the country was back at war.”    Similar to Mr. Bolton’s objections to many UN efforts to prosecute war criminals, Mr. Bolton has also been critical of UN peacekeeping missions in the Congo, Sierra Leone, Ethiopia-Eritrea, Kosovo, and East Timor. For example, in January 2000, Mr. Bolton raised this concern about U.S. support for the UN Mission in East Timor (UNAMET): “Under most conceivable circumstances, however, it is not likely that a lengthy, costly UNTAET presence will dramatically change the prospects for democracy…‘Nation building’ in East Timor if it is ever to be accomplished successfully, will not be done with foreign experts in the lead, however much there may be a need for financial resources and expertise not found on the island.”    In the same congressional testimony in 2000, Mr. Bolton also made these statements about UN Peacekeeping efforts in Kosovo: “In short, UNMIK [United Nations Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo] is poised at the edge of massive failure, failure caused by the ambiguous and contradictory nature of its mandate, the inadequacy of the UN’s capacity to undertake such a mission, the radical political uncertainty and sometimes violent disagreement among the parties..
	Next (more recent) news item
	Next (older) news item