George A. Lopez as appearing in La Opinion, Sunday 5-22-05

In the days ahead, when United States’ Senators debate the merits of John Bolton to serve as our next Ambassador to the United Nations, they should vote ‘no’. Both ordinary citizens and US Senators alike now know this decision as a correct one, based on the honest and simple workings of our democracy through the hearings held by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee since mid-April.

For all of its faults and failings, the US Constitutional system of checks and balances, advice and consent, often produces impressive results. Senator Richard Lugar (R-Indiana), chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, supports Bolton. Yet he conducted a thorough committee hearing marked by frank, but civil, exchange. He even yielded to the Democrats’ request for investigating further charges made against Bolton. The result was some additional information regarding Bolton’s bullying and improper use or manufacturing of intelligence, but no smoking gun. This may be why Senator Lugar appeared so stunned when a number of his Republican colleagues decided to send Bolton’s nomination along to the full Senate without a positive vote.

In summary remarks in the hearings, Lugar declared his regret that Democrats on the committee were already predisposed against Bolton and should have been convinced to vote positively based on his testimony or credentials. Lugar also emphasized that he personally believed that the President should have his choice for such a position.

Lugar’s claims might carry some weight had the evidence and Bolton’s own performance not raised so many doubts in the minds of at least two of the Republicans on the committee. And we might recall that the President – and many Senate supporters - also believed that he should have Bernard Kerik as his choice for the first Director of National Intelligence.

The major question now facing Republican Senators is whether they have the same courage and determination to protect the constitutional process which Senators Chafee (R – Rhode Island) and Voinovich (R-Ohio) have manifest in the Foreign Relations Committee. Will other Republicans vote their knowledge and their conscience as the Constitution requires of them as a trustees of the national interest and security?

For Senators not yet persuaded by the findings of the hearings and investigation, other reasons, not apparent a month ago, support a negative vote on Bolton. First, within weeks the UN Security Council may be debating a resolution to impose economic sanctions on Iran due to its continued production of nuclear fuel. Secondly, the world’s other threatening proliferator, North Korea, continues to saber rattle over its nuclear program. Should it test a nuclear weapon, the world’s response will flow from the Security Council. And thirdly, looming on the horizon is greater UN action on Darfur.

There could not be anyone more ill-suited to dealing with these impending crisis issues of global security than John Bolton. He already has a poor record in dealing with the two governments in question on nuclear proliferation concerns. Even if one argues that his positions on such questions represented those of his President, it was Bolton’s caustic style and unhelpful comments doomed any attempt that the US may have been willing to make to forge an agreement with either Iran or Korea.

Regarding Darfur, recent moves by the UN to remand for trial at the International Criminal Court those suspected of organizing terrible atrocities, are considered by most diplomats as smart, effective and historic. The action even had the support of the US in the Security Council. Similar action on Darfur and further use of other multilateral institutions for dealing with that tragedy are going to come before the Council again. But Bolton led a concerted neo-conservative attack on the creation of the ICC, claiming that for US interests the ICC was, “not just naïve, but dangerous”.

Finally, much has been made of the need for Bolton, the tough negotiator, to be in his place at the UN during the impending reform process there. The White House has clung to the image of Bolton as the President’s enforcer during what might be a wavering of will by UN bureaucrats who cannot reform themselves.

But the reality is that those aspects of reform most significant to the US are already well underway, and have no need for John Bolton, or any other permanent ambassador for that matter. This week, Deputy Secretary-General Louise Fréchette detailed a series of measures already operative and others commencing in the next few weeks. These include a formal induction program to provide in-depth training for senior officials of the UN Secretariat and dramatic improvements in the Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS), which conducts UN internal audits.

Republican Senators now face a historic choice that drives to the core issue of the separation of powers and the role of Congress in foreign affairs. In the first Bush term, Democrats joined Republicans in abdicating their constitutional responsibility as they passed – save for Senator Byrd (D-W Va) - without critical comment and analysis the November 2002 resolution authorizing the President to use whatever force necessary to deal with Saddam Hussein. They never demanded that they vote again regarding that primary power enshrined in the Constitution that only a vote of Congress can commit the nation to war. The result of shirking that responsibility has proven disastrous for American foreign policy and for coming generations of Americans.

At stake in the Bolton debate – most directly for Republicans in the Senate - is whether they will exercise, or simply abdicate to the President, the constitutional power of advice and consent of ambassadors. Those Republicans who in recent weeks expressed their displeasure or qualms about the nomination will make a historic contribution to both national security and constitutional order when they cast a 'no' vote.

Unlike the earlier Iraq resolution, this time the Democrats are united in their opposition to this ill-conceived appointee. Republicans must rise above the pressure of blind Party loyalty, think beyond Senator Lugar’s claim that the President’s nominee must be approved, and exercise their constitutional responsibility of advise and consent. They must move to reject John Bolton as the next US Ambassador to the United Nations. I can think of no higher form of prudence, patriotism and respect for the Constitution than such an action.

George A. Lopez is a Senior Fellow at the Joan B. Kroc Institute for International Peace Studies at the University of Notre Dame.

Top of Page

Home > In the News > Kroc faculty commentaries > Republicans, the Constitution and John Bolton