U.S. policy over the last four years has been driven by the false belief that, as the lone superpower, the United States is powerful enough to bend the world to its will, and John Bolton embodies this dangerous hegemonic ideology. It is a costly myth that has made the superpower burden heavier, not just in having to handle the insurgency in Iraq on its own but also in seeking to garner world coalitions to counter threats from terrorism and proliferators. And the fact that, in recent years, anti-Americanism has spiked to unprecedented levels around the globe has made achieving these goals infinitely harder.
Back to Bolton: As the top arms-control official at the State Department, he spent the last four years undermining the very arms control regimes needed to protect the United States in this new age of terrorism. Claiming that he does not “do carrots,” Bolton has consistently undermined efforts to negotiate deals to end the North Korean and Iranian nuclear weapons programs. The result has been that both nations have forged ahead on their respective efforts, making the United States less, not more, secure.
The technology revolution has made readily available to terrorists everywhere information on how to construct nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons. Yet, rather than funding and supporting the very nonproliferation efforts aimed at this threat, the administration has cut such programs, instead focusing on national missile defense and a new bunker-buster nuclear weapon. Bolton's single positive accomplishment is the Proliferation Security Initiative, which got off to a shaky start. He initially expected nations to volunteer for his Proliferation Security Initiative to patrol the high seas for proliferators. When few countries signed up, the administration rightly took the initiative to the UN Security Council, which endorsed it. That wise use of the United Nations may foreshadow a possible new pragmatism of President George W. Bush's nominee, or at least Bolton's bosses in Washington.
Bolton had made it clear he wanted to move up the policy chain in Washington, either to a more senior post at the State Department or to the National Security Council. Instead, Bush and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice moved him out of Washington to a job with little policymaking responsibilities. Shortly after he took office in 2001, Bush stripped the UN ambassador position of its cabinet rank and removed it from the Principals Committee -- the cabinet-level interagency group that sets the administration's foreign policy. That Washington moved Bolton out, not up, may mean that the top officials want to distance themselves from his extreme policies, while still seeking to placate the far-right wing of his party.
And should the United States decide to get serious about supporting UN reform, Bolton may well succeed in the job. UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan has recently put forward a bold plan to reform the United Nations: In Larger Freedom. Yet Annan, particularly given the myriad scandals at the United Nations undermining his credibility, cannot single-handedly implement the reforms. Strong U.S. leadership and engagement is essential. While the choice of John Bolton for the United Nations will make that job harder for the United States, Bolton will be well placed to sell any reforms to Capitol Hill where has a strong following among UN skeptics.
The signs are broader than just moving Bolton out of Washington. Bush's recent trip to Europe indicated that the administration is beginning to realize the need to change course and to seek partners to confront the threats of terrorism, proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, regional conflicts, failed states, and organized crime. A successful second term will require a new policy of tough engagement, putting to rest the dangerous superpower myth of the last four years. The United States must return to its role as a persuader, not just enforcer. It means addressing the difficult issues of today in consultation with allies and the United Nations -- not because it's the nice thing to do but because it's the smart thing to do.
Barring these evolutions, though, the international distrust of American foreign policy will only grow. If Bush does turn his new, more realistic rhetoric into concrete policies, Americans should welcome the shift. But it will require a diplomacy that he -- to say nothing of John Bolton -- failed to display in his first term, and may still resist.
Nancy E. Soderberg served as a senior official in the Clinton administration and is the author of The Superpower Myth, the Use and Misuse of American Might.