At the UN, Bolton does Bolton

UN Ambassador John Bolton's standard operating procedure is simple and straightforward, but it is often difficult to perceive unless one is looking for it. Basically, his method is to use procedural tactics to sabotage general process, thereby creating paralysis, hoping for eventual stagnation, which is then held up as "the process is broken" to justify both further inaction and rule-breaking. Basically, systemic subversion.

It's the approach of a cynic, but ultimately an uncreative and unimaginative cynic. For instance, since UN reform is the agenda priority for the United States, it begs the question of whether a reform process (which demands creativity) can be achieved in an environment of stagnation and dysfunction. Creativity and stagnation, it would seem, are mutually exclusive.

This is not merely academic. The Associated Press:

Last week, the United States made extensive comments and proposed hundreds of changes to the latest blueprint for world leaders to adopt which runs 39 pages and was put together by General Assembly President Jean Ping.

Bolton told reporters Thursday that the proposed changes "are not that dissimilar to changes that we've been talking about here at the U.N. for months."

But coming less than three weeks before the summit starts on Sept. 14, they have added to the anxiety about whether all countries will be able to agree on a final text that has substance rather than just flowery phrases.

"Our hope is to have a strong consensus document for the high-level event," Bolton said. "We're working on that and we're making our views known as are other governments."

NPR has a segment, as well. From the sound of it, a 39-page declaration of resolutions strikes me as utterly insane, drowning all of the urgent priorities in a sea of diplomatic ejaculation; but the immediate point is that waiting until just before a conference starts before deluging everyone else with proposed changes is a tactical maneuver to castrate the entire project before it even starts. That's how Bolton killed off improvements to the Biological Weapons Convention.

While Bolton ludicrously talks about seeking a "strong consensus," the objective is rather obvious: strong dissensus all around. [Hence, talking about the merits of this or that proposal totally misses the point. The proposed changes are tactical fig leaves for sabotage.]

Steve Clemons is guest-blogging at Talking Points Memo, and has details on the US's proposed draft changes, linking to the document.

Not only is Bolton trying to dilute or remove effective action against AIDS, global poverty, climate change, etc. he's trying to turn the meeting into a UN reform vehicle; more specifically, a John Bolton UN reform vehicle. This next bit I want to make emphatically: My sense is that Bolton is not only hamstringing the development goals of the meeting, this is also an attempt by him to seize control of the US's UN reform project from others within the State Department (namely, the Secretary of State).

Bolton needs very badly to take over and be identified with any UN reform initiative, even if it fails on his account. This requires waging battle against his political adversaries within the administration. Secretary Rice has ostracized Bolton from the major UN reform decision-making, in part by appointing Shirin Tahir-Kheli as her own UN Reform Special Adviser. Rice's worry is that, given Bolton's track record, Bolton would only screw up UN reform. A reasonable probability. Hence, Shirin Tahir-Kheli.

Thus, immediately after Bolton's appointment, we saw the New York Times piece assuring us that most of the reform agenda was too far underway to be undermined by Bolton's antics:

"Most of the reforms sought by the United States are well on their way to completion," said a senior administration official, speaking anonymously to avoid undercutting the rationale for the Bolton appointment. Another said that because so much had been achieved, there was little concern that Mr. Bolton's combative personality would jeopardize the agenda.

Yet Bolton can't allow this to be his legacy, so he needs a vehicle to seize control of the reform initiative. An event that has President Bush's attendance may just be that vehicle.

John Bolton wants to escape the cage that's been built around him. Thus we see him emphatically trying to inject himself into a reform process that is already well underway, one controlled by those within a Bush Administration that have deliberately (and pragmatically) excluded him in the interests of UN reform. This kind of politics is just business as usual, as far as Bolton is concerned; the objectives, priorities and consequences for one's country be damned.

Comments

[Steve]

Very interesting and illuminating analysis, thank you!
I've had a bit of fun with the amendments document over at my political-language blog.
Best,
Steve

[nadezhda]

I have great sympathy for your understandable reaction, but I've a very different take on what's going on, specifically on the poverty & development agenda. It's a lengthy essay entitled "In defense of John Bolton," although it probably should be entitled "Down with Jeffrey Sachs." I figured you'd find it interesting, since you and I have both thought the Bolton nomination was a disaster for the US since the first day it was announced. My trackbacks are screwed up, so you can find it at chezNadezhda or over at LAT. And btw, nice to have you back from your hiatus!