After the Senate Foreign Relations Committee concluded its third day of hearings on the appointment of John Bolton as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, about 200 scholars, students and members of the public filled Smith-Buonanno 106 to capacity Wednesday night to debate the nomination locally.
President George W. Bush announced his nomination of Bolton to the post March 7.
Bolton's nomination has aroused particular interest at Brown and in the state because Sen. Lincoln Chafee '75, R-R.I., is seen to hold a key vote determining whether the nomination makes it out of the Senate committee.
The debate at Brown covered a wide range of topics from the nature of international law and the need for building consensus to Bolton's character.
Arguing the case for the Bolton nomination was Ruth Wedgwood, professor of international law and diplomacy at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies. Speaking against the nomination was Mort Halperin, U.S. advocacy director of the Open Society Institute. Professor of Political Science Thomas Biersteker, director of the Watson Institute for International Studies, moderated the debate.
Biersteker introduced the debate by noting the relevance of the topic to the Brown and Rhode Island communities. He highlighted Chafee's "pivotal vote" and "maverick streak," and he said the Watson Institute had special ties with the United Nations. "We have a real stake in the outcome of this decision," Biersteker said.
Wedgwood opened by stressing the new security challenges in the world and the need for reform in the United Nations. "In this case, in this time, in this place, it makes sense to put John Bolton in this job. He has pledged to work with (U.N. Secretary General) Kofi Annan to fix problems of reform," she said.
She pointed to an understaffing of offices and a lack of transparency at the United Nations as just some of the problems faced by the institution. "There were only 10 people in the office overseeing the elections in Iraq," she said. "There is a need for some 'tough love,' and at times it does pay to say things plainly and clearly."
Halperin argued that Bolton did not have a suitable temperament for the position. "We need someone who can sit down and work a consensus, and then come back to Washington and work with Congress. John Bolton is not a diplomat, he has not shown diplomatic skills and he has shown an impatience to work with others," he said.
Halperin said that "in the case of Libya, we only got a deal when the Libyans insisted that Bolton was taken off the case."
Halperin then attacked Bolton's views of the United Nations, citing two of Bolton's more controversial public statements. In 1994, Bolton expressed his view that "if the U.N. secretary building in New York lost 10 stories, it wouldn't make a bit of difference."
In 2000, Bolton said on NPR, "If I were redoing the Security Council today, I'd have one permanent member (the United States) because that's the real reflection of the distribution of power in the world."
Halperin said that Bolton "has said many times that the U.N. is not central to American security" and has shown "enormous disdain for international law."
Wedgwood defended Bolton, saying he is "smart as aces" and would adapt to the job. "Would you speak differently as a diplomat than on a talk show? Of course. John Bolton knows as much about this institution as anyone else, and I would not dismiss him lightly," she said.
Halperin repeatedly said Bolton's views are fundamentally incompatible with the nature of the position. "The ambassador to the U.N. has to believe that international institutions and international law over time make America more secure. Bolton believes that is fundamentally wrong. The person who has that view cannot be an effective ambassador to the U.N.," Halperin said.
The panelists made references to political theorists Georg Hegel and Leo Strauss while also relating personal anecdotes about alleged screaming incidents at Washington insider meetings.
However, the debate was not without its lighter moments, particularly when the panelists directly addressed each other. At one point Halperin asked, "Don't you agree that John Bolton would not agree with everything you've said?"
"I don't answer questions with double negatives," Wedgwood replied.
Biersteker concluded the debate by thanking both panelists and noting the encouraging attendance, saying "it shows that people in Rhode Island do care about politics."
Members of the audience praised the debate. "It was a very interesting debate. Both of them were very articulate," said Professor of Computer Science Franco Preparata, who added that he still opposes Bolton's nomination.
"It was fascinating. (Halperin) was very entertaining, but I agreed more with the second speech. (Wedgwood) made a valid point that you need someone with leverage with the Bush administration to reform the U.N.," said Stephanie Morin '05.
The event was sponsored by Campus Progress, the campus division of the Center for American Progress, in association with the Watson Institute, Democracy Matters, Americans for Informed Democracy and other campus groups at Brown.
In Washington, the Senate committee vote was tentatively scheduled for today, but has been postponed until next week under pressure from Democrats, the Associated Press reported. If the committee confirms Bolton, the nomination will move to the Republican-controlled Senate.
