Thoughts about John Bolton's Confirmation Hearing

New York Times article.

I recall once, years ago when John Bolton worked at the U.S. Agency for International Development, passing his office in the State Department. The building is solid and the door was closed, but I could hear him yelling for a considerable distance as I passed down the hall. I don't remember any other time in my 25 years with the U.S. government coming across so unpleasant a scene. I was not surprised to hear that he gained a reputation for intimidating people.

But I want to discuss for a moment the issue of knowledge for development in the context of the appointment of the U.S. Representative to the United Nations. First I was struck by the fact that the Senate Committee was concerned with "credibility" of Bolton as UN Rep, but I did not hear the word "veracity". It seems to me that the government should be most concerned that the US Rep speaks the truth to the nations gathered at the United Nations.

Bolton's was the highest official in the U.S. Department of State with specific responsibility for matters of arms control and disarmament at the time that Secretary Powell made representations to the United Nations about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq that later proved to be false. Does he not bear some responsibility for the lack of veracity of those statements?

The hearing yesterday suggested that Bolton had applied pressure on more than one occasion on intelligence analysts to make their analysis support his preconceptions. This of course diminishes the quality of the knowledge processes involved. If promoted to a still higher post in the U.S. foreign policy apparatus, one would worry that he would continue to try to undermine the knowledge processes, perhaps with more success than he apparently had in the past. Certainly I would hope that, at a minimum, the State Department and intelligence agencies would take special steps to assure he did not abuse intelligence analysts in the future.

It is importance to the United States that the international community give credence to the United States statements made at the United Nations. The credence will depend not only on the veracity of what is said, but on the arguments made about its veracity. Having a man in charge with a record of responsibility for misstatements and for pressuring people in his government to allow him to make statements which they believe to be inaccurate can only help those who would argue against the credibility of U.S. statements. Not a good outcome for the United States!