|
This was when Bolton was confirmed as UnderSecretary for Arms Control:
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, in a few moments, the Senate will vote on the President's nomination of John Bolton for Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security. I am under no illusions about the fact that Mr. Bolton will be confirmed for this position. But I will vote against him, because I believe his views on the issues for which he will have responsibility are inconsistent with the best interests of the United States.
President Bush has promised to work with our friends and allies to build a new framework for U.S. policies on arms control and international security. But his nomination of John Bolton to be the principal advisor to the Secretary of State on these issues is just one of many steps that have sent a decidedly mixed message about his commitment to pursuing a thoughtful, cooperative approach.
In the last several weeks, President Bush has withdrawn the United States from the Kyoto Protocol, sent the South Korean President home with no commitment that we will continue to work on reducing the dangers from North Korea's ballistic missile program, reversed a more than 20-year-old United States policy that has kept the peace in the Taiwan Strait, and announced that the United States will no longer concern itself with negotiations to control and reduce the strategic nuclear arsenal of the former Soviet Union. Last week, in what will assuredly not be the last evidence of growing concern and impatience with U.S. unilateralism, we were voted off the U.N. Human Rights Commission, to the delight of human rights abusers everywhere. This growing unilateralism is very troubling to those of us who understand that the interests of the American people are best protected when we work in concert with others on common interests and problems.
Senate confirmation of John Bolton to be Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security will be another serious blow to U.S. leadership on these important issues. Over the last 8 years, John Bolton has expressed extreme views on a wide range of U.S. foreign policy issues. He has belittled the United Nations, referred to supporters of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty as neo-pacifists, labeled our closest allies ``appeasers'' for opposing sanctions policy also opposed by Vice President CHENEY, and questioned whether the United States is ever legally bound by its treaty obligations.
I find John Bolton's views most troubling on the arms control issues over which he will exercise a great deal of influence in this position. He is a staunch opponent of important treaties--including the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, the ABM Treaty, and the Ottawa Convention banning antipersonnel land mines which he has criticized as unenforceable, while at the same time opposing the development of international enforcement mechanisms. His antagonism to arms control threatens the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT), a cooperative, verifiable agreement that has effectively kept the nuclear weapons club to very low numbers for more than three decades span. But future international participation in the NPT is inextricably tied to the stability of treaties that Mr. Bolton has condemned. So too is the success of our cooperative nuclear threat-reduction measures with Russia.
Mr. Bolton has also consistently advocated that the United States give diplomatic recognition to Taiwan, a position at odds with decades of U.S. policy and with President Bush's declared One China stance. From 1994-1996, the Taiwanese government paid $30,000 to Mr. Bolton for several papers on Taiwan and the U.N. It is troubling that during this time Mr. Bolton testified about this same issue before two House subcommittees. Should he be confirmed, Mr. Bolton will play a major role in overseeing United States arms sales to Taiwan, one of the most important--and most potentially volatile--issues in United States policy toward Asia. While the State Department has signed off on ethical questions surrounding this possible conflict of interest, I believe United States arms sales policy toward Taiwan can not help but be affected--least in perception, if not in fact--by Mr. Bolton's past relationship with the Government of Taiwan.
On another issue of great importance to stability in Asia, Mr. Bolton has criticized the Clinton administration's efforts to freeze North Korea's nuclear and ballistic missile programs as ``egregiously wrong.'' This despite the undisputed facts that the 1994 Agreed Framework has successfully stopped Pyongyang's nuclear program and more recent talks have convined North Korea to unilaterally suspend its missile tests until 2003.
President Bush is now reviewing United States policy toward North Korea, which I hope will conclude with a decision to continue talks with Pyongyang about the future of its missile program. While I am sympathetic to the President's desire to review past policy, I believe it would be mistake to walk away from a dialogue that holds out the possibility of a verifiable agreement to freeze North Korea's missile program and halt their missile sales. John Bolton has taken a dismissive view of the value of dialogue with Pyongyang, and I am deeply concerned that adding his voice to the administration's debate on this issue will further undermine the United States interest in advancing peace and stability on the Korean Peninsula.
Finally, while Mr. Bolton's testimony before the Foreign Relations Committee seemed to suggest that his current views are more moderate than his writings indicate, I remain perplexed by the question of what views he will take with him into this administration. This is not an academic or inappropriate issue to raise. While, ultimately, Mr. Bolton's personal opinions will be subsumed by the decisions of the Secretary of State and the President, he will have an enormous amount of influence in the policy debates that shape those decisions. I find it difficult to imagine that a man who has dedicated his life to public service on behalf of a set of values that he has taken the time to articulate in public writings will suddenly cease to advocate on behalf of those values at exactly the moment when his ability to influence public debate is at its zenith.
Mr. President, the United States has a strong interest in maintaining and advancing transparent, verifiable arms control regimes and stopping the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. These issues are far too important to be left in the hands of a man who has denied their very legitimacy. I urge my colleagues to vote against this nominee.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
