Bolton: U.N. flaws result in inaction

“In the broad sweep of American affairs, the United Nations just is not that important,” Bolton said.

Bolton, who was appointed by President Bush in 2005 but stepped down a year later without having been confirmed by the Senate, said he believes that the U.N. is plagued by what he called “norming.”

Norming, he explained, is the United Nation’s practice of taking a definitive position on issues that are highly disputed within its member countries.

Bolton added that this practice can put pressure on the U.S. government to align with the United Nations. He cited abortion as an example, noting that abortion rights advocates have pressured the State Department, using the United Nation’s position on the issue as leverage.

“There’s nothing the State Department hates more than being isolated,” he said.

The process opens the door to situations in which the sitting U.S. administration could be “unfairly” influenced by domestic interest groups, he explained.

Norming is “fundamentally illegitimate,” he said. “I think the founding fathers would [agree].”

Bolton added that “as we face the prospect of an Obama presidency ... we face more norming,” adding that he believes a potential Obama presidency will mirror the last few years of Bill Clinton’s presidency.

Support nonprofit student journalism. Donate to the ‘Prince’. Donate now »

In addition to the norming issue, Bolton said he believes that the United Nations is generally a broken system. He explained that fatal flaws have led to a “culture of inaction,” quoting former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker ’49’s report to the United Nations.

He highlighted what he believes to be failures of the United Nations, noting that the organization has “proved itself fundamentally unable to act” on issues such as terrorism.

Additionally, he cited the conflict in the Darfur region of the Sudan, saying that it is “clearly a campaign of genocide.”

The United Nations has been unable to take action on this issue, he explained, because Russia and China, which have seats on the Security Council, “fly cover” for the Sudanese government.

Get the best of the ‘Prince’ delivered straight to your inbox. Subscribe now »

During Bolton’s tenure as U.N. ambassador, his stances did not garner him many supporters. Even representatives from traditional American allies disagreed with Bolton’s positions.

He noted that several European countries, after originally agreeing with him, opposed his belief that countries on a human-rights-abuse watch list should not serve on the U.N. Human Rights Council.

“I wasn’t going to put lipstick on a caterpillar and call it a butterfly,” he said.

The New York Times and The Washington Post later published editorials supporting Bolton’s position.

Bolton added to his scathing criticism of European nations in the question-and-answer session following the lecture.

In response to a question from a student in the audience about the weaknesses of regional institutions like the European Union, Bolton said, “I don’t know if the Europeans really know what they want to be when they grow up.”

When asked by multiple student audience members how he justified the American military action in Iraq while condemning similar operations by other countries, Bolton interrupted and asked the students to explain why they believed it to be unethical.

Shannon Rice ’12, who attended the lecture, was “surprised by how anti-U.N. he was,” she said. “I don’t understand how someone so opposed to the U.N. could be the ambassador.”

Bolton’s lecture, titled “The U.N. and American Interests,” was co-sponsored by the Wilson School and the James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions.