archived: 27 Mar - 2 Apr, 2005         Back                 Next

UPDATED:  March 31, 2005 

            “JOHN BOLTON AND THE NUCLEAR OPTION”                               

The Georgites relish talking about “nuclear options” (or is it “nookyulahr opshuns”?)  They use the term to refer both to the possible real use of nuclear weapons and as a metaphor.  For example, they use it to describe how they are going to prevent the Democrats in the Senate from blocking confirmation of completely unqualified Bush nominees for the Federal bench.  Sam Johnson, a Republican Congressman from Texas (no doubt a Ken DeLay special) has talked about “nuking” Syria (see TPJ, March 10).  In my column of February 24, I briefly discussed the June War Plan for Iran, already signed off on by Bush, his protestations to the contrary notwithstanding, as reported by Scott Ritter.  Since US ground forces are in an increasingly parlous state (see The Washington Post, March 19, 2005, Two Years Later, Iraq War Drains Military), it appears that the only possible course of US military action would be to use the real “nuclear option.”  Now we have another example of Georgite thinking along these lines: the nomination of John Bolton to be Ambassador to the United Nations. 

There has been much analysis of the inappropriateness of this nomination, given Bolton’s long-standing disdain for the institution and his advocacy over time of a variety of anti-UN measures,  including the possibility of quitting the body altogether.  Beyond his views on the UN, the man does not exactly have a reputation as an accomplished diplomat.  To the contrary, two bulls in a china shop seem to be an accurate description of his diplomatic skills.  In conventional terms, then, the nomination seems to be un-understandable, inexplicable.  However, if one starts thinking about the true Georgite objectives likely are, naming Bolton to the UN makes total sense.  They indeed are symbolized by this nomination.

The “Bush Doctrine” calls for unrestricted US intervention around the world, using force when, as, and if necessary, unconstrained by any treaty obligations. Based on Presidential whim or other motivations, such interventions do not require -- indeed reject to the political extent possible – multi-lateralism and allied involvement.  The “Doctrine” is a formula for continued and continuous maxi-imperialist aggression by the Georgite-run United States, using the excuse of the day whether true or not.  In such a context, the UN could only be an impediment to carrying out this policy.  At best, then, the US would like to find some way to destroy the UN as we have known it since 1945.  Next best to destruction, which I suppose only people like Bolton and Wolfowitz could seriously imagine happening, would be to make a conclusionary case domestically for US departure from that body. 

The Georgite anti-UN campaign, let us recall, began in the run-up to the pre-planned Iraq War.  A US Secretary of State formerly held in high regard in many world capitols, knowingly (or perhaps, if he is not as smart as advertised, unknowingly) lied through his teeth on the Iraq reality to the Security Council in February, 2003 (see my TPJ column for March 16, 2004).  Powell showed total disdain for the UN in that performance.  What followed was a supposed campaign to get the Security Council to pass a resolution supporting the invasion.  However, the US put such conditions on the proposed resolution that UN intransigence was virtually guaranteed.  Precisely.  For in fact the US did not want any UN involvement, at all.  For that would have meant UN involvement in determining war plans and goals and objectives, US military forces under UN command, and UN control of post-war developments.  These were two big sets of no-no’s for the Georgites, who have kept the UN at arms-length in Iraq since then. 

Since then, too, the Georgites have kept up the drumbeat of anti-UN propaganda domestically, focusing on five (count them) Congressional investigations of the Iraq oil-for-food program.  (This in a Congress that investigates little else other than as distractions, e.g., the problem of steroid use in major league baseball.)  The UN investigations, of course, have turned out to be all for naught, since the US either knew about or was in the middle of whatever ethical and rules violations and corruption took place.  But once again, we must remember that it is simply unfair to confuse the Georgite constituency with facts.  The anti-UN seeds have been planted and are being cultivated.  Secretary General Kofi Annan already recognizes what is going on as he launches his campaign to make a primary focus of the international body the protection and promotion of human rights, specifically condemning such actions as those embodied by the “USA Patriot” Act.   

Bolton will be an instigator, not a negotiator.  Perhaps there will be demands for his departure on the part of some of the smaller countries which he manages to insult with his chestnuts of anti-UN aggression.  The US regime’s domestic clamor to make massive reductions in contributions to the world body will become ever-louder and be echoed with increasing vigor, in the Congress by O’RHannibaugh, and by the rest of the Georgite Privatized Ministry of Propaganda.  There will be possible intermediate outcomes.  But ultimately, I believe that the Georgites will have built their case at home with their constituency, the only place where it counts for them, to quit the UN and of course to expel its headquarters from this country.  To achieve such Georgite objectives is the only scenario that could rationally explain the nomination of John Bolton. 

And so, in this context, you might wonder what the nomination of Paul Wolfowitz for the Presidency of the World Bank means.  I can see no other message behind it than a Georgite goal to destroy, or least hobble, that institution as well.  After all, since the Georgites believe that poverty is the fault of the poor, and thus in the US the rich simply do not have any responsibility for the poor, the United States most certainly can have no responsibility for the poor of other countries.  So who needs a World Bank? 

Or possibly, as Andy Borowitz put it in his “Report” of  March 16, 2005 (http://www.borowitzreport.com/) “Elsewhere, moments after President Bush nominated him to head up the World Bank, Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz accused the International Monetary Fund of possessing weapons of mass destruction and said he would lead a coalition of other banks to invade it.”

_______________ 

Junkie:  Dr. Jonas’ article today is a composite of two articles; “There He Goes Again” and “What Putin Might Have Said,”authored for The Moving Planet, Editor Michael Carmichael’s wonderful website.  If you have not visited Carmichael’s site, please do so by clicking on this hyperlink: The Moving Planet 

________________  

Dr. Steven Jonas is a TPJ contributing author.  He is a Professor of Preventive Medicine at Stony Brook University (NY) and author/co-author of over twenty books. Dr. Jonas is one of America's most perceptive Democratic political analysts.

In his book The New Americanism, Dr. Jonas presents his case that the Democratic Party has come adrift from its founding principles.  He urges the Party to turn to the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution to find the new vision and mission that it, and our country, so desperately need. "The New Americanism: How the Democratic Party Can Win the Presidency  is available from Amazon.com (just click on the title) and BarnesandNoble.com.

He is also the author of The 15% Solution: A Political History of American Fascism, 2001-2022, originally published in 1996 under the pseudonym “Jonathan Westminster,” and republished with a New Introduction in 2004, under the same author's name.  The 2004 edition is available at www.barnesandnoble.com (just enter the title) and www.xlibris.com (“Bookstore,” “Search”).  Both versions are available at www.amazon.com (just click on the title).