Skip to content

Advertisement

News

Bolton calls Obama’s foreign policy “post-American”

Bolton criticized Obama's foreign policy in the nine months of his administration. "His post-American policy is in plain view. When combined with weakness and indecision, this is a potentially toxic combination in areas around the world," Bolton said. To Bolton, a post-American views America as just another country in the world. “[Obama]'s above all that patriotism stuff that all those working people feel when they wave their flags,” he said.

Photo: Shane Coughlan/The Chicago Maroon
Former United States ambassador to the United Nations John R. Bolton gives a speech in Mandel Hall on Wedsnesday. The talk was sponsored by UC Republicans and The Chicago Friends of Israel.

Former interim U.N. Ambassador John Bolton called for the United States to adopt a more selfish foreign policy and take military action against threatening nations in a speech Tuesday in Mandel Hall. In the talk, Bolton called President Barack Obama’s policies weak and indecisive, saying they will leadto a less secure America.

The speech was sponsored by the Chicago Friends of Israel and the University Republicans.

Bolton criticized Obama’s foreign policy in the nine months of his administration. “His post-American policy is in plain view. When combined with weakness and indecision, this is a potentially toxic combination in areas around the world,” Bolton said. To Bolton, a post-American views America as just another country in the world. “[Obama]’s above all that patriotism stuff that all those working people feel when they wave their flags,” he said.

Bolton acknowledged that Obama brought change, but described it as a change for the worse. “He’s a very different president,” Bolton said. “Central to his politics and his way of thinking is that he does not believe in American exceptionalism.”

A neoconservative, Bolton has advocated a unilateral approach throughout his career, including a post as Undersecretary of State in 2001, when he recommended the U.S. take action to prevent the spread of weapons of mass destruction.

Bolton spelled out how he thought current policy is failing in every corner of the globe, starting off with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Bolton called for a three-state plan, calling the two-state solution “doomed to failure.” Under Bolton’s plan, Egypt would control the Gaza Strip, a renegotiated West Bank would go to the Jordanians, and Israel would have the remaining land. Admitting the difficulty of his plan, Bolton described the lack of a respected Palestinian authority to negotiate with Israel, which would require the involvement of Egypt and Jordan.

“They need to give up on an idea of a nation called Palestine. It was not written somewhere on stone,” he said.

The United States has improved its world image by shedding the appearance of unilateralism associated with President George W. Bush, Bolton said. When asked in an open question session about America’s place in the world, he elaborated on his view. “An American president should not base his foreign policy on American opinion, let alone foreign opinion,” he said.

Bolton also discussed how negotiating with North Korea and Iran has not benefited the United States. “Time always works on the side of the proliferators, time to develop better technology,” he said.

The current system of incentives for cooperation and disincentives for violations has not worked, Bolton said. “North Korea has found that talks with the U.S. are a way to gain tangible concessions. North Korea loves to talk about giving up its nuclear weapons. It loves to commit to it. It has committed to it many times,” he said.

Bolton described negotiations with Iran as similarly ineffective. “The reality after seven years of negotiation is that Iran has gotten seven years closer to nuclear weapons. [Negotiations] have failed…we have lost and Iran has won,” Bolton said.

He emphasized that the U.S. must do all that it can against rogue countries, because of the potential for disastrous consequences. “I don’t want to live in a world where we’re at the mercy of Kim Jong Il and Ahmadinejad,” he said.

In response to a question about the future of Iran, Bolton said there are only two options: A targeted strike by the Israelis against Iranian nuclear facilities or a nuclear Iran.

An attack by Israel would buy time for the U.S., but Bolton prefers a U.S.-led regime change, even though he recognizes it will not happen now.

“We could do it a lot better [than Israel]. We’re going to get blamed for it anyway, so why not do it right?” he said.

Afghanistan and Al-Qaeda provided yet another example of failed policy, Bolton said. He blamed Obama’s indecisiveness, particularly the reevaluation of the strategy and personnel Obama introduced in March, as the reason for worsening problems in the region.

“He cannot decide whether his own strategy is still valid six months later. The administration says there have been supervening events since March­­—corruption in the election,” Bolton said. “I don’t believe that they didn’t see it coming. Didn’t these people come from Chicago?”

For Bolton, America is in the fight alone. He highlighted Russia’s work against American interests in the Middle East and cited the Russia-Georgia War, which he compared to the 1939 German invasion of Poland, as evidence of increased Russian belligerence and a reason for suspicion.

The U.S. recently agreed to cancel the plans for a missile defense shield in Poland and the Czech Republic, in compliance with Russian objections. Bolton read it as another sign of weakness.

“If you threaten the administration they will back down. That might not be true, but that’s how [the Russians] think. It’s not just weakness but incompetence,” he said.

Attempting humor, Bolton did not miss an opportunity to zing Obama’s recent Nobel Peace Prize. “That and 25 cents will buy him a cup of coffee in the negotiations with the Russians,” he said.

He ended his speech with hope for conservatives. “I don’t have many words of comfort tonight, but it doesn’t last forever, and there’s always a chance for regime change in America.”

6 comments on “Bolton calls Obama’s foreign policy “post-American”

  1. reply

    The use of the worse “selfish” in the first sentence of the article is inappropriate in the lead of a news article. News articles are supposed to be neutral, and that is a clear value judgment. The writer and the editors of this article have a right to their own opinions, but they should not impose those opinions on their reporting. This is blatant bias, and the article should not have been printed with that word in the first line.

  2. reply
    ANONYMOUS'S BFF

    Not to mention the phrase at the end “attempting humor”. Isn’t this simply the author’s characterization of Bolton’s utterance (but also note that the author reproduces the utterance so that you can decide for yourself).
    Although these biases are far outstripped by the biases of Burke Frank’s article today.

    And let me add that Bolton strikes me as a complete idiot. This dude’s got a chip on his shoulder the size of, well, Iran.

    Let’s all thank God (yes I believe) that he was only “interim” UN Ambassador otherwise we would probably be sitting in the middle of World War III right now. Bomb shelter anyone?

  3. reply

    Dear Anonymous,

    Anyone who attended the event knows that Bolton himself wouldn’t object to the use of the word “selfish.” That was his stance, and it was abundantly evident.

    If you don’t like seeing a word like “selfish” applied to Bolton’s speech, that’s fine. Go ahead and dissociate yourself from his political ideas. But to call a student reporter “biased” for accurately describing Bolton’s stance isn’t just delusion, it’s cowardice and it’s bullying. This was a spot-on description of the philosophy Bolton outlined, and you know it, and you apparently don’t like it. Tough luck.

  4. reply

    Anonymous is right. “Selfish” is a meaningless word and it really fails to summarize Bolton’s point. Bolton is essentially arguing that diplomacy and multilateralism are not ends themselves but are means to the ends, ends which are determined by national interest. Being nationally-interested is different than being selfish. Selfishness implies the action is at the expense of all others and carries with it a value-judgment; the nationally-interested nation may be condemned by some but it isn’t inherently condemned by the description. A national-interest can be altruistic, for example, if someone had asked about Darfur, I bet Bolton would have said that we should do something about Darfur but that the UNSC is an impossible means to the end. In essence, Bolton was not arguing about selfishness or national-interest. He largely agreed with the Obama Administration about the ends (no nukes in Iran, a safe Israel alongside safe and prosperous Palestinians, the prevention of the Taliban ascendancy, etc.) his critique was about means. This article failed to make that clear. I expect a more sophisticated summary from Mr. Gaspari next time.

  5. reply

    Unilateralism is quintessentially “selfish.” In both its denotation and connotation it elides unity in its reluctance to employ cooperation and partnership in an collective effort to seek solutions if not more elusive, long-term resolutions to shared global exigencies. The realpolitik that Bolton promotes is not just a dangerously obscurantist one, it is a paradoxical one, too: isn’t it the very same primal self-aggrandizing sovereign unilateralism of which he accuses North Korea and Iran? Bolton’s POV is devoid of foresight. It’s also proof of a megalomaniac’s vigilante mindset, one that has arbitrarily bloodied the world for eons. Imagine Cheney as president and Bolton as Secretary of Defense (or State!). Their unitary self-righteousness would have us all tossing and turning in our beds.

  6. reply

    In spite of the crude and feckless epithets hurled aat Olmert, the former PM’s self-righteous aggrandizement was on arrogant display “They (Palestinians) will not find any prime minister in 100 years who will offer what I did”, characterizing the offer he made Palestinian negotiators in 2008 as “unprecedented.” Olmert, like his predecessors and successors, continues to conflate Palestinian refusal of those terms, NOT as a critical failure of Israeli leadership, by blaming the Palestinians for refusing Israel’s “sacrifice” to “nearly” all the West Bank and Gaza. Olmert is not free to “give” the Golan Heights to Palestine as it belongs to Syria and is land the State has continued to illegally occupy since 1967 ignoring UN Resolution 497 which demands its return to Syria. Oy vay. Inshallah.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

By submitting a comment, you agree to the terms of service of The Chicago Maroon.