The Last Word: John Bolton 
A Different Diplomat
Michael Hastings
December 26, 2005
Newsweek International
Original Source: http://msnbc.msn.com/id/10511145/site/newsweek/

Dec. 26, 2005 - Jan 2, 2006 issue - For Thanksgiving, John Bolton went to the Macy's parade with his family. Over the holidays, the former under secretary of State for arms control plans on doing nothing at his home. These are not the usual images associated with the most controversial U.S. ambassador to the United Nations in recent history, whose hawkish views on Iraq and blunt talk have at times riled both enemy and ally alike. Sporting his trademark white mustache, he met with NEWSWEEK's Michael Hastings to discuss his time at the United Nations. Excerpts:
You've been at the United Nations almost half a year. What's your sense of how the United States is perceived by the rest of the world? 
I'm not sure that perceptions of the U.S. at the U.N. are an accurate reflection of how the U.S. is perceived around the world. Although anything substantive that happens at the U.N. is a reflection of the external geopolitical reality, a lot of aspects of life at the U.N. are caught in a time warp and a little bit divorced from the reality. 
When you were appointed, critics said it was going to be the start of World War III. 
It wasn't. 
So how have you been treated? 
I think people here wanted someone who could speak definitively for the U.S. They know I represent the president, the secretary [of State], and I'm carrying out policies that the president and the secretary formulate. Professionally and personally it has been a very good reception. 
The Dec. 15 Iraqi elections went off peacefully. Do you think this is fleeting success, or a vindication of the president's Iraq policy? 
Democracy has its ups and downs, no question about that. The difference with this election is that this elects a Parliament for an Iraq that will be fully sovereign. That will be the culmination of what will be the most dramatic story of the year: the holding and possibility of free elections in the broader region of the Middle East and the possibility of representative government. This doesn't happen overnight. 
The Iranian president said this year he wants to wipe Israel off the map, among other things. Will his comments affect the nuclear negotiations? 
The two are definitely related. The idea that there are somehow moderates in this regime in Iran is, thanks to the president's comments, something we can dismiss as just illusory. And it underlines with special force the risk of having an Iran [that's] nuclear-capable and ballistic-missile-equipped. The consequences are not hypothetical. When you have someone saying that I want to wipe somebody off the map or that they ought to be moved to Europe or that the Holocaust did not occur, that is not somebody who you want to have their finger on the button. 
The United Nations voted to continue the investigation into the assassination of Rafik Hariri. Do you support sanctions against Syria? 
We said in the last [U.N.] resolution, 1636, that if there was not full and unconditional cooperation from Syria, the Security Council could consider other measures. We think that we sent the same clear, strong signal to that effect in the [new] resolution. I think the resolution makes that clear, that they had no choice but to have full and unconditional cooperation, and that at some point we're going to look at other measures. 
What is the U. S. telling Syria right now? 
We've told Syria a number of things, such as our insistence that they close their border with Iraq to terrorists and terrorist weapons and terrorist financing, and they've got to cut out their support for Hizbullah, Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad and other terrorist groups. They've got to abandon their WMD program. There's a long, long list of things we expect the Syrians to do. 
What's on the agenda for 2006? 
We need a fundamental decision at the U.N.—that it really is going to launch what the secretary [Rice] called the lasting revolution of reform. We've had the Oil-for-Food scandal, we've had the scandal of sexual exploitation and abuse by U.N. peacekeepers, we've had a whole series of problems with governance and management issues. 
Kim Jong Il, among other despots, once personally criticized you—do you consider that a badge of honor? 
Yeah, I've got a long list. I've been the subject of long portions of several speeches by Fidel Castro. The Syrian ambassador attacked me the other day. 
You'd call it your diplomatic style, right? 
The purpose of diplomacy is principally to advance your country's interests. While stability and relationships and calming the seas is an element of that, to be sure, I think American diplomats should be advocates for America. I am a litigator by training. I think advancing your interests requires stating what your interest is and defending it. I'm not hesitant to say that I'm a tough negotiator. 
© 2005 Newsweek, Inc.