News that John Bolton is being considered for the role of Secretary of State in President-elect Trump’s administration should give liberals, multi-lateralists, indeed anyone who values human rights and the rule of law, much cause for much concern.
As you may recall, John Bolton served as both Under-Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security and, temporarily, as Permanent Representative to the United Nations under the Bush administration. His brief tenure at the United Nations was cut short as the 2006 Democratic mid-term sweep removed any realistic prospect that Bolton’s nomination would be confirmed.
With Republican majorities now in place for at least the next 2 years, it seems unlikely that Trump’s will encounter similar problems with his own appointments.
Bolton, as the United States’ chief diplomat, would represent a particular threat to the global order. Phlegmatic and staunchly nationalistic, Bolton led the United States’ opposition to the International Criminal Court, describing it as a “threat to American security interests”, removing the US as signatory before negotiating bilaterally with nations to exempt US nationals from prosecution for war crimes. Unashamedly unilateralist, as Permanent Secretary to the UN he even claimed that there was no such thing as the United Nations, with the international community ostensibly being led by the United States and, even then, only in furtherance of its own narrow self-interest.
Bolton’s appointment would mark a return to Bush-era foreign policy, reviving debates over everything from Guantanamo to water-boarding to US leadership within the United Nations itself. Trump, while taking a decidedly isolationist stance on the campaign trail, has spoken positively of water-boarding (“and worse…”) and the extra-judicial killing of, not only suspected terrorists, but of their families as well. A return to Bush-era phraseology of “enhanced interrogation” and “enemy combatants” is already creeping into Trump’s limited lexicon, with promises of “enhanced vetting” of migrants, particularly those of the Islamic faith.
From the UK’s perspective, a scaled-up, retooled and, perhaps, rebranded “War on Terror” would represent a significant foreign policy recalibration which the Government would need to adapt to. Trump is on record as claiming he would be comfortable working in concert with Putin to support Assad in Syria, a regime which has brutalized combatants and civilians and that has, in recent times, used chemical and biological weapons to subdue civil unrest. Would Theresa May’s government align itself with a Trump-Putin axis in the middle-east?
The UK’s record of complicity in extra-judicial rendition of terrorist suspects en route to Guantanamo is well documented. Would this government cooperate with Trump in engaging in extra-judicial killings, rendition and torture, whether upon or directed from UK territory? Would UK assets be used? Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson, in discussing the use of UK-manufactured weapons by Saudi Arabia during bombing raids in Yemen, has betrayed complete indifference as to the implication of UK arm sales into conflicts where fundamental abuses of human rights and breaches of international norms are committed on an almost daily basis.
Even if the UK government doesn’t succeed in its long standing policy objective of repealing the Human Rights Act, the Prime Minister’s recent denunciation of liberalism demonstrates a clear direction of travel.
In little over 6 months, it is conceivable that the permanent members of the UN Security council could be represented by Donald Trump, Vladimir Putin, Xi Jinpeng, Marie Le Pen and Theresa May. Should this frightening prospect come to fruition, I have little faith that the current UK government could act as any kind of a bulwark against the most troubling excesses of what may one day come to be known as a modern-day “Axis of Evil”.
* Ciaran McGonagle is a Liberal Democrat member originally from Derry, Northern Ireland and based in Colchester. He is a solicitor working in financial services in the City of London.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
We do have a two-tier policing system but it is not what our homegrown racists think it is.
Lib Dems are reviewing policy and strategy says PoliticsHome
From Norman settlement to a civic square
Church Green video
Alex Macfie
William Wallace
Iain Donaldson
10 Comments
Oh shit…
Ciaran asks – Would Theresa May’s government align itself with a Trump-Putin axis in the middle-east?
The answer is Yes, in the same way that Reagan,Thatcher and Gorbachev set about reshaping the International order. What followed was the Taliban takeover of Afghanistan following the Soviet withdrawal, Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait and the 1st Gulf war, the violent repression of student demonstrations in Tiannenem square in China and the chaotic break-up of Yugoslavia.
However,if we are seeking historical precedents for the way the Trump administration is shaping-up we would need to look back to that of Andrew Jackson in the 1830’s. Jackson set out to change the course and direction of America and acted swiftly and brutally to do so with the Indian removal Act of 1830. The so called ‘trail of tears’ saw almost the entire native Indian population east of the Mississippi river forcibly expelled to the Oklahoma territory that has been acquired from Napoleon in the Louisiana purchase. After the discovery of oil in Oklahoma in the early 20th century the territory became a state and the short-lived Indian lands there were lost forever.
The Cherokee nation won a supreme court ruling against the expulsion of their tribe from Georgia, but President Jackson ignored the court, asking only “how will a supreme court judge enforce its ruling”?.
Good article and I would agree with pretty much everything. John Bolton would be disastrous and would signify an aggressive foreign policy by a Donald Trump administration. I’m not sold that this is his ultimate objective, although as the article correctly highlights, Trump has advocated torture and other profoundly illiberal measures.
We’ll have to wait and see I guess at this stage.
When I hear people in this and the Labour party saying yes to unilateral nuclear disarmament and question our need to be a permanent member of the Security Council , I despair !
The list above showed , that whatever disagreements we have with each other , May is a moderate in such company !
The positions Trump has already filled are absolutely dreadful, Bolton shall probably be Trumped by Rudy Giulini , but so far the government in waiting proves how absurd the notion of Trump being more of a peace oriented candidate than Hillary Clinton , is ! We could be enjoying the new Secreatary of State Elizabeth Warren, Labour Secretary Bernie Sanders , Health, Dr. Hward Dean !
not quite sure that TM the PM ranks with the others, but that aside, it does look dark.
am equally worried that the old sci fi chestnut about corporations replacing government is looking spot-on …
and don’t forget Putin’s Russia does help fund the FN in France.
I agree that John Bolton would be an awful choice for Trump to select as the new US Secretary of State if we’re to go by his record as UN rep a decade ago.
But British and French governments in particular have a poisonous, foolish policy that fuels the Syrian civil war by pretending that the FSA isn’t dominated by jihadist islamists, and suggesting that all would be well if they successfully toppled Assad.
So Ciaran McGonagle falls into the trap of suggesting Putin’s alliance with Assad is an evil to be confronted- when in reality, most Syrians currently live in govt areas- including more displaced ones than the 5million refugees outside Syria. The Syrian regime must defend its people in its area of control, negotiate with rebels, like the Kurdish groups who don’t bear arms against its areas, and eliminate those who continue to attack its populations and property (many being foreign jihadists from Europe, Central Asia, the Caucasus, and elsewhere in the Arab world).
He also blames Assad’s regime with “brutalized combatants and civilians and that has, in recent times, used chemical and biological weapons to subdue civil unrest”.
But ‘Brutalisation’ in Syria was opened up by the US Govt policy sowing armed insurrection (in full swing while John Bolton was UN rep) through its regional allies Saudi & Qatar.
And use of chemical/biological weapons- chlorine and white phosphorus- has been used to subdue civil unrest by the US in Iraq (Falluja) and Afghanistan, and proven to be used early on by Syrian “rebels” for Youtube propaganda videos and still use by firing missiles into govt or Kurdish- held civilian areas (within last 2 weeks- outside the BBC narrative, so barely acknowledged)
Trump’s one big benefit is he may prioritise smashing ISIS and other jihadists and therefore recognise Russia’s important role in strengthening the Assad regime’s means to defeat Saudi Arabia’s ideological children.
“Would this government cooperate with Trump in engaging in extra-judicial killings” – probably yes, since the UK does that too.
Apparently it doesn’t count if you use a drone, or something…….
I agree with Nick (Baird!) here. Unfortunately our govt (including when LibDems were in govt) already undertakes extrajudicial killing of errant Brits & others, with drones.
We also play a childish pretense that our bombs are so technologically advanced that they don’t kill any civilians, with auntie Beeb spouting how wicked Russians and Syrians bomb civilians- at least the americans aren’t that self-deluded and are a bit more circumspect about their bombing raids.
If Trump just goes back to Reagan and Bush policies, I will be relieved, unjust and unintelligent though many of those policies are. Tim Farron said something pretty radical in his reaction to Trump’s victory: we can no longer rely on the US as an ally. Putin could take Trump’s election as a green light to try to destabilise and bully the Baltic republics and Moldova. Trump could initially say it was none of the US’s business (bad news for freedom and democracy in these countries), but I suspect there would be heavy pressure in the US media and Congress for a reaction. If Trump was accused of being weak, he could over-react fatally.
What is happening with Brexit, Le Pen and Trump is the unravelling of the post-2WW “Western” consensus (shared to varying extents outside the “West”) around international co-operation and human rights. It’s no coincidence that this is happening when the people who experienced that war as adults or teenagers are largely gone and the voting old are largely people like me who got our war second-hand and often misleadingly. However, most young people see things in a less narrowly nationalistic or racist way. I just hope we last long enough for their day.
@ Simon Banks,
‘ However, most young people see things in a less narrowly nationalistic or racist way. I just hope that we last long enough for their day’.
So do I.