Mark Steyn on John Bolton

This column too good to pass up (thanks to LittleGreenFootballs for the link):

The weak bromides touted by the Dems in lieu of a policy -- a legalistic approach to the war on terror, greater deference to the U.N. and America's ''friends'' -- were defeated at the polls. Since then, they've been further discredited: The failure of terrorist prosecutions in Europe underlines how disastrous John Kerry's serve-'em-with-subpoenas approach would be; the sewer of the Oil-for-Food scandal and the attempts by Kofi Annan to castrate the investigation into it demonstrate yet again that there is no problem in the world today that can't be made worse by letting the U.N. have a hand in solving it; and America's ''friends'' -- by which Kerry meant not allies like Britain and Australia but the likes of France and Canada -- turn out to be some of the countries most implicated in the corruption of U.N. ''humanitarianism.''

Republican voters understand this. Why don't Republican senators? The rap against John Bolton is that he gets annoyed with do-nothing bureaucrats. If that's enough to disqualify you from government service, then 70 percent of citizens who've visited the DMV in John Kerry's Massachusetts are ineligible. Sinking Bolton means handing a huge psychological victory to a federal bureaucracy that so spectacularly failed America on 9/11 and to a U.N. bureaucracy eager for any distraction from its own mess. The Democrats' interest in derailing Bush foreign policy is crude but understandable. But why would even the wimpiest Republican ''moderate'' want to help them out? Who needs capuchin monkeys in the Senate when GOP squishes are so eager to tap-dance for Democrat organ grinders?

Russian for Americans

The Russian Dilettante has a pretty interesting explanation of differences between American and Russian mentalities. The same word can have different meanings, which may be an obstacle to better Russo-American understanding, as seen during Secretary of State Rice's recent visit:

Confusion over words

American media are good at parrotting key words to the whole world but bad at exporting concepts. Part of the problem is linguistic and cultural flippancy. Two words spelled almost the same in two languages do not have to have the same meaning in both. When ideology-peddlers ignore this well-known fact, absurdity ensues.

Take "individualism." To its Anglospheric proponents, it means taking responsibility for one's actions and well-being. To many Russians, the word embodies a different worldview: "I want it all for myself. I don't give a sh*t about you guys." In Russia, Dillinger would be called an individualist but Bill Gates' one-word description would more likely be smart, risk-taking, enterprising, lucky. He might as well turn out an "individualist," but not necessarily.

"Collectivism" to many American freedom-preachers is being told what to do by a group one happens to belong to. Often enough in Russia, it means team spirit, helping one's friends, pulling resources to achieve a common goal.

To be properly understood in Russia, one has to use "responsibility" to convey the notion of individualism, and I can't think of a good word to describe the "bad" variety of collectivism. For its totalitarian extremes, the first thing that comes to mind is what the good old Vladimir Zhirinovsky (yes, the one who seems an ultrachauvinistic clown) said when he announced his support for Yeltsin in 1996: "Communists got into every Soviet citizen's bed."

Remembering the Armenian Massacres

The Guardian's editorial today is called "Forgotten holocaust".

Bush Must Push Bolton Through

So say the The Editors of National Review:

This offers an opportunity for Bolton defenders to try to get the debate back where it belongs, on the substantive merits of his nomination rather than the sideshow disputes over whether he has occasionally spoken sharply to people and the 11-year-old off-the-wall allegation of abuse by the founder of the Dallas chapter of ?Mothers Opposing Bush.? Bolton has been nominated not to ?serve? the United Nations, as liberals have it, but to serve the president of the United States and the goals of his foreign policy there. He is such a superb choice partly because there is as little chance of him being captured by the U.N. bureaucracy as there was of him being captured by the State Department bureaucracy. We would expect and hope that at the end of Bolton's tenure at the U.N. he will have earned just as much enmity from recalcitrant bureaucrats at Turtle Bay as he did at Foggy Bottom.

This was at the root of Bolton's dispute with Powell. Since he has no strong philosophical moorings himself, Powell quickly became the servant of the permanent State Department establishment, for whom Bush's post-9/11 reorienting of U.S. foreign policy was discomfiting at best. Bolton was not just a believer in Bush's foreign policy, but regarded it as his professional duty to represent it in a building where he knew it wouldn't make him popular. Yes, this occasionally meant clashes with bureaucratic underlings. This was sometimes necessary ? it is President Bush's appointees who are supposed to be setting the direction of the U.S. government, not bureaucrats with their own agendas. But it mostly meant that Bolton was routinely disagreeing with Powell and Armitage, who are now bent on exacting their revenge in a campaign marked by Powell's trademark underhanded style.

Sharon's Pesach Interview

From Haaretz , this interview with the Israeli Prime Minister: "Sharon likes to talk about the Bible, about the Jewish connection to the Land of Israel, about the connection to the land and to working the land. But it's hard not to get the impression that religion and tradition are foreign to him. That he feels no attachment to the spiritual, faith- inspired side of the settlement movement. 'I'm not a religious person, but I'm a Jew,' he says. 'I didn't grow up in a religious family. I grew up in a non-religious family. My grandfather, whom I don't remember, was traditional, but not Orthodox.'

"Do you fast on Yom Kippur? Eat matza on Passover? 'I fast every Yom Kippur. In the shape I'm in, it's not that hard, and on Passover I eat only matza.'

"This Passover, Sharon is seeking conciliation with the settlers and talking about healing the rifts in the nation. He is trying to distance himself from his statement in the interview he gave NBC, in which he said that the atmosphere in Israel is like 'the eve of civil war.' When we asked him about it, he gave an embarrassed laugh. 'I'm making every effort to make the disengagement process as peaceful as possible, and even though it is a very, very painful thing, and very, very difficult, I'm trying hard to see that things are done through consent.' His readiness to consider postponing the evacuation until after Tisha B'Av - a decision he says is not yet final - and to support the Gush Katif settlers' request to move en masse to Nitzanim derives, he says, from his desire to preserve inner unity 'on the day after.' There are many other national missions to be accomplished, says Sharon. 'I'm very concerned about what will come afterwards. We must settle in the Galilee, in the Negev and in the Jerusalem area. There will be security problems, too. We won't be able to sit around and rest on our laurels.'
Sharon praises the settlers - 'In the last generation, they have been the leading group in settling the land, in pioneering and volunteerism, and in security,' he says, adding that their feeling of rejection 'won't serve Israel's objectives.' He rejects the argument that the disengagement only proves that the vast settlement project in the territories was a waste. 'The statements that are coming from the left, that it was all for nothing, and that our economic situation and the losses suffered are a result of the settlement enterprise, and also what you hear from settler leaders who talk about total destruction and the ruin of Zionism - they're doing this, of course, in order to heighten opposition, but I say to them that this is a very grave thing because the objectives and missions have not ended"

President Bush's Passover message

Jewish News Weekly of Northern California has this message from President Bush:

I send greetings to those observing Passover, beginning at sundown on April 23. This celebration marks the historic Exodus of the Israelites from Pharaoh's oppression more than 3,000 years ago. During Passover, Jews around the world gather with family and friends to share the story of God's deliverance of the Israelites from slavery to freedom. Through songs and prayers, they remember the blessings and mercy of a just and loving God. By passing this story from generation to generation, they teach the triumph of faith over tyranny and celebrate God's promise of freedom.

The lesson of this story is timeless and reminds us that even in the face of struggle, hope endures. As we work to bring hope to the oppressed, we recall the words of the Psalmist, which are read at the seder meal:

'This is the day the Lord has made; let us rejoice and be glad in it.'

Laura and I send our best wishes for a joyous Passover.

Powell v. Bolton: Round 1

Today's Washington Post reveals the man behind the curtain in John Bolton's difficult confirmation saga to be former Secretary of State Colin Powell.

Now that he's been "outed," perhaps it is time for Powell to come forward and tell the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in a public hearing what he told certain Senators in off-the-record briefings, in order to give Bolton a chance to respond? Bolton might want to line up some heavy-hitters on his side, like George Schulz and Henry Kissinger, as well as the current Secretary of State, to respond to Powell's charges.

Such a public debate on higher-level questions as the role of the US in the UN, sparked by the Bolton nomination battle, might be a very good thing, and be the silver lining to the pathetic cloud of accusations piling up against Bolton.

Far Left Merger with Far Right: The Soros-Norquist Alliance

Bull Moose says the George Soros - Grover Norquist relationship bears watching: "...seriously, this lefty conspiracy is now infiltrating the Central Committee of the Right Wing Conspiracy - the Wednesday Grover Norquist meeting..."

Ecuador Upheaval A Defeat for Democracy

Miami Herald editors think the latest change of government south of the border isn't exactly a "Rose Revolution":

Now, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has called for a restoration of order. Fine, but where was U.S. diplomacy when the Gutierrez government began making a mockery of democracy months ago? It's hard to see how the chaos in Ecuador promotes the Bush administration's goal of furthering democracy around the globe. The democratic charter of the Organization of American States is tailor-made to aid countries in trouble like Ecuador, but with the secretary-general's seat vacant and U.S. leadership missing, the OAS predictably failed to respond. There are no winners amid this wreckage except foes of democracy like Fidel Castro, who was quick to boast that Mr. Gutierrez lost out because he was ''too close to the empire,'' his epithet for the United States. He must be chortling with glee as he watches the chaos in Ecuador and takes note of the weakening commitment to democracy in one of the most volatile regions of the hemisphere.

Is Russia Doing OK?

Nicholas Gvosdev thinks Andrei Shliefer's new book makes the case that Russia is moving in the right direction, the economy is on track, and that liberalization is moving forward. He says there are larger cultural issues that prevent people from realizing how well off they really are, and refers to the American controvery over outsourcing as a parallel.

In one sense, Gvosdev is right. Russia is obviously richer than it has ever been before. And I agree with this statement: "I think a strong case might be made for Russia's economic troubles having stemmed in large part from values and worldview -- precisely the types of stimuli to which politicians respond."

But am I convinced that Russia is on the right track? Not unless Putin lets Khodorkovsky go...

Condoleeza Rice Analyzes Vladimir Putin

From an interview with Fox News, she had this to say about her meeting with the Russian president:

QUESTION: You met yesterday with President Putin. Have your perceptions of him, what kind of man he is, what kind of leader he is, how committed to democracy he is, at all changed over time?

SECRETARY RICE: I believe that this is a strong leader for Russia. He is someone who cares deeply about his country. He's actually quite easy to talk to. He is willing to talk about difficult subjects and does it without being defensive. And he is someone who obviously wants his country to succeed. We haven't always agreed about the future course of Russia, but there is no doubt that this man is a patriot, he cares deeply about his people, deeply about his country, and I think is trying to do his best to take Russia into a better future.

QUESTION: What percentage of Russian nuclear materials does the United States consider to be securely under lock and key?

SECRETARY RICE: Well, I'm not able to go into numbers here. Let's just say that we have worked hard since the collapse of the Soviet Union to secure as much Russian nuclear material as possible. We --

QUESTION: Is even 50 percent?

SECRETARY RICE: Well, James, I;m not going to go into numbers. I will say that we have been working as hard as possible and as quickly as possible and accelerated the timeline in the Energy Department programs to secure nuclear materials, not just in Russia but in general in the space that was created by the former Soviet Union. We have very active programs to do that. And we and the Russians have been working on this problem, but I don;t want to go into specific numbers.

QUESTION: So you can't even assure me that even half of the nuclear arsenal of that country is under lock and key?

SECRETARY RICE: James, I’m not going to get into numbers. I don’t think that people should believe that we have a huge problem with a lack of security of nuclear material. We do have concerns that in the post-Soviet period and up till now that are being met through the programs that we have for trying to secure those materials.

One interesting cross-cultural note. It seems that Rice's visit to Moscow may have produced a different reaction among Russians than among Americans. For example, last night my Russian teacher criticized Rice for going on the air with Echo Moscow radio without a translator. He thought it was bad that she made mistakes. Where my attitude, as an American, was that it was good that she was trying to speak Russian. We say, "If at first you don't succeed, try, try again." But, in Russia, mistakes have often been fatal...

A pro-Khodorkovsky Website

Found a link to Russia in Focus on the Wall Street Journal site, and it has some interesting articles about Russia, from a pro-Khodorkovsky perspective.

I still think Putin should let Khodorkovsky go before May 9th V-E Day celebrations....

Wall Street Journal on the Bolton Nomination

OpinionJournal has an interesting editorial that sees the Bolton case as a "tipping point" for the Bush administration. I agree with their perception that Senator Lugar has been less than enthusiastic about Bolton. The question remains: Why?

Townsel Accuses Bolton of Harrassment in Moscow

Bolton's situation is looking a little bit like Clarence Thomas', according to today's interview with Melody Townsel in USATODAY:

Townsel says she is a 'vocal, outspoken Democrat,' the mother of a 5-year-old daughter and a member of Mothers Opposing Bush, a national group that opposed President Bush's re-election. Townsel says she was not active in politics prior to the election and spent more than a decade working overseas, from 1987 to 1999. She said she sent the letter to the committee on April 8 'at the urging of friends.'

She alleged that Bolton harassed her in 1994 when she was working as a contractor for the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) on an advertising campaign supporting privatization in Kyrgyzstan, then a newly independent former Soviet republic.

Townsel had written a letter to USAID complaining about a lack of funds and personnel from the main contractor, International Business and Technical Consulting Inc. (IBTCI). Bolton, then a private attorney for the company, was sent to make her retract her complaint, she said.

'The fact that I didn't immediately do what he wanted me to do put a real burr in his saddle,' Townsel said. 'He threw a folder across the desk at me' during their first meeting, at the Aerostar hotel in Moscow. In a subsequent meeting, 'he threw a plastic tape dispenser at me.'

When Townsel would not withdraw her complaint, she says, Bolton spread rumors that she had stolen money and also referred disparagingly to her weight and hinted that she was a lesbian. 'When he didn't get his way, he was going to smear me,' she said.

In a letter to the committee, IBTCI President Jayant Kalotra denied that Bolton had been asked to contact Townsel. 'It is difficult to understand how Ms. Townsel could make such accusations with any veracity,' he wrote. Kalotra provided a copy of the letter to USA TODAY.

Kirby Jones, a Washington consultant, said Townsel told him of Bolton's behavior at the time. Jones, who was then executive vice president of the public relations firm Burson-Marsteller, hired Townsel in late 1994 to work on projects in the former Soviet Union. Townsel told him that Bolton had accused her of stealing money. Bolton's employers, Jones said, 'were upset that she had reported them to (USAID), which was quite appropriate and proper to do. IBTCI and Bolton went after her in a vicious way.' Jones added that Townsel 'was terrific and did great work' for him.

I hope that the Senate has full hearings into this matter and that the USAID files are opened up for all to see, especially so we can figure out how Kyrgyzstan's democratic transition got messed up by USAID and its contractors (whatever happened here, it looks like something nasty might have been covered up, and not necessarily by John Bolton). Last month's Bishkek riots may have had their roots in Bolton's hotel confrontation...

You Can Say That Again...

Secretary of State Rice tried to answer listener phone calls in Russian on Echo Moscow, but soon got into trouble, as many Americans do. Luckily,The Moscow Times reports, she warned her hosts: "'You understand it will be very difficult because I am out of practice, and in your language there are these awful cases!' she continued. 'It's very difficult for us, and it is very difficult to talk without making mistakes.'"

Reaction to Russia's New Cossacks

On the letters page of The Moscow Times, Nikolai Butkevich writes: "I fully realize that most Cossacks are normal people who want to reconnect to their pre-Soviet traditions; in some ways they are the equivalent to Civil War re-enactors in the U.S. However, there is a definite lunatic fringe within the movement defined by extreme racist and anti-Semitic views and a propensity to solving problems through the use of force. The passage of this law, I fear, will only inspire more interethnic violence."

Roger L. Simon on the UN Scandal

Roger L. Simon writes:

Well, I am sorry Mr. Goldstone but I am actually amazed you would put your name publicly to such nonsense (next time I would advise speaking, as did your female cohort from the committee, on 'condition of anonymity' or some such). Why am I so sure this is nonsense? Because I have known personally about Parton's disaffection from the committee for over a month - that is long before the committee made its interim report and therefore long before Parton, Duncan or anyone else had 'completed their work.' Indeed, I had learned some time ago that somewhere around or about March 11 Parton had already tried to resign, but then was presumably persuaded to stay on or talked out of it by other members of the committee. What promises were made to him at that time about the 'thoroughness' of the investigation I do not know, but I strongly suspect they were trashed within weeks or even days after having been made.

And I would be willing to testify about what I do know under oath. How about you, Mr. Goldstone? Oh, I'm sorry again., You were only testifying as to your 'understanding.' You're safe behind your weasel words. Smear Parton and Duncan. Smear Mouselli. Smear anybody you want to defend kleptocracy at the United Nations. Just don't expect the rest of us to believe you. Or believe your committee's final report. We would be idiots.

Rice on Echo Moscow Radio

The transcript of her interview is online at MOSNEWS.COM. Here's an interesting question and answer about American support for democratic revolutions in the former USSR:

ECHO MOSKVY: What is better, the export of democracy, or the export of socialist revolutions? You probably know that at the beginning of the last century there was a concept of exporting revolutions from the USSR. Now is the United States exporting democracy?

RICE: No, there are very serious differences, historical differences, and from the practical point of view there is no necessity to export democracy. The people themselves feel that they want to have those freedoms that you get from democratic development. If you ask people whether they want to be able to say what they want to say, whether they want to practice whatever religion they chose, whether they want the freedom to educate their children, girls and boys, whether they want to be free from that knock on the door from the secret police, the people will say, yes, of course we want this. And that is why there is no need to export democracy or to implement democracy from above. People must be given the opportunity to freely express their wishes. And they will choose democracy, and so here I think the old terminology about exporting democracy has gotten old.

ECHO MOSKVY:Then what is the role that the U.S. plays in the processes we witness now on the former Soviet territories, I mean the so-called velvet revolutions in Georgia, Kyrgyzstan, Ukraine? Did the U.S. play any role there? What was it?

RICE: The U.S. role only involved us saying that people have a right to control their future, that democracy should develop worldwide and that the U.S. and the EU supported civil society and NGO’s in those places. But the people of these countries took steps towards freedom deliberately, this is important, and I hope the Russian people will see that the U.S. does not want to restrict Russian influence in these countries. We actually see the situation not as a game where someone loses and someone wins, but as a game where everybody can win, when flourishing and economically developed countries evolve around Russia. I think this is a game with no losers.

ECHO MOSKVY:There is an opinion that Ukraine, Georgia and now Azerbaijan, where you are for some reason establishing military bases, have become areas where Russian and U.S. interests collide. The U.S. have arrived where the USSR, Russia, the Russian Empire used to have its interests. This is seen as a challenge.

RICE: I’d like to point out what I see as a difference between a 19th and 21st century view of these regions. We know about your historic, cultural, economic contacts of the Soviet period and earlier that of the Russian Empire. But a modern pattern of interaction is based on mutually beneficial contacts — in trade, economy, politics. There is no reason for Russian influence in these regions to diminish, if it’s based on transparent and beneficial contacts. What’s more, we do not regard ourselves as a country that wants, as you said, to take Russia’s place. We are not trying to overtake a zone of Russian influence, what we want is a free economic and trade development zone. Both the U.S. and Russia should maintain good relationships with these countries. And considering the geographical factor, Russia is bound to maintain a very close relationship with them.

Ann Coulter's Family Album

You can't read the article without paying Time, but a slide show of Ann Coulter's family album is available to the public at TIME: Right From the Start Photo Essay. It's pretty interesting to look at family photos from New Canaan, Connecticut as well as high school and college portraits. It shows that Ann is really a nice girl--but she is too thin, and now it's time for her to settle down, get married and raise some kids (look at the expression her eyes in the snapshot of Ann with her mother Nell).

More on Putin's New Cossacks

...correcting an earlier post here, from The Russian Dilettante's Weblog:

Not only did Bolsheviks abolish the Cossack estate, which was natural as the old, antiquated estate system had to be put to rest. They literally abolished -- killed that is -- a large number of Cossacks (with help from the poorer Red Cossacks); many others were resettled. This policy was known as 'De-Cossackization' (raskazachivanie); it peaked during the Civil War and the Collectivization.

'Cossacks' once described communities of those who had moved out or escaped from Muscovy and Poland-Lithuania to live a life of robbing and farming in the huge steppe area in-between the sedentary agricultural Ruthenia and its various neighbors, including the unpleasant steppe nomads. Russians slowly but surely colonized the steppe and closed in on their troublesome neighbors in the South and the South-East, leaving less space for the Cossacks' highwaymanship. The Russian Cossacks then stroke a bargain with Moscow, promising to perform military service, as frontier guards in particular, in return for a degree of self-government. Turns out I have written about them before. But keeping in mind the Civil War of 1918--1922 and the Collectivization, I doubt if many of the inhabitants of Russia's traditionally Cossack areas are descended from pre-1917 Cossacks. Are we going to see a new Cossack estate emerge when Russian rebels and misfits stream down south and all the way to the Far East, Russian borders in need of protection more than ever since 1700?

In any case, I still think Putin's New Cossacks might present a p.r. problem for a country that is supposed to be moving forward into the modern, democratic, era. Sounds like a throwback to the days of the Tsar...