John Bolton slams New York Times story on North Korea compromise

(July 2)Yesterday John Bolton tweeted angrily condemning a New York Times report that claimed that the Trump administration might seek a compromise with North Korea that would involve a freeze on the countries nuclear arsenal instead of complete denuclearization.

The New York Times report

The Times article said that the plan was brewing weeks before Trump's recent meeting with Kim Jong Un: " But for weeks before the meeting, which started as a Twitter offer by the president for Mr. Kim to drop by at the Demilitarized Zone and “say hello,” a real idea has been taking shape inside the Trump administration that officials hope might create a foundation for a new round of negotiations.The concept would amount to a nuclear freeze, one that essentially enshrines the status quo, and tacitly accepts the North as a nuclear power, something administration officials have often said they would never stand for."

Bolton's response

Bolton claimed that neither he nor anyone else in the Trump administration had ever discussed such an idea. He said he had never even heard of such a deal being under consideration. He said that there should be consequences for the Times publishing such an article. Bolton said that the article represented a reprehensible attempt to box in the president. The Times responded on Twitter that they stood by the accuracy of their reporting.

Bolton's tweet read: “I read this NYT story with curiosity. Neither the NSC staff nor I have discussed or heard of any desire to ‘settle for a nuclear freeze by NK,’” Bolton tweeted, describing the report as "a reprehensible attempt by someone to box in the President.”

Perhaps there are discussions within the Trump administration behind Bolton's back. If Bolton knew about them he would be acting immediately to try and squelch them. Bolton also would like to box in the president so that only his own hard line views are presented to Kim Jong Un. This would include complete denuclearization of North Korea before discussing removal of sanctions.

Bolton wants to retain hard line approach in negotiations

Bolton would be adamantly opposed to any move to make lesser demands on North Korea to encourage negotiations to go forward even though Bolton's hard line approach led to breakdown of talks in Hanoi with no agreement. There is every reason to believe this will happen again. Perhaps this is the result Bolton desires.

The Times article may represent a trial balloon launched by some in the administration to gauge reactions to such a new plan. Bolton's response is predictable.

Previously published in the Digital Journal

Bolton admits US resisted ceasefire in Lebanon

This was quite obvious at the time. Bolton typically even boasts about an action that allowed continued bombing and civilian casualties -plus the use of cluster bombs. Only when it was clear that Hezbollah was not to be defeated did US, UK and Israel agree to a truce. The wanton destruction of Lebanon was not a factor. Is it any wonder that the pro-US Lebanese govt. has problems of legitimacy and faces a possible overthrow.

Bolton admits Lebanon truce block

Israel was criticised for bombing Lebanese civilian centres
A former top American diplomat says the US deliberately resisted calls for a immediate ceasefire during the conflict in Lebanon in the summer of 2006.
Former ambassador to the UN John Bolton told the BBC that before any ceasefire Washington wanted Israel to eliminate Hezbollah's military capability.

Mr Bolton said an early ceasefire would have been "dangerous and misguided".

He said the US decided to join efforts to end the conflict only when it was clear Israel's campaign wasn't working.

Israel was reacting in its own self-defence and if that meant the defeat of the enemy, that was perfectly legitimate under international law

John Bolton
The former envoy, who stepped down in December 2006, was interviewed for a BBC radio documentary, The Summer War in Lebanon, to be broadcast in April.

Mr Bolton said the US was deeply disappointed at Israel's failure to remove the threat from Hezbollah and the subsequent lack of any attempt to disarm its forces.

Britain joined the US in refusing to call for an immediate ceasefire.

'Damn proud'

The war began when Hezbollah captured two Israeli soldiers, but it quickly escalated into a full-scale conflict.

BBC diplomatic correspondent Bridget Kendall says the US-UK refusal to join calls for a ceasefire was one of the most controversial aspects of the diplomacy.


The UK, US and Israeli were alone in resisting an early ceasefire
At the time US officials argued a ceasefire was insufficient and agreement was needed to address the underlying tensions and balance of power in the region.

Mr Bolton now describes it as "perfectly legitimate... and good politics" for the Israelis to seek to defeat their enemy militarily, especially as Hezbollah had attacked Israel first and it was acting "in its own self-defence".

Mr Bolton, a controversial and blunt-speaking figure, said he was "damned proud of what we did" to prevent an early ceasefire.

Also in the BBC programme, several key players claim that, privately, there were Arab leaders who also wanted Israel to destroy Hezbollah.

"There were many not - how should I put it - resistant to the thought that the Israelis should thoroughly defeat Hezbollah, who... increasingly by Arab states were seen as an Iranian proxy," said UN special envoy Terje Roed Larsen.

More than 1,000 Lebanese civilians and an unknown number of Hezbollah fighters were killed in the conflict.

Israel lost 116 soldiers in the fighting, while 43 of its civilians were killed in Hezbollah rocket attacks.