Bush envoy's fury over 'insult' to US by British UN chief

[dreamer]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...216040,00.html

LONG-SIMMERING tensions between the Bush outrage at criticism of the United States by the UN’s British second-in-command. Administration and the United Nations leadership erupted into open warfare yesterday when Washington’s ambassador voiced John Bolton, the US Ambassador to the UN, called on Kofi Annan, its Secretary-General, to “personally and publicly repudiate” criticisms of the US and its people by Mark Malloch Brown, his British deputy.

changing headlines every where Dreamer

[Scribbler1]

I'm surprised Bolton kept his mouth shut for as long as he did.

[RickSp]

Bolton is such an asshole. A complete embarrassment to the United States. He is the Ann Coulter of diplomacy. A few comments by Bolton:

On the United Nations “There's no such thing as the United Nations.” (Global Structures Convocation, Feb. 3, 1994) “There is an international community that occasionally can be led by the only real power left in the world and that is the United States when it suits our interest and when we can get others to go along. And I think it would be a real mistake to count on the U.N. as if it is some disembodied entity out there that can function on its own.” (Global Structures Convocation, Feb. 3, 1994) “If the U.N. secretary building in New York lost 10 stories, it wouldn't make a bit of difference.” (Global Structures Convocation, Feb. 3, 1994) In an interview in 2000 on National Public Radio, Mr. Bolton told Juan Williams, "If I were redoing the Security Council today, I'd have one permanent member because that's the real reflection of the distribution of power in the world." ... "And that one member would be, John Bolton?" Mr. Williams queried. "The United States," Mr. Bolton replied. (New York Times, March 9, 2005) “Not only do not care about losing the General Assembly vote but actually see it as a 'make my day' outcome.” (USA Today, September 10, 2001) On Diplomacy “I don't do carrots.” (Los Angeles Times, March 8, 2005) “Diplomacy is not an end [in] itself if it does not advance U.S. interests.” (Los Angeles Times, March 8, 2005) On China "Diplomatic recognition of Taiwan would be just the kind of demonstration of U.S. leadership that the region needs and that many of its people hope for. ... The notion that China would actually respond with force is a fantasy, albeit one the Communist leaders welcome and encourage in the West." (New York Times, March 9, 2005) On North Korea “A sounder U.S. policy would start by making it clear to the North that we are indifferent to whether we ever have 'normal' diplomatic relations with it, and that achieving that goal is entirely in their interests, not ours. We should also make clear that diplomatic normalization with the U.S. is only going to come when North Korea becomes a normal country.” (New York Times, March 9, 2005) On the International Criminal Court “Support for the International Criminal Court concept is based largely on emotional appeals to an abstract ideal of an international judicial system unsupported by any meaningful evidence and running contrary to sound principles of international crisis resolution.” (New York Times, March 9, 2005) Signing the letter informing the U.N. that Washington was renouncing the Rome Treaty to create the ICC “was the happiest moment of my government service.” (Washington Post, March 8, 2005) “The ICC embodies the fundamental error of trying to transform questions of international power and force into ''law.'' This is not only naive and unsound analysis, but also bad and potentially dangerous policy in the real world.” (USA Today, January 18, 2000) On the Senate's failure to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty "The Senate vote on the CTBT actually marks the beginning of a new realism on the issue of weapons of mass destruction and their global proliferation. Although undoubtedly a stinging and perhaps crippling humiliation for the Clinton administration, the Senate vote is also an unmistakable signal that America rejects the illusionary protections of unenforceable treaties." (Jerusalem Post, October 18, 1999) On the Biological Weapons Convention “It's dead, dead, dead, and I don't want it coming back from the dead.” (Inter Press Service, March 8, 2005)

Given that then UK is almost the only nation in the world that doesn't hate us, it is completely in character that Bolton would go after them.

[Saint Vern]

Quote by: Scribbler1 I'm surprised Bolton kept his mouth shut for as long as he did.

He is a great representative of the United States. A true American. Not surprising that the USA-haters dislike him.

[rmnunez]

Its about the international bureaucrats' bloated budget and money running out at the UN this month, unless the united statians make good on theri dues right away.

With elections to the US congress due in November, UN officials fear Washington is calculating that bashing the United Nations could secure some Republican votes. The (united statians) say they want a reformed and effective UN but that is not happening.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5057684.stm

[RickSp]

Quote by: Saint Vern He is a great representative of the United States. A true American. Not surprising that the USA-haters dislike him.

Installing a bully and a thug as the chief diplomat representing the United States internationally looks to me to be the work of an USA-hater.

[rmnunez]

Bolton underestimates the value of the UN and is fairly open about this, he demands, in congruence with his boss Bush, reform that makes the UN more eficient and less expensive. Some reforms advocated by the Bush administration apparently have been implemented (most recently the abolition of the UNHCHR). Much needs to be done and the most undiplomatic fellow to try and move the UN along is Bolton.

[Avixious]

Dare I make the analogy, Bolton to the UN is like Bin Laden to the House of Reps.

Bush is an asshat for even thinking of THIS guy in particular to be the representative, let alone going forward with it.

They're all assclowns in washington.

[BIGMIKE]

It takes a special mind, a special person to become a diplomat. Being a diplomat means that you always have your countries interest at heart, but you really have to be more like a car salesman, over a schoolyard bully when it comes to diplomacy. It's a game of tug of war.

Bolton is an idiot. Condi is no better. Bush ran off the only person who actually understood diplomacy in his cabinet and that was General Powell.

[Avixious]

Powell was a good man, I met him in 93.

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: BIGMIKE Bush ran off the only person who actually understood diplomacy in his cabinet and that was General Powell.

bush didn't just run Powell off, he destroyed him.

[RickSp]

Quote by: Zeebadee bush didn't just run Powell off, he destroyed him.

Powell destroyed himself when he chose to whore for Bush rather than resign.Now he will be remembered primarily for lying for Bush in his infamous UN speech.

[dreamer]

I think Powell was good for the U.S.A. then he stood in the u.n. and did what he did and by looking ate him he didn't wont to be there SHAME on the USA government, he came across as a good man. see what bush does to a good man . Dreamer

[rcne]

The UN should be a representative of equality of all countries, where each vote counts equally. Its a good concept but when corruption enters without any sort of over-site then the piggy bank hemorrhages.

Back to the original point, we should only pay our fair share. Why bankroll ineptitude. I mentioned before that I'd be happy to see the UN go on tour to other nations and rotate every four years.

Right now the UN is a failed institution that needs reform and new leadership.

[PatrickHenry]

What is so insulting about what Malloch said? Is it because he doesn't lick Bolton's culo?

In his speech on Tuesday, Mr Malloch Brown attacked the US for “too much unchecked UN-bashing and stereotyping over too many years. From Lebanon and Afghanistan to Syria, Iran and the Palestinian issue, the US is constructively engaged with the UN,” he said. “But that is not well known or understood, in part because much of the public discourse that reaches the US heartland has been largely abandoned to its loudest detractors, such as Rush Limbaugh and Fox News,” he added. “That is what I mean by ‘stealth’ diplomacy: The UN’s role is in effect a secret in Middle America even as it is highlighted in the Middle East and other parts of the world.”

Mr Malloch Brown last night defended his remarks, saying the crisis facing the UN demanded that he speak out. “For the life of me, I cannot understand how that can be construed as an anti-American speech,” he said.

I don't get where the insult lies...

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: dreamer I think Powell was good for the U.S.A. then he stood in the u.n. and did what he did and by looking ate him he didn't wont to be there SHAME on the USA government, he came across as a good man. see what bush does to a good man . Dreamer

To the best of your knowledge, just what DID he do that makes him a "good man"? He was a shill for the White House.
And if he didn't want to be there, he could have quit. It appeared to me he sold his honor for Bush. He was not being forced to continue in that position.

[Avixious]

Yes, let us forget everything he ever did pre 2000...

The man would have been president if he wanted to.

[dreamer]

Quote by: Scribbler1 To the best of your knowledge, just what DID he do that makes him a "good man"? He was a shill for the White House. And if he didn't want to be there, he could have quit. It appeared to me he sold his honor for Bush. He was not being forced to continue in that position.

He keep the first war in Iraq desert storm within the law then walked away in the second when he realized younger bush was done for, when everybody knew it was against the law. He would off made a better job than bush, then again aim not a member of the USA. that's how he came across on TV To me anyway.Dreamer

[ise]

THE US PRESENCE IN IRAQ IS SEEN AS A GREATER THREAT TO WORLD PEACE THAN IRAN'S NUCLEAR AMBITIONS.

The UN serves US interests
Financial Times

By Philip Stephens
Published: June 17 2006

...Some saw a crude attempt at bullying. More interesting, I thought, was the anguish behind the rage. For all Mr Bolton's bluster, George W. Bush's administration has acknowledged that acting effectively in the world requires legitimacy as well as power. No one hates the idea of admitting this more than its ambassador in New York.

Nothing new in the bullying by Bolton.

Mark Malloch Brown, the deputy secretary-general had the temerity to suggest that the US should face up to the deliberate ambiguities of its attitude to the UN. When it suited it, he said, Washington saw the organisation as a useful instrument to promote its interests. In between, it played to a raucous gallery of anti-UN prejudice among segments of the media and Middle America. Mr Bolton is accustomed to plain language - as long, that is, as he is the one delivering it. The ambassador, I have heard a US official observe, is one of those people who calls a spade a spade. The downside, this official lamented, was that to Mr Bolton's eye almost everything looks like a spade. So a UN bureaucrat telling America how to behave was never going to elicit a friendly response. The ambassador is right to say that the UN's largest paymaster has the capacity to wreck the organisation. The threat, though, is empty. The important question is whether the US needs an effective UN. The answer the Bush administration has given, pace Mr Bolton, is yes. Iraq has shown the limits of military might in general and of American intervention in particular. As Mr Malloch Brown suggested, it has thrown up new international coalitions intent on balancing US power. Many of the sensible and necessary reforms of the UN advocated or supported by the US are opposed by some non-aligned nations simply because they bear Washington's stamp. Suspicion of his motives, in other words, has shackled a ball and chain to Mr Bush's ankle.

Is Bolton in the UN the match up of US forces in Iraq.

In most nations, the US presence in Iraq is seen as a greater threat to world peace than Iran's nuclear ambitions.

THE US PRESENCE IN IRAQ IS SEEN AS A GREATER THREAT TO WORLD PEACE THAN IRAN'S NUCLEAR AMBITIONS.

All this is anathema to Mr Bolton. As an official in the state department, he epitomised the assertive nationalism that drove US foreign policy during Mr Bush�s first term. Scornful of international institutions and law, he openly celebrated America�s muscular unilateralism. The administration has travelled halfway back from this position. It has accepted, albeit grudgingly, the value of legitimacy in the exercise of power. It still instinctively favours coalitions of the willing over rules-based multilateralism but has at least begun to make the effort. We can probably expect no more of this administration than its reluctant conversion to pragmatism. But one of these days an American president needs to explain that Roosevelt and Truman were not altruists. They built the UN because, for all its inevitable flaws, it serves American interests.

also...

[samsara15]

Let's face it, much of the rest of the world doesn't like the US, for many reasons, some of them justified, some not justified If the UN accurately represents the feelings of those nations, it will not be our puppet. If the UN DOES represent only OUR feelings, it IS our puppet, and will be ignored, and rightfully so, by the rest of the world. If we want to meet with the other nations in peace, and discuss things, and have some sort of functioning dialogue wtih nations unsimilar to ourselves, the UN is as good as it can get.