I diaried yesterday (pimp, pimp) about the current row at the UN between the US and Mark Malloch Brown, the Deputy Secretary General.
Today,in an interview on the BBC, John Bolton, US ambassador to the UN, responded at some length to Malloch's charges that the US has abrogated its responsibilities to the UN, undermining it domestically and blackmailing it by threatening to withhold funding if UN bureaucratic reforms are not to US liking.
BBC commentators remark that the fight is an extraordinary and exceptional occurrence, though those of us who have followed Bolton's career in the Bush regime would suggest that it is long overdue, and one wonders how the UN and its member nations could have put up with Bolton and the neocon agenda for this long without chewing their own heads off. Nonetheless, the open and undiplomatic language on both sides seems to be alarming international diplomats, and with both sides already so entrenched, it is hard to see how compromise may be reached, especially before the July UN budget crunch.
Bolton stated that in dealing with UN and its members "the only question for the US is what is in US interests" which while true in the real world, smacks of hegemony to nations desperate to find their place with the world's only superpower.
Bolton, most extraordinarily, characterized the Brown speech as "illegitimate", which it surely is not. While it is an exceptional occurrence - supposedly the first time that a top UN bureaucrat has voiced criticism of a member nation, one should also remember that Bolton himself has not been averse to insulting the UN, most famously (and injudiciously) remarking that if the top ten floors of the New York building were lost, no-one would notice. (It may have escaped notice that this would include the offices of the Secretary general and his deputy).
Asked when the last time was that he expressed support for the organisation to which he is accredited, Bolton demurred "I speak the truth". Yet, one should note (as the interviewer did) that the State Department seeks considerable support from the Security Council in its current dealings with Iran. NO contradiction here, to Mad Dog Bolton. Any vibrant democratic institution, he said, expresses a wide range of opinions: it is his job to support the team of which he is a member (the irony, Emily, the irony!).
Deepening the row, Malloch Brown is quoted in USA Today:
When it comes to negotiations with other countries, particularly those from the developing world, Bolton's style has caused friction with many diplomats, said Mark Malloch Brown, U.N. deputy secretary-general. In an interview last month, Malloch Brown said he feared that Bolton's uncompromising manner has deepened the historical tension between wealthy nations that bear the biggest share of U.N. expenses and developing countries that pay little but have the votes to block change.
"He's a real force here, but in a way that provokes a lot of reaction and opposition from others," Malloch Brown said. Given the bitterness caused by the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003, which many U.N. members opposed, "what you needed was an ambassador who would heal, not deepen, rifts."
Bolton's behavior, Malloch Brown said, has made it more difficult to win support in the General Assembly for changes that would make the United Nations more effective. "This has led to a naked power struggle where reforms are seen either as weakening or strengthening U.S. control over the organization," he said.
Bolton refused to address these accusations in the BBC interview, but, appointed as he was by Bush for his "blunt, uncompromising style" he claims that he serves at the President's pleasure so that while some at the UN may hope that the current row leads to his departure in favor of a more equable US Ambassador this is not very likely.
An interesting point is that both Kofi Annan and Mark Malloch Brown will leave the UN at the end of the year: the current row could be their parting shot, fired in time to cause real damage to the Bush team at the UN before November elections. Neither UN protagonist surely cares what the upshot of the row is to them personally- the US has no jurisdiction over their pensions come December.
With the departure of Annan, however, the UN will be searching for a new SG, and who should be rearing his little pointy head but Tony Blair, whose political future in the UK is parlous at best. A Bolton/Blair marriage surely stands a better chance of harmony than the current mismatch, to be sure, and Bolton expressed almost undiplomatically overt glee at the suggestion that this may occur.
I say the Ambassador, Kofi and Mark Malloch Brown just whip em out and see who pees the furthest.