November 16, 2007
Malloch Brown: A minister under fire
When the British press get their teeth into you, it can be a nasty experience. Usually it is members of the royal family, models or footballers who get "monstered". But it can happen to government ministers too. And one who is definitely in trouble at the moment is Lord Malloch Brown - a senior minister at the Foreign Office with responsibility for Africa, Asia and the UN. I met him last night at a speech and dinner at the London School of Economics - and he was looking a little battered.
Malloch Brown was recently the subject of a cover article in the Spectator, claiming that he has become a serious embarrassment to the British government. The gist of the story was that the Americans hate him because of his behaviour at the UN, as Kofi Annan’s deputy. Malloch Brown is also accused of high living at public expense and of being too close to George Soros. Ominously for the newly ennobled minister, the support for him from his colleagues (both in public and private) has been distinctly luke-warm.
But if Malloch Brown is forced out of the government it would be ridiculous. I don’t particularly share his adoration of multilateral institutions. But if you talk to the man it is clear that he is serious, thoughtful and knowledgable. I have met so many brain-dead British foreign office ministers. It would just be absurd if - having finally found a Foreign Office minister who is clever and experienced - Britain decided to sack him.
That is not to say that there is no problem. There is. When I was last in Washington, I discovered that the Americans are very cross with Gordon Brown - who they think has been deliberately trying to distance himself from the Bush administration. Exhibit one for this argument was the appointment of Malloch Brown. Amazingly, the Brown government genuinely seems not to have realised how badly the Americans would take Malloch Brown’s appointment. The Bush people really hate him because he clashed so publicly with John Bolton - when Bolton was America’s man at the UN. He is openly accused of being anti-American.
I have no idea what is really in Malloch Brown’s heart. But listening to his speech at the LSE last night - and his response to questions - I didn’t notice any trace of anti-Americanism. On the contrary, he repeatedly emphasised how crucial American leadership had been to effective multilateralism.
Still, the Americans are not letting go. At the recent UN General Assembly in New York it was discovered that Malloch Brown would end up sitting next to President Bush during a debate. This was deemed to be so embarrassing that the British pulled Malloch Brown and substituted another minister, Kim Howells. I have heard different versions of this story from two different Foreign Office people. One said that it was the Americans who complained and that Malloch Brown was hurriedly put on a plane back to London, to avoid a diplomatic incident. Another says that it was the French - who were chairing the debate - who requested that Malloch Brown not show up. Either way, it seems pretty craven of the British to have agreed.
At times, Malloch Brown has not particularly helped himself. It was clearly a mistake to give an interview - early in his tenure - suggesting that his expericence would allow him to be a "wise eminence" for David Miliband, the relatively young and inexperienced Foreign Secretary. Miliband is, after all, his boss. So it was not a good idea to patronise him, even inadvertently. But then Malloch Brown is not a politician. That was why he was appointed in the first place.
Mallock Brown, as Mr. Rachman says, is serious, experienced and intelligent.
This is a sharp contrast to the ignorant cardboard cut out, talking heads who fill the labour ranks.
I also have two questions:
- Are the Americans proud of having John Bolton as their ambassador? Doesn’t he embody all that is reprehensible about Americans and their attitudes to the rest of the world?
I think the fact that his appointment was sneaked in by the White House and was never approved by Congress, speaks volumes.
(If Mallock Brown conflictd with Bolton, I’d say “Good on you mate”.)
- What good did Blair’s craven attitudes to America do for the UK? Other than loss of lives, money and face (and increased risk of being targeted by terrorists) what was achieved for the UK?
Wouldn’t a rational successor to Blair want to distance himself from the present insane White House (which is in a lame duck period anyway)and hope for something better in its place?
Best,
P
Posted by: Pacifist | November 16th, 2007 at 1:28 pm | Report this commentPacifist — My thoughts on Bolton aside, perhaps you missed the fact that Zalmay Khalilzad has been US Ambassador to the UN since his Senate confirmation on March 29, 2007.
Posted by: ppp | November 16th, 2007 at 2:29 pm | Report this commentJohn Bolton was magnificant in his rejection of the cant and corruption that bedevils all multilateral ‘institutions’ but none more so than the UN.
Malloch Brown is the ultimate bureaucrat, unelected and unnaccountable, his entire belief system is at odds with the people he purports to serve.
In this respect but no other he is the perfect FCO minister.
As the pacifists will soon learn, wishing the world was good and begging it to be nice doesn’t achieve a damn thing.
Take Iran, seems like just a year ago the UN was telling us not to worry as Jihadman was ten years away from a bomb, now they say he’ll have one in a year.
That probably means they already have one. Yay for soft power, multilateralism and doing it Europe’s way. The most important thing is to stop American from acting, right?
Posted by: tired and emotional | November 16th, 2007 at 2:35 pm | Report this commentDear Pacifist,
If we allow the “risk of being targeted by terrorists” influence the foreign policy of sovereign states, then that is being very dangerously craven. Maybe one or two free-riders like Spain could get away with it, but for the international community as a whole there must be no such option.
Posted by: RCS | November 16th, 2007 at 2:54 pm | Report this commentHi PPP,
I know that Bolton is no longer there but he was the one who had rhe spat with Malloch B.
(See my other post quoting Bolton’s interview with Jewish Canadian News.)
Hi RCS…. I agree that we cannot risk being targeted by terrorists. That’s why everyone needs cover from American and Israeli state terrorism. They are the two really aggressive bullies in the world who attack others with no (or scant) provocation.
Hi Tired…They (basically Israelis) have been saying Iran is one or two years away from acquiring a bomb… they have been saying it since 1990!
All the best to you all.
P
Posted by: Pacifist | November 16th, 2007 at 3:02 pm | Report this commentAs usual, Mr Rachman makes a reasonable and well-argued case. But in this instance, it’s worth pointing out that Lord Malloch-Brown read History at Cambridge and went on to work as a journalist at The Economist. So did Mr Rachman. I suggest he writes another column “monstering” a fellow Cambridge graduate or Economist alumnus, just to show he is not biased. There’s nothing like a good monstering.
Posted by: Writer | November 16th, 2007 at 3:06 pm | Report this commentPacifist — Jewish Canadian News?! Are you a subscriber?
Posted by: RCS | November 16th, 2007 at 3:59 pm | Report this commentSomeday Iran WILL be one or two years away from a bomb… you’ll have to eat your hat then!
Hi RCS:—- It’s a good article…
http://www.cjnews.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=13494&Itemid=86
Actually Canadian Jewish News but we all know that they are Jewish first ;~)
As far as I know, Iran is not pursuing the bomb and haven’t you heard about crying wolf?
P
Posted by: Pacifist | November 16th, 2007 at 4:09 pm | Report this commentHi Pacifist,
Seems John Bolton has been reading my posts — who said bloggers have no influence?!
Posted by: RCS | November 16th, 2007 at 4:26 pm | Report this commentHi RCS,
The difference between you and John Bolton is that you are an opportunist whereas he is an extremist.
Anyhow, back to Malloch Brown, I am sure he will be cleared out at the next available opportunity. Essentially, there is no space for hones, intelligent men in politics. Another example is how they treated Craig Murray, the former ambassador to Uzbekistan.
http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/index.html
I highly recommend his book, Death in Samarkand.
best wishes,
P
P
Posted by: Pacifist | November 16th, 2007 at 4:39 pm | Report this commentHi Pacifist,
Thanks for the compliments…
Posted by: RCS | November 16th, 2007 at 4:50 pm | Report this comment“When the British press get their teeth into you, it can be a nasty experience. Usually it is members of the royal family, models or footballers who get “monstered”. But it can happen to government ministers too.”
*Can* happen? 95% of the British press is one long monstering of the political system, the European Union, and whichever party happens to be in power at the time.
Posted by: Anthony Zacharzewski | November 16th, 2007 at 4:51 pm | Report this commenthttp://www.oxfordresearchgroup.org.uk/publications/briefing_papers/pdf/IranNuclearMar06.pdf
If RCS / Tired and Emotional or other readers are interested in a realistic assessment of the Iranian enrichment issues, I recommend the above article. Note this bit, please:
Quote
Iran will, however, have to solve a difficult technical problem before producing significant amounts of highly enriched uranium. Iranian uranium is reportedly contaminated with large amounts of molybdenum and other heavy metals. These impurities could condense and block pipes and valves in the gas centrifuges. In spite of this problem, the Iranians should be able to enrich uranium to the low enrichment needed for civil nuclear-power reactor fuel. But they would not be able to enrich above about 20 per cent in uranium-235.
They would, therefore, not be able to produce uranium enriched enough for use in nuclear weapons. To do so they would first have to remove most of the molybdenum. They would need foreign technical help – from, for example, China or Russia – to solve this problem.
Unquote
As you see, Iran is far, far away from enrichment to weapon grade and this is why I say those who accuse Iran of weaponisation are opportunists.
Best,
P
Posted by: Pacifist | November 16th, 2007 at 5:58 pm | Report this commentWhere is the logic in being labled anti-American because you see Boltan as mad as a hatter and have objections to the Bush Administration’s national and international policies?…That would make most Americans stuck labeled “anti-American”! The Bush Administration’s policies, appointments, staffers define his Presidency, NOT America…
Posted by: Lisa-Helene Lawson | November 16th, 2007 at 6:53 pm | Report this commentHis defence of the oil for food program has been a disaster and has exposed him to sometimes justifiable criticism; large funds in that program have been wasted and corrupted and it is that corruption which has widely undermined trust in the UN. Many people, not just in the UN, saw Malloch Brown as being on the wrong side of that debate. Then when he criticized the US administration for making political hay out of UN corruption naturally they shredded him into hay as well. They did that so effectively that it’ll be difficult for democrats to embrace him. That Gordon Brown felt it prudent to appoint him to a political post when he could have found a great home in the bureaucracy seems to add insult to injury (when one is American).
He’s a very intelligent guy, travels to the US a lot and portraying him as anti american is nonsense; perhaps he believes too much in international institutions but I think the ones he believes in most are the ones where the US has been setting the pace over the last 65 years such as NATO and the various global financial and economical institutions and councils, not the UN, which for internationalists continues to be a great dream and great disappointment.
He’s just not much of a politician, is he. He’s much better off being a top bureaucrat. So was this Gordon’s way of delivering a solid slap in the face of Mr. Bush? That’s a compelling way to read it.
Writer: Mr. Rachman and Mr. Malloch Brown both also are (former) South Africans; does that mean Mr. Rachman has disprove cronyism in that relationship as well?
Posted by: Felix Drost, Amsterdam NL | November 16th, 2007 at 8:03 pm | Report this commentI have been noting the views of Mr Malloch Brown for a long time. To repeat Mr GR’s view he is “serious”. I personally take this to mean tough minded. He has a pretty good grasp of the current landscape of international affairs and has concluded that global stability is imperative. Unilateralists like the US and Israel of course do not like him. The US wants to run the world and Israel wants no Palestinian state and a docile ME. These ideas are both unurealistic and dangerous for the global community. One of the tools we can
use to stop this trend is multilateralism.
The contradiction between the two feeds
the character assassination jobs against MB. (read last week’s Guardian).
It would really be sad if the FO is deprived of another critical mind.
Posted by: Max | November 17th, 2007 at 11:03 am | Report this commentIt’s amazing how much Israel-bashing is going on here. Max, Israel does not want a docile ME, Israel wants to survive — a natural instinct I would think. If anything, Iran is the real danger to global stability. Iran does want to dominate the region — just ask the Saudis what they think. As just one example of Saudi attitudes, they’ve been boycotting the Syrians because of their unholy alliance with Hezbollah and the Iranians.
Posted by: RCS, Israel | November 17th, 2007 at 11:34 am | Report this commentas per RCS: “Just ask the Saudis what they think.”
Iran has ambitions, this is certain. The current leadership, even including Mr Ahamadinezad, realises that they have failed a couple of generations of their citizens; the US-backed Shah failed more before the current Islamic Republic. Iran represents tremendous potential that has been long capped. When and however it moves off this present spot, it will stun, but it need not be a menace in a region that prepares to grow and transform with it.
The threat from Iran for you would be any positive development. The next Iran will be one that competes directly in areas where Israël enjoys some competitive advantage. Israëli and US exceptionalism have become destructive factors at this historic juncture. Israël must change, or it will be changed.
You are right; this is the greatest fear of the Saudis, and thus the reason they are crawling from time to time into bed with you. Symbiotic relationships are never more than tiresome marriages. I suggest you reread the post from Max. Your post offers little in response to what he wrote. It was standard-issue RCS. Adding Israël to your tag is a disservice to many who created the legacy of the multilateral system Lord Malloch-Brown is trying to rejuvenate.
Posted by: WCM | November 17th, 2007 at 1:13 pm | Report this commentWCM: “The threat from Iran for you would be any positive development. The next Iran will be one that competes directly in areas where Israël enjoys some competitive advantage.”
Like high-tech industries? Well, Israel is “threatened” in this area by India, and still there are VERY close relations between the two countries (more than you are probably aware of). Believe me, WCM, I would very much welcome a similar relationship vis-a-vis Iran (actually, Israel did have good relations with the government of the Shah — there even was an Israeli ambassador to Tehran at the time). It is like German competition with France before the war as opposed to German industrial competition after the war.
“Adding Israël to your tag is a disservice to many who created the legacy of the multilateral system.”
Really? I think adding le tréma to your writing is a disservice to the many who have strived to position English as the global lingua franca.
Posted by: RCS, Israel | November 17th, 2007 at 4:11 pm | Report this commentIsrael has better relations with Tehran than is admitted by either. Iran’s Jewish community enjoys unique visa priveleges for travel between the two countries.
Boxing Iran into the “evil” corner is achieving and will achieve no good. Fear rhetoric–in any lingua franca–is the problem on all sides. As for the Shah’s government, it is time for many to atone for some of the sins committed at the expense of the Iranian people under and through his rule.
Matt Engel’s column today lays out an argument suggesting Big Oil and the US Government are/have been in collusion over Iraq as they were over Iran. Both at the very least Israël as political cover for their oil hegemony, and the Saudi’s & Gulfies are signed up as well. The bases have been well reported in the diplomatic world for more than a year. As we know, we lack an independent media in this world.
In any event, one can certainly suggest that it is the US that belongs under the Security Council’s scrutiny perhaps more than Iran, which at worst is still thinking of breaking international law.
As for Israel, where are the humanists? Now that being Jewish is chic in France for the first time since Napoléon, perhaps a few from here can come down and provide some seminars sans tréma. Don’t expect lingua franca.
Posted by: WCM | November 17th, 2007 at 4:39 pm | Report this commentApologies for some bad typing. Please note the corrections in the following sentence:
Both have used, at the very least, Israël as political cover for their oil hegemony, and the Saudis and Gulfies are in on this game as well.
Posted by: WCM | November 17th, 2007 at 4:43 pm | Report this commentI have to pop my head up amd agree with RCS; the Russians and Chinese are blocking UNSC resolutions on Darfur, Iran, Zimbabwe, Burma and North Korea while hundreds of thousands are killed, starved and repressed with political approval and the stability of the entire planet is threatened by nuclear proliferation and yet somehow Israel and the US are supposedly the real problem. Mr. Rachman finds the obsessive Israel slapping to be boring, I think RCS and many others including myself here find it alarming, but whatever it is it pops up in almost every discussion here even when it’s not related to the topic at hand. What’s going on? China has killed more than 1 million Tibetans and continues to brutally oppress the Tibetans, denying them the right to their own religion, assembly, and even the barest measures of autonomy; and yet we all prepare to celebrate China’s awakening next year. What humbug. Compared to Tibet the Palestinian territories are a haven of liberties. In Tibet people disappear for chanting the Dalai Lama’s name while in Ramallah the Palestinians can build a huge Arafst mausoleum. So why shouldn’t one feel justified to beat Tibetan drums here until the skin pops? Because it’s rude to hammer the same point on and on especially on the premises of a distinguished publication such as the FT. There are far greater evils in the world than what happens in Israel if one cares to count the dead and quantify evil. The reason people bash Israel and not Russia for Chechnya or China for Tibet is because they believe the Jews in Israel should be kept to a higher standard than Russians or Chinese, which is a blatantly racist, sanctimonious and arrogant belief.
Those that enjoy the debate should stick to the Annapolis http://blogs.ft.com/rachmanblog/2007/11/the-road-to-ann.html blog and leave us in peace to stick to the topic.
I’m sorry Gideon, I’m pretty sure you will dislike this even more than I do but it really pops my cork. Now I’ll pop a real one and imbibe some salaam. Lchaim.
Posted by: Felix Drost | November 18th, 2007 at 12:28 am | Report this commentFelix Drost’s response alarms in its attempt to taint any frank and critical discussion that includes mention of Israel. The Tibetan death count since 1955 seems hardly relevent.
My position is clear. Israel is the state manifestation of one of history’s boldest legacies in humanism. Contemporary Israeli nationalism and the wider argument for Jewish exceptionalism are inconsistent with this legacy.
Annapolis is about Israel and the absence of a peace recognising its legitimacy. It is also about ensuring the political dignity of a population that lost out in one of history’s more awkward turns, a population that today comprises second-class citizens under Israeli rule. US actions and ambitions in the wider region are not tangential to this discussion; they are critical factors.
As I have noted recently, Palestinians fare better in Israel than Pakistanis in Saudi Arabia. Frankly, I do not challenge Mr Drost’s defence of Israeli treatment of Palestinians. Unfortunately, many of us have reasons, based on our intimate histories with the Jewish community, to expect better out of Israel than we would, at this stage, from Saudi Arabia and others.
Earlier in the week, I criticised the silence of the dispersed Palestinian elites who form a distinct professional class in capitals and business centres across the region. Their views are not those of their compatriots who are stone throwers or rocket-launching terrorists.
The discussions in Annapolis will benefit from the voices of Jewish professionals who can think ahead into the 21st century and offer intellectual and poltiical leadership that transcends what has become the Jewish box. The world needs you.
These discussions will not move forward if they continue in what Mr Drost in a recent post explained is a necessarily “complex” discussion of tits and tats, quid pro quos. Or projecting water-bucket allocations for the next 500 years.
Posted by: WCM | November 18th, 2007 at 11:36 am | Report this commentMy apologies, as I just realised the threads are now well tangled.
Posted by: WCM | November 18th, 2007 at 12:16 pm | Report this commentP, I’ve tracked your comments for a while, and whilst you are good value, your arguments are weak, perhaps because they are heavily slanted. Just like Malloch-Brown. Bolton has done an excellent job exposing the Iranian cult seeking to get its hands on the doomsday weapon and literally start the hidden imam’s party with a bang. I do not want a war, but Iran cannot be allowed to develop nuclear weapons. To draw a parallel with the soviet union at this juncture is fatuous - at least atheists recognise the value of the here and now, rather than just the hereafter. Some of us value both.
Posted by: AYC | November 18th, 2007 at 6:27 pm | Report this commentTo AYC: Patronising, but noted. If you think that Amahdinezad is the hidden imam, and if John Bolton has fixated on some Wikipedia reference to hang his intellectually empty policy ideas upon, then the US leadership is in even deeper trouble than I had thought. I suggest you read your history of the Safavids and the claims of Isma’il and subsequent shahs up through the end of the 18th century, when they yielded to the Ottoman-supported Qajars.
Yes. You will find that Isma’il founded the Safavid dynasty in 1501 in the name of so-called hidden imam, a role he usurped for himself. Shia was thus established in Iran. Yes. Shias persecuted Sunnis. Sunnis in turn persecuted Shias. The rule of Abbas sounds like Time magazine reports of Saddam Hussein in the mid-1990s.
You will also find periods of enlightenment and prosperity in Iran with the establishment of the splendid city of Isfahan.
Iran descended into a political crisis in the early 19th century, with some parallels to what was happening in India at the same time. It was then that the mullahs denounced the right of shahs or other leaders to claim powers in the name of the hidden imam. It has not changed. Ahmadinezad, while a devout Shia, has, to my knowledge, never shown signs of renewing the claim. He is a recognised scientist, a professional in a profession that Islam has fewer moral/religious conflicts with than Christianity. I cannot say, but I doubt that he believes in Creationism or whatever you call it there these days. (As I have often stated, the world and Iran will be better served when he is out of political power.)
Please tell me how this history differs from the parallel reformation in Europe. I am not aware that its horrors stand up to measure with those of the earlier Inquisition.
Tell me how the hidden imam is more horrific than the figure of Lucifre, whom American Mormons believe sits somewhere next to God. This makes them Gnostics.
Readings in Shi’a will fascinate. Seveners and Twelvers, and opposition to Sufism, certainly have their parallels in discussion agendas at the Lambeth Conferences on ecumenism in Christianity.
These discussions should not be shaping US foreign policy. Perhaps Bolton knows that ear hairs are a mark of the Devil in the world of hidden imams, and that he would be taken apart slowly in bits.
I would be pleased if someone would just put a heavy oilcloth over the man and banish him to Venezuela (please, not to Europe, not even Scotland, where ear hairs are fermented in single malts).
There are wise scholars in the US who would be able to shed some light on the hidden imam. Certainly, their CIS dossiers would disqualify them as reliable sources for this Administration or the next (assuming it would be Clinton, Giuliani or the Lucifer-believer, Romney.
I hope others step in and respond to AYC.
Posted by: WCM | November 18th, 2007 at 8:38 pm | Report this commentFor Mr Drost and Mr RCS:
Two observations:
Iraq is a humanitarian and moral disaster for the US:
one million dead. (From direct US action and the sectarian fighing instigated by them. )
Two million refugees each in Syria and Jordan. Two million internally displaced.
Palestine has been made an apartheid state where the economy has collapsed (see FT) or at the edge of starvation (UN reports)
These are the ingredients for permanent instability.
Posted by: Max | November 18th, 2007 at 9:00 pm | Report this commentThe Annapolis meeting will setttle none of this. That is why the discussion about Annapolis is useless.
On the other hand no Israeli leadeship configuration or present or likely set of US administrations can or would change course.
Neither Russia nor China have produced miseries leading to explosive scenarios.
Crushing majorities of europeans know all this and are frankly scared. This is the central security problem of our time.
Bombing Iran will make things infinetely
Unpredictable.
Having Mr Brown at the FO would be just one balancing voice in a crowd blairites.
Max,
The situation in Palestine is not Israel’s doing, but a direct consequence of the murderous second intifada instigated by the late Mr Arafat. I remind you that in 2000 Ehud Barak was willing to reach a fair settlement — including the division of Jerusalem and a return to the 1967 borders, or 1-1 land swaps for any changes therein — but Mr Arafat and the Fatah leadership of the time did not rise to the challenge. All this according to no less a figure than President Clinton. So the Palestinians can not now cry foul, when Israel is building a fence to protect its citizens.
What is one to surmise when attacks on Israel like yours disregard all this very relevant background?
Posted by: RCS, Israel | November 19th, 2007 at 4:26 am | Report this commentRelevant background.
Mr Ehud Barak has been one of the honourable men to attempt peace. “Fair settlement”. I don’t think so. The proposal put hurriedly before Bill Clinton, in his quest to dust off the debris from the tiresome scandal that plagued his second term and to build a legacy, as well as a new bankcard credit record, was far from fair. For starters, it required that 55.000 Palestinians–largely professionals/cadres with careers and lives in West Jerusalem, and their families–move to East Jerusalem. Keeping their jobs would require diminished quality of life, extended commutes and rude border crossings each morning.
Those were the terms for some of the more fortunate Palestinians. Israeli exceptionalism in the eyes of the noble international negotiators would create a divided sovereign state with Israeli-fortified perimeters and air-space controls. Then one can speak of water allocations and the ever noisy discussions over infrastructure, policing and settlements, which had expanded dramatically under Barak up until the final days going into Camp David. Rights to property? No time for that, as I recall.
No doubt you are a man born well after 1945 and today are over 50. The context of your life as a member of this post-Shoah generation is key to where this dialogue is today. The generation that has followed you has basked in a wealth based on the backs of others and financed from abroad. Insecurity, fear and arrogance of an indulged class shouted over a legacy of intellectual achievement and a profound and clear sense of human justice.
We need a new generation–an enterprising one that can address the 21st-century realities and opportunities–to take the lead in restoring dignity and respect to Israel. When that happens, the Palestinians will find their place in the sun, and you can learn to sleep well without pills.
Israel is with us. Mr Ahamadinezad can live with an Israel that can rediscover its true values and again be a source of leadership and enterprising innovation, and a good neighbour. The Israel you, Mr RCS, have helped to create is unlikely a world your son or daughter wants to live in. Why should they when they can choose Palo Alto or New York or London or Paris?
This is not an attack; it is an exhortation.
Posted by: WCM | November 19th, 2007 at 8:48 am | Report this commentHi AVC,
There must surely be some mistake? The US is the country with the nuclear weapons and a very strong strain of Xtian fundies who are rapture-ready and want to bring forth the Armageddon.
It is the extremist US preachers who declare support for Israel as God’s Own Foreign Policy and it is the US which is in clear breach of the NPT by passing on nuclear technology to Israel and proposing to pass it on to India (both Israel and India are non-signatories), as well as by building battlefield, tactical nuclear devices.
Iran, on the other hand, has no nuclear weapons (and despite extensive inspections by the appropriate authority, the IAEA no evidence of trying to weaponise has been found, no matter how much Likudnik-NeoCons bark) and there is no doomsday cult in the sense that you speak of (unless you want to listen the Zionist Bernard Lewis who tried to persuade your idiot president that Iran was going to nuke Israel in August 2006!). If the Shia look forward to a Messiah, it does not make them a doomsday cult because all believing Jews and Christians are also looking for a Messiah. It is only the corrupt (mainly American version) of Christian fundamentalism that wants to murder millions to bring forward the doomsday. Little do they know that if there is a day of reckoning, they and their kind will burn in the deepest pit of hell for their bloodthirsty aggressiveness.
It is John Bolton who is a proliferator of Weapons of Mass Destruction: “U.S. officials, led by Bolton, argued that the plan would have put U.S. national security at risk by allowing spot inspections of suspected U.S. weapons sites, despite the fact that the U.S. claims not to have carried out any research for offensive purposes since 1969.”[
Also in 2002, Bolton is said to have flown to Europe to demand the resignation of Jose Bustani, head of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), and to have orchestrated his removal at a special session of the organization.[citation needed] The United Nations’ highest administrative tribunal later condemned the action as an “unacceptable violation” of principles protecting international civil servants. Bustani had been unanimously re-elected for a four-year term—with strong U.S. support—in May 2000, and in 2001 was praised for his leadership by Colin Powell
The above from Bolton’s shameful resume in Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_R._Bolton
Finally, Iran has not attacked anyone for over 2 centuries. The US has gone to war on average once every 3 years in its short existence as a nation state.
Facts are difficult things to deal with!!
P
Posted by: Pacifist | November 19th, 2007 at 10:08 am | Report this commentDear RCS Israel,
I think you have tremendous comic potential. Don’t lose your sense of humor!
“Comical Ali” has found a true Israeli counterpart
Posted by: Pacifist | November 19th, 2007 at 10:32 am | Report this commentP
To RCS:
Mr MCM , I believe, gave you a satisfactory answer. The proposed solution was dysfunctional producing
unacceptable economic/social outcomes for the Palestinians. The only solution
that came close to something acceptable
was the Geneva proposal which was rejected by the israeli government.
The current crew includes the likes of Avigdor Lieberman who wants to expel the israeli palestinians.
Tsipi Livni made a statement , a propos the war in Lebanon claiming Israel does
not target civilians and few days later
more than a million fragmentation bombs
were dropped on 1/3 of Lebanon.
in other words do not hold your breath.
No solution is in sight here.
As long as people like M Brown have no weight in the decision making process concerning issues of the ME in general, the only other possibilities are exogenous.
Posted by: Max | November 19th, 2007 at 10:50 am | Report this commentThanks as ever for all your contributions.
But please remember that the topic of this post is Mark Malloch Brown, UK-US relations and multilateral organisations.
Posted by: Damian Carrington, FT.com Interactive Editor | November 19th, 2007 at 11:10 am | Report this commentP’s outburst speaks for itself. I note that he has lowered his sights to the level of personal attacks.
WCM: No need to add so many decades to my age — I can still sleep well without pills.
Posted by: RCS, Israel | November 19th, 2007 at 12:22 pm | Report this commentPleased to know you sleep.
If you propose attacking the British, then we may be on the same page. In lieu of a nuclear atack, which would disrupt my own comings and goings, I propose you begin to praise Lord Malloch-Brown, so that they will need to live with him.
It is the British who created the Americans. Then they gave them words and ideas, which the French had to help sort out. It is the British who gave us Israel, Iraq, Kuwait and Pakistan. It is the British who gave you Tony Blair.
Was it you or the British who taught us how to laugh? Neither the French nor the Swiss can claim this one.
Posted by: WCM | November 19th, 2007 at 12:48 pm | Report this commentKnowing a person’s friends / enemies can help in understanding their standing and character:-
Mr. Rachman’s article started off by referencing the Spectator article that attacks Lord Malloch Brown. The obesrvant among us would have wondered why Claudia Rosett, an American NeoCon, should be chest-beating about the UK taxpayer’s expense caused by Mr. Malloch Brown. What is it to do with her, you ask?
Her Wikipedia entry says: “Claudia Rosett is an American writer and journalist. She is journalist-in-residence at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, a policy institute based in Washington, D.C. She writes regularly for Commentary Magazine, regarded as one of the preeminent journalistic voices for neoconservatism”.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claudia_Rosett
Of course, as some will know, “The Foundation for Defence of Democracies” (another Orwellian misnomer, of the kind NeoCons are always capable of), is one of the house journals of the NeoCon creed:
The Asia Times referred to the FDD as a group “whose views largely mirror those of Israel’s ruling Likud Party,” and said that the FDD’s board of advisors includes “prominent neo-cons and Iraq war boosters.”
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/FJ09Ak01.html
And the entry in Rightweb includes:
Quote
Like its neoconservative partners, FDD’s agenda has included supporting a long-term military engagement in Iraq, advocating aggressive action in Iran and Syria, promoting the idea that the United States and the West are in an existential conflict with “Islamofascism,” and pushing public opinion to support an Israel-centric U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East.
http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/1475
Unqoute
And here is an entry from Sourcewatch on the origins of the group:
Quote
In early 2001, a tightly knit group of billionaire philanthropists conceived of a plan to win American sympathy for Israel’s response to the Palestinian intifada. They believed that the Palestinian cause was finding too much support within crucial segments of the American public, particularly within the media and on college campuses, so they set up an organization, Emet: An Educational Initiative, Inc., to offer Israel the kind of PR that the Israeli government seemed unable to provide itself.
At first, Emet floundered, without an executive director or a well-defined mission. But that changed after Sept. 11, and Emet changed too, into what is now the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies. The name is different, but the goal of influencing America’s opinion-forming classes remains.
What makes all of this possible is the support the foundation receives from its billionaire backers. Its nearly $3 million annual budget comes from 27 major donors, most of whom are members of “the Study Group”–also sometimes called the “Mega Group” because of their sizeable contributions–a semi-formal organization of major Jewish philanthropists who meet twice a year to discuss joint projects.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Foundation_for_the_Defense_of_Democracies
Unquote
So you get the picture, don’t you?
Now that B Liar is out of the picture and Gordon Brown is finding his way, probably noticing the damage that B Liar’s foreign policy has done to Britain in general and the prospects of the Labour Party, it has suddenly become an imperative for those who want to suppress any critical view of Israel and want to enforce aggression against Iran, to attack any independent counsel that Gordon Brown might receive and make him into another vassal of Usrael. To that end, Malloch Brown and his ilk should be attacked and defamed.
Best,
P
Posted by: Pacifist | November 19th, 2007 at 1:38 pm | Report this commentI admit to never having heard of Mr Malloch Brown before GR wrote his post.
P writes: “…it has suddenly become an imperative for those who want to suppress any critical view of Israel…to attack any independent counsel that Gordon Brown might receive…”
Well, I wish Mr Brown better counsel than that which led to his early-election fiasco. Tell me who your aides are…
Posted by: RCS, Israel | November 19th, 2007 at 2:26 pm | Report this commentA TRUE PACIFIST
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/71f9e400-96b3-11dc-b2da-0000779fd2ac.html
Posted by: RCS, Israel | November 19th, 2007 at 4:33 pm | Report this commentMr Malloch Brown is a member of the GOAT fraternity(”Govt’ Of All the People”)created by PM Brown on taking office - and for that reason alone he may be disliked by the FCO. (Yet another so-called “expert” parachuted into the FCO)
Perhaps with the departure of Blair and the arrival of “young” Miliband as Foreign Secetary the FCO were anticipating a return to work! But M-B’s arrival - “mentoring” Miliband and talking UN-speak instead of extolling established FCO Atlanticism (following a faltering start to the Bush-Brown relationship) was the final straw. They do have a point.
As to the USG reaction to M-B - politically speaking - if you take the USG on over such hot issues (for the USA) as UN/Iraq/Iran etc, I can see why they have gone for him.
Clearly at another level there is a personal tension between Bolton and M-B and a vendetta of sorts going on which is entertaining, but also enormously telling and frankly depressing from the pov of supposed allies.
Perhaps the nub is the US perception of the UN. Bolton is right about the corruption, sloath, etc, of the management and administration of the org, and the need for change. However perhaps the UN shld reflect on why the UN was set up (League of Nations and out of the horror of the 1st WW).
Rightly or wrongly since Iraq 1&2 many nations are ambivalent and reserved about American leadership, and in full recognition of the UN’s limitations elect to support it, warts and all. America shld consider this.
There is a disconnect here btn America and her allies which M-B probably represents; that is the really interesting aspect of this skirmish that interests me. For whatever reason someone/ a govt does not want this discussion aired.
Posted by: Tim | November 19th, 2007 at 7:13 pm | Report this commentMalloch Brown’s problems are not with his obvious intelligence and grasp of world affairs: it is his ineffectiveness in his previous post at the UN. I travelled the world for four years visiting UN offices during his tenure, and staff were nothing but dismissive of him: “he just changed the logo and made lots of noise.” UN offices seemed worse than I remember at the end of the 90s.
Bolton is mostly right in his criticisms of the UN, if not in his obvious bias towards US power and dominance. But it is up to the UN and its officials to remake the organisation and earn the respect of the world’s people, that’s not Bolton’s job (but it once was Malloch Brown’s).
UN colleagues engaging in sex-for-food and even worse crimes are not doing the organisation’s high minded values any good. The UN needs a good clear out of its existing staff and a new structure and accountability mechanism if it hopes to regain world trust.
Posted by: Frank Fields | November 20th, 2007 at 12:17 am | Report this commentRe John Bolton: prior to his job as the US Ambassador to the UN, Bolton was T at the US State Department, charged with, among other details, seeking out and disarming rogue state proliferators such as North Korea and Libya. JB’s new book is a thorough, candid, non stop chase presentation of his political odyssey from Yale Heights of Baltimore, Maryland (son of a firefighter) to Yale University 1970 to working in several Republican Administrations in between working at law and at the AEI. JB is a clear cut American Republican conservative foreign policy specialist, though he has attended to domestic politics with great success (Florida 2000, working for James Baker).
Mark Malloch Brown is a comparably vivid, educated, cautious, strident, industrious and imperious fellow: though I know his bio much less well because I have not read his most recent book.
The clash between Brown and Bolton, very unfortunate for us all, was at the UN in 05-06, chiefly over the Oil for Food program and the arguably insincere UN reforms proposed by the Annan apparatus. Brown defended Annan and the UN apparatus as sincere, well-intentioned, misunderstood, worthwhile and admittedly imperfect. Bolton had the easier time of it just pointing to the ludicrous cronyism, larceny, misbehaviour, criminality and blame-shifting in all aspects of the UN bureaucracy.
At the same time, Brown chose to accept a living arrangement on the estate of George Soros, the well-known currency trader and international financier who is also a boastful fund raiser and contributor to the Democratic Party. This made it difficult to ignore an assumption that Brown was under the influence of partisans who opposed Bolton and his bosses at State and at the White House because they were from the other party — and in American affairs, it is easy and safe and self-satisfying to oppose the foreign policy of the party you didn’t vote for.
In sum, Brown made it easy to regard his defense of Annan and etc as partisan filibustering and flummery.
The aftertaste is that Brown has a sour reputation in the US as a flack for the Dems and the Soros crowd. Meanwhile Bolton has transferred his voice to AEI, where he continues to gain much attention for his passionate memory and his take no prisoners opinions of proliferation affairs in the Bush administration and at the UN.
I have spoken often with Bolton over these years in professional settings. He is bold, smart, unflappable, dogged and tireless — the kind of guy that we in America want in our foxhole, or in our corner, or on our team, or at least reachable by cellphone — whatever the useful metaphor. And the Democrats, while not signing Bolton up for action, would want someone just like him for their flying squads at the next tight presidential contest — and in the next State Department. He is fiery, and American politics likes fiery.
My unknown here is what do the Brits make of MM Brown after all this strife. Is he the sort of fellow that is wanted in anyone’s corner? Reading the above cogent, wide-ranging correspondence, I am at sea if anyone much likes Brown, or knows what he stands for, or is comfortable with his identity in affairs. Perhaps it is the understatement of the European voices above. My Yankee ears doesn’t here affection, appreciation, conclusion. It doesn’t sound good to undercut the new Foreign Secretary. If Milliband is a young Eden, there will be regrets by Brown.
Ask for help from the British observers. Who likes Brown?
.
Posted by: John Batchelor | November 21st, 2007 at 8:05 pm | Report this commentJohn; while I am not British but Dutch you will have read an echo of your own words in my commentary; Malloch Brown is an excellent scholar and bureaucrat but a terrible politician and I do wonder what you make of Gordon Brown’s decision to put him in the line of fire?
I greatly appreciate Bolton’s continued attempts to focus the debate on terrorism, proliferation and instability but from the average European perspective he is as terrible a politician as Malloch Brown is. And that’s because it has become politically expedient to crucify close associates of the Bush administration in the arena of public discourse.
Posted by: Felix Drost | November 22nd, 2007 at 12:31 am | Report this commentAs both a Brit and an off-and-on UN adviser, I can say the people would place the likes of Malloch Brown in the elite category. He is certainly capable in media interviews, but he joins the rarified foreign policy wonks that seem very distant from the rest of us. That he gets bogged down in the sandpits of grace and favour flats, doesn’t help matters either.
Britain now needs a new generation championing the way forward in foreign affairs. Not to come across as arrogant, but I would include myself in this. Unlike the pampered poobahs, we have had to work often on low salaries and short contracts under very difficult conditions (and lose colleagues). Even more insulting, we watch the government throw billions at cack-handed war reconstruction efforts, while ignoring the brave and unchampioned work of others who have helped people successfully.
Am I chippy? Yeah, like Bolton is (and why I like him). Because I have had to fight for every scrap of opportunity and I didn’t just get to call up some old school chum at the foreign office (or bum a grace and favour flat from some billionaire).
Posted by: Frank Fields | November 22nd, 2007 at 7:55 pm | Report this commentFor me, the Malloch-Brown case has been a simple one. George Soros is far from an unknown poltical quantity. He is also far from Dr Evil. Nonetheless, one need not consult a manual to see that M-B struck an inappropriate real-estate relationship with him while in his UN post. Independence is more than admirable; it has been required. Other aspects of the M-B story are beyond my interest.
Bolton represents qualities that are too easily respected in today’s sound-byte world. The poster’s comment that Bolton is what America wants and needs should be challenged in the context of the responsible offices he held at State and then at the UN. Bolton no doubt is sharp and clever; he should have played Kojak rether than the roles he has been cast in.
The US needs to rethink its casting criteria overall.
Posted by: WCM | November 22nd, 2007 at 9:00 pm | Report this commentMalloch Brown’s best monument to ineptitude has to be this week’s slapping of over 800 fire code violations against the UN. New York City is on the verge of banning school children from entering UN buildings because of the scale of this risk (and I can’t pass up the opportunity to mention it would be good to ban them from visiting UN missions overseas - and you know why!).
The UN has been dodging accountability on this issue for years, and in it is a microcosm of the institution’s inability to operate at a high standard in the modern world.
Posted by: Frank Fields | November 23rd, 2007 at 1:35 pm | Report this commenthttp://www.infowars.com/articles/ww3/iran_bolton_smears_elbaradei_as_iran_apologist.htm
Lord Malloch Brown’s nemesis has given an interview, talking about the IAEA. Whilst it is amusing that he should be so disconnected from reality, it is dangerous that he is still close the the White House.
Posted by: Pacifist | November 23rd, 2007 at 3:09 pm | Report this comment