America angry over "hypocrites" remark [Bolton got into it with British UN official.]

Guardian Newspapers Limited by way of The Hindu ^ | 09JUN06 | Oliver Burkeman

[familyop]

New York: Deputy Secretary-General of the U.N. was on Wednesday night accused of making ``a very, very grave mistake'' after calling the Bush administration hypocrites who were feeding a right-wing anti-U.N. frenzy in middle America.

Washington's Ambassador to the U.N. responded with undisguised fury to a speech by Mark Malloch Brown, the Deputy Secretary-General, in which he accused Washington of using the international body ``almost by stealth as a diplomatic tool'' while failing to defend it at home.

[MadIvan]

BTW, you'll see many omissions and obfuscations from the British press on the issue in the days to come.

There isn't a story that could potentially damage relations between Britain and America that you won't post.

In fact, you'll go through the trouble of posting the same story, from different sources, just to drive that particular nail home.

As such, I think everyone here is entitled to know that you have an agenda. It's a stupid, pointless agenda to try and turn the good people here against their chief ally in the War on Terror.

Ivan

[familyop]

"As such, I think everyone here is entitled to know that you have an agenda"

Yes. I have the agenda of an American. For example, I don't appreciate seeing a St. George's Cross flying alone in a yard in my area any more than I would appreciate seeing a Mexican flag flying by itself in my country.

Contrary to Deputy Secretary-General Brown's desire that our government censor opinions disagreeing with the UN from being published in our country, we will publish information as we wish. That includes public information about Brown, his comments and his country of origin.

This is the USA. The USA is not part of any empire. We loathe "empire" as much as we loathe communism or any other centralized form of government. You continue to put your trademark condescending rhetoric on display, and you have a small cheering section of Americans of European loyalty against their own. But you will not dictate as to what we will do here.

I'll follow-up with an article from the publication recently owned by a pro-American newspaper man from Canada.


Key role for Briton in halting crisis at UN

The Telegraph (London)
By Alec Russell in Washington
(Filed: 04/01/2005)

The UN secretary general, Kofi Annan, appointed a senior British official as his chief-of-staff yesterday.

The shake-up of his inner circle was widely seen as vital for the UN ahead of a critical year for its battered reputation.

Mark Malloch Brown, the head of the UN's development programme and a former political editor at the Economist, takes over at a time of considerable crisis, with the UN awaiting next month's report into the scandal over Iraq's oil-for-food programme.

He replaces a veteran aide of the secretary general, Iqbal Riza, who stood down before Christmas. His retirement had been expected but appears to have been quietly accelerated amid complaints from staff that he had failed to confront a series of crises.

Mr Annan said yesterday that Mr Malloch Brown, 51, was an "immensely capable leader and manager", citing his reputation for "trust" and his experience in "policy" and "communication". It is the third of those qualities that UN insiders and supporters in Washington most hope to see.

The secretary general's office has seemed slow to respond to a series of recent scandals, handing its many Washington enemies command of the airwaves.

Mr Malloch Brown conceded yesterday that the UN was at a low ebb. "Staff morale is not at its highest," he said. "There is no hiding the fact that [the UN] is at a difficult moment."

Mr Annan indicated that the appointment was the first in a series of senior management changes.

The overhaul follows a disastrous year for him. The scandal over the corruption that engulfed Iraq's oil-for-food programme was compounded by the impression that his son, Kojo, exploited his father's position for his own business ends. Kojo has strenously denied any wrongdoing.

The Bush administration belatedly made clear last month that it was not backing calls from the Right for Mr Annan to resign.

But with Colin Powell, an old friend, stepping down as secretary of state this month, and his successor, Condoleezza Rice, believed to be less sympathetic to the UN, Mr Annan's supporters believe this year is crucial for his reputation if not his survival.

The shake-up comes after an extraordinary meeting last month in the Manhattan flat of Bill Clinton's former UN ambassador, Richard Holbrooke.

He gathered a group of foreign policy experts to "save Kofi" and persuade him to change his staff. One participant told the New York Times that Mr Annan, who attended without aides, sat in silence throughout the three-and-a-half-hour session.

"He made no effort to defend himself. It wasn't a conversation. It was much more "Here is the situation; here are the choices on what you can do'."

UN officials are acutely aware that they need to be ready for a vigorous public relations drive and possible counter-attack when Paul Volcker, a prominent former financier, makes his report next month. Republicans in Congress are conducting several separate investigations and accused Mr Malloch Brown's predecessor of impeding their inquiries.

The UN is also awaiting a key report later this month into its development goals. Mr Malloch Brown has run the development programme and UN officials hope he will be able to make this a symbol of UN success.

He took over the UNDP in 1999 after serving as a vice-president of the World Bank. He previously worked for the UN High Commissioner for Refugees.

[MadIvan]

For example, I don't appreciate seeing a St. George's Cross flying alone in a yard in my area any more than I would appreciate seeing a Mexican flag flying by itself in my country.

Thank you. We now have established that you regard a country that is sending its soldiers to fight and die alongside yours as being equivalent to one that dumps illegal immigrants on you and sucks your welfare system dry.

Your outburst also establishes the fact that you are operating from an anti-British bias. As I said, everyone is entitled to know this and regard anything you say as being the outpourings of a bigot, not someone who is a credible representative of balanced opinion, as you have attempted to portray yourself.

The War on Terror is not something that America can win alone. MI6 and the SAS helped nail Zarqawi, for example. Being a jackass towards the ally who is actively assisting you in a life or death struggle is pointless and stupid. I hope that the mods have the good sense to rebuke your nonsense. If not, then I certainly hope that now your agenda is clear, people turn away from it.

I have nothing further to say to you.

Ivan

[ladyinred]

Amen to your post!!

[familyop]

"There isn't a story that could potentially damage relations between Britain and America that you won't post.

In fact, you'll go through the trouble of posting the same story, from different sources, just to drive that particular nail home."

I also post news from various sources on Iran and countries in western Europe other than the UK in order to convey more information than we can gather from one source. That is permitted in Free Republic. Your parabolic accusation about posts regarding Britain is nothing more than another one of your rhetorical efforts to censor any negative news from there. We normally expect such calls for censorship to come from the left.

I am an American and will pursue American interests: one being that of gathering information about sentiments in other countries regarding our USA.

[Arrowhead]

Hilarious!!!

[MadIvan]

our parabolic accusation about posts regarding Britain is nothing more than another one of your rhetorical efforts to censor any negative news from there. We normally expect such calls for censorship to come from the left.

That's very rich. I'll make a $20 donation to Free Republic if you can show me 2 stories that you've posted which are actually positive about the alliance between Britain and America.

You're a propagandist, pure and simple, and you're accusing me of spreading propaganda. Hell, I post positive articles about Britain and America because I'm refuting the streams of crap that people such as yourself post.

Ivan

[familyop]

"Being a jackass towards the ally who is actively assisting you in a life or death struggle is pointless and stupid. I hope that the mods have the good sense to rebuke your nonsense."

You've gotten away with too much name-calling against Americans here and too many calls to ban conservative Americans for posting news about anti-American sentiment in western Europe. My opposition against flying foreign flags in the USA without American flags present and more prominent at each location is an example of my patriotism and allegiance--nothing more.

I really doubt that you'll have me banned for my allegiance to my country and my rejection of European identity for Americans. Also, it is highly dishonest of you to accuse me of disrespecting the help of the British military in the War on terror. I've done no such thing, and that issue is apart from anti-American statements made by British politicians and other civilians as publicized.

[MadIvan]

That's the point - you're a very poor patriot if you define it in the context of running down others, particularly if it's your principal ally.

It's just plain stupid and petulant on your part.

Ivan