US's Bolton slams UN's Malloch Brown for criticizing UK, US on Darfur

Ha! This is rich coming from UN basher Bolton. Mr Bolton's comments, reported by AFP/ST today, are a nonsense. Especially considering he has a reputation for hostility towards the UN:

"These remarks bring discredit to the UN and are a stain on its reputation," said Bolton, the US envoy to the UN.

"Mr Malloch Brown should apologize to Bush and Blair."

Apologise? What a cheek! The only thing I regret about Mr Malloch Brown's remarks is that he coupled British Prime Minister Tony Blair's name with the US when in fact (and Sudan Watch archives show) Mr Blair has always been most considerate, careful and diplomatic when it comes to the Sudan. It's great to hear the viewpoint of top UN officials. I applaud Mr Malloch Brown for speaking out, especially since his comments were aimed to bring discredit to Washington's 'you damn well are going to let the UN deploy and if you don't, beware the circumstances."

Here are some snippets from article Who Is John Bolton? (via Center for American Progress 7 Mar 2005):

Bolton was infamous as a right-wing ideologue opposed to anything and everything that smacked of U.S. cooperation with or support for the United Nations. "If [the UN Secretariat building] lost 10 stories," Bolton once quipped, "it wouldn't make a bit of difference."

From calling support of the International Criminal Court the product of "fuzzy-minded romanticism [that] is not just naive, but dangerous" to discussing North Korean policy by saying that "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,"

On the eve of talks with North Korea about their nuclear weapons, Bolton took a novel approach to public diplomacy and publicly called King Jong Il a "tyrannical dictator" and an "evil regime." The State Department was forced to send a replacement representative after North Korea responded by calling Bolton "human scum" and stating their objection to negotiating with him.

Note, the article concludes by saying:

"At this point it is clear that the world Bolton has left us four years later is one that is more dangerous. He can only do more damage from a position of greater power.

Sep 9 2006 US's Bolton says there is a legal basis for armed intervention in Darfur?

Apr 15 2006 Sudan: Bolton blames British for "erroneous" leak

Mar 2 2006 John Bolton, US Ambassador to the UN, says the term Darfur "genocide" sounds right

Feb 21 2006 Bolton chides Annan on UN planning for Darfur force

Oct 11 2005 US: Bolton blocks UN briefing on atrocities in Darfur Sudan
- - -

BRACING FOR BOLTON - DISMAY AS US SENDS HAWK TO UN

Excerpt from Sudan Watch archives 9 March 2005 - UN joins AU to assess peacekeeping needs in Darfur, Sudan - Bracing for Bolton

The shock appointment of hardline neo-conservative John Bolton as US ambassador to the UN stunned the diplomatic community yesterday and raised questions about George W. Bush's commitment to work constructively for reform of the world body in its 60th anniversary year. His appointment must be ratified by the US Senate, where there is sure to be some opposition.

"Why would (President Bush) choose someone who has expressed such disdain for working with our allies?," said Senator John Kerry, who lost last year's election to Mr Bush. Full Story - 9 March, 2005 - Herald Sun - by David Nason in New York.

9 March: FT in America Firster says today: Mr Bolton is hardly likely to re-invent himself as a born-again multilateralist. But if US policy were to be changed in that direction by the decision-makers in Washington, it would carry more weight with the UN's many critics on the Republican right if it came out of the mouth of Mr Bolton. The dispatch of one of Washington's staunchest unilateralists to the UN may yet turn out an inspired decision. But the onus will be on Mr Bolton and his masters in Washington to prove this so. [Let's hope it turns out an inspired decision]

Seems Mr Bolton is turning out not to be an inspired decision after all.

US ADMINISTRATION STILL PUSHING FOR UN FORCE IN SUDAN

Excerpt from AP report via ST 30 Sep 2006:

U.N. chief envoy to Sudan, Jan Pronk, said did not expect the Sudanese government to accept a U.N. force anytime soon. And so, he said, the international community should instead push for the African Union's mission to be prolonged and reinforced.

But Friday, [US State Department spokesman] McCormack disagreed. "I don't think that there is a substitute for an international force at this point," he said. "Certainly, we are not going to throw in the towel on getting an international force into Sudan. OK?"

Yee Haw! Y'All Have A Nice Day!