GODDAM IT, TELL THE UN TO STOP PICKING ON AMERICA!

I bet the Pentagon could teach the UN a thing or two about fiscal responsibility.

Published on Friday, June 9, 2006 by OneWorld.net
Bolton's Threats Raise Fears of UN Shut-Down
by Haider Rizvi

UNITED NATIONS - John Bolton, the United States ambassador to the United Nations, has drawn fire from some prominent civil society groups in his own country for using threatening language against the world body and its senior officials.

"Ambassador Bolton is jeopardizing a 60-year relationship with the UN that delivers results," said Scott Paul of Citizens for Global Solutions, a Washington, DC-based independent group that promotes multilateral solutions to problems of global conflict, freedom, and human rights. "We can't afford the shut down of the UN."

Bolton, a unilateralist diplomat, who was appointed last year by President George W. Bush despite strong opposition by a majority of U.S. lawmakers, Wednesday made a statement that implied the closure of the world body.

"Even though the target of the speech was the United States, the victim, I fear, will be the United Nations," Bolton told reporters in response to comments by UN Deputy Secretary-General Mark Malloch Brown.

In a critical speech Tuesday, Malloch Brown accused Washington of failing to stand up for the UN against domestic critics and observed that it was using the world body as a "diplomatic tool."

"On a very wide number of areas, from Lebanon and Afghanistan to Syria, Iran, and the Palestinian issue, the U.S. is constructively engaged with the UN," said Malloch Brown, the number two official at the United Nations.?"But that is not well known or understood, in part because much of the public discourse that reaches the U.S. heartland has been largely abandoned to [the UN's] loudest detractors such as Rush Limbaugh and Fox News."

Bolton, a self-styled ultra-nationalist who is known for his feverish ideas in support of the U.S. stance on unilateralism, called the remarks, "a very, very grave mistake," and asked UN chief Kofi Annan to repudiate his deputy's speech, which Bolton branded as anti-American. "Otherwise I fear the consequences, not just for the [UN] reform effort, but for the organization as a whole," Bolton said.

But Annan stood by his deputy's remarks, according to a UN official, who said Malloch Brown had been appealing for "engagement" from Americans.

"'Engage here, engage consistently, and go out and engage with the American public to say the UN matters'; for the life of me, I cannot understand how that can be construed as an anti-American speech," Malloch Brown told reporters Wednesday.

Observers say the war of words between Malloch Brown and Bolton could raise the possibility of another showdown between the U.S. and the UN over the issue of reforms, which Washington seeks to tie up with its payment of dues.

The UN is likely to run out of money by the end of this month and the crisis could deepen if the U.S. refuses to pay its dues on time, a possibility that many observers, including Malloch Brown, have not ruled out.

Last December when it was time for the world body to have its budget approved for the next two years, Bolton intervened by saying the U.S., which pays 22 percent of the total budget, would not let the process go forward without progress in management reforms.

"We do not want to see business as usual," he told reporters at the time. "We do not want to be in a position where we adopt a budget next month, and we get no more reform for the next two-year life of the budget."

Bolton finally gave his nod to the budgetary approval, but only for the next six months.

The U.S. move to link the payment of dues with management reforms, which aims to bypass the 191-member General Assembly, apparently stems from the rationale that those who pay more should have extra influence over the governance of the institution.

But time and again UN officials and diplomats from the world's developing countries have rejected this line of reasoning.

"The universality of the UN is its single greatest comparative advantage," said Malloch Brown recently in response to a question about whether it is justified for some to exert more influence because they pay more.

"It means that everybody has a say in decision making," he added.

That is exactly how diplomats from the 132-member G77 and China, the largest single political block in the General Assembly, believe the reform process should take place.

"It is not like they own Class 'A' and we own common stock," said South Africa's ambassador recently, commenting on the United States and other rich countries' intentions to undermine the role of the developing nations that constitute a visible majority in the General Assembly.

"The UN is not a private corporation," he added. "This is not a Fortune 500 company."

While critics of the U.S. policy such as Paul fully support the reforms process, they argue that there can be no way the U.S. can achieve reform without changing its diplomatic behavior.

"Bolton has chosen heavy-handed tactics that have alienated the very countries we need to win over," Paul told OneWorld. "Sadly, thanks to his dysfunctional diplomacy, other countries don't believe the U.S. is negotiating in good faith."

"The threats haven't worked and neither has the anti-UN rhetoric," Paul added. "It's time for Ambassador Bolton to roll up his sleeves and start building consensus the old fashioned way."