Malloch Brown's appointment to Foreign Office signifies shift away from Blair's foreign policy

One of the most controversial appointments in yesterday's announcements of Gordon Brown's first Government was that of Mark Malloch Brown as a foreign minister with responsibility for Africa, Asia and the United Nations.  He is pictured above entering 10 Downing Street with Labour's new Deputy Leader Harriet Harman.  Ms Harman has called for the Labour Party to apologise for the Iraq war.

Malloch Brown, now elevated to the House of Lords, was a leading critic of the Iraq war and only one month ago told BBC Radio that Tony Blair had been "blinded" by morality in his Middle East policies.

When he was chief of staff to former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan he attacked the United States media and government for allowing “too much unchecked UN bashing and stereotyping”.  John Bolton, US Ambassador at the time issued a furious statement to Malloch Brown's then boss, Annan: “I’ve known you since 1989 and I’m telling you this is the worst mistake by a senior UN official that I have seen in that entire time."  The Heritage Foundation issued this response at the time.

A leader in today's Times is strongly critical of the appointment:

"It was a mistake to appoint the ennobled Mark Malloch Brown to serve with him at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. This self-promoting former Deputy UN Secretary-General has made some crude public remarks about the US Administration along with the slightly unhinged assertion that the UN’s failure to act decisively on Darfur is partly the fault of the US and UK for invading Iraq. It will be interesting to see what is uncovered by investigations into the UN Development Programme under his tenure."

A number of critics of the Iraq war have returned to Government under Prime Minister Brown.  In addition, David Miliband, the new Foreign Secretary and Lord Malloch Brown's new boss, was always sceptical of the Iraq war and was critical of Israel's actions last summer during the Lebanon crisis. 

Although the public position of the Brown administration has yet to change the ministerial appoointments suggest a decisive shift away from the worldview of the Blair era.

5pm update: The Spectator's Matthew d'Ancona has written this about the appointment: "What is certainly apparent already is that a few dog whistles on Iraq, particularly the dreadful appointment of Mark Malloch Brown to the FCO, will do nothing to prevent such atrocities. It is psychologically easier to believe that the Islamists hate us because of Iraq, but it is also nonsense. The Birmingham plot of 2000 makes that plain enough, as does the fact that terrorists have been arrested in Canada and France, countries which both opposed the war."

Saturday update: Mark Steyn's reaction

Comments

[Simon Newman]

I'm sure Brown will wish to present his government as being much less close to Bush than Blair's was, but I very much doubt there'll be substantive policy change. British troop presence in Iraq might scale down a bit quicker than Blair would have preferred, but Gordon is unlikely to 'cut and run'. I expect his main strategy will be to play it low key on foreign policy for the next 18 months (or until whenever the UK holds a general election, possibly mid 2008).

There may be problems later in that Brown's unlikeability and lack of bonhomie may cause friction with some US Presidential candidates - Hillary Clinton I think would get on fine with him, possibly Obama would, but I doubt he'd make great friends with any of the Republicans.

[Ay up]

He's also pictured there with Conservative defector Shaun Woodward, now Northern Ireland Secretary, and I think Ruth Kelly.

Re the Times piece, whatever the virtues of going into Iraq - and I think there were many - I don't think it's unhinged to say that the political capital and military resources used up by Iraq might have otherwise been used to tackle Darfur more decisively.

[Adam]

Disagreeing with John Bolton isn't a sign of bad judgement.

[JF]

Malloch Brown and Miliband. It sounds like Brown wants to see Britain once again challenge France for the role of "strongest supporter of tyrants and terrorists in the West," something we haven't seen since the 1950s. These two could very well put Britain in the lead, I have to admit. Malloch Brown will especially do wonders in introducing world-class graft and corruption into the British government after his great success doing the same in the UN.

[JEM]

Oh, Lord. Malloch Brown is a perfect example of what this world needs a whole lot less of.

As for Darfur - there's no political will to do anything, there would be no political will to do anything even absent Iraq (witness the behavior of other Western states with no Middle Eastern commitment), those who clamor most loudly for 'doing something' are exactly the type who won't condone use of military force, and I see no possibility of an even semi-permanent solution unless those intervening are willing to entertain the likely necessity of removing the Sudanese government - and whatever may follow from that.

[malcolm]

I think Malloch Brown and Milliband neitherof whom I like will be very hard pushed to rival a number of US politicians who acted as apologists for IRA terrorists during the '70's, '80's and '90's.

[JF]

Why so defensive, Malcolm? I thought you were a Conservative. You won't see me defending the Dhimmicrats who raised money for the IRA terrorists, so why are you defending Malloch Brown and Miliband?

[malcolm]

I am a Conservative but I dislike intensely taking lessons from Americans from the same party as Peter King and others who financed and provided succour to a group who contributed directly to the deaths of a friend and a member of my family.
I do not like Milliband or Malloch Brown as I mentioned in my first post but I do suggest that if you want to look at people who were supporters of terrorists you look closer to home first.

[JF]

Malcolm, my sympathies for your loss, but Peter King was considered a renegade within the GOP for his support of the IRA, and accordingly, was never given any leadership positions within the party. The local GOP tried to oust him and the FBI under a Republican administration put him under watch. He has been critical of the IRA ever since his eyes were opened on September 11.

I didn't elect Peter King, as I don't live in NY. I didn't vote for Ted Kennedy. I oppose any and all that support terrorist groups, in both parties. Who said I'm asking you to look at the Republican Party as a shining example of purity? This isn't about the Republican Party, this is about Miliband and Malloch Brown.

Telling me to look at my own party is a non-sequitur to my criticism of Malloch Brown and Miliband--either you agree they are bad for Britain, or you don't. If you agree, I'm not sure I understand what Peter King has to do with it. If you don't agree, I'm not sure I understand what Peter King has to do with it, either. He was never a national leader and was never considered for a position of national leadership.

In any case, in absence of claims to the contrary, I'll take your professed dislike of Miliband and Malloch Brown as agreement that they will be damaging for Britain. However, feel free to turn this into yet another unrelated opportunity to bash America, as you are wont to do.

[Mary Fernandez]

Hopefully, Bush won't receive Malloch Brown. Brown's Africa policy could stand or fall in isolation. He doesn't need to coordinate with America.

The argument that British forces could be reduced to 1,500 is specious. It's pretty much all or nothing. There is a certain level you cannot go below without endangering those left behind. Already cuts have meant that there are insufficient forces to control the area. At 1,500, there will be no point in leaving their base. (Not to mention the fact that other countries in Southern Iraq rely on the British contingent - Australia, Poland, Japan, Netherlands.)

______________

Malcom, you may wish to let No. Ireland arguments go. They just descend into accusations of torture, imprisoning the innocent, English support and police collusion with Ulster terror groups. And, round and round it goes. It's over. Let's concentrate on our common enemies.

[Steevo]

"However, feel free to turn this into yet another unrelated opportunity to bash America, as you are wont to do."

Well I know that's exactly what came to my mind? There is such rampant criticism of America and Americans, but god forbid any one of us be critical of an official from the UK.

Malcolm, this has nothing to do with the kind of sentiment in your society against us: we're not anti-Brit; we don't think of ourselves as superior. Just conservative Americans critical of a bad man appointed to high office.

"The argument that British forces could be reduced to 1,500 is specious. It's pretty much all or nothing. There is a certain level you cannot go below without endangering those left behind. Already cuts have meant that there are insufficient forces to control the area. At 1,500, there will be no point in leaving their base."

Yup, its pretty much token.

[davod]

Malloch Brown will be representing George Soros at the Foreign Office.

[Mary Fernandez]

;-)

After Soros made a billion dollars overnight sinking the pound, I'm surprised Brown didn't appointed Chancellor of the Exchequer!

(And Des Browne keeps his job at the MOD?! Good Lord.)

[Frogg]

I don't know anything about Gordon Brown. I'd like to think that he is just establishing himself as an Independent thinker who surrounds himself with a variety of differing views (not a bad thing) in selecting Mark Malloch Brown. However, I'd have to say that Mark Malloch Brown is not respected much in America. And, if he continues to be vocal in his anti-Americanism it will not be good for the UK/USA relationship.

I guess time will tell what he does with his position and how the Brits perceive it (as well as we Americans).

I hope he is smart enough to see al Qaeda's game plan, and not fall for it.

[Ami]

Malcolm,

I am a Republican who dissaproved of Peter King's support for the IRA, so much so that I confronted him as he was coming out of his Seaford, NY office. It was quite few years ago and I can't remember verbatim what was said, but his position was that we all have freedom of speech in this country, and he was as entitled to an opinion as I was.

I said, No, Mr. King you are an elected official of this country, in case you have forgotten, and your support of a terrorist organization is being done in my name as well as yours. That makes me very angry. I was "bumped" out of the way by his security (none too gently, I might add), and Pete ran for his car.

A few days later I had another Republican friend call his office. She identified herself as a Polish American (she is), who was sick and tired of his being more concerned with what went on in Ireland than the welfare of the citizens of the US, and besides wasn't supporting a terrorist organization against the law here?

Peter King heard a lot of opposition to his position, but he is an arrogant and self-righteous SOB who chose to ignore it. I'm sorry.

[bundyfan]

This guy criticized the U.S. for allowing “too much unchecked UN bashing and stereotyping”? That pesky First Amendment! Beyond bashing the U.N., I'd kind of like to oh, say, BULLDOZE IT! Then I'd build a brand new Super Wal-Mart and I think maybe a Mickey D's...

[Torben]

I don't agree that Miliband is necessarily so bad. He seems a bit soft on Iraq for my taste but I don't have the impression that he's for pulling the troops out. On the contrary.
With Miliband and Malloch Brown as the main people on foreign policy, Gordon Brown will need to be a strong leader to get what he wants. But I'm afraid he might not care so much about foreign policy at all and would therefore let the British people decide for him. If the Iranian crisis increases not long before election time, that may result in a Schröder.

[malcolm]

No JF, I do not bash America I America. . I do however find many of your statements nauseating as I have told you before. When you accuse Britain of challenging France as 'a strongest supporter of tyrants and terrorists in the West', I merely wanted to point out that apart from that statement being utter bullshit there are politicians from your country who have done exactly that.
Mary Fernandez, thank you for your patronizing advice. I wonder if you would say the same to a family of a September 11th victim or to the family of an American serviceman killed in Iraq.
Thank you Ami, it is evident that although Britain lost the PR battle with the IRA in the USA long ago, most Americans I've met either in England or in the USA who have any knowledge of the subject tend to dislike the IRA intensely.It is a shame though that a number of elected representatives in the USA have not shared your views.

[JF]

Malcolm,

I merely wanted to point out that apart from that statement being utter bullshit there are politicians from your country who have done exactly that.

The last such national-level politicians we had who did so were Jimmy Carter and the closet Nazi known as Zbigniew Brzezinski. They are among the most reviled public figures in the US. Meanwhile, Malloch Brown has used the UN as a platform for unrelenting anti-Americanism and support of tyrants in the Middle East and Africa, and now he has been given a new platform for doing the same in the FCO. I'm sorry you weren't aware of that, but he is a widely reviled figure here in the US, and to try and deflect my criticism of his appointment by bringing up petty local politicians like Peter King doesn't cut it and is not comparable.

The point is: Miliband and Malloch Brown are national representatives, they represent all of the UK due to Gordon Brown's misjudgment. Peter King represents his tiny constituency in NY. For you to bring up Peter King as a shield is as infuriating as me bringing up George Galloway to smear all of Britain. It just doesn't work. I condemn Peter King for his support of the terrorist IRA, and I condemn the appointment of Malloch Brown as an abomination of similar magnitude. Apparently that bothers you. It speaks volumes that you feel supporting one kind of terrorist (IRA) is wrong but supporting another kind of terrorist (Saddam Hussein, et al) is fine. That's moral relativism at its worst, and I categorically reject it.

Again, sorry for your loss to the IRA. I condemn the IRA and all in the US who have lobbied on behalf of the IRA and fundraised for the IRA. But some relatively minor American politician's mistakes with the IRA doesn't absolve Gordon Brown for appointing that enemy of freedom and democracy, Malloch Brown, to the FCO as a national British representative on the world stage. Too bad you can't see that.

[Mary Fernandez]

Malcolm -

I am a Captain, U.S. Army, and have been to both Afghanistan and Iraq.

I apparently don't have exclusive ownership rights to 'patronizing'.

[malcolm]

......but supporting Saddam Hussein....is fine.Really JF? I wasn't aware that I've ever done that in my worst nightmares. You're just a two bit liar aren't you? Pointless wasting time talking to someone like you.
Mary Fernandez, I would have thought a Captain in the US Army would have known better . It's a shame in your case they don't.

[Mary Fernandez]

Malcolm,

I know more than you think, but I am excersing a lot of restraint in the name of 'friendship'.

You may wish to stop dwelling in the past or at least get a more balanced view of the 'troubles' (which did not start nor was maintained in or by America).

[JF]

Malcolm, thanks for giving me the last word.

......but supporting Saddam Hussein....is fine.Really JF? I wasn't aware that I've ever done that in my worst nightmares. You're just a two bit liar aren't you?

The most you could bring yourself to say in regards to these appointments was "Malloch Brown and Milliband neitherof whom I like," a far cry from actively condemning them. For Miliband, I could see a justification: after all, his previous views were mere rhetoric, and he should be given the chance to redeem himself now that he has a position of power. However, Malloch Brown oversaw the Oil For Food fraud which benefited Saddam Hussein to the tune of billions of dollars. His refusal to condemn Hezbollah only damns him further. Yet instead of simply agreeing that he was a poor appointment--despite not even belonging to your party, despite being appointed by a prime minister not from your party--you chose instead to turn this around as an attack on the US, using a virtually no-name, low-level politician as your point of entry.

Malloch Brown will soon enough prove me right by publicly attacking the United States; he can't help himself, his arrogance knows no bounds, as his time at the UN showed. And your refusal to condemn him at that point will only further diminish you. I'm sure you'll be able to dig up another cipher in the US to point to as an example of why Malloch Brown should not be condemned.

Thanks for playing.

[Mary Fernandez]

I agree with JF.

[Paul from Florida]

Darfur? The Vermont National Guard could win that. But, why don't the ever so righteous Euros do it? Show up us hick, hayseed cowboys !

All talk and no walk from the Euro left.

By the way, it has been 59 years now, how is the Free Tibet campaign going?

By the way, I would say by ten to one, support for the IRA came from Democrats, mostly Irish cops, firemen, teachers on government jobs and belonging to Democrat supporting unions from Democrat supporting states.