Britain and America

"The US is a great place to be anti-American"

Great piece in yesterday's Times from the indispensable Gerard Baker, the newspaper's US Editor.

Mr Baker noted the longstanding tradition that the USA's most effective critics have always been home-grown.  In the Vietnam era, for example, the fiercest critics were James Fonda, Bobby Kennedy and Marvin Gaye.  Today the leading critics are Al Gore (on the environment), Bill Clinton (on multilateralism) and the Hollywood brethren of Michael Moore - the latest output of which includes the film Rendition.  Click here for an overview of 'Hollywood's war on the Bush agenda'.

If there was any justice, the scale of internal criticism should caution those people who, as Baker writes, believe that the "wiretapping, Guantanamo-building, tourist-fingerprinting regime" of George W Bush "is terrifying Americans into quiet, desperate acquiescence."

The most important section of Gerry Baker's piece comes in the concluding paragraphs:

"The Americans who win global approbation in Oslo or at the UN are not simply critics of current American policy. They want to construct an international system that will for ever prevent the US from pursuing its own objectives, a system designed to dilute, counterbalance and constrain America’s ability to govern itself. They prefer a world in which American democracy is subordinated to a kind of global government, rule by a global elite, tasked to make decisions on everyone’s behalf in the name of multilateralism.

Al Gore wants the US to give up its economic autonomy and submit to rule by binding international obligations to curb its carbon emissions. Some of the Democratic candidates for the presidency want to tie down the American Gulliver under a web of global treaties. The British Government, if recent speeches by ministers are to be believed, is now apparently seriously committed to the idea that only the UN has the legitimacy to determine how nations should behave. In other words, that a system that gives vetoes to China and Russia and honours the human rights contributions of countries such as Syria or North Korea should be accorded a full role in the promotion of the dignity of mankind.

There’s a larger irony in all this. Even as the US demonstrates the openness of its own society, its unrivalled capacity for self-examination and self-correction, a free system based on the absolute authority of the rule of law, it is told it must submit itself to the views of Moscow, Beijing, and Brussels.

Fortunately, while the American system may be forgivingly tolerant of people with wild and dangerous ideas, it doesn’t generally let them run the country."

This is the great truth that the critics of America need to face up to.  America is a flawed superpower but what are the alternatives?  A United Nations that has failed Rwanda, Darfur and Burma and elevates human rights abusing nations to the head of its human rights council?  European Union member states that won't invest in defence?  Germany, France and other NATO countries which are not fulfilling commitments made to Afghanistan?  China - which puts its oil interests with Khartoum ahead of the people of Darfur?  Or Russia - which bullies its neighbours and indulges Iran at the Security Council?

Anti-Americanism will exist so long as the USA is the world's only effective policeman.  There'll always be people and nations who will hate authority figures and America's superpower status.  America needs to learn the lessons of recent years but it must not submit to multilateralism.   America is currently hated because it has combined interventionism with incompetence.  If it becomes beholden to multilateral institutions and agreements it will be enfeebled.  Such an America will probably be less hated but few will regard it highly.  It needs to be strong again.  A strong, effective America - working closely with other key democracies - may not be loved but it might become reasonably respected again.

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

How can the UN improve its human rights advocacy?

Samuel Coates writes:

Yesterday the UK Conservative Party’s Human Rights Commission – of which I am a member – held an important and distinguished hearing assessing the United Nations’ Human Rights Council.

Tom Porteous, London Director of Human Rights Watch, kicked off the session with his general thoughts on the United Nations as it stands. He cautioned that the US and UK’s moral authority had been tarnished by their own human rights abuses, as had that of the Human Rights Commission and now the Council for having members who fall way short of having the highest standards in human rights domestically.

Tom’s main concern was for the Council to have teeth by the UN beginning to "operationalise the responsibility to protect". This would be easier if the office of High Commissioner of Human Rights scanned the horizon more and the Secretary General spoke out on the RTP agenda. He highlighted the chasm between rhetoric and reality, between pledges made by member states and their own records. The Council seemed to be an improvement on the Commission but the way that regions offered the same number of candidate countries as there were places, meant that unfortunately countries like Egypt in the Africa region went through without any difficulty. The saving grace for this system was that Belarus was blocked from membership (but only because Bosnia was persuaded to stand alongside Slovenia). This served as a useful deterrent to nations with dubious records applying in future, he said.

The United Nations fails the people of Zimbabwe

The United Nation's Commission on Sustainable Development has just elected Zimbabwe as its new chair.  The Commission is responsible for overseeing key environmental and development agreements that were discussed at the UN's 1992 Rio Earth summit.  The decision to promote Robert Mugabe's Zimbabwe to this position has been widely condemned by Anglosphere and European nations plus human rights organisations.

It is not only a propaganda victory for Zimbabwe but another sad proof that the United Nations is not fit for purpose.  The UN's continuing failure to address the situation in Darfur is another proof of the dishonesty of the post-Rwanda commitment to 'never again' allow genocide.  Those commentators who disdain American ascendancy in world affairs normally nominate the United Nations as their preferred world leader.  A regular theme of BritainAndAmerica will be the need for alternative bodies to the highly inadequate United Nations.  We recently spotlighted John McCain's welcome idea of a League of Democracies.

John Howard's Australia would be a very deserving member of such a League.  In a move certain to further undermine the Mugabe regime's standing amongst its people, Mr Howard has just ordered Australia's cricketers to cancel their planned tour of Zimbabwe.  These words appear on the Australian Prime Minister's website this morning:

"Under the disastrous rule of the Mugabe regime, ordinary Zimbabweans have borne the brunt of famine and near-total economic collapse brought on by the regime's destructive and callous policies. President Mugabe has trashed Zimbabwean democracy, enriched himself and his cronies, subverted the rule of law and presided over the systematic and brutal oppression of that country's civil society and political opposition."

When words like that appear on the UN website - and are backed by serious actions - we may begin to believe that the UN is worthy of its founding principles.

Related link: Melanie Phillips in today's Daily Mail on John Howard's leadership

McCain touts democratic alternative to the United Nations

Interesting idea from John McCain.  He is calling for a 'League of Democracies' to be formed as "the core of an international order of peace based on freedom".  The League will be interpreted by some as an alternative to the way George W Bush is (unfairly) perceived to have run a go-it-alone foreign policy.  It's probably more accurate to see John McCain's idea as a way of ensuring that action can be legitimised outside of the impossibly slow United Nations.  AP writes:

"Such a new body, he says, could help relieve suffering in Darfur, fight the AIDS epidemic in Africa, develop better environmental policies, and provide "unimpeded market access" to countries sharing "the values of economic and political freedom."  And, McCain adds, an organization of democracies could pressure tyrants "with or without Moscow's and Beijing's approval" and could "impose sanctions on Iran and thwart its nuclear ambitions" while helping struggling democracies succeed."

Read the Senator's full speech here.

Waiting for the UN is usually the most dangerous plan in the world

On GMTV this morning Dr Nile Gardiner, of the Washington-based Thatcher Center, condemned the UN Security Council for failing to "deplore" the actions of Iran in kidnapping 15 British sailors.  Russian and Chinese objections meant that British hopes for a resolution that called for immediate release of the sailors were not realised.

This morning's Sun was also unimpressed with the UN:

"The lumbering United Nations was last night taking its first timid steps towards asking Iran to release 15 British hostages.  All gestures of support are welcome. But this slow-motion response is having to be prised out of the Security Council by the UK and its allies.  Yet the sailors and marines — including terrified mum Faye Turney — were operating as UN personnel, implementing a UN mandate.  They were unlawfully grabbed by Iranian pirates in Iraqi waters a week ago. Their hijacking is an outrageous breach of international law.  Yet in the seven days that have passed, the Security Council response has barely risen above a whisper... It is the duty of the United Nations to bellow disapproval.  Not to display weakness by muttering unconvincingly behind its hands."

Waiting for the UN to demonstrate any resolve in almost any situation is a very dangerous thing to do.  Just ask the people of Rwanda or Darfur.  People who object to a world with America as its chief policeman usually fail to offer serious alternatives.  The UN - compromised by the human rights-abusing members of its Security Council - is a very inadequate alternative to a world where free democracies work together to address global challenges.