During his speech in New York on Tuesday, Deputy Secretary General Mark Malloch Brown gave one of the most astute summaries (pdf) of US-UN relations that I have read in a very long time. It was at once complimentary, prodding and constructive. And as Malloch Brown said at the outset, it was intended as “a sincere and constructive critique of U.S. policy towards the UN by a friend and admirer.” Unfortunately, Ambassador John Bolton did not see it that way.Yesterday, Bolton called Kofi Annan and demanded that he “personally and publicly” repudiate Malloch Brown. But according to Annan’s spokesman, Stepane Dujarric, Annan will not. And rightly so. There is nothing remotely insulting about Malloch Brown’s remarks.

To be sure, he does not gloss over the current hostility between the United States and the United Nations that permeates Turtle Bay, calling it “an unhappy marriage.” But like a good partner, he clearly communicates what the United States could do to make the relationship a more binding one.

For one, he recognizes the centrality of the United States to the United Nations, and calls for more, not less, engagement. He also suggests that the United States be more open to compromise during the on-going management reform push. That does not mean that the Secretariat and Washington have opposing goals for reform, just the opposite is the case. But because Malloch Brown is such a staunch advocate for reform, he understands that it can only be achieved through a process whereby donor countries, most of all the United States, work with the developing world to broker compromise.

So far, Bolton’s zero-sum approach to UN reform has not achieved desired reform goals. Like a good friend should, Malloch Brown says so.

Finally, there is something terribly distracting about Ambassador Bolton’s remarks yesterday. Right now, Britain’s Emyr Jones Parry is leading a Security Council mission to Sudan to cajole Khartoum into accepting a UN peacekeeping force for Darfur. They will visit refugee camps near El Fashir, and witness first hand the destruction that has been meted out just across the Darfur-Chad border in Abeche. That Bolton decided not to join Jones-Parry on the trip, and instead used his perch in New York to launch invectives against the Secretary General is unfortunate. Like Bolton, the headlines ought to be in Sudan right now.

A thoroughly bizarre story appeared in Rupert Murdoch’s Australian tabloid, the Herald Sun yesterday. Reporters Rob Taylor and Olivia Rondonuwu suggest that the UN mission in East Timor tried to cover up a May 25 massacre in which 12 unarmed East Timorese police officers were gunned down by a group of renegade Timorse soldiers. The reporters base this claim on a leaked email in which the Deputy Special Representative of the Secretary General in East Timor allegedly instructs UN employees against cooperating with an Australian investigation into the massacre.

But the government of East Timor, however embattled at the moment, retains the sovereign right to investigate crimes that take place on its own soil. To that end, UNOTIL has offered to make evidence it may possess available to Timorese authorities. But absent permission from the government of East Timor, UNOTIL cannot turn over evidence (such as autopsy reports, statements, and testimony) to a third party.

To be sure, Australia wields great influence in East Timor. So if Canberra decides to make this a priority, it can surely convince Dili to give UNOTIL permission to work with the Australian Federal Police investigating the incident. And for the record, the Spokesman for the Secretary General confirmed to me that if authorized by East Timor, UNOTIL will turn over any evidence it may have to the Australians.

Amidst a post on Haditha and the American military’s ability to investigate itself, Instapundit’s Glenn Reynolds can’t resist landing a cheap shot against the UN, which he claims has been unwilling to investigate abuses in peacekeeping missions. The opposite is true.
Since reports of sexual abuse surfaced in the Congo in 2004 there have been at least 291 investigations into peacekeeping mission personnel. According to the latest annual peacekeeping report, published March 2006, as a result of these investigations, 16 civilians have been fired, along with 16 members of formed police units. Further, some 137 military personnel were repatriated on disciplinary grounds, including six commanders.

(For reference, in April, Human Rights First along with Human Rights Watch and the Center for Human Rights and Global Justice at the New York University School of Law documented (pdf) some 330 cases in which over 600 U.S. military personnel are credibly alleged to have abused detainees since the start of the Afghan war. So far, only 54 have been convicted by court-martial.)

Beyond the statistics, it’s noteworthy that the Secretary General tapped Jordan’s Prince Zeid Ra’ad Al-Hussein to lead the UN’s drive to increase oversight and accountability mechanisms to prevent future abuses. Prince Zeid is a global authority on international humanitarian law, and was the first president of the International Criminal Court’s governing body. His name brought immense credibility to a March 2005 report that recommended wide ranging reforms, including setting up special Conduct and Discipline units at the eight largest peace keeping missions.

As we saw with the 372nd Military Police Company in Abu Ghraib and Moroccan peacekeepers in the Democratic Republic, soldiers in conflict zones can sometimes commit terrible human rights violations. Contra Glenn Reynolds, the United Nations seems to understand this, and has taken allegations of abuse serious enough to swiftly implement broad reforms in its peace-keeping operations.