inside the glass house

A CEO to run UN: Reforms under fire
NEW YORK - Over the past few years, the US has succeeded in using its political and economic clout to browbeat UN member states into falling in line with its own selfish agenda -- either promoting its own national interests or foregoing multilaterism in favour of unilateralism.

Firstly, the US arm-twisted its way into reducing its assessed contributions to the world body, from 25 to 22 percent of the UN budget. Secondly, it blocked the expansion of the Security Council and thwarted attempts to abolish the veto power. And finally, the US opted out of the International Criminal Court (ICC), whose creation has been overwhelmingly endorsed by virtually all other members of the UN.

And now the Bush administration is on the war path again, this time threatening member states to approve a series of US-inspired reforms of the world body.

Jim Paul of the Global Policy Forum, a New York-based think tank which monitors the UN closely, says Washington has put out its usual warning: 'Do what we say, or we will send you into oblivion'.

Backed by right-wing neo-conservatives, the Bush administration wants to model the UN on the lines of a US multinational corporation to be headed by a chief executive officer (CEO).

The secretary-general is to be transformed into a glorified CEO who will be armed with powers to run the world body -- perhaps overriding the wishes of member states or bypassing them. According to the UN charter, however, the secretary-general is armed only with administrative powers, not executive powers.

And the overwhelming majority at the UN -- consisting of the 132 developing nations of the Group of 77 -- is refusing to play ball with Washington and has threatened to derail the American inspired reform agenda. How far it will succeed remains to be seen.

Addressing a gathering at Wingate University in North Carolina last week, the abrasive US Ambassador to the UN John Bolton didn't mince words: "Being practical, Americans say that either we need to fix the institution (the United Nations), or we'll turn to some other mechanism to solve international problems".

The message Bolton was conveying is that if the US-proposed reforms are shot down, the Bush administration will marginalise the world body and increasingly move away from multilateralism to bilateralism.

When the Security Council refused to authorise the US war on Iraq, the neoconservatives dismissed the UN as an "irrelevant" body -- and the US launched the military attack on Iraq despite UN opposition. Perhaps one of the few occasions that Secretary-General Kofi Annan stood up to the US was to declare the war "illegal," which earned him the wrath of rightwing US politicians.

However, when Annan was asked to comment on Bolton's statement last week, he refused to be drawn into the debate. "I am not the interpreter of Ambassador Bolton", he bluntly told reporters.

Told that it was a "serious statement" requiring a serious response from Annan, UN spokesman Stephane Dujarric would only say: "Again, I think the secretary-general's words were that he wasn't going to interpret what Mr. Bolton said, and if he's not, I don't think I would risk it too".

As part of his plans to revitalize the administrative infrastructure of the beleaguered world body, Annan has proposed the creation of a new Ethics Office and an Independent Oversight Committee.

Additionally, Annan is planning to establish a Rule of Law Unit in the Secretariat, and also review the relevance of several committees and UN bodies, which he thinks, have outlasted their usefulness or their original mandates.

But the Group of 77 has challenged the need for "new layers of bureaucracy", and also accused the Secretariat of trying to by-pass the UN's Fifth Committee, which deals with administrative and budgetary matters, and also the Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions (ACABQ), in the proposed reform exercise.

At a closed door meeting with the Group last week, Annan assured he was not "making a grab for power" and that the political decision-making powers will continue to be with member states.

"There has been a lot of misunderstandings and misapprehensions," Annan said, and added that he had no plans to marginalise the role of the 191-member General Assembly, take away its decision-making powers, or even "impose decisions on member states." But most member states are sceptical, and think that Annan's reform agenda is being driven mostly by the US and promoted by some of the recently-appointed high ranking UN officials who are described either as "Bush loyalists" or are sympathetic to the rightwing cause.

Paul of the Global Policy Forum says developing nations should collectively remain united. If they cave in to US threats now, they will only help open up new threats. "The United Nations, which consists of 191 member states, cannot be run according to the dictates of a single country", he added.
Ambassador Vanu Gopala Menon of Singapore made a valid point when he asked Annan: "Is the UN embarking on a reform process under pressure just from one country (read: the United States)? Or is it because of negative media coverage of the UN?"

He said the charge that "the United Nations is rotten to the core" is "absolute nonsense." Menon pointed out that there is a group of people who will not be satisfied -- however much the United Nations reforms itself. "There are critics out there who do not like the United Nations -- and want to destroy it," Menon added.

Back to Columns