inside the glass house

NEW YORK - John Bolton, the politically-unyielding US ambassador to the United Nations, is best known for his off-the-cuff remark that if 10 floors of the 39-storied UN building are lopped off, it wouldn't make much of a difference to the world body.

The now-notorious anti-UN remark prompted one critic to point out that Bolton may have been a better urban planner than an international diplomat. So, if the UN is shut down for want of funds, come July 1, Bolton may well be the one of the prime architects of that impending disaster.

Speaking before the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee last week, he reiterated his argument that since Washington pays 22 percent of the UN budget, it bears "special responsibility" to advance reforms in the world body.

Using the power of the purse, Bolton has already warned that unless there is a radical restructuring of the world body -- as envisaged by Western nations -- the UN would be strangled to death financially, perhaps floor by floor.

But can the West really afford to even temporarily pull down the shutters of the world body or even entertain such thoughts? As of this moment, doesn't it need UN blessings to impose its proposed sanctions on Iran, Burma and Sudan?

"After all," said one diplomat rather jokingly, "if there is no United Nations, the five big powers (the US, Britain, France, China and Russia) will be the first to lose their veto powers which they so jealously guard. No UN, No veto powers. I don't think they can afford to shut it down."

The threat is viewed as mere political bluster aimed at twisting arms. But still, early this year, Bolton succeeded in leading a campaign to block the approval of the UN's $3.8 billion budget for 2006-2007. The US envoy insisted that any approval of the full budget will be conditioned on a radical restructuring of the world body, including a shifting of powers from the 191-member General Assembly to the Secretary-General and cutting back on some of UN's political programmes, including those relating to Palestinians. Both proposals have been rejected by the 132-member Group of 77 developing countries comprising over two-thirds of the Organisation's membership.

The political deadlock has already resulted in the two-year budget being truncated to a six-month spending limit, making it difficult for any long-term financial commitments. Prodded by rich nations, the General Assembly was forced to approve only $950 million for the first six months of this year reducing the world body into a hand-to-mouth existence. The spending cap ends June 30, possibly to be followed either by a three month or another six month renewal, prompted primarily by the US.

Bolton told the Foreign Relations Committee that the UN is split right down the middle between the world's rich and poor nations. On one side, he said are a group of about 50 nations, including the US and virtually all Western nations, who are pushing "for an ambitious reform agenda and whose combined contributions happen to total more than 86.7 percent of the UN budget." And on the other side, he said, are over 120 nations who contribute only 12 percent, but are blocking these reforms.

But he chose to ignore the fact that the UN was founded on the one-nation, one-vote principle -- not on the basis that the bigger the contributor the louder the voice. The payment to the UN budget is based on one's capacity to pay: an intricate formula unanimously agreed by all member states, including the US. So the rich nations pay more and the poor pay less. But the voting strength is the same, irrespective of one's financial contributions.

If this principle is changed, says the chair of the Group of 77, South African Ambassador Dumisani Kumalo, the UN will be reduced to a private US corporation where decision-making powers depend largely on the amount of stocks owned, with big share holders holding the reins.

Last week Deputy Secretary-General Mark Malloch Brown best described the ongoing conflict between rich and poor nations as a battle between "numbers and pocket books." "I completely agree that the universality of the United Nations is the single greatest comparative advantage -- and universality means that everybody has a say in decision making," he argued. Malloch Brown pointed out that consensus voting has been a way of trying to balance numbers vs pocketbooks.

"But if it breaks down, you end up with a much more crude confrontation which is damaging to the institution." But then again, he said, "in a way it is a breakdown of legitimate governance in the Organisation: a sense that developing countries have been marginalized in decision making which has led us to where we are." "I think it is a very imprudent tactic by donor countries to threaten that crude financial power," he said.