Reform within reach?

September 08, 2005

by Ryan Gawn

Whilst all members of the UN want some sort of reform, many are only willing to accept it on their own terms. Without flexibility and compromise in member state positions and tactics, world leaders will arrive in New York to sign a watered-down document that will do very little to change the organization and allow the reform that it so desperately needs.

"The moment is ripe for real reform of the United Nations”

The issue of U.N. reform is nothing new. Many have questioned the operation, structure and aims of the world body since its conception in 1945, and recent years have been devastating for the organization. World opinion was divided over the war in Iraq, and while some felt the organization failed to enforce its own resolutions, others felt let down by its inability to prevent what many believe was an unnecessary war. This, combined with accusations over the Oil for Food scandal, has created the pressure for reform that has a chance of being meaningful. Today, there is widespread public support for reform and a U.N. overhaul, and the moment is ripe for real reform of the United Nations.

“In Larger Freedom” – 2005 as a year of bold decision

Secretary-General Kofi Annan's report “In Larger Freedom: Towards Development, Security and Human Rights for All” published last March, presented a series of proposals for debate ahead of the U.N. World Summit to be held in New York on September 14th-16th. Investing much personal prestige on the reform project, Annan recognised the urgency of the situation and the changes needed for the UN to be effective and fulfil its founding expectations in a world very different from that of 1945.

Annan's criteria for proposals were that they be “actionable and achievable” and that they reinforce the underlying message that the concepts of Development, Security and Human Rights are deeply interlinked.

Since April, the member states have been negotiating whilst the General Assembly's President Jean Ping gauged support and created a draft outcome document to reflect the views of the GA. Opinion broadly agreed with Annan's proposals, and up until mid-August, the U.N. seemed to be on track for some meaningful reform.

The draft outcome document

Notable changes in the Development area would have seen implementation of the so-called Sachs recommendations (MDGs), the creation of an International Finance Facility, debt cancellation, trade and market access reforms, implementation of country-led “quick wins” (malaria bed nets, school meals programmes etc.), as well as HIV/AIDS and climate change proposals and the creation of a global early warning system for natural disasters.

The Security cluster proposed a commitment to a definition of terrorism by the end of the year, the creation of a standing capacity for rapid deployment of U.N. civilian police, the creation of a Peace-building Commission to assist in peace-building and post-conflict work, revitalization of WMD agreements, and the empowerment of the international community to intervene in countries that fail to protect their people from genocide and ethnic cleansing.

The Human Rights cluster proposed the substitution of the Human Rights Commission with a more powerful Human Rights Council that would no longer allow rights violators onto the panel, whilst the Organisational Reform cluster proposed an overhaul of the Secretariat, internal oversight improvements and Security Council expansion (expected by the end of the year).

All are noble proposals indeed. So why not just enjoy the rest of the New York summer and arrive mid-September to a successful summit? If only things were that easy. Three weeks into his appointment, John Bolton, the new U.S. ambassador to the U.N., proposed some 750 changes to the 38-page draft. This has irked many within and outside the U.N. – the quantity and timing of the changes are quite spectacular. Despite the draft having been in formation since April, the U.S. changes were submitted three weeks before the summit. U.N. officials have been labouring furiously in a traditionally quiet month, with even Annan returning early from holidays in his native Ghana. Many wonder why the U.S. chose to leave their modifications to the last minute - some see it as a negotiating tactic of the U.N.'s largest donor, whilst others see this as a message from Bush that business-as-usual is not acceptable. The motivation is likely to be a bit of both, and Bolton's initial hard-balling will have certainly reassured many on the Hill.

“Not a change in policy, but a change in approach”

Nevertheless, the proposed changes are not surprising in substance. U.S. policy has not changed, and almost every modification could have been foreseen. As a senior U.N. official commented, “this is not a change in policy, but a change in approach.” The U.S. amendments seek to downplay the emphasis on alleviating poverty, and expunge all references to the MDGs, including the target for wealthy countries to donate at least 0.7 % of GDP to the developing world. The changes would also scrap provisions calling for action against global warming, and remove endorsements of the International Criminal Court (ICC) and the Comprehensive Test-Ban Treaty. Washington is pushing for more emphasis on international measures against terrorism, the establishment of a democracy fund, and strengthening of the U.N. human rights office. These amendments, if successful, would leave the original draft document in tatters.

U.S. criticism

The administration's position has fed the dispute over the obligation of rich states to increase development aid, a disagreement that threatens to dominate the summit. It has hardened opposition by developing countries (represented by the Group of 77) to U.S.-backed proposals to establish independent oversight of UN spending, restrict the spread of the world's deadliest weapons and create the new human rights council. The move also put the U.S. on a collision course with Jeffrey Sachs, Annan's development advisor, who has claimed the U.S. is trying to "wriggle out" of its previous commitments. Annan himself expressed hope that the administration would drop its opposition to the goals, saying he was doubtful that other member states would want to see the MDGs expunged from the document. This was supported by the U.K. and E.U., who are broadly content with the summit draft, and fear that the American objections, if adopted, would severely undermine the summit's success.

Race to reform

In response, Ping set up a “core group” of 30 member states, to resolve differences by focussing on the most contested issues such as terrorism, the Human Rights Council, disarmament and non-proliferation, the composition of the Peace Building Commission, management reform and the responsibility to protect.

Whilst the issue of the MDGs is unlikely to reach agreement, there is a possibility of a G77 / U.S. compromise of G77 development proposals in exchange for U.S. security proposals. Following the G8 commitments to double aid to Africa, there may be room for the U.S. to manoeuvre, and we may look back on these objections as posturing to increase U.S. leverage. A more likely compromise would be over climate change, with the U.S. already prepared to recommit to the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change. It is safe to say that a Peace-building Commission will be created and that there will be a recommitment to the Non-Proliferation Treaty. However, the U.S. is unlikely to move on the ICC and the G77 vs. U.S. divide will also be exacerbated over the U.N. proposal to assist developing countries in joining the World Trade Organization.

With GA voting based on one member state, one vote, and with a two-thirds majority needed for a resolution to pass, it is possible that member states will abandon the exhaustive unanimity and consensus-seeking that has crippled the GA in the past. This has led to watered down resolutions with little real impact – precisely what summit leaders want to avoid. Abandoning this norm might create more division in the GA, but will certainly create more meaningful reform. Bolton has said the U.S. would be ready to scrap the deal altogether if no consensus was achieved, leaving only a short statement for the summit to agree on. If the negotiations arrive at this, all states will lose out, and this will have been a wasted opportunity. The U.S. will also lose out, and helping the U.N. totter towards irrelevance would be a crushing disappointment for Americans, a majority of whom, polls show, support the organization.

As the clock ticks down towards the summit, it is almost certain that the result of the U.S. objections will be a much-weakened document, even if the U.S. does not get most of the 750 changes agreed to. A similar type of “bargaining” occurred with the Kyoto Protocol, when other countries agreed to a watered-down text to gain U.S. support, only for the U.S. to withdraw anyway. Nevertheless, by traditional diplomatic trade-offs and proper use of the GA voting system, member states might still be able muster something presentable for the 175 heads of state that will arrive in New York shortly. That, surely, is an aim shared by all.

Ryan Gawn is a Rotary World Peace Fellow at the Universidad del Salvador, Buenos Aires. He recently completed an internship in the Executive Office of the

Secretary-General at the UN Secretariat in New York, and can be contacted at ryangawn@yahoo.co.uk

To read Gawn's full analysis on proposed UN Reform, click here.

Articles appearing in Viewpoints do not represent the views of the Foreign Policy Association and are the sole opinions of the author. If you have an article you'd like to to be considered for Viewpoints, email an inquiry to editor@fpa.org.