How much reform is good for the UN?
The UN has had a tough few years -- the oil-for-food scandal, allegations of UN peace keepers raping women in the Congo, humanitarian crises in Darfur, Rwanda, East Timor, and the US overriding the UN in going to war with Iraq, all of which have served to raise doubt about the value of the organization. John Bolton's vociferous demands that the UN either "reform or die" haven't helped, let alone the fact that this ambassador from the UN's biggest contributor has little faith in, or respect for, the organization.
With good reason, some would say. Reform is absolutely crucial if the group is to win back some of the credibility it has lost over the past few years. However, in such a large organization, with so many stakeholders with varied agendas, the path of reform, if not carefully chosen, can also be dangerous.
The International Relations Center recently released an article in its Foreign Policy in Focus newsletter on UN reform, arguing that the U.S. version of this phrase is basically a call to cater to Washington's wishes in the way things are run at the UN.
The problems the UN has had in the past few years are not much more than what a governmental body or municipality faces -- including the U.S. government, the author points out. But bringing these problems under the spotlight makes it easier for the U.S. to push the UN to seek reform -- of the kind that Washington approves of. And now that the UN has let itself be convinced of its need for reform, it can't go back.
The UN does clearly need reform. But whether it is the reforms that Bolton thinks it needs is a different question. For example, last year, Bolton made 750 changes to the UN reform plan, including eliminating a clause calling for the five Security Council members to not veto action that would halt genocide. He also took out all mentions of the Millennium Development Goals, measures which seek to cut global poverty by half by 2015. Fortunately, these "reforms" didn't pass. And the UN -- at least in theory -- promised to not turn a blind eye to genocide and poverty, like it has in the past.
Other notable achievements are the the formation of the new Human Rights Council -- even if its membership - which the US declined -- leaves much to be desired; and most recently, a ceasefire negotiated somewhat successfully in Lebanon.
President Bush is pushing to have Bolton stay on as U.S. ambassador to the UN. He might do some good there, shaking up the organization as he has done. But the new secretary general, to be elected in January 2007, will have the tough task of walking the line between moving forward on reform, without caving in to pressure from the U.S. to do things its way.
With good reason, some would say. Reform is absolutely crucial if the group is to win back some of the credibility it has lost over the past few years. However, in such a large organization, with so many stakeholders with varied agendas, the path of reform, if not carefully chosen, can also be dangerous.
The International Relations Center recently released an article in its Foreign Policy in Focus newsletter on UN reform, arguing that the U.S. version of this phrase is basically a call to cater to Washington's wishes in the way things are run at the UN.
The problems the UN has had in the past few years are not much more than what a governmental body or municipality faces -- including the U.S. government, the author points out. But bringing these problems under the spotlight makes it easier for the U.S. to push the UN to seek reform -- of the kind that Washington approves of. And now that the UN has let itself be convinced of its need for reform, it can't go back.
The UN does clearly need reform. But whether it is the reforms that Bolton thinks it needs is a different question. For example, last year, Bolton made 750 changes to the UN reform plan, including eliminating a clause calling for the five Security Council members to not veto action that would halt genocide. He also took out all mentions of the Millennium Development Goals, measures which seek to cut global poverty by half by 2015. Fortunately, these "reforms" didn't pass. And the UN -- at least in theory -- promised to not turn a blind eye to genocide and poverty, like it has in the past.
Other notable achievements are the the formation of the new Human Rights Council -- even if its membership - which the US declined -- leaves much to be desired; and most recently, a ceasefire negotiated somewhat successfully in Lebanon.
President Bush is pushing to have Bolton stay on as U.S. ambassador to the UN. He might do some good there, shaking up the organization as he has done. But the new secretary general, to be elected in January 2007, will have the tough task of walking the line between moving forward on reform, without caving in to pressure from the U.S. to do things its way.
posted by Anonymous at 4:27 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home