Power games

The normal international struggle for political power which focuses on the United Nations is escalating into the most serious crisis for 60 years. Unless a cap on spending is removed by the end of June it may not be possible for the Security Council to meet because there will be no money to pay translators or security staff. This could compare with the US government shutdown in 1995 when Republicans in Congress tried to force their will on President Clinton - though that turned out to be a disaster for the Republicans because of the public’s antagonism to closure of public services.

The framework for this impasse was set last December in negotiations over the 2006-7 budget. John Bolton, the abrasive US Ambassador to the UN, had been arguing to withhold approval of the two year budget until his large package of American-centred reforms was accepted, provoking a stubborn response from many countries.

Pressured by the Europeans and other states, a compromise was agreed setting a cap on outlays of $950 million which allowed six months for negotiation of reforms but left the future of many programs uncertain and staff unsettled. There were rumours of more retrenchments but no framework or target date for decisions, increasing staff insecurity and reducing effectiveness.

Since January important agreed reforms have included:

• the establishment of the Human Rights Council and the Peacebuilding Commission;
• inauguration of the Democracy Fund sought by President Bush;
• tabling of a report on methods for reviewing mandates older than five years by the Secretary-General; and
• the establishment of an Ethics Office, a Management Performance Board, and so on.

In March Kofi Annan presented a detailed report on organisational issues, Investing in the United Nations: for a stronger Organization worldwide. His recommendations cover staff, leadership, IT, service delivery, budgeting, finance and governance. They focus on such goals as strengthening the Secretariat’s ability to manage complex operations; building middle and senior management capacity; shortening the budget cycle; and expanding the Secretary-General’s authority to redeploy posts and use available resources.

One of Annan’s purposes is to reduce tedious micromanagement by the 191 member states. However his proposals have been interpreted by developing countries as encroaching on their limited influence. He is perceived by many member states as too acquiescent to the US, so that strengthening of his power at the expense of the General Assembly could strengthen American power at the expense of developing countries.

On April 28, 2006 the Fifth Committee (where financial issues are discussed) broke a 20-year tradition of consensus by voting 108 to 50 for a developing country resolution requesting ten reports on the Secretary-General’s recommendations, so delaying decisions until well after the end of June, and this decision was endorsed by the General Assembly by the same margin. Most developed countries including Australia voted against the resolution.

This conflict between the rich and the rest has several causes. Developing countries distrust calls by the US for reform since these are perceived as cover for the Bush Administration’s relentless campaign to weaken the UN. As well as being ideologically opposed to multilateralism, the Bush Administration is attacking a competitor to its unilateral pre-eminence and retaliating for the refusal of most countries to authorise the invasion of Iraq. It has sought revenge by attempting to undermine the legitimacy of the UN and to make it more compliant with American preferences.

Developing countries also resent their marginalisation. UN governance has the same structure as global power in 1945. Failure to reform the Security Council to include such countries as Brazil, India, Japan and South Africa is partly because the US hasn’t supported admission of any developing countries on a longer term basis. So the call for reform masks an intense political struggle about power and the future control of the Organisation.

There has been advocacy for reform at the UN since shortly after it was established. All complex organisations must continually struggle to improve effectiveness. It is essential to regularly clarify goals and review strategies and a constant need for strengthening focus and improving administration. Many developing countries recognise this as clearly as developed countries.

Yet the polarisation caused by US hostility and symbolised by Ambassador Bolton’s aggressiveness makes acceptance of any American proposal ten times more difficult. This intense scepticism is compounded by threats by the US and more recently Japan, the second largest contributor, to withdraw funding if their proposals are not accepted.

The US campaign for reform would be more persuasive if Americans had been more efficient managers themselves. For most of the UN’s existence Americans have been in charge of the Department of Management. Yet that department has been the most obviously inefficient. For example it is responsible for recruitment yet refuses to acknowledge receipt of applications or to notify those who are unsuccessful, which are simply basic courtesies. It commonly takes over a year to fill a position.

The reform which is most sorely needed is adequate funding and staffing. After a decade and a half of almost stagnant funding, staff are overworked, equipment is outdated and many buildings desperately need refurbishment. The Organisation’s mandates have been steadily increased, but few positions have been added. So it is impossible to adequately fulfil some major responsibilities.

The budget of the UN for 2006 of US$1.9 billion is less than 3 per cent of US annual military research and development spending of US$70 billion. This is clearly ironic since it is the neocons who have multiplied US military research and development, yet they are the strongest critics of what they claim to be UN inefficiency.

Stability is needed as much as “reform”. Unrelenting attacks by vicious US critics has caused deep melancholy among UN staff. Recognition of achievements as well as managerial improvements are needed to restore morale, together with improved staffing and working conditions. As with all people, positive rewards would do more to improve efficiency than constant criticism. But then the present US Administration seems to want to reduce the UN’s effectiveness rather than improve it.

The foundation for UN reform must be recommitment to use the UN as its founders intended - to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, to affirm faith in fundamental human rights, to establish the basic conditions for justice and the international rule of law, and to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom.

Some advocates of so-called reform want to retreat from those goals and limit the purposes of the UN to little more than human rights and measures to control terrorism and international criminality. Of course those are vital goals among others, but the framework of goals is so integrated and mutually reinforcing that action on one without attempts to achieve all would be doomed. There can be no stable international peace without economic and social justice, order and respect for human rights.

Robert Hill, the new Australian Ambassador to the UN would be doing well to urge lifting of the cap on the budget for 2006-7, so that the UN’s vital work can continue uninterrupted.