In April, nations
resistant to U.N. reform revealed that they would stand in the way
of reform efforts. The U.S. and other like-minded member states
should not capitulate and make it clear blocking reform will have
consequences. The U.S. and other nations that support reform should
pressure member states to adopt reform by threatening to withhold
any funding of the U.N. budget beyond what has already been
authorized. Failure to tie reform efforts to financial incentives
could easily doom meaningful U.N. reform.
Sixty years ago,
the United Nations was founded in order to maintain international
peace and security, promote self-determination and basic human
rights, and protect fundamental freedoms. Sadly, weaknesses in the
organization have prevented it from fully realizing these high
aspirations. The past six decades have seen dozens of initiatives
from governments, think tanks, foundations, and panels of experts
aimed at reforming the U.N. to make it more effective in meeting
its responsibilities. Although these reform efforts have seen
occasional success, they have failed to address the core problems
that cripple the organization.
An accretion of
mandates, insufficient transparency and accountability, and
resistance of member states to reform have resulted in a U.N.
system that is bureaucratic, costly, cumbersome, lacking in
oversight and often incapable of fulfilling the responsibilities
placed upon the organization by its member states. The U.S. and
other reform-minded member states have capitalized on the many
high-profile U.N. scandals in recent years to push a reform agenda
to address many of these problems.[1]
Last fall the
General Assembly approved the 2005 World Summit Outcome document
which sought to "strengthen and update the programme of work of the
United Nations so that it responds to the contemporary requirements
of Member States." The U.N. Secretariat and the General Assembly
have implemented some initial reforms. Progress has included
creating an Ethics Office, mandating financial disclosure by key
U.N. officials, and adopting a whistleblower policy protecting
those reporting on waste, corruption, and abuse in the U.N.
Many member states
continue to resist strongly U.N. reform, however, and critical
parts of the reform agenda remain incomplete, including
strengthening U.N. oversight, transparency, and accountability;
enhancing the Secretary General's ability to shift personnel and
resources to meet priorities; buying out unmotivated or unsuitable
staff; and reviewing U.N. mandates to eliminate duplicate or
ineffective activities. The Secretary General was instructed to
submit proposals to address these issues and compile a list of
mandates so that the member states could review them for relevance,
effectiveness, and duplication.
Even the seemingly
apolitical aspects of reform, such as proposals to speed personnel
recruitment and grant the Secretary General the ability to shift
staff resources to meet urgent priorities, have met resistance from
the G-77, a group of 132 developing countries, which sees the
reform agenda as an assault on its authority in the United Nations.
In a draft General Assembly resolution introduced by South Africa
on April 18, 2006 to the 5th Committee of the General Assembly on
behalf of the G-77 and China, the member states resistant to reform
revealed that they would delay and block the reform effort by
requesting a series of reports from the Secretary General on his
reform proposals.[2] On
April 28, the G-77 forced a vote on the South African resolution,
which passed 108 to 50 with 3 abstentions, breaking a two decade
long tradition of adopting resolutions by consensus.
The resolution will take effect when it is adopted by the General
Assembly plenary, which contains the same membership as the 5th
Committee.
The passage of the
resolution is a significant setback in the effort to reform the
United Nations. Before the vote, the U.S. and other nations warned
the G-77 that passing the resolution would have consequences. The
British Ambassador to the U.N. Emyr Jones-Parry reacted strongly to
the G-77's blocking strategy and said, "They should realize we pay
82 percent of the budget and we're not going to have this sort of
imposition on us by the draconian tactics by the G-77 at the
moment. If they want to play with fire, they're going to get their
fingers burnt, that's clear."[4]
If the reform
effort is to succeed, the reform-minded member states must follow
through on their threat of financial consequences to this action by
the G-77. When the General Assembly adopted its 2006/2007 biennial
budget, only $950 million of the $3.8 billion dollar budget was
authorized. The U.N. is expected to exhaust this funding by the end
of June. The U.S. and other like-minded states should unequivocally
announce that they will oppose any funds beyond the $950 million if
the South African resolution passes the General Assembly plenary.
By tying approval of the rest of the U.N. budget to reform, the
reform-minded states would place significant pressure on the other
member states to adopt reform and force the G-77 to face the
consequences of their opposition to reform.
The U.S. Congress
should also weigh in and announce that failure to act on reform
will lead to consideration of financial withholding. Pressure from
Congress, such as legislated reform benchmarks similar to those
adopted in the 2005 U.N. Reform Act, has been effective in the past
and will enhance leverage for reform. Outside pressure is less
susceptible to the internal politicking of the U.N. that has
watered down past reform efforts.
Without tying
reform to financial incentives, the sound and fury of the current
U.N. reform effort, as with past efforts, could easily signify
nothing.
Brett
D. Schaefer is Jay Kingham Fellow in
International Regulatory Affairs in the Margaret Thatcher Center
for Freedom, a division of the Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis
Institute for International Studies, at The Heritage
Foundation.