Reprinted from Caribbean Net News
caribbeannetnews.com
US President George W Bush has controversially appointed John Bolton as Ambassador to the United Nations (UN) at a time when governments around the word are concerned about “reform” of the organisation.
“Reform” means different things to different governments, and the reforms that the US government wants are very different from the ambitions of many other countries.
Therefore, if ever there was a time for representation at the UN that would smooth ruffled feathers, seek compromise and build a consensus that reflects the feelings of the largest number of countries, that time is now.
But, Mr Bolton is famously known to have said that he doesn’t do “carrots”, as in the use of “carrots” and “sticks”; the former to entice support, the latter to force submission.
Mr Bolton is also an advocate of UN reforms that are the agenda of the right-wing in the US. He is widely reported to have said: “There should be only one member of the UN Security Council – the United States”.
His remarks about the UN and the almost supreme role that he sees for the US represent one reason why his appointment as Ambassador is controversial; another is that President Bush chose to appoint him while the US Senate is in recess. The President had nominated Mr Bolton for the job five months ago, but the Senate would not approve his appointment.
Mr Bolton goes to the UN, then, amid worry among governments world-wide and within the US itself.
This worry is bolstered by a Bill that Conservatives introduced in the US House of Representatives last June. Called, “The Henry J Hyde United Nations Reform Act of 2005”, the Bill demands a range of ‘reforms’ at the UN which strike at the core of the Organisation. It also threatens that the US should not pay half of its UN contributions if the ‘reforms’ are not implemented.
Among the ‘reforms’ required by the Bill are: cutting the budgets for economic and social affairs, the divisions for sustainable development, advancement of women and refugee assistance. The Bill also calls on the US to deduct from its contributions a share of the expenses of UN Bodies that monitor human treaties not ratified by the US, among these are the rights of the child, non-discrimination against women and economic, social and cultural rights.
These ‘reforms’ have little to do with the reform of the UN that Secretary-General Kofi Annan called-for, and they are even less related to the reforms on the agenda of other governments.
Mr Annan has a long list of recommendations for reforms from the High Level Panel on “Threats, Challenges and Change” that he set-up in 2003.
Amongst these recommendations are two issues that mainly concern the international community.
The first is reform of the UN Security Council to represent a wider cross section of the international community and end the anachronism of five permanent members with veto power. The second is dealing with the serious economic problems that confront the world.
As matters now stand, the UN certainly needs wise leadership on these two principal issues. Both major powers and large developing countries are almost at each other’s throats on the issue of the Security Council.
It is left to be seen whether Mr Bolton will try to bulldoze US positions on these two issues, or work with others to achieve a consensus position.
In any event, whatever position the US adopts on the issue of Security Council reform, it is most unlikely that the deadline of September this year, set by Kofi Annan, will be achieved.
When the UN Charter was signed in 1945 there were only 51 members; now there are 191.
In 1945, the Security Council had five permanent members with veto powers and five and six non-permanent members. The permanent members with veto powers are: the US, UK, France, Russia and China.
Only once, in 1963 – forty-two years ago – was the Council expanded to reflect growing numbers among the membership of the UN. All that happened then was the number of non-permanent members increased from six to ten.
Now Germany, which pays the third largest contribution to the UN budget (8.6%), wants to be a permanent member of the Security Council – a move opposed by Italy in the European Union. It is also opposed by the US. A proposed compromise is that the European Union should have one seat for the entire region, but neither the UK nor France is prepared to give up their place.
Japan also wants a permanent seat. Again its claim is its economic power and the fact that its contribution of 19.5% of the UN budget is second only to the US (22%). The US does support Japan, but significantly China vehemently opposes it.
Earlier this year when CARICOM Heads of Government went to Guyana for the inauguration of the new headquarters of the Secretariat, they were subjected to a long presentation from the Japanese Ambassador on the entitlement of Japan to a permanent Security Council seat.
Since them China has reportedly been doing the rounds of Caribbean countries (except for those that retain diplomatic ties with Taiwan) virtually calling on them to disassociate themselves from Japan’s efforts.
India and Brazil also want permanent seats based on the fact that they are large developing countries with some economic clout. But, Pakistan opposes India and Mexico and Argentina oppose Brazil.
Nonetheless, India and Brazil joined Japan and Germany to advance each other’s cause. Called the G4, this group then sought to secure African support by saying they would back two permanent seats for Africa. They did not say which two, leaving that for Africa to decide.
One of the contenders for Africa is its most populous nation, Nigeria. Hence, President Obasanjo has recently made flying visits to some Caribbean countries to advance Nigeria’s case. But, both Egypt and South Africa feel they should have permanent seats on the Security Council so this matter is far from decided.
In the meantime, those countries that know they have no chance of even being considered for a permanent seat have stated that “reform of the United Nations is not simply about reform of the UN Security Council”.
In very similar language CARICOM Heads of Government on July 7th and Asian Foreign Ministers on July 29th said that the current debate over UN reform should address the needs of the developing world. In the case of CARIICOM, reform of the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) was particularly mentioned.
The smaller countries of the world are right, of course, to focus on UN reform that seriously addresses development. The battle for permanent seats on the UN Security Council is one for the big boys whether they are developed countries or big developing ones. The only interest small countries should have in this is to ensure that the number of permanent members is increased to reflect developing country representation, and the veto power goes out the window. I suspect the latter will never happen.
As for ECOSOC, it has been a powerless body from its inception and is one of the least effective UN bodies. Reforming it would be like flogging a dead horse.
Of far greater importance to the Caribbean and other smaller countries throughout the world should be the creation of an Economic Security Council such as proposed by the Commission on Global Governance in 1995. Such a Council must, of course, have membership from the world’s richest nations, the G8, and it must also include China, India, Brazil, Nigeria and South Africa. But, it has to include Arab States, and the small states of the world, including the Caribbean, should have at least one voice on it.
The purpose of that Council would be primarily to recognise economic crisis in advance in states and regions, and act to correct them.
In any event, UN reform will happen at the pace of its most influential members and the biggest contributors to its budget. At the end of the day, that is the US first. Mr Bolton will have to be listened to, and, in turn, hopefully he will listen too.
(responses to: ronaldsanders29@hotmail.com)
Previous Page Print This Page.
Copyright© 2007 Caribbean Net News at www.caribbeannetnews.com All Rights Reserved
License is granted for free print and distribution.
