AFRICANEWS

AFRICA

Changing the UN is not easy

The United States has pushed African diplomat Boutros Boutros- Ghali from the mantle of the United Nations in order to effect reforms at the world body, but it may find out that the reforms won't come easy.

With Dr Boutros Boutros-Ghali out of the top UN post and Ghanaian Kofi Annan set to take over, African countries, though given the chance to pick the next Secretary General will always feel wounded.

By forcing the Egyptian diplomat out of the United Nations, the US has signalled that it wants all Secretary-Generals to toe its line.

Dr Boutros-Ghali was sacrificed because the US Congress, dominated by Republicans was demanding reforms before it can pay the world body some $1.5 billion in overdue contributions.

But, the reforms the US seeks may prove unattainable. Downsizing the UN isn't all that easy, besides the various UN agencies are already cutting their staff.

While US President Bill Clinton resisted the Republican drive to cut the US budget, he cannot do the same to save 53,744 bureaucrats employed by the United Nations because his administration has already embarked on downsizing the American civil service.

Given that the UN staff serve the world's 5.5 billion population, it is not that big, besides many countries have many more employees. The US federal civil service is almost two million, while the various states also have employees.

If the UN staff is cut by half as advocated by the Republicans, every corner of the globe will feel the pinch since the UN staff are important to the economies of the countries where they are stationed.

The UN under Dr Boutros-Ghali grew bigger and bigger and even took on responsibilities that should have been left to nation states, say critics. For example critics say most UN conferences such as the Habitat II conference in Istanbul, the Beijing women's conference and the Cairo population conference discussed issues that should be left to nation states.

Critics say that instead of helping nation-states solve problems, the United Nations does the exact oppositeuit creates a disinsentive for states to handle problems that are their responsibility to resolve. They say that when every local or regional problem becomes a global one, the buck stops nowhere. Solving it becomes everyone's responsibility and thus no one's responsibility.

For example, the UN was embroiled in the Bosnia crisis from 1992 to early this year when it handed over to a Nato-led force. While the crisis should have been the responsiblity of European powers, the UN peace-keeping operation became an excuse for inaction by the Europeans and Americans who used the United Nations to pretend they were addressing the problem.

The Somali problem is another case. Dr Boutros-Ghali, on taking over UN leadership in January 1992, could not ignore the chaos in Somalia because he is an Egyptian. In fact he was so excited when in December 1992, he convinced the then US President George Bush to send troops to Somalia to help protect relief food. The US mission turned sour when US soldiers were killed in a battle with late Somali warlord Mohamed Farah Aideed's gunmen. The sight of dead Americans being dragged on the streets of Mogadishu left the US with only one optionupull out and let the UN do the job. The UN finally left and Somalia is now left to warlords.

Infact it is interesting to see how the United States agreed to send troops to Zaire to stop the suffering of refugees despite the Somalia experience. It can only be explained that as the sole superpower, the US must be on the lead.

Even though Canada agreed to lead the Zaire force, the UN Security Council delayed its vote until the US joined the club. So what are the goals of UN reform?

1. US radicals say the new Secretary-General should go in on Day One with a daring agenda to reduce bureaucracy, limit missions and refine objectives.
2. There must be at least 50 per cent cut in the entire UN bureaucracy. The Clinton administration has made the standard of reform a "zero growth budget". The radicals say this is inadequate. They say that so long as the staff remain in place, they will continue to find new missions to justify their existence.
3. There must be termination of uneccessary committees and conferences. Since its founding as an organization of five organs in 1945, literaly hundreds of UN agencies, commissions, committees and sub-committees have proliferated. Critics say some of the agencies should be scrapped.
4. Critics want the UN budgeting system to be overhauled. The Secretary-General currently has a budget of roughly $1 billion to pay for the activities of the Security Council, General Assembly, Economic and Social Council, Secretariat, and International Court of Justice, plus the administrative costs of numerous relief, development and humanitarian agencies. This budget is voted on by the General Assembly where the United States has no veto, and where every nation whether democratic or dictatorial, no matter how much or how little it contributes to the United Nations u has an equal vote. Critics say this system should be abolished, and the Secretary-General should have a bare-bones budget of some $250 million, and UN activities should be funded on a voluntary basis.

| CONTENTS | AFRICANEWS HOMEPAGE |

AFRICANEWS - Koinonia Media Centre, P.O. Box 8034, Nairobi, Kenya
tel/fax: 254.2.560385 - e-mail: [email protected]
AFRICANEWS on line is by Enrico Marcandalli