Citizens for Global Solutions

INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTIONS | UN Budget and Reform

BUDGETS, BOLTON, AND UN REFORM:
LOOKING FORWARD TO 2006

Analysis

An impending crisis looms at the United Nations in New York as U.S. Ambassador to the UN John R. Bolton seeks to scuttle reform proposals that are clearly in the American interest. Despite important progress made since the 2005 World Summit, when more than 150 world leaders agreed on the need for substantive changes at the UN, Bolton has done nothing to advance U.S. goals for reform. Instead, he has brought the UN to the brink of insolvency and ignored opportunities to reach agreements on important issues.

Bolton has threatened to block the UN’s two-year budget agreement unless U.S. demands for managerial reforms are heeded. The budget agreement, which must be completed by year-end for member states to begin paying their organizational dues, is scheduled for a General Assembly vote between December 23rd and 31st. According to Secretary General Kofi Annan, a failure to come to a consensus on the UN’s budget would result “in a serious financial crisis for the organization.”

Bolton’s stance is unreasonable because reforms have been ongoing since the September Summit. The UN Secretariat has completed managerial reforms, including an agreement to create an ethics office within the UN Secretariat, a strengthening of the financial audit system and implementing a whistleblower protection plan. In addition, a review of all UN mandates older than five years, a long-sought U.S. goal, is in the works. Rather than acknowledge the significant progress that has been made, Bolton is spending time on scare tactics and arbitrary deadlines on the most difficult and delicate negotiations that require deliberate diplomacy.

U.S. unilateral demands also jeopardize consensus around equally important reforms that it also supports, such as creating a new Human Rights Council and a Peace Building Commission. These changes are more attainable because they are widely supported by member states however, U.S. bullying on management reforms has undermined Member States’ willingness to compromise on these other US priorities.

U.S. Senators who thought appointing John Bolton as UN ambassador would be letting the “fox into the henhouse” can now comfortably say, “I told you so.” Despite the Secretary of State’s assurance before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that she would “manage” Bolton, he has ably managed to wreak havoc in his post at Turtle Bay.

In his first test as UN Ambassador, Bolton damaged a delicate consensus among Member States by introducing some 750 edits into the draft Outcome Document that was signed by world leaders at the 2005 World Summit. He galvanized developing nations against U.S. proposals for management reforms by deleting all references to Millennium Development Goals from the draft. Not even President Bush’s inclusion of U.S. support for these goals in his September 14th speech before the UN General Assembly has undone the damage caused by Bolton. His machinations also led to the disgraceful exclusion of an agreement on disarmament and nonproliferation at the World Summit.

But Bolton’s Summit brouhaha was quickly eclipsed by his quiet effort to implement a disastrous “pay what you wish” funding scheme for the United Nations. Bolton’s efforts to undermine the UN reform process were confusing because the White House publicly embraced a much different strategy.

After the 2005 World Summit, Bush Administration officials declared unequivocal support for a strengthened United Nations. Secretary of State Rice and Ambassador Bolton heralded a lasting revolution of reform, which would center on a series of changes to be pursued in parallel and with equal vigor by the U.S. These included a new Human Rights Council, the creation of a Democracy Fund and a Peace Building Commission, as well as a slew of management reforms to streamline the effectiveness of the UN Secretariat. Most, if not all, of these reforms were warmly received by UN Member States. An opportunity for substantive change and, subsequently, a much-needed rebirth for the UN, appeared to be near.

In late November, however, Bolton labeled the reform process ineffectual belittling the UN as “one of many competitors in a marketplace of global problem solving.” Since then, Bolton has continued to play brinksmanship, calling for a three-month interim budget agreement and threatening to withhold consensus from the UN’s two-year budget agreement unless management reform is accomplished.

But the U.S. has neglected to clearly lay out what reforms will satisfy its constant demands for management reform. The UN Secretariat is trying to comply. It has undertaken a review of all UN mandates over five years old – more than 1,000 – and, as previously mentioned, have taken strides to create an ethics office, whistleblower protection policy and stronger auditing mechanisms. But, if there is no clear U.S. ‘checklist’, no matter what progress is achieved, the U.S. can declare the UN a failure and marginalize it.

Despite countless promises that he would be the harbinger of change at the UN, Bolton is actively working in the opposite direction by belittling the significant progress made to date on a number of U.S. goals and unilaterally demanding the most difficult and delicate negotiations be completed first. Misleading rhetoric emanating from the Bush Administration may be obscuring Bolton’s deeds, but there is no mistake that his tactics are having disastrous effects.

The ramifications of Bolton’s latest actions at the UN are largely occurring beneath the surface of mainstream media attention. Despite Administration rhetoric that the three main U.S. reform goals are being pursued in parallel, and with equal conviction and commitment of resources, it is clear that this is a not the case.

Human Rights Council

One of the major developments to emerge from the 2005 World Summit was a commitment from Member States to replace the discredited Human Rights Commission with a new Human Rights Council (HRC). A reworked HRC could help focus attention on gross violations of human rights happening around the world and bring international pressure to bear on the perpetrators of such crimes. This initiative has been met with some opposition from isolated countries within the UN, often those with the worst records of human rights violations.

Despite the need for such a mechanism and clear, bipartisan consensus that the UN’s human rights mechanisms should be reformed in this direction, the U.S. has been largely absent from HRC negotiations. Ambassador Bolton has not attended any of the high-level discussions about the council although all other participating nations have sent their permanent representatives. U.S. reform goals are being relegated to more junior staff, who have no authority to negotiate seriously. As a result, spoiler states like Egypt, Pakistan, India, and Cuba are filing the power vacuum and poisoning the once-strong consensus on the issue.

The U.S. can and must stop these negotiations from failing. First, the U.S. must show it is willing to commit more than rhetoric to the fight by leading negotiations in New York. To start with, John Bolton must be present at negotiations and clearly enunciate the importance of a new HRC to the U.S. Second, President Bush should order the U.S. State Department to exert bi-lateral pressure in capitol to capitol communications through our ambassadors. And, ultimately, Secretary of State Rice should use the millions of dollars in foreign aid that we give to these ‘spoiler’ states as leverage. If the U.S. can’t deliver on this vital issue then it will never achieve the more controversial management reforms.

Peace Building Commission

Member States also agreed on creating a Peace Building Commission (PBC) within the UN during the 2005 World Summit. The PBC would identify states on the verge of collapse, provide assistance to prevent such collapses, and sustain efforts of the international community in post-conflict peace building, especially after global attention wanes from the crises. Moreover, it would provide a forum in which major stakeholders can share information about comprehensive post-conflict recovery efforts that take into account political, security, development and economic spheres.

PBC negotiations have also been marginalized by Ambassador Bolton in favor of management reforms. This is particularly disturbing because the PBC is perhaps the most easily achieved U.S. reform objective. It can be harvested if the U.S. leads the reform effort through constructive participation in negotiations

Moreover, scoring a success on the PBC would help garner support for U.S. management reform goals because the PBC is a major priority for African nations. But time is running out. The Outcome Document sets a deadline of December 31st for completion of negotiations on the PBC.

Conclusion

Ambassador Bolton is failing to heed the advice of the bi-partisan USIP taskforce on “America’s Interests and UN Reform.” Headed by Newt Gingrich, former Speaker of the House of Representatives, and George Mitchell, former Senate Majority leader this taskforce urged cooperation and diplomacy, not unilateral budget schemes, as means of reforming the UN. In a recent public event, Gingrich and Mitchell advised U.S. policy makers that;

“Reorganizing an institution with 191 members against their own short term instincts requires the state dept to engage in a world wide effort (in direct and exclusive concert with legislators) which can only be led by the secretary of state. Secretary Rice must decide that achieving a transparent and effective reformed UN is one of the top 3 important policy goals for the US. It is important not just to hope that Bolton will make further progress towards reform, but to recognize that it is significant for the US role in world that we be seen helping to reform the UN on behalf of the weakest and poorest people of world.”

Effective U.S. leadership in this reform effort requires sufficient resources, reasonable timeframes and deliberate diplomacy. There is widespread support among the UN’s 191 member states for revitalization and change at the UN. The United States should use a full diplomatic press to promote this cause. It is time for US officials to put an end to UN bashing and start leading at the UN.

Updated December 16, 2005

+ TAKE ACTION

UN REFORM PROGRAM