|
John R. Bolton, the US ambassador to the United Nations, in US media interviews called for a deadline for tangible rewards in the world body's reform.
Bolton said the United States does not want to wait until later next year when Secretary-General Kofi Annan's term ends.
While he argued that now is the opportune time to move, he was nursing a grievance against the current developments.
Though moving at a snail's pace, the UN reform is the point of no return for the international community.
This is the consensus the UN members have reached. And this is the way that they can make the UN a world organization for this century, not the last one.
Bolton responded to the slow developments with a warning: His country may look elsewhere to settle international problems if the UN does not shape up. He demanded management changes that are in the interest of the United States.
He applied the principle of the survival of the fittest to the organization. Some people in his country view the UN as a competitor in the marketplace for solving global problems. The organization must become better at solving problems and more responsive to US concerns, or Washington will seek other venues for international action.
Bolton's alternative for the world body is regional organizations.
The UN reform must move at a pace that is acceptable to most, if not all, of its members, based on constructive negotiations and consensus on the detailed tenants of the overhaul.
World leaders have called on Annan to present a series of specific reform proposals to the General Assembly in early 2006.
Bolton has voiced concern that key initiatives including the new ethics office, a human rights council and a peace-building commission would not get funded until the next budget negotiation cycle, in late 2007.
The United States contributes the largest part, 22 percent, of the UN regular budget. Bolton's remarks seem to give the world organization an ultimatum. Such a move will throw dirt on its credibility rather than help it emerge stronger and more effective in responding to challenges in the future.
Bolton's words came as developing countries resisted the US-backed initiatives aimed at streamlining the UN management practices. The Group of 77 recently issued a letter sharply criticizing plans by Annan to establish an ethics office and to review General Assembly-created programmes that are more than five years old to determine whether they should be shut down.
The one vote the United States has out of 191 at the UN does not please Bolton. His weapon to influence the organization is to pull the US purse strings shut to force reforms on it.
Bolton recommends delaying the two-year budget and replacing it with one that covers the first quarter of next year unless the reforms are met.
It is dangerous to turn the organization into a marketplace where membership and votes carry a price tag.
The UN is an indispensable international organization. While it is evident that the UN is in great need of reform, it is equally clear that a strong, credible UN is needed as never before.
There is no alternative to an organization that, for example, was able to co-ordinate the responses of 60 different donor countries, the military assets of 26 countries, and the efforts of hundreds of aid agencies days after the tsunami disaster struck the Indian Ocean.
At a time when international diplomacy is greatly needed to achieve UN reform, Bolton has started piling on the pressure. While he gropes for legitimacy, the battered, creaky leviathan of the UN already has it, and must be allowed to keep it.
(China Daily November 25, 2005)
|
