Last week's world summit at the UN proves that the organisation, according to American wishes, is dead in the water, writes Hassan Nafaa* Kofi Annan had imagined that the 60th anniversary of the UN was a good time to refurbish the organisation and shore up its international clout. Evidently, he was too optimistic. Annan thought that the UN, demoralised and weakened by spreading international chaos, could be salvaged. His assumptions were neither unreasonable nor excessively romantic. International organisations, just as nations and governments, are, at least theoretically capable of being rejuvenated, but only if decision-makers have the political will to do so, and only if leadership is assumed by a new generation determined to do things differently. In that particular aspect, organisations are at an advantage compared to people. People age and therefore need to pull out of public life at some point. But organisations can become young again. They can be steered back on track. Kofi Annan is not naïve. He knew that it would be hard in the current international climate to introduce a major reform of organisations created in the post- war period. This is why he proceeded with caution, making careful and quiet preparations. For some time now, he has been introducing budget cuts and streamlining administrative structures in line with the US vision of reform. He put together numerous task forces that examined the international situation, diagnosed the ills of the current international system, and looked into the various sources of threat to individuals, countries and societies. And his advisers came up with suggestions on how to address, remove, or eliminate existing threats. Annan got major international figures involved in this effort. He enlisted the help of distinguished people from across the globe, including Americans and Europeans. One team of extraordinary membership was the High-Level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change. Annan formed that panel in 2003 and asked it to look into current international threats and propose ways of addressing contemporary problems. The secretary-general then collated and summarised the conclusions and proposals he was given. He submitted these in the document In Larger Freedom, which he sent to all UN member states months ahead of the 60th session of the UN General Assembly. Annan was hoping that the document would rally the international consensus needed to restore vigour to the aging organisation. Once this document was circulated, Annan called on heads of state to come to the General Assembly session and discuss the matter over the first three days (14-16 September) of the meetings. In Larger Freedom is moderate in wording and ambition. Some would say its writers caved in to US pressure. And yet the report notes that the major threats to peoples the world over are poverty, disease, natural disasters, organised crimes, arms trafficking and drug dealing. The report does not discount other threats, such as terror and weapons of mass destruction, but it makes it plain that hunger victims outnumber terror victims. According to In Larger Freedom, one billion people live on less than one dollar a day each, and that every year 11 million child die before the age of five due to malnutrition and disease. The report calls on rich countries to fulfil their promise to cut poverty by half by 2015. The report does not suggest an increase in the proposed ratio of international aid, which is 0.7 per cent of national income. The secretary-general, however, called for a timetable to ensure that aid reaches that level by 2015. As of 2006, Annan said, rich countries should bring their expenditure on international assistance to at least 0.5 per cent of their national income. The secretary-general implicitly endorsed the idea of conditionality in international aid, in the sense that aid to Third World countries would be linked to the progress these countries make in human rights, good governance, free trade and similar matters. On the matter of mutual responsibility and accountability, Annan said that the international community has a collective responsibility to fight poverty, but is entitled in return to monitor spending and keep track of progress made on human rights and good governance. Theoretically speaking, this is fine. But who is to speak on behalf of the international community on matters of accountability? It would make sense that international organisations, including the UN and its agencies, would assume such a role. But the secretary-general does not go into that, for he knows that the US is opposed to any collective responsibility in matters of development. In Larger Freedom calls for the creation of an international fund to support democracy and for a human rights council to replace the UN Commission on Human Rights -- all of which are things that mirror US thinking. The report calls for amending the UN charter so as to abolish the references to "enemy states", a phrase that used to refer to axis countries such as Germany and Japan. Alarmingly, the same document calls for the abrogation of the Military Staff Committee (MSC), despite the central role the UN charter assigns to that body. The MSC is the entity responsible for determining the size and quality of forces member states should put at the disposal of the UN Security Council to enable it to intervene militarily when needed. It is the entity that should manage field operations once intervention is underway. It is true that the Cold War rendered the committee ineffective, but now that the Soviet Union is gone, there is no reason for the committee to remain inactive. Apparently, the secretary-general knew in advance that the US opposes the revival of the committee's work. The US consistently refuses to place any international force under a non-American command, even that of a committee subordinate to the UN Security Council. As for the enlargement and reform of the UN Security Council, the secretary-general offered no new proposals, asking the world to simply choose between two formulas suggested by the High-Level Panel. The panel had agreed that the total number of seats should be 24, divided equally among four continents, with six to each continent. There are two proposed formulas for change. According to the first formula, six new permanent seats would be created in addition to the current five. The six new permanent seats will be distributed as follows: two for Africa, two for Asia, one for Europe, and one for the Americas. The non-permanent seats, 13 in total, will be divided as follows: four to Africa, three to Asia, two for Europe, and four for the Americas. According to the second formula, the number of permanent seats remains five, but eight semi- permanent seats are to be created, each renewable every four years. These eight semi-permanent seats are to be divided equally among four continents, each getting two. The non-permanent seats, 11 in total, would be distributed as follows: four for Africa, three for Asia, one for Europe, and three for the Americas. Modest as these proposals are, they are a step towards reforming the UN. And yet the world summit failed to endorse any. This is hardly surprising. One would have guessed so since President Bush named John Bolton US ambassador to the UN. As I mentioned in an earlier commentary, "Bolton would set out to tackle the UN reform with a greater doze of vulgarity than usual, for he would have to block any international agreement that is not to the US liking. The first item of business for Bolton would be to scuttle any attempt to reach an agreement over the reform agenda at the UN General Assembly meetings in September." Sadly, I was right. The world summit has carried out US wishes and sent the UN into virtual retirement. Although the UN legal functions remain intact, the organisation can no longer get anything done unless on orders from the US. Any hope that the UN would serve as a forum for the collective management of the international system is gone. * The writer is professor of political science, Cairo University.
