North and South employ different tactics to secure permanent seats on the Security Council and advance their agendas, writes Gamal Nkrumah Never has there been so much uncertainty over the future shape of the United Nations though things may, say pundits, become clearer by December. The fact that the United States welcomed a compromise package approved on Tuesday by the UN General Assembly helped to dispel at least some of the clouds. The 35-page document is expected to be commended by the 191 UN member states. "Obviously we didn't get everything we wanted," said UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan. "All of us would have wanted more, but we can work with what we have been given and I think it is an important step forward." Notwithstanding the secretary-general's face-saving remarks, Africa was once again disappointed at being sidelined as the US and other wealthy nations steadfastly refused to move on aid to the continent. The US, on the other hand, was upbeat as the UN's 60th anniversary celebrations approach. The timing of the release of the Independent Enquiry Commission's report by Paul Volcker on the mismanagement of the UN's $100 billion oil-for-food programme in Iraq placed UN Secretary-General Annan in a compromising position even as he prepared to welcome the 175 heads of states and governments converging on New York. While the report did not directly implicate Annan in any wrongdoing it pointed an accusing finger at his son, Kojo, and drew attention to the nepotism and corruption endemic in an organisation burdened by red tape and bureaucracy. The world body, already suspected of being inept, now risks becoming a lame duck. The release of the Human Development Report last week also left a bitter taste for those who want to advance the agenda of the Millennium Development Goals and reduce poverty by 2015. The negotiations continue endlessly at the UN, and the situation on the ground worsens. The rich, industrially advanced North and the poor, developing South have radically different hopes for UN reform. But the North itself is divided over how to deal with the poor. Europe, which provides 38 per cent of the UN's budget, is determined to meet the UN target of spending 0.7 per cent of its gross national product ($103.43 billion) on development aid by 2015. The US balks at the idea while Jose Manuel Barroso, president of the EU commission -- the EU is the world's largest aid donor -- insists "the most important thing is commitment to the development goals." The issue has fuelled mistrust between the EU and the US on several key points. According to the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), the Paris-based intergovernmental think-tank, aid to the developing countries of the South actually increased last year -- an increase in real terms of 4.6 per cent. The 0.25 per cent of GDP offered by rich nations in aid in 2004, however, falls well short of UN targets. The 60th anniversary threatens to degenerate into a talking shop with the language used a kind of Ivy League patois, polished, erudite and exceptionally prolix. But will it feed the hungry and help the poor? What, for that matter, is there left to be said about the poor? Haven't they been discussed enough? What they need now are not more words but actions. It is against this backdrop that the squabble over UN Security Council seats is taking place. The African Union insists on two permanent, veto-exercising seats for Africa. The powerful Group of Four -- Brazil, Germany, India and Japan -- have suggested Africa gets two permanent non-veto-wielding seats. Annan, the seventh UN secretary-general and the first to be elected from the ranks of the UN's staff, is highly esteemed in Africa, the continent of his birth. However, though he initially enjoyed Washington's favour, the US now treats him with caution. He did, after all, characterise the US-led invasion of Iraq as an illegal act that contravened the UN charter. The forces of good at the UN need a counterbalance, it seems. Annan, a strong advocate of the expansion of the 15-member UN Security Council, is unlikely to be able to withstand American pressure. John Bolton, US ambassador to the UN, was quoted in The New York Times recently as saying that "the kind of cultural revolution that we need in the United Nations [concerns] management and governance", and Bolton's version of good governance is not going to dovetail neatly with Annan's own plans for reform. Whether Annan, facing increasing pressure from the US and mounting criticism of his own handling of several key UN initiatives, can actual preside over the reforms necessary to make the UN relevant in the 21st century, remains an open question. Add to this growing animosity towards the North on the part of the countries of the South as they struggle to keep a footing in the shifting sands of the new world order and the picture that emerges as the UN celebrates its 60th anniversary is far less rosy than the one its secretary-general habitually paints.
