Should the UN be reformed or disbanded? wonders Nihal Fahmy* Once again UN reform is on the table; indeed proposals for making the UN more effective, more accountable and more democratic pop up about once a decade. This year, momentum built again with strong indications that a general overhaul and housecleaning is in the offing. This month placed UN reform front and centre on the agenda in Washington. One Congressionally-mandated effort was the publication of the report of the Task Force on the UN on 15 June, entitled American Interests and UN Reform. The work has been underway since December under the bipartisan chairmanship of former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and former Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell, and staffed by six of Washington's major think tanks gathered from across the political spectrum. The 154-page report proposes a package of practical reforms in areas ranging from early action to prevent genocide, the abolition of the existing Commission on Human Rights and the establishment of a new human rights body, management and personnel reform within the UN secretariat, improved peacekeeping procedures -- including "zero tolerance" for sexual exploitation and abuse -- the adoption of a common definition of terrorism and embracing a poverty- reduction agenda that goes beyond redistribution to include a strong commitment to the promotion of effective governance and economic growth. Issues not addressed in the report include the composition of the Security Council -- should Japan have a permanent or renewable seat? Or Germany? India? Or Brazil? And the withholding of UN dues as a means of leverage, an approach embraced by House International Relations Committee Chairman Henry Hyde but opposed by the Bush administration. The report, therefore, is not as tough as conservatives would have liked; they attribute this weakness to bipartisanship. The proposals of the Henry J Hyde United Nations Reform Act of 2005, adopted by the House of Representatives, make no compromise. Tough budgetary reforms are outlined along with changes in the UN voting system towards weighted voting based on countries' assessments. Among the proposals is the shifting of some 18 UN programmes to voluntary funding as well as cutting the fund for conferences, the largest single line item in the UN budget. Yet the most powerful of all proposals in the Hyde bill is the threat of withholding up to 50 per cent of US contributions to the regular UN budget upon condition that the US secretary of state certifies that at least 32 out of 39 proposed reforms have taken place. This type of thinking, that reform of UN can only happen by threatening unilateral cuts in budget contributions, is not only unfortunate and counterproductive but disastrous to US interests at a time when America's image is already damaged in the eyes of most nations of the world. It is important to note here that the UN is an association of sovereign states that agreed, when they ratified the UN Charter, to share the expenses of the organisation "as apportioned by the General Assembly". The scale of assessment, which determines the contribution of each member-state, is renegotiated every six years, and every year the General Assembly passes a resolution, supported by the US, calling upon all members to pay their contributions promptly, in full and without conditions. So negotiation, not the "big stick" approach, as the Gingrich- Mitchell report has described it, is the best means of ensuring change and reform. Also, the UN does not exist in a vacuum, or for its own sake. It is a forum in which nations can come together to find common solutions to common problems, and hence it is the instrument through which to pursue those solutions. The global threats and problems of today's world face rich and poor countries alike, though the failure of the review conference on the Nuclear Non- Proliferation Treaty in May is indicative of the gap among states on one of those threats, namely the threat of weapons of mass destruction. Political leaders need to give greater urgency to such problems. In dealing with them the need for a stronger and more representative Security Council is a top priority. The issue of Security Council expansion should not be taken lightly, reduced in our thinking to a kind of parlour game on the diplomatic cocktail circuit. Nothing could be more naïve. The Security Council was formed after World War II with the winners giving themselves permanent seats and a veto. The council's membership has been enlarged from 11 to 15 but permanent members haven't changed and nor has the power of veto. In effect, the status quo of the permanent members has not changed since the council's first meeting in 1946. Balking on Security Council reform will weaken its standing in the world. The UN is a venue for seeking consensus on global issues from nuclear proliferation to poverty reduction. Despite its flaws, the UN is needed by the US as much as by other nations. Taking a hammer to it will not reform it. And a word of advice to US officials: visible effort towards seeking consensus increases the legitimacy of US actions. Thus, the US must answer this question: does it want a world with a reformed UN or a world with no UN at all? * The writer is professor of international organisations at the American University in Cairo
