From the Toronto Globe & Mail
By JEFFREY SIMPSON
Friday, September 16, 2005 Page A21
That was the sound of one hand clapping at the United Nations this week.
What emerged from a two-year effort of reform could have been so much better. But, in the end, a combination of U.S. Republicans, a handful of thuggish regimes and the self-interest of other nations diluted the effort.
The Bush administration fundamentally dislikes the UN as it is, whereas other countries like it for some of the same reasons. The Bushites don't enjoy being told what to do, or what not to do, by just about any international institution, including the UN.
So when John Bolton arrived this summer as U.S. ambassador, despite failing to receive Senate approval, he immediately began doing what he likes best: throwing his neo-conservative weight around. Specific commitments were to be avoided in the reform effort's draft text, because these might bind a country that does not want to be bound, except if it suits its purposes.
The dozens of amendments Mr. Bolton proposed effectively shredded the draft that so many nations had been developing. Some of the intricate trade-offs that had been negotiated became unstuck when the packet of U.S. demands arrived.
When asked this week why the eventual compromises in reform were so disappointing, Mr. Bolton shrugged and said, in so many words: What do you expect from a dysfunctional body? Talk about a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Thug regimes, of course, looked askance at human-rights provisions, fearing they might be called to account. Some of them blocked immediate creation of a smaller, presumably more effective, Human Rights Council to replace the discredited Human Rights Commission on which sat such stalwart countries as Sudan and Libya.
Small states opposed strengthening the secretary-general's office, lest even more power leech from the General Assembly, the forum they dominate, to the Security Council, the province of the five veto-wielders. Nor did they much favour making the UN's bureaucracy more efficient and accountable, since they don't pay much of the institution's bill and stuff their nationals in various lucrative positions.
Predictably, the whole question of changes to the Security Council's composition went nowhere or, rather, has been delayed. Not only did no consensus emerge on a new structure, national and regional rivalries plagued the process of selecting possible new permanent-member countries.
The Chinese opposed Japan; the Italians opposed Germany; some Latin Americans didn't like Brazil; the Africans couldn't agree on which countries. None of the five veto-wielders really favoured new entrants into their club, at all. And so on.
A quite impressive report from the High-Level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change had preceded the recent negotiations. Among other things, the report outlined a definition of terrorism, and gave no justification whatsoever for it. This was too strong for some states that conflated terrorism and movements of national liberation. So out went the definition.
That same report had recommended a Peacebuilding Commission to prevent failed states from falling into anarchy and to lift them out of it. This proposal was too strong for member-states that fear UN intervention in countries' internal affairs, so the commission will only be encouraged to intervene after states have failed.
The UN agreement also saw expunged measures designed to halt nuclear proliferation, a decision Secretary-General Kofi Annan called a "disgrace." U.S. conservatives disapprove of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, whereas other states want nuclear weapons or, like Iran, are seeking to develop them.
Not all was lost. There were ambitions expressed, but without precise commitments, toward poverty elimination. The UN formally endorsed a concept pioneered by Canada, among others, that recognized the responsibility of the world, acting through international institutions, to protect civilians facing "genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity." Mention was also made of ensuring "human security."
These concepts have formed part of Canada's foreign policy since being developed under the Chrétien regime by such people as former foreign affairs minister Lloyd Axworthy and former UN ambassador Paul Heinbecker. These and other believers in these ideas can be satisfied that they did not work in vain.
A lot of other believers in deep UN reform did work in vain, however. They tried to create an institution that was leaner in management, possessed of sharper goals, reinforced by new structures to reflect the world's challenges and power alignments.
What they got produced the sound of one hand clapping. jsimpson@globeandmail.ca