April 3, 2005

Beleaguered Annan Proposes Overdue U.N. Reform

Soft-speaking Kofi Annan, United Nations Secretary- General, startled that deliberative body last week by a defiant: “Hell no!”

A reporter had asked him if he would resign as a result of widespread corruption in the Iraq oil-for-food program that involves his son, Kojo.

Trigger for the exchange was an interim report by Paul Volker, chairman of a commission investigating the scandal. Volker, former chairman of the Federal Reserve, was recruited for the task by Annan.

Volker said his fact-finding commission did not find “reasonably sufficient” evidence of wrongdoing by the secretary-general. Annan said he was “relieved to be exonerated.”

However, the interim report faulted him for not looking aggressively into the matter. A final report is promised by mid-summer.

Though Annan was not exonerated, the U.N. General Assembly gave him a three-minute standing ovation.

As the scandal was exposed, Annan proposed widespread reforms of the 50-year-old United Nations. This is johnny-come-lately. No matter. Embrace progress whatever its motivation.

The secretary-general proposes to “strengthen” the Security Council of l5 members.

At present, five of these are “permanent members” with veto power. They are United States, United Kingdom, Russia, China and France. Ten other nations are chosen for two-year terms.

Decisions on procedural matters are made by an affirmative vote of at least nine of the 15 members.

Decisions on substantive matters require nine votes, including concurrence of all five permanent members. The latter have a single-vote veto quaintly termed the “Rule of Great Power Unanimity.”

Annan proposes two ways to “strengthen” the Security Council by expanding it to 24 members:

• Add another six permanent members – one from Europe, one from the Americas, and two each from Asia and Africa – along with three, new, rotating non-permanent members.
• Or, add one non-permanent member and a third tier of eight “semi-permanent” members rotating every four years.

The secretary-general wants the General Assembly to decide the matter by September when heads of states – including President Bush -- meet in September at New York City.

German Foreign Minister Joschka Fisher says the proposals “show a healthy dose of realism.” His country has long lobbied for a permanent seat on the Security Council whose primary mission is war and peace.

Please, no outburst of irony.

The French foreign ministry issued a statement describing the proposals as an “excellent base” for discussion.

Please, no outburst of scorn.

Armin Laschet, chairman of the budding European Union’s foreign affairs committee, thinks the EU should be the sole representative of all its member states -- with two permanent seats rotated among them.

Please, no outburst of snickering.

Germany, Japan, India and Brazil have joined in a slate seeking permanent seats.

The African Union supports separate candidacies for Egypt, Kenya, Nigeria and South Africa.

The morning line on the upcoming brouhaha over choices puts best odds on India, Brazil, and Egypt.

Reformed Germany and Japan – with substantial infrastructure – are logical, permanent members. However, their WW II aggressions are remembered painfully.

For wild cards, think Italy and Free Iraq.

A second reform proposed by Annan has been greeted favorably – abolish the Human Rights Commission. It has been a travesty from the git-go, having been chaired by the likes of Libya, Zimbabwe, China, Malawi and Tunisia.

Annan proposes the commission be replaced by a smaller Human Rights Council. Its members would be elected by majority vote of the 191 U.N. General Assembly members.

The streamlined commission also would be held to specified standards of behavior under a realistic definition of terrorism.

Loubna Freih, director of Human Rights Watch, says Annan’s admission that the present commission has failed is very courageous.

“There is need to look in depth at what states are doing in their own countries, in their own legislation – whether it’s in the fight against terrorism, or repression of minorities, or freedom of expression, or freedom of religion, or the rights of women and children.”

Peter Splinter, representative of Amnesty International to the U.N., warns: “The proposed, politicized approach dealing with different country situations may not be resolved by proposed structural changes.”

Yes, but: “The journey of a thousand miles begins with one step.”

By the left foot, march.

Lindsey Williams is a Sun columnist who can be contacted at linwms@lindseywilliams.org