Monitoring Policy Making at the United Nations |
| ||||||||||||
James Paul "Slanted US Agenda Transforms UN" "Slanted U.S. Agenda Transforms U.N."
James A. Paul
In These Times
April, 1992
Secretary General Boutros-Ghali is a man with a mission. Since taking over in January as head of the United Nations, he has radically reorganized the world body, firing 14 top administrators and abolishing a dozen operating units. In addition, rumors abound of upcoming massive staff layoffs.Any resemblance to Reagan-era domestic reforms is more than coincidental. Boutros-Ghali's changes mirror ideas spawned during the last decade by the Heritage Foundation, the right-wing Washington think tank. During the 80's, Heritage published more than 100 policy documents that deeply influenced not only Ronald Reagan's but also George Bush's approach to the U.N.
The Heritage critique of the U.N. blended technocratic jargon and Cold Warrior inflammatory rhetoric. But its main complaint is the U.N.'s alleged bias against laissez-faire capitalism. "The war against economic freedom, the free enterprise system and multinational corporations permeates the U.N. structure," affirmed a Heritage report in 1984. "This ideology... is antithetical to U.S. interests and policies," and it ensures "that developing countries remain perpetually dependent on U.S. and Western aid and perpetually hostile to American values and principles."
Over the years, Heritage has attacked almost every facet of the U.N. system, calling the library a "front for Soviet disinformation" and the Department of Public Information "a soapbox" for those who "believe in the forced redistribution of global resources." But Heritage has directed most of its savage attacks at the economic and social agencies because of their emphasis on planning, regulation and a more egalitarian approach to world development. Not surprisingly, these agencies took the heaviest hits in the recently announced reforms.
Boutros-Ghali collapsed five independent development bodies -- including the former United Nations Centre on Transnational Corporations (CTC), the Center for Science and Technology for Development and the Department of Technical Cooperation for Development -- into one umbrella agency. The new agency, first called the Department for Economic Development (DED), was renamed the Department of Economic and Social Development a week later: Its original acronym (sounds like "dead") had spawned too many bitter jokes among staffers.
At his first staff briefing in late February, the head of the new department, Ji Chaozhu, announced that virtually all general research, policy-oriented studies and intergovernmental coordination will be terminated and replaced by narrowly-focused technical assistance programs. This effectively ends regional or global approaches to economic problems -- an irony at a time of rapid global economic integration.
In some research-oriented agencies such as the former CTC, more than half of all program activities could stop, if Ji's announced goals are carried out. Programs likely to get the ax include pioneering work on environmentally sustainable development and original research on foreign direct investment by multinational corporations. First to go, according to inside sources, will be so-called "normative" research, such as efforts to end apartheid or to establish codes of behavior for multinational firms.
Business, as usual: The research blackout pleases those international business groups that didn't want the U.N. meddling in their affairs. An angry U.N. administrator, who requested anonymity, put it this way: "Our conservative critics complain that U.N. studies are insidious: They lead eventually to international regulations or treaties, which interfere with the marketplace and tie the hands of transnational firms. ... They figure if they can eliminate the research, no one will notice the problems -- like toxic wastes or dangerous pharmaceuticals!"
Official announcements have emphasized that the reforms will bring "efficiency" and "avoid duplication," but they have kept mum about the research cutbacks and the overall impact on social and economic programming.
There is also official embarrassment over the fact that, in spite of the new Secretary General's promise that improving the status of women in the organization would "receive our full attention," the only women in the top U.N. jobs (two out ot 48) lost their posts in the shuffle.
When Boutros-Ghali announced his first changes, he told reporters he had studied no less than 22 different proposals, including a report from a special groups of ambassadors released late in 1991. But many doubt whether he had the time or the inclination to peruse these documents. In addition, according to inside sources, he did not consult with any of the U.N's top administrators before launching his reforms. He moved so swiftly that many staffers interviewed by In These Times were left wondering if he was briefed on reforms directly by the U.S. mission, though the mission vehemently denies the charge.
Whatever deals were struck, Heritage studies anticipated most changes at the U.N., from the merged Department of Conference Services (Heritage called it "Moscow's bastion in Manhattan") to the reduced importance of Disarmament Affairs and the Law of the Sea. Heritage's attacks on the U.N.'s environmental work show up in a radical downgrading of environmental concerns in the new structures -- a grim message only three months before the U.N.-sponsored "Earth Summit" in Rio in June.
Boutros-Ghali is expected to turn his scapel soon to U.N. operations in Geneva and Vienna. Many think that Vienna, where a large number of social programs are headquartered, will suffer even more traumatic surgery than New York. An early prognosis: Orders have arrived from Manhattan blocking new research initiatives in Vienna.
To ensure that reform "momentum" continues, the Secretary General limited all appointments to just one year and announced that his new organizational plan will have only "interim" status. In mid-February, he also took the unprecedented step of asking President Bush to name a candidate for the new position of Under Secretary General for Administration and Management -- an enormously influential post that combines budget supervision with control of all appointments The new chief, former U.S. Attorney General Dick Thornburgh, took office in early March and is said to be planning to appoint a Heritage Foundation person as one of his top aides.
Well-informed sources expect that, in the name of efficiency and austerity, Thornburgh will pare down budgets and strip away hundreds of research and program staff. The U.S. will continue to withhold funds (that, too, was a Heritage strategy) and use the pressures of the financial crisis (see In These Times, March 11), to bend the U.N. to its reform measures. Though there is much talk that the U.N. "costs too much," its budget is exceedingly small by U.S. government standards.
From peacekeeper to war-maker? In the midst of the cuts, Boutros-Ghali has expanded one program area: military operations. These will be coordinated by a new Office for Peacekeeping and two related Departments of Political Affairs. The long-dormant Military Staff Committee also will be revived. And there is even talk of a permanent U.N. military force that can be deployed in any emergency. For all the concern with economizing, these new military operations will cost billions, far outstripping the small budget savings from pared-down social and economic programs.
Many U.N. staff, believing that wars have social and economic causes, question the cuts in "preventive" programs, while the organization's purely military functions are growing. In fact, many uneasily find themselves working for an organization that increasingly looks like a war-making body -- even if its military campaigns are being waged in the name of peace. Though the reform package reflects Washington's priorities, it could not have been imposed by the U.S. alone.
In fact, many reforms have the support of other major powers -- especially Britain, Japan and Germany. Together they have been able to out-muscle the opposition. The Scandinavians, Holland, India and most Third World countries remain advocates of economic and social programs, but they failed to block the Secretary General's moves in recent General Assembly debates.
The center of gravity at the U.N. has now shifted away from the General Assembly, which has the large Third World voting block. The Security Council, dominated by the richest an most powerful countries, has taken the lead, using military actions to shape the New World Order.
As for the economic development programs, well-informed sources say that the U.S. is pushing to shift global economic policy as much as possible away from the U.N. where poverty and inequality are still liable to creep into discussions. Washington prefers to turn to the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank and the General Agreements on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) -- institutions run by the rich countries and always dependable advocates of deregulation and unfettered private enterprise.
The U.N. will never be the same, but U.S. reforms face increasing opposition. An emerging split on environmental issues between Washington and the Europeans may save some programs. Third World countries are slowly rallying in defense of development an social projects. And advocacy organizations are beginning to mobilize their members to oppose some of the cuts.
Long bureaucratic battles and public debates lie ahead, but, for now, few outside the U.N. are aware of how much is at stake.
