Monitoring Policy Making at the United Nations |
| ||||||||||||
<EM>Washington Post</EM>: "Mr. Annan's Proposals" Washington Post:
Editorial
"Mr. Annan's Proposals"
July 17, 1997
page A18
If the purpose of reform at the United Nations were merely to make the world body a more efficient conveyor of the diplomatic, peacekeeping, developmental and other services it provides its 185 members, then the argument would have been wrapped up years ago. In budget and management, the United Nations has been worked over before, and the changes now recommended by the secretary general, Kofi Annan, take the organization further along, though they do not meet all the "benchmarks" set unilaterally by the U.S. Congress.But of course efficiency is not what the argument has been all about. The real issue goes to the symbolic role the United States plays in the world. The United States is the single superpower, the most modern as well as the most powerful country, the one more than any other with deep interests in what goes on practically everywhere in the world. Should it therefore dictate to other members, define their common agenda, insist on prevailing? Or should it use the United Nations as a forum in which to cooperate as much as possible on shared interests, in which case a more conciliatory mode of engagement is required.
To put a point on it, is the United Nations to reflect the world view of Sen. Jesse Helms, who has said he believes the organization represents a conspiracy to diminish American sovereignty? Or is it to represent the mainstream view of the organization as a place where important American interests, though scarcely all of them, can be usefully defended and advanced by working with the other members?
No doubt the table of organization proposed by Mr. Annan could be further revised. No doubt some additional jobs could be closed down without serious harm to the organization. It is fair to put the United Nations' internal procedures to additional tests, even painful ones. But is is not fair -- it is disrespectful -- for the U.S. Congress simply to demand that the U.N. secretary general impose changes, such as reducing the American share of the budget or crediting the United States for money it has spent on its own to support peacekeeping. These changes require the formal amendment of separate treaties.
This whole business of U.N. reform has gone on for a very long time and with a heavy impact on the organization's functioning. Mr. Annan's proposals may not be the last word, but they provide a reasonable basis for early American resumption of a full role in serving its interests and accepting its obligations at the United Nations.
