U.S. Remains Vague About U.N. Goals
Battle Over Bush's Bolton
Nomination Masks Administration's
Caution on Overhaul
By YOCHI J. DREAZEN 
Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
June 15, 2005; Page A4
The White House likes to cast the heated debate over John R. Bolton, its outspoken nominee to be ambassador to the United Nations, as a fight over reform.
We need to get our ambassador to the United Nations to help start reforming that important organization, President Bush said at a recent news conference. It makes sense to have somebody there who's willing to say to the United Nations, 'Listen, why don't you reform?' 
But Mr. Bolton has yet to lay out a concrete agenda for changing the world body if he is confirmed. And the Bush administration has yet to articulate its preferred answers to far-reaching questions about the institution's future -- such as whether and how to expand the Security Council -- that are being debated by U.N. officials and nations such as China, Russia, Germany and Pakistan.
Similarly, U.S. officials are resisting U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan's deadline to push through a slate of proposed changes by September, when the world body celebrates its 60th anniversary. U.N. diplomats say the U.S. also is sitting out the early horse-trading and politicking by diplomats hoping to succeed Mr. Annan when his term expires at the end of 2006.
The U.S.'s noncommittal stance seems to stem at least in part from its desire to avoid alienating close allies -- or diluting its own power.
The U.S. role in the reform debate is not nearly as vigorous as you'd expect, given how often it was talked about during the Bolton nomination, says Stephen Schlesinger, a professor at New School University in New York and author of a recent book on the U.N.'s founding. The U.S. is essentially playing possum on the entire reform question.
U.S. officials say the administration has taken the lead in trying to improve the world body's internal operations, for instance by giving Mr. Annan more power to fire incompetent or corrupt U.N. officials, expanding whistle-blower protections and more closely auditing U.N. peacekeeping operations that have been marred by a recent sex-abuse scandal.
The U.S. agenda on reform is not to constrain the U.N. or put it in a box because of its problems, said a senior State Department official. Our purpose is to revitalize the U.N. so it can better carry out the missions outlined in its charter.
The administration also is likely to embrace a large part of a U.N. overhaul report being presented today to Congress by a group headed by former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, a Republican, and former Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell, a Democrat. Among other things, that report will urge creation of an independent auditing board and a change in voting rules on spending decisions to give more weight to countries like the U.S. that pay most of the U.N.'s bills.
And the White House hopes to become more visible on changes at the U.N. when -- or if -- Mr. Bolton is confirmed by the Senate. The blunt arms-control specialist has run into opposition from members of both parties, and Democrats have blocked a final vote on his nomination because of a standoff with the White House over access to classified government intercepts obtained by Mr. Bolton.
Yesterday, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist said he hoped to cut off debate later this week. Aides said a vote to do so was likely tomorrow. But Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid said his party remains united in blocking a vote unless the White House provides more information. If no resolution is reached, President Bush could skirt the Senate by making Mr. Bolton a recess appointment once Congress breaks for July 4.
Talk of U.N. overhaul has been sparked by a wave of scandals and growing questions, even from many supporters, about the agency's relevance in an age of terrorism and a more-unilateral U.S. foreign policy.
Many U.N. officials were jarred by the U.S.'s decision to invade Iraq in 2003 despite strong opposition from the world body. More recently, the U.N.'s credibility has been strained by revelations of mismanagement and corruption in the oil-for-food program it oversaw in Iraq before the invasion and by evidence that U.N. peacekeepers in Africa had sexually abused women they were sent to protect.
Earlier this year, Mr. Annan laid out several steps for an overhaul, including granting the secretary-general more power to oversee day-to-day operations, allocating more money to development, creating a standing peace-building commission to keep countries emerging from conflict from reverting to war and replacing the U.N.'s discredited human-rights commission with a more selective panel.
Mr. Annan's most controversial proposal involves expanding the powerful Security Council to make it better reflect new political and economic realities. But that has been sticky. Japan and Germany both want permanent seats on the Security Council, but Mexico and Canada back a competing proposal that would add only renewable, nonpermanent seats.
The U.S. has endorsed Mr. Annan's proposals for the peace-building commission and new human-rights organization, and has lauded the secretary-general's willingness to put terrorism near the top of the world body's agenda. It has indicated general support for Mr. Annan's call for developed countries to increase aid to poor nations, though it is unlikely to raise its giving to the level suggested by Mr. Annan.
But the U.S. has strongly resisted Mr. Annan's call for a September decision. We should not be bound by artificial deadlines, said Shirin Tahir-Kheli, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's senior adviser on U.N. reform, in a speech to the General Assembly in April.
And any Security Council expansion would need to be ratified by a two-thirds vote in the Senate, where it would face a difficult fight because of anti-U.N. feelings on the part of some Republican lawmakers anxious to preserve U.S. power at the world body.
The administration already faces one U.N.-related fight on Capitol Hill. This week the House is considering a bill that mandates specific U.N. measures, such as requiring several U.N. programs currently funded under the world body's general budget to raise money on their own from governments and individual donors. It includes a provision withholding U.S. dues -- which currently account for about 22% of the annual U.N. budget -- if the changes aren't carried out. The U.N. took the unusual step of dispatching a senior official to Washington to testify publicly against the bill.
On this issue, at least, Mr. Annan can count on strong White House support. The Bush administration has publicly criticized the bill and privately lobbied against its passage. U.N. officials said the White House has assured them that it won't become law.
---- Neil King Jr. contributed to this article.