Little consensus on what future holds for United Nations
Annan's plans meet resistance from US, others
By Joe Lauria, Globe Correspondent  |  June 22, 2005
UNITED NATIONS -- Secretary General Kofi Annan envisions a United Nations that dramatically reduces global poverty and disease, establishes a human rights council to indict abusive governments, and employs an enlarged Security Council that agrees on a definition of terrorism and how to fight it. 
But with the interests of dozens of nations and regions at odds, and with the United States pushing its own agenda for change, little consensus has emerged so far on Annan's wide-ranging ideas to transform the world body into a more efficient and more credible body.
Weakened by numerous controversies, including suggestions last week that he may have known about a UN oil-for-food contract awarded to a company employing his son, the embattled secretary general still hopes his plans will be endorsed by the largest gathering of world leaders in history at a summit celebrating the UN's 60th anniversary here in mid-September. A successful conference could burnish his image and seal his legacy, UN officials say.
''It obviously makes it harder, but that doesn't mean that he isn't putting his full efforts into it, and at this point we are reasonably hopeful that we are going to see some positive results in September when the summit takes place, said Fred Eckhard, Annan's chief spokesman.
Some analysts take a dimmer view.
''I would be surprised if he survived until September, said Nile Gardiner, a fellow at the conservative Heritage Foundation. ''I think it is going to be very, very difficult for Kofi Annan to be able to push through UN reform proposals.
''He's a lame duck, and a wounded lame duck, so he's not going to carry a lot of weight, said Ed Luck, a UN specialist at Columbia University.
Annan insists he isn't going anywhere, and his aides laugh at talk that he will be forced to quit. Even so, the competing visions of the United States and other nations regarding UN changes on security, human rights, development, and management are jeopardizing Annan's program, according to current and former UN officials, diplomats, and specialists.
The secretary general laid out his goals in March:
Enlarging the Security Council either with six new permanent seats or with eight seats in a new class of members, which would serve for four years, subject to renewal, plus one new nonpermanent seat.
Requiring council approval for military action.
Creating a new human rights council.
Reaching a common definition of terrorism.
Halving world poverty by 2015.
Implementing buyouts of UN staff and reviews of programs to streamline management.
Washington opposes many parts of Annan's plan. When they do agree, on such issues as terrorism and management reform, other nations or regional groups are opposed.
The United States counters Annan's suggestions for Security Council enlargement, wanting to add only Japan and one developing nation to the five existing permanent members, but without veto powers.
Washington and Annan clash on the role of the Security Council to authorize war. The United States reserves the right to use force without UN approval, while the UN Charter says the council gets the last word.
On development, President Bush does not agree with Annan's proposal that the United States devote 0.7 percent of its annual gross domestic product to foreign aid. The United States now donates about 0.19 percent, or about 19 billion, for that purpose.
Jeffrey Sachs, the former Harvard economist who leads the UN's campaign to halve world poverty by 2015, said the campaign would fail without US support.
''I hope the Bush administration will be more consistent with the world's needs, Sachs said. ''Every day, 20,000 people are dying of extreme poverty, and it's too much.
Annan and the United States agree on establishing a human rights council, but Washington wants only democracies elected to the panel, while Annan would allow any nation to join with two-thirds General Assembly support.
Annan and the United States also agree on defining terrorism as political acts of violence by nonstate actors targeting civilians. Some Arab nations, however, oppose that definition.
On reforming the UN bureaucracy, the United States and Annan differ only on the details, while developing nations want to preserve programs and UN jobs.
Although UN officials remain optimistic, analysts say that the only Annan change with a real chance is the creation of a peace-building commission to help nations emerge from conflict.
''This will be the big headline coming out of the summit, predicted John Ruggie, a former top Annan aide who teaches at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government. ''It's the one major proposal everyone likes. http://cache.boston.com/bonzai-fba/File-Based_Image_Resource/dingbat_story_end_icon.gif \* MERGEFORMATINET