UN diplomats agree limited reform package

By Mark Turner
September 14, 2005
Financial Times
http://news.ft.com/cms/s/16093a92-24be-11da-a5d0-00000e2511c8.html
United Nations diplomats last night patched together a limited reform package that fell substantially short of secretary-general Kofi Annan's original agenda, but may be enough to avert cries of total failure as 150 leaders gather for today's UN summit.
Weary negotiators abandoned calls to revamp the system to curb nuclear proliferation and, while resolving to establish a new Human Rights Council, deferred substantial debate on how it would work.
The text of the document, which will now be presented to world leaders at the summit, condemns terrorism but shies away from efforts to define it. Language on increasing aid to developing countries moved little beyond existing commitments, aid agencies complained, and Security Council reform was postponed.
The document does create a new UN peace-building commission, to help countries recover from conflict, although many details still need to be worked out. It also asserts an international responsibility to protect populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity, where their own government are unable or unwilling to do so.
We are prepared to take collective action, in a timely and decisive manner . . . should peaceful means be inadequate and national authorities manifestly failing to protect their populations, the document says.
UN officials also claimed progress on management reform. The text did not explicitly give Mr Annan the freedom from General Assembly micromanagement he had sought, but backed moves to ensure ethical conduct, more extensive financial disclosure for UN officials, and enhanced protection for those who reveal wrongdoing in the organisation.
There are things we didn't get, said John Bolton, US ambassador to the UN. But he said he was pleased with the outcome as a good first step. Emyr Jones Parry, the UK ambassador, called the outcome a tremendous achievement. According to another European diplomat, the outcome was good enough . . . not as good as it might have been, but better than it could have been.
Amnesty International, the pressure group, called the proposed text on the Human Rights Council woefully inadequate. Oxfam International, the aid agency, welcomed the responsibility to protect but otherwise saw very little to celebrate.