U.N. Reform Bid Exposes Its Woes The near collapse and dilution of Annan's bold plan point up the world body's flaws. The chief calls the outcome a solid start for change. By Maggie Farley September 14, 2005 Los Angeles Times http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-un14sep14,1,3884146.story?coll=la-headlines-world UNITED NATIONS — The U.N. World Summit on poverty and reform that opens today was supposed to be a watershed moment that breathed new life into the troubled world body and shored up its beleaguered leader, Secretary-General Kofi Annan. But as diplomats approved the summit's centerpiece document Tuesday after weeks of bitter negotiations that eviscerated many of Annan's boldest reform proposals, many delegates expressed dismay that the meeting was highlighting the U.N.'s core problems rather than solving them. Though U.N. officials tried to put the best face on the watered-down package of goals and structural changes concerning issues including human rights and terrorism, even Annan called the deletion of a section on nuclear disarmament a disgrace and an example of how the United Nations had failed. How Annan's ambitious plan nearly collapsed and why says much about the way the U.N. works, and doesn't. The secretary-general is treated more like an employee of the member nations than their leader, which made it difficult for him to guide the process. A culture of consensus allowed a handful of nations with entrenched interests to shape the outcome. Though the final product retained little of the sweep and aspirations embodied in his original proposal, Annan framed it as a solid beginning for long-term reform. It would be wrong to describe this process as a failure. It is in the nature of the organization — when you have 191 member states you do not always get what you want, he said. But the process is not over. As I said some years ago, reform is a process, not an event. Annan began the reform process in earnest two years ago, seeking to restore the U.N.'s credibility after the U.S. and Britain invaded Iraq without the world body's blessing. He told the General Assembly that the U.N. had come to a fork in the road and must reinvent itself or fade into irrelevance. In 2004, after a yearlong study, a panel of international experts recommended radical changes to help the organization better meet the challenges of the 21st century, including preemptive war, nuclear proliferation, terrorism, poverty and disease. In March, Annan built on the panel's report to propose an ambitious plan that said the U.N. was built on four pillars — peace, security, development and human rights — and that the world was safer if countries acted together. Recognizing that nations would act first to protect their own interests, Annan urged them to not cherry-pick the package, but consider it as a whole and give something to gain something. But in the following months, talks were distracted by the most contentious issue, Security Council expansion, and stalled by a few nations that believed they were better served by no change than the sweeping reforms Annan proposed. Meanwhile, Annan's ability to push the reforms behind the scenes was undermined by the revelations of corruption and abuse in the U.N.-run oil-for-food program for Iraq. Kofi was doing it out of the noblest of motives, but didn't have the moral authority to carry it out, said Stephen Schlesinger, author of Acts of Creation, about the 1945 founding of the United Nations. He needed to do the political groundwork first, but he just threw the reforms out there, thinking the moral imperative would be enough. Parochial interests quickly surfaced. Nations including Pakistan and China objected to Security Council expansion because their regional rivals, India and Japan, respectively, aspired to new permanent seats as part of it. Egypt wanted the struggle against foreign occupation to be excluded from any definition of terrorism. Cuba and others dug in their heels over the creation of a human rights body that would make it tougher for accused violators to be on the panel. The U.S. said it would rather delete sections related to its key priorities — disarmament, a new human rights body, management reform and financing of development — than to sign on to something half-baked. As a result, diplomats had still not agreed on a reform document the day before world leaders began to arrive to endorse it. In the middle of the night, U.N. experts unilaterally created a new document they hoped everyone could agree on and later Tuesday told negotiators to take it or leave it. They accepted it. Cuban Ambassador Orlando Gual said it took a last-ditch, undemocratic, nontransparent act to bolster the U.N.'s aspirations toward democracy, transparency and efficiency. It's a Frankenstein, he said. That's the best we could do? Nevertheless, diplomats pointed to a few achievements. For the first time, U.N. members formally embraced the notion that the international community has a responsibility to intervene to protect populations from genocide or war crimes when a national government is unwilling to do so, a proposal known as the Responsibility to Protect. When Annan first proposed it in 1999, it provoked intense opposition by nations that said it would violate their sovereignty. The document also creates a Peacebuilding Commission to help nations recovering from conflict, and establishes a new Human Rights Council to replace the current, discredited body. The U.N. Secretariat pried a bit of power away from the General Assembly to make decisions on hiring, budget and oversight, a partial win for the U.S. But there were many more disappointments than successes, diplomats said. Developing nations wanted stronger commitments to break down trade barriers and to oblige wealthy nations to pledge more money for foreign aid. The U.S. was unhappy to not win clear criteria for the new human rights council, or a clear definition of terrorism. But Annan said the most significant gap in the document was the absence of any mention of nuclear disarmament and nonproliferation, an omission made at Washington's insistence. This is a real disgrace, Annan said. We have failed twice this year: We failed at the NPT [Nonproliferation Treaty Conference], and we failed now…. So I will appeal to the leaders who are coming here in the next few days to really step up to the plate and accept the challenge and show leadership on this issue. Annan also said that the U.N.'s culture of consensus caused the most problems, allowing spoilers with special interests to hold the whole process hostage. He suggested that the General Assembly should make more decisions by vote. There is unwillingness to do that, Annan said, and as long as you do not want to do that, you are either going to be negotiated down to the lowest common denominator or you don't get a decision at all. Times staff writer Tyler Marshall contributed to this report.