U.S. Drive to Remake UN Stalls as Lawmakers Threaten Penalties Bill Varner January 11, 2006 Bloomberg Original Source: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000086&sid=acH0Ct9Mk528&refer=latin_america Jan. 11 (Bloomberg) -- A U.S. campaign to remake the United Nations through an infusion of democratic values and corporate efficiency has stalled, raising the prospect that Washington lawmakers will exact a financial penalty on the world body to back up their demands for change. Talks to create a new Human Rights Council, adopt an anti- terrorism treaty and expand the secretary-general's authority to hire and fire employees are deadlocked. Those resisting U.S. priorities -- including American allies Egypt and Pakistan -- cite the war in Iraq and U.S. aid and trade policies to justify their opposition. Failure to break the stalemate would give momentum to Republican lawmakers who want to withhold half of the $429 million in U.S. contributions to the UN's 2006 budget. Talks on the Human Rights Council -- which UN critics call a litmus test for effective overhaul of the world body -- resume today. ``The U.S. is playing brinkmanship by threatening financial blackmail,'' said Edward Luck, a former UN consultant who runs the Center on International Organization at Columbia University in New York. ``People who are calling the U.S. bluff are making a big mistake. This is a dicey situation.'' An even bigger financial threat was suggested by Ambassador John Bolton, who said the U.S. may make contributions to the almost $2 billion UN headquarters budget voluntary, as are payments to agencies such as the World Food Program. Bypassing UN Bolton also has talked of bypassing the UN in peacekeeping matters in favor of regional groups such as the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, and depending more on the International Committee of the Red Cross and other relief agencies during humanitarian emergencies. ``A lot of the work that we consider important in the management area has not yet been accomplished,'' Bolton told reporters on Jan. 4. ``We want a lasting revolution of reform, and that means this work will go on 365 days of the year. It is not a one-night stand.'' Luck said the contrast is so sharp between the U.S.'s perception of great authority outside the UN and limited influence within it that ``the temptation to do business elsewhere is great.'' U.S. officials must have talks at the ``highest levels'' on how countries get picked for the Human Rights Council and how tough the body can be on offenders, said Gary Matthews, associate director of a U.S. group led by former Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell and ex-House Speaker Newt Gingrich that did an assessment of the world body. Consensus Needed Major changes such as creating the rights council need consensus in the General Assembly, a body composed of the 191 UN member governments and the main source of clout for the smallest and poorest nations. Many fear ceding that influence to a secretary-general or Security Council they view as dominated by the U.S. ``How do you maintain the balance of power?'' Algerian Ambassador Abdallah Baali said. ``Developing nations have a problem with the Security Council as it stands now.'' Proposals to expand the 15-nation council to add the voices of developing countries are ``on life support,'' Pakistani Ambassador Munir Akram said. One reason is U.S. opposition to proposals that would add up to 11 countries, including six with vetoes, thereby diluting U.S. clout. The U.S. favors one or two new permanent seats, with no veto. Deadlocked Debate over the proposed rights council, to replace the Geneva-based commission assailed for granting seats to alleged abusers such as Cuba, Sudan and Zimbabwe, is deadlocked over membership rules. The U.S. supports seats for all of the permanent governments on the Security Council -- China, France, Russia and the U.K. are the others -- and a requirement of backing by at least two-thirds of the General Assembly to gain membership. Diplomats from Egypt, Kenya and Vietnam, saying access to food is a fundamental right, argue the U.S. standard for human rights is undercut by American farm subsidies and refusal to meet the UN goal of disbursing 0.7 percent of economic output to foreign aid. Other envoys criticize a U.S. ``double standard'' on human rights because of U.S. abuses in Iraq and its treatment of suspected terrorists. ``The presumption that a country is a violator of human rights is very subjective,'' Akram said. ``If you want to create criteria for the Human Rights Council that exclude certain countries, why not those that don't support trade liberalization or that don't implement foreign aid targets? The knife cuts both ways.'' `Black Spots' Panamanian Ambassador Ricardo Arias pointed to U.S.-run prisons of Abu Ghraib in Iraq and Guantanamo Bay in Cuba as ``black spots'' that undermine America's ``moral authority'' in the debate. Talks on the anti-terrorism treaty adjourned in November after the U.S. insisted that actions by armed forces be exempted because they are already covered by international law. This would protect U.S. soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan from charges that they have committed terrorist acts against civilians. Arab and Islamic countries countered that any exemption should cover armed resistance groups involved in struggles against colonial domination and foreign occupation, a description they say fits the conflict between Palestinians and Israel. Improving UN management and overhauling its main panels took on greater importance after what Secretary-General Kofi Annan called ``a difficult year for the world and, obviously for me and the organization.'' Topping the list of setbacks was an investigation that exposed corruption in the $69.6 billion Iraq oil-for-food program. Some Headway The U.S. agenda has made some limited headway. Envoys agreed on a $3.9 billion, two-year budget on Dec. 24, including a U.S.-proposed six-month spending cap of $950 million tied to a ``pledge for further reform.'' Governments created a Peacebuilding Commission to help nations rebound from wars, a permanent fund to speed delivery of emergency aid and an independent board to advise on audits. ``There is still a lot of disappointment,'' Matthews said. ``The UN can't just muddle through again. It's on the cusp of relevance and, as Gingrich and Mitchell said, opportunities lost now may be opportunities lost forever.''