Third World veto leaves UN in budget crisis

By Philip Sherwell
April 30, 2006
The Telegraph
Original Source: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/04/30/wun30.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/04/30/ixworld.html
Third world nations have blocked a sweeping United Nations reform package that is backed by the West, in an acrimonious showdown that has left the troubled organisation heading for a budget crisis in June.
Britain and the United States condemned the vote, late on Friday night, that scuttled proposals by the UN Secretary-General, Kofi Annan, to overhaul the world body in the wake of the Iraqi oil-for-food scandal.
Supported by America, the European Union and Japan, which provide 80 per cent of the UN budget, Mr Annan wanted to transfer key spending and management decisions from the unwieldy 191-member General Assembly to a strengthened professional secretariat.
But in a row that has exposed the rift between wealthy and developing nations, the Third World grouping has used its voting power to derail the proposals, which it fears will reduce its influence.
The vote will bolster the argument by critics of the UN that the organisation is incapable of reform. It is certain to spark renewed efforts within the US Congress, which controls America's budget, to withhold payments to the UN.
Adam Thomson, Britain's deputy head of mission, expressed dismay at what he called the destructive move by the so-called Group of 77 - which represents 133 poorer nations - after it forced the vote in a UN budget committee that traditionally works by consensus. France's UN ambassador, Jean-Marc de la Sabliere, said: This was a victory for the radicals.
Western diplomats fear that the ambush has sabotaged the best chance for reforming the organisation after its authority was left in tatters by disclosures of corruption and incompetence in the oil-for-food programme.
The UN also faces an immediate funding crisis following the 108-50 vote, since, at US insistence, the assembly agreed in December to delay setting a two-year budget until there was progress on reforms. Instead it set a temporary budget that will run out at the end of June.
Last night, John Bolton, the US ambassador to the UN, said of the vote: Proponents of the resolution will realise they won a Pyrrhic victory. 
Although he said America did not intend to cripple the organisation financially, the implication that there would be a financial cost was clear. The US provides 22 per cent of the UN budget, followed by Japan, which pays 19.5 per cent and was also angered by the vote.
But prominent developing nations are furious at what they see as financial blackmail by the developed world, and say wealthy states are obliged under the UN charter to pay their full share of the dues. Pakistan's ambassador to the UN, Munir Akram, said: Fulfilling your obligation under the charter does not entitle you to greater privileges.
Last month Mr Annan put forward detailed reform plans. He sought more financial oversight, simplified hiring and firing procedures, career planning, staff buyouts, a modern information system and flexibility in assigning staff.
He was urged to come up with wide-ranging reforms at last September's world summit, which marked the 60th anniversary of the organisation's creation.
The main sticking point in last week's negotiations was a proposal by Mr Annan to establish several small, representative groups of UN members to make financial decisions.
Western countries made no attempt to hide their disappointment that the plans had been thwarted.
The United Kingdom strongly supports this vision of a United Nations better able to respond quickly to global developments and emergencies, and to serve better the hundreds of millions of people around the world that it was established to represent, said Mr Thomson. 
We, therefore, see today's events as a setback for the reform efforts and a setback imposed on us by the actions of another group, he added.
Mr Bolton said that without top-to-bottom management reform, the United Nations will continue to be ill-equipped to meet the current demands that we as member states place upon the organisation.