Missing The Forest For The Trees? Bolton and UN Reform
But Ivo is right that if we were serious about UN reform, we should have made clear to Eliasson that we would not settle for a majority vote; that 2/3 was a sine qua non. But here's the real issue. I am not convinced that the Administration is genuinely serious about U.N. reform along the lines proposed in any way. I increasingly suspect that the real agenda is far more sweeping reform -- call it reconstruction. A colleague of mine said recently that she thinks we may be headed for a major reconfiguration of all the U.N. institutions: transformation of the UN into a purely security institution; transferral of all the non-security parts of the U.N. to the World Bank; and the effective dissolution of the IMF. I will invite her to elaborate further on the blog, with evidence. But one way to try to ensure revolution is to block reform in any form, which is what it looks like Bolton is doing.
under Bill Clinton, no less
Under Jesse Helms, it might be truer to say.
March 1, 2006 10:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
A colleague of mine said recently that she thinks we may be headed for a major reconfiguration of all the U.N. institutions: transformation of the UN into a purely security institution; transferral of all the non-security parts of the U.N. to the World Bank; and the effective dissolution of the IMF.
I await her more detailed explanation. This sounds like an absurdly ambitious agenda. They're going to scrap UNICEF? UNESCO (which the US doesn't fund anyway - how're they gonna do that)? UNDP? UNAIDS? UNODC? ... I can't see how the UNESCO World Heritage List functions as a subunit of the World Bank (which has a pure development mission, not conservation). There are too many things here which don't compute.
And that's without even addressing the IMF point. Huh? In whose interests?
March 1, 2006 10:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm curious to see the details, too, but have to agree it sounds utterly fanciful. This reads as if all specialized agencies, programmes, etc related to the U.N. will be integrated into the Bank. Agencies like WHO (self-described as "the United Nations specialized agency for healthare") are going to be integrated into the WB's orbit? Right as we're facing an avian flu epidemic? The Bank wouldn't want that. Most countries in the world wouldn't want that. WHO and all the other bureaucracies facing extinction would put up a bitter fight. And a deeply unpopular (both internationally and nationally) Bush is going to pull this off during the lame duck part of his administration...how?
The U.N. reform plan put forward by Annan and supported by the Bush Admin has been criticized as too ambitious. This is 100 times wilder.
If what was meant is that just UNDP, UNFPA and programmes such as that would be integrated into the Bank, that at least has a certain logic (one with which I disagree, but at least it seems to be in the realm of the possible). But even that would be wildly ambitious.
To me, Annan's plan was substantive, ambitious, but in the realm of the achievable. I'd still agree with Daalder that it deserves support on its own merits, and by virtue of being plausible.
I look forward to reading the post with more details about this plan.
March 1, 2006 2:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
In case any more proof was needed, this debacle has really given the world a chance to see Bolton's diplomatic skills. He has managed to get himself on the wrong side of the SG, the major human rights groups, and much of the Western world with an ostensibly pro-rights position. Now that takes talent!
Still, I'm with Ivo on this one. Bolton's ineptness (or, as you suggest, his carefully calibrated tactics) aside, having a mushy human rights council is only going to give the UN-haters on the Hill and in the White House fodder for years to come. If Eliasson can use Bolton's obstinancy to wring a few more concessions from the GA, then maybe a strong council can be put forward. If that happens and Bolton still says no, then I'll be reading your colleague's conspiracy theory with interest.
March 1, 2006 8:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Seems to me the more likely answer is that we're NOT serious about reform in the UN, at least not during this administration. The top rungs of BushCo are filled with people who despise the UN, either for what it stands for or how it operates, or both. Having a damaged, inefficient, toothless UN serves their purposes in two ways: first, by leaving it essentially marginalized from serious policy considerations, and second, by preserving it as a political issue for further generations of essentially isolationist Republicans to rail against. They win BOTH WAYS - they mollify the realists by keeping the UN out of the real foreign policy realm, and the placate the populists by giving them the issue.
Appointing Bolton to the UN was the clearest possible signal that they could have sent: they DO NOT CARE about the UN. They are not serious about reform. Their only purpose is to obstruct any possible deal that could make the UN stronger, more efficient, or more legitimate.
March 2, 2006 7:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
"it is an article of faith that there are no conspiracies in American life."
Gore Vidal
March 4, 2006 6:45 AM | Reply | Permalink