A view from the United Nations
May 2006
UN Management Reform hits a nerve: roadblock or power grab?
By Vicente García-Delgado, CIVICUS UN Representative (New York)
A struggle for control of the UN management reform process between developing and developed countries at the UN might have the potential to derail, or at least substantially delay, efforts by the Secretary-General to update the institution so that it can effectively and efficiently deal with the increasingly complex challenges of the new century (www.un.org/reform). Unless a solution is found for the current impasse, the UN may soon run out of funds to carry out many of its mandates. Indeed, it may even have to shut down.
The process of UN Reform received a decisive new impulse at the 2005 World Summit, and this collective determination to make the necessary changes for the UN to be more effective, efficient and transparent has already born important fruit. The General Assembly just elected the 47 members of a new Human Rights Council which is expected to represent a substantial improvement over the former Human Rights Commission. A new Peace-building Commission is being established, and the Millennium Development Goals have been reaffirmed. The general trend toward reform has also set in motion changes with respect to the wholly undemocratic process of selecting the UN Secretary-General, and even the Security Council feels the need to add transparency and accountability to its proceedings.
There is a real consensus among the Member States, rich and poor alike, about the urgent need to introduce radical changes with respect to the management of the institution; but management reform has recently suffered a serious set-back which may significantly affect the UN’s ability to carry out its complex, and costly, mandates. In an extreme case, the UN may soon have to shut down operations because of lack of financial resources.
Member States recognize the efforts of the Secretary-General toward management reform and, by and large, are supportive of his 7 March 2006 Report “Investing in the United Nations: For a stronger Organization worldwide.” (www.un.org/reform/reform7march06.pdf). But developing countries, led by the Group of 77 and China (G77) are exceedingly concerned about what they perceive as an attempt by the big UN contributors (including the US, Japan, and the EU) to encroach upon the powers the UN Charter reserves to the General Assembly, where the rule is “one member, one vote” regardless of the relatively small financial contributions of many of its members.
Two issues in particular have touched a nerve: The apparent expansion of the Secretary-General’s discretionary faculties, including the flexibility to delegate some functions to senior UN Officials, and a far-reaching proposal that “a small, representative group” of Member States could assume functions reserved to the General Assembly through its Fifth Committee (Administration and Budget). There are grounds to argue, as the G77 does, that these changes, if adopted, would violate the articles of the UN Charter.
On 24 April 2006, the G77 introduced a draft resolution (www.g77.org/Speeches/A-C5-60-L37-Rev1.pdf) opposing certain aspects of the Secretary-General’s report which, in their view, would make the Secretary-General’s expanded managerial and administrative powers subject to undue influence by the developed countries while at the same time diminishing the role of the General Assembly. As it became clear that no consensus could be reached on the issues of concern to developing countries, on 28 April the G77 called for a vote on their draft resolution. The resolution was adopted with 108 votes in support, 50 against, and 3 abstentions.
Ambassador Dumisani Kumalo of South Africa, speaking for the G77 (which enjoys an absolute majority in the GA) has gone out of his way to make clear that small, developing countries, too, want the management reform process to go forward. He also pointed out that recently exposed UN failings and shortcomings, including the oil-for-food programme, the allegations of possible fraud and corruption in peace-keeping procurement and the appalling accounts of sexual exploitation and abuse, require urgent measures to prevent such failings and abuses from recurring (http://webcast.un.org/ramgen/pressconference/pc060426am.rm).
What the G77 is not prepared to do, however, is to allow what in their perception amounts to attempts by large contributors to manipulate the management reform process in order to relegate the General Assembly and its subsidiary bodies, which under the UN Charter have primary jurisdiction over such matters, to, at best, a secondary role (www.g77.org/newswire/index.htm).
The G77 position is not without justification. Ambassador John Bolton of the United States, and to a lesser extent, Ambassador Kenzo Oshima of Japan, have for some time expressed not-so-veiled warnings that failure to act quickly on management reform may result in their countries withholding the second part of their 2006 financial contributions to the institution.
The main UN contributors certainly have a legitimate interest in seeing reforms move forward without delay. The US alone contributes about 22 cents out of every dollar in the regular budget, and 26 cents on peace-keeping operations. Together, the rich countries contribute about 82% of the UN budget, so they certainly have a point that it would be difficult to justify to their national constituencies their continued financial support without adequate reforms. But what large donors need to understand (and communicate to their constituencies) is that developing countries, too, have a keen interest in UN management reform, irrespective of their relative financial abilities to contribute.
Both sides now need to hear, understand and accept as legitimate the reasonable concerns of the other. They need to find a solution that allows UN management reform to move ahead while the General Assembly is assured that its Charter-given role will not be eroded.
There is much at stake for multilateralism. The UN’s very survival is at risk. Member States must think of the common good and apply their best diplomatic skills to work out their differences so the United Nations can move forward expeditiously on the ambitious management reforms recommended by the Secretary-General.
In solidarity,
Vicente García-Delgado, CIVICUS´ UN Representative
Please send your comments to CIVICUSUN@aol.com or visit CIVICUS blog at http://civicus.civiblog.org/blog
Below you will find all previous columns:
• A UN Secretary-General for “We the Peoples”: Civil society calls for a more democratic selection process
• Charting new ways of participation: Is it time for a Parliamentary Assembly at the UN?
• Changing the tone: General Assembly President Jan Eliasson reaches out to Civil Society
• Changing the tone: General Assembly President Jan Eliasson reaches out to Civil Society
• Argentina: Thriving without the IMF
• The Big Letdown: UN Summit shortchanges the poor
• The World Summit : UN Reform will mean little unless poverty eradication tops the agenda
• Millions roar but the G8 whispers - Let the Millennium+5 Summit make up the difference
• “Global Justice - Northern citizens have a special responsibility to make it happen”
• Letting the United Nations be all that it can
• “Appointment with History: The world looks up to John Bolton to help achieve the MDGs”
• “We are rolling!: Civil society’s call for poverty eradication impacts the World Economic Forum and the Group of Seven”
• No more excuses!: The Tsunami must not be allowed to wash away the Millennium Development Goals
• A Call To Action 2005: Global Civil Society mobilizes to demand an end to poverty and the fulfilment of the Millennium Development Goals
• TOO CLOSE FOR COMFORT: Should civil society and the Global Compact live under the same UN roof?
• The UN Global Compact: A big red herring disguised in UN blue?
• Happening now: A global revolution of consciousness
• Lasting security for all: Shifting from state security to security of the people
• The UN – Permanently relevant or temporarily relevant?
