Kofi Annan is serious about UN reform

Kavi Chongkittavorn, The Nation, Asia News Network, Bangkok

UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan is serious about UN reforms -- no more rhetoric. The strongest indication of this was the appointment of former prime minister Anand Panyarachun to lead a high-powered 16-member panel of international personalities and experts last week.

Whatever recommendations the panel on Threats, Challenges and Change is expected to propose next August, it will surely be by consensus but one arrived through controversy. Reasons are abundant. UN reforms are not new. Everybody knows that the global body needs reform, but nobody knows what kind and to what extent. That helps to explain why UN reforms have moved at a snail's pace.

A few years after its inception, the UN produced hordes of policy and management studies and reform proposals of various kinds. Most of the substantial changes take place in the UN Secretariat every four to eight years.

In 1997, the General Assembly set up five working groups to study comprehensively UN reforms in areas of peace, development, the Security Council, the financial situation and strengthening of the UN. But these were reports prepared by member countries and UN officials so they were full of jargon and hidden agendas. Finally, they ended up on shelves.

Of all the previous reports on reforms, the 2000 Brahimi Report was considered the best because of its relevance to UN peacekeeping operations around the world. The report recommended that prompt action was absolutely essential in peacekeeping, which must be backed up with sufficient resources and commitment from members. These recommendations have already formed the rational of UN operations today, with increased budget and personnel.

Given the current global chaos and the UN's role in areas of conflict, the new panel will certainly focus on the current challenges to peace and security, and the collective action that the UN can undertake to address these problems. The issue of pre- emptive strikes will be high on the list.

In September, Kofi Annan said the UN Security Council (UNSC) might have to discuss the terms under which collective action can be authorized through a council resolution, especially towards a threat posed by terrorist groups.

In a broader context, collective action is also linked to the issue of humanitarian intervention. Indeed, this phrase has proved to be too offensive, a non-starter of sorts, for many UN members. Last year, the independent International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty completed a report with a series of recommendations on when and how to intervene in a crisis. The commission used the term "responsibility to protect" instead of "humanitarian intervention".

Of major interest will be the pivotal issue of change in the functioning of major organs of the UN and the relationships between them -- especially the UNSC structure, its members and voting system. One of the hot topics is the composition of UNSC members. Developing countries want more permanent and non- permanent council members. Followed the recent collapse of the World Trade Organization talks in Cancun, Mexico, the voices of developing countries are louder and are getting more hearings in the UN corridors.

Leaders from the developing world have already called for inclusion of their representatives and a change in the veto powers that the United States, China, Britain, France and Russia have enjoyed. The problem is, the developing countries have no common stance on the council-related issues.

Obviously, Annan is betting on his reputation to carry out the UN reforms to ensure the world body's centrality in preserving world peace. After all, at stake also is the legitimacy of his leadership and certainly that of UN. After Sept. 11, the members of the Security Council, which are supposed to represent global interests, have turned to narrow self-interested paths. Previously, it was easy for the UNSC to deal with small countries in Africa or Asia. The dilemma comes when the UN has to deal with a member of the UNSC which decides to act on its own.

In recent months, Annan has toughened his attitude towards the U.S., especially after President George W Bush decided to invade Iraq without UNSC authorization. The deliberations of an increased UN role in the reconstruction effort in Iraq deepened misgivings about the U.S. He wants more UN action there.

During his first term, Annan had excellent working relations with the U.S. under the Clinton administration. He backed the U.S. initiative in Kosovo. In fact, U.S. support, through former U.S. envoy to the UN Richard Holbrook, won Annan his second term. Washington had strongly opposed the return of former UN chief Boutros-Boutros Ghali, so he was ditched.

It is remains to be seen how Anand and his team will proceed with their study. This panel is different from UN-appointed panels in the past. Its prestigious members are outsiders -- former leaders who understand how the UN and international systems work. Their recommendations will certainly find resonance in the UN system and among UN members. After all, the panel's members are drawn from the countries in the UNSC and big donors.

As chairman, Anand has the daunting task of putting together practical and doable recommendations. He has at his disposal the expertise of the UN Secretariat and the wealth of insights from the panel. Its report will be counted as a success if it can provide effective advice on how to implement effective multilateralism.