The U.S. and Boutros-Ghali

As expected, the United States vetoed the reelection bid of Boutros-Ghali as U.N. secretary-general. The United Nations was born in the United States. It has been headquartered in the United States. A quarter of its annual budget comes from the United States. Therefore, the United States dictates its terms, particularly in the election of U.N. secretaries-general.

Africa's demand for an African is more for status, rather than for some positive contribution alleviating the problems faced by the unfortunate continent. Boutros-Ghali's most glaring failure was in Africa in Somalia, and now in Zaire. To begin with, Boutros-Ghali is an African and an Arab. He bungled in Somalia -- an African and an Arab country. Since Somalia is in the neighborhood of Egypt, it is impossible to believe that Boutros- Ghali was totally unaware of Somali tribal politics and the people's nature. Still, he tried to help in order to please the United States rather than help Somalia get out of the post-Siad Barre crisis and form a government.

Boutros-Ghali's being African and Arab did not work in Somalia.

As an Arab, he was equally ineffective in the Mideast, where the peace process has come to a standstill. In Bosnia, he waited until the U.S. could activate NATO forces. Although Boutros- Ghali's predecessors also could not do much in global crisis situations, all of them did at least condemn the aggressor very strongly. Boutros-Ghali lacked in that area too. Ironically, he wanted to please the United States and at the end of the day, the one who was supposed to be happy is not happy.

One major U.S. charge against Boutros-Ghali is increased corruption in the secretariat and various U.N. agencies, and waste of limited resources on international conferences, like the World Food Summit which ended in Rome earlier this week. This accusation is a double-edged knife, cutting on both sides. The U.N. secretariat argued that not all member-nations are paying their dues, thus leaving the U.N. workforce ineffective. Corruption, no doubt, is eroding the U.N.'s credibility. Under Boutros-Ghali's leadership, the organization could not even work like a peace agency. And the U.S. is using these shortcomings against Ghali.

At the moment, the question is whether it is a reelected Boutros-Ghali or any other compromise African candidate. The global village and its global human community cannot be allowed to be superseded by smaller considerations. Each U.N. secretary- general was relatively successful because they maintained a balance in favor of the world community, and in favor of the superpowers.

The vetoing of Boutros-Ghali's reelection bid also opens another debate on the veto system itself. Why should only a group of countries be allowed to run the affairs of the world? Why can't the General Assembly vote and decide who should become the next secretary-general?

-- The Saudi Gazette, Riyadh