The U.S. vs the world

If the U.S.'s veto of Boutros Boutros-Ghali's second term as UN secretary-general, in spite of strong international support, appeared arrogant, then the official statement in Washington afterwards sounded worse. "At the end of the day, the United Nations needs the United States more than -- with all due respect -- it needs to retain its current leadership," said U.S. State Department spokesman Glyn Davies. He may have stated some hard facts, but it still sounded downright arrogant.

There was no surprise in the veto itself. Washington has made clear its opposition to Boutros-Ghali's re-election, and threatened to use its veto power if the Egyptian diplomat went ahead with his candidacy. This it did when the resolution came up Tuesday at the Security Council. But what was surprising was the outcome -- 14 votes to 1 -- meaning that even the U.S.'s traditional allies in the council -- the United Kingdom and South Korea, to name two -- voted with the rest of the council.

The overwhelming support that Boutros-Ghali received at the Security Council was more than a show of solidarity. It was a tribute, a recognition of all the work he has done these past five very difficult years. Had it not been for the veto, it would have been construed as a vote of confidence for his leadership and a mandate for a new term. Alas, that is not the case.

The UN leadership is determined to a large extent by what happens in American politics. The chief opposition to Boutros- Ghali has not come from President Bill Clinton's administration, but more from Republicans. And during this election year in the U.S., the UN became a convenient scapegoat for some of America's foreign policy failures. Thus, the debate about the UN secretary- generalship at the Security Council was postponed until after the U.S. presidential election, in the hope that there would be a change of heart in Washington if Clinton got re-elected. Clinton was returned to the White House, but the U.S. Congress remains in the hands of Republicans. The expected change of heart did not happen. U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Madeleine Albright pointed out that Congress would never come up with the US$1.4 billion in back pay the United States owed to the world body.

This sad truth about UN politics -- that a single country could hold back the rest of the world solely by its veto power -- makes it even more imperative and urgent for reform of the world body, particularly of the Security Council. Tuesday's veto, going against international opinion, is not the first in the council's history. But it nevertheless will make it easier in the future for the council's four other permanent members -- Russia, China, Britain and France -- to use their veto privilege as they see fit for their domestic interests.

But first things first. The question of who is going to be the secretary-general must be settled. There have been talks among some African delegates at the United Nations to push for Boutros- Ghali's nomination a second time. What good will that do, other than simply restating the international support for the Egyptian diplomat, something which Tuesday's vote had already accomplished? Washington has said it will continue to veto Boutros-Ghali's renomination, and there is no reason for anyone to call its bluff a second time.

African countries must quickly come up with a new candidate, someone just as able and with the same strong vision as Boutros- Ghali, but one who is acceptable to all parties, particularly the United States. The Security Council has agreed to give priority to a candidate from Africa. The least African countries should do is to respond to this offer positively.

There is plenty of work to be done by the United Nations in the world's various trouble spots -- Zaire and Bosnia are two of them -- and they cannot wait around while diplomats play their little game at the United Nations.