UN may have two security councils

Dmitry Kosyrev, RIA Novosti, Moscow

The word "failure" was used twice during the press conference UN Secretary General Kofi Annan gave on Sept. 13, the first day of the 60th General Assembly.

The word was not used by the 150 heads of state and government who came to New York for the session, but by journalists. It summarized their assessment of the compromise reached after months of debates between UN ambassadors.

A fierce clash of interests watered down the radical initial draft of the UN reform, behind which Annan threw all of his substantial weight. The resulting final document presented for approval to the General Assembly was smoothed over to please all the member states.

Kofi Annan recalled at his Sept. 13 press conference that the Russian ambassador (Sergei Lavrov, currently the Foreign Minister of Russia) once told him: "What are you complaining about? You've had more time than God when he was creating the world." "And I explained to him," the UN Secretary General said, "that God had one big advantage: He worked alone, without the General Assembly and the Security Council and the Committees." He apparently meant that such a profound reform was possible only as a result of harmonizing the interests of all nations of the world.

The format of the Security Council was not the only stumbling block for the 191 member states. Another problem was the reform of the UN Commission for Human Rights in Geneva.

If the world's leaders had approved the wording in the draft of the final document, the UN would have ended up with two Security Councils. The current Council has permanent members -- the world's strongest powers with the right of veto, and the unsuccessful attempts of different groups of countries to change the Council's format show what a challenge it is.

The proposed Human Rights Council was to comprise what amounts to permanent members -- the world's most democratic states with special powers to pass judgment on others. It was suggested that the group of 53 rotating members should be reduced to 20-25, selected along strict criteria of conformity with democratic values, which would have seriously complicated their rotation.

The idea originated in the United States and a group of like- minded countries; it featured prominently in the 700 amendments to the final document of the General Assembly suggested by John Bolton, the new U.S. ambassador at the UN. These amendments plainly showed that the UN reform would be neither quick nor easy, because many states were set against the amendments.

The U.S. has not abandoned its "democratic mythmaking." When addressing the UN on Sept. 14, U.S. President George W. Bush said such countries as Afghanistan, Iraq, Lebanon, Palestine, Kyrgyzstan, Ukraine and Georgia were an example of hearts open to the cause of freedom. He said "10 of millions have voted in free elections" there, "inspiring millions more across the broader Middle East."

In fact, voting in these countries provoked a great deal of controversy, which is why it would have been so difficult for the U.S. to enforce its version of the reform of the Human Rights Commission.

In the final resolution of the GA adopted on Sept. 14 the reform adds up to a change of the Council's name. The world will now have a UN Human Rights Council, though its structure has not been decided upon so far.

Russia believes that it must not become a club of the chosen few acting as the supreme judges on legal issues, said Russian representative Andrei Denisov. Besides, this would run counter to the underlying UN provision that all member states should have an opportunity to participate equally in the work of any of the UN divisions and programs.

The dispute over the "new Security Council" is symptomatic of the current situation in the world. It highlights the growing activity and influence of emerging countries and the attempts of other states to retain their influence. The former want to get seats in the Council, which can grant the approval of the use of force. The latter are trying to secure their right to exert moral influence when decisions on the use of force are made. ---