Assessing UN Action on Iran and North Korea Posted by Jordan Tama

2006 was a bad year for American foreign policy, marked by our inability to stop the escalating civil war in Iraq, worsening violence in Darfur, and the continued decline of our international reputation. But we also had a couple of important diplomatic achievements that haven't got as much attention as they deserve: the passage by the UN Security Council of targeted sanctions against North Korea and Iran for their nuclear programs.

After North Korea's nuclear test in October, the Security Council voted unanimously for sanctions that ban the transfer of nuclear materials to North Korea, bar international travel by officials associated with North Korea's weapons programs, and freeze the overseas assets of those officials. The resolution also authorizes countries to inspect cargo going in and out of North Korea to detect illegal weapons. Eight days ago, the Security Council unanimously approved a less stringent sanctions package on Iran, including a ban on the import and export of nuclear materials and a freeze on the assets of some Iranian individuals and companies.

In both cases, the U.S. had pushed for tougher sanctions, while Russia and China had sought weaker ones. The results were painstakingly negotiated compromises that satisfied no one but represented significant diplomatic achievements considering the wide divergence of views among Security Council members. The sanctions won't stop North Korea and Iran from moving forward with their nuclear programs, but they will slow them down by making it harder for them to acquire needed materials and complicating the work of officials involved in nuclear efforts.

The bigger benefits might be political. In Iran, the sanctions already have contributed to growing discontent with President Ahmadinejad, as some Iranians blame him for unnecessarily isolating their country (though most Iranians support Iran's nuclear program). In East Asia, the sanctions have shown North Korea that its most important patron, China, is willing to cooperate with North Korea's enemies to punish it for recalcitrant behavior.

Don't Cry for Me Venezuela Posted by Suzanne Nossel

The protracted battle underway between Venezuela and Guatemala over one of the Latin American Regional Group's non-permanent seats on the UN Security Council is a case study in the bedeviling dynamics of the UN General Assembly.   For an account of where the fight stands after 22 rounds of inconclusive voting, read here. 

For Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, there would be no better global platform for provoking the US than a 2-year seat on the Council.  For Washington, having Chavez represent our regional neighbors would be an immediate slap in the face, and a significant long-term nuisance on the array of top priority issues now sitting with the Council, i.e. North Korea, Iran and the Lebanese ceasefire.

So, what can we make of the UN membership's deep divide on this one?

A majority of the UN membership does not want to see Chavez face the US down day in and day out, paralyzing the Council in the process - While they haven't won the required two-thirds majority, the Guatemalans have been ahead of Caracas in every round.  Much as recent events can make it seem like the whole world is out to get us and wants nothing more than to rally around the likes of Chavez, its just not true.   We have many dozens of allies, and like-minded countries who recognize a despot-cum-spoiler like Chavez for what he is and don't want him poisoning UN debates.  Its encouraging to know that even now, most UN members put certain values ahead of sticking it to the US.

Developing world solidarity only goes so far - The strength in numbers developing countries derive at the UN can be a formidable obstacle to Western proposals.  But, as this vote illustrates, there are objectives that trump lockstep third world unity. 

US support is a double edged sword - Some commentators have remarked that Guatemala would already have won outright were it not for the US's vigorous support of their candidacy, and the perception that voting them in would represent an undeserved victory for the Administration.  It's long been true that many US proposals at the UN are dead on arrival if stamped made-in-the-USA.  But for the world's superpower, its tough to effectively advance proposals and positions without leaving our fingerprints all over them.

China will back anything that heightens their influence - Here's what China's UN envoy said to explain why Beijing backs Venezuela: "The United States cannot expect the composition of the Security Council to be 15 members which all have the same position as the United States. . . Multilateralism means countries have different opinions. I think that is not really a bad thing. Accommodating diversity is part of democracy."  Having Chavez on the Council means one more vote on China's side of the debate on Iran, and an even more important role for Beijing as a power-broker in a Council that's bound to deadlock even more often.

John Bolton is no less tone deaf now than when he arrived at the UN - After 22 rounds of voting, here's what Bolton had to say:  "All I can say is, in the year 2000, I spent 31 days in Florida. . .  This has just begun." Oblivious to the detrimental impact of placing the US front-and-center in the anti-Chavez campaign, Bolton annoints himself the Karl Rove of Guatemala's election effort.  I served at the UN in 2000 as Florida unfolded and can remember debates adjourning so that the delegates could race back to their TVs in time to hear the results of recounts of hanging chads in Miami-Dade, and to read about John Bolton's infamous proclamation:  "I'm with the Bush-Cheney team, and I'm here to stop the count." The UN membership was in many ways as traumatized by the process and outcome as were the American people.  Evoking those unsettling days and the threat they posed to democracy is about the worst campaign tactic imaginable. 

Horse Race in Turtle Bay: The Next UN Secretary General Posted by Suzanne Nossel

Today the NYT asked each of the declared candidates to succeed Kofi Annan to answer 2 questions:  1) the UN's biggest mistake; and 2) the area most in need of reform.  Answers are here. 

The replies are revealing in that they point to some of the fundamental questions that will confront the UN's new leader:  What role can the organization play in trying to modernize and stabilize the Middle East?  How should it balance the competing priorities of Member States, some of whom - like the US - want the focus to lie with peace and security, and others - from the developing world - who are clamoring for more resources and emphasis on development aid?  How should the UN deal with issues that are pressing for its members, but fall outside the world body's areas of demonstrated capacity and potential to succeed - should it focus on further building on what it does well, or shoring up its weaknesses?

By dint of its vast membership the UN is nothing if not multi-faceted, but the UN's spotty record makes clear that the organization needs to pick area to focus its attention and resources.  Here's what we can glean from the five would-be's who participated in the Times' query about where their priorities would lie.

Prince Zeid - The young and charming Jordanian not surprisingly focuses on the challenges in his own region, citing the rise of extremism in the Mideast as a challenge above all others.  That's a view shared by many in Washington, but that's not as prevalent in a world body that includes many countries for whom AIDS, trade and development issues are more central than the threat of terrorism.   This goes to a very basic divide at the UN between the US and some other Western countries that believe the organization's prime focus should be peace and security, and developing world nations that want more emphasis on economic issues.  I actually do think the UN has a potentially critical role to play in the Middle East, particularly if it can prove itself with a successful revamped UNIFIL in Lebanon.  One of the reason's for Zeid's initial appeal as a candidate was the idea that he might bridge the Islamic world with the West.

Dhanapala - The Sri Lankan singles out Darfur as the UN's greatest failing, putting blame not just on the UNSC members but also on the Secretariat.  He talks about the need for rapidly deployable humanitarian capabilities and troops, but sidesteps the fact that absent stronger political will in cases like Darfur, its not clear such arms would be mobilized even if they existed.

Ghani - The former Afghan Finance Minister talks about corruption and mismanagement at the UN.  He waxes forth on accountability and transparency, but offers no specifics on how to achieve them amid the UN's fractious membership and often hidebound decision-making processes.

Vike-Freiberga - The President of Latvia and the only woman in the race talks about the relatively newly consecrated "responsibility to protect" in international law, and about the Millennium Development Goals, a set of measures agreed to 6 years ago to address poverty and hardship in the developing world.  The direction she points is, in essence, the opposite of Zeid's.  As the only "Northerner" in the group, a message directed at the concerns of "the South" has a certain political logic.  The trick with the Millennium Goals is that they are enormously broad and ambitious and cover both areas, like children's health and vaccines, where the UN has demonstrated itself to be extremely effective, and much broader questions of socio-economic development in respect to which the world body's track record is far more mixed.

Tharoor - Debonaire longtime UN diplomat-cum-bureaucrat Shashi Tharoor addresses the problem of sustaining UN peacekeeping over the long-term.  From the standpoint of competitive advantages, this is an area where the UN plays indispensable role today and where, with augmented capabilities, it could do even more.  We've learned the hard way in Iraq the challenges posed by unilateral alternatives to UN-led statebuilding.

Results of today's straw poll among UN Security Council members are here.   South Korean Foreign Minister Ban Ki Moon - who declined to participate in the NYT survey - has a big lead, but it ain't over til its over. 

A Bush in the China Shop Posted by Suzanne Nossel

So today President Hugo Chavez of Venezuela got up behind a podium at the UN's General Assembly and called President Bush the devil.  The awful thing, of course, is that while the rhetoric is outrageous, much of the world's reaction will be that they know what he means.  If you doubt that, check out what the foreign media's been saying about the US in recent days on this site. 

Chavez faulted Bush for acting like he "owned the world."  You'd think that, under the circumstances, Bush would have bent over backwards to convey the opposite, with Chinese influence at the UN on the rise given the isolation we face and its debilitating effect on our policies on, at the top of the list, Iraq and Iran.

So, what did Bush say?  Was he as tone-deaf as his detractors claim?  Or did he, as so often in the past, use language that could have come out of a liberal internationalist playbook to describe policies and attitudes that would make FDR rotate in his grave?

Let's look at a few of his turns of phrase:

"it is clear that the world is engaged in a great ideological struggle, between extremists who use terror as a weapon to create fear, and moderate people who work for peace . . . I want to speak about ... world beyond terror, where ordinary men and women are free to determine their own destiny, where the voices of moderation are empowered, and where the extremists are marginalized by the peaceful majority." - Would that this were how most of the world sees it.  Unfortunately, the Bush Administration is viewed, abroad and increasingly at home as well, as anything but moderate and peace-seeking.  This has allowed the likes of Chavez to recast the battle as one of superpower dominator against the defenseless and disenfranchised who can only stand up for their rights by, for example, building nuclear capabilities. Bush's language shows his tone-deafness, practically inviting opponents to turn his words against him.

"Every nation that travels the road to freedom moves at a different pace, and the democracies they build will reflect their own culture and traditions. But the destination is the same: A free society where people live at peace with each other and at peace with the world."  The first sentence is a good one, seeming to recognize the democracy cannot be imposed by force.  It follows an impressive-sounding list of nations in the Mideast that have seen some form of political opening in recent years.  But the proclamation that the destination is "the same" belies the point, implying that culture and tradition somehow disappear once freedom is realized.  This perception is one of the primary impediments to democratic transformation, something one would hope Bush understood by now.

Bush then went into a series of entreaties directed at various peoples around the world:  the Iraqis, the Iranians, the Lebanese, the Afghanis, the Syrians and the people of Darfur.  He compliments each for something, and then goes on to say what needs to happen next in their country or region.  On the one hand, there is an element of humanity in reaching out to ordinary citizens.   On the other side, the comments were pitched to fly over the heads of the nearly 200 heads of state filling the room, dis-intermediating them from their populations.  There is nothing wrong with appealing directly to foreign populations, particularly in undemocratic countries where there's no reason to believe that government policies and public attitudes dovetail.  But Bush's tone was preachy and condescending.  He proceeded to tell ancient cultures what they had a right to be proud of, and presumed to tell beleaguered populations what there biggest problems are.

What didn't Bush say?  Despite a withering 5 years, there was not a moment's introspection, no nod to the challenges we have faced fighting terrorism, trying to foster freedom in far-flung places, or holding things together at home.  There was no nod to any global issue apart from terrorism and the spread of democracy in the Middle East.  Nothing on AIDS, global warming, economic development, trade, or poverty.  In other words, no real message to Latin America, Africa, the former Soviet Union or much of Asia.

Devilish?  No.  Disappointing?  Yes.

Herding the UN Posted by Suzanne Nossel

Last week David Adesnik of Oxblog took issue with a post I wrote about Iran that stated that in order to be effective at marshaling support at the UN, the US needs to retain the ability and freedom to act outside the UN, and even unilaterally, when it is impossible to muster support for important American priorities.  He found the position surprising in light of my political leanings.

In the interest of fostering progressive consensus on how to approach the UN, I want to elaborate a bit.  My conclusion derives directly from experience working at the UN and trying to build consensus around controversial US foreign policy priorities.  This involved a delicate dance:  If we were too aggressive and unbending, everyone's back's went up and we had no chance of winning support. 

But its equally true that when we were too gentle, it was impossible to surmount a combination of knee-jerk anti-superpower sentiment, and opposition ginned up by whatever special interest was against what we were proposing.  It took a finely seasoned brew of bluster, rigorous fact-based argumentation, flattery, cajolery, patient listening, pressure applied in capitals, veiled threats, horse-trading, eloquent speechifying, wining and dining, diplomatic niceties, and the occasional temper tantrum to get our proposals off the ground.  The omission of any ingredient could easily spoil the stew.

Lebanon and the Future of the UN Posted by Suzanne Nossel

Just as the deployment of a UN-sponsored force will be critical to the future of Lebanon, the same mission could be a cross-roads for the UN.  The UN has in recent years come under heavy criticism in the US for corruption, ineffectiveness and an unwillingness-cum-inability to reform.  On the other side, the organization's boosters point to the flagging US support for the UN as a key detriment to the world body's efficacy.  The Lebanon mission may put these competing claims to the test.

The mobilization of the mission is getting more complicated by the day.  While France had originally signaled willingness to serve as the backbone of the force, this week they revealed that they only intend to send an incremental 200 troops, a fraction of the 15,000 that will ultimately be needed.  France has a well-trained and respected military with deep ties to the region, making this a heavy blow to the nascent mission.   

On Sunday Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert announced that Israel will not accept participation in the mission of troops from countries that do not recognize Israel.  This would exclude Bangladesh, which is currently the leading troop contributor to UN missions worldwide, as well as Indonesia and Malaysia, both of which had already stepped forward as willing to send in men.  Meanwhile Lebanese President Emile Lahoud has said his country will reject involvement of countries that have military ties to Israel, a ban that could potentially exclude Turkey and India, two other potentially important prospects.

Meanwhile, the ceasefire is in trouble on the ground.  Partly due to the week-long delay in deploying additional international troops, skirmishes between the parties are already breaking out.

There's reason to believe the resolution of these issues may matter as much for the future of the UN as it does for Lebanon.  Why?

UN Debates While Lebanon Burns Posted by Suzanne Nossel

The protracted debates underway at the UN over a ceasefire in Lebanon illustrate all that's best and worse about the UN.  Leading members of the Security Council have spent weeks debating the text of a resolution aimed to end the fighting and install an international peacekeeping force in Southern Lebanon. 

A few weeks back, the night before similar calls from Kofi Annan and Tony Blair, I wrote a piece suggesting that UN intervention would be the only way to quiet the conflict.  Events since then both underscore the UN's indispensability, and highlight its limitations. 

On the downside:

- As virtually always, progress at the UN is unbearably slow.  Today's thwarted terrorist attack finally dislodged horrifying photos of the devastation in Lebanon and Israel from the front pages for the first time in weeks, but if no deal is struck, the bloodshed and destruction will continue.

- The UN is only as good as its most powerful member states.  The reason the organization hasn't acted is very simple:  the US, France, Israel, Lebanon and Hezbollah have so far failed to agree on the terms of a cessation to hostilities.  In the face of continued discord on a ceasefire's terms, the UN is paralyzed.

- The UN's deployment capabilities are limited.  One of the key sticking points on the resolution is that while France and other countries need time to amass a peacekeeping force, Israel does not want to pull back until international troops are there to keep the peace.  If the UN had better rapid deployment capabilities, that gap would be easier to bridge.  This leads right back to my last point in that its the UN's leading member states who have historically blocked the formation of any standing UN peacekeeping capabilities.

But despite all that, the negotiations underway also illustrate the UN's central importance to the resolution of the conflict:

Send in the Cavalry (er, International Force) Posted by David Shorr

There are so many UN angles to choose from -- the bombing of its Lebanon mission, is Kofi playing it right, UN v. NATO legitimacy, content of a Security Council resolution... But I want to focus on the question raised by Elaine Sciolino and Steven Erlanger in their lede of their page one story in Tuesday's New York Times:

Support is building quickly for an international military force to be placed in southern Lebanon, but there remains a small problem: where will the troops come from?

Multilateralists (I am one) have an achilles heel that we must cure. (Yes, I know Achilles' tragic flaw could not be cured, but they didn't have 21st century medicine.) When we vaguely praise "international institutions" such as the UN, we leave them exposed to unfair and unrealistic criteria for effectiveness. The Sciolino/Erlanger piece on the difficulty of obtaining forces reminds us that international organizations rely totally on member states to be able to do anything.

The United Nations and other intergovernmental bodies provide essential public goods for the international order. Their treaties and resolutions give normative structure and help define the boundaries of acceptable behavior in the global community. Their councils and committees give diplomatic structure for international cooperation and decision making. Such organizations are a crucial barricade against anarchy, but the bulwark is only as strong as the collective political will invested by governments.

Let's start a betting pool; how long till commentators start talking about the current Middle East crisis as another "failure of the UN?" I have written elsewhere that the chief political function of the UN is often to serve as a scapegoat. It's as if we're demanding: "Hey UN, why haven't you brought about world peace and "saved succeeding generations from the scourge of war" like you promised?

Ironically, the UN was a significant contributor to Lebanon's Cedar Revolution last year. After the Hariri assassination, the Security Council displayed remarkable unity in putting pressure on Syria. And that's the point, international organizations can be quite effective when governments come together and agree on a course of action.

As a colleague of mine might put it, when it comes to impact, nation states are the independent variables, and international organizations are the dependent variables. This is they key to effective international action, and it's where the debate about multilateralism needs to go.

Speaking Truth to (super)Power Posted by Lorelei Kelly

Given John Bolton's purple-faced comments about Malloch Brown's podium rumpus at the Power and Superpower conference (see Suzanne's post below) you'd almost think that Malloch Brown said something really offensive--like the organization was so worthless that it could  lose 10 stories and nobody would notice! 

Bolton's threatening response are the words of a bully. He's like those kids in junior high who would steal your lunch money--and still beat you up. At least where I went to junior high (in Farmington, New Mexico) the shocking behavior got old, the fear got tiresome and underneath the smiles and cafeteria banter, everyone loathed the bullies, suspected every motive and tried hard not to be assigned to their homework team.

Brown was just pointing out the obvious political angle (something that very few of the SPI conference speakers did, unfortunately) That our self-centeredness over the past five years has cost us lots of political capital with our friends and handed us years of damage control with our challengers.  It appears that we not only need better intelligence from our national security agencies, we need more emotional intelligence from our political appointees.  Re-cap on Emotional Intelligence: Relationships are vital for life achievement. Understanding and relating well with others is often more important than run of the mill smarts because self-awareness and the ability to build lasting meaningful relationships are fundamental keys to success.  All the public diplomacy gimmicks and flackery in the world will never overcome this basic fact. 

The administration's squandered political capital is splattered all over the place these days.

Bolton Goes Ballistic Over UN Official's Remarks Posted by Suzanne Nossel

As a jaded ex-officer of the US Mission to the UN, I found (in my live blogging of the speech, made at a conference held yesterday by Democracy Arsenal's sponsor, the Security and Peace Institute, can be found here) the comments made by Deputy UN Secretary General Mark Malloch Brown to be a bit blunt, a bit one-sided, but largely reflective of the attitude that the UN and most of its membership have toward the US these days, and thus not shocking in the least.  His viewpoint, in some key respects, dovetailed with the critique that progressives make of this Administration's failure to use the UN effectively to advance American policy goals.

But to both the New York Times and, far more so, to US Amb to the UN John Bolton, the comments were far different:  unprecedented in their harshness toward a UN member state.  Here's what Bolton had to say on the matter today:                                                                  
                                                                        
Ambassador John R. Bolton, U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations
Remarks at the Security Council Stakeout                                       
New York City                                                                  
June 7, 2006                                                                  
                                                                        
REPORTER: Ambassador, could I get a few comments about, especially about Mr.   
Brown's comments about my station?                                             
                                                                        
AMBASSADOR BOLTON: Well, on that speech, this is a very, very grave mistake by
the Deputy Secretary General. We are in the process of an enormous effort to   
achieve substantial reform at the United Nations. And it's a difficult effort,
but it's an effort that we feel very strongly about. And to have the Deputy   
Secretary General criticize the United States in such a manner, can only do   
grave harm to the United Nations. Even though the target of the speech was the
United States, the victim, I fear, will be the United Nations. And even worse 
was the condescending and patronizing tone about the American people. That    
fundamentally and very sadly, this was a criticism of the American people, not
the American government, by an international civil servant, it's just         
illegitimate. So we've thought about this a good deal and we didn't respond to
it yesterday evening when we got a copy of the speech. But what we think the   
only way at this point to mitigate the damage to the United Nations is that the
Secretary General Kofi Annan, we think has to personally and publicly repudiate
this speech at the earliest possible opportunity. Because otherwise I fear the
consequences, not just for the reform effort, but for the organization as a   
whole. I spoke to the Secretary General this morning. I said I've known you   
since 1989, and I'm telling you this is the worst mistake by a senior UN      
official that I have seen in that entire time. That's why the only hope I think
is that the Secretary General comes to the rescue of the organization and      
repudiates the speech.                                                         
                                                                        
REPORTER: Did you also call for Mr. Brown's resignation?                      
                                                                        
AMBASSADOR BOLTON: I've said what I have to say on that subject for now.      
                                                                        
REPORTER: What do you mean, "come to the rescue? What could the United States 
do next if he does not repudiate the speech?                                  
                                                                        
AMBASSADOR BOLTON: I am concerned at this point at the very wounding effect   
that this criticism of the United States will have in our efforts to achieve   
reform. And this isn't the first time the Deputy Secretary General has done   
this recently. He gave an interview a few weeks ago that criticized the United
States and the other major contributors. This is very serious. This is very   
serious.                                                                      
                                                                        
REPORTER: What was Mr. Annan's reaction to your suggestion that he repudiate   
the speech?                                                                   
                                                                        
AMBASSADOR BOLTON: I'll leave him to speak. Hopefully he would address this by
the noon briefing. If it's his opinion that he supports what the Deputy       
Secretary General said, I hope it's not, but if it is then he should say so   
forthrightly. My hope is that he looks at the potential adverse effect that   
these intemperate remarks would have on the organization and repudiate it. I   
think that would be the cleanest, safest thing for the organization.          
                                                                        
REPORTER: What's the response been in Washington to this? Has there been any, 
Capitol Hill and in the White House?                                          
                                                                        
AMBASSADOR BOLTON: In the time since the speech was given I've heard a lot that
disturbs me and it's one reason that I called the Secretary General this      
morning and believe that the only way to mitigate the damage is to repudiate   
the speech.                                                                   
                                                                        
REPORTER: To what extent to you take some of these comments personally in terms
of what he seems to be implying by the style you bring to this, or create      
suspicion ?                                                                   
                                                                        
AMBASSADOR BOLTON: I don't take any of it personally.                         
                                                                        
REPORTER: This could be interpreted by some in this institution as a US attempt
to silence its critics. How would you address that criticism?                  
                                                                        
AMBASSADOR BOLTON: The organization is an organization of member governments. 
The Secretariat works for the member governments. So that when a member of the
Secretariat criticizes a member government, and as I said, criticizes the      
intelligence of the people of a member government, that's a very questionable 
activity. I think it's important to rescue the reform effort, to rescue the   
institution that Secretary General needs to make it clear that these remarks   
did not represent his opinion about the United States. Okay. Thank you very   
much. 

Annan refused Bolton's demand that he repudiate Malloch Brown's remarks.  Here's what I make of the thing:

- It's true that Malloch Brown's comments may have been close to the line for an international civil servant, though I don't think there should be a ban on UN officials speaking difficult truths to Member States.  Malloch Brown was not focused on insulting America or Americans, but on begging for more US engagement and involvement to make the UN work.

- Calling the remarks the "worst mistake by a senior UN official" since 1989 is an insult to the memory many thousands who died in Rwanda and Bosnia due to far more serious mistakes by UN officials.      

- Bolton's fit of fury will likely only call attention to the substance of Malloch Brown's remarks (excerpted here) about how isolated and mistrusted the US now is at the UN, and how ineffective the Bush Administration's policies have been.  UN-bashers will blame the messenger, but the American people are more sophisticated than that.  They  will understand readily how his message ties into the problems they are witnessing daily as a result of our unilateralist and misguided foreign policy.                                             

                                     

The US and the UN - Mark Malloch Brown Posted by Suzanne Nossel

Mark Malloch Brown is sometimes mentioned as a dark horse candidate to succeed in Annan in the event that all else fails and there's no consensus on an Asian candidate.  He's speaking now.  He's said he's gonna talk about the grievous consequences of America's failure to properly engage with the UN.  But he's preaching to the choir here.

He calls Annan the UN's best SYG ever, but its his boss.   He's saying that the UN's ability to carry out critical functions is being undermined by the lack of US leadership, using the human rights council as an example.  I'm gonna move my seat in the hope of challenging him with a question when he's done.  This is all true, but beside the point.  Yes, we need to figure out how to rebuild a consensus around the UN, but that process will require addressing some of the organizations' limitations.

He argues that the UN's role is a secret in middle America because of Fox News and Rush Limbaugh's disinformation campaigns.  That's true, but its been true for years despite efforts by organizations like the UN Foundation and UN Association to address the ignorance and publicize the UN's important contributions.  What we need is creative and new ideas for how to turn this around, not more ranting about why American perceptions of the UN aren't what they should be.

He's acknowledging that the Group of 77 developing countries have opposed vital reforms to, for example, give the SYG the authority to properly manage the UN, for example by being able to hire and fire and shift around posts to meet priorities.  I hope he doesn't attribute their recalcitrance wholly to resentment toward the U.S. . . . yup, he just did.  He argues they oppose reasonable proposals just because we back them.  But there's more to it.  Those obsolete posts are filled by country-nationals who often have their home missions in thrall.

He's calling for no more take-it-or-leave-it demands by the US.  Yet often take-it-or-leave-it is all that works.  It was Holbrooke's approach to getting an agreement on US dues to the UN paid.

10 Things To Look For in a New UN Secretary General Posted by Suzanne Nossel

The labyrinthine and secretive process of selecting a replacement for UN Secretary General (SYG) Kofi Annan, whose second term ends in December, is now getting underway.  This site does a marvelous job of tracking the progress and prognostications.  Given the shape the UN's in, its no exaggeration to say that the choice will have a major impact on the future role and effectiveness of the world body.   Here's what anyone who cares about the UN ought to be looking for:

1.  A Strong Manager - Some say the next SYG ought to be more of a politician than a manager, since the key underlings run things day to day.  But management skills are always critical for a top job, no matter how much is delegated.  The UN risks desuetude if its sprawling bureaucracy lapses into even one more serious scandal.  The SYG needs to surround himself with the right people, and his chief lieutenants must believe that the boss is watching, that he knows incompetence, laziness, and dishonesty when he sees it, and that he won't tolerate it for even a minute.  The Admistration is right on this one, though may be focused on management skills to the exclusion of other vital qualities.

2.  A Charismatic Leader - The Bush Administration may well prefer a SYG who is not a leader in his own right, assuming that such a person will be easier to control.  But the divisions in both the UN's General Assembly and the UN Security Council mean that only someone with charm, persuasive powers, and forcefulness will be able to make headway.  The organization's tendency toward lowest-common-denominator indecision and passivity is what has made it so ineffectual on Darfur and, to date, Iran.  If the SYG doesn't have the personality to help cut through it, no one will.

3.  An Asian - The UN has an informal agreed regional rotation system which dictates that this is Asia's "turn" to have a SYG.  There's been talk about alternative E. European candidates, and the idea that given the array of qualities on lists like this one, there whould be no limits on finding the right person for the job.  But everyone agrees that the two key parties who must acquiesce before white smoke billows from UN HQ are the U.S. and the Chinese.  The Chinese will demand an Asian, and they'll get an Asian.  It's almost certain that this will mean the next SYG is a man, which is why I use the male pronoun in this list.

4.  A Visionary of Sorts - While a highly competent functionary can effectively lead an organization like the World Food Programme or UNHCR that has a well-defined mission, leading the UN involves setting a global agenda.  The SYG needs to articulate his own views for how to prioritize among the UN's dizzying array of programs, speaking from conviction when he argues for something.  At least rhetorically, Kofi Annan did well on this score, showing leadership in promoting a Responsibility to Protect and the promotion of democracy. 

5.  Someone who Enjoys the Respect of the Developing World - The UN is dominated by delegations from the developing world who are eternally suspicious that the wealthier countries who fund the UN and dominate the Security Council will shortchange their priorities.  They will make life miserable for a SYG they don't trust, and can and will paralyze the UN in the process.  This sets a high bar for candidates from Japan or Korea who are not seen as "of" the developing world.

10 Signs UN Reform is Alive Posted by Suzanne Nossel

I spent this weekend at a conference organized by the Stanley Foundation on UN Reform.  Stanley is deeply valued at the UN for convening in-depth, substantive sessions that are small enough to allow participants to engage and actually reach decisions.   David Shorr, an occasional guest-blogger here, has masterminded these UN events in recent years.  This weekend he and Stanley Foundation President Dick Stanley focused on the nuts and bolts of how to streamline the thousands of UN mandates that have accumulated over the years.   

They convened a group including a dozen UN ambassadors from major countries (none with mustaches), a handful of their deputies, a few top Secretariat and US government officials, one academic and one blogger.   For me it was a chance to delve back into reform issues 5 years after completing negotiations at the US Mission to the UN to reform the organization's financial system in 2001.   Here are 10 reasons why the weekend left me somewhat heartened on prospects for UN reform:

1.  With the spotlight gone, important hard work is actually getting done - Many of us despaired last Fall when the UN's historic reform summit ended with a whimper.  With world leaders missing the chance to endorse an ambitious program, reform seemed bound to die.  But it hasn't.  Wading through thousands of UN mandates to decide what to kill is tedious, daunting and vitally necessary.  The UN deserves major kudos for plunging into this head-on.   There's also hope of major progress on a reformed Human Rights Council as soon as this week.

2.  The top people in the UN Secretariat are seized with reform - The UN seems to have woken up, smelled the Kofi, and realized that it needs turn itself around or risk extinction.  The UN's best people are now focused on reform which, just 5 years ago, was n unsexy backwater that highflyers avoided at all costs.  When I asked whether a certain charismatic, high-ranking UN official was involved in the reform effort, the answer was "everyone is."

3.  Member States are engaged in reform at a higher level than ever - To see a group of top ambassadors devote a holiday weekend to the intricacies of criteria for retiring outdated UN mandates was impressive.  In 2000-01, ambassadors would step in only at the literal midnight hour; usually Christmas Eve when failure to reach decisions meant spoiled holidays and no budget for the new year.  The dominance of low-level, less accountable delegates bedeviled many a reform debate.   Having ambassadors around the table is a huge improvement.

4.  Key member states now care about how the UN is perceived (especially on the Hill and by the US public) - When I served at the US Mission, other delegations took offense if we brought up the expectations and demands of Congress or the US public about UN reform.  Our domestic political dramas were no concern of theirs.  Now, delegations from around the world - including developing countries - speak of the need to demonstrate publicly that the organization is changing, and to adduce tangible evidence that old habits are being broken.   This is a potentially big breakthrough.

5.  Mistrust of the US is forcing the American delegation to make compromises - There was lots of talk about suspicion and polarization at the UN being at an all-time high.  This is countries' polite way of saying they're mad as hell at us.  Countries demanded so-called confidence building measures by the US as a precondition for their willingness to engage on a reform agenda that, on its surface, means making the UN more focused and efficient, but that many countries fear is a veil for cost-cutting and shortchanging developing countries' priorities.  The US knows its radioactive and needs to show flexibility to get others to play ball.

A Muslim Secretary General? Posted by Heather Hurlburt

Steve Clemons over at the Washington Note has a very interesting run-down (at the end of the post) of the emerging candidates to be the next UN Secretary General, including the intriguing point that most of the first-tier contenders are Muslim.  Read it and be the first on your block to be dropping the names; for more, here is a Richard Holbrooke commentary on the subject, and here, god bless, is an entire website devoted to the horserace. 

Of course, to derive the maximum benefits from a Muslim ascending to the top slot, it would be helpful for the person not to appear to be America's hand-picked Muslim.  Is our diplomacy up to that?

Two Olympic postscripts:  I'm looking forward to seeing what non-profits pick up quickly on the Joey Cheek phenomenon (nice finish in the 1000.)  And, on a cultural note, the next time someone tells you that European culture is inherently less tacky than ours, do refer them to... ice dancing.

Happy Monday.

Bolton Sends 'em Boltin Posted by Suzanne Nossel

Amb. John Bolton presided over his first UN Security Council meeting today and no one showed up.  On time, that is.

On the first day of the US's month-long Council Presidency Bolton banged the gavel at 10 AM sharp, only to have his 14 colleagues from around the world - used to the Council's normally leisurely cadences - saunter in at quarter after.  The Council membership is balking at a series of proposals Bolton has made for his tenure, including daily morning briefings on security issues from Kofi Annan with notes circulated in advance, and free-form debates in lieu of scripted statements.  In response, Bolton has described his quest for reform as "irresistible force" bumping up against "immovable object."

The funny thing is,  Bolton's right.  The UN is too prone to operate like a laid-back international coffee house.   It hardly seems too much to ask that the 15 people responsible for global peace and security meet to discuss the subject each morning.  UN delegations like written statements because they enable capitals to dictate every word.  But the end result is tedious, repetitive and cautious statements that stand in the way of genuine debate.  Resolving tough issues among a diverse group requires the ability to react and compromise.  Dispensing with prepared statements for routine meetings would make life more interesting, and allow the Council to cut to the chase.

The sad part is that Bolton's confrontational style and lack of allies may well mean that potentially valuable proposals for change fall flat despite their merits.

Bolton's UN Budget Brouhaha Posted by Suzanne Nossel

Mort rightly notes that there's a disaster in the making at the UN, with the US - at Ambassador John Bolton's instigation - threatening to block passage of this year's biennial budget unless the membership agrees to set aside monies to finance a series of reforms that haven't yet been agreed.

This is all the depressing and utterly predictable result of the failure of this September's UN Summit on reform to deliver tangible results.  I'm glad there's still a debate alive on prospects for converting the UN's disgraced Commission on Human Rights into a more credible Human Rights Council, but I'd be amazed if this actually happens.   In assessing the situation now, I part ways with a lot of progressives (probably including Mort) on the issue of UN reform and how to make it happen .  .  . (also read on for my prediction on how all this plays out in the coming weeks)

A Looming UN Crisis Posted by Morton H. Halperin

Having spent most of Friday at the United Nations headquarters in New York, I am much more pessimistic about the chances for reaching agreement on a new human rights council.  More alarming, I fear that the US is precipitating a crisis which will further weaken American ability to lead and which could debilitate the UN. 

As reported in an editorial in the New York Times on Friday,  John Bolton has informed his colleagues that the United States will only support an interim three month budget for the UN and will accept a longer budget only after the US reform agenda is implemented.   This position has provoked a sense of alarm in New York, causing the Secretary General to cancel a long-planned trip to Asia.   With the possible exception of Japan, the US position has no significant support. UN officials say that the UN will run out of money by late February if this course is adopted.

Perm Reps from friendly nations, deeply involved in these negotiations, believe that Bolton went directly to the President (perhaps through the Vice President) and that the Secretary of State was told by the President that the US would not budge from its opposition to adopting the regular UN budget this month.

So much for the promise to the Senate that Bolton would simply be an Ambassador taking orders from the State Department. Only a concerted counter-attack from supporters of the UN, in the administration, the Congress, and the public, can prevent a train wreck.

John Bolton and the UN Human Rights Council Posted by Morton H. Halperin

What is John Bolton up to?  Is he conducting his own policy or is he taking orders from the State Department, as promised? 

With attention focused on Iraq, these questions have not gotten the attention they deserve.  Mr. Bolton has been off on his own suggesting that voluntary contributions should substitute for UN dues and that the US will soon start looking for other ways to work with friendly governments if the UN does not reform.

On one key issue -- the creation of a new Human Rights Council -- the evidence is mixed.  After jeopardizing success on this and other issues in his now famous rewrite of the consensus statement of world leaders,  Bolton has largely stayed out of the fight over the creation of the new Council, giving the lead to officials from the State Department.

As the negotiations come to a head over the next two weeks, one can only hope that he will remain on the sidelines and that the Administration will use its influence to secure a favorable outcome.

Security Council Unites Against Syria in Hariri Slaying Posted by Suzanne Nossel

The UN registered another point of proof that the rumors of its demise are exaggerated:  the Security Council coalesced around a tough consensus resolution challenging Syria to cooperate fully with the continuing investigation into the death of Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, or face consequences.  Algeria, China and Russia all went along along once the US, France and Britain agreed to strike language referencing sanctions if the Syrian obligations are not met, with the proviso that the resolution be adopted under Chapter Seven of the UN's Charter which specifically references enforcement mechanisms including sanctions and military force.

While this was not unexpected, nor should the accomplishment be dismissed.  The world is, at least for now, united in isolating a rogue state.  We have been unable to achieve similar with respect to Iraq, Iran, North Korea, Sudan and other outlaw regimes.   The real proof of the UN's mettle, of course, will come only if - -  as seems almost inevitable - - Bashar Assad's compliance with the investigation is incomplete and further measures are warranted.

But in the meantime let's touch briefly on a few reasons why, at least thus far, UN diplomacy is working better than usual in this case.   The cohesion and will to act derive in part from the specifics of the incident itself - a public assassination of a wildly popular former leader by the government of an occupying country.  But certain other aspects of what's unfolding transcend the Hariri case itself and have implications for US diplomacy at the UN:

1.   Generation of Objective Evidence - Innuendo, circumstantial evidence and even US intelligence weren't enough to rally the world against Syria.  But the findings of an independent, UN-appointed expert prosecutor were.   We dismissed the role of UN weapons inspectors in Iraq but had weapons been there, in retrospect it seems incontrovertible that the teams would eventually have found them and that, if they did, the UNSC would have been forced to act.  Rather than expecting the UN members to take our word for things, the extra time and effort to allow them to gather facts objectively will tend to pay off.

2.  Patience - The simple fact that the US is in no hurry for Syrian regime change and has been willing to allow the Mehlis investigation to run its course makes a big difference.  Behind the scenes of today's resolution was undoubtedly an agreement that if the Syrians indeed stonewall, sanctions will come later.  The UN moves painfully slowly, but allowing enough time to quiet all doubts and to "give a chance" to recalcitrant regimes is sometimes what it takes to build consensus.

3.   No (Public) Foregone Political Conclusions - That the US is too mired up in Iraq and other things to be able to handle Syrian disintegration helps a lot here.  If Algeria, China and Russia were convinced we wanted Assad out and quickly, they'd be far less likely to accede to the ratcheting up of  pressure on the regime.  By contrast, because the US made so nakedly clear that it would be satisfied with nothing less than Saddam Hussein's ouster, other countries resisted all forms of cooperation with us on Iraq for fear of abetting a US-led coup.  Even if Bush and Co. believe that nothing less than toppling Assad will do the trick, the decision not to flaunt their long-term designs is making it easier to sustain consensus.

Time for the UN to Step Up to the Plate on Syria Posted by Suzanne Nossel

Having praised the UN for its tough-minded report on the Hariri assassination, its now time for the organization's supporters to call on the world body to follow up with action.  Tomorrow the Security Council will meet to consider next steps.  The US and France are reportedly united in pushing for a resolution that would require full Syrian government cooperation with the next phase of the investigation, including access to all witnesses and suspects, and backing those demands with the threat of sanctions.  The US is calling for a meeting of Foreign Ministers of all Security Council members as soon as this Friday.

That France is solidly on board and even fronting the issue bodes well, in that their bona fides in the Arab world are a lot stronger than ours right now.   This is not a case where the US is moving unilaterally or pursuing a self-serving agenda.  Recognizing that, the rest of the Security Council membership should rise to the occasion.   

There's reason for hope because:

1) Syria's actions do not raise the usual Chinese and Russian concerns about infringements on sovereignty - on the contrary, the assassination of Hariri was a grave insult to Lebanese sovereignty;

2) Syria's relatively isolated among the UNSC membership - while China and Syria have strengthened ties it won't get the level of protection that, for example, the Russians afford to Iran;

3) mercifully this issue sidesteps the quicksand of UN debates that pit developed versus developing countries - ordinary, disenfranchised people throughout the Middle East seem to get what happened to Hariri and want to see justice;

4) Syria's only strong ally among the UNSC membership would appear to be Algeria which has just 2 months left in its term;

5) Europeans and others on the Council can make a strong argument that in acting, the UN can prevent the US from taking measures against Syria on its own - after all that's gone down in relation to Iraq, that's got to have powerful appeal;

6) After flirting with the edge of irrelevancy after its failed September Summit on reform, the organization would benefit from proving its worth on an issue that matters to its host country and largest member state, the US.  This imperative won't be lost on the Council membership.

We can expect the usual to-and-fro over whether to include sanctions in an initial resolution, what the sanction triggers should be, and how far the measures should go.  But Russia, China and others ought to realize that for the sake of Lebanon, of the principle of sovereignty, of the stability of the Middle East and of the future of the UN, now is as good a time as any to prove that the world body is something more than a debating shop.

Oh, and a word to the Bush Administration:  there's plenty to blame Syria for right now, but John Bolton and colleagues had best not freight up an initial Hariri resolution with other US-specific hot-button issues that will only complicate the negotations and stand in the way of consensus.  After all, the Administration needs a success on this even more than the UN does.

Judith Miller and UN-Bashing Posted by Heather Hurlburt

ouch.  Barbara Crossette, the longtime New York Times UN diplomatic correspondent and bureau chief (now retired ) has this little post over at the Poynter Institute, recalling Miller's authorship of some of the nastiest -- and Crossette says, unsubstantiated -- Times reporting on the oil-for-food scandal.  I'll leave it to our resident UN expert to comment on the guts of the stories, but all of you progressives who've decided the UN is hopeless (the ones I complained about last week), here's another reason to re-think. 

As for me, I'm sadly wondering whether I need to reassess my fondness for Miller's God Has Ninety-Nine Names.

UN Reform Issue Spotlight -- Responding to Genocide Posted by David Shorr

With all the highly politicized wordsmithing of the pre-UN Summit negotiations, for some issues it's hard to tell whether the text of the resulting Outcome Document represents a step forward, backward, or sideways. New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof wrestled with this problem in his Sunday column on genocide (full disclosure, I provided Kristof with modest help). He gives an almost schizophrenically mixed verdict, calling the statement on genocide (paragraphs #138-40) both "diluted" and "immensely important."Can both be true?

Of course the proper test regarding genocide or ethnic cleansing is action in response to particular campaigns of atrocities. Kristof's critique of the Bush Administration is that while it has called the carnage in Darfur by its rightful name, genocide, it has failed to follow through by pushing for sanctions or a no-fly zone.

So then what's the point of even having a UN statement on genocide? If the most important debates over how to respond to genocide always arise in a particular context (a specific place, perpetrators), they also take place against the backdrop of a broader debate over principles. The most contentious issues of multilateralism are at root about sovereignty -- either encroachment into a country's domestic matters or its obligation to act internationally, or both. For the issue of humanitarian intervention, a blue-ribbon commission in 2001 introduced the idea of the Responsibility to Protect -- which instead of solely granting outsiders a right to intervene, talked about a shift in the onus of protecting the basic right to safety from domestic to international governments if the local authorities prove unwilling or unable.

The statement in the Outcome Document essentially ratifies this concept, and therein lies its significance. For many countries that are either relatively weak internationally or have problematic human rights record, the purpose of the UN is to protect sovereign nations from outside interference in internal affairs. These sovereigntist governments have two concerns -- one valid, and one less so.

We need only look at the post-invasion rationalization of the Iraq War to see how powerful countries can abuse this principle. Recall how Sen. Pat Roberts said the war was justified on humanitarian grounds, or the administration's emphasis on Saddam's mass graves, dating largely from the late 1980s or early 1990s. Human Rights Watch President Ken Roth debunked this premise saying, "'better late than never' is not a justification for humanitarian intervention."

Hopefully the UN summit statement will lay to rest one of the great red herrings of this debate: the idea that humanitarian intervention will be used in cases of less drastic human rights violations. The statement addresses this issue with the unwieldy though precise phrase: "responsibility to protect population from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing, and crimes against humanity.

When Bush Administration officials explained their negotiating position to me, they emphasized that the responsibility to protect should be a moral obligation rather than a legal one. But a closer reading reveals an effort to cast it as a choice rather than any kind of obligation. Now that the statement is part of the UN record, hopefully the larger principles rather than the finer points of language will help shape future decisions about genocide.

What's Next for the UN? 10 Possibilities Posted by Suzanne Nossel

After an embarrassing fizzle of a global summit intended to tackle UN reform, the U.S. and the world organization need to figure out what's next.  Ideas are proliferating:  Ivo Daalder at Americans Abroad suggests replacing the global body with a comparable forum whose membership would be limited to longstanding democracies.  The Wall Street Journal editorial page wants to put Turtle Bay in trusteeship to be run by Former Fed Chairman Paul Volcker.

Before drowning UN HQ into the East River, its worth keeping in mind the many things the UN does well (here's a list of 10 important ones).   But its also time for some new thinking on the UN's shortcomings and what might be done to tackle them.  Here are 10 ideas - some serious, some slightly fanciful.   Please add in your own:

1.  Next time, get the Heads of State together without no low-level pre-meetings - It's the endless pre-meetings of middling delegates where all the good ideas seem to get reduced to the proposition-of-the-resolution-of-the-committee-of-the-commission.  While plenty of world leaders may prove just as obstinate and obfuscatory as their underlings, my bet is you'd have a more serious group in the room.  Have the heads of state meet privately for, say, 3 days, divided into committees they would volunteer for that could take real decisions.

2.  Refuse to participate in the UN's Human Rights Council unless and until its done right - The Summit did not kill the idea of a bona fide human rights council that would make decisions based on legitimate criteria and be comprised of members with proven commitments to human rights.  But it came close by kicking all the details into the General Assembly, where a majority is likely to resist such reforms.  But if the US, Europeans, Australians and others refuse to take part, any human rights mechanism will be relegated to a sideshow.   This is an issue worth forcing.

3.  Campaign for Bill Clinton as Secretary General - This notion has been swirling around for years, and this week's landmark Clinton Global Initiative will only boost it.   It makes enormous sense:  Clinton would command a level of respect from leaders well beyond what any administrator or former foreign minister could muster.  His influence with the US alone would make his candidacy a win for the rest of the world.  Achieving this when Annan's term ends in December 2006 would necessitate a shift in the usual regional order of candidacies, but that's not out of the question.  After this week's debacle, the world should be in search of a savior for the UN.  If it really wants UN reform, the Administration ought to start lobbying on this one (an interesting sideline would involve implications for HRC's presidential bid . . .)

4.    Form an Americas Regional Group - The UN's regional group system (important for candidacies and elections to virtually all UN committees) is both anachronistic and simply weird.  Rather than being paired with its neighbors in the Americas, the US is group with Europe, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and a few other strays in a Western European and Other Group.  Two big deterrents to possible realignment are Cuba and Venezuela.  But all sorts of interesting things might happen if we cast lots with Canada and the Latins:  closer relationships with allies like Mexico, Chile, Argentina and Brazil; better ability to influence the UN's developing world blocs, strong Western sway within at least 2 UN regional groups . . .

5.  Offer to Fund the Staff Buyout - The Summit ducked on Annan's proposal to offer a one-time buyout to get rid of dead wood within the UN's staff, passing the issue to the General Assembly.  The U.S., perhaps with a private donor, should put forward a big pool of money goodies (visas, eligibility for US benefit programs like social security) to support this program, provided the GA approves it.  If the offer is attractive enough, staff demand will help propel passage of the program.  Those who have worked at the UN know how key an element of management reform this is.

6.  Create standing UN capabilities for peacekeeping and peacebuilding - I can hear you now:  how can you argue that an organization as dysfunctional as the UN merits standing capabilities?!?   As it turns out, the UN's doing a lot better at peacekeeping and things like post-conflict reconstruction and election running than it is at, say administering sanctions and reforming itself.   The UN's capacity has grown significantly in these areas, as has the US's and the world's dependence on it.   But without standing capabilities, the UN will continue to face the problem it did when the US wanted its help in Iraq:  inability to attract donations of sufficient qualified personnel.

7.  Establish a Peacekeeping Training Center with US Backing - Related to the above, but potentially more palatable:  The US would establish a program, seeking financial and in-kind contributions by others, to train several thousand peacekeepers from around the world each year.  Trainees would then be seconded by their home governments for UN service for some fixed period of time, though formally remaining on the personnel rosters of their own militaries.  This would improve the quality of UN peacekeepers, give an incentive to more countries to participate, ensure a ready flow of qualified personnel, and give the US a measure of control over the whole effort.

8.   Make clear that the US views the UN as critical to its efforts on terrorism and WMD - The Summit took some tentative steps toward a global treaty on terror, and threw up its hands when it came to proliferation.  Whereas many of the preliminary reports that fed into the reform effort highlighted these top US foreign policy priorities, the US itself has sidelined the UN in its fights against terror and WMD.  While Bush talked about terror and proliferation during his Summit address last week, the Administration has viewed the UN as too weak and untrustworthy to play a key role and, partly as a result, the UN hasn't stepped up to the plate.  While these fights cannot be outsourced to the UN, there's no reason not to convince the membership that the organization's contributions are taken seriously.

9.  Air UNTV - One way to make the UN more transparent and accountable would be to introduce CSPAN-style gavel-to-gavel coverage of the tedium of UN committee work, broadcast via satellite worldwide.   The cameras might cut down on the hypocrisy and mischaracterizations that go on in UN debates, and incentivize countries to appoint stronger delegates.  This poll on the impact of CSPAN on its 25th birthday suggests some reasons for pause, however.  The number one reason cited for Members choosing to speak on the floor is raising their personal visibility.

10.  Invoke Responsibility to Protect in Darfur - Probably the most significant result of last week's Summit was inclusion of language in the outcome document specifying a "responsibility to protect" innocents confronted by genocide and war crimes.   The Canadians deserve great credit for pioneering the concept of "duty to protect" and pushing it this far.  The next step should be a swift new UN Security Council resolution invoking this obligation in relation to Darfur.  By quickly breathing life into this new provision, the UN membership can see to it that the Summit was not for naught.

Too Little Too Late on UN Reform Posted by Suzanne Nossel

Hate to say it, but told you so. (Scratch that.  I shouldn't gloat - - just saw David's piece below offering plaudits for my prescience - his praise is enough) Sure enough, the UN membership has come up with a watered down document on reform just in time to ensure that tomorrow's in-gathering of 160 heads of state does not dissolve in disarray.

I predicted that:

The document will be much vaguer than hoped, and will simply duck significant areas of disagreement .. . There will be some language that, if acted upon, could result in substantial, specific reforms to the way the UN does business . . . But the text will also leave loopholes that allow spoilers bent on killing particular reforms to get future bites at the apple (slowing the reforms down, watering them down, and/or refusing to fund them) once other bodies like the Security Council and GA working committees take over and attempt to implement.

This is exactly what happened.  The Summit resolution calls for renaming the UN's discredited Commission on Human Rights a Human Rights Council, but stops short of necessary reforms including keeping known violators out of the henhouse.  It calls for a terrorism convention, but stops short of offering a consensus definition of terrorism.  It includes no firm commitments in terms of a duty to protect innocents from genocide, and no concrete pledges in terms of management reform.  It apparently says nothing on non-proliferation or disarmament.

In all, while we had some time ago resigned ourselves to low expectations, all-in-all its a huge disappointment.  While some good may yet come out of the package, this consensus breathes no wind into the organization's sagging sales, resolves none of the bitter rifts that divide the membership and hamper progress, and commits neither the organization nor its members to any of the painful but necessary steps toward making the body function better.  For more on what woulda, coulda, shoulda happened in terms of reform, see here.

How could this have been different?  The U.S. will privately point to the likes of Algeria, Cuba, Iran and others as spoilers, holding out for unrealistic commitments of aid for the developing world.  Plenty of others will blame John Bolton and his last minute, aggressive redlining of the Summit document.

Why didn't the reform push achieve its promise?  3 reasons, each tightly interrelated:

1. Lack of political will - The UN has a way of eliciting lowest-common-denominator behavior from its members, meaning self-interested, uncompromising, and short-term minded stances that impede boldness and set back change.  Part of the problem is that negotiations are delegated to ambassadors in New York who get mired in UN internal politics and bloc dynamics, rather than keeping their eyes on big picture questions like how to strengthen the organization and keep the largest members involved and committed (both of which stand to enormously benefit the rank and file membership).

2.  A hobbled Annan - Oil-for-food and particularly Annan's personal involvement in the scandal weakened what had been the organization's strongest leader in decades.  Annan would otherwise have had the ability to cut through some of the small-mindedness, to pick up the phone and call in heads of state, and to push a lot harder.   That kind of tough leadership was desperately needed, yet absent from the Secretary General's office.  There's only one other place it could have come from . . .

3.  Ineffective US diplomacy - I've argued from the outset that the US stood to gain enormously from many of the reforms on the table this year, including strengthened UN commitments on terrorism and WMD, a more legitimate human rights mechanism, a buy-out for the organization's dead wood, and beefed up internal controls.  While the Administration's frayed relationships made it harder to push these things through, it could have been done.  In the past we've hammered home wildly unpopular reforms at the UN, through a painstaking process I call retail diplomacy.  It involves going member-by-member, capital-by-capital and figuring out what other nations want in return for agreeing to what matters most to us.  The US has enough clout at the UN to be able to get its way on almost anything, provided we go about it skillfully, advocate forcefully at the right levels well in advance of decision time, and are prepared to make trade-offs.  This work cannot be done by mid-level diplomats alone:  cabinet secretaries and even the President need to get involved. 

In this case, while the Administration waxed lofty on reform, they were far too distracted in Iraq to make the kind of push that would have been needed.  The U.S. put the nail in the coffin of Security Council reform back in June, but struck no comparably powerful blows in favor of the reforms it should have cared about the most.

5 Ideas for the President's UN Speech Posted by Heather Hurlburt

(with apologies to the White House staff -- I know this memo is kinda late.  Let's just blame FEMA and go forward.)

1.  Thank you.  Yes, I know this is obvious.  But follow it up with something about how we feel part of the world community, how the basic humanity that unites us is bigger than the politics that divide us, and how grateful we are for the institutional preparedness of outfits like the UN and NATO.  Acknowledge how they're helping us.  A significant strand of the foreign coverage of Katrina wants to see us reaching out, wants to see us getting back on our feet.  I'm not asking for new pledges of cooperation on issues other countries care about, or even an apology for past insensitivity, or efforts to starve various international rapid reaction capabilities.  Even the tiniest gesture would be well-received.  What we don't need is the sort of line Karen Hughes was peddling in Washington last week:  the problem is that "there are a lot of things being said about us around the world that aren't true."  No, the problem is that there are a lot of things about our response to Katrina that shouldn't be true.

2.  On fighting terrorism:  G-SAVE, GWOT, G-willikers.  It couldn't hurt to offer the international community (never mind us here at home) a comprehensive explanation of what exactly we think this struggle is, how we intend to fight it over the long term, and what we are asking others to do.  Again, I'm not, just this once, trying to score an ideological point here; rather, there's genuine confusion even among those who want to support the Administration.  And one thing the neo-cons and I agree on:  anytime you're not defining the playing field, someone else is doing it for you.  The inimitable Mark Danner wrote this past Sunday that the American public has "lost the narrative" of this conflict; the international community has too.  Or they're making up their own narratives, some of which are not so useful (eg Russia and Chechnya).

3. On Poverty:  OK, so we just watered the UN's fight on poverty down to invisibility.  This Administration still has a window to do something really big and interesting by re-seizing the high ground on trade.  Some analysts think that, after the German elections, we may see a new push in Europe to eliminate agricultural subsidies and seize the high ground on letting developing economies export their way to prosperity.  As things stand now, we will get flattened by such a move.  So we should do it first, and let the Europeans be the ones who have to respond slowly.  Besides, it's the right thing to do -- it would generate cash flows to sub-Saharan Africa many times what we do in aid.  And it sound so small-government, free-enterprise.

4.  On UN Reform:  Here's where I get in trouble with all our resident UN gurus.  But there's a fundamental sense in which all the urgency of the UN reform debate is a bit specious.  The UN can only be as efficient, or as strong, or as stringent, as its member states will allow it.  That doesn't excuse corruption in the Secretariat.  And it's true that the US is in no position to point fingers.  But imagine any President getting up and saying "we pledge to pay our bills on time -- that means on the UN's time, not ours; and we pledge to put any US citizens caught misbehaving as peacekepers or other UN employees OR CONTRACTORS on trial, not yank them home or plead dipomatic immunity.  We will stop our nickel-and-diming in the budgetary process, and in exchange we will institute zero tolerance for even the appearance of fraud or mismanagement.  We challenge the rest of you to do the same."

5.  On Iraq:  I can't help it.  The rest of the world wants to know what the plan is as badly as Americans do.  Whatever the truth of the strange brouhaha surrounding UN printing of the draft Iraqi constitution, we're clearly out of sync again.

And a bonus #6: 

6.  The Millennium Development Goals.  Great idea, pure of heart, lousy framing, execution full of acronyms, dubious statistics, and numbing rhetoric.  Unclear, unfortunately, that they're making much of a difference on the ground -- which means, I'm sorry, they're not a success as an organizing tool.  Mr. President, since John Bolton tried to edit them out of existence anyway, couldn't you please task the brilliant Michael Gerson with reformulating them in language and constructs that speak to normal people, who don't go in for the five- and ten-year plan approach?  It's true that the international aid bureaucracy wouldn't thank you for it.  But the people who are supposed to be benefiting from them just might.

Score along at home:  if I go zero for five, be really afraid.  If, with half-credit and generous interpretations, I go 3 for 5, my cynic-o-meter is about right.  If I go 5 for 5 or, God forbid, 6 for 5, my mind has been taken over, alien-movie-like, by David Frum.

UN Reforms Live to Fight Another Day Posted by David Shorr

Earlier today the UN General Assembly approved the text of a so-called "Outcome Document" to be endorsed by world leaders who begin their summit meeting tomorrow. The final days of negotiations were so contentious and extended so many times that Canadian Ambassador Allan Rock earlier today said they had a "movable deadline."

At a certain point, the talks became a salvage operation, in which supporters of the reform package contained in earlier drafts worked to lock in what modest gains they could. As a result, several of the key provisions are tentative first steps or markers rather than fully realized reforms. In other words, reform lives to fight another day. For those of our viewers keeping score at home, the prize for predicting how this would play out goes to DA's wise Solomon Nossel.

So where does this leave the ambitious reform agenda?

• The world leaders will "resolve to create a Human Rights Council" Yet all of the features that would distinguish the new body from the existing discredited Human Rights Commission -- election procedures, a peer review mechanism, a year-round schedule -- remain disputed. Proponents of the Council avoided sending the issue to diplomatic purgatory by keeping an "open-ended working group" from being set up.
• The