UN Reform

Ah yes, is anyone surprised by this? If you are you should probably go crawl back under your rock.

A yearlong inquiry into the U.N.'s oil-for-food program blames Secretary-General Kofi Annan, the Security Council and some member states for allowing mismanagement and corruption to undermine the program and enrich Saddam Hussein. A preface to the Independent Inquiry Committee's report, to be released today, says the U.N. requires stronger leadership and serious overhaul.

Shock. This is pretty precious,

Decisions were "delayed, bungled or simply shunned" when the political and economic interests of Security Council member states conflicted with the U.N.'s administrative guidelines, it says. The states mentioned included the United States, Russia and France.

Then there is the recommendations.

The panel, led by former U.S. Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker, called for four key reforms, including creating the post of chief operating officer and an independent auditing board, and said they should be implemented within a year.

The chief operating officer will be a cousin of Annan's and the auditing board will be run by 7 heavily corrupt officials from countries who have a special dislike for the US. Well, maybe I'm being a bit cynical on those points.

But then I'm certain that obstructionism in the reforms will be justified because the US is doing so much to outrage the Millennium Development Goals. Obviously, Bolton is just being disruptive to the UN's agenda by providing comments so late in the preparations period. Imaging if he had been installed earlier, the comments and US positions probably would have been less of a disruption. Well, then again, probably not.

Work on a summit declaration was thought to be progressing smoothly until mid-August. A 39-page document was in its third draft when Washington's U.N. ambassador, John Bolton, submitted hundreds of proposed changes, along with seven U.S. position papers.

Not that there are any issues that are a real problem.

Among the most contentious issues being negotiated is development. Early drafts of the summit declaration contain commitments to so-called Millennium Development Goals, one of which would commit wealthy countries to spending a percentage of their national income on development assistance.

Ambassador Bolton sent a letter to colleagues last week laying out his objection to what he called "global aid targets." He says the Bush administration remains committed to pledges made at the Millennium Summit in 2000. But he says those commitments are different from the Millennium Development Goals backed by Secretary-General Kofi Annan.

"We said explicitly that President Bush has repeatedly endorsed the goals contained in the declaration of the millennium summit in 2000. Under Bush we have nearly doubled official developmental assistance," he said. "There is a lot of confusion about the phrase 'Millennium Development Goals.' I sent a two-page dear colleague letter to explain our position, and we're going to negotiate it out."

It looks like the seven sticking points are quite stuck.

With only a week to go before the summit opens, negotiators say there is no agreement on any of the seven main issues up for discussion.

The status of the talks was summed up Tuesday by Algerian Ambassador Abdallah Baali. As he entered a negotiating session, he told reporters "We're stuck."

Well, that is just sad. I'm especially torn up by the 0.7% of a countries GDP needing to be given to the UN for support of their goals. Personally, handing that gigantic wad of cash to an organization that hasn't been cleared of corruption is likely a poor idea.

If you'd like to see the US alterations to the document you can find it here. This website has most of the documents related to the Millennium Summit.

And don't forget just how dedicated Annan is to reform. Though I'd say he's doing his best to fend off any real reforms, but what the hell do I know?