In the run-up to Wednesday's elections to the UN Human Rights Council, Nobel laureates Desmond Tutu, Adolfo Perez Esquivel, and Jimmy Carter have all issued statements opposing Sri Lanka's candidacy. The case against Sri Lanka, according to Tutu:

Sri Lanka has failed to honour its pledges of upholding human rights standards and cooperating with the UN since joining the council two years ago. Indeed, its human rights record has worsened during that time. The Sri Lankan idea of cooperation with the UN, meanwhile, has been to condemn senior UN officials (including the high commissioner for human rights, Louise Arbour, and the under secretary general for humanitarian affairs, John Holmes) as "terrorists" or "terrorist sympathisers."

The systematic abuses by Sri Lankan government forces are among the most serious imaginable. Government security forces summarily remove their own citizens from their homes and families in the middle of the night, never to be heard from again. Torture and extrajudicial killings are widespread. When the human rights council was established, UN members required that states elected must themselves "uphold the highest standards" of human rights. On that count, Sri Lanka is clearly disqualified.

Opposition to Sri Lankan membership in the Council -- the successor to the Human Rights Commission, which was much-maligned for its regular inclusion of rights-abusing and abusive regimes -- does seem to have crystallized among NGOs and human rights activists. While the new Council is by no means a paragon of human rights monitoring -- passing more resolutions that condemned Israel than those that censured Sudan, for example -- the campaign to tighten the standards of countries accepted into the body reveals how far the Council has come. Last year, Belarus' candidacy flopped, deterring notorious human rights offenders like Sudan and Zimbabwe from even attempting to stand for election. Sri Lanka may well not be pleased with the negative attention is receiving, but ultimately, both the Human Rights Council and the human rights situation within Sri Lanka stand to benefit.

Recently, the UN Development Program (UNDP), which provides developing countries with assistance combating poverty, improving democratic governance, and achieving the eight Millennium Development Goals, has faced accusations of corruption and mismanagement from certain quarters. Responding to an April 1 editorial in The Wall Street Journal that claimed the existence of "fraud and corruption in U.N. Development Program operations in North Korea," UNDP Director of Communications David Morrison today provided a strong rebuttal to these groundless assertions.

When the concerns about UNDP's program in North Korea were first raised, the secretary-general directed the U.N. Board of Auditors to conduct an audit of the program. Contrary to [WSJ's] assertion, the audit did not find "fraud and corruption." Instead, the audit reported that UNDP, similar to other U.N. and foreign organizations, had to alter some of its programmatic and administrative practices to operate in North Korea -- a fact of which UNDP board members, including the U.S., were well aware.

Morrison also cites a Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations report that also found no "fraud and corruption" in UNDP's operations in North Korea. He goes on to quote Mark Wallace, the erstwhile UN Ambassador for Management reform whom the Journal's editorial was extolling, as admitting that "we do not believe nor have we seen any corruption."

When UN and U.S. auditing boards both find no instances of corruption, and the individual (Wallace) who has promulgated these charges also admits not having found corruption, one would think the matter settled. In the interest of full investigation, though, one more independent panel, chaired by former Hungarian Prime Minister Miklos Nemeth, will submit its findings in the North Korea matter within the next few months, and Morrison patiently advises skeptics to await its report.

With a new Secretary General comes new opportunities for the United States to strengthen its commitment to the United Nations. The next UNF Insights column outlines some of the openings that this transitional period presents and argues that American foreign policy would be best served by seizing this new multilateralist moment. Click here for the PDF.

The next installment of UNF Insights explores some problems associated with using what economists call "Purchasing Power Parity" (PPP) to assess what each member state must pay in dues to the United Nations. Readers of The Economist might recognize the term from the magazine's periodic "Big Mac Index," which uses the price of a McDonalds hamburger to compare economies around the world. In short, PPP is a way to measure comparative standards of living by comparing the price of a "basket of goods" in one place (i.e. a Big Mac in Bengal) to the same "basket of goods" elsewhere (i.e. a Big Mac in Bologna.)

When applied to the price of a hamburger, PPP gives harmless anecdotal evidence about the relative strength of economies. But if used to calculate UN dues - as some key member states have argued - it would have debilitating consequences for UN operations. To find out why, click here for my short essay on the topic.

IHT: "The next secretary-general of the United Nations pledged Tuesday to restore trust in the world body and enact reforms, speaking on the 61st anniversary of the organization's founding. Ban Ki-moon, South Korea's foreign minister who will assume the top U.N. job in January, said the organization cannot forge united global political will in an atmosphere of mistrust.

"As secretary-general, I will leave no stone unturned in my endeavor to dispel the bitter atmosphere and shore up the trust and confidence among all stakeholders," Ban told a luncheon marking the U.N. anniversary. "This will begin with winning the trust of all in myself and my leadership as secretary-general."

"Senate Democrats unleashed a sharp volley of criticism of President Bush's foreign policy yesterday, arguing that John R. Bolton has done more harm than good as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations and does not deserve an extended term. If Bolton's style were less divisive, they said, he might have achieved more reforms at the United Nations and tougher sanctions against Hezbollah and North Korea." [Full story]

Bloggers weigh in:

FDL
Washington Note
Think Progress

Writing in Bloomberg News, Amity Shlaes argues that the opposition to Ambassador Bolton's re-nomination is born from a conviction that he does not possess the right temperament for the job. "Doesn't play well with others," writes Shlaes. "That's the charge against John Bolton.... Other UN diplomats don't like him. They complain about him the way preschool teachers complain about an irritating child -- too loud, too pushy."

With respect to Ms. Shlaes, Bolton's temperament is not the issue here. Among the many reasons to question the wisdom and utility of Bolton's re-nomination, the fact that he does not possess the social graces typical of other diplomats in Turtle Bay is beside the point. Rather, questions about Bolton's nomination are grounded in profoundly substantive critiques of his one year tenure as Ambassador.

In issue after issue, Ambassador Bolton has undermined many of the interests he purports to serve. And in no subject is this clearer than UN reform. Ambassador Bolton is arguably among the most vocal proponents of reform in Turtle Bay. But as Barbara Crossette pointed out in Foreign Policy, Bolton too often stakes maximalist positions on relatively minor issues, thereby sacrificing larger reform to his own idiosyncrasies. For example, by opposing the mere mention of Millennium Development Goals in the 2005 World Summit outcome document, Bolton sent months of negotiation in a tailspin just weeks before the summit in September. (Bolton only dropped the issue once Secretary Rice smoothed things over in a conference call with Kofi Annan and an irate UK foreign minister Jack Straw.) In the end, the final document was a watered down version of many of the goals the United States-and other proponents of reform-hoped to achieve.

Similarly, Bolton often fails to signal America's bottom line at critical points of negotiation. During discussions over the structure and mandate of the new Human Rights Council, our best allies at the UN were bending over backwards to accommodate the administration's concerns. However, Bolton failed to articulate America's red lines during crucial meetings prior to the vote on the council. As a result, Bolton failed to achieve a proposal that the United States could support.

Bolton's preference for brinksmanship is also damaging to America's long term interests at the United Nations. There was a near crisis stemming from a budget stand-off in June, and this became a diplomatic disaster for the United States. For one, this tactic backfired and strengthened the hand of the opponents to reform who successfully stalled much progress on reform in a General Assembly vote in May. Further, it isolated the United States, contributing to the steady erosion of American influence in Turtle Bay.

Bolton has been unable to achieve many of his stated goals on reform. But he has contributed to an atmosphere at the United Nations is becoming increasingly contentious and polarized. It is these substantive critiques, not questions about his temperament, which Senators must consider as they vote on his nomination.

"The United States will drop its insistence that rich nations withhold funds from the U.N. budget next month unless management reforms are enacted, U.S. Ambassador John Bolton said on Friday." [Full story]

UPDATE: From the Better World Campaign: The Partnership for a Secure America, a bi-partisan group of former high ranking foreign policy officials, ran an advertisement in The New York Times calling for strong U.S. leadership at the UN to build consensus on reforms and for continued funding of the organization at this critical time, addressing the vital role the UN is playing to confront global problems and in foster peace. See the advertisement. (pdf)

In case you missed these:

Strained relations between U.N., U.S. are bad for everyone

"During the late 1990s, congressional conservatives led by Sen. Jesse Helms, R-N.C., vowed to starve the U.N. unless it acceded to a long list of "reforms." In September 2002, President Bush asserted that the United Nations would become "irrelevant" should it fail to join the U.S. in disarming Iraq. You have to wonder why the U.N. is still in business. The short answer is: Because the United States can't do without it.

John Bolton's latest teapot tempest

"The U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, John Bolton, last week petulantly aimed a blast of verbal buckshot at U.N. Deputy Secretary-General Mark Malloch Brown. In his blast, he grotesquely distorted what the U.N. official had actually asserted in public criticisms of the Bush administration and some Republican-friendly media."

Sebastian Mallaby: "Last month President Bush issued a rare apology. "Saying 'Bring it on,' kind of tough talk, you know, that sent the wrong signal," he confessed. "I think in certain parts of the world it was misinterpreted."

Well done, Mr. President, you've understood that bluster can backfire. Now how about sharing this insight with your ambassador to the United Nations?"

In his recent testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Ambassador Bolton announced that the U.S. is "prepared to consider" a 90-day extension of the spending cap that threatens to disrupt invaluable UN operations at the end of this month.

However, he also acknowledged that "it hasn't met with a lot of support," and that "it's an indication ... that we're not trying to force this to an issue on the 30th [of June]."

Ambassador Bolton hits the nail on the head. It is clear to nearly every party involved that such a proposal is very unlikely to be accepted. Member States would not want to engage in this complicated debate as the 2006 U.S. Congressional campaigns hit the home stretch or in the same time frame as the annual General Assembly meeting, where nations will also be hotly debating the selection of the next Secretary-General. Doing so would only make matters more contentious in what is already a highly charged environment. Some have even suggested that this proposal is just what the Ambassador said it was, "an indication," a non-starter intended to make the U.S. appear more amenable to compromise while painting the G-77 into a corner.

For quite a while (and again at the recent Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing) Senators on both sides of the aisle have pressed the U.S. mission on what would be a far more effective and responsible strategy - clearly delineating the reforms that would satisfy those who fought for the budget cap. Unfortunately the Administration has yet to do so.

The battle is pitched at the United Nations. Now is the time for reasoned diplomacy and clearly delineated goals, if we are to avoid a head-on collision that threatens to paralyze the UN, a situation that benefits no nation.

"The United Nations must become more effective in tackling global terrorism, Tony Blair has said. He said that new worldwide threats mean that the international community must act "earlier and more effectively", and that a UN debate is needed on how that can happen.

"The whole point about the international community today is that these problems are urgent, they need to be tackled. If they're not tackled, the consequences are very quickly felt around the world. And you have got to have institutions that are capable of taking them on and tackling them and getting action taken."

His comments at a White House press conference come ahead of a speech in which the Prime Minister will urge the reform of international institutions such as the UN and the International Monetary Fund to take account of the new politics of globalization.

At a joint press conference, Mr Blair told reporters: "What we want to do is make sure that the UN is an effective instrument to multi-lateral action." [Read more]

"In 2005, the United Nations delivered 1,200 reports on issues from Guinea-Bissau to the rights of women in the developing world. Its human rights office alone produced 44,000 pages of documents which in turn had to be translated into six official languages.

Such a huge volume of information, and the bureaucracy needed to produce it, threatens to overwhelm the United Nations, Secretary-General Kofi Annan said in a study released Thursday. The 191 member states must fund the things they ask for, and stop demanding so much if the world body is to live up to the ideals and promises of its founders, he said." [More]

"The United Nations will soon have a re-minted human rights body to monitor abuses worldwide after the full membership voted in favour of its creation yesterday ... The notion of a reformed council was proposed by Kofi Annan, the secretary general, last year and endorsed by the UN's 60th anniversary summit in September." More

Secretary-General Kofi Annan
©UN Photo/Mark Garten

"Aiming to keep step with the shift at the United Nations from bureaucratic tasks to life-saving work in the field, Secretary-General Kofi Annan today presented proposals for a far-reaching overhaul ranging from setting up a 2,500-strong core of mobile peacekeeping professionals to multimillion dollar investments in training and technology.

His far-reaching report, "Investing in the United Nations: For a Stronger Organization Worldwide," focuses on ensuring efficiency and accountability in a way that reflects the fact that more than 70 per cent of the $10 billion annual budget now relates to peacekeeping and other field operations, up from around 50 per cent of a $4.5 billion budget ten years ago." [Read more]

Rikomatic: "Nobel Prize Laureates support UN Human Rights Council"

Steve Clemons: "Bolton has Been Trying to Kill the Human Rights Council from the Beginning"

Paper Chase: "US Rejects Proposed UN Human Rights Council Reform"

Thomas Paine's Corner: "Human Rights Hypocrisy"

Opinio Juris: "U.S. Will Oppose New U.N. Human Rights Council"

TEXT:

We the undersigned Nobel Peace Prize Laureates and representatives of Nobel Peace Prize Laureate organizations urge the creation of a representative and effective UN Human Rights Council.

In virtually every armed conflict since the formation of the United Nations, gross human rights violations have preceded armed conflict. The stripping of rights and recognition of a people sets the stage for genocide and ethnic cleansing. In all continents, human rights violations have provided powerful fuel for the escalation of violence.

The body entrusted with setting and maintaining the international standards for human rights among the UN Member States is the United Nations Commission on Human Rights. While the Commission has a proud history, beginning with the issuance of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, today it has become ineffective. In some instances, it has been led and influenced by gross human rights violators themselves, resulting in the decline in credibility of one of the pillars of the United Nations.

We support the bold remedy and new Human Rights Council proposed by Secretary General Kofi Annan last year, and endorsed by world leaders at the September 2005 World Summit.

The new Council as described in the recent text submitted by the President of the General Assembly will be more responsive to human rights violations and fairer in its review of human rights practices. It will also preserve and build on the strengths of the existing Commission on Human Rights.

We are approaching a critical point in history where we can reinvigorate the UN's role in the promotion and protection of fundamental human rights. Please join us in our support for this important initiative.

Sincerely,

Minister Jose Ramos-Horta, Timor Leste, 1996 Nobel Peace Prize Laureate
President Jimmy Carter, United States of America, 2002 Nobel Peace Prize Laureate
Archbishop Desmond Tutu, South Africa, 1984 Nobel Peace Prize Laureate
President Oscar Arias Sanchez, Costa Rica, 1987 Nobel Peace Prize Laureate
Bishop Carlos Filipe Ximenes Belo, Timor Leste, 1996 Nobel Peace Prize Laureate
Dr. Norman E. Borlaug, United States of America, 1970 Nobel Peace Prize Laureate
President Kim Dae-jung, Republic of Korea, 2000 Nobel Peace Prize Laureate
Mr. Adolfo Perez Esquivel, Argentina, 1980 Nobel Peace Prize Laureate
MP John Hume, United Kingdom, 1998 Nobel Peace Prize Laureate
Mrs. Mairead Maguire, United Kingdom, 1976 Nobel Peace Prize Laureate
MP David Trimble, United Kingdom, 1998 Nobel Peace Prize Laureate
Ms. Jody Williams, United States of America, 1997 Nobel Peace Prize Laureate

TIMOTHY E. WIRTH
President, United Nations Foundation

Letter to the Editor, Washington Post

"Contrary to the Jan. 9 editorial "Globalization's Deficit," efforts to reform the United Nations have progressed significantly since last year's World Summit. The United Nations has created a Peacebuilding Commission to guide and support nation-building efforts in post-conflict areas, and a Democracy Fund that had been advocated by the Bush administration. Negotiations for a Human Rights Council are proceeding. Management reforms have been implemented, including the creation of an Ethics Office to administer new whistleblower and financial disclosure policies for U.N. staff.

Other changes include a more transparent hiring process and creation of an independent audit board to oversee management practices. Finally, the 2006-07 U.N. budget is tied to the completion of reform initiatives.

The United Nations is making a difference on global challenges. For example, it provided invaluable support to the United States in laying the groundwork for a political transition in Iraq, most recently by providing assistance for the December elections and acknowledging their legitimacy. The Security Council also is investigating Syria's involvement in the assassination of Rafiq Hariri and helping to free the Lebanese from Syrian control.

Like the world, the United Nations is imperfect, but it is being reinvented to meet the challenges of the 21st century."

"Outlining his major priorities for 2006, his last year as United Nations Secretary-General, Kofi Annan said today that alongside efforts to promote peace and security and combat poverty and disease he was determined to follow through on his wide-ranging agenda of reform and renewal of the world body.

"If there's one thing I would like to hand over to my successor when I leave office next year, is that it should be a UN that is fit for the many varied tasks and challenges we are asked to take on today," Mr. Annan told an end-of-year press conference at UN Headquarters in New York, stressing that a strong programme to do that was already embraced by Member States at the 2005 World Summit." [Read more]

"Receiving the final report of the Independent Inquiry Committee (IIC) into maladministration and corruption in the United Nations-run Iraqi Oil-for-Food Programme, Secretary-General Kofi Annan today called on Member States to take action against illegal practises by companies under their jurisdiction and to prevent recurrences.

At the same time he reiterated his commitment to "vital" reform of the UN management structure in response to criticism in earlier IIC reports that found failures in actions by the UN Secretariat in regard to the now defunct $64-billion Programme which allowed Saddam Hussein's sanctions-bound regime to sell oil to buy essential supplies." [More]

"U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan appealed Wednesday to world leaders marking the 60th anniversary of the United Nations to help restore confidence in the world body and to act together to meet the challenges of the new century.

Addressing more than 150 presidents, prime ministers and monarchs, Annan said a document they will adopt at the end of the three-day summit was "a good start" but not "the sweeping and fundamental reform" he proposed. He called for urgent action on the tough, unresolved issues.

"Because one thing has emerged clearly from this process on which we embarked two years ago: whatever our differences, in our interdependent world, we stand or fall together," Annan said." [Read more]

"World leaders explore ways to revitalize the United Nations at a summit on Wednesday but their blueprint falls short of Secretary-General Kofi Annan's vision of freedom from want, persecution and war. [Full story]

Washington-"Today marks a turning point from focusing on the problems of the Oil-for-Food Program (OFFP) to moving ahead with UN reform. The exhaustive Independent Inquiry Committee's (IIC) report tells us both what went right and wrong with the program. Clearly, the UN made mistakes in the operation of the OFFP. The organization will learn from these lessons and by implementing recommendations offered by the IIC, as it has already begun to do, help ensure that these problems are not repeated in the future." [Read More]

Just a reminder that you can get the latest on the Oil-for-Food inquiry at oilforfoodfacts.org

United Nations Foundation President Senator Timothy E. Wirth issued the following statement regarding the House of Representatives' passage of the United Nations Reform Act of 2005 by a vote of 221 to 184:

"I am disappointed by today's vote in the House of Representatives in favor of the so-called United Nations Reform Act. Although this bill does contain reform measures that will help make the UN more effective and accountable, many of which the UN has already initiated, it also includes counterproductive provisions that would automatically withhold U.S. payment of dues to the UN and undermine meaningful reform. The U.S. has gone down this flawed path before, incurring more than a billion dollars in arrears to the UN, impairing the ability of the UN to do its job and making other countries less willing to work with the U.S. We should not make this mistake again."

FULL STATEMENT

State Dept. On-The-Record Briefing on UN Reform
R. Nicholas Burns, Under Secretary For Political Affairs

UNDER SECRETARY BURNS: "The United Nations is engaged in one of the most important debates, one of the most critical debates in the history, the 60-year history of the organization because what is at stake is the need for this institution to undertake fundamental reforms and to strengthen itself. And this debate lies at the heart of the future of the UN. Secretary General Kofi Annan has been leading it. And now the United States is prepared to help lead the effort to strengthen the UN, so that it can meet the challenges that are at the core of our 21st century world." [Read full transcript]

News:

White House rejects withholding U.S. dues from U.N.

White House Nixes Withholding U.N. Dues

Opinion:

Mr. Hyde: Dangerous Quackery

Reneging on U.N. Dues Would Only Damage U.S.

U.N. Reform: Wrong Message Sent

U.S. Dues and Don'ts at the United Nations

Eight former UN Ambassadors have written a letter to Congressional Leaders urging them not to withhold UN dues. A copy of the letter appears in newspapers around the country.

Key Points to Remember about UN Reform Act of 2005:

• Would automatically stop payment of our annual dues to the United Nations


• At the inception of the United Nations, the U.S. made a legally binding promise to pay our share of UN dues.


• The U.S. is the biggest financial contributor to the United Nations, paying about 22 percent of the annual $2 billion general budget. Withholding dues would be a major roadblock to important UN reform programs.


• Bush Administration officials have voiced opposition to this legislation (see below)

If passed, the UN Reform Act of 2005 would:

• Break our promise to other nations of the world and to the UN.


• Limit the ability of our diplomats to achieve changes within the UN because it would undercut U.S. credibility.


• Lead to a huge debt to the UN and inhibit our ability to lead within the institution.

If passed, the UN Reform Act of 2005 would endanger UN peacekeeping efforts by:

• Reinstating a 25 percent cap on U.S. contributions to UN peacekeeping missions despite the fact that Congress has voted since 2001 to pay our currently assessed share, which is now at 27.1 percent.


• Instituting a shortfall in funds needed to sustain troops on the ground


• Jeopardizing the newly authorized peacekeeping mission in Darfur, Sudan.

BUSH ADMINISTRATION: OPPOSED TO WITHHOLDING UN DUES

Below you will find a list of quotes from news reports and committee transcripts that highlight the Bush Administration's opposition to the process of holding back payment of our UN dues.

PRESIDENT BUSH:

• It [Legislation proposing withholding UN dues] could also put Hyde's committee on a collision course with President Bush, who has told U.N. officials in the past that he doesn't believe in withholding dues. [Associated Press, May 20, 2005]

BUSH ADMINISTRATION:

• The Bush administration opposed the bill [The UN Reform Act of 2005] on grounds that the United States is obliged to pay its U.N. assessment. [Associated Press, June 8, 2005]

ADMINISTRATION OFFICIALS:

• Mark P. Lagon, Ph.D. Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau Of International Organization Affairs, Department Of State:
  "Question from Rep. Delahunt: Okay. So let me be clear because I think it's important that we do be clear and that we don't equivocate. But it's the position of the administration that the United States should pay its appropriate dues to the United Nations? Not a maybe, not a percentage, but you pay its full dues to the United Nations.
  Answer from Mr. Lagon: It's an obligation we have signed onto". [House International Relations Committee Transcript, 5/19/05]

• Patrick Kennedy, Ambassador to the UN for Management and Reform, U.S. Mission to the UN:
  "I cannot recommend, cannot recommend withholding [dues] because it is potentially too blunt an instrument."
  "I need to be able to say that my legislature is very interested in improvements but sanctions when I'm negotiating improvements the sanction of withholding [dues] is too blunt an instrument because it is not targeted enough."
  "...if I'm withholding then it doesn't achieve our [the U.S. mission/State Department and Congress] joint goals of improving operations and improving the ability of the United Nations to serve as a tool that assists us in achieving our national security goals."
  [Hearing of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations March 2, 2005. "United Nations Operations: Integrity and Accountability]

• Kim Holmes, Assistant Secretary Of State, Bureau of International Organization Affairs:
  "I think that we have gone to the U.N. We've asked it to do a lot of things in Iraq and Afghanistan. And there's things that we want from the U.N.. And certainly, peacekeeping in Africa, this is areas where we also want participation. And so we want to be able to go in and say that it's for the good of the United Nations that these changes occur and not make us the issue about funding. Now, as I said, two or three years from now, I can't predict. I'll be gone by that point, and I don't know what the situation will be. I'm just talking about what I know now and what I think would be helpful in the coming year. I think in the coming year that full funding would help us do a better job of making the case for reform." [House Appropriations Committee: Science, State, Justice And Commerce And Related Agencies Subcommittee Hearing on Fiscal Year 2006 Bureau Of International Organization Affairs Appropriations, April 21, 2005]

"Eight former U.S. ambassadors to the United Nations sent a letter on Tuesday urging congressional leaders to reject a bill that would link reform of the world body to payment of American dues, warning that the legislation could actually strengthen opponents of reform." More...

The Brookings Institution, June 14, 2005
Ann Florini, Senior Fellow, Foreign Policy Studies

"The extraordinary energy Congress has put into the fight over whether John Bolton should become the US ambassador to the United Nations may be wasted if a bill now before the House becomes law. The UN Reform Act of 2005, drafted by House International Relations Committee chair Henry Hyde, could ensure that neither Bolton nor any other US ambassador could do much to make the UN an effective instrument for US interests." Read the Editorial

From the UN Foundation website: "United Nations Foundation (UN Foundation) President and former U.S. Senator Timothy E. Wirth testified before the House International Relations Committee at a hearing today on UN reform. Senator Wirth outlined five key points which will be essential to a constructive reform process that achieves meaningful and lasting results. He also urged Congress to support UN reform without the threat of withholding UN dues, an action which most often is cost-ineffective and counterproductive."

"Deputy Secretary-General Louise Frechette unveiled a series of reforms undertaken by the United Nations in response to criticisms of UN management from entities appointed by Secretary-General Kofi Annan and from the world body's own staff.

"Unprecedented challenges" faced by the UN have shown that the world body must immediately reform those areas that are in the Secretariat's purview and are not dependent on approval from Member States, said detailed background information distributed prior to a press briefing by Ms. Frechette." Full Story