Print
Email
Share
Lee Feinstein, the Council on Foreign Relations’ top expert on the United Nations, says the March 21 report on U.N. institutional reform represents a clear effort to take U.S. concerns about the world body into consideration. He notes in particular that the report, released by U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan, emphasizes “three freedoms.” That harks back to President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s famous speech on “four freedoms” in January 1941. But more important, Feinstein says, “freedom is also a word the Bush administration has used extensively in its effort to recast the war against terrorism in a more positive light.”
“Clearly, there has been an effort to speak to the priorities of the Bush administration and an effort- sometimes successful, sometimes not- to balance that against the agendas of other countries as well,” says Feinstein, who was project director for the Council’s independent Task Force on “Enhancing U.S. Leadership at the U.N,” and is an expert on a congressionally mandated panel on U.N. reform co-chaired by former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.), and former Senator George Mitchell (D-Maine).
He was interviewed by Bernard Gwertzman, consulting editor for cfr.org, on March 21, 2005.
What are the main points of the Annan report?
First, the overarching point is that this is part of Kofi Annan’s effort to take advantage of a summit meeting of world leaders in September to pursue what have been called Millennium Development Goals. To that end, Annan has commissioned a series of reports; this is the third. The first report, by [Columbia University Professor] Jeffrey Sachs, deals with development and poverty issues. Last December, a report came out from a high-level panel Annan authorized in 2003 to look at issues related to security. Today, we’re looking at a report that Annan himself wrote. It is his attempt to distill the recommendations from both the Sachs effort and the effort of the high-level panel. It is looking forward to September, and Annan is basically lobbying the members of the United Nations for specific actions that he wants to see taken at this unique summit meeting.
The interesting thing about this is how Annan uses the word “freedom.” He clearly evokes Franklin Roosevelt’s four-freedoms speech of January 1941, but I would point out that freedom is also a word the Bush administration has used extensively in its effort to recast the war against terrorism in a more positive light. Clearly, there has been an effort to speak to the priorities of the Bush administration and an effort- sometimes successful, sometimes not- to balance that against the agendas of other countries.
That’s an interesting approach. Let’s start with freedom from “want.”
I think it’s significant that the paper starts with freedom from want. This is an effort to show to the developing world- but also Britain and the European Union [EU], which have been focusing on the development agenda recently, as has the G-8 [Group of Eight]--that these issues are just as much a priority for the United Nations as the hard security issues. I’d say the most significant recommendation, and probably the one that is the most controversial within the Bush administration, is for countries to agree to provide development assistance at 0.7 percent of their GDP [gross domestic product].
Why is that difficult for the Bush administration? Do the European countries reach that goal now?
Most countries do not reach that goal. Some countries that are traditionally large donors exceed that goal. But because it’s a function of GDP, it affects different countries very differently. Small countries that are wealthy have an easier time meeting the goal. Large countries that are wealthy and have powerful economies, in particular the United States, have a much harder time reaching that goal.
There’s no question the United States should increase the amount of assistance it provides, and the Bush administration has made significant strides in this area with the Millennium Challenge Account and HIV/AIDS funding. Just as it is a mistake to make judgments about the size of a military budget based on GDP, it’s also a mistake, in my view, to make an evaluation of assistance budgets on the basis of GDP.
These things are driven not by whether the United States’ economy, for example, grows by 2 percent or 4 percent, they’re driven by demand. In the case of defense, what’s the security environment? And in the case of poverty and development issues, what is the demand there? What is the absorption capacity there? The commitment to help ought to go toward reaching specific substantive goals, rather than statistical ones.
Did Jeffrey Sachs include the 0.7 percent goal in his report?
Yes. It’s a standard point. And it’s very tough politically for the secretary general to walk away from it. Politically, I understand why he stuck with it, but from the United States’ perspective, it’s somewhat of a distortion.
Second is freedom from “fear,” which I assume includes collective security and nonproliferation issues.
Right. First of all, in general, echoing the themes of the high-level panel report, today’s report talks about the interconnected quality of the world and the interconnectedness of challenges, soft and hard. So, poverty creates instability in countries, creates a potential haven for terrorists, and therefore creates dangers both for people in that region, as well as people like Americans who are far away from that region. Similarly, it makes the point that terrorism is not something that only the developed world worries about. It’s something that’s a concern everywhere. A major terrorist attack in the United States or the developed world could have serious economic consequences that would affect everybody, developed and developing world alike. That’s the kind of underlying point.
Now, on the terrorism issue, this report uses the exact language of the high-level panel report in offering a technical definition of terrorism. That is, any action is terrorism if it is intended to cause death or serious harm to civilians or non-combatants with the purpose of intimidating a population or compelling a government or an international organization to do- or abstain from doing- any act. The point here is that the right to resist occupation does not change in any way what constitutes terrorism. Resisting occupation with violence against civilians or non-combatants is not justified, according to this definition. The significance in the last report was that it was endorsed by, among others, Amre Moussa, who worked on the high-level panel and is the secretary general of the Arab League. If there could be international agreement on such a definition, this would put to rest a longstanding, highly politicized dispute that has clear overtones in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. That’s very important.
In other words, a Palestinian group that killed Israeli soldiers in the West Bank would not be committing terrorism, but they would be if they blew up a bus in Jerusalem?
According to this definition, yes. A suicide bombing against civilians or non-combatants would constitute an act of terrorism. It does not speak to the first circumstance that you described, which by the way is not to say that it endorses those activities. It’s just giving what I would describe as a political scientist’s definition of terrorism. This is something, frankly, that the United States government has been seeking for a very long time. And I would expect the Bush administration would strongly support this language. The other thing is, if the United Nations can get past the squabbling about this definition, it can then move toward a convention on terrorism, which would be helpful.
What about nonproliferation?
The report calls for approval of something called “the additional protocol [to the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT)],” which is an agreement that allows inspectors the right anytime and anywhere to [conduct so-called] challenge inspections [when inspectors suspect the treaty has been violated]. And that’s significant. That’s been a long-standing U.S. position, and this goes beyond the requirement in the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty, but it’s increasingly necessary and it’s especially important in closed societies. The fact that the secretary general is endorsing this is important.
This is germane to the question of Iran’s compliance with the NPT right now?
Absolutely. The other point also germane to Iran is that the secretary general called for the International Atomic Energy Agency [IAEA] to guarantee a supply of materials for civilian nuclear uses at market rates to NPT members in good standing. In exchange, those countries would voluntarily give up the domestic development of these materials. That overlaps with the Bush administration’s position, but it’s not the same. The Bush administration would like to see a ban on any domestic uranium enrichment and plutonium separation in countries that don’t now have that capacity. Of course, under the NPT, states are allowed to do this, as long as it’s for civilian purposes only. This has created lots of problems, including in Iran. This is a place where the Bush administration would have a significant difference, but it certainly moves in the direction of American policy.
The secretary general also makes some very important recommendations in the area of nation-building, which he calls peace-building. He points out that there is an accepted process for paying for peacekeeping, but there isn’t an established, effective way to pay for nation-building. The secretary general called for the creation of a peace-building commission, which I think is extremely important.
If there were one now, it would be very active in Iraq?
No kidding, if the United States were inclined. But it would also be active in a place like Haiti. It’s very important. It also encourages countries to build up strategic reserves that could be available to the United Nations. The EU is already taking steps in this area, and the African Union has taken some steps. The United States has not, and a lot of other countries haven’t either.
The report belatedly talks about a zero tolerance policy to deal with the problem of sexual exploitation of minors and other acts that have reflected very poorly on U.N. peacekeepers.
The report also talks about the responsibility to protect. This is the idea that if states can’t or won’t prevent genocide or mass killings within their own borders, the responsibility falls on the international community to take action. This had been resisted by countries like China and some developing-world countries. The high-level panel endorsed the idea of the responsibility to protect, and Annan in this report also calls for embracing the responsibility to protect. That’s significant.
He doesn’t actually say how you would endorse it, but a number of people, myself included, are calling for either a U.N. Security Council resolution on this point or a statement by the president of the Security Council. This is important, because this would mark a sea change in the idea of sovereignty, a shift away from a 19th century notion obsessively focused on the state and toward a different, more conditional idea of sovereignty.
Would this be in effect in a place like Darfur?
Exactly.
What about the Security Council recommendations. Are they important?
They’re very important, but not more important than some of the other issues the United Nations needs to take account of.
Is it likely the Security Council membership will expand?
Politically, expanding the Security Council will be very difficult. And, on the merits, there is a real question whether you only compound the problems of the Security Council by growing it. The Security Council hasn’t exactly distinguished itself over the history of the United Nations.
Expanding from 15 to 24, under either of the two options that are put forward here, raises questions about whether this will make matters worse. There are a lot of countries that are not in the likely group of states that would serve on an expanded Security Council and that would prefer the status quo to a new arrangement. There are a lot of important proposals floating around, some in the secretary general’s report, some elsewhere. The danger is that the countries pushing for expanding the Security Council will refuse to approve the reform proposals if there is a failure to expand the Security Council. So, by putting these things together, you risk losing everything. Some of the Security Council aspirants have said they are not prepared to play ball on the other reforms if they don’t get a seat at the adult table.
Which countries are those?
They make these comments off the record, but there is no question that countries that have been on the waiting list see this as a major opportunity, and they don’t want it to pass.
That would include Japan?
Germany and Japan in particular, but also India and Brazil.
The last freedom is freedom to live in “dignity,” which includes a revamping of the Human Rights Commission.
This is significant. One of the weaknesses of the December high-level panel report was that, while it accurately diagnosed the problem- which is that the Human Rights Commission, which increasingly included some of the world’s worst human rights violators, was staining the reputation of the wider institution- it did not put forward a very helpful alternative.
The secretary general’s report tries to put forward something that would be an alternative, and that is to create a Human Rights Council. It would be smaller than the Human Rights Commission and its members would be elected directly by the General Assembly by a two-thirds vote. The idea behind this, I suppose, is that you would be more likely to get upstanding international citizens on such a panel if you operated in this fashion, rather than the current system, in which you’ve got anonymous bloc by bloc voting that leads to countries like Libya or Sudan getting seats at the table.
What else is in the report?
In addition to the three freedoms, a section addresses strengthening the United Nations. This has been of great concern to members of Congress, where there are five investigations related to the
Oil-for-Food Program and legislation pending to cut back money to the United Nations because of one management problem or another. Here the secretary general made some good proposals.
One is to ask the General Assembly for authority [to offer U.N. employees] a one-time buyout in order to get rid of the dead wood. This is significant and important. There are some other important recommendations as well. The General Assembly gives the secretary general lots of mandates to do a variety of things, but many of them aren’t funded and many of them lack sunset clauses. The secretary general is asking for authority to review all of the mandates more than five years old to see whether they remain valid. He’s also asking for a comprehensive review of the budget. And, finally, he’s proposing a General Assembly commission to review the
Office of Internal Oversight Services, which is essentially his internal inspector general, to strengthen his independence and authority. These are all overdue and politically important steps that he needs to take.
Can any or all of these proposals be implemented?
Some of the proposals the secretary general can just do on his own. Some require a General Assembly vote. Some can take place at the Security Council. Some are new treaties. What disappoints me is that the report doesn’t, in my judgment, do a good enough job of setting priorities and offering [plans] to do specific things. In addition to the very important reforms, there is still a laundry list of second-tier items, which detracts from the major issues. The job between now and September is to prioritize and also to get practical about how to advance the ball.
Will they have to expand the Security Council to get stronger support for the other reforms? You were implying there’s a kind of blackmail here.
I hope it doesn’t happen. The countries that are for a bigger Security Council include some that are very significant financial contributors to the United Nations. They are not so quietly implying that progress on reform is going to require Security Council expansion. That is a potential problem.
Will there be a General Assembly resolution on the terror definition?
I think you should push really hard to get it. And, yes, and I think it’s possible. That would be helpful on the merits and helpful in terms of building support in the United States and in Congress for the United Nations.