EDITORIAL
U.N. needs reform rather than sanctions
It's widely understood that the United Nations is in dire need of significant reform.
Billions of dollars were diverted from its oil-for-food program; its peacekeepers are facing appalling allegations of sexually abusing the very children they were sent to help, bartering goods such as bread and eggs and in some cases a few dollars, for sex in Congo, Sierra Leone and elsewhere; and it's been rightly criticized for being too slow in reacting to humanitarian crises worldwide, most notably in Dafur.
While there's no doubt that reform is needed for the agency to have any meaningful or credible role in the international arena, a strong U.N. serves a much-needed purpose beyond its necessary humanitarian and peacekeeping agenda.
It also provides a crucial — if not always honored — element of temperance on issues, such as the war in Iraq, that have far-reaching consequences.
The desire to bolster the U.N. has produced a mixed bag of reforms.
Bill doesn't help
Unfortunately, the U.S. House on Friday took a step backward in passing a proposal by Rep. Henry Hyde, (R-Ill.). Hyde's bill is a thinly veiled attempt to beat the agency into submission. It threatens to withhold half of the U.S. dues unless the agency falls into compliance with a laundry list of demands.
This is entirely the wrong approach.
America's dues account for roughly $400 million — that's not chump change. It's more than 20 percent of the agency's $2 billion annual general budget, and an even greater share of its peacekeeping budget. Holding back our share would only further cripple the agency's ability to do its job, much less bring about reforms.
We've been down that road before in the 1990s and paid the price when withholding dues forced us into arrears, put the U.N. in jeopardy, and did nothing for American's image abroad.
The Bush administration was on the mark in opposing the plan, recognizing that such bullying tactics would only hinder our ability to garner international support for reform. And eight former U.N. ambassadors, including Madeleine Albright, John Danforth and Jeane Kirkpatrick, also publicly opposed the measure.
While House lawmakers failed to take a sensible approach, there are reasonable solutions at hand.
Perhaps the most promising ideas thus far can be found in a report issued last week by a congressional bipartisan task force led by former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and former Senate majority leader George Mitchell.
More rapid response
Those ideas include creating corporate-style oversight and strict performance standards, and developing a framework among member states that encourages a more rapid response to genocide, mass killings and other human rights violations.
The report, the result of a six-month comprehensive review, also includes improved cooperation between the U.N. and the World Bank and tougher policies to prevent and deal with sexual abuse by its peacekeepers.
In addition it takes into account some of the reforms proposed by U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan, including trading in the beleaguered Human Rights Commission for a more effectively structured Human Rights Council. It also appropriately focused on the responsibility of the member states that make up the institution, rather than just the institution itself.
The task force report is just one of several investigations of the U.N. under way that include reviews conducted by five congressional committees, the Justice Department and an independent panel.
Transparency needed
It's clear that much-needed fundamental reform is on its way. That must include absolute transparency in the U.N.'s fiscal matters, strict accountability in its code of conduct for peacekeepers and a mechanism for independent review.
The U.N has an important role to play. And as one of its founding members, the United States must play a strong supporting role, advocating sensible approaches that ensure the U.N. is on the right path to greater accountability, credibility and effectiveness.
