UN looks for better times
Standing in the line of those hoping for a better deal from U.S.
President-elect Barack Obama than they got from outgoing President
George W. Bush is a body representing the entire world: the United
Nations.
Despite public protestations of neutrality in the Nov. 4 presidential
election, there has been thinly disguised glee at U.N. headquarters that
Democrat Obama defeated Republican John McCain. Some foresee Obama's
inauguration on Jan. 20 as the end of a long dark night under the
eight-year Bush administration.
Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has said he looks forward to "an era of
renewed partnership and a new multilateralism" with Obama - even though
he also says he has managed to improve ties with Bush since taking over
at the beginning of 2007.
The United Nations fell foul early on of Bush administration hawks
who considered the world body hostile to America's interests.
The failure of the Security Council explicitly to endorse the 2003
U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, and a statement by Ban's predecessor Kofi
Annan that the invasion was illegal, strengthened that view.
In 2005, Bush named as his U.N. ambassador the sharp-tongued
conservative John Bolton, a man who more than a decade before had said
that if the U.N. skyscraper in Manhattan lost 10 of its 38 floors, "it
wouldn't make a bit of difference."
Because the U.S. Senate never confirmed him, Bolton had to step down
the following year, but not before, critics say, he antagonized friends
and foes alike - even if they admitted he was a hard worker who was
always on top of his brief.
Among other things, Bolton appointed a former Bush deputy campaign
manager, Mark Wallace, to pursue allegations of U.N. mismanagement,
especially that the U.N. Development Program had channeled hard currency
to the North Korean leadership. Later inquiries cleared UNDP of major
wrongdoing.
Although Bolton's successor, Zalmay Khalilzad, has sought to mend
fences with other countries, senior U.N. officials are now hoping for
much closer cooperation with an administration they believe will be far
more aligned with U.N. goals.
To the United Nations, the United States is crucial as the world's
most powerful country, the host of its headquarters and the largest
contributor to U.N. funds, paying 22 percent, albeit while often in
arrears of up to $2 billion.
So Obama's statements such as a comment in a 2007 "Foreign Affairs"
magazine article that America needs to "rededicate itself to the (U.N.)
organization and its mission" are music to U.N. ears.
"The signals are that (Obama) will want to consult closely with
allies and build a consensual approach as best he can," said one senior
European diplomat.
"The platform for change, and a lot of it is change away from Bush,
is something which I think will get a very ready response in the world,
which he will want to tap into."
Dozens of U.S. foreign policy leaders, including Democratic and
Republican former cabinet members, took out a full-page New York Times
advertisement on Nov. 20 to urge the incoming administration to
strengthen ties with the United Nations.
"President-elect Obama has the opportunity to engage with the world
and renew American leadership at the United Nations," said Timothy
Wirth, president of the United Nations Foundation, a U.N. advocacy group
and charity.
Ban, who once by chance spent half an hour sitting next to Obama on a
Washington-New York air shuttle and also spoke with him by telephone
after the election, has said he is "very much encouraged" by the
president-elect.
Senior U.N. officials have gone further. "Here's a person who looks
at the world the same way we do," said one, adding that Ban and Obama
were "talking from the same script."
Ban's aides have been excited by Obama's views on combating climate
change, a subject that tops the U.N. chief's agenda. Obama's promise to
"fast track investments in a new green energy business sector" echoes
what Ban has been saying.
U.N. officials are unfazed by such comments and say that Ban is as
keen to overhaul the bureaucracy as the critics are.
Reuters
|
