UNITED NATIONS: Boutros-Ghali vs the U.S.

By Farhan Haq Reprint | | Print |

UNITED NATIONS, Jun 21 1996 (IPS) - Now that Washington has taken a stance against the re-election of U.N. Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali, U.S. diplomats here say the Egyptian diplomat’s U.N. career is over.

But not so fast, his supporters argue. Boutros-Ghali, who announced Wednesday that he intended to run for another five-year term when his current tenure ends Dec. 31, is adamant that he has enough support to continue his job.

The battle lines are thus drawn for what could be half a year of feuding between the United States and Boutros-Ghali — neither of whom has declared any intention of backing down.

“A new leadership should emerge now for the United Nations, and therefore the United States will not support the extension of Secretary-General Boutros-Ghali for a second term in office,” says U.S. State Department spokesman Nicholas Burns.

White House spokesman Mike McCurry confirmed Thursday that U.S. President Bill Clinton’s decision to oppose Boutros-Ghali’s renewal is “irreversible and irrevocable.”

Other U.S. sources told The New York Times that Washington felt so strongly that Boutros-Ghali was incapable of reforming the United Nations that the United States may use its veto in the 15- member Security Council to block any extension of the incumbent U.N. chief.

Burns said Washington had no particular choice for secretary- general, but was determined to support a candidate who would place reform of the U.N. bureaucracy at the top of the agenda.

“If it comes to an open fight with the United States, Boutros- Ghali will lose,” said one U.N. official, speaking on condition of anonymity. “The United States can’t withdraw its decision now. It’s gone too far.”

He said that, even if Boutros-Ghali were to proceed with his candidacy, he could not perform his duties if he lost the support of a nation as powerful as the United States. Not only does Washington have veto power in the Security Council and hold superpower status, but it is supposed to contribute a quarter of the U.N. regular budget and 31 percent of its peacekeeping budget.

Other officials feel that U.S. opposition is not the end of the line for Boutros-Ghali, the world body’s first African and Arab head.

“I hope the U.S. administration will reconsider its decision,” Boutros-Ghali said in Bonn Thursday, after U.S. officials leaked their opposition to a second term for the incumbent chief.

Nabil el-Araby, Egypt’s U.N. ambassador, argues that Cairo still views Boutros-Ghali as a viable candidate. Boutros-Ghali, as Egypt’s deputy foreign minister, helped to forge the Camp David peace accords with Israel.

“The United States has a veto, yes, but I don’t think that is the end of the game,” el-Araby says. He notes that, when Boutros- Ghali was elected in 1991, many Council members opposed the idea of an African secretary-general. At that time, he says, the unity of the Non-Aligned Movement and China ensured that only African choices would garner enough votes to win.

Some U.N. officials think that Boutros-Ghali’s current support among member states could similarly be enough to override Washington’s objections.

“I don’t think that because one member state says one thing, it should become the rule of law,” says U.N. spokesman Ahmad Fawzi. “This is a democratic institution.”

If support for Boutros-Ghali needs to come to a vote, Fawzi argues, the secretary-general has already rounded up considerable support from key U.N. member states.

Boutros-Ghali announced his intentions to run again in Bonn, following signs that Germany will back his candidacy. French President Jacques Chirac has been a strong supporter of the secretary-general who was educated in France, and China has indicated it may veto any other choice besides Boutros-Ghali.

With six months to go to choose a secretary-general, Boutros- Ghali has already secured support from most developing nations, as well as at least three of the five permanent Council members (China, France and Russia).

Pitted against that is the determination of the Clinton administration, in the middle of an election year, not to appear weak in its dealing with the United Nations. Already, former Senator Bob Dole, Clinton’s Republican challenger for the November elections, has said on the campaign trail that he, not Boutros- Ghali, would determine U.S. foreign policy.

Clinton also has staked out positions differing from Boutros- Ghali’s, most notably blaming the U.N. chief for acting too cautiously in Bosnia-Hercegovina and mismanaging the world body’s 1993-94 intervention in Somalia.

Burns says the Clinton administration decided on Mar 25 to abandon Boutros-Ghali, but decided to announce their opposition only recently, after Washington failed to convince him to accept a “dignified” exit after a one-year extension.

When he was informed of Washington’s decision, Boutros-Ghali in turn announced his plans to seek a new term, bringing the months- old divide into the open. “In a way, his hand was forced into making his intentions clear,” Fawzi says.

“We are surprised” by the early U.S. announcement to oppose Boutros-Ghali, adds el-Araby. “The secretary-general serves until the end of this year…Usually this matter is not taken up until the end of October or early November.”

The result is that the normal decorum of the United Nations has given way to a good deal of anguish. If the United States has its way, many U.N. member states may in turn be upset that a country that owes the United Nations some 1.6 billion dollars in unpaid dues can call the shots regardless. If Boutros-Ghali wins, his authority will likely be undercut by his feuding with the world’s major power.

As one Security Council ambassador, speaking on condition of anonymity, puts it, the situation in the next few months could well be a mess: the United Nations sinking deeper into financial crisis, with no one at the helm and bitter divisions over the fate of the incumbent. “I couldn’t imagine a worse scenario.”