Gunning For Boutros-ghali

PROFESSIONAL credentials: As deputy foreign minister of Egypt, played a key role in one of the most dramatic events of the '70s: the Camp David agreement between Israel and his country; former member of the Central Committee and Political Bureau of the Arab Socialist Union; former minister of state for foreign affairs.

Educational qualifications: A longtime Professor of International Law at the Sorbonne and Cairo Universities; has authored over 100 publications and articles on regional and international affairs, law, diplomacy and political science.

Religion: Acknowledged secular leanings; Christian, born in and sensitive to the Islamic world, married to a Jew.

Languages: Several, including perfect English and French.

Current professional status: Secretary-general of the United Nations (UN).바카라 웹사이트

Future goal: To be re-elected.

The UN headquarters in New York is abuzz with behind-the-scenes activity of a kind not seen since the world body celebrated its 50th anniversary in 1995. Will the 73-year-old, tough-as-nails statesman, Boutros Boutros-Ghali, currently at its helm, stay there for another five years?

The question in itself seems simplistic. The five permanent and 10 non-permanent members of the UN Security Council would have to meet and recommend a single person to the General Assembly. All 185 UN member-states would then put up the candidate for a vote and the issue of who gets the $175,000-a-year job plus perks would be decided.

But ironically, it's the country where the world body is headquartered that is most determined to see a change in the UN leadership. Washington has openly announced its intention to veto Boutros-Ghali's reelection and is lobbying hard to win support among its fellow-Security Council and other UN member-states, in order to be able to save itself the embarrassment of being a single voice of dissent.

It requires no hardboiled cynic to see the reasons behind the declaration. This is election year. The Republicans under presidential candidate Bob Dole have relentlessly railed against the UN, its grossly inflated bureaucracy and spending, and Washington's role as the greatest contributor to its coffers and military strength. The US while waffling over its outstanding contribution of $1.5 billion to the UN, accuses Boutros-Ghali of failing to cut its bureaucracy and expenditure.

In what observers see as an effort to weaken the pivot of the Republican election campaign as Judgement Day—November 5, 1996—draws close, the Clinton administration has chosen to respond with tactics that will have implications beyond domestic politics.

Shortly after Washington made it clear that it would oppose Boutros-Ghali's reelection when his term ends on December 31, the secretary-general himself announced his candidacy and swiftly won the endorsement of the Organisation of African Unity (OAU) at its early July summit in Cameroon. However, the OAU didn't mention Ghali by name, but said it preferred to see an African as the next UN chief.

Boutros-Ghali's discreet campaign in the capitals of the other four permanent Security Council member-states also seem to have paid off. Russia and China have joined France in supporting Boutros-Ghali while the UK has called him "a distinguished statesman who has served with honour".

Other European states like Germany—either because of its own ambitions of gaining a permanent berth within the Security Council or its traditional post-war awe of Big Brother—have maintained overall silence, although Ghali is said to have many friends in Bonn's administrative circles. "Every UN secretary-general has received two terms. Should I, the first African, not get a second?" Ghali asked in an interview to Bonn newspaper General Anzeiger .

While Asian states—except Malaysia's Muslim-led government, which lamented the UN's lack of support for Bosnia's Muslims—have yet to strike an open stance, Boutros-Ghali already enjoys the backing of the majority of African, Arab and other Islamic states. But, as an Indian observer in New York put it: "the whole world could be in his (Ghali's) favour, but if the US decides to veto, and given the UN charter, it seems unlikely that he will be re-elected".

As for India, it may not have any objection in backing Ghali, though not much thought has been devoted to decision-taking on this matter. India is too preoccupied with lobbying for the non-permanent seat in the Security Council, elections to which are scheduled for the year-end. It's pitted against Japan, whose financial muscle is widely expected to see it through easily.

Washington's aversion to Ghali comes as no surprise. During his five-year term, the urbane, intellectual Boutros-Ghali has made no effort to either toe the line set by the superpower or remain subdued in his essentially nominal role as secretary-general of the world body.

Unlike predecessors U. Thant, Kurt Waldheim and Perez de Cuellar, Boutros-Ghali has frequently crossed swords with Washington over many global crises, including the Bosnian conflict and the Somalian operation. In both cases, he and the UN bore the brunt of international criticism for what was essentially the strategic/military failure of the superpowers involved.

Created in an atmosphere of sharply polarised political interests at the end of World War II, ostensibly to maintain collective security, the UN barely succeeded in playing that role effectively. But since the end of the Cold War and the dissolution of extreme alignments, the US has increasingly resented its financial obligations towards any body—especially one under a strong-willed administrative head—which would no longer tamely put its seal of approval on military or political actions intended to further Washington's own strategic interests.

But to what extent will arm-twisting now help the US achieve its goal of aborting Boutros-Ghali's rebirth? Technically, a secretary-general can be elected by the General Assembly alone, should the Security Council find no consensus over a suitable candidate. This was seen in the case of the very first secretary-general of the UN, Trygve Lie of Norway, who was reelected in 1951 by the General Assembly with the support of the US and despite continued veto by the former Soviet Union. That Lie resigned two years later is another matter altogether.

Observers speculate that the Clinton administration might soften its stand and agree to a partial extension of Ghali's term, once the burning interest of an impending election is over and the battle is won. In closed-door consultations, Washington is already said to have offered the secretary-general its support for an extension of his term up to a year. But the irascible Ghali is said to have settled for nothing less than two-and-a-half.

This speculation loses its weight given the energetic lobbying Washington is currently indulging in all over the world by posing the catch-22 question: friend of the US or that of Boutros Boutros-Ghali? The arm-twisting is not restricted to the international arena alone. When UN spokesman Ahmed Fauzi recently read out glowing excerpts of many former speeches given by President Clinton at the world body praising the secretary-general, the US administration—in a fit of irrational pique—threatened action against any UN employees lobbying for the re-election of Boutros-Ghali.

According to an Asian diplomat at the UN, even Ghali seems resigned to the fact that he's not going to be re-elected: he clearly said that in an interview with Der Spiegel . Even though he has been reassured by China, France and Russia, he seemingly knows that no secretary-general can really function efficiently without US support. Right now, his basic strategy seems to be to lie low and not push the issue.

The diplomat also notes that: "The main problem Boutros-Ghali faces within the UN is, nobody really knows him. He has no close confidants. He issues impromptu, unexpected statements. The tactic may be deliberate, skilful management, merely to keep everybody guessing. But it also may be lack of self-assurance. His aristocratic roots have been blamed for his aloofness, but I personally don't attribute his flaws to that aspect. After all, he has deliberately—during the course of his life—chosen a succession of careers (his mediation at Camp David, for instance) which were not exactly what the Egyptian elite would automatically choose.

바카라 웹사이트"All in all, Boutros-Ghali is skilful in dealing with people, charming, effective, but also stubborn, even mulish. As the chief executive officer of the world body, his has been what I would call remote control management."

바카라 웹사이트But while the Egyptian statesman, born as he was in aloof aristocracy, may not be the most popular chief executive within the corridors of the building on the banks of New York's East river, few UN employees deny that "Bu-Bu" is certainly the most respected and uncompromisingly competent individual to have held that position since Dag Hammarskjold in the '50s.

A smaller, weaker United Nations and one that is an executive organ for US foreign policy is what Washington would like to see and is driving hard for, give or take a little economic barter here, a developmental promise there.

And Boutros Boutros-Ghali, who has spoken out for the weakest and poorest UN members, who has made affluent consciences squirm and who has championed women's rights and environmental issues, is certainly not the man: at least not for that job.