After 50 Years of the U.N., 5 More Years of Boutros-Ghali?

By Ian Williams

It has been four years since the first Arab secretary-general took office at the U.N.—and if the U.S. mission to the U.N. has its way, next year will be Boutros Boutros-Ghali's last. Although only two years ago a Boutros-Ghali reappointment stood the chances of a snowball in the Sahara, now the clever money is on the Egyptian diplomat getting a second term—if he wants it.

When first elected, he had pledged himself to a single five-year term. Since he subsequently united his own staff, the diplomatic corps and the press corps against him, most of the major actors have clung to that promise as he entered into acerbic conflict with them. Since 1994, however, he has been acting like a coy bridegroom, refusing to say whether or not he proposes to run for a second term—but holding open the possibility. Even close staff claim, "We don't know what he's going to do."

One thing is certain. He will not be the secretary-general in 1997 if the U.S. mission to the U.N. has anything to do with it. However, that opposition may turn out to be his greatest asset. Despite, or perhaps because of, U.S. Ambassador Madeleine Albright's increasingly personal attacks against Boutros-Ghali, senior Western diplomats and officials now are saying pleasant things about him, and nodding happily at the thought of an additional five years in office for the Egyptian Coptic Christian who three years ago accused the British of seeing him as a "wog."

The most recent disputes have been about eastern Slovenia, where the U.S. wants a U.N. mission to oversee the agreements on the gradual transfer from Serb to Croatian authority. A reluctant Boutros-Ghali has countered that a NATO force would have more credibility. But the U.S., which had correctly criticized the U.N. force for its impotence in Bosnia, now insists on a U.N. mission—and a weak one at that—in eastern Slovenia. When his report suggesting that NATO do the job was criticized by the U.S. mission as neglecting the views of "significant" members, Boutros-Ghali referred to the U.S. rebuke as "vulgar." It was a view that, though a trifle undiplomatic, was agreed to privately by other Security Council members.

In a mid-January speech in London, the secretary-general referred to the "dishonesty" of some members who criticized the U.N. for ineffectiveness but withheld the funds necessary for it to become effective. The U.S., which owes the U.N. $1.5 billion, one-third of its total debt, reacted angrily, demanding that he choose his words more carefully. Once again, the SG's outspokenness was applauded privately by many other members, who find it tiresome to be continually sermonized on their duties by a country whose refusal to pay its debts has brought the organization to the edge of bankruptcy.

It is true that Boutros-Ghali's somewhat tactless comments at the early stages of the Bosnian war almost seemed to blame the Sarajevans for dying in Europe, rather than the Serbs who were killing them. But the European powers seemed preoccupied with maneuvering the U.N. into the position they preferred—the world scapegoat. Then, led by the U.S., they spent three years ensuring that the U.N. did not have the resources to do what they should have done themselves. They passed meaningless resolutions instead, tying the U.N. in knots of conflicting mandates and starving it of resources.

It is also true that the U.N. does have a tradition of believing in the efficacy of diplomacy, even when all the evidence indicates otherwise. Never in the history of the world have so much mediation and so many diplomats been thrown at a problem as during the first three years of the war in Bosnia, but none of them had as much effect as two weeks of NATO's surgical airstrikes.

There are many legitimate criticisms to be made of the secretary-general. But an administration that kept itself out of the Bosnian war for three years of genocide is not in a very strong position to criticize the U.N.'s admittedly pusillanimous behavior.

Motivating the U.S. mission's attacks on the secretary-general is that he did not always jump to White House orders—which many other U.N. members consider no bad thing. U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Madeleine Albright candidly revealed the extent of U.S. pique in an interview in San Francisco during observances of the U.N.'s 50th anniversary. Albright said that in the past U.N secretary-generals had had some freedom for maneuver between the contending power blocs of the Cold War. That was now over and they should do what they are told, was her blunt message.

A View Not Entirely Shared

The view that Boutros-Ghali should do what she and Bill Clinton tell him to is not, of course, a view shared entirely by the other 14 members of the Security Council. They feel that the rules give them a say as well. Although Boutros-Ghali has not been a humble enough servant for the White House, even the most groveling secretary-general would have had difficulty working out quite which U.S. policy he was supposed to be following.

Tingeing the criticisms occasionally is a hint of anti-Arabism, which is odd bearing in mind how long it took Boutros-Ghali, whose Egyptian wife is Jewish, to live down the Arab outcry of being the architect of Camp David.

If the other members of the Security Council want Boutros-Ghali, and he wants to run, then there is every chance that the U.S. will be too embarrassed to pursue its feud to its logical conclusion. Anyway, it would take much more than a hint. The secretary-general is stubbornly independent enough to force the U.S. government all the way down the line so they would have to use a real veto, not just a nay in a straw poll.

If the administration declared its intention of vetoing a second term then it would almost certainly be alone. Madeleine Albright, who has great ambitions to succeed Warren Christopher as secretary of state, would have to face the world with an articulate case for why the country that owes the United Nations so much money should override the rest of the world on the choice of who should head the organization. She has certainly failed to do so hitherto, which is why, if he wants, there still may be an Arab at the head of the U.N. for another five years.

Ian Williams is president of the U.N. Correspondents Association and author of The U.N. for Beginners, available from the AET Book Club (see page 65).