As a moderator of the discussions, however, Clinton showed that he can produce lively, informed debate, a key factor for the U.N. post. Perhaps the best discussion was on the role of the global media, featuring media mogul Rupert Murdoch (owner of Fox News, the New York Post and many other right-wing media outlets). The discussion also included Richard Parsons, head of Time Warner, which owns CNN.
As might be predicted, it turned into a polite mud-slinging match between CNN and Fox, with Parsons opening the battle by saying that CNN is deeply committed to unbiased international coverage, unlike its competitor.
Murdoch replied quickly: “Well, I don’t really want to rise to the bait that Dick threw out there. I don’t think he watches CNN International. I don’t think anyone else does,” he said, to laughter from the crowd.
With quick diplomatic finesse, Clinton rushed to CNN’s defense, using humor to deflect what could have become a nasty situation. After Murdoch railed that CNN International was “so anti-American … so unlike CNN here,” Clinton stepped in and said he always watched CNN International when he was overseas. “And you made me feel it was like taking a shower with my shoes on here,” he told Murdoch, to laugher from the audience.
Clinton also held a session on the future of the Middle East, but pointedly avoided a discussion on the merits of the Iraq war, saying he didn’t want to go “too far into the weeds.”
However, he appeared to reach out to Muslim governments by saying that human rights
can be achieved in countries where church and state are not separated. In a discussion that included British Prime Minister Tony Blair, Clinton said that most of the world doesn’t have separation of religion and state.
“The key is: Are people going to be allowed in these political systems to live freely, to worship on the basis of conscience? I believe that more liberal and more democratic structures will provide an atmosphere in which there can be greater tolerance among religious groups,” Clinton said, appearing to accept Islamic government as long as it tolerates other religions.
Blair drew laughter when he reminded delegates that Britain was not always a liberal country with a clear division between church and state. “We did have Henry VIII—it’s not a strategy I advocate, actually,” he said, referring to the ruthless British king who beheaded his wives and split from the Catholic Church over his right to divorce.
As the participants lined up to make their pledges, the contrast with the U.N. summit was stark. There, after the United States refused to budge on key points, the U.N. summit’s outcome document fell far short of what many had hoped for on development, nuclear disbarment and many other issues.
Clinton was careful not to draw any comparisons, but others close to him spoke his words, highlighting a sharp contrast between the two events. “What is happening here is the kind of intense dialogue between different people and cultures which should take place at the U.N., but can’t anymore because of highly ritualistic structures, protocol and conflict avoidance,” said Richard C. Holbrooke, a former U.N. ambassador under Clinton.
To underscore the point, Holbrooke announced a major commitment to help fight AIDS/HIV by encouraging local economies in developing countries, one of the highlights of the conference.
Clinton appeared to obliquely reference the U.N. inaction in his remarks to the conference. “This is more than a photo op,” he told the delegates and the waiting media. “This is more than business as usual.”
For those hoping for serious reform in the United Nations, that could be just the kind of thing they want to hear from a future secretary-general.
Sean O’Driscoll is a contributing writer for The Washington Diplomat.
Many Blame United States For Stopping U.N. Reform
The 60th anniversary plenary session of the United Nations produced an agreement that was far short of what many had hoped for, including U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan.
A final agreement was reached just as the U.N. summit was beginning, but Annan said it was “a real disgrace” that the 191 member states did not come to an agreement on nuclear proliferation.
Iran, the center of attention on nuclear talks, held to a very hard-line stance. The country’s president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, told the U.N. General Assembly that the major powers were trying to impose “an apartheid regime” on access to nuclear technology. He also warned against a division between “light and dark” countries, with the first group having access to nuclear technology but not the second.
Many countries blamed the United States for putting in an unprecedented 750 amendments to the U.N. outcome documents in the weeks before the summit began. The amendments, submitted by U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton, slashed hundreds of references to development, environmental responsibility and fair trade, putting a serious strain on a document that many hailed as the biggest reform of the United Nations since its inception in 1945.
The amendments reflected the United States’s fundamental opposition to increasing its foreign aid capacity to 0.7 percent of national income. They also slashed dozens of proposals aimed at putting definite implementation dates on U.N. environmental and development conventions.
The United States also sought to stop the implementation of the Millennium Development Goals (which seek to halve extreme poverty and cut child mortality rates by two-thirds) by 2015, despite President Bush’s later reassurances that the country was still committed to them.
A spokeswoman for the U.S. Mission, Monica Cummings, said the United States had made it “abundantly clear” that it was willing to negotiate, but certain core principles were at stake, such as terrorism prevention and reform of the U.N. human rights body.
In the end, ambassadors worked to produce a new outcome document. The United States backed down on some of its proposed changes, including deletion of the Millennium Development Goals.
Just as significant, the outcome document states that the international community “has the responsibility” to use peaceful means to prevent or stop genocide and is “prepared to take collective action” to use military action if peaceful means fail.
Participants also agreed to set up a Peacebuilding Commission to help prevent violence when a conflict has ended but fell short of deciding the means to implement the reform.
For Edward Luck, a U.N. expert and professor of international affairs at Columbia University, the U.S. position may be misunderstood and the “diplomatic train wreck” is more so the result of U.N. over-ambition. “As a proud Democrat, I’m certainly no John Bolton fan, but it has taken this bull in a china shop to highlight where U.N. reform is going wrong.”
He said the pre-Bolton reform document was a massively bloated attempt to bring diverse subjects together and was sure to fail. “This is really how not to reform the U.N.,” he said. “You have a huge package, all tied in together and that simply doesn’t work. In the mid-90s, there was serious reform of U.N. management because there was small pieces brought in individually but that’s not happening here,” Luck said.
“The U.N. is going to have to slim this thing down before it’ll get past the Bush administration. Otherwise, it’s all just a waste of time.”
—Sean O’Driscoll
