Annan Unveils U.N. Reform Plan, Sets Timer for Debate

Presenting his sweeping plan to bolster the U.N.’s influence and effectiveness, Secretary-General Kofi Annan warned Monday that the reform package was the world body’s best -- and perhaps last -- chance for renewal. But even as he offered his proposal, resistance was already surfacing.

The plan, crafted by teams of experts over more than a year, is designed to have elements that every region could support. For every move that seems to infringe on a nation’s interests, there is an offering that is appealing. For example, for every strategy to stem corruption or improve governance in the developing world, there is a boost such as help in fighting AIDS or greater funding from wealthy nations.

Annan asked the 191 member countries to consider the package as a whole, not “a la carte,” and urged their leaders to adopt it in September at the U.N.’s 60th anniversary summit.

“I’m not saying that it is going to be easy,” Annan said, but “I believe that, as difficult as it is, the majority of the member states will come to conclude that what is on the table ... is in their long-term interest.”

But for almost every innovation, there is also resistance to change. Perhaps the most controversial aspect of the package is the proposed expansion of the Security Council.

Another contentious idea is the restructuring of the Human Rights Commission so it will no longer protect countries such as Sudan, Libya and Cuba, widely regarded as having poor human rights records. Annan also wants to outlaw terrorism as a tool for national resistance, something Arab nations view as a strike at the Palestinian fight against Israeli occupation.

He urged states to agree on rules for when force can be used to save civilians from harm by their own governments, an idea that offends many nations’ sense of sovereignty. And he wants a resolution stating clearly when force can be used preemptively to deter an imminent threat, a step Washington considers an unwelcome constraint.

“Frankly, we’re skeptical that any kind of resolution on the use of force would be helpful,” State Department spokesman Adam Ereli said.

Underneath the general hum of cautious optimism at U.N. headquarters after Annan’s speech, diplomats were calculating what was to be won and lost.

“Annan tried to give us something appetizing, and he also tried to chew for us,” said Algerian Ambassador Abdallah Baali, the lone Arab representative on the Security Council. Though he said he largely supported the plan, he added that “there are some parts that won’t be easy to swallow.”

Opposition to Annan’s two proposals for expanding the Security Council surfaced immediately. Both options would boost the number of members from 15 to 24, but one would create six new non-veto-holding permanent members, while the other would add a new tier of semi-permanent members.

Chinese Ambassador Wang Guangya joked that he didn’t want to choose from either Column A or Column B on Annan’s menu: “We think a new formula is possible, something that combines the best of both plans.”

Liechtenstein Ambassador Christian Wenaweser, co-chair of the Open Ended Working Group on Security Council Reform, which has been seeking a formula for council expansion for years, said a restructuring was feasible.

“But it needs to be modified,” he said. “It won’t be Plan A or B in its pure form.”

Annan is concerned that the struggle over the expansion will block progress on other reforms. He told the General Assembly on Monday that if it could not achieve consensus in six months, it must vote, and accept the plan that wins a two-thirds majority.

But Wang said consensus was important. “A vote would be very damaging for the summit,” he said.

The General Assembly will meet in April to discuss the reform plan, then break into working groups on various issues. The plan is to finish debate by July in order to get governments lined up to approve adoption in September. At least one veteran diplomat here thought the schedule was overly optimistic, calling its architects “out of their minds.”

But Annan and his aides said there had to be deadlines and a sense of urgency, or changes that had been debated for years might be debated forever.

“I don’t think I will have enough time to implement all the proposals, if they are approved,” said Annan, who has two years left in his term. “But I would be able to implement some. I would be able to see the organization on a course. And I would also be able to leave plenty for my successor to do.”