when describing the savage beating hernreceived from the Katanga forces in thernCongo: “Better beaten than eaten.”)rnJoseph Connor, the new (since 1994)rnU.N. Undersecretary for Managementrnsaid: “The U.N. is not designed for management.rnIt defies oversight becausernthere is no person who is chief executivernof the organization.” Connor ran PricernWaterhouse before coming to the U.N.rnin 1994 to introduce the concept ofrnmanagement and is the one bright lightrnat the U.N. He really has tried to phasernout Who-do-you-know, the U.N.’s traditionalrnmethod of hiring people, for a professionalrnU.N. civil service; he tried to cutrnthe workforce and reduce the U.N. budget,rnissues, as John Goshko reported inrnthe Washington Post, “for which Boutros-rnGhali did not have much enthusiasm.”rnThe reaction within the U.N. to Connor’srnreforms, Goshko noted, rangedrnfrom lip service to “outright foot-draggingrnfrom the top U.N. bureaucracy,”rnand it says a great deal for Connor thatrnhe had any success at all in Boutros-rnGhali’s U.N. In 1993, his predecessor,rnDick Thornburgh, former U.S. AttorneyrnGeneral and Governor of Pennsylvania,rngave Boutros-Ghali a report on waste andrnfraud within the U.N. and proposed waysrnof saving over $100 million. As Thornburghrntold the Sunday Times of London,rnBoutros-Ghali suppressed the report andrn”remaining copies were confiscated andrnin some cases shredded. This is the kindrnof shoot-the-messenger mentality thatrninhabits the upper levels of the U.N.”rnA good example of just how indifferentrnBoutros-Ghali was toward the wastingrnof American taxpayers’ money is hisrnhandling of the United States’ demandrnfor a U.N. Inspector General with a freernhand to investigate waste, fraud, andrnabuse within the U.N. Well, Boutros-rnGhali did create an office with a long title,rnbut it remains a joke. It cannot evenrnmake U.N. employees take it seriously; itrncannot offer protection to those who dornand cannot choose its own staff. Howrnbad is it? In 1995, in the office’s very firstrninspection, the inspecting officer investigatingrnmismanagement at a peacekeepingrnmission prefaced his interview withrna mission employee, a U.S. nationalrnnamed Mara Hanna, by saying: “Keeprnyour mouth shut if you ever want to workrnfor the U.N. again.” She didn’t keep herrnmouth shut and has been blackballedrnat the U.N. ever since. Instead of thernElliott Ness the United States wanted,rnBoutros-Ghali provided a Barney Fife.rnThere is nothing new in U.N. SecretaryrnGenerals trying to expand their power,rnbut Boutros-Ghali was the MichaelrnMilken of diplomatic ambition. Hisrn1992 Agenda for Peace proposed that thernU.N. get involved in civil wars around thernworld. That is called “assertive multilateralism”rnin U.N.-speak, or as peoplernused to say, war. To do that, Boutros-rnGhali wanted his own 10,000-man army.rnIn his Oxford University speech, herncalled for worldwide taxes on things likernairplane tickets to support his U.N. so hernwould not be dependent on the contributionsrnof meddlers like the UnitedrnStates, who “have no diplomacy” andrn”complicate my job.” Boutros-Ghali is,rnafter all, someone who, despite the evidencernof the 20th centurv, remains truernto his socialist roots and still sees collectivernsolutions to economic problems.rnNot surprisingly, his April 1996 ForeignrnAffairs article demonizes the marketrneconomy for driving large numbers ofrnpeople around the world into “deeperrnpoverty and despair,” and sees the SecretaryrnGeneral as leading the U.N., thernmother of all collectives, to the rescue.rnHe concluded his article with a Glouseau-rnlike sentence that had to produce arnfew chuckles in capitals around thernworld: “Nothing is more precious to thernUnited Nations than its reputation.”rnYou would think candidates for SecretaryrnGeneral would read like a top executivernsearch for a Fortune 500 company,rnand that the U.N. might have appointedrnan Acting Secretary General for sixrnmonths or a year in order to search outrnworld-class candidates. Isaias Afwerki,rnthe President of Eritrea, the newestrnAfrican state, quite properly called therncurrent process for selecting a SecretaryrnGeneral “senseless and futile.” “Thernnew Secretary General,” Afwerki said,rn”should be the best possible candidate,rnregardless of where the person is from.rnEven talking as an African, why shouldrnhe be an African? Why can’t the candidaternbe the one with the most integrityrnwho is qualified to make a lot of changesrnin the organization—whether that candidaterncomes from Europe, Asia, Africa,rnwhatever?” Why not, indeed? Can yournimagine IBM or EXXON deciding atrnThanksgiving that its new chief executivernhad to be chosen before Christmasrnand only from a pool of candidates livingrnin New England? Absurd as this sounds,rnthis is essentially how the U.N. has chosenrna Secretary General.rnKofi Annan, God willing, will serve asrnU.N. Secretary General into the nextrncentury. I have lived in Africa and gonernto school in England and know a goodrnmany Ghanaians. I cannot think of onernwho is not a pleasure to be with, and KofirnAnnan is by all accounts well liked andrncharming. But will he be the one at longrnlast to put himself on record as standingrnfor reform? Or will it be business as usual?rnFor 50 years, Kofi Annan has workedrnin the U.N. with responsibilities for Planning,rnBudget and Finance, Personnel,rnand most recently Peacekeeping Operations,rnwhich means his fingerprints havernbeen all over the most egregious failuresrnin the United Nations. That is not encouraging.rnNor is the fact that GeneralrnManfred Eisele, Kofi Annan’s deputy forrnthe past few years, could not rememberrnAnnan ever reducing a budget or eliminatingrna single program. Secretary GeneralrnAnnan did promise “to work with allrnmember states to redefine the objectivesrnof the organization,” which would bernfine if, as the U.N. Charter envisioned,rnthe U.N. were an organization of peacelovingrnnations that protected humanrnrights and the improved life for peoplernaround the world, but as former U.S.rnAmbassador Charles Lichenstein hasrnpointed out, if those principles were takenrnseriously, two-thirds of the U.N.’srnmembers would be expelled. We canrnhope and pray that Kofi Annan will experiencerna conversion like St. Paul’s, givernfull rein to people like Joseph Connor,rnbecome a no-nonsense manager and reformer,rnand that the member states willrncooperate with him. But barring divinernintervention, it looks as if the election ofrnKofi Annan, career U.N. bureaucrat, asrnU.N. Secretary General, means we willrnhave five more years of managementchallengedrnleadership at the helm as thernU.N. spins out of control.rnFrank Ruddy is a former U.S. ambassadorrnwho spent 1994 working on the U.N.rnreferendum for the people of WesternrnSahara.rnWhy MilosevicrnMust Gornby Srdja TrifkovicrnExperience teaches us that dictatorialrnregimes are anything but indestructible.rnThey are inherently irrational andrntherefore unstable. Sooner or later theyrn44/CHRONICLESrnrnrn