New York City, October 6, 2005.

The Washington based, US National Endowment for Democracy (NED),
(www.ned.org)
had a hectic day, October 6, 2005. First, in the morning, it hosted in
Washington the President Bush presentation on Democracy and Iraq, then
in the
evening, in New York City, in the context of the CAMPAIGN FOR A
DEMOCRACY CAUCUS at
the UN, it hosted Mr. Mark Malloch Brown who, since January 2005, as
Chef de
Cabinet to UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan, is in effect in charge of
the
efforts to keep the UN afloat, and to help navigate the straits towards
needed
reforms.

Mr. Mark Malloch Brown, who from 1996 till 1999 served at the World
Bank as
Vice President for External Affairs and United Nations Affairs, since
July 1999
till August 2005, held the position of Administrator of the United
Nations
Development Programme (UNDP). He was quite successful in pushing
towards support
for democratic governance in some of the developing countries. The
yearly
Human Development Reports have instituted a series of indices to help
asses
progress. Eventually he initiated also a second series - the Arab Human
Development
Reports - and was able to bring in material from Arab intellectuals in
order
to promote the idea of the advantage to Arabs from allowing steps
towards
democratic governance.

The NED meetings were chaired by Carl Gershman, the President of NED.
The New
York meeting was cosponsored by the Foreign Policy Association of the
U.S.,
The New York Democracy Forum, The Freedom House, and the Transnational
Radical
Party. On some of these organizations later on - but suffice to say
here that
all of these organizations are intent to save the UN under the old
saying that
if it were not there we would have had to create it. What all of these
organizations have in common is their backing of the Campaign for a UN
Democracy
Caucus (www.Democracycaucus.net) that was initiated a couple of years
ago by the
Warsaw Declaration on Democracy, and brought to the UN under the
leadership of
the delegates from Chile.

Mr. Brown started his presentation by giving us a run-down the long
list of
topics he just had to deal with these last few days - all flare ups
with
serious consequences - the like of: the flare up on the Iraqi
Constitution, the
electoral exercise in Afghanistan, preparation for the November
elections in
Haiti, the problems the High Commissioner on Human Rights has in
Uzbekistan, moving
the refugees from Kyrgystan to a safer place,
and problems with Myamar, Zimbabwe, Togo… He led to the Secretary
General’s document “In Larger Freedom” and explained that security
cannot be obtained
if there is not also a freedom from want - “A security based on force
and not
on the people will always be a false security”. He did not lament the
outcome
of last month’s summit, but rather pointed out at some of the successes
- like
the acceptance of the concept of the “Responsibility to Protect” that
allows
now activities in countries were the government has abrogated its
responsibility to protect its citizens. On the question of the Council
on Human Rights
that should come to replace the present discredited Commission, he sees
that the
points that remained unsolved will be reworked in the next few months.

A main achievement is the $40 million New Democracy Fund to which the
largest
contributor was India as befitting the largest working democracy in the
world.
From here Mr. Brown moved to the subject that was of most interest to
the
organizers of the meeting. He said that it is obvious that an
organization that
was established by the United front of countries that won the war,
because of
its inclusion since of many more countries, has become much more
diverse. The
question is - do you want those countries inside where you can
negotiate with
them, or outside? Clearly there are differences in opinions and now the
real
issue is how do we reform the institution by tackling those areas where
it has
become obvious changes must occur. Mr. Brown did not shy away from the
“Oil for
Food” scandal but said that Mr. Volcker, who did not leave a stone
unturned
and found a lot that was wrong, nevertheless, the Secretary General
came through
with his integrity intact even though that questions hang about his
son.

Mr. Brown pointed out that John Bolton, the new US Ambassador to the
UN, when
he went with Mr. Brown to Washington before the Senate Committee that
supervises US funds that go to the UN - Mr. Bolton - was actually the
best Ambassador
the UN ever had in Washington, and told the Committee that the US
Administration sees it in the interest of the US to back the UN and to
back the Secretary
General. Now, to make all this possible comes in the idea of the UN
Democracy
Council.

The main weakness of the UN stems from its regionalization. It is these
regional groupings that send forward unsavory regimes to be part of UN
organizations.
The establishing of a caucus of democracies will thus make it possible
to
create a block that could veto such unsavory regimes from becoming
members of
organizations like the Council on Human Rights. He foresees thus the
creation of
this block in order to help navigate the organization through the
needed
reforms. This will give a new lease for life to a new U.N. that will be
able to
decide by taking a vote rather then continue to take decisions by
consensus
according to the lowest common denominator - as practiced now.

A representative of the Transnational Radical Party, which is an NGO
headed
by an Italian member of the European Parliament, followed Mr. Brown and
also
stressed the need to establish a democracy body to save the UN and to
be able to
deal with questions of terrorism. The Freedom House has listings of
countries
that are free and is ready thus to help with the future UN Caucus. So,
to
summarize, rather then allow the UN to fall apart, the conclusion of
this meeting
could be seen in the bundling of the states that are governed with the
help
of elections that bring to power governments that obey the UN Charter
on Human
Rights. The “crutches” of my title are thus the members of the foreseen
Caucus.