I have a quite reasonable understanding of the above essay topic, especially management as it reflects on the UN, mostly on the security and executive council of the UN. In terms of the councils’ emergence in managerial determinations, many factors are taken into considerations, and because of the hard-headedness by the Big Five and their cohort, administrative quotients are ineffective to manipulate pragmatic policies. Now we see the issues of the most important stakeholders trying to take a lead, this is not supposed to be. But then there has to be equality among member states in both the security and executive council and not just a hall of some sentimental and bigoted groups, but then how can it be equality when there are still traces of the cold war syndrome. Therefore in order to maintain an effective and long lasting equilibrium, the UN security and executive council must clear its records of being one mindedness with reference to the conscientization of the madness propagated by the Big five. The constitution of pacts must be revolutionized to accommodate the perceptions and incentive of 185-member nations.
Although the UN have tried in making sure that security council is without the control of the selfishness of the Big Five, but the said Big Five still have a vehement tactical manipulation of the security councils, member states like the US, Russia and Britain can still act upon veto to intimidated and manipulate an order of the security council. And in so doing, the executive council cannot call them to book, hence there is no way Management and administration of the UN can be effective. But then there is a lot to be considered in the other angle of financial discipline, the UN in this areas has been on a precarious monetary battle in the last decade in managing their resources, or perhaps allocation funds or Aid among who deserves to be favored. This is where the Big five somehow have conflicting ideas on who gets the benefits. Due to numerous research to gather well-laid down work on the areas where the UN has been financially faulted. I was able to gather some quite unique materials that will be of favor to the general public and the African course. If there are persons who profess to think and even believe that the United Nations present precarious financial position and prospects are not so serious then, think again and better believe that the problem is serious and requires urgent attention of its 185-member nations.
Somehow somewhere, there are areas where clauses exist, and its requires diligent explanations of the economic geocentricism that exist among dominant 185-member states, which includes the USA, Russia, Britain, China, Japan, Switzerland, Ireland and South Korea. These members has always have a say in due payments, and at first can be problematic, and when time for allocations is near, then those who at first was laid-back in paying the dues are those who sounds loudest in who gets what. This is the cohesive irony in the whole of the UN Managerial Drama.
A clear analysis was taken very close to the beginning of March 1998, and according to the UN fiscal and policy section of Economic financing “edited by Ronald Maxwell Feb 1998”. There are many determinant flaws in dues/debt payments and allocations. Meanwhile, At the end of September last year unpaid dues totalled US $2.4 billion (RM. 9.8 billion) for the regular budget, peacekeeping and international tribunals, the bulk is owed by the only remaining superpower – the United States: US $1.3 billion (RM. 5.2 billion). The much publicised Ted Turner’s US $1 billion (RM. 4 billion) gift has not arrived and even after it has been paid it will not alleviate the organization’s poverty. The fund is meant for specific purposes, for example, children’s welfare, and not for regular expenditure. Ted Turner made his fortune through the Cable News Network (CNN) which he founded in 1980 to provide around-the-clock news service. But how this has affected the organisation and those of African and the Middle East, and perhaps Asia has not been categorically define. Despite the needed homework in African, Asian and the middle east Poverty alleviation programme, the Organisation on its own has not been successful to raise money towards their agenda programme, hence the cause of the obnoxious arguments and debates by the Big five and other cohorts to determine who gets what, and areas of economic concentration even when its disfavor the wishes and aspirations of Africa, Asia and the Middle east.
As long as 33 years ago, U Thant, the third United Nations Secretary-General and the only Asian to ever hold the post (1962-71) up to now, in a report to the General Assembly said that the financial position of the organization was “serious and merits the urgent attention and concern of its membership”. It does seem that little has changed in three decades. And this question only need be answered by the co-efficient Big Five and their cohort.
The UN’s appropriations for the biennium 1998-9 is US $2.532 billion (RM. 10.3 billion), about US $76 million (RM. 304 million) less than the 1996-1997 appropriations. Of this, Malaysia’s contribution is US $1.76 million (RM. 7.2 million) or 0.168%. However, we will have to pay more in future, 0.18% in 1999 and 2000. Last year, 39 countries did not pay these dues, according to UN Secretary-General, Kofi Annan, in a letter he sent to the General Assembly, dated Feb 4. The big defaulters are Yugoslavia with a sum due of US $11.7 million (RM 46.8 million), Iraq US $7.043 million (RM 28.2 million), Georgia US $2.86 million (RM 11.4 million), Azerbaijan US $2.85 million (RM 11.4 million), Bosnia and Herzegovina US $1.08 million (RM 4.3 million), Moldova US $1.7 million (RM 6.8 million) and the smallest nations, Niger, US $5,700 (RM 22,800) and Costa Rica US $6,500 (RM 26,000) respectively. This is only a rough estimate by Donald Maxwell, UN’s auditor general. But according to report on CNN’s UN financial attache, it is quite obvious that more things need to be done to maintain effectiveness in due allocation payment, plus debt repayment.
As of Dec 31, last year 18 countries did not pay their contributions to the organization’s regular budget Leading the defaulters were: The United States, US $373 million (RM 1.5 billion) Ukraine US $17.6 million (RM 70.4 million), Brazil US $16.7 million (RM 66.8 million), Yugoslavia US $ 10.6 million (RM 42.4 million), Iraq US $7.1 million (RM 28.4 million) , Belarus US $4.6 million (RM 18.4 million), Argentina US $4.1 million (RM 16.4 million), Israel US $3.8 million (RM 15.2 million), Iran US $3.7 million (RM 14.8 million), Georgia US $2.2 million (RM 8.8 million), Uzbekistan US $2.1 million (RM 8.4 million, Tajikistan US $1.9 million (RM 7.6 million), Azerbaijan US $1.8 million (RM 7.2 million), Latvia US $1.7 million (RM 6.8 million), Lithuania US $1.4 million (RM 5.6 million), Armenia US $1.4 million (RM 5.6 million), Moldova US $1.2 million (RM 4.8 million) and Kazakhstan US $1 million (RM 4 million).
By March 5, 41 nations paid in full their contributions to the 1998 United Nations Regular Budget with France leading the list: US $68,292,675 (RM 273 million); Russia US $30,213,251 (RM 120 million), Malaysia $1,766,764 (RM 7.1 million), Singapore US $1,756,218 (RM 7 million), Laos US $10,516 (RM 42,000) and Vietnam US $105,163 (RM 420,000). Thus far, only these four Asian nations have made it into the Honor Roll of 1998. But the uproar is that the loudest drums dont even bother to pay their debt or perhaps necessary dues. What a pity!
Annan has been lavishly praised by all and sundry, including US President Bill Clinton and George Walter Bush Jr., over the years for a job well done in averting a United States-led bombing of Iraq. Saddam Hussein agreed to allow the UNSCOM inspection teams to resume their work unimpeded including inspecting the sites of the eight p
residential palaces hitherto out-of-bound. But this was then, to be practical about this, Annan from all indications was been Used by the influential Big five member-states, which included USA and the Great Britain. This was also a resource waste, but there was seemingly no account taken as it reflects on the fiscal year of UN.