STANDING in the line of those hoping for a better deal from U.S. President-elect Barack Obama than they got from outgoing President George W. Bush is a body representing the entire world: the United Nations. Despite public protestations of neutrality in the Nov. 4 presidential election, there has been thinly disguised glee at UN headquarters that Democrat Obama defeated Republican John McCain. Some foresee Obama's inauguration on Jan. 20 as the end of a long dark night under the eight-year Bush administration. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has said he looks forward to “an era of renewed partnership and a new multilateralism” with Obama - even though he also says he has managed to improve ties with Bush since taking over at the beginning of 2007. The United Nations fell foul early on of Bush administration hawks who considered the world body hostile to America's interests. The failure of the Security Council explicitly to endorse the 2003 U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, and a statement by Ban's predecessor Kofi Annan that the invasion was illegal, strengthened that view. In 2005, Bush named as his UN ambassador the sharp-tongued conservative John Bolton, a man who more than a decade before had said that if the UN skyscraper in Manhattan lost 10 of its 38 floors, “it wouldn't make a bit of difference.” Because the US Senate never confirmed him, Bolton had to step down the following year, but not before, critics say, he antagonized friends and foes alike - even if they admitted he was a hard worker who was always on top of his brief. Among other things, Bolton appointed a former Bush deputy campaign manager, Mark Wallace, to pursue allegations of UN mismanagement, especially that the UN Development Program had channeled hard currency to the North Korean leadership. Later inquiries cleared UNDP of major wrongdoing. Although Bolton's successor, Zalmay Khalilzad, has sought to mend fences with other countries, senior UN officials are now hoping for much closer cooperation with an administration they believe will be far more aligned with UN goals. To the United Nations, the United States is crucial as the world's most powerful country, the host of its headquarters and the largest contributor to UN funds, paying 22 percent, albeit while often in arrears of up to $2 billion. So Obama's statements such as a comment in a 2007 “Foreign Affairs” magazine article that America needs to “rededicate itself to the (UN) organization and its mission” are music to UN ears. ‘Same script' “The signals are that (Obama) will want to consult closely with allies and build a consensual approach as best he can,” said one senior European diplomat. “The platform for change, and a lot of it is change away from Bush, is something which I think will get a very ready response in the world, which he will want to tap into.” Dozens of US foreign policy leaders, including Democratic and Republican former cabinet members, took out a full-page New York Times advertisement on Nov. 20 to urge the incoming administration to strengthen ties with the United Nations. “President-elect Obama has the opportunity to engage with the world and renew American leadership at the United Nations,” said Timothy Wirth, president of the United Nations Foundation, a UN advocacy group and charity. Ban, who once by chance spent half an hour sitting next to Obama on a Washington-New York air shuttle and also spoke with him by telephone after the election, has said he is “very much encouraged” by the president-elect. Senior UN officials have gone further. “Here's a person who looks at the world the same way we do,” said one, adding that Ban and Obama were “talking from the same script.” Ban's aides have been excited by Obama's views on combating climate change, a subject that tops the UN chief's agenda. Obama's promise to “fast track investments in a new green energy business sector” echoes what Ban has been saying.
