THE UNFORGIVEN

By Johanna McGeary

What a sorry spectacle. Bill Clinton and Boutros Boutros-Ghali poking each other like palookas too mulish to know better. The President of the U.S. and the Secretary-General of the U.N. have gone chest to chest over who should run the international peace organization when Boutros-Ghali's term expires Dec. 31. "You're out," says Clinton. "I won't go," answers Boutros-Ghali. "We veto you," responds Clinton. "I'm still the only candidate," retorts Boutros-Ghali. The African bloc can keep submitting the 74-year-old diplomat's name to the Security Council for a second five-year term, and the U.S. can keep vetoing his re-election, but such a fruitless battle of wills is guaranteed to produce only two sure things: more damage to U.N. credibility and more fodder for those who see the U.S. as a diplomatic bully.

And so it will go on until one contender backs down. In her blunt way, Madeleine Albright, the U.S. representative on the Security Council, makes it clear that it won't be Clinton. "Look," she said after she cast the lone vote against Boutros-Ghali in the 15-member council last week, "we are opposed to Boutros-Ghali. And we have the veto here." As his chief African backers decide hanging on to a second term for their continent is more important than retaining Boutros-Ghali, he has little time left to withdraw with some dignity intact.

There is not much right or wrong here, only wrong and wrong.

Boutros-Ghali is not quite a David fighting Goliath, as he likes to portray himself. He came into the job in 1992 only after it was obvious that France would reject Africa's first choice because he didn't speak French. Egypt's cultivated Boutros-Ghali, a Francophile in every way, found he had to campaign furiously for the post. Despite a reputation as a hardheaded fighter for his principles, his age, then 69, and lack of administrative experience were against him. To win over the reluctant U.S., he voluntarily promised not to seek a second term--until he reversed himself in 1994.

Boutros-Ghali came in with a mandate to reform the bloated and debt-ridden U.N. but seemed to neglect that as he took on the role of foreign secretary to the world. He offended many when he condemned the Security Council for ignoring Somalia while it obsessed about Yugoslavia. Though he boasts about the reforms he initiated, he moved too little and too late to satisfy U.S. demands for sharp staff reductions and a zero-growth budget. His detractors say Boutros-Ghali was also burdened with a short fuse, large ego and thin skin.

Yet 14 of 15 Security Council members voted for Boutros-Ghali anyway, attempting to avoid irritating Africa and rocking the U.N. boat, as well as protesting Washington's high-handedness in easing him out. Last June, without a word to U.N. friends, a senior State Department official told the New York Times it would not permit the Secretary-General to serve a second five years. The move angered U.N. members as a blatant sop to election-year criticisms from right-wing Republicans. Third World sensitivities have been trampled, and allies are annoyed they weren't consulted. Others are furious at U.S. cheek in dictating choices when it owes the U.N. $1.5 billion.

Washington never gave Boutros-Ghali much of a chance. The Administration made him the scapegoat for its own costly policy failures in Somalia and Yugoslavia and regularly denounced him when he took independent positions. Congress demonized him for every foreign travail. In 1993 Boutros-Ghali told Albright he could not run the U.N. efficiently when Washington was not fully onboard. The U.S., he said, was his "problem." She cut him short: "What you don't understand, Boutros, is that you are my problem."

The Administration insists that personal animosity is not the basis of its case against Boutros-Ghali. Officials say it is his inadequate pursuit of reform that disqualifies him from leading the troubled world body into the 21st century and add bluntly that they will never persuade the Republican Congress to pay Washington's U.N. debt if Boutros-Ghali remains in charge.

No wonder Boutros-Ghali flatly refused when Secretary of State Warren Christopher offered him a face-saving one-year extension last April. And last week's 14-1 vote earned him cheers throughout the Third World for thumbing his nose at the U.S. But the Secretary-General seems to know the battle is nearly lost. He told a close friend last Thursday that he would make one final effort to obtain a respectable compromise from Washington: three more years or, at worst, two. If the U.S. refuses--and it will--then, says the friend, "he will go out with dignity."

Already, the Africans are quietly canvassing for another candidate. Washington says it wants a "credible" alternative, but it may be hard for the Africans to satisfy the demands for a strong manager ready to eliminate inefficiency, downsize personnel and reduce budgets.

Before a new leader is chosen, says a senior U.N. official, "there are a lot of people around here who are going to make sure it's as painful as possible for the U.S." Despite all that, the Clinton Administration remains confident it will have its way. "At the end of the day," declared State Department spokesman Glyn Davies, "the U.N. needs the U.S. more than, with all due respect, it needs to retain its current leadership." So yes, the U.S. will come out of this looking powerful. But classy--no way.

--Reported by Bonnie Angelo and Marguerite Michaels/New York

With reporting by BONNIE ANGELO AND MARGUERITE MICHAELS/NEW YORK