UNITED NATIONS – A report of recommendations on reforming the embattled United Nations was released yesterday as the senator leading one of the criminal investigations into the U.N. oil-for-food scandal called for the resignation of Secretary-General Annan.

Writing in today’s Wall Street Journal, Senator Coleman, a Republican of Minnesota, voiced mounting frustration with Mr. Annan: “As long as Mr. Annan remains in charge, the world will never be able to learn the full extent of the bribes, kickbacks, and under-the-table payments that took place under the U.N.’s collective nose.”

In supporting his arguments for Mr. Annan’s resignation, Mr. Coleman cited the U.N.’s acknowledgment on Monday, in response to a New York Sun report, that the secretary-general’s son, Kojo Annan, was still being paid as late as early this year by a Swiss-based consulting company, Cotecna, which is under investigation for its lax oversight of Iraqi imports under U.N. sanctions.

Mr. Annan’s spokesman, Fred Eckhard, when asked recently whether the secretary-general would resign, said, “Let’s not get ridiculous,” adding that a resignation was “out of the question.” Last night, when asked by the Sun of his response to Mr. Coleman’s article, Mr. Eckhard said, “Kofi Annan has no intentions of resigning. We’re awaiting the judgment of Paul Volcker, which we believe would make clear which are the responsibilities of U.N. staff versus those of the members of the Security Council when it comes to oil-for-food.”

Mr. Volcker was named by Mr. Annan to head an independent investigation into the oil-for-food program.

Mounting frustration from Congress with Mr. Annan’s leadership could hobble his ability to carry out the reforms outlined in the blue-ribbon report released yesterday. Congress controls 22% of the U.N.’s budget.

Recommendations in the report ordered by Mr. Annan with the hopes of reforming the U.N. were bound to ruffle feathers at the organization and in Washington.

In a paragraph that seemed designed to challenge the Bush administration’s policy of opting to respond unilaterally with military force to stamp out looming global threats, the report says that to be legal, such action needs to be approved by a U.N. Security Council resolution.

“Allowing one to act is to allow all,” the report said. “In a world full of perceived potential threats, the risk to the global order and the norm of non-intervention of which it continues to be based is simply too great for the legality of unilateral preventive action, as distinct from collectively endorsed action, to be accepted.”

This is bound to become an even more difficult hurdle for those who advocate actions without explicit Security Council approval, like the ones taken by the Clinton administration in the Balkans or the Bush administration in Iraq, because the new report recommends expansion of the council to 24 members.

The current council structure, which has existed since the early days of the organization, consists of five permanent members who may veto resolutions, and 10 elected members who hold their seats for a period of two years.

Council reform, however, has been on the agenda of the U.N. for decades, with advocates such as Japan and Germany, which are behind only America as the largest donors to the U.N. budget, vying for permanent membership. Earlier this year, these two nations were joined by Brazil and India, creating a powerful bloc that lobbies for council expansion.

Nevertheless, within the U.N. and outside, many are skeptical about implementing any such change, which needs to be approved by two-thirds of the U.N.’s 191 members, as well as gain the support of America, Russia, China, Britain, and France, the five permanent members that hold veto power at the council.

For Mr. Annan, the report he has ordered is an attempt to deal with what he considers more important issues than the now almost daily disclosures of alleged wrongdoing in the institution.

“Obviously, in this climate, and with this oil-for-food discussions, it is not going to be easy,” Mr. Annan told reporters on Monday, talking about U.N. reforms. “It wasn’t going to be easy anyway. It is going to be much more difficult, but we do have work to do and I hope that the member states and governments concerned will see the value in focusing on the reform and the development issues.”

Supporters of the reform hope that the mere existence of the Annan-ordered tome, which is almost 100 pages long and includes 101 recommendations, will urge members to deal with the underlying issues and the need to reform the world body.

“The report frames new security challenges that have to be dealt with, and makes it clear that the existing system lacks sufficient legitimacy to deal with them,” said John Ruggie of the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University. “The membership of the U.N. faces a choice: Do they now want to bite the bullet…or are they going to let the opportunity pass.”

But according to the former Thai prime minister, Anand Panyarachun, who headed the panel that prepared the report, even its own 16 members, which included former foreign ministers from Russia, China, Australia, and Egypt, and other top former diplomats like former national security adviser Brent Scowcroft, ended up divided over the composition of their proposed reformed council.

They settled on one proposal that would add three new nonpermanent members and six new permanent seats, without the veto power that the current five have. Two of these new permanent members would be from Asia, two from Africa, one from Europe, and one from the Americas.

The other proposal would create a third tier of council member nations, which would be given four-year, nonpermanent seats, which could be renewed.

Both suggestions seem to already have attracted enemies. Egypt, for one, demanded at least one permanent Arab seat, but rivals vying for the African seats, including Nigeria and South Africa, might crowd it out. Brazil in the past was not the universal Latin American choice, with Argentina and Mexico eyeing a prominent role. India is bound to meet Pakistani resistance.

America until now has only supported permanent membership for Japan, hesitating on candidates like Germany and Brazil, which have opposed its policies in Iraq and elsewhere.

“The U.S. so far has taken no position with respect to Security Council reform other than the very general position that the test we would apply to any change in the Security Council would be would the Security Council be more or less effective than it is now,” Ambassador John Danforth said yesterday.

The only part of the report that is expected to receive a warm welcome in Washington is a recommendation by the panel to create a new convention on terror, which will include a clear and distinct definition.

Terrorism, according to the report, should be defined as any action “intended to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or noncombatants, when the purpose of such an act, by its nature or context, is to intimidate a population or to compel a government or an international organization to do or to abstain from doing any act.”

But like other parts of the report, such a definition has been floated many times in the past. Until now it has met resistance from Arab and Islamic states, who together can muster a General Assembly majority to block any resolution, including reform ideas. Whether the new report would be able to change that equation, Mr. Ruggie said, “remains to be seen.”

Speaking to reporters yesterday about the report, Prime Minister Blair of Britain said, “I hope that the U.N. panel that is looking at a reform of the U.N. … that we do get to the point where we start as an international community to put greater pressure on regimes for basic democratic human rights for people.”