In his final year as U.N. Secretary General, Kofi Annan is stuck between the constant American drumbeat demanding management reform and opposing forces resisting any changes, a group which include Turtle Bay staffers and countries that greatly benefit from the current system.

A paragraph declaring “no confidence” in Mr. Annan was omitted at the last minute from a proposed staff union resolution late last week, but proponents of the reprimand say it might be reintroduced if staffers are not consulted on a raft of proposed reform ideas currently being prepared, proposals which include outsourcing of jobs overseas, staff buyouts, and changes to the staff pension fund system. Poorer countries, represented by a voting bloc known as The Group of 77, also complain they are not being consulted.

But reform is expected to be at the top of the agenda at a White House visit today, which, according to diplomats, will be Mr. Annan’s last meeting with President Bush as secretary general.

The United Nations was established 60 years ago, with some of the management expertise employed provided by Soviet Union ideologues. Now, with heavy input from undersecretary-general for management, Christopher Burnham, Mr. Annan is trying to make Turtle Bay operate a little more like corporations and institutions in neighboring America.

Senator Lugar, the Republican of Indiana who heads the foreign relations committee, told the U.N. Security Council last week that after implementing some changes recently, the United Nations must now “overhaul its procurement system to prevent bribes and kickbacks, establish an oversight body that will be able to review the results of investigations, fund a one-time staff buy-out to allow for a more efficient use of personnel, and improve external access to all U.N. documents.”

America’s Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton last year insisted that management overhaul should be a major element in the final document of any summit on U.N. reform. So Mr. Annan now must report in the first quarter of 2006 on how the existing budgetary, financial, and human resources policies might fit the current and future needs of the organization and those of his successor. All rules, regulations, and staff policies could be reviewed in the report, expected at the end of this month.

Staffers universally oppose outsourcing, but they took to the barricades when they heard of proposals to touch the third rail of U.N. employment: pension funds. Although they cannot even review where their funds are currently invested, employees fear any change that might give them more control.

Those fears are so deep that last week spokesman Stephane Dujarric went out of his way to try to dispel them, saying that “there is no truth to the rumor of any privatization or other changes to the pension system.” Last year, however, Deloitte and Touche produced a report recommending a new “hybrid” structure that would combine internal and external management of the pension fund, which was worth $29.4 billion at the end of 2004, according to staff sources.

Two other outside consultant firms, Epstein and Fass Associates, and Eriksen, Faulkner, Foster, were hired to review staff outsourcing. Three options were suggested to enable the United Nations to farm out some in-house functions to private companies, specialists, and nongovernmental organizations. Undersecretary-general Jian Chen has already asked member states to relax U.N. rules that make outsourcing almost impossible.

Computer companies hire workers in India to help American consumers deal with glitches in their gadgets. Why then, as the Turtle Bay official who explained the proposed changes to me put it, should a translator of a document from English to Russian be based in New York rather than Moscow?

Unlike the MTA, however, U.N. leaders face not only unbending staff unions but also fiercely guarded national interests. Management consultants have discovered that several departments, like the intensely scrutinized procurement division, suffer from a patronage system where hiring is based on national affiliation rather than talent and ability.

This system of positive discrimination might explain why a growing number of the Group of 77, some of whom benefit hugely from such hiring practices, are so opposed to the proposed management changes. Last week, South African ambassador, Dumisani Kumalo, even went so far as to suggest that mismanagement reports are being leaked to the American press by Mr. Annan’s lieutenants before they brief the General Assembly.

Mr. Bolton was famously denounced for saying that shaving 10 floors from the United Nations would make no difference to the way the place operated. In reality it could make a lot of difference – for the better. What is yet to be seen is whether the United Nations is capable of doing its own shaving, or whether Americans, who fund 22% of its budget, will eventually have to step in.