[Senate Hearing 111-257]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]
S. Hrg. 111-257
INSERT TITLE HERENOMINATION OF HON. SUSAN E. RICE
TO BE U.N. REPRESENTATIVE
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
INSERT DATE HERE deg.JANUARY 15, 2009
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Relations
Available via the World Wide Web:
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/index.html
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
54-640 WASHINGTON : 2009
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC
area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC
20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS
JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts, Chairman
CHRISTOPHER J. DODD, Connecticut RICHARD G. LUGAR, Indiana
RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin Republican Leader designee
BARBARA BOXER, California BOB CORKER, Tennessee
ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia
BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho
ROBERT P. CASEY, Jr., Pennsylvania JIM DeMINT, South Carolina
JIM WEBB, Virginia JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming
JEANNE SHAHEEN, New Hampshire ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi
EDWARD E. KAUFMAN, Delaware
KIRSTEN E. GILLIBRAND, New York
David McKean, Staff Director
Kenneth A. Myers, Jr., Republican Staff Director
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Kerry, Hon. John F., U.S. Senator From Massachusetts............. 1
Lugar, Hon. Richard G., U.S. Senator From Indiana................ 8
Rice, Hon. Susan E., Nominated to be Representative to the United
Nations........................................................ 10
Prepared statement........................................... 16
Appendix
Additional Material Submitted for the Record
Responses to additional questions submitted for the record by
members of the committee to Dr. Rice........................... 51
(iii)
NOMINATION OF DR. SUSAN E. RICE
TO BE U.N. REPRESENTATIVE
----------
Thursday, January 15, 2009
United States Senate,
Committee on Foreign Relations,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:34 a.m., in
room SH-216, Hart Senate Office Building, Hon. John F. Kerry,
chairman of the committee, presiding.
Present: Senators Kerry, Dodd, Feingold, Boxer, Nelson,
Menendez, Cardin, Casey, Lugar, Corker, Murkowski, DeMint,
Isakson, and Barrasso.
Also Present: Senator Shaheen.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN F. KERRY,
U.S. SENATOR FROM MASSACHUSETTS
The Chairman. This hearing will come to order, please.
We have nine. So we are one Senator shy from a quorum, and
while we wait for that one Senator to arrive so that we can do
the business portion of the meeting, I know that both of our
Senators--we are delighted to welcome you, Senator Collins,
Senator Bayh. Thanks for taking time to be here. They both have
pressing schedules. So what we are going to do is let them make
their opening introductions of Dr. Rice initially and then as
soon as the Senator is here, we will do the business meeting
and then proceed to the other openings and testimony.
So Senator Collins, thanks so much for taking time. We are
glad you are here.
STATEMENT OF HON. SUSAN COLLINS,
U.S. SENATOR FROM MAINE
Senator Collins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, it is my privilege today to introduce Dr.
Susan Rice, the President-elect's nominee to be the next United
States Ambassador to the United Nations. The people of Maine
are proud of what this remarkable woman has accomplished in her
distinguished career of service to our Nation, and we take
special pride in her strong ties to our State.
In order to fully describe Dr. Rice's accomplishments,
first let me describe those ties, for they are the foundation
of her character. Her grandparents emigrated from Jamaica to
Portland, Maine in the early years of the 20th century. Like so
many who have come to our shores, they came with little in
their pockets, but with spirits overflowing with determination.
On modest wages, they raised five children, and they believed
that education was the key to the American dream. Their four
sons all graduated from Maine's Bowdoin College. Two became
physicians, one an optometrist, and one a college president.
Their daughter, Dr. Rice's mother Lois, who is here today, was
valedictorian of Portland High School and president of the
student body at Radcliff College. She is a former vice
president of the college board and a former advisory council
chairwoman at the National Science Foundation. She married
Emmett Rice, Dr. Rice's father, who is also here today, a
retired senior vice president at the National Bank of
Washington and a former governor of the Federal Reserve.
The determination of Dr. Rice's grandparents to build a
brighter future did not end with their own family. They founded
a USO center for blacks in Portland during World War II and
were active in the Portland branch of the NAACP.
That determination to succeed and to contribute thrives in
their granddaughter. Dr. Rice was valedictorian and a three-
sport athlete at the National Cathedral High School here in
Washington. She graduated from Stanford where she was elected
as a junior to Phi Beta Kappa and earned both a masters degree
and a doctorate in international relations from Oxford
University where she was a Rhodes Scholar.
After a stint at the global consulting firm, McKinsey &
Company, she joined the Clinton administration as a member of
the National Security Council staff. Dr. Rice then became the
youngest person ever to serve as a regional Assistant Secretary
of State, taking on the African Affairs portfolio at a
particularly challenging time. While in that position, Dr. Rice
played a key role in addressing conflict resolution in Africa,
helping to develop a U.S. response to conflicts in the Sudan
and the Horn of Africa and working to secure enactment of the
African Growth and Opportunity Act. She was also the first
American official ever to address the Organization of African
Unity summit.
After her Government service, Dr. Rice became a senior
fellow at the Brookings Institution and served as the senior
foreign policy advisor to the President-elect during his
campaign.
Although, of course, I knew of Dr. Rice when she worked at
the NSC, I first met her when we were both participants in a
series of seminars sponsored by the Aspen Strategy Group. I was
so impressed with her brilliance and nuanced insight as I
listened to her discuss various foreign policy challenges. I
knew at that time that she was a real star.
Dr. Rice would bring to this position experience,
expertise, and enthusiasm that are especially crucial during
these difficult times. She has special expertise in the
challenges posed by weak and failed states, poverty, and global
security threats, particularly in Africa. She is known for
being direct, yet always diplomatic. She is not driven by rigid
ideology, but rather by firm principles. She has the reputation
as a keen, critical thinker who is always learning. Her
intellect, experience, and character will serve our Nation
well.
Mr. Chairman, one of Dr. Rice's most recent visits to the
State of Maine was exactly a year ago when she came to Portland
to address the annual Martin Luther King breakfast. In her
eloquent remarks, she made clear that human rights are not
defined by race, ethnicity, or national borders, but rather,
are the universal birth right of all mankind. To secure that
birth right, she said-- and I quote--``we can and we must
overcome the divisions of past centuries as well as the traumas
of the recent past.''
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Lugar, I can think of no
better message to convey to the United Nations and no better
messenger than Dr. Susan Rice. I am honored to present her to
this distinguished committee, and I enthusiastically endorse
her nomination. Thank you. Thanks to all the members of the
committee.
The Chairman. Well, thank you very much, Senator Collins.
What a wonderful introduction. Remind me that if I am ever in
need of an introduction, I want to put in my reservation right
now. [Laughter.]
The Chairman. It does not get better than that. And
really, you have given great, important background to the
committee, and so we really appreciate that.
Senator Bayh, I think we will go with yours, just to keep
the continuity, and then we will interrupt for the business
meeting and start again. Thank you.
STATEMENT OF HON. EVAN BAYH,
U.S. SENATOR FROM INDIANA
Senator Bayh. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member
Lugar. Let me just say that in these difficult times for our
Nation, we can be reassured that you are providing foreign
policy leadership to our country.
Members of the committee, it is an honor to be before you
today.
I too have known Dr. Rice for many years and can attest
from personal experience that she has the keen intellect, the
strong work ethic, and the collegiality to be an outstanding
Ambassador to the United Nations.
Mr. Chairman, as you know very well, our Nation faces a set
of formidable transnational challenges that threaten the
security and prosperity of our people in the 21st century:
terrorism, radicalism, and extremism, the proliferation of
weapons of mass destruction, global climate change, poverty,
and disease. These are problems that threaten our people that
cannot be solved by our Government alone. The U.N. offers an
important vehicle to assert American global leadership through
collective action with other nations around the world.
President-elect Obama has rightly noted that the United
Nations is an imperfect but indispensable institution for
advancing America's security. In the 21st century, our goal
must be to make the United Nations a more effective mechanism
to work with other nations to advance our interests in
combating common threats.
Mr. Chairman, I believe we need an Ambassador to the United
Nations with a demonstrated ability to represent our country in
the international community in a credible, forthright, and
influential manner. Mr. Chairman, I believe Dr. Susan Rice is
uniquely qualified to do exactly that.
Throughout her career in public service, she has served
with distinction. Her service includes key roles on the
National Security Council as Director for International
Organizations and Peacekeeping and Senior Director for African
Affairs.
In 1997, Dr. Rice became one of the youngest Assistant
Secretaries of State in American history when she was appointed
Assistant Secretary of State of African Affairs. In this role,
she oversaw 43 U.S. embassies, 5,000 employees, and an annual
operating budget of $260 million.
At a time when the United Nations is in great need of
internal reform, Dr. Rice has proven that she is an adept and
capable manager. She will help the United States strengthen the
effectiveness of the United Nations, modernize it, and make it
more capable of meeting the challenges of the 21st century.
That means implementing an agenda of management reform and
working to strengthen its program capacities.
We are asking the United Nations now to do more than ever
to promote global security. Yet, we have not aligned
capabilities with the mandates that we have given U.N.
missions. Dr. Rice has demonstrated the intellectual heft
required of this position. As a senior fellow at the Brookings
Institute, she has written extensively on multilateral
diplomacy and how to deal with the security challenges posed by
failed states. She will represent America's interests on the
world stage thoughtfully and vigorously.
Mr. Chairman, I have seen her in action, and I am pleased
to report to the panel today that, if confirmed, she will be a
formidable negotiator and a skilled diplomat on our Nation's
behalf.
Last February, Dr. Rice and I sat together on a foreign
policy panel, the U.S.-Islamic World Forum in Doha. She
attended as a representative of candidate Obama, and I
represented Senator, then-candidate, Clinton. Dr. Rice offered
a spirited defense of America's prerogatives and a keen
understanding of the importance of leveraging buy-in from U.N.
member states to tackle global security challenges.
Dr. Rice understands the myriad challenges facing the
United States, and she is prepared to work with our allies
around the globe to marshal world opinion and spur action to
ensure our country's security. She also carries a currency
invaluable in this endeavor, the ear and full confidence of the
next President of the United States.
The United States will never ask permission to defend
ourselves or our allies. Yet, the last 8 years proved that
there is great peril in acting alone in a dangerous world. We
do not seek alliances because we are weak, but because acting
with our friends and partners around the world makes us strong.
It is important to use the United Nations as a vehicle to
promote peace and stability, the prevention and resolution of
conflict, and the stabilization of conflict zones once war has
ended. It is in our interests to make the United Nations more
effective in this regard.
President-elect Obama has outlined an ambitious agenda with
respect to climate change, nonproliferation, poverty reduction,
and strengthening the capacity of weak and failing states. All
of these elements can and should be addressed in the U.N., as
well as in other contexts. Dr. Susan Rice will strive to make
the United Nations a more effective mechanism to advance our
national security and meet global challenges.
I have high confidence, Mr. Chairman, that if confirmed,
Dr. Rice can help build new bridges to nations with whom we do
not always agree while renewing America's leadership in the
world.
Finally and on a note that I think Senator Lugar can relate
to well, I understand that back in the day, Dr. Rice was a
capable basketball player, which will endure her to the hearts
of Hoosiers everywhere. She has proven that she can succeed in
some of the most competitive arenas. I am confident she can in
the United Nations as well.
So, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member Lugar, it is my
distinct pleasure to recommend that this committee confirm Dr.
Susan Rice as our next Ambassador to the United Nations.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Senator Bayh. We
respect your observation about her athletic skill and regret to
inform you that born in Portland, she is a Celtics fan.
[Laughter.]
Senator Bayh: I did not say she was perfect, Mr. Chairman.
[Laughter.]
Dr. Rice. Just for the record, I was born in Washington,
D.C. A Bullets fan.
The Chairman. Born in Washington. There you go. Bullets.
We thank both of you for your introductions today. You are
both respected voices in the Senate on national security and
foreign policy issues. And so these introductions are important
to us, and we are very, very grateful to you.
We know you have other business, so we will excuse you
while we begin quickly the business meeting, and then we will
come back to the hearing itself. But thank you for taking time
to be here. We appreciate it.
Senator Collins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[Whereupon, at 9:49 a.m., the hearing was recessed, to
resume at 9:53 a.m.]
The Chairman. Senator Dodd has asked a point of personal
privilege. Again, as chairman of the Banking Committee, he is
in the middle of major discussions and hearings. So I would
like to honor that. Senator Dodd?
STATEMENT OF HON. CHRISTOPHER DODD,
U.S. SENATOR FROM CONNECTICUT
Senator Dodd. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. I'll be
very, very brief.
First of all, my apologies to you, Dr. Rice. We are having
the confirmation hearings for the nominee to be the Chairman of
the SEC, a Federal Reserve post, and three positions on the
Council of Economic Advisers. So we have a full day in the
Banking Committee before us.
And we will have plenty of chances, I presume, in the
coming days to talk and work together. So I congratulate you on
accepting the nomination. I commend the President for
suggesting your nomination to us, and we all look forward to
working with you.
I think the statements of Senator Kerry, as I heard them,
Senator Bayh and Senator Collins express the views of all of us
about the importance of this role. We know you will do an
admirable job at it. So thank you very much. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Senator Dodd.
It is my pleasure, on behalf of the entire committee in the
Senate, to welcome you here, Dr. Rice. We are really pleased to
see you here today. And obviously, I can see that some members
of your family are here, ranging up and down the generations I
see. We would love to have you introduce them, if you would.
Can you just share with us quickly who they are? And then I
would like to say a few words, and I know Senator Lugar would
too.
Dr. Rice. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I really am very pleased
and proud that my family can be here. I would like to introduce
my mother, Lois Rice; my father, Emmett Rice; my son Jake; my
daughter Maris; and my husband Ian Cameron. They are a
wonderful source of joy and support to me, and I could not
imagine taking on this responsibility without them.
The Chairman. Well, we are really happy to welcome all of
you. I know how proud you are. I listened to all those
youngest-ever comments, and Senator Lugar and I were up here
feeling grayer and grayer. [Laughter.]
The Chairman. But there is every reason to be enormously
proud and we welcome you.
As a point of personal privilege, I would like to just say
to members of the committee we are delighted to welcome our old
colleague and friend. Senator Tim Wirth is here in his role as
President of the U.N. Foundation, which is a very important
addendum to our efforts here. And we are delighted to welcome
you back, Senator.
The United States Ambassador to the United Nations is,
without question, one of the most important national security
and diplomatic posts in the administration and one from which
there is an enormous ability to achieve a great deal. The Obama
administration has recognized this by rightfully restoring it
to cabinet level, and I believe that President-elect Obama has
made an outstanding choice in Dr. Susan Rice.
I have had the pleasure of working closely with Dr. Rice
over the past years, and I can tell you that she is
exceptionally talented, fiercely conscientious, and one of the
most dedicated public servants that I have met. She has been a
trusted personal advisor, and I have worked with her closely on
a special project outside of the Senate, and she is a friend.
And I could not be happier than to welcome her here for
confirmation for such a key position.
The choice of Dr. Rice for this elevated position is
further evidence of the Obama's administration commitment to a
renewed diplomatic and multilateral presence on the world
stage. The United Nations can play a crucial role in mobilizing
the world to meet complex international issues that are
critical to our national interests.
From Iran's nuclear program to climate change, to the
crisis in Darfur and beyond, we are living in a world where the
actions of a single nation are profoundly and increasingly
inadequate to meet the challenges that we face.
As I and others have said, if there were no United Nations,
we would have to invent one. It is in our national and moral
interests to cultivate a forum where frozen conflicts can be
resolved before they become hot wars, where peace can be forged
and protected, where global consensus on transnational threats
and challenges can be translated into bold action, and where
America can lead by working cooperatively with willing and able
partners.
At its most effective, the U.N. can and will be vital to
our interests. The world is changing and it is changing
rapidly. Narrower traditional notions of national interests are
giving way to a broader, more holistic view, one that
appreciates how the mass movements of people, melting ice caps,
violent religious extremism, and global health challenges like
HIV/AIDS are all interrelated facets of our security picture,
and they all deserve greater attention.
That is the world that the next administration inherits,
and Dr. Rice brings a deep understanding to addressing these
issues. In fact, her own writings and testimony on failed
states and transnational challenges have helped to educate many
of us about the new and inescapable global set of realities
that we face. Dr. Rice brings insight and passion to an
institution that will benefit from both.
There have long been values of our foreign policy debate
that somehow we leave aside, inadvertently I think, but they
are often left aside. Certainly the rhetoric and the reality--
there is a gap between them. And there are many voices in that
debate that prefer to dwell on all that the United Nations is
not, rather than how it does serve our interests today or what
it can become if we commit ourselves to strengthening it.
On the other hand, support for the United Nations must not
lead us to whitewash the institution's shortcomings any more
than we should, obviously, accept the blanket condemnations. In
the end, it diminishes the work of many good people, and it
really reduces our ability to make the institution what it can
be.
Support for the U.N. requires us to address legitimate
flaws, including corruption scandals, abuse by peacekeepers,
and bureaucratic gridlock, not to mention a sometimes
unbalanced approach to the Middle East and an unaccountable
Human Rights Council. Sometimes also working through the United
Nations has proved frustrating when it comes to addressing
humanitarian crises in places like Burma, Darfur, and Zimbabwe
and threats like Iran's nuclear program. Clearly today, we look
forward to Dr. Rice's thoughts on how we can all join together
to enhance the U.N.'s ability to deal with each of these issues
multilaterally.
But as we work toward making the U.N. a more effective and
efficient body, we absolutely should not lose sight of the many
ways in which it currently serves our interests. From managing
over 90,000 peacekeepers in 16 missions around the world,
despite chronic underfunding, to providing food and shelter to
over 8 million refugees worldwide, to monitoring elections in
Iraq, to much needed coordination efforts in Afghanistan, the
U.N. and its affiliated agencies take on issues that no nation
can or should take on alone. And in many cases, it is the best
equipped and the only multilateral institution capable of doing
so.
The United Nations also advances important international
norms that will benefit all nations. A U.N. panel of top
scientists ratifies the world's consensus on the threat of
global climate change. The U.N.'s championing of core
principles of nuclear nonproliferation are vital, as well as
the indispensable work of the IAEA's monitoring compliance with
the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. All of these have
significantly improved our security.
And the U.N. also plays a critical role in advancing causes
that everyone should be able to agree on: the fight against
global hunger, global poverty, and the fight for global health.
The United States' support for the U.N. is critical. We are
the largest contributor to both the regular and peacekeeping
budgets at 22 percent and 27 percent, respectively. However, we
are routinely behind in those payments and we handicap the
United Nations in doing so. The administration's budget
requests in recent years, particularly for peacekeeping, have
not been enough to pay our bill. That is wrong. If we expect
the United Nations to fulfill its important missions, we need
to do better by upholding our end of the bargain, and that
means paying our share in full and on time.
Representing America at a body as complex as the United
Nations is a huge challenge. I am absolutely confident that Dr.
Rice is up to that challenge. She has served in senior
positions on the National Security Council, and as referenced,
as the youngest-ever Assistant Secretary of State, she was
responsible for U.S. policy toward 48 countries of sub-Saharan
Africa, including 43 embassies, over 5,000 Foreign Service
employees, an operating budget over $100 million, and a program
budget of approximately $160 million.
Dr. Susan Rice is one of our most capable national security
thinkers. She understands that our country is stronger when we
enlist others in our cause, when we share our burdens, and when
we lead strategically.
It is my pleasure to support her nomination as U.N.
Ambassador, one who brings both vital respect for the U.N. and
the courage to challenge it and improve it. And I look forward
to confirming her as our next Ambassador to the United Nations.
Senator Lugar?
STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD G. LUGAR,
U.S. SENATOR FROM INDIANA
Senator Lugar. Mr. Chairman, I join you in your warm
welcome to Dr. Susan Rice. We first met as members of a
selection committee for Rhodes Scholars, interviewing the
distinguished students and making a selection. And I
appreciated that day with Dr. Rice and have appreciated her
testimony before this committee over the course of the years,
most recently on Darfur in 2007 when she brought considerable
insight to those proceedings.
The position of Ambassador to the United Nations is unique,
as you pointed out, Mr. Chairman, among diplomatic assignments.
Its occupant is responsible not only for conducting diplomacy
on most of the critical foreign policy issues of the day, but
also for United States stewardship of a multilateral
institution that plays a central role in global affairs. The
diplomatic challenges that will face our nominee include the
nuclear confrontations with Iran and North Korea, the spread of
HIV/AIDS and other diseases, refugee crises related to Iraq and
Darfur and other locations, and numerous other problems that
confront the United Nations every day.
And while we all hope for a United Nations that can fulfill
its potential as a forum for international problem-solving and
dispute resolution, often the U.N. has fallen short of our
hopes, particularly in areas related to management, to
financial transparency and oversight. The influence and
capabilities possessed by the United Nations come from the
credibility associated with countries acting together in a
well-established forum with well-established rules. Scandals,
mismanagement, and bureaucratic stonewalling squander this
precious resource.
This committee and others in Congress have spent much time
examining how the United States can work cooperatively with
partners at the U.N. to streamline its bureaucracy, improve its
transparency, and make it more efficient as it undertakes vital
missions.
I recently read in the Washington Post and the Wall Street
Journal reports that the General Assembly shut down the U.N.'s
Procurement Task Force that was rooting out corrupt U.N.
officials and had banned 36 international companies from
further business with the United Nations. Regrettably, it
appears that the U.N. has already begun to curtail or terminate
many of the task force's ongoing investigations.
Many barriers exist to successful U.N. reform. Too many
diplomats and bureaucrats in New York see almost any structural
or budgetary change at the U.N. as an attempt to diminish their
prerogatives.
Our next Ambassador must be dedicated to continuing
meaningful reform at the U.N. in spite of the daunting
atmosphere. Our Ambassador must be a forceful advocate for
greater efficiency and transparency and an intolerance of
corruption.
The performance of the U.N. Human Rights Council in Geneva
also continues to be a source of concern in the Congress and
among the American people. Sessions of the Council have focused
almost exclusively on Israel. Much less well known is the role
of the United Nations Social, Humanitarian, and Cultural
Affairs Committee in New York, which has voted in the past to
condemn the deplorable human rights situations in Iran, North
Korea, Belarus, and Burma, countries which the Human Rights
Council in Geneva has often ignored.
Now, despite these and other difficulties, the United
Nations remains an essential component of global security
policy. The World Health Organization and the World Food
Program, for example, have performed vital functions, reduced
U.S. burdens, and achieved impressive humanitarian results for
many years.
The United Nations peacekeeping missions have contributed
significantly to international stability and helped rebuild
shattered societies. Currently there are 16 peacekeeping
operations ranging from Haiti to the Congo, to East Timor, and
some 100,000 civilian, military, and police forces from around
the world are helping to stabilize some of the most war-ravaged
places on our earth. In 2008, there were 130 peacekeeping
fatalities, the second highest level since 1994.
The ability of U.N. peacekeeping missions to be a force
multiplier was underscored by a 2006 General Accounting Office
analysis of the U.N.'s peacekeeping mission in Haiti. GAO
concluded--and I quote--``the U.N. budgeted $428 million for
the first 14 months of the mission. A U.S. operation of the
same size and duration would have cost an estimated $876
million.'' The report noted the U.S. contribution to the Haiti
peacekeeping mission was $116 million, roughly one-eighth the
cost of a unilateral American mission.
Now, most Americans want the United Nations to help
facilitate international burden-sharing in times of crisis.
They want the U.N. to be a consistent and respected forum for
diplomatic discussions, and they expect the U.N. to be a
positive force in the global fight against poverty, disease,
and hunger.
But Americans also are frequently frustrated with the
United Nations, and the job of the United States Ambassador to
the U.N. involves not only dealing with policies and politics
in New York. Our U.S. Ambassador must also be able to
communicate to Congress and to the American people why it is
important to pay our U.N. dues on time, why peacekeeping
operations benefit the United States, why cooperation at the
U.N. is essential to United States foreign policy.
I welcome the distinguished nominee, look forward to
hearing how she and the Obama administration intend to address
these important issues.
I thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Senator Lugar.
And now, Dr. Rice, we look forward to your testimony. Thank
you.
STATEMENT OF HON. SUSAN E. RICE, NOMINATED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE
TO THE UNITED NATIONS
Dr. Rice. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member
Lugar, and distinguished members of the committee. I am really
deeply honored to appear before you as the President-elect's
designee to be the United States Permanent Representative to
the United Nations. I want to thank the President-elect for his
confidence in naming me to this vitally important position.
Mr. Chairman, my warmest congratulations to you as the new
chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee. You have been an
ardent champion of a principled U.S. foreign policy to ensure
this country's security and prosperity. There is a great
tradition of probity on this committee dating back to Senator
Fulbright. The man seated next to you, Senator Lugar, continued
that tradition through his years as chairman, and I know you
will do so with great distinction as well. I am very grateful
to you both for convening this hearing swiftly to consider my
nomination.
I also want to express my gratitude to Senator Susan
Collins and Senator Evan Bayh for their very, very generous
introductions of me and for their extraordinary service to our
country. I am very appreciative of their support.
Mr. Chairman, like many Americans, I first heard of the
United Nations as a child about the age of my daughter Maris.
My initial images of the U.N. were not of the blue helmets of
its peacekeepers or the white vehicles of its lifesaving
humanitarian workers, but the orange and black of the UNICEF
boxes I carried door to door each Halloween. UNICEF and the
U.N. embodied to me then, as it does still today, our shared
responsibility to one another as human beings and our
collective potential and, indeed, obligation to forge a more
secure, more just, and more prosperous future.
As I grew up during the Cold War, I saw the U.N. frequently
paralyzed by geopolitical and ideological showdowns between the
United States and the Soviet Union. Later, with the fall of the
Berlin Wall, I joined millions in hoping that the vital mission
of the U.N. could be advanced through enhanced cooperation.
Serving in the Clinton administration in the 1990's, I had the
opportunity to gain firsthand an appreciation of the
organization's strengths and understanding of its weaknesses.
In the wake of the Cold War, the U.N. was modernized in
important ways and did substantial good, from Namibia to
Mozambique, from El Salvador to South Africa and Cambodia. At
the same time, there were clear failures, witnessed in the
unimaginable human tragedies of Somalia, Rwanda, and Srebrenica
and in the inability to deal effectively with crises in Angola
and Haiti.
Mr. Chairman, I believe we now stand at yet another
defining moment. Terrorism, the spread of weapons of mass
destruction, civil conflict, climate change, genocide, extreme
poverty, and deadly disease are global challenges that no
single nation can defeat alone. They require common action
based on a common purpose and a vision of shared security. If
confirmed, I welcome the challenge and will be humbled by the
privilege to serve our country at the United Nations, where I
will work to promote and implement President-elect Obama's
commitment to strengthen our common security by investing in
our common humanity.
More than 60 years ago, our leaders understood that a
global institution that brings all of the world's countries
together would enhance, not diminish our influence and bring
more security to our people and to the world.
The President-elect has affirmed America's commitment to
the United Nations as an indispensable, if imperfect,
institution for advancing America's security and well-being in
the 21st century. The goal of our diplomacy at the United
Nations must be to make it a more perfect forum to address the
most pressing global challenges: to promote peace, to support
democracy, and to strengthen respect for human rights.
My most immediate objective, should I be confirmed, will be
to refresh and renew America's leadership in the United Nations
and bring to bear the full weight of our influence, voice,
resources, values, and diplomacy at the United Nations.
The choices we face in addressing global challenges can
often be difficult: allowing conflict and suffering to spread,
mobilizing an American response, or supporting a multinational
United Nations effort. The U.N. is not a cure-all. We must be
clear-eyed about the challenges it faces. But it is a global
institution that can address a tremendous range of critical
American and international interests.
I know the U.N. sometimes deeply frustrates Americans, and
I am acutely aware of its shortcomings. Yet, all nations
understand the importance of this organization. And that
ironically is why countries like Sudan, North Korea, and Cuba
work so hard to render bodies like the U.N. Human Rights
Council ineffective and objectionable. It is why efforts to
pass Security Council resolutions on abuses in places like
Zimbabwe and Burma occasion such fierce debate. It is also why
many try to use the U.N. willfully and unfairly to condemn our
ally Israel. When effective and principled U.N. action is
blocked, our frustration naturally grows, but that should only
cause us to redouble our efforts to ensure that the United
Nations lives up to its founding principles.
Today, there is more on the agenda of the United Nations
than ever before. Nearly 90,000 U.N. peacekeepers are deployed
in 16 missions around the world. The U.N. is playing a vital
role in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the United Nations is at the
center of global efforts to address climate change and prevent
the spread of nuclear weapons, to stabilize weak and failing
states, prevent and resolve conflict, reduce poverty, combat
HIV/AIDS, assist refugees and the internally displaced, feed
the hungry, promote food security, and confront genocide and
crimes against humanity.
If confirmed, Mr. Chairman, I will work to strengthen the
U.N.'s effectiveness to fulfill its many important missions,
and working closely with the Secretary of State, I will devote
particular attention to four areas.
First, I will work to improve the capacity of the United
Nations to undertake complex peace operations more effectively.
We need to weigh new U.N. mandates more carefully and review
existing mandates as they come up for renewal. The fact that
more than 1 year after the force was established the crucial
U.N. mission in Darfur is only at half-strength is patently
unacceptable. We will work to build global peacekeeping
capacity and help streamline the U.N.'s as well as our own
procedures for deploying and supporting U.N. missions.
Second, the Obama administration will provide strong
leadership to address climate change. Under President-elect
Obama, the United States will engage vigorously in UN-sponsored
climate negotiations while we pursue progress in sub-global,
regional, and bilateral settings. To tackle global warming, all
major emitting nations must be part of the solution. Rapidly
developing economies such as China and India must join in
making and meeting their own binding and meaningful
commitments. And we should help the most vulnerable countries
adapt to climate change. If confirmed, I look forward to
advancing the diplomatic and development elements of the
President's climate change agenda.
Third, preventing the spread and use of nuclear weapons is
an enormous security challenge that deserves top-level
attention. Senator Lugar, thanks to your bold leadership and
vision and that of others, we have made some meaningful
progress in this regard, but the threat remains urgent. It is
essential to strengthen the global nonproliferation and
disarmament regime, dealing with those nations in violation and
upholding our obligations to work towards the goal of a world
without nuclear weapons. The United Nations plays a significant
role in this regime. Our objective is to lay the groundwork for
a successful Nonproliferation Treaty review conference in 2010,
one that advances the world's nonproliferation and disarmament
architecture and improves it for the 21st century.
Fourth, billions of the world's people face the threats of
poverty, disease, environmental degradation, venal leadership,
extremism, corruption, and violence. Conflict-ridden and
fragile states can incubate these and other threats that rarely
remain confined within national borders. President-elect Obama
has long stressed the importance of working with others to
promote sustainable economic development, to combat poverty,
enhance food and economic security, including by making the
Millennium Development Goals America's goals. If confirmed, I
look forward to working with member states to advance this
critical agenda at the United Nations.
Regional political and security challenges will inevitably
remain a central element of the U.S. agenda at the United
Nations. Iran's pursuit of a nuclear weapon demands the urgent
attention of the Security Council. Multilateral pressure is
needed to eliminate North Korea's nuclear weapons program. A
strengthened U.N. role in Afghanistan and Iraq will support
elections and strengthen political institutions. The ongoing
genocide in Sudan, the persistent violence in Eastern Congo,
and the persecution of innocents in Zimbabwe and Burma all
require much more effective action by the international
community. And recent events remind us yet again of the
importance of working to help Israelis and Palestinians achieve
their goal of a peaceful two-state solution that achieves
lasting security for Israel and a viable state for the
Palestinians. I will work to enable the United Nations to play
a constructive role in pursuit of this goal.
The Obama administration will also promote democracy,
understanding that the foundations of democracy are best seeded
from within. We will stand up for human rights around the
world. Thus, we will work closely with friends, allies, the
United Nations Secretariat, and others to seek to improve the
performance and the prospects of the Human Rights Council,
which has strayed so far from the principles embodied in the
United Nations Declaration of Human Rights.
The United States will address all of these challenges
unencumbered by the old divisions of the 20th century. We
cannot afford any longer to be burdened by labels such ``rich''
and ``poor,'' ``developed'' or ``developing,'' ``North'' or
``South,'' ``non-aligned'' or ``Western.'' In the 21st century,
these false divisions rarely serve anybody's interests. In
facing the challenges of the scale that lie before us, all
peoples and all nations should focus on what we have in common:
our shared desire to live freely and securely in health, with
hope and opportunity. Those are the interests and aspirations
of the American people and they are shared by billions around
the world.
Mr. Chairman, the United Nations must be strengthened to
meet 21st century challenges. In cooperation with other
governments, we will pursue substantial and sustained
improvements across the full range of management and
performance challenges. Important work on all of these issues
has been undertaken, but we have much farther to go. Progress
and reform are essential to address flaws in the institution,
to meet the unprecedented demands made on it, and to sustain
confidence in and support for the U.N. I pledge to you to work
tirelessly to see that the American taxpayer dollars are spent
wisely and effectively.
To lead from a position of strength, the United States must
consistently act as a responsible, fully engaged partner in the
U.N. President-elect Obama believes that the United States
should pay our dues to the U.N. in full and on time. I look
forward to working with you and other Members of Congress to
ensure that we do so, as well as to pay down our newly mounting
arrears and to support legislation to permanently lift the cap
on U.S. payments to the United Nations peacekeeping budget.
If confirmed, I will have the great privilege of leading
our hardworking and dedicated team at the U.S. mission to the
United Nations. I intend to work with the Secretary of State to
attract our best diplomats to serve at the mission. I will also
work to ensure that the new U.S. mission building is completed
as expeditiously as possible and provides our diplomats with
the tools they need to be safe, effective, and successful.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, Senator Lugar, if I am
confirmed, I will be an unflinching advocate of America's
interests and values at the United Nations. As I seek to
maximize cooperation to address the most serious global
challenges we confront, I will listen, I will engage, I will
collaborate. I will go to the U.N. convinced that this
institution has great current value, even greater potential,
and still great room for improvement. I commit to being direct
and honest in New York and always forthright with Congress. I
will welcome the advice and support of members of this
committee. I look forward to working closely with each of you,
and I invite each of you to come to New York to contribute
directly to our shared efforts to strengthen and support this
important institution.
Mr. Chairman, if confirmed, it will be my highest honor to
support our country's interest in renewing our global
leadership and effecting critical and lasting change. In the
21st century, we can and we must transcend old barriers, build
new bridges, strengthen our common security, and invest in our
common humanity.
I thank you. I would like to ask that my entire statement
be submitted for the record, and I am very pleased now to
answer your questions.
The Chairman. Thanks so much, Dr. Rice. Your entire
statement will be put in the record, as if read in full. And we
appreciate your summary enormously.
I have no doubt that the things you have said you will do
you are going to work to do, particularly work tirelessly. That
I understand.
Let me ask you, first of all--for me and I think for a lot
of us--you spoke to this a little bit in your comments just
now, acknowledging the frustration that many of us sometimes
feel. I think these last 8 years have been particularly
frustrating because it seems somehow that the entire
international community has lost the ability to act on its
outrage. I do not doubt that the outrage expressed by a lot of
countries is sincere, including our own.
But Darfur, Zimbabwe, Burma, just to mention a few, now the
Eastern Congo. It is stunning, shocking what occurs on a daily
basis in terms of young people being given guns and rampaging
through villages, rag-tag armies that really are not that
strong. They are certainly not that organized. And yet, those
who are organized and who are strong do not seem to mobilize.
And the caring is reserved to the rhetoric not to the reality
of action.
I was really surprised. I had been in South Africa and
Botswana and was in Sharm el-Sheikh right at the time that the
African Union was meeting there. And it was the day after the
Zimbabwe election. I met with President Mubarek and asked him
how they and he could receive Mr. Mugabe almost as if nothing
had happened, despite the fact that he had openly talked about
stealing an election because of the power of a bullet and the
disrespect that he showed openly to the electoral process and
to the people of his own country. And people just went on as if
it was business as usual.
So the pregnant question I think, for a lot of us, is what
do you intend to do. What do you really realistically believe
can be done so that under the Obama administration this will be
different? What is going to be different with respect to
Darfur, Zimbabwe, the Congo, just to take those three, starting
on January 20th of next week?
Dr. Rice. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That is a vitally
important question, and there are multiple aspects to it.
First of all, the United States will lead at the United
Nations with a respect for the institution and a determination
to make it work.
With respect to these thorny challenges of peacekeeping in
the context of Darfur and Congo, and autocracy in the context
of Zimbabwe, a common thread runs through these challenges, and
it is twofold. We need as an international community not only
to build additional peacekeeping capacity to be able to address
these challenges on a timely basis on the ground because part
of the problem we face in Darfur and Congo is a lack of ready,
trained, and equipped troops to deploy to these operations on a
timely basis. Building greater capacity globally is in our
interest. It is in the interest of all United Nations member
states, and it is something that we have in the past
contemplated and even made early steps towards achieving, but
have not pursued in a sustained and collective fashion. This is
not a challenge for the United States alone. It is one that our
partners and allies need to join, and it is one I am very
committed to working on.
The other half of the challenge, though, Mr. Chairman, is
that of will, political will. It is not uncommon to hear quite
moving speeches given in the halls of the Security Council, but
there is a deficit of determination to take the difficult steps
to hold accountable dictators such as Robert Mugabe, to demand
that his illegitimate government step down and honor the will
of the people of Zimbabwe. And we need to lead from a position
of moral strength in order to bring others along with us.
I hope very much, Mr. Chairman, that under President-elect
Obama's leadership we will engage more actively with the
countries in southern Africa and bring their often private
condemnation into the public sphere. We need them to work with
us and others to bring the necessary pressure to bear on that
regime so that the Zimbabwean peoples' suffering can finally
end.
And we also need to strengthen the will of the
international community to do what is necessary in places like
Congo and Darfur. We finally have agreement that there ought to
be increased peacekeeping operations there. That is progress.
But now the challenge of putting those troops on the ground
remains.
[Dr. Rice's prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Dr. Susan E. Rice
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Lugar, and distinguished members of
the committee, I am deeply honored to appear before you as the
President-elect's designee to be the United States' Permanent
Representative to the United Nations. I want to thank the President-
elect for his confidence in naming me to this vitally important
position.
Mr. Chairman, my warmest congratulations to you as the new chairman
of the Foreign Relations Committee. You have been an ardent champion
and advocate for a principled U.S. foreign policy to ensure this
country's security and prosperity. There is a great tradition of
probity on this committee, dating back to Senator Fulbright. The man
seated next to you, Senator Lugar, continued that great tradition
through his years as chairman, and I know you will, as well. I am very
grateful to you, Mr. Chairman, and to Senator Lugar, for convening this
hearing swiftly to consider my nomination.
I would like to take a moment to introduce and thank my family. I
am so pleased and proud to be joined today by my mother, Lois Rice, my
father, Emmett Rice, my wonderful husband Ian Cameron, and our greatest
blessing, our children, Jake and Maris. Without their unfailing wisdom,
love and support, I would not be here today, nor could I imagine taking
on this great responsibility.
In addition, I want to express my gratitude to Senator Susan
Collins and Senator Evan Bayh for their generous introductions of me
and for their extraordinary service to our nation. I am very
appreciative of their support.
Mr. Chairman, like many Americans, I first heard of the United
Nations as a child of about Maris' age. My initial images of the U.N.
were not the blue helmets of its peacekeepers or the white vehicles of
its life-saving humanitarian workers but the orange and black of the
UNICEF boxes I carried door to door each Halloween. I grew up trick-or-
treating for UNICEF--a tradition my children continue today. The
concept is simple and powerful--children the world over helping other
children. UNICEF and the U.N. embodied to me then, as they still do
today, our shared responsibility to one another as human beings and our
collective potential and obligation, to forge a more secure, more just
and more prosperous future.
As I grew up during the Cold War, I then saw the U.N. frequently
paralyzed by geopolitical and ideological showdowns between the United
States and the Soviet Union. Later, with the fall of the Berlin Wall, I
joined millions in hoping that the vital mission of the U.N. could be
advanced through enhanced cooperation. Serving in the Clinton
administration in the 1990s, I had the opportunity--first as the
official on the NSC staff responsible for U.N. affairs and later as
Special Assistant to the President and Assistant Secretary of State for
African Affairs--to gain a first-hand appreciation of the
organization's strengths and an understanding of its weaknesses.
In the wake of the Cold War, the U.N. was modernized in important
ways and did substantial good--from Namibia to Mozambique, from El
Salvador to South Africa and Cambodia. At the same time, there were
clear failures, witnessed in the unimaginable human tragedies of
Somalia, Rwanda and Srebrenica, and the inability to effectively deal
with crises in Haiti and Angola. We saw the difficulties and limits of
U.N. action when conflicting parties are determined to continue
fighting, as well as the imperative of mobilizing broad-based support
behind U.N. efforts. We were disappointed when the U.N. occasionally
served as a forum for prejudice instead of a force for our shared
values. Finally, we learned that mismanagement and corruption can taint
the dedicated work of skilled professionals, and that the reprehensible
actions of a few can undermine the goodwill of many towards an
institution, which most Americans nonetheless continue to support.
Mr. Chairman, I believe we stand now at yet another defining
moment--one in which the peoples and nations of the world must find
both the will and more effective means to cooperate, if we are to
counter the urgent global threats that face us all. Terrorism, the
spread of weapons of mass destruction, civil conflict, climate change,
genocide, extreme poverty, and deadly infectious disease are shared
challenges that no single nation can defend against alone. They require
common action based on a common purpose and vision of shared security.
I welcome the challenge and am humbled by the opportunity to serve our
country at the United Nations. If I am confirmed, I will work to
promote and implement President-elect Obama's commitment to
``strengthening our common security by investing in our common
humanity.''
Advancing America's Interests in the United Nations
More than 60 years ago, in the aftermath of the destruction and
devastation of World War II, the United States provided the leadership
and vision that led to the founding of the United Nations. Our leaders
understood then that a global institution that brings all of the
world's countries together would enhance--not diminish--our influence
and bring more security to our country and the world.
Today, with our security at home affected by instability, violence,
disease, or failed states in far corners of the world, the President-
elect has affirmed America's commitment to the United Nations as an
indispensable, if imperfect, institution for advancing our security and
well-being in the 21st century. He has made it clear that we must
pursue a national security strategy that builds strong international
partnerships to tackle global challenges through the integration of all
aspects of American power--military and diplomatic; economic and legal;
cultural and moral. The goal of our diplomacy at the United Nations
must be to make it a more perfect forum to address the most pressing
global challenges: to promote peace, to support democracy, and to
strengthen respect for human rights.
There is no country more capable than the United States to exercise
leadership in this global institution, and to help frame its programs
and shape its actions. My most immediate objective, should I be
confirmed, will be to refresh and renew America's leadership in the
United Nations and bring to bear the full weight of our influence,
voice, resources, values, and diplomacy at the United Nations.
The Obama administration will work to maximize common interests and
build international support to share the burdens of collective action
to counter the most pressing threats Americans face, while working to
help tackle the poverty, oppression, hunger, disease, fear and war that
threaten billions around the world every day.
We will make our case to the U.N., and press for it to become a
more effective vehicle of collective action. We will also be prepared
to listen and to learn, to seek to understand and respect different
perspectives. The task of our diplomacy must be to expand both the will
and ability of the international community to respond effectively to
the great challenges of our time.
I know that the U.N. often frustrates Americans, and I am acutely
aware of its shortcomings. But that is precisely why the United States
must carry out sustained, concerted, and strategic multilateral
diplomacy. Many countries invest heavily in deliberations on what they
view as the ``world's stage.'' That in part explains why diplomacy at
the U.N. can be slow, frustrating, complex, and imperfect. But that is
also why effective American diplomacy at the United Nations remains so
crucial.
Indeed, in some places the U.N. is the only capable institution
trying to make a difference. Around the world, the United Nations is
performing vital, and in many areas life-saving, services. Last year,
the World Food Program fed 86 million people in 80 countries who would
otherwise go hungry or even face starvation, including Afghanistan,
Iraq, Sudan, Indonesia, and Congo. Thanks to the efforts of UNICEF and
the World Health Organization, smallpox and polio have been nearly
wiped out. UNICEF alone vaccinates about 40 percent of the world's
children each year.
The choices we face in addressing global challenges can often be
difficult: allowing conflict and suffering to spread, mobilizing an
American response, or supporting a multi-national United Nations
effort. The U.N. is not a cure-all; we must be clear-eyed about the
problems, challenges and frustrations of the institution. But it is a
global institution that can address a tremendous range of critical
American and global interests.
The support of others can never be viewed as a prerequisite for
U.S. action, but our actions are strengthened with the support of
friends, allies and other stakeholders. Achieving the backing of an
institution that represents every country in the world can give added
legitimacy and leverage to our actions and facilitate our efforts to
garner broad support for our policy objectives.
From the Balkans to East Timor, from Liberia to Kashmir, from
Cyprus to the Golan Heights, the United Nations has, for more than six
decades, played a critical role in forestalling renewed fighting,
helping to resolve conflict and repair war-torn countries, providing
humanitarian aid, organizing elections, and responding to threats to
international peace and security. Countless lives have been saved. And
when it works, the U.N. has helped promote the very democratic values
that lie at the center of what the United States represents.
Indeed, the flaws and disappointing actions within the U.N. are
rooted in its potential to serve as an engine for progress. All nations
understand the importance of this institution. That is why countries
like Sudan, North Korea and Cuba work so hard to render bodies like the
U.N. Human Rights Council ineffective and objectionable. It is why
efforts to pass Security Council resolutions on abuses in places from
Zimbabwe to Burma occasion such fierce debate, and don't always
succeed. It is also why many try to use the U.N. to willfully and
unfairly condemn our ally Israel. When effective and principled U.N.
action is blocked, our frustration naturally grows, but that should
only cause us to redouble our efforts to ensure that the United Nations
lives up to its founding principles.
As in the past, there will be occasions in the future when
deadlocks cannot be broken, and the United States and its partners and
allies will nonetheless have to act. Yet, what our leaders accomplished
over 60 years ago was to help establish an inclusive global institution
that, by its very existence, provides the potential to enhance
collective security, while affording a powerful platform for American
leadership--leadership that can increase our own and others' security
and prosperity.
Nature of the Challenges and U.N. Role
Today, there is more on the agenda of the United Nations than ever
before, and with that full agenda comes increased expectations and
increased need to shed inefficiency and implement management best
practices. Nearly 90,000 U.N. peacekeepers--more than ever before--are
deployed in 16 missions around the world. The U.N is also playing vital
roles in Iraq and Afghanistan--working to strengthen governance, foster
democracy and development, and meet pressing humanitarian needs. The
United Nations is also at the center of global efforts to address
climate change, prevent the spread of nuclear weapons, stabilize weak
and failing states, prevent and resolve conflict, reduce poverty,
combat HIV/AIDS and halt the spread of other infectious disease, assist
and resettle refugees and the internally displaced, feed the hungry and
promote food security, and confront genocide and crimes against
humanity.
If confirmed, I will work to strengthen the U.N.'s effectiveness to
fulfill its many important missions, and working closely with the
Secretary of State, I will devote particular attention to four areas:
First, we must make renewed efforts to improve the capacity of the
United Nations to undertake complex peace operations effectively. We
need to weigh new U.N. mandates more carefully and review existing
mandates as they are renewed. Indeed, the gap between number and
complexity of the missions the Security Council has committed the U.N.
to perform, and its ability to do so, has arguably never been greater.
The fact that more than one year after the force was established, the
crucial U.N. mission in Darfur is only at half its authorized strength
is unacceptable. We should work to build global peacekeeping capacity
and help streamline the U.N. as well as our own procedures for
deploying and supporting U.N. missions. We must also no longer allow
host nations to dictate the composition of--and thwart the effective
deployment of--Chapter VII U.N. operations.
Second, the Obama administration will provide strong leadership to
address climate change and welcomes the U.N. Secretary-General's strong
interest in this issue. Under President-elect Obama, the United States
will engage vigorously in U.N.-sponsored climate negotiations while we
pursue progress in sub-global, regional and bilateral settings. To
tackle global warming, all major emitting nations must be part of the
solution, and rapidly developing economies, such as China and India,
must join in making and meeting their own binding and meaningful
commitments. We must help the most vulnerable countries adapt to
climate change and seize opportunities to accelerate their development
by investing in supplying renewable energy and participating in
emissions trading mechanisms. If confirmed, I look forward to advancing
the diplomatic and development elements of the President's climate
change agenda.
Third, preventing the spread and use of nuclear weapons is an
enormous security challenge that deserves top level attention. Thanks
to the bold leadership and vision of Senator Lugar and others, enormous
progress has been made, but the threats are daunting and must be
addressed. There is no more urgent threat to the United States than a
terrorist with a nuclear weapon. Nuclear weapons materials are stored
in dozens of countries, some without proper security. Nuclear
technology is spreading. Iran continues its illicit nuclear program
unabated, and North Korea's nuclear weapon's program is destabilizing
to the region and an urgent proliferation concern. President-elect
Obama will work on multiple levels to address these dangers. It is
essential to strengthen the global nonproliferation and disarmament
regime, dealing with those states in violation of this regime, and
upholding our obligations to work constructively and securely toward
the goal of a world without nuclear weapons. The United Nations plays a
significant role in this regime, particularly through the Review
Conferences held every five years under the Nuclear Nonproliferation
Treaty. The next Review Conference in 2010 is an opportunity to
strengthen all nations' adherence to the global non-proliferation
regime for the 21st century. Our objective for the 2009 Preparatory
Committee is to lay the groundwork for a successful Review Conference
in 2010--one that advances the world's nonproliferation and disarmament
regime and decreases the chance that nuclear weapons will end up in the
hands of terrorists.
Fourth, President-elect Obama has called for us to ``invest in our
common humanity.'' Billions of the world's people face the threats of
poverty, disease, environmental degradation, rampant criminality,
extremism, and violence where states and public institutions cannot
provide security or essential services to their own citizens. Conflict-
ridden and fragile states also can incubate these and other threats
that rarely remain confined within national borders. Indeed, some of
the world's most dangerous forces are manifest in or enabled by
precisely these contexts. President-elect Obama has long stressed the
importance of working with others to promote sustainable economic
development, combat poverty, enhance food and economic security, curb
conflict and help strengthen democracy and governing institutions. The
Obama administration is also committed to supporting broad-based and
sustainable economic development, including making the Millennium
Development Goals (MDGs) America's goals. This is a broad but crucial
agenda for the United States that will enhance our own security in an
interconnected world. It is one that requires engagement from many
different elements of the international community but where the United
Nations has a unique and critical role to play.
Regional political and security challenges will inevitably remain a
central element of the U.S. agenda at the United Nations. Iran's
pursuit of a nuclear weapon will continue to demand the urgent
attention of the U.N. Security Council. Multilateral pressure will
continue to be needed to eliminate North Korea's nuclear weapons
program. A strengthened U.N. role in Afghanistan and Iraq will promote
governance, support elections, strengthen political institutions,
improve coordination of development, and enhance regional security. The
ongoing genocide in Sudan, the persistent violence in Eastern Congo,
and the persecution and repression of innocents in Zimbabwe and Burma
all require much more effective action by the international community.
And, recent events remind us yet again of the importance of working to
help Israelis and Palestinians achieve their goal of a peaceful two-
state solution that achieves lasting security for Israel and a viable
state for the Palestinians. I will work to enable the United Nations to
play a constructive role in pursuit of this goal.
The Obama administration will promote democracy, understanding that
the foundations of democracy must be grown beyond elections, and those
foundations are best seeded from within. We will stand up for human
rights around the world mindful of our deep and abiding interest in
ensuring strong global mechanisms to defend these rights. Thus, we will
work closely with friends, allies, the U.N. Secretariat and others to
seek to improve the performance and the prospects of the Human Rights
Council, which has strayed far from the principles embodied in the U.N.
Declaration of Human Rights, and too often undermines the very rights
it must defend.
The United States will address all these challenges unencumbered by
the old divisions of the 20th century. We cannot afford to be burdened
with labels such as ``rich'' or ``poor,'' ``developed'' or
``developing,'' ``North'' or ``South,'' or ``the Non Aligned
Movement.'' In the 21st century, these false divisions rarely serve
anyone's interests. In facing challenges of the scale that lie before
us, all peoples and nations should focus on what we have in common: our
shared desire to live freely and securely, in health, with hope and
with opportunity. Those are the interests and aspirations of the
American people, and they are shared by billions around the world.
Strengthening the United Nations
Mr. Chairman, the United Nations must be strengthened to meet 21st
century challenges. None of us can be fully satisfied with the
performance of the U.N., and too often we have been dismayed. The
United States must press for high standards and bring to its dealings
with the U.N. high expectations for its performance and accountability,
and that's what I intend to do. In cooperation with other governments,
we must pursue substantial and sustained improvements across the full
range of management and performance challenges, including financial
accountability, efficiency, transparency, ethics and internal
oversight, and program effectiveness. Important work on all of these
issues has been undertaken, but we have much further to go. Progress
and reform are essential to address flaws in the institutions, to meet
the unprecedented demands made on it, and to sustain confidence in and
support for the U.N. I pledge to you to work tirelessly to see that
American taxpayer dollars are spent wisely and effectively.
To lead from a position of strength, the United States must
consistently act as a responsible, fully-engaged partner in New York.
To do so, we must fulfill our financial obligations while insisting on
effective accountability. In the past, our failure to pay all of our
dues and to pay them on a timely basis has constrained the U.N.'s
performance and deprived us of the ability to use our influence most
effectively to promote reform. President-elect Obama believes the U.S.
should pay our dues to the U.N. in full and on time. I look forward to
working with you and other Members of Congress to ensure that we do so,
as well as to pay down our newly mounting arrears and to support
legislation to permanently lift the cap on U.S. payments to the U.N.
peacekeeping budget.
Leading USUN
If I am confirmed, I will have the privilege of leading our
hardworking and dedicated team at the U.S. Mission to the United
Nations. Successful diplomacy requires top-notch people. If confirmed,
I intend to work with the Secretary of State to attract and support our
best and brightest diplomats to serve at the Mission. Current tax laws
and policies make service at the U.S. Mission a comparative financial
sacrifice for Foreign Service officers. This is a situation that
together, we should review and address to strengthen America's global
leadership. In addition, a secure, modern work environment is critical
to maximizing performance. The best businesses in America understand
this point. If confirmed, I will work to ensure that the new U.S.
Mission building is completed as expeditiously as possible and provides
our diplomats with the tools they need to be safe, effective and
successful.
Early in my career I was a management consultant. I know that
strong leadership and sound management supports effective action. We
must enhance our capacity to press for a more efficient and effective
U.N. Heading a well-run mission will be an important priority for me.
Conclusion
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, if I am confirmed, I will work
energetically to help renew America's leadership in the world. I will
ensure that the United States is represented powerfully and
effectively. I will be an unflinching advocate of our interests and
values, as I seek to maximize cooperation to address the most serious
global challenges we confront. I will listen. I will engage. I will
collaborate. I will go to the U.N. convinced that this institution has
great current value, even greater potential, and great room still for
improvement. I commit to being direct and honest in New York and always
forthright with Congress. I will welcome the advice and support of the
Members of this committee; I look forward to working closely with all
of you; and I invite each of you to come to New York to contribute
directly to our shared efforts to strengthen and support this important
institution.
Mr. Chairman, if confirmed, it will be my highest honor to support
our country's interest in renewing our global leadership and effecting
critical and lasting change. In the 21st Century, we can and we must
transcend old barriers, build new bridges, strengthen our common
security and invest in our common humanity.
Thank you.
The Chairman. Well, thank you. It is an important
statement, and I want to try to flesh it out a little bit, if
we can.
Let me just say to my colleagues we are going to do a 10-
minute round so that colleagues can think about being here.
And Dr. Rice, let me just say--I think you know this, but I
want to make it part of the record--that we have about five
competing nomination hearings today which is why colleagues are
coming and going. And I know you understand that and respect
it, but I want the record to reflect it.
You talked about building greater capacity. I happen to
believe very deeply. We do not have to argue about it here, but
if we were not in Iraq or had not made that commitment, I think
the options and possibilities might have been considerably
different with respect to some of these interventions. But we
are where we are.
And so I want to ask you, what shape do you believe that
greater capacity takes? Are you talking about blue helmets? Are
you talking about joint operations conceivably? Are you talking
about in some places, as in eastern Europe, where we have
extended the NATO presence and so forth? Give us a sense of how
you view that capacity.
Dr. Rice. Well, Senator, that capacity can and should come
from various different parts of the world. The bulk of
peacekeeping troops now are contributed by a handful of
countries in South Asia and Africa. We have largely tapped out
the capacity within Africa, for example, to address the
peacekeeping shortfalls in many of the conflicts which are in
Africa. African governments have indicated a desire and a
willingness to contribute more, but they may not have the
equipment or the training or the interoperability to enable
them to do so effectively and on short notice.
You may recall that at the G-8 summit a few years ago in
Sea Island, Georgia we and other G-8 partners made a commitment
to build five regional brigades within Africa, brigades that
would be interoperable and equipped and ready to deploy swiftly
if national governments made the decision to do so.
Well, we have not quite fulfilled that commitment. We have
gotten diverted along the way, as have our European partners.
Redoubling our determination to build that sort of capacity
with other countries is an example of the sort of support I
think we can provide: training, logistics, lift, equipment. We
have done some of that, to the Bush administration's credit, in
various one-off instances, but we have not achieved a
systematic strengthening of global peacekeeping capacity in
Africa and beyond.
The Chairman. Well, we wish you well with that. It is
going to be an enormous undertaking, but I could not agree more
about the importance of the ability to move--and I will come
back to it perhaps in another round in a little bit. But I want
to go to one other area.
You talked about bringing pressure to bear. And I agree. We
have to bring some pressure to bear. Particularly when you look
at the U.N. Security Council relationships to see a China or a
Russia veto on something that most people believe violates
universal principles of behavior and so forth is disappointing.
To what degree, though, does our current economic crisis,
the fact that both of those countries have important economic
relationships to us--China is one of our bankers of preference,
and we are relying on them significantly with respect to the
purchase of American debt. To what degree do those
interconnected realities condition the level of pressure that
you can actually bring in order to get the outcome that we need
on some of these other issues? And are you concerned about that
as you go forward?
Dr. Rice. It is a very important question and it is a tough
challenge. There is no doubt. We have a complex set of
interests and relationships with other major countries, notably
China and Russia. And there will be instances in which we agree
and are able to work together, and there will be instances in
which we disagree. And we will stand our ground and stand up
for our values.
But I think the challenge is to use effective, sometimes
quiet diplomacy to try to maximize their willingness to join
with us on issues that are not central to their vital national
security or to ours. There is no logical reason why it must
remain that Russia and China, for instance, are unable to
separate themselves from the regime of Robert Mugabe. China has
a long relationship. Russia does as well, going back to the
liberation struggle. But those two countries have grown and
evolved, and Zimbabwe has evolved to a place where their
interests, frankly, no longer coincide.
My view is if, for instance, the countries of southern
Africa were to speak strongly with one voice and say to the
international community, including Russia and China, with whom
they have close economic ties, that it is now in our shared
interest to support a peaceful transition in Zimbabwe to a
democratically elected government, that we are no longer going
to stand by while great human suffering persists and cholera
pours across our shared borders, then I think China and Russia
will have more interest in those regional relationships than
they will in maintaining strong support for a regime that is
clearly not long for this world.
The Chairman. Well, we certainly hope so and wish you well
in that effort. And I know the committee will work very closely
with you to try to help leverage that.
Senator Lugar?
Senator Lugar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
As I mentioned in my opening statement, I am concerned that
the United Nations is beginning to fail to follow up on the
significant progress made by the Procurement Task Force.
Now, specifically, Ms. Rice, in your written response to an
earlier question for the record on the list of corrupt
companies who have been suspended from further business with
the U.N., you indicated that this list is not made public. The
list is not even shared with member states. And I would have
hoped under Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon's leadership, the
obvious sunshine policies would have been enacted.
Now, specifically, you do mention in your response that the
list of companies is shared with other U.N. funds and programs.
Is the World Health Organization, for example, or UNDP,
committed to abstaining from conducting business with those
banned companies, as well as their compliance? Or is it just
simply voluntary? And what comment do you have really about the
entire secrecy or nontransparency of this process?
Dr. Rice. Well, Senator Lugar, I think you are right to
point to that as a source of concern. The United States has
fought for, and under President-elect Obama will remain
committed to, increasing transparency within the United Nations
system. Under President Bush, we have pressed for more
accountability, and more sharing of information with member
states. And this must remain an important point of our
discussion and engagement with the Secretary-General and the
institution as a whole.
You spoke about the Procurement Task Force. This was a body
created in 2006 after the Oil for Food scandal, and it has done
a very credible job of highlighting over $650 million in faulty
contracts. Its work now has come to a formal end in its current
construct, as it was supposed to do. It wrapped up on schedule.
Now the challenge is ensuring that as it is folded into the
Investigative Division of the Office of Internal Oversight
Services, that the people and the institutional knowledge,
which have enabled the task force to be effective, are not
lost, and that the work can continue until it is completed.
And I, if confirmed, Senator, look forward to getting a
full briefing on the internal dynamics on the personnel
questions, which I understand are of concern to you and other
Members of Congress, and to press for ensuring that our tax
dollars are well spent, that the procurement functions continue
to be conducted in a more transparent fashion, and that we, as
the largest paying member state, and other member states have
the ability to see and know what is going on inside the
institution.
Senator Lugar. Well, I appreciate that answer because,
obviously, I would think everyone in the world is concerned
about corruption. The monies are being spent in difficult
places, but these are factors that we have tried to survey in
our own government as with the contracts in Iraq, for example,
we have been exploring.
But then I made the point--and I think you agree-- that
there is an obligation on your part to the American people to
report about all of this because taxpayer funds of all
Americans are involved. And the idea of transparency, which
seems to be hidden behind the doors of the U.N., really will
not work. So I challenge your ingenuity and your diplomacy once
again to sort of tip the doors open, have a new era, an
Ambassador Rice era, in which we really have more confidence on
the part of the American public in the business dealings, which
are very considerable.
Now, you indicated also in a response for the record that
you intend to pursue pragmatic working relationships with other
members of the Security Council and cited specifically, of
course, the importance of those relationships with Russia and
China. How do you believe the United States can be more
effective in dealing with Russia and China?
You have already cited one instance in which perhaps you
might talk about Zimbabwe with these countries and the
coincidence or lack of interest that they may have. And that
may be a pragmatic way of prying the door open there too. But
frequently the frustration of the rest of the world, quite
apart from the United States, comes from vetoes of Russia or
China with Security Council resolutions in which action,
therefore, is immobilized. So discuss for a moment your
thoughts about these pragmatic conversations with the Russian
and the Chinese delegates.
Dr. Rice. Well, Senator, thank you.
Part of this is embedded in a larger challenge of trying to
renew and refresh these critical bilateral relationships. In
some instances, they are relationships that have been very
fraught of late. In other instances, we have found ways to
cooperate, for example, with China on a number of important
issues like North Korea, but we have not yet unlocked the door
to sufficient cooperation in other areas.
I, as the U.S. Ambassador at the United Nations, if
confirmed, will reach out very early to my Russian and Chinese
counterparts. I want good working relationships with them. I
want honesty and transparency and I want to minimize surprises.
And I am very well aware that there will be times when our
interests diverge and when we cannot reach agreement. But I
think, frankly, with a new openness, a respect for what these
nations' interests are and what their hopes and aspirations
are, and a recognition that in many, many spheres we share
common concerns and common interests, whether we are talking
about nonproliferation, arms control, or dealing with
challenges like climate change. Senator, you mentioned the
global economy. These are areas where we do have many shared
concerns even as we differ, sometimes quite starkly, on issues
of human rights and regional security.
The aim must be to try to maximize those areas of
cooperation, not to fight every battle with equal vigor, but to
pick those which matter most to our interests and values, and
to minimize differences where possible. And that is what I will
do if I am fortunate to serve our Nation at the United Nations,
and that is what, as you heard from Senator Clinton, the Obama
administration will do more broadly in the context of our
overall bilateral relationships.
Senator Lugar. In a particularly difficult instance of
what you have just discussed, in late December Russia blocked
efforts to extend the OSCE's observer mission in Georgia
following Georgian and Russian activity in 2008. Now, the U.N.
peacekeeping mission in the Abkhazia region of Georgia is now
set to expire on February 15th, and that mission of some 450
observers and support staff has proved a useful neutral
instrument in the region. And this month, likewise the OSCE,
which I have already cited, will begin dismantling 140
observers who have been in place since 1992.
What can you comment about the fate of the U.N. mission
with regard to Georgia, South Ossetia, and Abkhazia?
Dr. Rice. Well, Senator, it will be our objective to seek
the renewal of those operations which, as you point out, have
served a very important function.
As a matter of broad policy, as President-elect Obama has
said in many instances, we stand firmly in support of Georgia's
sovereignty and territorial integrity. We think that there is
no place in the 21st century for aggression or intimidation of
sovereign states, and that is an important principle that we
will stand by and uphold, even as we seek improved cooperation
with Russia and other countries on a wide range of issues. We
hope very much to be able to work with Russia in the Security
Council and with others towards agreement to renew this
operation and take it off the agenda as a potential point of
disagreement between our countries.
Senator Lugar. Finally, you have mentioned in your
questions for the record the issues of Security Council reform,
a proposal for change in size, structure. Do you have any
general feeling about the Security Council proposition?
Dr. Rice. Well, it is important to be clear that the
incoming administration has not taken any specific position on
the nature of Security Council reform. President-elect Obama
and all of us recognize that the Council of today quite
logically ought to be something that looks a little bit
different from the Council as it was created 60-plus years ago
when the United Nations had only 50 member states. The world
has changed. Relationships have changed. We now have an
organization of over 190 members. Certainly it is in our
interest for the institution to remain fresh and legitimate and
representative of the 21st century in which we live.
That said, it is critically important that any Security
Council reform not undermine the operational efficiency and
effectiveness of the Council. We have a strong stake in that
council being able to operate on a timely basis and take swift
and meaningful action. So that will guide our approach to U.N.
Security Council reform.
Senator Lugar. Thank you very much.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Senator Lugar.
Senator Feingold?
Senator Feingold. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
As she well knows, I am very pleased that Dr. Susan Rice
has been nominated to be our Ambassador to the United Nations.
I have known Susan Rice for a long time and was lucky enough to
travel with her and then-United Nations Ambassador Holbrooke to
several African countries in 1999, including a particularly
memorable long conversation with President Robert Mugabe where
we got a little sense of just how disturbing the future might
be. And that was a very regrettable thing to watch to start to
happen.
But our purpose on the trip actually was to try to bring
peace to Eastern Congo and that region. Unfortunately, a decade
later, there is still grave instability in central Africa, but
Dr. Rice, if you are confirmed, I look forward to working with
you again on these efforts.
I am also very pleased that the President-elect has decided
to restore the U.N. Ambassador position to a cabinet rank as it
was under President Clinton. This decision is an indication of
his strong commitment to multilateralism and to collaboration
with our friends and our allies.
Dr. Rice, as you well know, efforts to impose stronger
multilateral sanctions on Iran at the Security Council have
been repeatedly delayed and diluted. I have supported stronger
multilateral sanctions on Iran. Unfortunately, the Bush
administration's saber rattling has undermined these efforts. I
would like to hear your thoughts today on what steps the new
administration intends to take at the Security Council with
regard to Iran and what you believe to be the greatest
challenge you would face in trying to shore up support from
other permanent members of the Security Council.
Dr. Rice. Thank you, Senator Feingold, and thank you for
your kind words.
The broad challenge, with respect to Iran, is to prevent
Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon, and to reduce its
destabilizing engagement in neighboring countries and its
support for terrorism.
With respect to its efforts to acquire a nuclear weapon,
the President-elect has said very forcefully that that is a
great threat to the United States, to Israel, and to the
region, and Iran's acquisition of a nuclear weapon is not an
acceptable outcome. The challenge is how best to prevent it.
And the President-elect has said that it is time that we
combined tough, direct, robust diplomacy with increased
sanctions and pressure to try to elicit a change of course from
the Iranian regime. We are interested in seeing what progress
can be made from such a new approach.
Now, to buttress those efforts, we will look to the
Security Council and, indeed, to our partners and friends
outside of the Security Council to consider what package of
pressures and incentives would best accomplish that goal. This
needs to be a collective effort. We want to continue to work in
the context of the EU3 Plus 3 and concert our diplomacy and
concert our pressures.
With respect to particular pressures or incentives,
Senator, we will conduct and complete a review early on that
will inform that choice. It would be premature for me to
speculate on the specifics of that here today.
Senator Feingold. Well, another area where that may be
occurring in the near future is an area we have discussed,
which is Somalia and the Horn of Africa. I have been, as you
know, very critical of the current administration's fragmented
and counterproductive approach to Somalia and the Horn, and the
situation in Somalia is actually far worse than 2 years ago.
Somalis are considered a moderate people, but violent
extremists have gained traction in much of the country, posing
a potential threat to our own national security.
Now with the Ethiopian forces withdrawing, the current
administration is strongly pushing for the authorization of a
United Nations peacekeeping force for Somalia. And I support
the current AU force, but I do have some worries that
authorizing a U.N. force poses real risks without committed
troops and a viable and inclusive political process and a
comprehensive strategy. If you could give me just your views at
this point on the merits of such a peacekeeping force and what
you see as the way forward for U.N. action regarding Somalia.
Dr. Rice. Thank you, Senator.
Well, as you well know, having spent so much time working
on Africa and having traveled to Djibouti recently and met with
many of the Somali players, this is an enormously difficult and
important challenge that the international community faces.
We have multiple and important interests in Somalia. First,
obviously, we have a deep concern for the humanitarian
suffering of the Somali people who are displaced, who are
lacking in food, and who are living in the context of complete
state collapse and failure. And ensuring that there is the
continued flow of humanitarian assistance to those in need is
no small challenge.
Secondly, we obviously have an interest in helping to see
that there is the sort of political reconciliation and outcome
that is necessary for the state, which has all but collapsed,
to come together, and that competing factions can unite behind
a common central government. That is at risk as well, and our
efforts in that regard need to be sustained and high-level.
And thirdly, we face a very serious counterterrorism
challenge in Somalia, as you well know, with extremists
affiliated with al-Qaeda training and operating in substantial
portions of southern Somalia. This has the potential to pose a
serious and direct threat to our own national security.
So what we need to fashion, as you suggest, is a
multifaceted approach that combines efforts at emergency relief
with efforts at political reconciliation and to deal
effectively with the terrorism challenge. There is no one-size-
fits-all approach, and it needs to be worked in coordination
with states in the region and others in the international
community.
I will tell you, Senator, that I am skeptical too about the
wisdom of a United Nations peacekeeping force in Somalia at
this time. I certainly do support elements of the current
resolution that is pending in the Council to strengthen the
African Union and provide it with the support and resources
that it needs to be larger and more effective.
But the new administration will have to take a very careful
and close look at this question of whether, in 6 months' time,
to in fact support the standing up of a U.N. force against the
backdrop our interest, its complexity, the very tragic history
of the United Nations in Somalia. And I can assure you that we
will give that very, very careful consideration.
Senator Feingold. Thank you, Dr. Rice. You have a long
record of working on genocide and conflict prevention. In 2001,
while discussing the Clinton administration's position on the
1994 Rwanda genocide, you said that if you ever face such a
crisis again, you would come down on the side of dramatic
action, going down in flames if that was required, you said. I
find that to be an important and remarkable statement. So I
would like to ask specifically what lessons you have learned
from Rwanda that you would consider applicable to your work, if
confirmed, as the Obama administration's Ambassador to the
United Nations.
Dr. Rice. Well, Senator, in December 1994, 6 months after
the genocide in Rwanda ended, I traveled there with other
officials of the U.S. Government, the National Security Adviser
at the time, and colleagues from various agencies. And I saw
firsthand the horrors of the genocide. It was a time when the
hundreds of thousands of bodies of innocents were still
littered everywhere, in churchyards and schoolyards. It is an
experience I will never forget. Among other things, it has made
me passionate about the issue of preventing genocide and crimes
against humanity.
The specific lessons I have learned are several. First and
foremost, we need to ensure that we have adequate information
and early warning so that we are better able to distinguish
between a recurrent spasm of violence and something of a far
greater magnitude that is or can become massive crimes or
genocide.
Second, we need to be more adept with the United Nations
and others in the international community at preventing
conflict in the first place and preventing conflict that exists
from evolving into something much worse. Too often our
prevention has been belated, haphazard, unsustained, and has
not recognized that we not only have a diplomatic challenge at
hand in prevention but a long-term economic challenge because
there is a strong relationship between persistent and deep
poverty and the outbreak of civil conflict.
I have also learned that when best efforts fail and it is
necessary to act, that we have more than one means of doing so.
It is not only a question of the U.S. acting alone or not at
all. There are multilateral opportunities, and the U.S. cannot
act in the face of crimes and atrocities in every instance. But
we can never rule out such action, and we need to be prepared
to build the sort of international support and consensus that
is necessary to challenge the international community so that
we see no more Rwandas and no more Darfurs and, God forbid,
what may come in the future.
Senator Feingold. Thank you, Doctor.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thanks very much, Senator Feingold.
Senator DeMint?
Senator DeMint. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I have some
questions I would like to submit for the record.
The Chairman. Absolutely. They will be submitted.
Senator DeMint. Dr. Rice, I enjoyed our meeting.
The Chairman. Let me just say with respect to the
questions for the record, because of the timing here, we have
to have them in by 12:00 noon tomorrow because Monday is a
holiday and Tuesday we want to be prepared to go forward.
Senator DeMint. Thank you. Sorry about that.
Thank you for the courtesy of your meeting. I enjoyed our
conversation.
Your opening statement, as well as that of the chairman and
ranking member, really drew a clear picture of what the United
Nations needs to be, what it could be, as well as concerns
about what it really is.
One of the things that you said when we met that encouraged
me the most is while certainly we want to cooperate with the
world, help people around the world, that your job is to do
what is best for America and serve the interests of the
American people. And I appreciate that perspective.
I appreciate the concerns about us being behind in our
payments, but I do believe those payments need to be tied to
reforms that everyone has agreed to. We cannot be obligated to
comply with the U.N. when they are not complying with their own
rules, resolutions, and their commitments to reform.
As I expressed to you, the perception of the United Nations
maybe that I have and many of my constituents is more that they
are ineffective, they have been wasteful, there is corruption.
And there is deep concern that there is a lot of anti-American
sentiment within the United Nations, which I think undermines
the trust and confidence that many Americans have with the
United Nations and our role there.
And I appreciated what Senator Lugar said that not only do
we hope that you can help to shape the United Nations in a way
that will work for the world, but also be an advocate to
Congress and the American people about those things that are
working and that we are changing and the improvements that are
being made because if the American people do not trust the
United Nations, then it is going to be increasingly difficult
for Congress to make the commitments it needs to be supportive
there.
As you know, many nations that belong to the United Nations
do not share our values. They are not democratic, and human
rights are not respected in their own countries. There is not
religious freedom, freedom of speech, of the press. Yet, many
times these countries are pooling their votes to direct the
actions and the resources of the United States. This is a
concern to me, and that is why your statement that in the end
we need to do what is best for our country is very important.
There are many, many needs around the world, as you have
talked about, very difficult challenges. But the United States
is no longer the rich nation that we think of ourselves as
being. In fact, we are a debtor nation, and if you count what
every American family owes as part of our national debt, we owe
more than we own. And our role in paying a disproportionate
share of the United Nations activities is something that we
need to consider. We are limited. We cannot continue to borrow
money to do activities all around the world.
There's a tendency of governments to continue to centralize
authority. We see that here in Washington for our domestic
issues, increasing spending, increasing taxes, and there seems
to be--at least, in some corners in the United Nation--a move
towards more centralization and a type of global governance
on--and even legislating. These things are of tremendous
concern to the Americans that call our office, and write, and
email us that we would in somehow, in some ways, undermine our
own national sovereignty and allow the United Nations to, in
effect, direct our own governance in some area, whether it be
how we deal with climate change or other issues, that's concern
that I know a lot of people listening to today would like to
hear you speak of.
And I know we talked about that a little bit, so if I could
just ask you maybe to just speak in generalities about how you
see that role of the United Nations, and how that fits into the
sovereignty of the United States.
Dr. Rice. Well, Senator, I appreciate that question,
because it does reflect the anxieties and concerns of some
Americans. And it's important, as you acknowledged and as
Senator Lugar acknowledged, to communicate the strengths and
the weaknesses, but the rationale for United States' engagement
and commitment to the United Nations.
As I said to you when we met the other day, I will always,
on behalf of President-elect Obama and in cooperation with
Secretary-designate Clinton, stand up for and serve United
States' national interest at the United Nations. As we
discussed the other day, no U.S. administration will ever and
could ever cede sovereignty to an international body or indeed
to any other institution. We must do what we must, acting in
our interests. But our interests are to a great extent served
by the United Nations when it is operating effectively. And as
we discussed the other day, and as I alluded to in my
testimony, we often face a very unpleasant choice between three
kinds of options.
Doing nothing in the face of violence, or atrocities, or
conflict, letting things fester, which frankly has been our
approach since the mid-90s in Somalia, to a large extent. And
we have seen with piracy, and terrorism, and all the
manifestations of state collapse that what happens even in a
very distant part of the world is not of no relevance to our
own national security.
We have another option, which is to act unilaterally, as we
have done in some instances at great cost in lives and treasure
to the American people. And sometimes, that may be necessary.
But there is a third choice, which is also imperfect, and
that is joining together with allies and partners in other
nations in sharing the burden of collective action and dealing
with these collective challenges. That is what the United
Nations offers us: An imperfect, but indispensible vehicle to
share those burdens.
Yes, we do pay a great deal to the United Nations. We are
the largest contributor, at 22 percent of the regular budget
and 27 percent of the peacekeeping budget; but know, and the
American people need to know, that it costs the United Nations
12 cents for every dollar that we would spend if we acted
unilaterally in a peacekeeping context. And while 12 cents can
add up if you spend enough dollars, in fact that is a pretty
good deal.
And given that the costs of inaction or unilateral action
are so high, it is in our national security interest, Senator,
I would submit, for us to strengthen and work to make more
effective this tool to share burdens and share costs of
collective global challenges.
Senator DeMint. Excellent. Well, I'll do something very
unusual and yield back my time before it's over. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you very much. That is unusual and
welcome. Senator Menendez?
Senator Menendez. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Dr. Rice,
congratulations on your nomination, and I look forward to
supporting you and this nomination.
I want to applaud your stand that you have taken concerning
genocide in the Darfur region of the Sudan, and I want you to
know that, as one Senator, we're looking forward to working
with you to try to change the course of events there. It's one
of the top priorities I have. It's what--outside of Iraq and
Afghanistan--what I hear most from my constituency about. I
feel very passionately about this, and I think we should. And
if we are to have any meaning to never again being something of
import, then we must do more than just simply stand by the
sidelines and look as things unfold in a way in which we have
the ability to make a difference.
In this case, that ability is not by direct intervention of
the United States, but by assisting the hybrid African Union-
U.N. forces that will do the critical work to make sure that
more people aren't slaughtered at the end of the day. So I know
that in the paper you wrote for the Brookings Institution, you
said that the U.S. responses, quote ``coupled your generous
humanitarian assistance with unfulfilled threats and feckless
diplomacy.''
And I am wondering, with that in mind, how do we go beyond
the words? How do we get the U.N. to move forward in a more
significant way? What are the major obstacles to transforming
the U.N. resolutions into effective protection for innocent
civilians in Darfur? You know, this area well, and you have a
passion for it, but now you will more than passion; you will
have power. And the question is: How are you going to use that
power to make a difference?
Dr. Rice. Thank you very much, Senator Menendez. You have
been outspoken in championing, as so many on this committee
have, far more effective and robust action on Darfur, and I
applaud your leadership on this.
Senator, as you pointed out, we are at a point in time
where the approximate challenge is in fact somewhat different
than when I wrote that piece and I last testified before this
committee on Darfur. We do now have authorized the United
Nations/African Union hybrid peacekeeping force known as
UNAMID.
It's supposed to get up to a strength of 26,000 troops.
More than a year after it was authorized, it's barely at half-
strength and is still lacking the equipment, and the
helicopters, and the mobility it needs to be maximally
effective. That is the most proximate way that we can increase
protection for vulnerable civilians. And so, in my mind,
Senator, the most urgent task is to get that force swiftly up
to full strength, and to ensure with other member states of the
United Nations that the peacekeeping force has the equipment,
the mobility, and the night capability that it needs to be able
to effectively protect civilians.
Now, within the last couple of weeks, the administration,
after much internal deliberation and back and forth with the
United Nations, moved to try to lift in equipment and support
for an incoming African battalion. That's important, but it's
not sufficient. There is more we can and should do to press the
United Nations to move as swiftly as it can, to support their
efforts as best we can, and to clear out what has been,
frankly, bureaucratic blockage in both New York and Washington
on this issue. We can do more to actively recruit, train,
prepare, and equip troops that have expressed a willingness to
go into Darfur and serve in UNAMID.
And we need to be absolutely clear with the Government of
Sudan that the United Nations and the international community
will not stand for its continued obstructing, delaying, and
prevaricating about the deployment of the U.N. The Government
needs to make its facilities available, allow equipment to
move, and basically get out of the way of effective deployment.
If it requires further sanctions or pressure of other means
to make that happen, then that is what we must contemplate. And
most importantly, we need to put adequate collective pressure
on the Government of Sudan to stop killing civilians. It is
continuing aerial bombardments, and support for Janjuweed raids
of internally-displaced camps. This genocide continues.
And so, it is time to look at the kinds of robust action
that you and others, such as the President-elect, have long
suggested; for example, economic pressure, and contemplation of
other mechanisms, such as preventing continued aerial
bombardments and flights that are designed to attack civilians.
We will look at the full range of steps that we can take to
strengthen UNAMID, to ensure that the Government of Sudan is
not in a position to block its effective operation, and to
press for a negotiated resolution of the underlying conflicts,
which are at the base of this fighting and these atrocities.
There will be, I am quite certain, and early close look
inside the new administration at this whole set of issues. And
we will give due consideration to the full range of steps that
we can take, because President-elect Obama, Vice President-
elect Biden, Security-Designate Clinton, and many others,
including myself, feel passionately that we can and we must do
more to end the genocide in Darfur.
Senator Menendez. Thank you for your answer. I really look
for a proactive effort, and I have the expectation that we will
see that with the President-elect, upon taking office. Let me
ask you about Iran. It poses a major challenge for the United
States and its allies. It is a leading state sponsor of
terrorism. It openly threatens the existence of U.N. member
states. And it is working to achieve a nuclear weapons
capability.
And even though the Security Council has passed a series of
resolutions imposing sanctions on Iran for its refusal to
suspend its enrichment activity, these resolutions have not
dissuaded the Iranians, and efforts to move it along have been
delayed or watered down by Russia and China. Given the current
circumstances, what course of action should the U.S. take of
the Security Council regarding the Iranian nuclear threat, and
what approach would you take to Russia and China to gain better
cooperation from them in this process?
Dr. Rice. Senator, this is an urgent and pressing
challenge. As the President-elect has said on numerous
occasions, it is unacceptable that Iran acquire a nuclear
weapon. And international efforts to date have not prevented
progress in that regard. And thus, we face a very serious
threat to our own national security, to the security of Israel,
and indeed to the security of the broader region.
The President-elect has been clear that we need to forge a
different approach, one that combines tough, direct, and
effective diplomacy with incentives and increased pressure on
the regime in Iran, to give up its nuclear weapons activities,
its nuclear weapons program, and indeed to halt its efforts to
destabilize neighboring states and support terrorism. What we
do in the United Nations Security Council will be designed to
complement that strategy. It's a strategy that we will finalize
and begin to implement in the early stages of the
administration. It would be premature for me to speculate on
what the elements of additional sanctions and pressures might
be, or the elements of an incentives package.
But the principles are clear: we must work urgently to
prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon, and indeed we
must inject into those efforts tough, direct, and sustained
diplomacy backed by pressure as needed.
Now, with respect to Russia and China, this is a crucial
part of the challenge, and the irony is that both Russia and
China have stated that they do not want to see Iran become a
nuclear weapons state, and have taken some initial steps
somewhat grudgingly. But the fact is, we need to work to
highlight our areas of common interest with respect to Russia
and China on the Iranian challenge, as well as other
challenges, rather than allow ourselves to be bogged down in
those differences.
It's not going to be easy. They have their interests and we
have ours, but the President-elect's view and my view is that
we need to work to test the proposition of whether we can't
bring them, and their interests, along with us in designing a
more effective approach to the Iranians that brings both
pressures and diplomacy together in service of our shared
objectives.
Senator Menendez. My time is expired. I just want to note
two others things. We've talked about it, so I won't belabor it
here, but certainly the question of human rights, and how that
council works, and what role we're taking, and I'd like to
continue to work with you on that after you're confirmed. And
also, the U.N. process on the Reunification of Cyprus is
something that is very important to me, as well, so I look
forward to working with you. And thank you, Mr. Chairman, for--
Dr. Rice. Thank you.
The Chairman. Thanks a lot, Senator Menendez. I appreciate
it. Thank you. Senator Isakson?
Senator Isakson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Dr. Rice,
welcome. You know, I was just sitting here thinking, you'll be
the second woman with the last name of Rice to represent the
United States on the world stage.
Condoleezza Rice, with whom I have been tremendously
impressed of her capacity and ability and knowledge, but having
sat with you for about an hour the other day and talked, I'm
equally impressed with the depth and breadth of your knowledge,
and I know you will represent the United States well, and I
know your parents are over there beaming. I met them earlier
today, and your father hasn't stopped grinning since he got in
the room, so he's very proud of you.
But one--two things. One thing Georgians are very concerned
about, when you bring up the subject of the U.N., the first
thing that comes up is what appears to be the disproportionate
investment of U.S. money in the U.N. versus many of the
countries that are participating members, and you and I had
talked about that. You brought up one aspect of the benefit
that comes back from that investment in the form of the
peacekeeping missions that the U.N. has around the world,
making the point I think that if it weren't for that investment
and the U.N. doing it, we'd probably have most of the burden on
our back as the Leader of the Free World. Would you expand on
that for a second?
Dr. Rice. Yes. Thank you, Senator, and thank you for our
meeting. I enjoyed it, and want to say, for the record, that I
had the great privilege to leave with a nice big bag of Georgia
peanuts which were widely shared back at Transition
Headquarters.
Senator Isakson. Good.
Dr. Rice. We face a world in which there are so many
complex and dangerous challenges and threats--terrorism, the
spread of weapons of mass destruction, conflict, climate
change, disease--all of which have the potential to do great
damage to our nation and our people. We have to make choices,
even with our comparatively wealthy resources, as to what we
can do.
We can't do everything by ourselves. And even if we had the
resources to do it, we don't have the ability to do it, because
by definition, these are challenges that often transcend
national borders and that require maximum effective cooperation
by as many states as possible.
The cost to the U.S. of inaction by us or others can often
be enormous. Where there is the potential for a deadly pathogen
to create a pandemic, and there's no capacity to stop it,
that's our problem. This we can't solve alone. Where there are
terrorist havens in various countries around the world, we need
the cooperation of others to root them out and secure their
borders.
And when there is deadly conflict of the sort that not only
steals innocent lives, but can spill over and destabilize whole
regions, if there is no action, that ultimately becomes our
problem, as well.
So we pay a cost from inaction. And we pay a cost if we
have to act alone. And so, the challenge is to seek
alternatives to doing nothing or doing it by ourselves. And
that is the essential benefit of institutions like the United
Nations, which are global in scope, and through which the
burdens and costs are shared.
As I said to Senator DeMint, yes, indeed we do contribute
the largest share, 22 percent of the U.N. regular budget, and
27 percent of the peacekeeping budget. Yet, most days, that's a
deal, because compared to what it would cost us if we acted
alone, the U.N. can do the same job in peacekeeping for about
12 cents on the dollar. And given that binary choice between
inaction and doing it ourselves, that often is an imperfect but
preferred outcome to the alternatives.
And so, our challenge now, and my commitment if I am
confirmed as U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, is to work
with other member states to increase the efficiency, the
management, and the accountability of the United Nations, but
also to increase its effectiveness in performing the tasks that
we ask of it. It's not enough for every dollar to be spent
cleanly and without corruption; it has to be spent well, so
that it serves the purpose for which it's intended.
I'm particularly interested, as I mentioned in my opening
statement, in playing a leadership role in partnership with
other member states, to help the U.N. as it takes on this
extraordinary set of challenges with more than 90,000
peacekeepers in the field, to build its own capacity to do
those missions more effectively, and more swiftly, and to
improve our own capacity and that of other countries to support
the United Nations when it undertakes these efforts.
Senator Isakson. I think you make a good case and a good
point. I do hope you will do--I think I heard at the end of
Senator DeMint's question, you affirmed a willingness to
leverage what we contribute to the U.N. to be a leader of
reform in the U.N., because there are some areas of U.N. reform
that are important in its operation and in its structure.
Second, I really respect the amount of knowledge you have
on Africa and the engagement that you have had there, and I
share the concern I've heard expressed by other members with
regard to Darfur and what has happened there, and I am ready,
as the ranking member of the Africa Subcommittee, to work with
you in any way possible. What's going on in Darfur is
unacceptable, and we need to get from UN--is it UNMUS?
Dr. Rice. UNAMID.
Senator Isakson. UNAMID. We need to get that fully
operational and working, or we're going to have a disaster of
immense proportion on our hands. Former U.N. Ambassador Andy
Young is a close, personal friend of mine, and a neighbor in
Atlanta, so we talk all the time. He has opened an operation
called Good Works International, which is an outreach onto that
continent. I think that continent will be in the 21st century,
in terms of U.S. engagement, what the continent of Asia was in
the 20th century, and I think it's very important that we focus
on that, and focus clearly on it.
Lastly, we are sort of the only, or at the least the last
spokesman, for the State of Israel at the U.N. oftentimes when
resolutions come forward to the Security Council in some of the
conflicts that we are in, and I really appreciate what past
administrations have done to use either the right to abstain or
the right to veto resolutions when they are disproportionately
weighted to the disinterest of the State of Israel and the
Israeli people.
As much as I worry about is happening in Gaza now, and
what's happening with missiles coming both out of Lebanon and
from Hezbollah, and out of Gaza from Hamas. Hopefully, this may
be the opportunity that the U.N. can be strong in forging a
meaningful cease fire, with consequential commitments in
advance on behalf of Hamas, and Hezbollah, and Iran. So we stop
the flow of weaponry and all the things that go through the
Philadelphia corridor out of Egypt, into Gaza, and into Lebanon
that are fueling the tragedies that are taking place on the
Israeli people.
So I hope you will--you will, as past administrations have,
remain committed to ensuring that the Palestinian state we are
willing to recognize, we will recognize right after the State
of Israel is recognized and we have a lasting commitment, and
an enforceable commitment, to see to it the violence ends
against those people.
Dr. Rice. Thank you.
Senator Isakson. I know that was more of a speech than a
question, but we have got--
Dr. Rice. An eloquent speech.
Senator Isakson. No. I know better than that.
Dr. Rice. No, Senator, thank you. First of all, I want to
commend you for your leadership on Africa. I very much enjoyed
our conversation the other day about Africa. We share a deep
belief in its potential, and its importance to the United
States. I do very much look forward to working with you on
those issues.
With respect to the United States and support for Israel,
as the President-elect has said on many occasions, Israel is a
stalwart ally and friend of the United States, and we will, as
we have in the past, act in our interests in recognition of and
support of that relationship. And at the same time, I certainly
share your deep concern about the ongoing situation. In Gaza,
it's something the President-elect and Secretary-designate
Clinton have each spoken about.
There needs to be a durable cease fire, but a durable cease
fire has to entail the halting of Hamas rocket attacks against
Israel and the Israeli people. It has to entail effective
efforts to halt the smuggling of weapons and supplies, and very
effective border control mechanisms. And when that durable
cease fire is achieved, which we all hope will be very soon, we
in the international community need to mount a very swift and
robust effort to attend to the dire humanitarian needs inside
Gaza. The President-elect has spoken to that, as well, and to
look longer-term at ways to support reconstruction, and longer-
term development in support of the legitimate Palestinian
authorities.
The President-elect has also said that he is deeply
committed and will act from the earliest days of his
administration to support the diplomacy that's necessary to
help to try to bring about a two-state solution with the Jewish
State of Israel living side-by-side in peace and security with
a viable Palestinian state. That very much remains our
objective.
Senator Isakson. Well, I appreciate very much your
commitment on that, and I wish you the very best, and pledge my
support and help if I can ever be of help to you.
Dr. Rice. Thank you very much.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Isakson. We appreciate
that. Senator Boxer?
Senator Boxer. Thank you. Let me apologize for my absence.
I wanted to hear Senator Biden, our former chairman, give his
farewell address to the Senate, our former chairman, and it was
quite beautiful, but I missed being here. So I hope I'm not
treading on ground that's been covered, but I will be brief,
Mr. Chairman.
I am strongly supporting your nomination. You're ready for
this. There's a lot of debate about the U.N. It falls short in
so many ways. But clearly, we need to make it stronger, make it
better, make it more relevant, make it a place that's fair. It
is better for us to debate our differences with other nations
than to tackle problems alone. Look at what happened: We really
abandoned the United Nations route when we went into Iraq.
We were on that course with the inspectors, and I've long
believed that was the turning point. We decided to go it alone,
a disastrous decision, and one I probably voted against because
I felt the opportunity was there to work with the world. That's
the past, and now here we sit.
There are so many issues. We went over them with Senator
Clinton, our future Secretary of State, we all hope, so I'm not
going to repeat them all, because the list is long and
depressing. I do want to pick up on the question of Israel and
Gaza. I think we're all heartbroken, and frightened, and
disturbed about what has happened, and what the situation is on
the ground. Personally, I don't think any nation--I don't care
how large or small, weak, strong, or rich you are--could live
with rockets coming across. That's just not possible.
So until the decision is made to stop the rockets, this is
going to go on, and that is very unfortunate. So naturally, my
plea for today, which probably won't fall on anyone's ears, is
that we can have not just a 24-hour cease fire, or a two-day,
or a 4-day cease fire--although every hour of quiet is good--
we'd want a seriously long cease fire that leads us somewhere,
not leads us around the corner to more rocket attacks and more
responses.
I am sure you share that view. I guess what I want to ask
you is: How do you convince people at the U.N. to open their
eyes to these rocket attacks from Hamas? The Human Rights
Commission writes a resolution but doesn't even mention the
fact that all of this trouble, I believe, started with the
rockets or certainly continues because of the rockets. How do
you reach out to people? I--you have so much going for you.
What tools will you use to say to the U.N., ``You're not fair
if you're not looking at the whole picture?''
Dr. Rice. Thank you, Senator Boxer, and thank you for the
passion with which you speak on this issue. I was privileged to
travel Sderot last summer with President-elect Obama, with
Foreign Minister Livni and Defense Minister Barack. We flew
from Jerusalem out over, as you know, the very narrow territory
that is between Jerusalem and the coast, and down in close
proximity to Gaza. I stood in the house of a family that had
lost everything due to a Hamas rocket attack. And I saw the
empty Qassam shells in the police station there in Sderot,
scores and scores and scores of shells that had fallen on the
heads of innocents. And it was there that the President-elect
said very plainly that any American--any human being--would not
be able to sleep with rockets raining down on their children's
heads.
So we all understand that threat and that risk to civilians
every day, and we're all clear that the end to rocket attacks
by Hamas into Israel is an absolute necessity for any durable
cease fire. As I said earlier, we also are gravely concerned
about the suffering now of innocents in Gaza.
Senator Boxer. Of course.
Dr. Rice. And so, that only redoubles our desire to end the
suffering in both Israel and of the Palestinians to see this
durable cease fire and to ensure that any cease fire has the
elements that will make it sustainable: preventing the rocket
fire, preventing additional smuggling, ensuring real border
patrols.
Senator Boxer. Let me just say, my question to you was--
The Chairman. Senator, could I just interrupt you for once
second.
Senator Boxer. Yes.
The Chairman. Dr. Rice, will you excuse me, because I need
to go to the floor to speak about Senator Biden for a minute.
Dr. Rice. Yes.
The Chairman. I'm going to try and get back, depending on
the timeframe. Senator Lugar is going to just show you the
bipartisanship of this committee. He's going to preside in my
absence, and I think we only have two other questions at this
point, so we're really moving very expeditiously and
positively. So if you will forgive me, and I am sorry because I
wanted to say ``hello'' to your parents personally, and I hope
to get back here to be able to do that, but thank you so much.
Dr. Rice. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senator Boxer, you were
going to remind me that--
Senator Boxer. Yes, I--
Dr. Rice:--you wanted to ask how--
Senator Boxer. Well, I'm not going to ask it again. I
just-- I guess I'm going to make it in the form of some advice,
unsolicited though it may be. I'm very interested in the U.N.,
and I was a representative from this committee and the Senate
to the U.N. I traveled to New York several times, and I think
one of the things that Joe Biden was saying on the floor, which
was so interesting, Senators, is that the personal
relationships that he was able to garner in the United States
Senate changed the course of many issues.
And I'm looking to you as someone who is very dynamic. So
rather than ask you the question, I hope you will use that
dynamic personality, your intelligence, and your experience, to
get people to understand that in order to have a long-range
solution, not only in this part of the world but in any part of
the world where we need to work together and bring people
together, and not approach problems in a way that isn't fair,
because if you approach them that way, it will never work. So I
want you to do that.
Now, I have a couple of quick questions. Two days ago, I
had an amazing exchange with Senator Clinton, our future
Secretary of State, we all hope, about the plight of women in
the world and their struggle against violence. And, you know, I
held up some photos that I will not show again today, and I was
very pleased with her commitment. And I think that, again, this
is where personal relationships come in. I'll never forget when
I went in to see the Ambassador to the U.N. from Sudan, that
was not pleasant. But the fact that I was able to look in his
eyes and say, ``You're just not saying the truth,'' it is very
powerful.
There are countries all over the world that are closing
their eyes to what is happening to women--I don't care if it's
Cambodia or Afghanistan, You name it, it's all over the world.
I hope that not just because of your gender, but because of
your passion for equality, that you will take this task on.
Now, this committee, this Senate, we haven't passed or ratified
the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of
Discriminiation Against Women (CEDAW). Let me say it again,
because I just butchered it.
CEDAW, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of
Discrimination Against Women. I am so embarrassed, Senator
Lugar, that we have not done that. Now, when we raise the issue
of CEDAW, some of the people who were very ideological said,
``Well, does that mean that women will have a right to an
abortion?'' No, of course not. It had nothing to do with it.
But it was used as an excuse to stop us from passing this.
Now, it's embarrassing, I would think for anyone doing
diplomacy, seeing some of the things that are done to women.
How can you go up to these countries and say, ``This is
criminal activity; go after these people,'' when we haven't
ratified CEDAW? And the irony is some of them have ratified
CEDAW, and they are completely ignoring CEDAW. So I hope that
this committee will move, and I hope that this administration
supports the ratification of CEDAW, so I would like to ask you
that question.
Dr. Rice. Yes, indeed, Senator. Thank you for your
leadership on this issue and on behalf of women and children
here and the world over. I share your passion and commitment to
the broad set of issues, but in particular I share your passion
for the ratification of CEDAW, and it will be an important
priority for this administration.
Senator Boxer. Excellent.
Dr. Rice. It's past time.
Senator Boxer. Excellent. And what--
Dr. Rice. And may I just also say--
Senator Boxer. Yes?
Dr. Rice. You spoke about the importance of personal
relationships and engaging with those with whom we agree and
disagree in service of our shared values and interests. I will
be very energetic in doing so.
Senator Boxer. Good.
Dr. Rice. And I take very much to heart your advice in that
regard.
Senator Boxer. Yes. I mean, I see it here in the Senate
all the time, and people are people. And they like to have
attention paid. And they can be convinced.
My last question is on the Convention on the Rights of the
Child, again, a treaty the United States has failed to ratify--
the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. And
like the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of
Discrimination Against Women, how can we be proud of our
country when we haven't ratified it? In this case, the only
other country, as I understand it, that hasn't ratified is
Somalia. Okay? Excuse me. This is America. We're standing with
Somalia? What is happening? What has happened?
And, you know, in my capacity as chairman of the Committee
on Environment and Public Works (EPW), I said that the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) reminds me of the case of
Sleeping Beauty. They have such a great set of laws, they have
such a great mandate to protect the health of people, and
they've been sleeping for eight years. And we need to wake them
up.
And I just feel that, in this case, children deserve basic
human rights, the right to survive, to develop to the fullest,
to be protect from harmful influences and from abuse and
exploitation, to participate in family, cultural, and social
life. And the Convention protects children's rights by setting
some standards here so that the most vulnerable people of
society will be protected.
Now, all you have to do is look around the world and see
that young girls are having acid thrown in their faces. They're
children. Why are they being attacked for going to school where
adults say, ``Go to school?'' You know, why are children being
recruited for wars and learning how to kill, and shoot, and be
killed, and be disfigured? It's beyond belief that we would
stand with Somalia.
So here's this hardball question: Do you agree with
organizations, such as the American Bar Association, the
American Psychological Association, the American Academy of
Pediatrics, the Girl Scouts of the United States of America,
Save the Children, and Mercy Corps International that the
United States should ratify the Convention on the Rights of the
Child?
Dr. Rice. Senator, I certainly agree with you that this is
a very important treaty and a noble cause, having been ratified
by 193 countries, and it is a shame-- there's no other word for
it--when the only country with which we're keeping company is
Somalia, which is not even capable of ratifying anything. So we
will review this treaty and others to ensure that the United
States resumes its global leadership role in human rights. I
look forward to working to that end on this particularly
important set of issues.
This is a complicated treaty in many respects, more than
some others given our system of federalism, and so we need to
take a close look at how we manage the challenges of domestic
implementation and what reservations and understandings might
be appropriate in the context of ratification. But there can be
no doubt that the President-elect and Secretary Clinton and I
share a commitment to the objectives of this treaty and will
take it up as an early question.
Senator Boxer. Mr. Chairman, just in 20 seconds of
conclusion, thank you. Can I have your commitment that within,
let's just say 60 days, you could let us know either through
the chairman, the ranking member, what reservations might be
appropriate because I don't object to that. Clearly, a document
has to go along with everything we believe in this country. I'm
not asking us to give up any rights in order to protect
children, but if you could get back to us.
You said CEDAW is something there wasn't any qualification
on, so I'm going to take you at your word and talk to the
chairman about moving that. But on the rights of the child, if
you would get back to us within 60 days with whatever
reservations you might have.
Dr. Rice. Senator, I'd like to be able to give you that
ironclad commitment, but I can't, because I don't have a sense
of how long it will take us, in light of the many different
things on our plate, to do that legal review, which will
inevitably be an interagency review, and will come under the
purview of the Secretary of State. And I really need to--
Senator Boxer. Is there a timeframe--
Dr. Rice:--confer with her on that.
Senator Boxer. --that--a timeframe you could put forward?
Dr. Rice. I honestly must--
Senator Boxer. Okay.
Dr. Rice:--defer to the Secretary of State designate on
that.
Senator Boxer. I--we will take it up with the new
Secretary of State, but thank you very much. I strongly support
you.
Dr. Rice. Thank you.
The Chairman. Uh-huh.
Dr. Rice. I appreciate your support.
The Chairman. The Chair did not want to interfere with
this important dialogue, but we are probably 12 minutes from a
roll call vote, and we have three Senators, so I'm going to
recognize Senator Barrasso, and I know each of you will be
respectful of the time. You've been waiting for a long time,
and we may be delayed with the vote, but I make that point that
we still have the ten-minute rule, and Senator Barrasso, you're
recognized.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And
thank you, and congratulations, Dr. Rice. You had wonderful
introductions by Senator Bayh and Senator Collins. It must be
just wonderful to have your parents here, and your family, Jake
and Maris have been very patient. And Jake is still here;
Maris--
Dr. Rice. Maris, I think, decided to go back to school.
Senator Barrasso. Well, Jake has been very patient. I have
heard people extend great compliments about your critical
thinking, you're always learning, your strong intellect, and
your collegiality. Senator Boxer talked about the importance of
working with others earlier. It appears that with the personal
relationships that you have, that you're going to do very well
at this endeavor.
There are a couple of issues that I'd like to address
briefly, because there are also principles that come into play
beyond the collegiality and working with others. The people of
my home state in Wyoming, they have concerns about the United
Nations, and putting our troops in harm's way. Do you support
ever placing U.S. troops under U.N. control?
Dr. Rice. Senator, as you probably know, this is something
of a technical issue. In the past, U.S. presidents have decided
in certain circumstances when it serves our interest not to
cede command authority to the United Nations, but has placed
U.S. forces under the operational control of international and
sometimes U.N. commanders. Most of the time we've done that has
been in small quantities--military observers, small units--and
while this is not a subject that we have had the opportunity to
consider in any depth or with any specific contingency in mind,
I imagine that President-elect Obama will follow the same
policy as his predecessors and reserve that right to place U.S.
forces or U.S. personnel more likely under the temporary
operational control of a United Nations commander if and when
he determines that serves our interests.
Senator Barrasso. There was an United Nations arms trade
treaty this past year, that passed 145 to 2. We were one of the
two that voted against it. In the buildup to the vote and the
discussions documented in a lengthy paper, the report indicated
that if such a treaty comes about, there is a need to respect
any State's constitutional protections for people in terms of
their right to bear arms.
When the treaty was brought forward and approved by 145 to
2 with us opposing, they left all of those important parts of
protecting our own rights to bear arms and our Second Amendment
out of the treaty. So my question would be: Would you support
our position for that vote, even though 145 nations voted one
way and only two of us voted to protect our rights as American
citizens to own and bear arms consistent with the Second
Amendment?
Dr. Rice. Senator, the right to bear arms, as you know very
well, is embedded in our Constitution. And the actions and
decisions of an international body will never and do never
override our own Constitution and national law. So while it's
unfortunate that we persist in this kind of debate and
discussion at the U.N. where we are voting as we are in a small
minority on an issue which is, I think, primarily intended to
deal with the challenge of illicit weapons traffic that is a
problem in many conflict zones around the country, we will not
find ourselves in a situation where we are allowing
international prerogatives to ever override our Constitution.
Senator Barrasso. And keeping along the same lines with
our own sovereignty, in the past there's been talk of the
United Nations wanting to implement global taxes to raise
revenue to use for a number of different things. The authority
to tax, again, is not a sovereign right of an international
body. Taxation is a function of our sovereign Nation. Will the
Obama administration oppose any attempt by the United Nations
to tax U.S. citizens?
Dr. Rice. I'm going to take that question and get back to
you on it as we submit our other questions, but my
understanding is I don't think the United Nations can tax
American citizens without the consent of Congress, who has the
constitutional authority to tax.
[Dr. Rice's response to Senator Barrasso's question
follows:]
The United States has in the past opposed proposals for global
taxation. Any such future proposal would require the consent of
Congress, which has the Consititutional authority to tax American
citizens.
Senator Barrasso. Mr. Chairman, in light of the upcoming
vote, let me just relinquish back the rest of my time to the
other members of the panel. Thank you.
The Chairman. All right, thank you.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you very much, and
congratulations--
Dr. Rice. Thank you.
Senator Barrasso. --Dr. Rice.
Mr. Chairman: I thank the Senator for his questions, and
likewise for his thoughtfulness with regard to colleagues.
Senator Nelson?
Senator Nelson. Dr. Rice, we've talked about Haiti. What
do you think the U.N. can do to help Haiti on some of these
natural disasters, and develop economically, and continue to
struggle toward a democracy? And I say this with the backdrop
that earlier this year there was a callout for $100 million to
assist Haiti in the international community after it got hit by
four hurricanes. And the international community has only
responded with half that amount.
Dr. Rice. Well, Senator, I share your deep concern about
the grave humanitarian situation in Haiti, made worse only in
recent months by natural disasters which have pounded the
island repeatedly.
The United States has a very significant interest in
helping Haiti to become a more stable democracy that can
provide more effectively for its people, and to ensure that
Haiti is a place in the future where Haitians choose to stay
and build their nation, rather than leave, often in dangerous
circumstances.
After many fits and starts, the United Nations has built up
a substantial peacekeeping presence in Haiti, in the form of
MINUSTAH, which I know you've seen firsthand, and it is doing
an important task not only in helping to bolster peace and
security, and assist in counter-narcotics efforts, but also to
support improved governance in Haiti. But, frankly, it's a
challenge that will persist.
Our effort and attention in the United States, and that of
others in the hemisphere who have played a leadership role in
MINUSTAH, will need to be intensified and sustained, because as
you well know, the challenges in Haiti are not new, and they're
not going to be easily met. It's going to require a significant
and sustained effort on the part of us and others.
Senator Nelson. And President Preval is really trying. I
want to give plenty of time for my colleagues here, the Senator
from Maryland. Let me just ask you, what do you think, in your
position in the U.N., you can do to pressure Russia and China
to stop the arm shipments to Sudan?
Dr. Rice. Senator, thank you. We need more effective
sanctions, and we need more effective enforcement. And where we
have robust and effective sanctions regimes, we at least have
the ability through sanctions monitoring committees to
investigate and document evidence of violations. In the case of
Sudan, that mechanism is not well-developed, and indeed, we're
not in a position, as we should be, to place under the
spotlight those in various countries who are fueling this
conflict and supporting those committing genocide.
I think that's an important element of what we must look at
in the context as we review our policy towards Darfur and seek
a range of more effective mechanisms, to act with real efficacy
to address the genocide in Darfur.
Senator Nelson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you. And let me just say, Senator,
because I think this is going to be your last appearance the
Foreign Relations Committee, how much we have appreciated your
work here. He's going over to the Finance Committee, and we're
going to lose his services to this committee. But as a member
of the Finance Committee, I understand the tension on eight
committees, it's difficult. But we want to thank you for your
service to this committee. You've been a terrific member of the
committee. You've contributed a lot of thinking on a lot of
different topics, and I know you've been very passionate about
many of them.
So I am confident that just as a Senator you're going to
continue to be part of this committee and follow its work and
be a contributor to it, and we thank you.
Senator Lugar. And I want to join you, Mr. Chairman, in
thanking Senator Nelson. A real contributor.
Mr. Chairman: Thank you. Senator Cardin, you've been very
patient. Thank you, sir.
Senator Cardin. And I also wanted to say--
The Chairman. Can I just give you all a head's up that
there is a vote that's going to start at 12:10?
Senator Cardin. Yeah.
The Chairman. But we ought to be able to fit everybody in.
Senator Cardin. I also wanted to thank Senator Nelson.
Because he's leaving, I'm going to move up one more in
seniority, so we just want to point that out.
The Chairman. I want you to know, though, Senator--
Senator Cardin. I'll get the question earlier next time,
so the--
The Chairman. I just want to warn you, it was not so long
ago that at these particular hearings in Hart, I sat on that
corner, and it's really dangerous.
Senator Cardin. I could see. Dr. Rice, thank you for being
willing to serve our country in this very important position,
and I thank your family for the sacrifices that they make for
your public service. I just want to follow up on some of the
comments that have been made.
I fully support and appreciate the importance of
cooperating and working with the international community. The
United Nations should be a very important part of our foreign
policy, and I strongly support your mission. I wanted to just
follow up on a point that Senator Boxer made, and Senator
Menendez was going to get to but didn't have the time, and that
is the effectiveness of the United Nations as it relates to the
human rights agenda.
In my office, you and I talked about the fact that I have
spent a lot of time in the House now, in the Senate, and on the
Helsinki Commission, which deals with a lot of issues. Human
rights, however, is one of our principal objectives. There are
a lot of common areas of concern between the United Nations and
OSCE as it relates to trafficking of women and girls, and as it
relates to the refugees issues. But I want to talk about the
Human Rights Council. Senator Boxer mentioned the vote just
three days ago in the Human Rights Council that was anything
but helpful in dealing with the human rights issues in the
Middle East. We've seen it over and over again, such as how the
Durban Conference got sidetracked on attacking Israel rather
than dealing with human rights.
So I want to hear from you as to what the United States
position is going to be within the United Nations. I want the
Human Rights Council to succeed. I want the United Nations to
be effective in dealing with human rights. But if it becomes a
tool to beat up on one of our allies, or if it becomes an
objective to undermine U.S. policy, I think we have to be
prepared to take necessary steps in regards to the United
States' participation in the United Nations.
Dr. Rice. Thank you, Senator. I share your passion for
human rights and your dismay and anger at the failure of some
of the U.N.'s human rights instruments to live up to their
expectations and requirements. And the example you just raised
of the resolution passed in the Human Rights Council just a few
days ago on Gaza is a classic example of the utterly imbalanced
and reprehensible kinds of resolutions that have too often
emerged from the Human Rights Council. There was no mention in
that resolution of Hamas attacks on Israel; it was entirely
one-sided.
It was interesting to note the breakdown of the vote on
that resolution. There was one country that voted against it:
Canada. There were almost 20 or so countries, many of whom are
our close allies in Europe and Asia, who abstained, which I
find curious, at best. And while I want to be clear that there
has been no decision taken by the incoming administration yet
as to whether or when to seek membership of the Human Rights
Council, President-elect Obama, and Secretary-designate
Clinton, and I, and others share a deep commitment to seeing
United Nations human rights instruments be effective and live
up to the principles enshrined in the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights and other seminal documents.
This particular resolution and the breakdown of the vote,
begs the question regarding what might have been different with
U.S. participation and leadership? It seems to me hard to
imagine that we would not have sought to work with, and indeed
prevail upon, many of our allies to stand with Canada and with
us in opposition to such a resolution. But that's an issue that
we will take up in the early days of the administration, and we
will give consideration as to how best the United States can
play a leadership role so that the instruments for
international human rights are strengthened and we see fewer of
the frustrating outcomes that we witnessed over the last few
days.
Senator Cardin. I thank you for that answer, and it's
comforting to hear those comments. I want to mention one other
area. Many of my colleagues have talked about Sudan and the
problems in Sudan. I want to add just one additional part to
that. I strongly support the statements that you've made in
regards to ending that genocide, but there are also war crimes
that have been committed. The United States has been one of the
leaders in making sure that those who commit war crimes are
held accountable. We have not yet finished the international
tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. We still have an indicted
war criminal who has yet to be apprehended.
I would hope that you will be a strong voice within the
United Nations for completing the work of the current tribunal,
and looking at whether it is appropriate to hold those who have
committed genocidal acts in Sudan responsible for their actions
criminally.
Dr. Rice. Thank you, Senator. I certainly fully share your
desire to see the existing tribunals and international
mechanisms that are dealing with atrocities complete their
work, and do so credibly. Sudan obviously is a place where the
atrocities and crimes against humanity are manifest every day,
and President-elect Obama and Vice President-elect Biden have
been very clear about the absolute importance of there being
accountability and justice for those crimes.
Senator Cardin. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I will yield back
the balance of my time.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Senator. Appreciate it.
Senator Casey?
Senator Casey. Mr. Chairman, thank you. And I thank you
for the way you've conducted this hearing. It's been a busy
morning for us, and we appreciate the way this has transpired.
I know I'm the only thing standing between most people and a
break or lunch right now, so I want to be cognizant of that.
But, Dr. Rice, I want to first of all to commend you and to
salute you for what you've already done up to this point in
your life. It's been already a life of service, a life of
scholarship and achievement, and I think it's a good forecaster
of the kind of administration that we're about to see. And
we're grateful for that service.
I was looking at your stellar, sterling--there are probably
other adjectives--academic record, and I have great respect for
that. And we have, I think, the opportunity now to change the
course of American history on a lot of fronts, and I'm just
grateful that President-elect Obama and Vice President-elect
Biden have the kind of talent that people like you bring to
that team. So we're grateful for your service.
I wanted to explore a couple of areas, one which I know you
addressed, beginning on page 5 of your prepared statement. And
I wasn't here for your opening statement, so this may be an
area you've covered, but I wanted to reiterate some points of
it, which is the gravest threat that we face, and that's the
threat of nuclear terrorism. I, and others, and many before me,
including the ranking member, Senator Lugar, have worked on
this issue for many, any years, and we've made progress, but
there's much more to do.
I'm noting that in 2004, with the passage of U.N. Security
Council Resolution 1540, we've made progress, but the concern
now with that is the follow-up. And I, and others, and I think
you understand this better than I do, have seen little in the
way of enforcement and steps to ensure that member states are
in compliance with that resolution. The recent report by the
Commission on Prevention of WMD Proliferation and Terrorism
only highlights the urgency of this problem.
So I wanted to have you just address that not only from the
perspective of the administration, but also in your role at the
United Nations, because I think you're going to be there,
certainly with the support of this committee and the Senate.
But just how you see that as a priority and what kind of
progress you think we can make.
Dr. Rice. Well, thank you, Senator. Thank you for your
leadership on this issue and, of course, thank you to Senator
Lugar, who also has led with great distinction on this for many
years.
President-elect Obama, as you know, has from his earliest
days in the Senate taken a great interest in the challenges of
nonproliferation and arms control. As I mentioned in my opening
statement, this is a priority area that I will work on to
support the larger objectives of the administration with
respect to nonproliferation. Resolution 1540 is an important
milestone in international law to set a bar for member states
regarding their own responsibilities to act effectively within
their territory to prevent the proliferation of weapons of mass
destruction, whether nuclear, chemical, or biological.
The practical challenge, though, as you know, is that many
of these United Nations member states lack the capacity and the
wherewithal to be able to implement the resolution effectively.
These are fragile states that lack adequate law enforcement
capacity, adequate resources, or are struggling with poor and
corrupt governance. And even good governance and good
intentions, some lack the resources and the capacity to take on
this and other critical challenges of statehood. Therefore, we
in the international community face a continuing problem.
And so, part of the challenge, and indeed part of our
responsibility, along with other U.N. member states, is to seek
and to build mechanisms that can help to grow the capacity of
these more vulnerable states to be able to take on these
responsibilities not only in name, but in fact. I'm very
interested in exploring, if confirmed, what we and other states
can do to set up support and mechanisms that can be meaningful
in building that capacity, not only to deal with the challenges
of nonproliferation, but frankly, many of these things--border
security, adequate law enforcement--that are essential to these
more fragile states to being effective partners in a whole
range of transnational security challenges, including
countering terrorism, controlling disease, and many of the
other things that matter to all of us in the 21st century.
Senator Casey. Thank you very much, and I will pose some
more questions in written form, but I do want to get to at
least one more issue, and maybe two. This is something we've
talked about briefly when you came by my office to talk about
your confirmation hearing.
In December, the U.N. General Assembly voted on a
nonbinding resolution to condemn discrimination and persecution
based upon sexual orientation and gender identity. The
resolution aimed to encourage U.N. member states to outlaw
violence, hate crimes, and discrimination by ending the use of
the death penalty or extra judicial executions in arbitrary
arrests of individuals on those grounds.
As you know, the resolution failed, and the United States
voted ``no'' at that time. I just wanted to get your
perspective on that resolution. And were it to come before the
United Nations again, how would you approach it, as the
permanent representative to the U.N.?
Dr. Rice. Thank you, Senator. I think it's important to
highlight the process behind this declaration in the general
assembly. It's not actually a formal resolution, but one that
sought to give voice to something that is very fundamental to
President-elect Obama's worldview, and indeed to all of us in
his incoming administration, and that is the absolute necessity
to prevent discrimination in any and all forms against any
person or people on the basis of race, gender, sexual
orientation, or any other basis.
The President-elect has spoken frequently and eloquently
about his profoundly-held view that we are all human beings of
equal worth and equal value, and the corollary to that is that,
therefore, discrimination in any form is absolutely
unacceptable. While I can't comment on what resolutions might
come before the general assembly in the future, I am confident
that we will bring this principle to bear in our contemplation
and deliberation of any such declaration that comes before the
general assembly.
Senator Casey. Thank you. And I know--I'm going to wrap
up, even though I have some more time. We have a vote. And
Senator Shaheen, former governor of state, is waiting to ask
her questions, and I always defer to governors. But let me just
say this in conclusion, Dr. Rice. There's a statement
attributed to Martin Luther King on service, where he said
``everyone can be great, because everyone can serve.'' And I
think, in your own life, up to this point, and certainly I know
it'll be true in the future, as well, if that is the measure of
a kind of greatness, you've achieved a good bit of that
already, and we're grateful for your service.
Dr. Rice. That's very kind.
Senator Casey. Thank you.
Dr. Rice. Thank you, Senator.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Casey. Senator Shaheen,
we're anticipating the vote, but the floor is yours.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Senator
Casey. If only everyone held the sentiments and deferred to
governors, we would be very lucky. I want to add my
congratulations, Dr. Rice, to everyone's this morning on your
nomination. And also, my sentiments that have been expressed by
so many this morning about how important I think it is that
President-elect Obama is planning to elevate the post of
ambassador to the U.N. to a cabinet-level post within his
administration. I think that's an indication of the high regard
with which he holds you, and it shows how important he thinks
it is to reengage with the international community in a new
way, and also the potential role that the U.N. can play in
doing that.
In past years, the United States, along with a few others,
has had to publicly oppose the activities of certain U.N.
agencies because of their agendas, we're clearly distasteful,
and in some cases unwise, or they were led by individuals who
were opposed to legitimate and widely-respected values.
I think an example of that is the UNESCO, which for a time
seemed dedicated to justifying the ending of press freedoms and
other important principles. In more recent years, the U.N.
Commission on Human Rights has been chaired by nations that
have had very questionable human rights records. So my question
is, how should the United States respond when a nation is voted
into a U.N. leadership position that has internal practices
that are incompatible with the role of that U.N. position and
the widely-respected international values that we would hope
every nation would hold?
Dr. Rice. Senator, first of all, congratulations on joining
this committee. It's very nice to see you here.
You ask an important question, and I think that we ought to
start in dealing with the challenge that you pose, and it does
arise from time to time, to need to work energetically in
diplomatic channels to prevent the ascension of candidates
whose orientations or values or perspectives would actually
undermine the institution to which they are seeking service.
We have done this with some success in the past. I recall
that during the Clinton administration working with Secretary
Albright, Ambassador Holbrook, and others from many African
nations, to effectively prevent Sudan from attaining a seat on
the United Nations Security Council, because they and we
understood that Africa would not be well-represented by the
most egregious abuser of human rights on the continent.
There is an opportunity and a role for diplomacy to get
ahead of such outcomes, but it's hard to do so if we're not
engaged, and if we're not operating effectively, and firing on
all cylinders from within. While there will be times when we
must simply say, ``We cannot abide a particular outcome,'' my
strong preference, and I believe that of the President-elect
and the Secretary of State-designate, will be for the United
States to work energetically using all of the elements in our
power, in particular active and effective diplomacy, to support
candidates who we believe will serve these institutions well,
and where necessary to oppose the candidacies who would
undermine these institutions.
That's the day-to-day elbow grease of diplomacy, and I look
forward to doing my utmost in service of those objectives if
I'm confirmed.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you very much Senator Shaheen. Dr.
Rice, that was pretty easy, wasn't it?
Dr. Rice. No, Senator.
The Chairman. You did a great job.
Dr. Rice. It was an honor, though.
The Chairman. Let me just take advantage of the moment
before the vote starts to say one thing as we close up, and I
want the people who are at the United Nations following this,
and those who follow United Nations activities closely, to hear
this. A number of colleagues raised the issue of reform at the
U.N. In the 25 years that I've now had the privilege of serving
on this committee, and Senator Lugar has been here longer than
that, we've both seen the ebb and flow in this committee of
reform efforts at the U.N.
I led some of them at one point, and together with Senator
Pressler we put in place some very strict requirements for dues
and reform. And subsequently, as we fell behind, and other
problems arose, we made a different judgment about the wisdom
of trying to get up to speed on the money, because it was
becoming self-defeating; we were undoing the ability of the
institution to do what we wanted it to, and reform became even
more complicated.
But I think it's really important for the folks involved in
the leadership with the U.N. to recognize that this is a new
moment with a new administration. And the excuses that I have
heard over 25 years for some people's behavior, which they
choose over reform, sort of to stick it in the eye of the U.S.
or to kind of send a message, has got to change. And I am
convinced that your--this administration, that you, Dr. Rice,
and your initiatives at the U.N., and Secretary Clinton, and
the president are going to present a very different foreign
policy, and a very different level of diplomacy and listening,
and outreach, and give people ample opportunity to be heard and
to be part of the formation of many of these global efforts.
That said, there's going to be a lot less patience, and
they need to know this, with the procrastination and the
excuses, and the using of some of these very valuable
institutions as a means of somehow sending a message. The
United Nations is too valuable. Our time is too urgent now. The
issues are too pressing. And we need to come together, and I
want to emphasize that as chairman of the committee, I will do
everything in my power to leverage a bipartisan effort here to
hold that process accountable.
We want it to succeed, but we want to be met fairly in the
middle in the effort to have it succeed. And too many lives are
lost, and too many dangers are augmented, and too many
opportunities are bypassed because of that sort of business as
usual attitude. We just can't afford it.
And so, Senator DeMint's questions, and the other concerns
expressed by members of the committee are going to be taken
seriously by the committee as a whole, and we look forward to
really pressuring, cajoling, working, and nobody's going to
come in there with an arrogant overbearing, do this or else, my
way or the highway attitude. But we are going to look for
legitimate cooperative, rational, commonsense ways of trying to
do these things better.
And I hope the folks who you're going to work with are on
notice about that. Senator Lugar?
Senator Lugar. The vote has begun. Dr. Rice, you're being
saved by the Senate even as you're being grilled by the Senate.
Thanks so much. I think you've acquitted yourself splendidly
today. we really look forward to working with you. Our hope is
to proceed forward on your nomination in a business meeting on
Wednesday morning, at the latest, Thursday, and have you on the
job and hopefully sworn in by the end of that day.
Dr. Rice. Thank you very much. Thank you both, Mr.
Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Dr. Rice. Senator Lugar, I'm grateful.
The Chairman. With that, the record is open until 12 noon
tomorrow. We expect any questions and answers to have been
submitted appropriately so that we can do the filing. And we
thank you very much. We stand adjourned. Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 12:23 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
Responses to Additional Questions Submitted for the Record by Members
of the Committee to Susan E. Rice
Responses to Questions Submitted to Susan E. Rice
by Senator John F. Kerry
Question. Please describe your thoughts on the appropriate role of
the United Nations (U.N.) in world affairs. What should be the main
priorities of the U.N.? How would you like to see those roles evolve?
What comparative advantages do you believe the U.N. provides? In what
instances is it preferable to work through the U.N. instead of through
a regional organization or bilateral channels?
Answer. The President-elect believes that the United Nations is an
indispensable, if imperfect, global mechanism in which to advance our
interests in combating common threats and meeting global challenges
ranging from global terrorism to proliferation, poverty, climate
change, and disease. These are matters that directly affect the
security and prosperity of the United States and they are matters that
can only be effectively resolved by acting collectively. The United
Nations offers an important vehicle for doing so and renewed American
leadership will be critical to achieving progress.
It is in our interests to make the U.N. maximally effective in this
regard. That means not only an agenda of management reform but also
investing to strengthen its program capacities and effectiveness, most
notably in the realm of peacekeeping where we are asking the United
Nations now to do more then ever and yet we have not aligned resources
and capabilities with the mandates that we have given U.N. missions.
There may be other instances when we will want to make use of other
mechanisms, or mechanisms that are regionally based, and which
complement efforts of the U.N. or other existing institutions. We have
to look at this on a case-by-case basis. Different approaches can be
mutually reinforcing, not mutually exclusive.
Question. U.N. member-states hold differing views on its role in
world affairs. Developed countries, for example, often view the U.N. as
an organization whose role is to foster international peace and
security. Conversely, many developing countries maintain that the
primary role of the U.N. should be enhancing and facilitating
international development efforts. How would you address these
diverging perspectives?
Answer. The President-elect and I believe that the defining 21st
century challenges of today require common action based on a common
purpose and vision of shared security. Differences in perspective are a
reality that we must recognize as a starting point of multilateral
diplomacy at the United Nations and all multilateral fora. Differences
in perspectives do not mean that interests of different U.N. member
states are therefore mutually exclusive. One of the core challenges of
multilateral diplomacy, particularly at the U.N., is to identify the
shared interests and use them as the basis to build a basis for
consultation and cooperation. It is also important to recognize that
the principle threats of the 21st century are global and that the
United States has a national security interest in alleviating poverty,
disease, and hunger in developing states. Programs and policies that
enhance the security, stability, and prosperity of developing states
are in the self-interest of the United States, as well as the
developing countries themselves.
Question. Some observers view the U.N. as a forum in which to
facilitate collective action in response to shared problems and codify
salutary norms of international behavior, while others view it as
unduly constraining the U.S.'s ability to act and a forum in which
other countries can frustrate U.S. objectives. What is your view of the
relationship between the U.N. and our national interests? How might the
United States work to advance our national interests more effectively
through the United Nations?
Answer. The President-elect has said that the United Nations is an
indispensable, if imperfect, institution for advancing America's
security. In the 21st century, our goal should be to make the United
Nations a more effective mechanism to effectively address our most
pressing challenges. From preventing terrorist attacks and the spread
of weapons of mass destruction to halting climate change, reducing
poverty, and eradicating deadly disease, these are shared challenges
that no single nation can tackle alone. They require common action
based on a common purpose and vision of shared security. The task of
diplomacy is to expand the will and ability of the international
community to respond effectively to the great challenges of our time.
At the United Nations, the United States must carry out sustained,
concerted, and strategic multilateral diplomacy. We need to be prepared
to listen, to understand, and to recognize different perspectives. We
must convey the depth and breadth of the challenges that we face in the
21st century even as we appreciate and are willing to act on those
threats most pressing to others.
Question. Some past U.S. representatives to the U.N. adopted a
vocal and forceful style in order to foster reforms and achieve policy
objectives. While this approach had certain benefits, at times it also
isolated the United States during key votes and meetings. How will the
new administration engage differently with the U.N. than the past one?
What type of approach would you bring to the job? What do you believe
is the appropriate balance between strongly advocating for U.S.
interests while acknowledging the necessity of building consensus?
Answer. The task of our diplomacy at the U.N. will be to expand the
will and ability of the international community to respond effectively
to the great challenges of our time. This will require sustained,
concerted, and strategic multilateral diplomacy. We need to be prepared
to listen, to consult, to understand, and to recognize different
perspectives. If confirmed, I will be a staunch advocate and defender
of our principles, ideals and interests, even as I seek to maximize
cooperation on the most serious global problems the world now
confronts. I will go to the U.N. with the perspective that the U.N. has
great current value, great potential, and still great need for
improvement. And, I will welcome the advice and counsel of Members of
this Committee, who have deep experience regarding international
affairs, America's interests, and multilateral institutions.
Question. What is your assessment of the ability of the U.N.
Security Council (UNSC) to fulfill its mandate under the U.N. Charter
to ``maintain international peace and security?'' What, if any,
additional steps should the United States take to enable the UNC to
more effectively fulfill this mandate? What suggestions would you make
to the U.N. Secretary-General and member-states to improve the work of
the U.N. in maintaining international peace and security?
Answer. The President-elect and I believe that it is important for
the United States to lead in strengthening the effectiveness of the
United Nations, in modernizing it, so that it can be more capable of
meeting the challenges of the 21st Century. We believe that in light of
the global challenges we face in the new century, the value and
potential of the U.N. is as great if not more so today, than at its
founding 60 years ago. Clearly, cooperation at the Security Council to
strengthen its central mission of maintaining international peace and
security must be at the center of our efforts.
That is why working intensively and aggressively to secure Security
Council cooperation is critical. We must both build pragmatic working
relationships, while making our priorities clear. If confirmed, I look
forward to working on the basis of the principle that the Security
Council should help to advance critical foreign policy goals and
interests, and not be an obstacle to meeting its core objectives. In
this regard, I look forward to working with Secretary-designate
Clinton, who I know shares the same goals. For me to be successful, it
will be essential that our efforts in New York are reinforced by the
full weight of American diplomacy, including the support of my
colleagues at the Department of State in Washington and our Missions
overseas.
Question. The UNC has taken a number of steps to improve its work
procedures, thereby enabling non-Council member states access to the
Council and its work. What role has the United States played in
promoting a more open, accessible, and transparent UNC? What additional
steps should be taken?
Answer. The United States should play an important role in a number
of initiatives to improve the efficiency and transparency of Security
Council operations. The U.S. has actively participated in the informal
working group which reviews and implements proposals for improving
Security Council working methods. These efforts have included:
Intensified efforts to publicize Security Council decisions and
other relevant Council information (reports are circulated to
all Council members and participants in Council meetings at
least 4 days prior to their consideration);
Enhanced use of informal consultations with interested member
states, where appropriate. For example, the Council President
has facilitated interaction by inviting any participant in
consultations to speak at any time during meeting; and
Reaffirmed commitment to the use of open meetings, particularly
during the early stages of consideration of an issue.
If confirmed, I will pursue active consultation with a broad range
of other member states. Promoting sustained, informal engagement with
non-Council members can be as important as pursuing more formal
proposals to improve this process. I will also work with the U.S.
Mission to consider appropriate additional measures to promote greater
Council efficiency consistent with our broader foreign policy
objectives.
Question. One of the most discussed issues in the U.N. reform
debate is the possibility of modifying the composition and size of the
Security Council so that it more adequately reflects present-day
political and economic realities. What is the status of negotiations
within the U.N. General Assembly toward enlargement of the membership
of the UNC? Under what circumstances, if any, would the United States
support expanding the number of permanent members on the Security
Council? What criteria will you consider when determining which
countries should qualify under a potential Security Council expansion?
Will Security Council reform be a high priority during your tenure?
Answer. For more than ten years, informal discussions have taken
place at the U.N. in the Open-Ended Working Group, which includes all
member states. In September 2008, the General Assembly agreed to
commence a process of ``intergovernmental negotiations'' that might
reach agreement on a framework and modalities for enlargement. These
negotiations will commence by the end of February 2009 in informal
plenary sessions of the U.N. General Assembly.
The President-elect and I recognize that the Security Council was
created many years ago at a time when there were very different
international realities and that there is a strongly felt sentiment
among many member states that the Security Council should better
reflect 21st century circumstances. The administration will support
expansion of the Security Council in ways that would not impede its
effectiveness and its efficiency. We would also consider how to enhance
the standing of the Council in the eyes of those nations that seek a
greater voice in international fora. The Obama administration will need
to make a serious, deliberate effort, consulting closely with key
allies and capitals to find a way forward. This will not happen
overnight.
Question. Since the U.N. was established, the role of U.N.
peacekeeping has evolved significantly. While traditionally conceived
as unarmed military observers who monitor and report on adherence to
truces or cease-fire arrangements, U.N. peacekeeping personnel have, in
recent years, been asked to protect delivery of humanitarian
assistance, enforce zones of protection, and disarm combatants. What
are your views on the purposes and possibilities of U.N. peacekeeping
operations? In general, how would you assess the effectiveness of U.N.
peacekeeping operations? What specific reforms would you advocate?
Answer. United Nations peace operations play an important role in
promoting peace and stability, preventing and resolving conflict, and
stabilizing conflict zones once war has ended. The United Nations has
approximately 90,000 troops and police deployed worldwide, including in
such critical hotspots as Haiti, Kosovo, Lebanon, Liberia, the
Democratic Republic of Congo and Sudan. These missions serve the
interests of the United States. As a case in point, the General
Accounting Office has cited U.N. peacekeeping as costing 12 cents on
the dollar compared to unilateral U.S. military intervention. At the
same time, however, the international community is asking the United
Nations to do more than ever and yet has not aligned resources and
capabilities with the mandates that U.N. missions have been given.
Though steps have been taken to strengthen U.N. peacekeeping
capacity, more needs to be done. For example, we should consider
greater focus on improving the efficiency and effectiveness of the
peacekeeping deployment process, including expanded training, improved
information and communications systems, and additional resources.
Question. The United States continues to rely upon the U.N. to
implement a robust peacekeeping program, especially from executive
branch commitments made in the UNC. Will you urge Congress to ensure
the United States pays its peacekeeping assessments in full and on
time?
Answer. Yes, the President-elect, Secretary-designate Clinton and I
believe that the United States should pay its peacekeeping assessments
on time and in full. When we fail to do so, we undermine the efforts of
the United Nations to undertake tasks that we want to see performed.
Furthermore, we undermine our credibility and effectiveness to work
with other Member States to achieve our objectives at the U.N. If
confirmed, I intend to work within the administration to ensure that
funding requests for the U.N. are consistent with our obligations and
with Congress to appropriate funds so that the United States pays its
dues to the U.N. on time and in full.
Question. In May 1994, the UNC issued a Presidential Statement
listing a number of factors the Council might consider when deciding to
establish a new peacekeeping operation. Examples of factors include:
whether a situation is a threat to international peace and security; if
regional entities are ready and able to assist; if there is a cease-
fire among parties who are committed to a peace process; and if there
are clear political goals reflected in a mandate. What are your views
on this Presidential Statement? How, if at all, would you like these
criteria to be amended?
Answer. The May 1994 Presidential Statement in the Security Council
was based largely on the criteria developed by the Clinton
administration in Presidential Decision Directive 25 (PDD-25)--an issue
I worked on extensively during my time on the National Security
Council. PDD-25 was the result of more than year-long interagency
policy review and extensive consultations with the U.S. Congress to
focus on greater selectivity and effectiveness of U.N. peacekeeping. It
marked the first comprehensive framework for U.S. decision-making on
issues of U.N. peacekeeping. Fifteen years later, the U.S. still has an
enduring interest in ensuring that the U.N. peacekeeping capacity is
improved and sustained, in the context of the even more complex demands
on that capacity in the 21st century.
Question. A major area of concern for the United States and many
other member-states has been the continuing disclosure of allegations
of sexual exploitation and abuse committed by U.N. peacekeepers. The
U.N. has taken a number of steps aimed at preventing this activity,
providing for the investigation of allegations, and securing
prosecutions by troop-contributing countries. Ultimately, however,
troop-contributing countries are responsible for the conduct of their
U.N. peacekeeping personnel. What can be done to ensure that troop-
contributing countries take the necessary measures to screen and to
train personnel and, if an individual does engage in improper conduct,
to prosecute those personnel?
Answer. These abuses are totally reprehensible and unacceptable.
These scandals strike at the heart of the purpose and value of the
United Nations. I believe the U.N.'s top leaders understand the
magnitude of this threat. They are right to adopt a policy of zero
tolerance. A range of steps have been taken, including disciplinary
measures, a new model Memorandum of Understanding between the U.N. and
troop-contributing countries covering standards, and the waiving of
immunity, but more needs to be done. The U.S. will continue to work
with other member states to follow up on actions taken by troop- or
police-contributing governments against personnel dismissed from U.N.
missions for engaging in inappropriate or abusive behavior. As a woman
and a mother, I take this issue personally and will follow it closely,
if confirmed. Unless we make every effort to end this problem, the
legitimacy and credibility of the United Nations in the eyes of the
very peoples that the U.N. is supposed to protect will erode
dangerously.
Question. In 2007, in response to recommendations made by U.N.
Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, the U.N. General Assembly (UNGA)
approved the creation of a new Department of Field Support and the
reorganization of the Department of Peacekeeping Operations. What are
your views on this restructuring? Is there a timetable for completing
this restructuring? How long will it take to see any results in
improved capacities?
Answer. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon's efforts to reorient and
restructure the Department of Peacekeeping Operations were intended to
strengthen the Secretariat's capacity to manage and support U.N. peace
operations. I support these goals. The task now is to continue efforts
to improve planning, deployment and the support of the many U.N.
peacekeepers in the field.
The General Assembly (GA) in 2007 responded to Secretary-General
Ban's proposals by approving 284 new positions and 137 new contract
positions, as well as revisions in contracting and procurement
procedures designed to streamline work, improve performance, and reduce
the need for further additional positions. In June 2008, the Fifth
(Budget) Committee approved an additional 45 positions for the
Department of Peacekeeping Operations' Office of Military Affairs
(OMA), in order to improve its capacity for planning operations. Both
the positions approved in 2007 and those approved in 2008 are being
filled as rapidly as possible.
The restructuring has moved administrative and logistic support
into the newly-created Department of Field Support (DFS), with
military, police and stabilization planning done by DPKO. The goal is
to improve communications between missions in the field and
headquarters to produce faster and more effective deployments. DPKO and
DFS are now working in integrated teams.
Improving the efficiency and effectiveness of the peacekeeping
deployment process as well as the peacekeeping missions themselves has
only become more vital as the number of scope of peacekeeping
operations has increased. Key issues include expanded training,
improved information and communications systems, and additional
resources.
Question. Recent controversies, such as corruption of the Iraq
Oil-For-Food Program, allegations of sexual abuse by U.N. peacekeepers,
and instances of waste, fraud and abuse by U.N. staff, have focused
renewed attention on the need for change and improvement at the U.N.
The past administration pushed a rigorous reform agenda, often with
mixed results. In what areas has the U.N. successfully implemented
reforms, and what areas have not been successfully addressed? What
would you identify as the top priorities for U.N. reform going forward?
How would you embark on this reform program and solicit support for the
effort? Do you think that linking payment of U.S. assessments to
progress on U.N. reform is an effective way to promote necessary
reforms?
Answer. If I am confirmed, I will be committed to working to ensure
that the U.N. is maximally effective and efficient. The United Nations
has made some notable progress on reform, beginning in 1994 with the
establishment of the Office of Internal Oversight Services to
strengthen its capacity to ensure that money being spent is being well
accounted for. To date, OIOS recommendations have saved the U.N. and
the taxpayer an estimated $200 million. The U.N. has developed an
internal audit and an inspector general capability, strengthened
whistleblower protections, and enhanced financial disclosure
requirements for U.N. staff. More recently we have seen efforts to
reorient and restructure the Department of Peacekeeping Operations and
to establish a Peacebuilding Commission to deal with the challenges of
post-conflict stabilization and reconstruction. The procurement task
force has substantially improved the U.N.'s procurement operations. So
there have been important steps taken. But more must be done.
My top priorities for U.N. reform would be financial
accountability, management efficiency, transparency, ethics and
internal oversight, and program effectiveness in areas such as
peacekeeping, conflict prevention, and mediation. A key challenge now
is ensuring effective implementation of ongoing initiatives and
preventing them from being watered down or weakened, even as we
consider what further steps should be taken to improve U.N.
effectiveness and accountability.
I do not believe that the U.S. should, as a general practice,
condition its dues to the U.N. on specific reforms. The United States
should pay its dues on time and in full.
Question. U.N. member-states have been unable to achieve consensus
on how to implement certain elements of management reform. These
disagreements have emerged in the U.N. A and other fora--particularly
between developing countries and developed countries. Please discuss
how these disagreements impact U.N. reform efforts. What steps can be
taken to overcome these differences and achieve the reforms agreed to
at the 2005 U.N. World Summit?
Answer. As with many issues related to the U.N., the ability to
achieve U.N. management reform objectives depends on agreement among
many member states. When there are divisions among member states, as
there have been on some reform issues, this has limited the ability of
the U.N. to move forward on reform objectives. Sustained, intensive
diplomacy by the U.S. and like-minded member states will continue to
essential in pursuit of U.N. reform objectives as well as our broader
set of policy interests at the U.N. It will be important to reach out
to the broadest possible range of countries to actively expand the base
of support. It is in the interests of all U.N. member states to ensure
that the U.N. is as effective, efficient, and transparent as possible.
Question. A significant area of concern for Congress has been
reform of the U.N. internal oversight system. What has the United
Nations done to improve oversight, particularly in the U.N. Office of
Internal Oversight Services? What has the United States done to
facilitate these improvements?
Answer. The creation of the Office of Internal Oversight Services
(OIOS) continues to be one of the most important U.N. management
reforms. In previous years, the U.S. has pressed for the release OIOS'
audits to U.N. members upon request--a reform that has made it possible
to have greater insight into the management of U.N. resources. The U.S.
has pushed for the creation of the independent U.N. Ethics Office and a
strengthened financial disclosure program administered by the Ethics
Office. The U.S. was a leading advocate of the creation of the
Independent Audit Advisory Committee (IAAC), which advises Member
States on oversight issues and helps ensure the operational
independence of OIOS. Finally, the United States strongly supported the
efforts by the OIOS Procurement Task Force to uncover fraud,
misconduct, and corruption. To date, OIOS efforts have helped save the
U.N. over $200 million.
Question. Do you think the U.N. has taken appropriate steps to
reform its procurement practices? What steps, if any, can it take to
further improve the U.N. procurement system?
Answer. The United States is a leading advocate for efforts to
strengthen and improve the U.N.'s procurement practices. Working with
the U.S., the U.N. established a procurement task force and an Ethics
Office. The steps have yielded results, including identifying over $600
million in faulty contracts. These efforts should continue, and it will
be important to ensure that budget support for this work remains. There
may also be opportunities to expand the mandate of these oversight
entities to a broader range of U.N. organizations. The U.S. will
continue to encourage transparency in contracting.
Question. Since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001,
threats to international peace and security have come from some of the
world's weakest states. You have written extensively on the correlation
between poverty and terror and created an index that ranks the world's
developing nations to measure how they meet the core functions of
statehood. According to that index, 60 U.N. member-countries fail to
meet the basic requirements of statehood. What role do you see for the
U.N. in strengthening these weak and failing states?
Answer. A common characteristic of the world's weak states is lack
of the capacity to fulfill essential government functions, particularly
providing security from violent conflict, basic human needs of their
population, and legitimate governance with the acceptance of the
majority of their population. These are the areas that require the
world's focus and attention in these states. The United Nations can be
an invaluable contributor in this regard. The U.N. can help mobilize
global resources and capacity in ways that no single country can. The
U.N. can elevate the focus and attention on the challenges and threats
that are manifest in these states. And, the U.N. has developed, over
the last six decades, substantial expertise in governance, conflict
prevention and resolution, poverty reduction, peacebuilding, and many
other critical areas. This body of U.N. knowledge and expertise can and
should be applied to the most fragile states.
Question. The UNC and U.N. A established the U.N. Peacebuilding
Commission in 2005 to advise and propose integrated strategies for
post-conflict recovery. What is the position of the United States on
the work of the Peacebuilding Commission thus far? Does the United
States plan to make a contribution to the Peacebuilding Fund?
Answer. The United States is a member of the U.N. Peacebuilding
Commission and supports its work-as well as the work of Assistant-
Secretary-General Jane Holl Lute. The U.N. Peacebuilding Commission
(PBC) is an important pillar of U.N. reform that will enhance the
U.N.'s capacity to address post-conflict stability, reconstruction, and
governance challenges. The issue of a U.S. contribution to the
Peacebuilding Fund is part of a larger discussion that will take place
with respect to budget matters and funding priorities. As a general
matter, the U.S. maximizes its influence and leverage when it leads by
example.
Question. More generally, what are your views of the U.N. role in
post-conflict reconstruction and stabilization? What lessons have you
taken away from the U.N. role in Afghanistan and Iraq?
Answer. The United Nations can play an important, instrumental,
and, in some cases indispensable, role in post-conflict reconstruction
and stabilization. A U.N. presence is a key mechanism to employ
resources from around the world that, in the absence of the United
Nations, would not otherwise be available to assist in such
circumstances. The U.N. can provide a mechanism for prioritization,
coordination, and rationalization of resources. The U.N. can also apply
decades of experience in operating in post-conflict situations to
pursue reconstruction, stabilization, development and establishment of
governance institutions.
In this regard, and in light of the ongoing U.N. role in both Iraq
and Afghanistan, a key factor in the effectiveness and ability of the
United Nations in these circumstances is ensuring that member states
provide the U.N. the mandate, resources, and leadership appropriate to
the task at hand. The lack of a consensus among U.N. member states
regarding the purpose, methods, and resources for a U.N. role can
substantially constrain the U.N.'s capacity under most circumstances.
Question. In your view, should the UNC more consistently address
the health impacts of conflict situations, especially those involving
cholera, measles, and malaria that may be exacerbated by conflict?
Please explain.
Answer. In 2000, the Security Council held an unprecedented meeting
on the impact of AIDS on peace and security in Africa, and this
represented important recognition by the Council that health issues can
be the appropriate focus of Council concern and action. While the
Council cannot and should not replace the role of U.N. agencies focused
on delivery of humanitarian assistance and heath care, appropriate
Council recognition of the connections between health and security can
help to focus attention and resources on interventions that will be
most effective in both addressing critical health requirements and
preventing conflict.
Question. The Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change (IPCC), a
scientific intergovernmental body, was created to provide policymakers
with an objective, fact-based source of information about climate
change. IPCC has released four Assessment Reports that describe the
state of knowledge on climate change. What have you taken away from
those reports?
Answer. The Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC, released in 2007,
states that warming of the climate system is ``unequivocal'' and that
this increase in observed temperatures is ``very likely'' due to human
activities. The IPCC projects that global average temperatures during
the next century will increase from 2 to 11.5 degrees F, accompanied by
sea level rise, more heat waves, more severe storms and the spread of
tropical disease. The IPCC said that ``The last time the polar regions
were significantly warmer than present for an extended period (about
125,000 years ago), reductions in polar ice volume lead to 4 to 6
meters of sea level rise.'' Beyond these conclusions, the IPCC has
consistently provided policymakers with peer-reviewed information about
climate science, impacts and mitigation.
In my view, the science is beyond dispute and the facts are clear.
Few, if any, challenges facing the world are more urgent or important
than combating climate change.
Question. UNC Resolution 1540 obliges all states to refrain from
``supporting by any means non-State actors that attempt to develop,
acquire, manufacture, possess, transport, transfer or use nuclear,
chemical or biological weapons and their means of delivery.'' It
imposes a binding obligation on all states to establish ``appropriate
effective'' controls to prevent the proliferation of nuclear, chemical,
and biological weapons, including by establishing controls over related
materials. In April 2008, the UNC extended for three years the mandate
of a committee established to monitor implementation of this
resolution. At that time the UNC also encouraged all states to prepare
summary action plans to map out their priorities and plans for
implementing key provisions of the resolution. Should the UNC be doing
more to ensure that the obligations imposed on states by Resolution
1540 are being carried out? What steps do you envision taking to ensure
that all states introduce and enforce ``appropriate effective''
controls of materials that could enable the use by non-state actors of
nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons? Should the United States do
more to detail minimum standards to meet the ``appropriate effective''
obligation set out in Resolution 1540?
Answer. U.N. Security Council Resolution 1540 is a potentially
powerful tool to fight the spread of weapons of mass destruction. The
President-elect has expressed support for a comprehensive strategy to
seek agreement among all countries that possess nuclear weapons or
weapons-usable material on a set of global nuclear security standards,
consistent with their obligation to comply with United Nations Security
Council Resolution 1540. He has also indicated that the United States
should play a leadership role in mobilizing international financial
support to help states meet their obligations. The 1540 Committee is an
important forum in which to develop such global standards, measure
progress toward implementation and, where necessary, identify areas
where assistance is appropriate. In particular as we move toward the
2010 Review Conference of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty,
strengthening the international consensus for global adherence to the
international non-proliferation regime, including implementation of
Resolution 1540, will be a key priority of mine, should I be confirmed.
Question. How would you characterize ongoing counterterrorism
efforts at the U.N.? To what degree, and in what manner, is the
Counter-terrorism Committee (CTC) fulfilling its mandates set forth in
UNC Resolution 1373? What steps will you take to leverage the efforts
of the CTC through effective coordination with the State Department's
Office of the Coordinator on Counterterrorism?
Answer. The General Assembly and the Security Council have taken
action both to require States to enact and implement measures to deter
the activities and to constrain the mobility of terrorists and their
supporters. A resolution adopted in the wake of 9/11 requires all U.N.
Member States to implement a sweeping range of counter-terrorism
measures against terrorists and their supporters, including asset
freezes and measures to prevent the movement of terrorists across
international borders and to eliminate the supply of weapons to
terrorists. A key challenge is sustaining this effort, including by
ensuring that the U.N.'s consolidated al-Qaida/Taliban list of
sanctioned individuals and entities remains up to date, as well as by
improving coordination of U.N. counterterrorism programs to reduce
redundancy.
The Security Council's actions also created the Counter-Terrorism
Committee (CTC) to monitor States' compliance with the resolution. The
CTC should be a forum where the countries can provide as well as
receive assistance to improve implementation of U.N. resolutions. The
United States should look to help strengthen them.
Question. Why do you believe that U.N. member-states have been
unable to reach agreement on a final text for a comprehensive
convention on international terrorism? Do you think that the entry into
force of such a convention would significantly impact international
efforts to address terrorism?
Answer. I understand that since 2001, the negotiations have focused
on two important questions: (1) whether actions by state military
forces, which are governed by other branches of international law,
constitute ``terrorism,'' and (2) whether violent actions of ``national
liberation movements'' constitute ``terrorism.'' Our goal for the
Comprehensive Convention on International Terrorism is to strengthen
the international legal framework for counterterrorism, which can
improve international efforts to combat terrorism.
Question. What is your position on the concept of the
responsibility to protect (R2P), as it was set forth in the 2005 World
Summit Outcome Document? What do you consider to be its principal
strengths and weaknesses? What obligations, if any, did U.N. member-
states accept when they agreed to the R2P paragraphs?
Answer. The Responsibility to Protect is a norm that was supported
by the United States, by the 2005 U.N. General Assembly World Summit,
and subsequently by the United Nations Security Council. I support the
``R2P'' doctrine. However, there has been a gap between the
expectations that the norm created and the realities on the ground. R2P
is a multi-faceted doctrine that begins with prevention and encompasses
the entire range of policy options up to, and including, the use of
force, to encourage and enable countries to act in a fashion that
protects their citizens and prevent them from being attacked and
harmed. The core issue is--for each particular circumstance--what does
the international community actually do? This is not a simple question
of whether to use military means or not, though we cannot rule out the
use of force, if other options fail. In many instances, there is far
greater scope for preventive diplomacy, sanctions than often has been
employed to date as well as far greater scope for collective and
regional action to change their behavior and fulfill the responsibility
to protect.
Question. What is the likelihood that the Chapter VII language
regarding the R2P, as set forth in the World Summit Outcome Document,
will ever be applied by the UNC? What criteria should U.S. policymakers
apply in determining possible UNC action?
Answer. The Responsibility to Protect (R2P) doctrine does encompass
the full range of policy options, including and up to the use of force.
As a general principle, all other policy options should be explored and
exhausted before the use of military force is contemplated. Beyond this
principle, it is difficult to enumerate all possible, hypothetical
scenarios, which might constitute grounds to consider possible action
by the U.N. Security Council. In more immediate terms, a key focus of
the U.N. Security Council should be on building global capacity for
peacekeeping, which is one of the key policy tools necessary for an
effective international response to protect civilians from mass
atrocities.
Question. Do you believe the R2P concept should apply to victims
of natural disasters, and specifically, do you think the situation in
Burma triggered a responsibility to protect? Would it have been
productive for the United States to press the UNC to intervene with an
international response in the areas affected by Cyclone Nargis, with or
without the approval of the Burmese authorities? Do you support the
adoption of such an interventionist approach in the Darfur region of
Sudan and/or in Zimbabwe?
Answer. In the face of natural disasters, stolen elections, or mass
atrocities, the United States has a range of tools to draw upon. There
is no ``one size fits all'' solution to preventing human suffering, and
we should not reduce our choice to one between doing nothing and using
unilateral U.S. military force. There may be circumstances when
diplomatic action fails to secure consensus at the U.N. Security
Council, but where the limited use of military power could be effective
in saving a large number of lives. In any set of circumstances, we must
also evaluate the collateral costs of war and the likely consequences
of military action--on the victims or country in question and on U.S.
interests. I do not want to speculate about which circumstances might
warrant such action.
Question. The U.N. has a broad range of mechanisms available to
address human rights violations. In your view, how important is the
U.N. in the overall effort to protect human rights? What are its main
strengths and weaknesses in addressing human rights issues?
Answer. Promoting and encouraging respect for human rights is among
the core principles of the United Nations, and has been a priority for
both the United States and other member states since the founding of
the organization. The body of international human rights standards that
are now widely acknowledged (if not always respected) by nearly all the
governments were in great measure developed within the United Nations
system. For example, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which the
United States is a party, were developed by the Human Rights
Commission. These and other instruments have been important tools used
to press for an end to violations of human dignity and for the
promotion of civil and political rights. Similarly, the United Nations
has played a key role in the development of treaties signed or ratified
by the United States and relating to labor rights, the rights of women,
racial discrimination, the rights of children in conflict, and many
other issues.
In addition, the U.N. plays an important role in the promotion and
protection of human rights in the field, including through human rights
monitoring and electoral assistance. Beyond that, the Office of the
High Commissioner for Human Rights deploys several different kinds of
standing human rights missions that help to ensure respect for human
rights and the rule of law: these include human rights country offices
and/or advisors providing advice and assistance to governments and
civil society; human rights advisors in United Nations peace
operations; and regional offices and centers providing advice and
assistance in Asia, Latin America, the Middle East and Africa.
Of course, this good work of the Secretariat has not been matched
by the intergovernmental human rights organs of the U.N. In the new
Human Rights Council, for example, some member states have sought to
shield from scrutiny the worst perpetrators of abuses, while providing
distorted and disproportionate criticisms on Israel. The challenge for
the United States and its partners, friends, and allies is to bring the
full weight of sustained diplomacy, shared values, and power to improve
the Human Rights Council by building broad and deep coalitions in
support of universal human rights at the United Nations.
Question. The U.N. Human Rights Council (the Council) was formed
in 2006 to replace the U.N. Human Rights Commission, which had been
criticized for not holding its members accountable for human rights
abuses. Since its creation, the Bush administration has declined to be
named to the 47-seat Council, citing in part its disproportionate focus
on Israel. How do you approach the Council? How might the United
States' presence or absence on the Council influence its effectiveness?
Do you think the United States should seek to become a member?
Answer. We have a deep interest in ensuring strong global
mechanisms to uphold the respect for human rights. The President-elect
is committed to enforcing respect for human rights. There is no
question that the U.N. Human Rights Council (HRC) has been seriously
flawed and a major disappointment. Rather than focus on its efforts and
energies on most egregious instances of human rights abuses around the
world, in places like Burma, Zimbabwe, Sudan and elsewhere, the HRC has
devoted an inordinate amount of attention, and a very counterproductive
focus, on Israel, one of our closest allies.
The Obama administration intends to work to strengthen the United
Nations human rights mechanisms so that they focus on the world's most
egregious human rights abusers. If confirmed, I look forward to working
with the President-elect--and consulting with this Committee--as we
review whether and when to run for election to a seat on the Council.
Whether or not we seek election, our basic orientation will be that our
ability to effect change is far greater if we are engaged
diplomatically with friends and partners around the world to build a
broad-based understanding of the need to use these mechanisms for the
purpose they were designed, and not allow them to be hijacked for other
purposes.
Question. If the United States decided to run for membership on
the Council and was elected, what challenges do you think it would face
as a new Council member, and how would you work to overcome these
challenges? If the United States decides not to run, how will it pursue
its human rights agenda in U.N. fora?
Answer. No decision has been made yet about whether and when to
pursue membership in the Human Rights Council. Whether or not the
United States is a member of Human Rights Council, the U.S. will use
all available policy tools at its disposal and the full weight of its
diplomacy to defend and advocate for broader and stronger support for
human rights around the world. The Obama administration will undertake
early consideration of how the United States can achieve this objective
most effectively and with the widest possible international support.
Question. The recently released report of the Genocide Prevention
Task Force, co-chaired by former Secretaries Albright and Cohen,
concluded that preventing genocide must be a national priority. The
task force concluded that the United States and the international
community currently lack critical tools to identify the early warning
signs of impending mass atrocities and respond to them to prevent the
escalation of violence: ``Gaps remain.in the strategic understanding of
the challenges that genocide and mass atrocities pose and in developing
appropriate ways to anticipate and address civilian protection.'' What
steps do you believe the United States and U.N. should take to prevent
or stop acts of mass atrocity or genocide?
Answer. President-elect Obama has spoken often of the importance of
drawing on a range of US foreign policy tools to prevent genocide. I
have also been outspoken on this issue. The President-elect has already
sent strong political signals to his incoming administration, to the
American people of his commitment to combat genocide. In terms of the
bureaucratic and operational steps that need to be taken, I look
forward, if confirmed, to working with my colleagues in the White
House, the Pentagon, the CIA and State Department to review these
issues, including the report prepared by the genocide task force, and
deciding how best to operationalize the President-elect's objective.
And I look forward to consulting with the Committee and other Members
of Congress as we consider how best to organize to address this
challenge so that there is a process in place to anticipate and address
any concerns as early as possible.
Question. In April 2009, U.N. member-states will convene in
Geneva, Switzerland for the U.N. Durban Review Conference Against
Racism (Review Conference) to examine possible progress made since the
2001 U.N. World Conference Against Racism (WCAR) held in Durban, South
Africa. The United States withdrew from WCAR because of what was
appropriately deemed to be a disproportionate focus on Israel as an
alleged perpetrator of racism and intolerance in the Middle East. Do
you think the United States should participate in the upcoming Durban
Review Conference? Why or why not?
Answer. Racism is and remains a serious global challenge that
merits our sustained effort, attention, and involvement. It is
appropriate to convene an international conference on this subject. The
problem is that in the past, and potentially now as we head towards the
conference in April, rather than focus on racism, some member states
and some non-governmental organizations have instead sought to equate
Israel's actions with racism and promote an atmosphere of hate and
anti-Semitism. This is highly offensive and a distortion of the meaning
of the term racism. It merits our strongest objections.
The question is how to proceed. The President-elect believes that
we should make early and significant efforts to determine whether our
efforts could enable the upcoming conference and its draft document to
be improved, refocused on racism, and stripped of the offensive
language that we find abhorrent. If this is not possible, then we--as
well as other member states that respect basic principles of justice
and equity--should not participate in April and dignify that gathering
with our presence.
Question. In recent years, there have been some signs that the
U.N. is getting serious about tackling anti-Semitism. However, it is
not yet close to achieving a fair and balanced approach towards Israel.
For example, at least three bureaucracies created several decades ago
with the mandate of singling out Israel as a violator of human rights
continue to receive regular U.N. funding. Between 2001 and 2006, more
than 120 U.N. A plenary and committee resolutions were adopted against
Israel, compared with just ten during the same period against North
Korea, Burma, and Sudan. What, if anything, can be done to address the
anti-Israeli bias at the United Nations? What other countries are
committed to addressing this imbalance?
Answer. The United Nations at its best is a forum where all nations
and people are treated with respect in the spirit of working together
to solve the world's problems. Unfortunately, we know that some have
used various forums at the United Nations to espouse various forms of
prejudice, and in particular, harsh and unfair sentiments against the
State of Israel. Anti-Israel bias, anti-Semitism, and discrimination of
any kind denigrate the integrity of the U.N. and will be not be
tolerated by the Obama administration. Whenever they arise, the United
States needs to speak out forcefully against them, and encourage all
others to do the same. And as part of our efforts to improve the United
Nations, we need to work to ensure that its forums are not used or
hijacked for this unacceptable agenda. We have support for these
efforts from many countries, particularly, but not exclusively, in
Europe and Canada. But we need to expand the ranks of those countries
willing to stand up with us to end these practices.
Question. More than four years after then-Secretary of State
Powell's declaration that genocide was taking place in Darfur, the
death toll has climbed still higher, the camps for displaced persons
have grown more crowded, and humanitarian access to help people in need
has diminished in many areas. The United Nations has pledged to send
26,000 peacekeepers to Darfur, but has sent barely 60 percent of that
number and has not provided them with the helicopters, vehicles, and
other tools to fulfill their mission. Why has this process been so slow
to date? In recent months, Khartoum's obstruction has significantly
diminished, but that change has only highlighted the U.N.'s own
difficulties in equipping and deploying the UNMID force. What can be
done both in Darfur and generally to address these insufficiencies?
Answer. President-elect Obama, Vice President-elect Biden,
Secretary-designate Clinton and I have been very clear and forceful in
their condemnation of the genocide in Sudan and in their commitment to
far more robust actions to try and end it. The pace of UNMID's
deployment needs to be accelerated, combined with sufficient logistical
support to protect civilians on the ground. We need to send a clear
message to Khartoum that they must end obstruction of the U.N. force
(UNAMID), including through endless bureaucratic hurdles and delays. We
also need to address some of the U.N.'s own requirements that have
inadvertently slowed UNMID's deployment thus far. The Obama
administration will take steps to help move needed troops and equipment
into place on an urgent basis.
Question. One of the critical gaps that peacekeepers face is the
lack of attack and utility helicopters that are desperately needed to
cover vast stretches of roadless territory in Darfur. What would you do
to help secure these badly needed helicopters?
Answer. If I am confirmed, I will work to support the Secretary-
General's efforts to secure the helicopters necessary for UNMID. As to
whether the U.S. may provide some helicopters, I look forward to
considering this question in the context of an early policy review. We
will look at all of the steps that can most effectively and urgently
maximize protection for civilians.
Question. In April 2008, President-elect Obama said that ``the
U.S. needs to work with the International Criminal Court (ICC) to ramp
up the pace of indictments of those responsible for war crimes and
crimes against humanity, while Khartoum must feel increased pressure to
hand over those individuals already indicted by the Court.'' On July
14, 2008, the ICC requested a warrant for the arrest of Sudanese
President Omar Hassan al-Bashir for his role in the genocide in Darfur.
Many observers expect the ICC to formally indict President Bashir on
genocide and possibly other charges in early 2009. Does the
administration intend to support the ICC's efforts to hold Bashir and
others in Sudan accountable for genocide and other heinous crimes, and,
if so, how?
Answer. Yes. Without prejudging the outcome of the ICC prosecutor's
recommendation to indict President Bashir, the President-elect
believes, as do I, that we should support the ICC's investigations,
including its pursuit of perpetrators of genocide in Darfur. The Bush
administration has indicated publicly a willingness to cooperate with
the ICC in the Darfur investigation. I commend them for this position,
which we also support. We can provide assistance in the investigation;
we can and should work with our allies, in this effort. This is
important because it would send a sign of seriousness about Darfur and
our determination to end the killings and bring those responsible for
war crimes to justice.
Question. Many in the Bush administration and elsewhere have
called for a U.N. peacekeeping mission in Somalia. What is your
position on such a mission? How many peacekeepers would be needed and
what would their mission be in such a violent setting? With the U.N. so
overtaxed, as recently spelled out in a GAO report, from where would
these additional peacekeeping forces come?
Answer. This issue is very important and complicated, and there are
no good solutions. It is not clear that a U.N. peacekeeping operation
can address the problems in Somalia and we will need to consider very
carefully the risks and benefits of any potential U.N. mission before
authorizing its deployment.
Question. On December 31, 2008, the UNC mandate authorizing the
multinational force in Iraq will end. How will the United Nations
Assistance Mission to Iraq (UNAMI) change at the mandate's conclusion?
What role do you see for the U.N. in Iraq in 2009 and beyond?
Answer. The United Nations has been playing an important role to
develop and promote a stable political process in Iraq. The importance
of this U.N. role should increase as the United States draws down its
presence in Iraq. The U.N. Security Council has authorized UNMI's
current mandate until August 10, 2009. In particular, the U.N. will
continue its significant work to support preparations for national and
provincial elections in Iraq in 2009, assist Iraqis in helping to
resolve the status of disputed territories, including Kirkuk,
strengthen institutions for representative government, and provide
assistance to internally displaced Iraqis. The United Nations can play
a more active role in support of a regional diplomatic process that is
needed to stabilize Iraq for the long term.
Question. The U.N. is one of the partners in the International
Compact with Iraq. What have been the main accomplishments of the
compact since its launch in 2007? What are the biggest impediments to
progress?
Answer. The International Compact with Iraq (ICI) has sought to
provide a framework for Iraq's political and economic development with
the assistance and support of the international community. Since the
adoption of the ICI, the U.N. has served as a co-chair of the Executive
Committee charged with the ICI's implementation. The role of the U.N.
in this process is an example of the significant assistance and support
that the U.N. has applied through its efforts in Iraq. Regionally,
under the ICI's framework, many of Iraq's international partners have
taken steps to reduce Iraq's Saddam-era debts by more than $25 billion,
committed more than $2.4 billion in new soft loan assistance, and
provided extensive programs to help combat corruption, assist refugees
and displaced persons, foster the rule of law, and build the
capabilities and effectiveness of Iraq's ministries and provinces.
Additional efforts remain to address Iraq's debt with its regional
neighbors. Several of the key challenges that Iraq faces today, many of
which are integrated in the goals and objectives of the ICI, call for
significantly enhanced Iraqi governance capacity and decision-making
that has not yet been achieved. That is why the U.N. also continues to
provide technical, humanitarian, and other expertise to the Iraqi
Government.
Question. President-elect Obama has made clear his intention to
engage in tough, direct diplomacy with Iran over its nuclear program
and has emphasized the need for a stronger package of incentive and
disincentives. What do assess as the prospects for the UNC imposing
tougher sanctions against Iran? How should the United States proceed if
Iran continues its illicit nuclear activities and consensus in favor of
tougher UNC sanctions continues to prove elusive? Under what
circumstances, if any, would you be willing to engage with Iran's
permanent representative to the U.N., Mohammad Khazaee?
Answer. The President-elect has said that the prospect of an Iran
armed with nuclear weapons poses a great threat to our national
security, and to the security and stability of the region and the
world. The President-elect believes that the U.S. should pursue a
strategy that employs all policy tools at our disposal, first and
foremost direct, vigorous, and principled diplomacy integrated with
effective pressure, including sanctions, and close cooperation with our
``P-5 plus 1'' partners, other members of the U.N. Security Council,
the International Atomic Energy Agency and other partners around the
world. It is this kind of comprehensive, integrated strategy that will
improve the prospects of more unified action by the U.N. Security
Council to enforce existing resolutions on Iran and consider additional
sanctions favorably. Direct, bilateral diplomacy with Iran could
include a range of channels for dialogue, including possibly at the
United Nations. The Obama administration will consider its preferred
diplomatic mechanisms in the context of an early policy review.
Question. President-elect Obama has urged the Southern African
Development Community, the African Union, and the U.N. to implement ``a
carefully crafted regime of targeted sanctions against Zimbabwean
officials who continue to thwart democracy and undermine the rule of
law.'' Last July, China and Russia vetoed a U.S.-sponsored UNC
resolution proposing sanctions against Robert Mugabe and thirteen
officials. Some of Zimbabwe's neighbors, including South Africa, have
also opted against a forceful response to the political violence. While
the international community temporizes, conditions in Zimbabwe continue
to deteriorate. The power-sharing deal negotiated in September has
stalled with the United States and Britain now saying that Mugabe must
go. What steps should the United States take to rally meaningful
international pressure against Mugabe at the U.N. and through
influential regional organizations?
Answer. Zimbabwe continues to be gripped by a man-made catastrophe
that has all but destroyed the country economically and politically.
President Mugabe lost the election last March and has no legitimate
claim to power. But he continues to rule the country through violence,
intimidation, and corruption. The spill-over effects of Zimbabwe's
crisis have long been apparent in the vast numbers of desperate
citizens pouring across Zimbabwe's borders, and the potential of this
implosion to affect the region has been made plain most recently and
tragically by a cholera outbreak.
We must continue to speak the truth about Zimbabwe, and to support
those in the region and elsewhere who do the same. The inaction at U.N.
on the matter of Zimbabwe illustrates the reality that the U.N. is only
as strong and capable as its member states. More needs to be done.
Widened U.S. sanctions are appropriate. It was the right policy to have
supported a U.N. Security Council resolution calling for targeted
sanctions and an arms embargo. The United States should continue to
work diplomatically at the U.N., the AU, and SADC not only to encourage
more multilateral pressure on the Mugabe regime, including an arms
embargo and greater participation in a regime of targeted sanctions,
but also to ensure that humanitarian assistance is available to
suffering Zimbabweans and to plan for a well-coordinated recovery
effort once sound governance is in place in Harare.
Question. The U.N. is reportedly considering a new approach in
Burma given that existing strategies have not led Burma's generals to
ease their repression. U.N. special envoy Ibrahim Gambari has allegedly
proposed that member countries offer Burma financial incentives to
release political prisoners and open the country to democratic reform.
Critics consider such a strategy to be a desperate attempt to salvage a
deteriorating diplomatic process. What are your views on this
reportedly new U.N. approach?
Answer. I have not seen the specific strategy U.N. Special Envoy
Gambari outlined in a confidential paper he presented last month to
U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon. Based on press reports, it is my
understanding that Mr. Gambari proposes building on the relations Burma
established with the outside world after Cyclone Nargis struck the
country in May. He also reportedly calls for an increase in development
assistance to Burma and proposes that wealthy countries expand the
nation's access to foreign investment. If confirmed, I will examine
this proposal closely.
Burma, and its reclusive and repressive regime, may represent one
of the most intractable challenges for the global community. While I
strongly believe that democratic reforms and freedoms must come to
Burma, it is far from clear that financial incentives such as
development aid and foreign investment will provide the leverage
necessary to force the Burmese government to change.
This is as much, if not more, a challenge for key regional
countries particularly China, India, Russia and the ASEAN countries,
several of whom sit on the U.N. Security Council and have in the past
limited the U.N.'s ability to do more. I believe that there is scope
for greater regional and international action to pressure Burma's
dictators, including by ASEAN countries.
I do agree with Mr. Gambari who believes in urging countries with
influence over Burma, especially China and India, to lean on the
Burmese government to release political prisoners and to provide a
political opening for the opposition in upcoming elections.
If confirmed, I look forward to working with the Committee and
other interested Members to develop initiatives and strategies to
address the situation in Burma.
Question. President-elect Obama has said the United States should
support the implementation of UNC resolutions that reinforce Lebanon's
sovereignty, in particular resolution 1701 banning provision of arms to
Hezbollah, which is violated by Iran and Syria. What steps would you
take, if confirmed, to support the implementation of applicable UNC
resolutions with respect to Lebanon?
Answer. President-elect Obama is committed to implementing U.N.
Security Council Resolutions that reinforce Lebanon's sovereignty.
Syria and Iran are in flagrant violation of Resolution 1701, as they
continue to supply advanced weaponry to Hezbollah in Lebanon, which
undermines Lebanese sovereignty and threatens to drag the region into
another round of violence. We need to work with our partners on the
Security Council to consider additional measures to toughen penalties
for violators, and strengthen enforcement tools. Additionally, the
United States and others should work to strengthen the institutions of
the Lebanese government to help it exercise its sovereignty throughout
the country.
Question. The Secretary General of the U.N., Ban Ki-Moon, recently
announced that the Special Tribunal for Lebanon, which was established
by the U.N. to try suspects in the assassinations of former Lebanese
Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri and other Lebanese politicians, would begin
operations on March 1, 2009. What role do you see for the United States
in supporting the work of the tribunal? How much funding has been
pledged and how much has been received? How much funding has the United
States provided to date?
Answer. I am encouraged to see that the Tribunal will officially
begin operations on March 1st, but as the head prosecutor recently
stated, it is unclear when the Tribunal will bring indictments. The
Security Council established various safeguards to ensure an objective
and expeditious judicial process. First, it includes provisions on
enhanced powers, so the Tribunal may take independent measures prevent
unreasonable delays. Second, it mandated a transparent appointment
process of international officials, including the judges and
prosecutor. Third, it includes provisions on the rights of victims to
present their views. The Security Council explicitly requested that the
Tribunal be based on ``the highest international standards of criminal
justice,'' and I will work with our international allies to ensure this
pledge is fulfilled. The Tribunal has sufficient funding, approximately
$51 million, for its first year of operation, and additional funds will
need to be raised for years two and three.
Question. President-elect Obama has said that the United States
should cooperate with the International Criminal Court (ICC) on many
activities. He has not, however, indicated that he will sign the Rome
Treaty and join the ICC. Questions linger over the scope of the ICC's
activities and, in particular, whether U.S. service members would have
the necessary legal protections given their disproportionate burden in
preserving international peace and security. What concerns, if any,
need to be resolved before the administration would consider supporting
ratification of the Rome Statute?
Answer. The President-elect believes strongly that it is in the
U.S. national interest to have effective mechanisms of international
justice. Now that the ICC has been operational for some years, we are
learning more about how the ICC functions. Thus far, the ICC has acted
with professionalism and fairness, pursing perpetrators of truly
serious crimes, like genocide in Darfur, and atrocities in the Congo
and Uganda.
The President-elect intends for the United States to continue to
support the ICC's investigations of perpetrators of genocide in Darfur
and, working with our allies, to shape the court. The United States
will be a leader in bringing war criminals to justice, consistent with
U.S. policy interests and with U.S. law.
The United States has more troops deployed overseas than any
nation. As commander in chief, the President-elect will want to make
sure that they have maximum protection. We intend to consult thoroughly
with military commanders and other experts, and examine full track
record of the ICC, before reaching a decision on joining the ICC.
How we move forward from here is a key issue that the President-
elect and his national security team will address--and, if confirmed, I
look forward to participating in those discussions. And a very
important element of this evaluation will be engaging with, and
understanding the views of, Congress, particularly this Committee.
Question. Many members are pushing for a renewed focus, led by the
United States, on achieving the U.N. Millennium Development Goals
(MDGs). At the same time, there is broad acknowledgement that
fulfilling the MDGs by the stated timeframe of 2015 is becoming
increasingly difficult, especially given the global financial
environment. How should we approach the MDGs? Should they become an
integral part of the U.S. development platform? Do we need to revise
their timeframe? What role can they play for U.S. policy?
Answer. The President-elect has made clear that the United States
will embrace the Millennium Development Goals, which provide a
framework for global action on economic empowerment and advancing human
well-being. They imbed important concepts such as private-public
partnerships in global development strategies. Last September, a mix of
public and private donors pledged $16 billion towards meeting the MDGs.
The President-elect has articulated goals that are consistent with
the global effort to meet the MDGS including ending malaria deaths by
2015 and closing the gap in primary education. Some development efforts
need funding, but some need sound organization and international
commitment by many countries, not just the U.S.
The administration must be mindful of today's harsh economic
realities, but should be creative in pursuing worthy goals in a time of
budget constraints.
Question. In 2006, a high-level panel convened by former U.N.
Secretary General Kofi Annan issued a report providing reform
recommendations for development, humanitarian assistance and the
environment. Which of these reforms do you feel are the most important
to prioritize? Do you feel progress has been made towards some of the
reforms laid out in the report? What do you consider to be the
appropriate U.N. role in development and humanitarian assistance?
Answer. In the development and humanitarian assistance realm, some
progress has been made in streamlining U.N. missions. This initiative
appears to have reduced duplication and reinforced the importance of
national ownership and leadership ``One U.N.'' programs have been
consolidated in such countries as Albania, Pakistan, and Rwanda.
The effective administration of humanitarian and development aid is
an important priority of the Obama administration, and we will study
the lessons learned and continuing concerns within the U.N. Along with
bilateral donors, the U.N. has an essential role to play in emergency
and long-term development situations, and, in consultation with
Congress, I look forward to developing and advancing constructive
proposals for further reform. I applaud the panel's recommendation to
the SG that he commission an independent assessment of international
environmental governance within the U.N. system and hope that this can
be undertaken. Working with our allies to forge an international
agreement on climate change is a matter of great strategic urgency and
import.
Question. The inability or failure of the U.N. to take, and/or
authorize, whatever action may be necessary in natural or man-made
disasters has raised questions about the degree to which it can respond
to developments that may require immediate action. What do you see as
the major successes and weaknesses of the U.N. response in humanitarian
assistance? What can be done to improve these capabilities?
Answer. In general, the United Nations and its agencies--UNHCR, the
World Food Program, UNCEF and many others--respond effectively to
humanitarian emergencies caused by natural hazards and man-made
conflict, though there are several areas for improvement. Over the past
decade or so, the U.N.'s Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian
Affairs has enhanced its capacity to coordinate rapid responses to
emergencies. OCHA's management of flash appeals, as well as the Central
Emergency Response Fund, has been important in promoting coherence in
humanitarian response. Moreover, in recent years, the U.N. has
implemented the so-called ``cluster approach'' to humanitarian
assistance, in which specific agencies have standing responsibilities
for functional areas (such as health and shelter) in the case of
humanitarian emergencies. To be sure, the cluster approach is still a
work in progress, but this kind of coordination effort is a step in the
right direction. Finally, the existence of U.N. country teams
throughout regions that are prone to disasters has further enhanced
response capabilities. There are several areas for possible
improvement; allow me to mention three:
First, the U.N., other international organizations, and member
states must increase the focus on disaster risk reduction, by
supporting efforts to build national and local government capabilities
in this critical area. We have witnessed an increase in death and
destruction from natural hazards in recent years, caused largely by
environmental degradation, poverty, urban growth, conflict and
migration of populations to coastal areas. And while the 2004 Asian
tsunami helped to put risk reduction on the agenda, much more needs to
be done. We must ensure that an adequate share of humanitarian
assistance monies are devoted to risk reduction, and must also
encourage disaster prevention and mitigation in development planning,
including through incentives for insurance, strong building codes and
community education.
Second, progress in international disaster response has not been
matched by the effective management of the transition between relief
and development. Supporting more effective and better resourced
transition assistance--through UNP, through the Peacebuilding
Commission, or other mechanisms--is a critical objective, and one to
which I will be strongly committed.
Third, and perhaps most importantly, we must remember that delivery
of humanitarian assistance and recovery and reconstruction efforts are
most effective when there is a modicum of political stability. This
means that our commitment to improve the U.N.'s capacity to deliver
humanitarian assistance must be matched by a commitment to strengthen
the conflict prevention and mediation functions of the organization.
Question. What is your assessment of the U.N. Central Emergency
Response Fund (CERF)? What is the status of U.S. contributions already
pledged to the CERF? How do you assess decision-making regarding the
use of funds? Have they been effective? Has there been adequate
transparency and oversight? How would you assess the U.S. government's
ability to help coordinate humanitarian efforts through this kind of
mechanism? Should the United States take a lead role in its further
development?
Answer. The CERF has received contributions from more than 55
donors and has exceeded the $1 billion mark in pledges. While the U.S.
financial contribution to the Central Emergency Response Fund is
relatively modest ($15 million to date), it has supported the CERF's
creation and continuing development. The CERF serves as a timely and
flexible mechanism for funding international aid organizations when
global emergencies strike. The CERF has been effective in two main
ways: it facilitates the quick mobilization of funds for U.N. agencies'
rapid response to sudden onset disasters, and it assists in directing
funds to interventions linked to long-term complex emergencies.
In 2007, USAID participated on the CERF Advisory Board and may do
so again in the future. Whether the United States will increase its
contribution will depend on the Obama administration's review of U.S
humanitarian assistance, where the U.S. remains the world's largest
donor through its contributions to WFP and UNCR.
Question. What do you see as the U.N. High Commissioner for
Refugees' major successes and weaknesses? What do you see as the major
weaknesses of the overall U.N. response in the area of refugee and
internally displaced person assistance?
Answer. The United Nations High Commission for Refugees operates in
challenging environments and performs critical work to aid vulnerable
refugees. The U.S. has traditionally been-and will continue to be-a
strong partner of the organization. UNCR has recently undertaken
various structural and management reforms with the goals of increasing
the efficiency and improving the services of the organization. I
support these goals, and I believe that UNCR has done important work in
such areas as seeking to increase its protection efforts on behalf of
stateless persons and working to increase access to third-country
resettlement. All member States need to work with UNCR to build on the
organization's strengths and continue to improve the organization's
efficiency. If confirmed, I would work to have a productive dialogue on
these issues with High Commissioner Ant"nio Guterres.
Question. What role should the U.N. play in combating violence
against women overseas? What steps has the United States taken to
address this issue at the U.N.?
Answer. The U.N. should play an important role to elevate the issue
of violence against women in order to encourage countries to combat
these horrific abuses. The U.N. can provide a powerful voice and a
unique forum in this regard, and there have been recent developments in
this regard. Last spring, the U.N. Secretary-General commenced a
campaign with the aim of mobilizing public opinion to ensure that
senior policy makers work to prevent and eradicate violence against
women. Violence against women has come up repeatedly as a topic at the
U.N. General Assembly (UNGA), Commission on the Status of Women (CSW),
Human Rights Council (HRC), and Security Council. U.N. resolutions,
formal debates, and side events have focused on violence against women
in general and during armed conflict, as well as specific forms of
violence including female genital mutilation, honour crimes, and the
spread of HIV/AIDS among women and girls because of sexual violence.
And, the U.N. has an official policy of zero tolerance of sexual
exploitation and abuse by peacekeeping personnel and has taken measures
to prevent such abuse.
The United States has and will continue to assume a leadership
position across the venues and mechanisms at the U.N. The Obama
administration will look actively for opportunities to ensure a
sustained focus on combating violence against women, including by
building on U.N. Security Council resolution 1820, which emphasized the
integral importance of this issue, including as it relates to
international peace and security.
__________
Responses to Questions Submitted to Susan E. Rice
by Senator Richard G. Lugar
Osama Bin Laden/Sudan
Question. Please comment on various articles in the press that
suggest that, during your time in the Clinton administration, the
government of Sudan offered to provide the U.S. with information
regarding Bin Laden. Were there in fact such offers and, if so, what
was the Clinton administration's response?
Answer. No. This is a false suggestion, and there is no truth to
it. The Clinton administration, including and up to the cabinet level,
regularly met with officials from the government of Sudan. At no time
was there an offer for documents or information, nor were documents or
information provided. The 9/11 Commission investigated this allegation,
which originated with the Sudanese and those sympathetic to the
Sudanese. The Congressional investigation of the 9/11 attack did the
same. Both concluded there is no basis for this allegation.
Sierra Leone in the 1990s
Question. Please explain your comment in a November 21, 2001,
interview with Charles Cobb of AllAfrica.com, regarding press
criticisms of the Clinton administration's handling of Sierra Leone.
Q: The other region for which there has been specific
criticism of the Clinton administration is Sierra Leone in West
Africa. You're familiar with that New Republic article that
came out a year or so ago.
A: I think there was more than one, and they were
distinguished by being a pack of lies, most of them.
Answer. My comments reflected my view that this article did not
accurately represent the facts on the ground in Sierra Leone and the
context within which decisions were made. The Lome Agreement was the
result of regional peace negotiations sponsored by the Economic
Community of West African States (ECOWAS) and received broad
international support, including from the U.N. and the Organization of
African Unity. The accord is emblematic of the difficult task of
balancing lasting peace and security with accountability and justice in
post-conflict situations.
Rwandan Genocide
Question. Based on the quote below from the September 2001 Atlantic
Monthly magazine, please comment on what lessons and conclusions you
drew from the events in Rwanda in 1994, as well as how you believe the
United States and the international community could have acted
differently.
There was such a huge disconnect between the logic of each of the
decisions we took along the way during the genocide and the moral
consequences of the decisions taken collectively. I swore to myself
that if I ever faced such a crisis again, I would come down on the side
of dramatic action, going down in flames if that was required.''
Answer. In December 1994, I went to Rwanda, and saw firsthand what
happens when the international community fails to act to prevent
genocide. I will never forget the horror I witnessed.
I believe that our nation and the international community have a
strong security interest and a moral obligation to work to prevent
genocide. If we stand by in the face of genocide, we are all
diminished. At the same time, we are not going to be able to be
everywhere all the time. That's why it's so important for us to be able
to work in concert with other nations and to strengthen multinational
and international capacities both to prevent and, if that fails,
respond to halt genocide.
In retrospect, I believe that the failure to prevent genocide in
Rwanda came less from a considered decision not to act, but more from a
failure to seriously contemplate the question about whether action
should be taken. The United States had just removed remaining forces
from Somalia. It's possible that our experience in Somalia narrowed our
collective capacity to contemplate robust action in Rwanda.
I was a director at the NSC during the Rwandan genocide. My
responsibilities were the U.N. and peacekeeping. In that position, I
was not involved in high-level decision-making, but I did learn
valuable lessons that I carry with me today: the importance of having
accurate information about what is happening on the ground so a move
toward genocide isn't misconstrued as a spasm of violence; the
importance of engaging before a situation becomes a crisis; the
importance of the United States and the international community having
a reliable process for assessing risk and providing early warning; and
the importance of direct action to prevent or halt genocide. That
direct action can take many forms. I do not believe that the United
States can and should intervene directly in every situation but we
should take no option off the table. Our power as a nation can be
deployed in many ways--through our leadership at the United Nations,
through our work with other multilateral organizations, and through our
work with allies and other nations to intervene to prevent, and if that
fails, to halt genocide.
President-elect Obama is committed to strengthening the capacity of
the U.N. and regional organizations to prevent and respond to deadly
violence by:
Strengthening United Nations and regional peace operations, to help
bring stable peace to war-torn regions; to establish the rule
of law and to help prevent state failure; to address threats
that are not easily contained by borders and boundaries; and to
halt atrocities and genocide. It is essential to provide the
political leadership so that U.N. missions are backed by
workable political strategies. Our expectations of the U.N.
have often not been met--because obstructionist member states
have blocked timely action (as on Darfur and in the U.N. Human
Rights Council) and because corruption and management failures
have undermined the U.N.'s effectiveness.
Working with other multinational actors that deploy peacekeeping
forces like the African Union, the European Union, the Economic
Community of West African States, and North Atlantic Treaty
Organization (NATO) to help strengthen their capacity to
conduct such missions.
Strengthening the U.S. government's capacity to assess the risk of
conflict in developing countries, to act quickly to prevent and
forestall violence, and to spear-head efforts to stabilize
countries in the aftermath of conflict.
Somalia 1993
Question. In 2007 you wrote that, ``Somalia's legacy in the
American consciousness was to raise a crippling caution against the
armed defense of human rights abroad.'' Some fifteen and a half years
after these incidents took place; do you believe that U.S. foreign
policy is still afflicted by a ``crippling caution?'' If this is no
longer the case, to what do you attribute the change?
Answer. Caution in the use of military force is entirely
appropriate. I do believe there are occasions when human rights abuses
abroad may require a military response--because injustice can breed
extremely destabilizing resentment and lead to insecurity, and because
we become less than the country we wish to be when we turn away in the
face of genocide or other extreme abuses. The United States will
proceed with prudence in this regard. Generally, all policies,
including the question of human rights, evolve over time--witness the
adoption by the world community in 2005 of the ``Responsibility to
Protect'' concept regarding the protection of populations around the
world.
Sudan-NATO
In a 2007 Brookings Institution paper entitled ``The Genocide in
Darfur: America must do more to fulfill the responsibility to protect''
you made a series of recommendations for U.S. policy on Darfur. As one
of five recommendations you wrote:
``The United States and NATO should immediately impose and
enforce a no-fly zone over Darfur. This will have the immediate
impact of providing innocent civilians in the area with
protection from Sudanese Air Force attacks. It will also
demonstrate to the Sudanese government that the international
community is resolved to take tough action. To protect the no-
fly area would require disabling or shooting down any aircraft
that take off in the zone. It would mean shutting down Sudanese
airfields in and near Darfur to all but humanitarian traffic.
``The administration should also signal its readiness to
strike Sudanese military and intelligence assets, including
aircraft and airfields, if the government of Sudan continues to
attack civilians before, during, or after the U.N.-AU force
deploys or if its deployment or operations are thwarted. In the
likely event that Khartoum reneges on its acquiescence to the
hybrid force or harasses the international forces as they
deploy, the United States must be prepared to respond quickly
and credibly by striking the country's high-value military and
intelligence targets.''
Question. Is it the position of the Obama administration that the
United States and NATO should immediately impose and enforce a no-fly
zone over Darfur?
Answer. President-elect Obama, Vice President-elect Biden,
Secretary-designate Clinton and I have advocated the implementation of
a no-fly zone as well as far more robust sanctions on the government of
Sudan, both of which Congress has also endorsed. The Obama
administration has made no final decision with respect to seeking to
establish a no-fly zone over Darfur or on the possibility of NATO
deployments to Darfur. I anticipate that the questions of Sudan and
Darfur would be subject to early policy review of all steps to most
effectively and urgently maximize protection for civilians.
Question. Does the Obama administration believe that U.S. and NATO
forces could play such a role without diminishing the effectiveness of
ongoing U.S. and NATO operations in Iraq and Afghanistan?
Answer. The Obama administration has made no final decision with
respect to seeking to establish a no-fly zone over Darfur or on the
possibility of NATO deployments to Darfur. I would anticipate that the
questions of Sudan and Darfur would be subject to early policy review
of all steps to most effectively and urgently maximize protection for
civilians. This policy review would include consideration of the
broader implications of policy options for Darfur, including the
potential impact on the U.S. efforts in Iraq, Afghanistan, and
elsewhere.
Question. Does the Obama administration intend to seek legislation
from Congress authorizing U.S. military action in Darfur?
Answer. The Obama administration has made no final decision with
respect to seeking to establish a no-fly zone over Darfur or other
policy options for Darfur. I would anticipate that the questions of
Sudan and Darfur would be subject to early policy review of all steps
to most effectively and urgently maximize protection for civilians.
Question. Does the Obama administration intend to seek a U.N.
Security Council resolution authorizing the United States and NATO to
impose a no-fly zone and take other military action in Darfur? Do you
believe that the other permanent members of the Security Council will
support such a resolution?
Answer. The Obama administration has made no final decision with
respect to seeking to establish a no-fly zone over Darfur. I would
anticipate that the questions of Sudan and Darfur would be subject to
early policy review of all steps to most effectively and urgently
maximize protection for civilians. The U.S. will seek to build the
maximum international support for any foreign policy strategy,
including as it related to matters such as Darfur.
Question. In the same article, you advocated that the United States
should ``Couple unilateral sanctions with a sustained push for
[additional] U.N. sanctions, daring China or Russia to veto effective
action to halt genocide. The United States should stop allowing the
possibility of a veto to suspend U.N. deliberations.''
If confirmed, what specific steps would you take to gain Chinese
and Russian support for more effective action in Darfur?
Answer. The President-elect and I believe that it is important for
the United States to lead in strengthening the effectiveness of the
United Nations, in modernizing it, so that it can be more capable of
meeting the challenges of the 21st Century. We believe that in light of
the global challenges we face in the new century, the value and
potential of the U.N. is as great if not more so today, than at its
founding 60 years ago. Cooperation in the Security Council must be at
the center of our efforts to build an effective and responsive U.N. The
Council's capacity to effectively address key issues derives directly
from the ability of its members to identify shared objectives and build
pragmatic working relationships, particularly among the Security
Council's Permanent Members. Prospects for such collaboration on the
Council improve when there are effective, sustained, direct, and
serious consultations and negotiations among the Council Members. This
will be particularly true with respect to China and Russia. There are,
and will continue to be, instances when, despite best efforts,
effective Council action is not possible.
Question. What effect do you believe ``daring'' other permanent
members of the Security Council to veto measures related to Sudan will
have on the likelihood of passing such measures and on the ability of
the United States to gain cooperation on other matters of priority in
the Council?
Answer. This article expressed my personal view in 2007 in an
academic context and does not reflect the view of the Obama
administration. Cooperation in the Security Council must be at the
center of our efforts to build an effective and responsive U.N. If
confirmed, I will pursue effective, pragmatic working relationships
with other members of the Security Council, particularly with Russia
and China. Developing shared objectives and common strategies requires
sustained, direct and serious dialogue. This means ensuring that other
countries understand the objectives of the United States and that we do
not shy from pressing our positions and challenging those of others
when we believe they run counter to our interests and values.
Responsibility to Protect
You have advocated greater action by the international community to
implement the doctrine of the ``Responsibility to Protect'' which was
endorsed at the 2005 U.N. World Summit. As endorsed by the World
Summit, that doctrine provides, inter alia, that--
The international community, through the United Nations, .
has the responsibility to use appropriate diplomatic,
humanitarian and other peaceful means, in accordance with
Chapters VI and VIII of the Charter, to help to protect
populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and
crimes against humanity. In this context, we are prepared to
take collective action, in a timely and decisive manner,
through the Security Council, in accordance with the Charter,
including Chapter VII, on a case-by-case basis and in
cooperation with relevant regional organizations as
appropriate, should peaceful means be inadequate and national
authorities are manifestly failing to protect their populations
from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against
humanity.
Question. Please indicate in what countries you believe national
authorities are currently ``manifestly failing'' to protect their
populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing or crimes
against humanity. Please indicate what steps you would advocate the
international community taking in each case, and what actions you
intend to take in this regard at the United Nations, if confirmed.
Answer. Action at the World Summit was an important reaffirmation
that the international community should act to protect populations at
risk of grave and widespread violations of human rights. The most
prominent case that raises concerns about genocide, war crimes and
crimes against humanity is Sudan, and the Security Council has referred
the situation in Darfur to the International Criminal Court (ICC) for
investigation, which the Obama administration supports. In addition,
the United States should continue to take active measures to increase
the capacity of the African Union-United Nations Hybrid Mission in
Darfur, so that it can better safeguard the lives of those at risk.
Finally, the United States and the international community must
continue to bring strong pressure to bear on Sudanese authorities to
put an end to atrocities. The new administration will be actively
considering appropriate actions in the days and weeks following the
inauguration, which could include additional measures through the
United Nations. There are other cases around the world where genocide,
war crimes, or crimes against humanity have merited international
concern and action, including cases in which the authorities themselves
have sought the assistance of the international community--and, in
particular, the ICC--such as in Uganda, the Central African Republic
and the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Finally, there are cases of
grave and widespread abuses of human rights that have not been referred
to the ICC or other tribunals, but which also should be of utmost
concern to the United States and the international community, such as
the human rights situations in Burma, Zimbabwe, and North Korea. In all
such cases, the specific actions taken by the administration will vary,
but we will remain steadfast in our overall commitment to safeguard
human lives and bring an end to abuses of human rights.
The Evolution of Humanitarian Intervention and the Responsibility to
Protect
You co-authored a chapter entitled ``The Evolution of Humanitarian
Intervention and the Responsibility to Protect'' in a book entitled
Beyond Preemption, (Ivo Daalder, ed., 2007). Your article contains the
following passage:
At present the international community has no agreed
normative framework for halting genocide or massive crimes
against humanity when the Security Council fails to do so. This
is the case in Darfur where international action has been
authorized but not implemented due to lack of resolve to deploy
without Sudanese agreement. The following procedures and
alternatives should be adopted as the international standard in
such instances:
The Permanent Five members of the U.N. Security Council should
forswear the use of the veto to halt international intervention
for humanitarian reasons, unless they publicly articulate a
compelling case that their vital national interests are at
stake. This is by no means a fail-safe solution since countries
can claim that their vital interests are at stake, and no
multilateral body has the authority to rule on the validity of
those claims. However, it would raise the political bar, help
dissipate the constant but ambiguous cloud of a veto threat
against humanitarian interventions, open recalcitrant nations
to international scrutiny, and increase transparency.
The U.N. General Assembly could be convoked in emergency session to
vote on ``Uniting for Peace'' action when the Security Council
is deadlocked.
Decisions to support intervention by relevant or concerned regional
bodies should be deemed sufficient to legitimize action by
their members when Security Council authorization is sought but
not forthcoming.
When all else fails, a member state or coalition of members may
intervene to save lives at their own risk and expense and seek
retroactive U.N. or regional support. In this instance the
gravity of the humanitarian crisis, the purity of humanitarian
motives, and the efficacy and proportionality of the military
action should be critical considerations in the achievement of
ex post facto legitimization. Member states that take such
action should be prepared to have their intervention formally
condemned and penalties assessed if it fails to meet the above
criteria. In addition, member states that take such action
should be prepared to shoulder the costs of the post-
intervention responsibilities.''
I have the following questions in connection with this passage:
Question. If confirmed, would you support a policy of forswearing
the use of the United States veto in the Security Council in some
category of future cases involving proposals for humanitarian
intervention?
Answer. This article expressed my personal opinion in 2007 in an
academic context. The Obama administration has not taken a position on
this issue. In general, our clear preference is to obtain Security
Council approval for an action. I believe that Security Council members
should ensure that responsible efforts to end the killings are not
obstructed.
Question. If so, would such a position preclude the United States
from vetoing a hypothetical proposal for intervention in Gaza if some
Council members asserted that such intervention was required for
humanitarian reasons?
Answer. No. The United States maintains an unwavering commitment to
Israel and will exercise its right and authority as a Permanent Member
of the U.N. Security Council based on our national interests and
objectives.
Question. Are there any other categories of cases for which you
intend, if confirmed, to announce a policy of forswearing the use of
the United States veto in the Security Council? If so, please specify
them.
Answer. It is unrealistic to attempt to identify all possible
future hypothetical scenarios in an evaluation of the use of the
Security Council veto.
Question. If confirmed, do you intend to advocate for an expanded
role for the General Assembly in authorizing humanitarian interventions
or other uses of force?
Answer. President-elect Obama's overarching objective is to advance
America's interests, protect our security, and ensure our prosperity. I
believe the United States should pursue those avenues, opportunities,
and strategies that represent the best possibility of achieving our
national objectives. While the Security Council is the principal U.N.
organ for matters relating to international peace and security, I would
not rule out using the General Assembly if that is in the U.S. national
interest. The U.S. has done so in the past when others blocked
effective UNC action--including authorizing the Korean War.
Question. Do you believe generally that United States interests
would be well served by greater involvement by the General Assembly in
matters of peace and security?
Answer. No. Under the U.N. Charter, the U.N. Security Council is
the U.N. entity with primary responsibility for the maintenance of
international peace and security. I believe that this structure remains
the most appropriate.
Question. If confirmed, do you intend to pursue an international
agreement on a ``normative framework for halting genocide or massive
crimes against humanity when the Security Council fails to do so?'' Do
you believe implementing such a framework would require amending the
U.N. Charter?
Answer. When genocide or other massive crimes against civilians are
taking place, I believe that Security Council members should ensure
that responsible efforts to end the killings are not obstructed. The
new administration would have to consider how to translate this and
related objectives into expressions of policy. I do not think that
movement toward this kind of goal would require a Charter Amendment.
Question. Do you believe that each of the other permanent members
of the Security Council would agree with the framework proposed in the
quoted passage? What impact do you believe pursuit of such a framework
by the United States would have on your working relationships with your
P-5 colleagues, and the ability of the United States to achieve P-5
consensus on other pressing matters?
Answer. Our clear preference is to obtain Security Council approval
for an action because such approval enhances our ability to bring
others along with us, shares the cost of the burdens, and increases
legitimacy. If confirmed, I will work toward developing constructive
and pragmatic working relationships with my U.N. Security Council
colleagues. I would not want to speculate regarding the views of other
Security Council member on decision that the U.S. has not taken.
United Nations--General
Question. How will the Obama administration differentiate its
policies toward the United Nations from those of the Bush
administration?
Answer. First, it is important to note that there are important
views shared by both the outgoing Bush administration and the incoming
Obama administration about the importance, and the valuable
contributions, of the United Nations. As Ambassador Khalilzad indicated
in his confirmation hearings in 2007, ``[n]o other such organization
has been able to undertake peace enforcement actions comparable to the
one in Korea in 1950, to lead scores of peacekeeping missions over the
course of decades, to achieve consensus on endorsing such strong
actions as the liberation of Kuwait in 1991 or the toppling of the
Taliban regime in Afghanistan in 2001.'' And I agree with the current
administration's statement, expressed by Ambassador Khalilzad, that it
is ``vital for the United States to enable this institution to make the
greatest possible contribution to advance those founding objectives.''
We will continue and deepen efforts to enhance U.N. capacity in a range
of areas. At the same time, there will also be changes of direction. On
many key policy issues, from climate change, to non-proliferation, to
development issues and the role of the Millennium Development Goals, to
human rights and the rule of law, President-elect Obama has articulated
policy perspectives that are different from those of Bush
administration, and our efforts in the U.N.--which serves as a critical
forum for the development of common approaches on these and other
issues--will reflect the new administration's perspectives and
priorities.
Question. What do you see as the most crucial role for the United
Nations in the 21st century? How would you enhance U.N. effectiveness
in that role?
Answer. The President-elect believes the United Nations is an
indispensable, if imperfect, global mechanism by which to advance our
interests in combating common threats and meeting global challenges
ranging from global terrorism to proliferation, poverty, climate
change, and disease. These are matters that directly affect the
security and prosperity of the United States, and they are matters that
can be effectively resolved only by acting collectively. The United
Nations offers an important vehicle for doing so and renewed American
leadership will be critical to achieving progress.
It is in our interests to make the U.N. maximally effective in this
regard. That means not only an agenda of management reform, but also
investing to strengthen its program capacities and effectiveness, most
notably in the realm of peacekeeping, where we are asking the United
Nations now to do more then ever and yet we have not aligned resources
and capabilities with the mandates that we have given U.N. missions.
Question. Do you believe that the Millennium Development Goals
should be a major focus of the U.N. system?
Answer. The United Nations system seeks to address related goals
including international peace and security, human rights, environmental
protection and development. The Millennium Development goals represent
an important effort by countries around the globe to work together on
development issues. The President-elect has made clear that the United
States will embrace the Millennium Development Goals, which provide a
framework for global action on economic empowerment and advancing human
well-being. They imbed important concepts such as private-public
partnerships in global development strategies. Advancing development
goals is in the U.S. national interest. The President-elect has
articulated goals consistent with the global effort to meet the MDGs
including ending malaria deaths by 2015 and closing the gap in primary
education.
Question. What steps would you take to improve the standing of the
United States in the General Assembly and decrease the frequency with
which the majority of the General Assembly votes against the U.S.
position?
Answer. If confirmed, I intend to reach out to other U.N. member
states to listen, to understand, and to appreciate different
perspectives, even as I defend and promote U.S. interests and values. I
will focus on building pragmatic working relationships across the full
range of U.N. member states. I will also direct the U.S. Mission to
approach diplomacy at the U.N. in a similar fashion so that, at all
levels, the United States pursues its interests at the U.N. in a
sustained and focused manner, working within the U.N. with our
partners, friends, and allies to build a broader and deeper shared
understanding of our common interests.
Security Council Issues
Question. What do you believe are the most pressing matters
currently on the agenda of the Security Council and what will be your
highest priorities in the Council, if confirmed?
Answer. As the worldwide body charged with addressing international
peace and security issues, the Council has no shortage of matters that
are very pressing, from Africa to the Middle East to South Asia. If
confirmed, I will certainly actively attend to those issues, but also
seek Council action in other areas where there are strong benefits to
common approaches, such as non-proliferation and counter-terrorism. In
terms of direct influence on peace and security issues, the Council's
most important role may be in the authorization and monitoring of the
nearly 20 U.N. peace operations around the world. I am concerned about
accountability of the Council in this area, particularly ensuring that
Council mandates in this area are matched by the resources and
political will to realize critical policy objectives. I expect to
devote much of my energy to this issue in the months and years to come.
Question. What issues not currently on the Council's agenda do you
believe merit attention by the Council?
Answer. In recent years, the Council has expanded its focus, for
example, by recognizing the role of HIV/AIDS on security in Africa, and
the impact of repression in Burma on regional peace and security
issues. I welcome this willingness to consider security issues
expansively, and will be prepared to involve the Council in these and
other non-traditional areas if such involvement might provide a means
for progress.
Question. The U.N. Security Council has, over the past several
years, taken a number of steps to improve its work procedures, thereby
enabling non-Council member States access to the Council and its work.
What role has the United States played in promoting a more open,
accessible, and transparent Council? What additional steps should be
taken?
Answer. The United States should play an important role in a number
of initiatives to improve the efficiency and transparency of Security
Council operations. The U.S. has actively participated in the informal
working group which reviews and implements proposals for improving
Security Council working methods. These efforts have included:
Intensified efforts to publicize Security Council decisions and
other relevant Council information (reports are circulated to
all Council members and participants in Council meetings at
least 4 days prior to their consideration);
Enhanced use of informal consultations with interested member
states, where appropriate. For example, the Council President
has facilitated interaction by inviting any participant in
consultations to speak at any time during meeting; and
Reaffirmed commitment to the use of open meetings, particularly
during the early stages of consideration of an issue.
If confirmed, I will pursue active consultation with a broad range
of other member states. Promoting sustained, informal engagement with
non-Council members can be as important as pursuing more formal
proposals to improve this process. I will also work with the U.S.
Mission to consider appropriate additional measures to promote greater
Council efficiency consistent with our broader foreign policy
objectives.
Question. There have been a number of proposals to increase the
size of the U.N. Security Council and to expand the number of permanent
members of the Council.
How do you believe U.S. interests would be affected by the
expansion of the Council's size or by the addition of more permanent
members?
Answer. Long-term legitimacy of the UNC depends on it representing
the full membership of the U.N. We recognize that the Council was
created many years ago at a time when there were very different
international realities and that there is a strongly felt sentiment
among many member states that the Security Council should better
reflect 21st century circumstances. Our administration will make a
serious, deliberate effort, consulting with key allies and capitals, to
find a way forward that enhances the ability of the Security Council to
carry out its mandate and effectively meet the challenges of the new
century. Obviously, this will not happen over night.
Question. What factors do you believe most important in evaluating
any such proposals?
Answer. The administration will support expansion of the Security
Council in ways that would not impede its effectiveness and its
efficiency. We would also consider how to enhance the standing of the
Council in the eyes of those nations that seek a greater voice in
international fora.
Question. The Bush administration supported only Japanese
aspirations to the Council. Will the Obama administration continue this
policy, or will it advocate for the inclusion of other countries; if
so, which? What criteria will the Obama administration use to promote
other nations?
Answer. At this stage, the Obama administration has not made a
determination about any particular configuration of SC reform.
U.N. Sanctions
Some countries have criticized U.N. Security Council's targeted
sanctions regimes for failing to provide sufficient due process rights
for individuals who are targeted for sanctions. In September, the
European Court of Justice in the Kadi case invalidated European
Community regulations implementing UNC sanctions against al-Qaeda and
the Taliban as applied to two individuals on the ground that the
process for adopting the sanctions failed to respect the individuals'
fundamental due process rights.
Question. Do you believe the ability to employ targeted economic
sanctions is important to the Security Council's ability to address
threats to international peace and security? If confirmed, will you
work to preserve the Council's ability to employ such sanctions?
Answer. Yes. I believe that the Council must retain the ability to
use targeted sanctions to address such threats, and I will work to
ensure the Council's ability to do so effectively.
Question. Do you believe the U.N. Security Council's existing
sanctions regimes fail to provide adequate protections for the due
process rights of targeted individuals? Do you believe that the Council
could afford additional due process rights to targeted individuals
without undermining the Council's ability to employ sanctions
effectively?
Answer. I believe that there is no incompatibility between
sanctions regimes and appropriate due process safeguards. There will
inevitably be challenging issues relating to implementation of
international sanctions in a manner that is compatible with regional
and national procedures, but those need not frustrate the intent or
implementation of sanctions.
Question. Do you believe that decisions by individual states not to
implement binding sanctions adopted by the U.N. Security Council would
serve to undermine the effectiveness of such sanctions? If confirmed,
what steps would you take to address this issue within the United
Nations?
Answer. To ensure their effectiveness, binding sanctions must be
implemented by member states, and the Council and the Secretariat
should be prepared to press governments to meet their obligations in
this regard. In addition, Council members and the Secretariat should
also be prepared to provide technical assistance to governments that
are willing to put sanctions measures in place but could benefit from
help in doing so.
ECOSOC
Question. The 54-member United Nations Economic and Social Council
receives scant attention in the media, and some believe it is under-
valued by our government. What have been recent ECOSOC initiatives that
have advanced U.S. foreign policy goals? What are the most contentious
issues confronting the United States in ECOSOC?
Answer. ECOSOC is the principal organ charged with coordination of
the U.N.'s work across the full range of economic, social and related
issues. It works under the ``broad authority'' of the GA but is the
body to which the U.N.'s 14 specialized agencies, functional
commissions, and 5 regional commissions relate; as do also the 11 U.N.
Funds and Programmes. ECOSOC is responsible for formulating policy
recommendations to member states and the U.N. System, but its principal
authority lies in being able to initiate studies and reports, and
prepare major international conferences and their follow-up. One of
ECOSOC's recent reforms supported by the U.S. is the inclusion of an
Annual Ministerial Review and a Development Cooperation Forum to put
more focused attention on the Millennium Development Goals and related
commitments. In the upcoming year, ECOSOC is expected to focus on the
review of the conference on Financing for Development, the impact of
the financial crisis on development, and climate change--all of which
will require strong U.S. engagement to ensure successful outcomes.
U.N Budget
Question. Some have suggested that the United Nations should be
funded solely by voluntary contributions rather than by assessed dues.
They argue that such a mechanism would create the financial pressures
necessary to bring about greater budgetary and personnel reforms. Does
the Obama administration support this approach?
Answer. No. The United States should pay its commitments to the
United Nations on time and in full. While voluntary contributions can
be used to leverage reforms, I do not believe that switching to a
solely voluntary system for funding the United Nations would be an
effective strategy. Such an action would undercut U.S. arguments for
burden-sharing in areas where the U.S. has strong national interests,
such as peacekeeping, and undermine the U.N.'s ability to tackle
pressing global challenges that require support from all 192 member
states, such as climate change, counter-terrorism, and global health.
Question. For several years now, Congress has consistently received
budget requests for U.N. peacekeeping operations in the Contributions
for International Peacekeeping Activities (CIPA) account that were
considerably lower than known requirements. For example, In FY2007, the
administration requested $1.135B and the CIPA requirement for that
fiscal year was approximately $1.534B. In FY2008, the administration
requested $1.107B and the CIPA requirement for that fiscal year was
approximately $2.34B. Missing funding was then requested as part of
``emergency'' supplemental funding, even though most, if not all, of
these needs were known well in advance. Funding via supplemental
appropriations suggests an unwillingness to acknowledge the cost of
U.N. peacekeeping operations even though the Government Accountability
Office has documented that such operations cost our taxpayers roughly
one-eighth of a unilateral operation ($116 million for 14 months of the
U.N. operation in Haiti [MINUSTAH] vice $876 million for the same
operation if the US had gone in alone).
Does the Obama administration intend to submit CIPA requests that
honestly reflect our international commitments to operations approved
by the United States in the Security Council?
Answer. Yes. The United States should pay its dues on time and in
full. The Obama administration intends to submit funding requests to
Congress that represent the most accurate expectation of our financial
commitments to the United Nations. If confirmed, I look forward to
working with Congress and this Committee to help ensure that the U.S.
pays its U.N. dues on time and in full.
Question. One of the biggest complaints about the United States at
the United Nations is our failure to pay our Regular Budget dues on
time. This is a result of a 1980s decision to shift our payments from
the start of the U.N.'s fiscal year, which starts in January, to our
own. As a result, and in part because of Congressional difficulty in
passing budgets in a timely manner, our payments to the United Nations
are often delayed till late December and sometimes not fully funded
till the following fiscal year. As such, any attempts by our diplomats
in New York to push for greater U.N. fiscal discipline are encumbered
as other member states point to our own fiscal difficulties in meeting
our obligations.
Will the Obama administration seek to re-synchronize our payments
over time to end this cycle? Does the Obama administration intend to
request sufficient resources from the Congress to do so?
Answer. Yes. It is the intent of the Obama administration to work
to address this payment issue, within the financial constraints of our
budget. We are actively reviewing this issue now to develop a strategy
to resolve this issue. If confirmed, I look forward to working with
Congress and this Committee this and other matters regarding U.S. dues
to the United Nations.
Question. Are there any specific steps you believe the United
Nations should take to reduce the overall size of the U.N. peacekeeping
budget? If so, what are they?
Answer. Over the last several years, U.N. peacekeeping has seen its
greatest growth both in numbers and scales. A large portion of the
U.N.'s budget is devoted to peacekeeping. It will be important that, as
peacekeeping mandates come up for renewal, we appropriately scrutinize
the objectives, mandate, and deployment of these peacekeeping forces.
Any new peacekeeping mandate must also be evaluated to ensure that the
U.N. has the capacity and resources to fulfill the added
responsibility.
Question. Are there any specific U.N. peacekeeping missions that
you believe should be downsized or terminated to reduce the costs of
U.N. peacekeeping?
Answer. The administration will review each peacekeeping operation
as it comes up for renewal at the Security Council. The administration
does not have a position about reducing supporting or terminating
specific peacekeeping operations at this time.
Question. U.N. General Assembly resolution 58/318 provides that the
United Nations must be fully reimbursed for the costs of any services
facilities, cooperation and any other support rendered by the United
Nations to the International Criminal Court or the Assembly of States
Parties to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. If
confirmed, will you work to ensure that this reimbursement requirement
is fully implemented and that the United Nations provides transparency
to member states about the assistance it provides and the
reimbursements it receives?
Answer. The United Nations and the International Criminal Court are
two separate and independent institutions. As a non-party to the
International Criminal Court, the U.S. should continue to press for
reimbursements for costs associated with the ICC and the Assembly of
States Parties, as well as transparency regarding any U.N. assistance.
At the same time, we should maintain the flexibility so that
requirements for reimbursements do not undercut ICC activities that are
in our national interests, supported by the U.S., and endorsed by the
Security Council, such as the ICC's ongoing investigations regarding
genocide in Darfur.
Question. Some in Congress believe that the only way to enact
needed reforms at the United Nations is to enact legislation that links
U.S. dues to various conditions or benchmarks. Does the Obama
administration support this approach?
Answer. No. The U.S. should not, as a general practice, condition
its dues to the U.N. on specific reforms. The United States should pay
its dues on time and in full. The U.S. is calling on the U.N. every day
to undertake tasks that we want to see performed but do not wish to or
cannot perform ourselves. When the U.S. is a nation that does not pay
its bills, we undermine our credibility to call on other nations to
meet their obligations. We undermine our ability to build support from
other Member states to achieve needed changes at the U.N. We also
deprive the institution of resources it needs to function effectively.
Question. On December 24, 2008, the General Assembly approved an
almost 17 percent increase in the current United Nations budget for the
2008/2009 period to $4.87 billion from $4.17 billion, including nearly
$500 million for the next six months for peacekeeping operations in
Sudan's war-ravaged Darfur region. What is the impact of this action on
our own contributions? Is the increase in funding covered in the
current FY09 budget request; if not where will the money come from?
Answer. Current U.S. legislation caps the U.S. peacekeeping
contribution at 25 percent. Of the $500 million for peacekeeping
operations in Darfur, the U.S. would be accessed $125 million. I
understand that the existing FY 2009 budget request by the Bush
administration falls short for the operations anticipated in 2008. The
Obama administration will examine the FY 2010 budget closely but will
also consider other emergency funding vehicles should UNMID require
urgent assistance.
Human Rights
Question. In 1994, the United States strongly supported
establishment of a U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights. How
effective has the High Commissioner been in ensuring that human rights
considerations are included in U.N. activities? Specifically what has
the Commissioner done to further human rights? Does the Commissioner
have the resources--financing, staffing, political clout -to carry out
her duties?
Answer. Since its creation, the Office of the High Commissioner for
Human Rights (OHCHR) has advocated to provide greater integration of
human rights into U.N. peace, security, and humanitarian activities.
Its effectiveness has varied depending on the particular issue or
country. Important aspects of this work include engagement with the
Secretary-General, his Special Representatives, the U.N.'s Resident and
Humanitarian Coordinators in the field, and the various U.N. human
rights treaty bodies. Furthermore, OHCHR works with governments,
national institutions, and civil society groups to strengthen capacity
at the national level for the protection of human rights in accordance
with international norms. While OHCHR relies heavily on voluntary
funding--of which, the United States is a major donor--world leaders in
2005 agreed to double its regular budget over a five-year period. This
has allowed OHCHR to increase its field presence and improve its
capacity to deploy human rights monitors on short notice. The High
Commissioner's ability to carry out her mandate relies heavily on the
cooperation of member states. To that end, the United States has
repeatedly supported OHCHR's work to identify, highlight, and respond
to today's human rights challenges.
Democracy Fund
Question. In his September 2004 speech at the United Nations
President Bush called for the establishment of a Democracy Fund at the
United Nations. To date, some thirty-five nations have contributed more
than $91 million, including $25 million by the United States. What have
been the Fund's most successful efforts and what have been its greatest
challenges? Does the Obama administration believe the Fund
appropriately and effectively funds relevant projects, and if so, does
it intend to seek further appropriations in FY2010?
Answer. The U.S. has a deep interest in effective efforts to
promote democracy worldwide. The U.N. Democracy Fund (UNDEF) is one of
the principle ways that the U.N. supports democracy internationally.
UNEF has helped highlight the importance of democracy to the mission of
the U.N. If confirmed, I would review the work of UNEF as part of
preparing recommendations for the FY2010 budget request. The Obama
administration will work with international institutions and NGOs to
ensure that not simply money but expertise is available to transitional
societies in the time of their greatest promise, but also often their
greatest vulnerability.
U.N. Peacebuilding Commission
Question. Please provide your assessment of the Peacebuilding
Commission's work to date. How does the Commission's work differ from
UNP's traditional programming? According to U.N. documents, some 40
nations have contributed $250 million to the fund. The United States
has apparently not contributed to the Commission. Will the Obama
administration reverse this trend?
Answer. The United States is a member of the U.N. Peacebuilding
Commission and supports its work-as well as the work of Assistant-
Secretary-General Jane Holl Lute. The U.N. Peacebuilding Commission
(PBC) is an important pillar of U.N. reform that will enhance the
U.N.'s capacity to address post-conflict stability, reconstruction, and
governance challenges. The issue of a U.S. contribution to the
Peacebuilding Fund is part of a larger discussion that will take place
with respect to budget matters and funding priorities. As a general
matter, the U.S. maximizes its influence and leverage when it leads by
example.
Peacekeeping
Question. As the Darfur peacekeeping mission (UNAMID) demonstrates,
there are limits to the number of troops that nations are willing to
send to dangerous and challenging locales. Do you believe that the
member states of the United Nations fully appreciate the finite
capacity of the world's militaries and the current financial
limitations resulting from the global economic downturn? How will these
realities impact your decisions regarding any future peacekeeping
operations? Do you believe that there will now be greater pressure to
close long-running operations in order to fund newer, more pressing
needs?
Answer. The ability of member states to provide sufficient
resources is and will remain a key factor in the effectiveness of U.N.
peacekeeping operations, especially at a time when the world is levying
more requirements and mandates on the U.N. than ever before. This issue
will figure directly in my consultations with other member states, if I
am confirmed, as new mandates and renewal of existing mandates are
considered. The U.S. also needs to sure that all member states,
including the United States, meet their commitments to provide the
needed resources to support U.N. peacekeeping operations.
Question. A recent joint operation of the U.N. peacekeepers in
Haiti (MINUSTAH) and the Haitian National Police broke up a major drug
smuggling operation in the country. This is the first time that
MINUSTAH has carried out a special operation of this magnitude. Does
the Obama administration support a permanent expanded role for MINUSTAH
in Haiti that includes drug interdiction activities?
Answer. Ensuring security from violence, drugs, gang activity, and
organized crime in Latin America and the Caribbean is critical for
long-term peace and stability in the region. Haiti is a fragile country
with a history of political instability. The United Nations
peacekeeping mission is helping to achieve Haiti's security. The
continued presence of the U.N. peacekeeping force (MINUSTAH) is
essential to assure adequate security for reconstruction and
development programs. MINUSTAH can help create conditions that reduce
drug smuggling and gang violence in Haiti. The peacekeeping force
provides police training and assists with maritime and border patrol
activities as well as humanitarian relief and development work. The
Obama administration would want to be sure that MINUSTAH is able to
carry out its range of missions. The U.N. and the international
community can help improve Haiti's economic prospects over the long-
term by providing more technical assistance and job training. And we
must always be clear and consistent in supporting freedom and
democracy. The U.N., U.S., and the entire international community have
a responsibility to continue helping Haiti along a path to a better
future.
Question. Do you believe the consent of the parties is a necessary
precondition to effective peacekeeping? Do you believe there are
situations where U.N. peacekeepers should be authorized to deploy to a
country without the consent of the host government?
Answer. There are many different kinds of peacekeeping operations.
The simplest and preferred circumstance is when the parties consent to
the deployment of the peacekeeping mission. But there are times when
the Security Council must consider authorizing the use of force under
Chapter VII of the U.N. charter when the parties do not consent or
oppose outside intervention, and civilians are at grave risk. One thing
we can no longer tolerate, however, is a circumstance such as in Sudan,
when the government, in an effort to block full deployment of the
African Union-U.N. mission, picks and chooses which troop contributions
it is prepared to accept.
Question. The Bush administration has advocated the establishment
of a U.N. peacekeeping mission in Somalia. Do you support this idea? If
so, what do you believe the appropriate size and mandate for such a
mission would be? Given the inability of the U.N. to staff fully the
troops for the mission in Darfur, what confidence do we have that there
are additional troops available for this mission?
Answer. This issue is very important and complicated, and there are
no good solutions. It is not clear that a U.N. peacekeeping operation
can address the problems in Somalia, and we will need to consider very
carefully the risks and benefits of any potential U.N. mission before
authorizing its deployment.
Question. Some argue that the peacekeeping operation in Morocco
that began in 1991--the United Nations Mission for the Referendum in
Western Sahara (MINURSO)-- has allowed both the POLISARIO and the
government in Rabat to avoid the difficult political choices required
to bring this conflict to a close. Others believe that the costs of the
operation, though minor by comparison to operations in DRC and Sudan,
are disproportionate to the benefits of the mission. Does the Obama
administration support a continuation of MINURSO?
Answer. MINURSO has helped maintain the ceasefire between the
Government of Morocco and the Frente POLISARIO. The Obama
administration will support efforts that could lead to peaceful
resolutions of conflict. The administration will examine U.N.
peacekeeping operations, including MINURSO, closely when considering
mandate renewals.
Reform
Question. On December 31, 2008, the United Nations Procurement Task
Force expired when the General Assembly refused to extend its mandate.
According to press reports in the Washington Post and Wall Street
Journal, Russian diplomats also attempted to ban for three years any
member of the Task Force from further U.N employment, apparently in
retribution for other, un-related, U.N. investigations into corrupt
Russian U.N. officials. There has even been speculation that the
Secretary General is seeking to bring the investigative portion of U.N.
Office for Internal Oversight Services (OIOS) directly under his
office. Would the Obama administration support any attempts to either
reduce the staffing or responsibilities of the OIOS? Would the
administration oppose any attempts to bring any portion of the OIOS
under the direct responsibility of the Secretary General?
Answer. The United States strongly supports the independent
authority of an OIOS that is fully staffed and retains its robust
mandate. A stronger and more effective U.N. requires a greater focus on
accountability and transparency. It is essential that OIOS have the
capacity to undertake professional investigations. We will evaluate any
proposals regarding OIOS based on these principles.
Question. Please provide for the Committee a list of all companies,
and the country where they are headquartered, that the Procurement
Taskforce added to the U.N.'s ``Watch List'' of companies who can no
longer do business with the U.N. What percentage of these companies are
from G-8 nations and what percentage are from G-77 countries? Are all
the other entities within the U.N. system bound by the List? If not,
which are exempt and why? Please list all known cases of other U.N.
entities signing contracts with or using List companies.
Answer. A number of companies have been suspended from working with
the U.N. due to the investigations into contracting irregularities. The
U.N. maintains this list of suspended companies internally and, while
the list is circulated among all U.N. entities, it is not a public
document and is also not shared with member states.
The list of vendors that are barred from conducting business (the
so-called ``watch list'') is maintained by the U.N. Procurement
Division, which shares this list with the principal and subsidiary
bodies of the U.N., including the Funds and Programs (e.g., United
Nations Development Program and United Nations Children's Fund). The
procurement division also oversees the United Nations Global
Marketplace, which is the primary mechanism through which the U.N.,
including the Specialized Agencies, conducts procurement activity.
There is a single roster for approved Global Marketplace suppliers,
from which ``watch list'' companies are precluded.
Question. What conclusions have you drawn from the Oil-for-Food
scandal that allowed corrupt U.N. and Iraqi officials to siphon off
millions of dollars intended for humanitarian aid for the Iraqi people?
What role did the United States play in allowing many of these
contracts to be approved? Do you believe the United Nations fully
appreciates the damage to the institution the scandal caused?
Answer. The Oil-for-Food scandal underscored the need for
institutional reform in the U.N. system to ensure greater transparency
and accountability. In the aftermath of the scandal, the United States
vigorously supported the U.N. Oil-for-Food investigation led by Paul
Volcker and the subsequent criminal prosecution of both individuals and
corporations. These investigations and prosecutions served as a wake up
call across the U.N. system and prompted more robust efforts to address
corruption and mismanagement. In 2007, the United States launched its
United Nations Transparency and Accountability Initiative (UNTAI) in
New York and throughout the larger U.N. system to address widespread
management weaknesses. If I am confirmed, I intend to pursue
improvements to U.N. transparency, oversight, effectiveness, and
efficiency with a clear focus and purpose, and I look forward to
working with this Committee on these important issues.
Question. Sexual exploitation by U.N. peacekeepers and officials
remains a stain on the U.N.'s reputation. What actions have been taken
to combat this? Are they sufficient, and if not, what more can be done
to prosecute the guilty and prevent future cases? How many peacekeepers
and U.N. officials have been punished, from which missions? Which
nations have been particularly helpful in addressing this important
matter?
Answer. These abuses are totally reprehensible and unacceptable.
These scandals strike at the heart of the purpose and value of the
United Nations. I believe the U.N.'s top leaders understand the
magnitude of this threat. They are right to adopt a policy of zero
tolerance. A range of steps have been taken, including disciplinary
measures, a new model Memorandum of Understanding between the U.N. and
troop-contributing countries covering standards, and the waiving of
immunity, but more needs to be done. As a woman and a mother, I take
this issue personally and will follow it closely, if confirmed. Unless
we make every effort to end this problem, the legitimacy and
credibility of the United Nations in the eyes of the very peoples that
the U.N. is supposed to protect will erode dangerously.
I understand that between January 1 and November 30, 2008 there
were 71 allegations of sexual misconduct made against U.N. peacekeeping
personnel. I also understand that the U.N. has limited ability to
follow-up on cases once personnel have been repatriated. The United
States has also followed up in a number of cases with demarches in
capitals and meetings with Embassies in Washington to press for
disciplinary or legal action, and have generally found governments to
be very aware of their responsibilities to discipline personnel found
to have engaged in sexual misconduct. The U.S. will continue to work
with other member states to follow up on actions taken by troop- or
police-contributing governments against personnel dismissed from U.N.
missions for engaging in inappropriate or abusive behavior.
Question. The 2000 U.N. Report of the Panel on United Nations Peace
Operations--the ``Brahimi Report''--remains a guiding principle for
much of U.N. peacekeeping. What reforms that have been enacted as a
result of the report have been particularly useful and which suggested
changes still require further enactment? Are there additional measures
that you believe the U.N. should take to implement recommendations from
the Brahimi report?
Answer. The U.N. Report of the Panel on United Nations Peace
Operations, known as the ``Brahimi Report,'' is a milestone in the
development of U.N. peacekeeping policy. The careful analysis and
thoughtful proposals underscore the important contributions that the
U.N. makes to international peace and security. The report explained
the need for well thought-out strategies and well-planned operations in
U.N. peacekeeping. The report expressed the importance of conflict
prevention and led to creation of the Peacebuilding Commission. The
report noted the complementary role that civilian police and rule of
law elements can play in peacekeeping operations. Among other topics,
the report calls for adapting to the information age. Technological
developments since 2000 may offer more options for innovation.
Question. In June 2005 the U.S. Institute for Peace produced the so
``Gingrich-Mitchell'' report on U.N. reform. Which of the reforms
discussed in the document, and its December 2005 update do you feel
have been fully and successfully implemented and which have not? Are
there any recommendations that you disagree with; if so why?
Answer. The U.S. Institute for Peace's report was central to the
development of bipartisan U.S. thinking about the U.N., particularly by
emphasizing that ``the American people want an effective United Nations
that can fulfill the goals of its Charter in building a safer, freer,
and more prosperous world.'' The report contains many helpful
recommendations, among them calling on the U.N. to affirm the
responsibility to protect. The Responsibility to Protect is a norm that
was supported by the United States, by the 2005 World Summit, and
subsequently by the United Nations Security Council. The President-
elect supports the ``R2P'' doctrine. The report also called for the
replacement of the U.N. Human Rights Commission, but the successor
Human Rights Council has performed far below expectations. The report
also called for a range of U.N. management reforms, such as the Office
of Personnel Ethics, a number of which have been accomplished. The
Obama administration will consider many ways to improve the U.N.
system. Thoughtful reports by informed groups make an important
contribution.
Hiring of Americans in U.N. System
Question. United States nationals have experienced difficulty
securing jobs within the lower and middle ranks of the U.N.
Secretariat. According to the most recent report by the State
Department on the hiring and employment of US citizens in the United
Nations, 328 out of 2742 positions subject to geographic distribution
were filled by Americans--12.0 percent. While this is within the 11.7
percent-15.8 percent range established by the U.N. Secretariat, it is
at the low end of the range. The report concludes, ``. . . the United
States is very close to the bottom of its desired range which is a
concern to us.'' To what do you attribute this low percentage, and what
steps will you take to increase it?
Answer. A strong American presence at the U.N. serves our nation's
best interests--it strengthens relations with the U.N., demonstrates a
deeper U.S. commitment to the U.N., and helps to build understanding of
American perspectives. We should want Americans in U.N. positions at
all levels and across the range of U.N. programs and activities, both
in New York and around the world. The U.S. Mission should play a
critical role, providing strategic support and a sustained focus on
ensuring a maximal American presence. If I am confirmed, this will be a
management priority for me; I intend to evaluate closely the current
situation of Americans employed in the U.N. system; and, I will use the
U.S. Mission to advocate for a strong American presence at the U.N.
Capital Master Plan
Question. What is the status of the renovation to the U.N.'s New
York headquarters? What is the current total anticipated cost, and what
is the U.S. portion of the cost, by percentage and total? Has the U.S.
portion been fully funded or will this be paid over several years? Does
the Obama administration believe this cost is justified? What savings
are possible given the current economic downturn? New York developer
Donald Trump has asserted that he could complete the project for less
than the cost estimated by the U.N.; did Mr. Trump ever follow-up by
bidding on the project?
Answer. I understand that the United States is being assessed 22
percent of the project costs based on our rate of assessment under the
current U.N. scale of assessments--roughly totaling $415 million. As
the U.N.'s largest contributor and host country, the United States has
a direct interest in ensuring that the CMP is implemented in the most
cost effective and transparent manner possible. The Government
Accountability Office (GAO) has completed four reports on the CMP,
reporting that the processes are consistent with industry best
practices, noting that challenges remain. With regard to the impact of
the economic downturn, as the project is being bid on in multiple
parts, we would expect contractor proposals to reflect current economic
conditions. To the best of our knowledge, Mr. Trump has not bid on any
part of the project that has been competed thus far.
UNDP
Question. Much of the last two years was devoted to the UNP's
operation in North Korea which resulted in UNP pulling out of the DPRK
over charges of North Korean abuse of the program. Does the Obama
administration agree with the suspension of the program? Will it seek
to authorize UNP to return to North Korea?
Answer. The concerns surrounding the U.N. Development Programme
operation in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea are serious and
should be sufficiently addressed before contemplating any resumption of
UNP operations in the country. Those concerns include various issues
with respect to the management and operation of the UNP program in DPRK
detailed last year in a Staff Report of the U.S. Senate Permanent
Subcommittee on Investigations. Additionally, and in order to fully
address these concerns, the DPRK would need to agree to UNP measures to
increase the transparency and accountability of UNP programs there. If
confirmed, I would welcome a productive dialogue with all parties
involved, including the Group of 77 and China, which have also
expressed views on this issue.
Iran
Question. What additional steps do you believe the Council should
take to address the threat posed by Iran's nuclear program? If
confirmed, what actions do you intend to take to build greater support
in the Council for effective action on Iran?
Answer. The President-elect has said that the prospect of an Iran
armed with nuclear weapons poses a great threat to our national
security, and to the security and stability of the region and the
world. The President-elect believes that the U.S. should pursue a
strategy that employs all policy tools at our disposal, first and
foremost direct, vigorous, and principled diplomacy integrated with
effective pressure, including sanctions, and close cooperation with our
``P-5 plus 1'' partners, other members of the U.N. Security Council,
the International Atomic Energy Agency and other partners around the
world. It is this kind of comprehensive, integrated strategy that will
improve the prospects of more unified action by the U.N. Security
Council to enforce existing resolutions on Iran and, if appropriate,
pursue additional sanctions.
Darfur
Question. What specific steps do you intend to take to improve the
effectiveness of U.N. efforts to address the situation in Darfur,
including the U.N. -AU Mission in Darfur (UNAMID)?
Answer. President-elect Obama and Vice President-elect Biden have
been very clear and forceful in their condemnation of the genocide in
Sudan and in their commitment to far more robust actions to try and end
it. The pace of UNMID's deployment needs to be accelerated, combined
with sufficient logistical support to protect civilians on the ground.
We need to send a clear message to Khartoum that they must end
obstruction of the U.N. force (UNAMID), including through endless
bureaucratic hurdles and delays. We also need to address some of the
U.N. 's own requirements that have inadvertently slowed UNMID's
deployment thus far. The Obama administration will evaluate what should
be taken to help troops and equipment move into place on an urgent
basis.
Question. Many have been critical of China's role in the Security
Council in opposing stronger and more effective U.N. action on Darfur.
What specific steps do you intend to take to gain greater cooperation
from China in efforts to address Darfur?
Answer. Cooperation in the Security Council must be at the center
of our efforts to build an effective and responsive U.N. With its fast
growing economy, ever-growing global interests, and expanding
population, China should be expected to assume a more constructive role
on the Security Council, on Sudan and Darfur and elsewhere. The
Council's capacity to effectively address key issues derives directly
from the ability of its members to identify shared objectives and build
pragmatic working relationships. This will be particularly true for the
United States and China. Prospects for such collaboration on the
Council improve when there are effective, sustained, direct, and
serious consultations and negotiations among the Council Members. There
are, and will continue to be, times when, despite best efforts,
effective Council action is not possible.
Question. The Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court has
asked the court to issue an arrest warrant for Sudanese President
Bashir on charges of genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity.
The court is currently reviewing the request.
What affect do you believe the issuance an ICC arrest warrant for
President Bashir would have on UNMID's ability to operate in Darfur?
Answer. It should have no affect on UNMID's ability to operate, and
the United States and other members of the United Nations Security
Council must continue to make this perfectly clear. There will be no
tolerance for reprisals directed at U.N. staff, or for obstruction of
the U.N. peacekeeping missions operating in Sudan. Regardless of the
decision on the Bashir arrest warrant, Khartoum needs to hand over
those already indicted by the ICC--militia leader Ali Kushayb and
Minister Ahmad Harun immediately, stop the genocide in Darfur,
facilitate rather an hinder humanitarian operations, and allow the AU-
UN peace keeping force to deploy without obstruction.
Question. What affect do you believe the issuance an ICC arrest
warrant for President Bashir would have on efforts to resolve the
crisis in Darfur more generally?
Answer. Injecting some accountability for grave crimes into the
context of Darfur should help to alter the calculus of various actors
in Darfur and discourage ongoing abuses. There is evidence to suggest
that the ICC arrest warrant is providing new leverage to the
international community's efforts to resolve the crisis. Peace and
justice are not mutually exclusive.
Question. Some have urged the U.N. Security Council to pass a
resolution directing the ICC not to proceed further with investigation
or prosecution of President Bashir. Would you support such a
resolution?
Answer. No, not at this time.
Zimbabwe
Question. What steps do you believe the United Nations should be
taking to address the situation in Zimbabwe? To what extent do you
believe the Council should defer to existing African Union efforts to
address Zimbabwe?
Answer. Zimbabwe continues to be gripped by a man-made catastrophe
that has all but destroyed the country economically and politically.
President Mugabe lost the election last March and has no legitimate
claim to power. But he continues to rule the country through violence,
intimidation, and corruption. The spill-over effects of Zimbabwe's
crisis have long been apparent in the vast numbers of desperate
citizens pouring across Zimbabwe's borders, and the potential of this
implosion to affect the region has been made plain most recently and
tragically by a cholera outbreak.
We must continue to speak the truth about Zimbabwe, and to support
those in the region and elsewhere who do the same. The inaction at U.N.
on the matter of Zimbabwe illustrates the reality that the U.N. is only
as strong and capable as its member states. More needs to be done.
Widened U.S. sanctions are appropriate. It was the right policy to have
supported a U.N. Security Council resolution calling for targeted
sanctions and an arms embargo. The United States should continue to
work diplomatically at the U.N., the AU, and SADC not only to encourage
more multilateral pressure on the Mugabe regime, including an arms
embargo and greater participation in a regime of targeted sanctions,
but also to ensure that humanitarian assistance is available to
suffering Zimbabweans and to plan for a well-coordinated recovery
effort once sound governance is in place in Harare.
Burma
Question. The deteriorating situation within Burma and the
potential consequences for regional stability have remained on the
agenda of the United Nations in recent years largely because of U.S.
leadership. What is your strategy to ensure continued United Nations'
focus on matters related to Burma including its growing relationship
with North Korea?
Answer. Burma, and its reclusive and repressive regime, may
represent one of the most intractable challenges for the global
community. This is as much, if not more, a challenge for key regional
players--Russia, China, India and the ASEAN countries--several of whom
sit on the U.N. Security Council and have limited the U.N.'s ability to
do more. I believe that there is scope for greater regional and
international action to pressure Burma's dictators, including by ASEAN
countries. Multilateral sanctions should be pursued, despite the
opposition that such measures have faced in the past. This will require
creative strategies that push the key regional states to support
tougher action. I also want to recognize the important work of Members
of Congress in highlighting abuses and keeping faith with the
democratic opposition in Burma. If I am confirmed, I look forward to
working with the Committee and other interested Members to develop
initiatives and strategies.
UN Human Rights Council
Question. Critics contend that the new U.N. Human Rights Council is
a marginal improvement at best over the discredited U.N. Human Rights
Commission it replaced. The Bush administration decided not to seek
membership to the Council and in June of 2008 all but completely
withdrew the United States from observer status, declaring that we
would only engage with the Council when it involves ``matters of deep
national interest.'' What is the position of the Obama administration
regarding the U.N. Human Rights Council?
Answer. We have a deep interest in ensuring strong global
mechanisms to uphold the respect for human rights. The President-elect
is committed to enforcing respect for human rights. There is no
question that the U.N. Human Rights Council (HRC) has been seriously
flawed and a major disappointment. Rather than focus on its efforts and
energies on most egregious instances of human rights abuses around the
world, in places like Burma, Zimbabwe, Sudan and elsewhere, the HRC has
devoted an inordinate amount of attention, and a very counterproductive
focus, on Israel, one of our closest allies.
Question. Will the Obama administration seek to become a member of
the Council at the next opportunity?
Answer. The Obama administration intends to work to strengthen the
United Nations human rights mechanisms so that they focus on the
world's most egregious human rights abusers. If confirmed, I look
forward to working with the President-elect--and consulting with this
Committee--as we review whether and when to run for election to a seat
on the Council. Whether or not we seek election, our basic orientation
will be that our ability to effect change is far greater if we are
engaged diplomatically with friends and partners around the world to
build a broad-based understanding of the need to use these mechanisms
for the purpose they were designed, and not allow them to be hijacked
for other purposes.
Question. Does the administration believe the Council spends a
disproportionate amount of attention criticizing Israel while ignoring
more pressing human rights crises? If this is the case, how will you
seek to change this situation?
Answer. Yes. Rather than focus on its efforts and energies on most
egregious instances of human rights abuses around the world, in places
like Burma, Zimbabwe, Sudan and elsewhere, the Human Rights Council has
devoted an inordinate amount of attention, and a very counter
productive focus, on Israel, one of our closest allies. Our basic
orientation will be that our ability to effect change is far greater if
the U.S. is engaged diplomatically with friends and partners around the
world to build a broad based understanding of the need to use these
mechanisms for the purpose they were designed, and not allow them to be
hijacked for other purposes.
Question. Many critics of the U.N. Human Rights Council point to
our ability to work more effectively on human rights issues in the U.N.
General Assembly's so-called Third Committee. Do you believe this to be
the case and if so, how will you seek to push for greater exposure of
human rights abuses in the Third Committee?
Answer. The United States has strong interest in making more
effective use of the General Assembly's Third Committee in the
consideration of issues relating to human rights, especially given the
relationship between the Committee and the GA, and the attention
accorded to actions by that body. At the same time, we also have a
strong interest in working to enhance the credibility and effectiveness
of all human rights institutions associated with the United Nations,
including the Human Rights Council.
UNAIDS
Question. Zimbabwe is one of the 189 signatories to the United
Nations General Assembly Session (UNGASS), Declaration of Commitment
(DOC) to fighting of HIV and AIDS through a comprehensive multi-
sectoral approach. Are they living up to their commitments under UNASS?
Due to the present political situation, how much assistance overseen by
UNIDS is getting to the people that need it?
Answer. The humanitarian situation in Zimbabwe is dire for all
citizens, especially those living with HIV/AIDS. UNIDS' latest UNASS
report paints a grim picture. Where there is sufficient data to
evaluate progress, Zimbabwe falls far behind global averages,
especially in antiretroviral treatment, prevention of mother to child
transmission, and testing for HIV/AIDS. Given Zimbabwe is largely
dependent on foreign assistance and faces severe human resource and
supply challenges, according to UNIDS, it is unlikely that the trend of
poor progress on their UNASS commitments will be reversed in the short
term. It is clear that assistance from UNIDS is reaching some of those
infected with HIV/AIDS in Zimbabwe, but not the vast majority. Donor
assistance has increased over the past two years, yet positive progress
has been negligible.
Question. The Tom Lantos and Henry J. Hyde United States Global
Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria Reauthorization
Act of 2008 specifies that 10 percent of the funding is dedicated to
programs to assist those who are orphaned or have made vulnerable by
HIV/AIDS. Is UNIDS doing enough to help those who are in this category?
Answer. The needs of the tens of millions of children orphaned or
made vulnerable by HIV/AIDS are great, and this is a problem of
enormous gravity--and personal importance--that I have seen firsthand
during my travels in Africa. Fortunately, this issue has gained
increased attention over the years in multilateral fora such as the
United Nations General Assembly as well as through the actions of
individual countries, including the United States. The simple answer is
that this is a problem of large scale that cannot be addressed by a
single government or institution. If confirmed, I would support
additional U.S. action in this regard and engage with UNIDS, UNCEF, and
other agencies, groups and governments to support and strengthen
ongoing efforts to assist children affected by HIV/AIDS.
Middle East
Question. In recent years, the United States has exercised its veto
in the Security Council on a number of occasions on resolutions dealing
with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. What role do you believe the
Security Council should play with respect to the Israeli-Palestinian
conflict? Do you see any potential for tension between Security Council
involvement in this issue and effective efforts by the United States
and its Quartet partners to promote successful direct negotiations
between the Israeli and Palestinian sides?
Answer. Our goal should be to ensure that the Security Council
plays a constructive role in every international issue in which it
involves itself. When it is not poised to do so, the United States
should not hesitate to ensure that the Security Council does not act,
as we have to ensure that it does not pass resolutions that unfairly
target the State of Israel. The United States should encourage the
Security Council to adopt positions that are in harmony with the
Quartet's efforts to promote Israeli-Palestinian peace efforts, and
support them when it does.
Question. Some have suggested that the U.N. Relief and Work Agency
for Palestinian Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) be disbanded for
activities inconsistent with its mandate; do you support this view? If
not, what is the Obama administration's position on the strengths and
weaknesses of UNWA?
Answer. UNRWA was founded by the United Nations in 1949 to provide
direct relief and works to Palestinian refugees. Concerns have been
raised because it does operate in regions where foreign terrorist
organizations are present. U.S. law under the Foreign Assistance Act
establishes conditions in order for UNRA to receive U.S. funding. For
years, the State Department has conducted extensive monitoring of
UNRA's activities, including by receiving semiannual reports from UNRA
regarding its compliance with our laws and name checks against an
international database of known names of terrorists. I expect that
these monitoring efforts will continue.
Question. Based on the latest funding chart available on the UNWA
website, the United States is the single largest donor with over 31.0
percent of the total funding for the years 2000-2007. The first country
from the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) listed is Saudi
Arabia at number 10 on the donor list, having given only 2.8 percent of
the funding to UNRA over the same year. Why do you believe the OIC has
given so little to a cause for which it professes to have such deep
passion? What will you do in your capacity as Permanent Representative
to the U.N. to raise the level of OIC contributions to UNRA?
Answer. The United States is the largest bilateral donor to the
United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the
Near East (UNRWA). The United States strongly supports the mission of
UNWA, which provides education, health, relief, and social services to
over 4.6 million Palestinian refugees in Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, West
Bank, and Gaza. I share your concern about insufficient support for
UNWA by many in the international community, including among the OIC
states. The United States will continue to engage diplomatically the
increase the donor base of UNWA, and we will continue to use every
available opportunity to solicit greater financial contributions from
other member-states. The United States will also work closely with the
Commissioner-General and others within the organization to ensure that
UNWA has a sound strategy to meet its urgent funding needs.
Question. As the largest single donor to UNWA, are you comfortable
with UNWA's compliance with Section 301(c) requirements and UNWA's
overall accountability?
Answer. For years, the State Department has conducted extensive
monitoring of UNRA's activities, including by receiving semiannual
reports from UNRA regarding its compliance with our laws and name
checks against an international database of known names of terrorists.
I expect that these monitoring efforts will continue.
The United Nations Relief and Works Agency for the Palestinian
Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) has implemented several measures to
ensure the neutrality of its staff and comply with Section 301(c) of
the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961. UNWA has long-standing staff
regulations that outline the neutrality, integrity, and impartiality
required of both international and locally hired U.N. staff. With USG
encouragement and funding, UNWA developed a monitoring regime using
Operations Support Officers (OSOs) in West Bank and Gaza. These
international staff help ensure that UNWA's facilities are not being
misused for political purposes or militant activity. The constant
vigilance of the OSOs helps ensure the neutrality and integrity of
these installations. Under procedures in place since 2002, the
Commissioner General sends semi-annual reports as standing practice to
the Department of State containing all relevant information regarding
UNWA's compliance with the Section 301(c) condition for funding,
including documenting any abuses, or attempted abuses, of UNWA
facilities.
UNRWA also vets its current and prospective partner organizations
against the U.N. 1267 Sanctions Committee list of terrorist
organizations. On a semi-annual basis, UNWA also checks the names of
all persons and entities to whom or to which the Agency made payments
against the U.N. sanctions list. From January 1-June 30, 2008, the most
recent period, no matches were found. In late 2008, UNWA for the first
time checked the names of all their beneficiaries against the U.N.
sanctions list and found no matches.
Finally, I understand that as a member of UNWA's Advisory
Commission, the United States receives regular updates on UNWA's
financial situation, as well as progress made against UNWA's extensive
management reform initiative. UNWA's strong accountability and
transparency is reflected in its active and open engagement with
members of the Advisory Commission, including the United States.
Question. What is the status of the U.N. sponsored investigation
into the 2004 murder of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri? Is
it proceeding unfettered in your opinion? Is it receiving appropriate
funding and support from the US and member states?
Answer. I am encouraged to see that the Tribunal will officially
begin operations on March 1, but as the head prosecutor recently
stated, it is unclear when the Tribunal will bring indictments. The
Security Council established various safeguards to ensure an objective
and expeditious judicial process. First, it includes provisions on
enhanced powers, so the Tribunal may take independent measures prevent
unreasonable delays. Second, it mandated a transparent appointment
process of international officials, including the judges and
prosecutor. Third, it includes provisions on the rights of victims to
present their views. The Security Council explicitly requested that the
Tribunal be based on ``the highest international standards of criminal
justice,'' and I will work with our international allies to ensure this
pledge is fulfilled. The Tribunal has sufficient funding, approximately
$51 million, for its first year of operation, and additional funds will
need to be raised for years two and three.
Question. The November18, 2008, report to the Secretary General on
the implementation on UNCR 1701 regarding the conflict between Israel
and Hezbollah stated ``.further progress in the implementation of the
resolution is increasingly overdue. The parties must make greater
efforts to resolve the pending issues described in the present report
that hinder a permanent ceasefire between Lebanon and Israel. Achieving
this will require the determination and political will of all parties
to the conflict, as well as continued strong international support.''
Will implementation of UNCR 1701 (and 1759) be a priority for the
Obama administration? What can the United States do to promote more
effective implementation of these resolutions? Are these the most
effective tools for pushing for Hezbollah to disarm while maintaining
stability in Lebanon?
Answer. Syria and Iran are in flagrant violation of Resolution
1701, as they continue to supply advanced weaponry to Hezbollah in
Lebanon, which undermines Lebanese sovereignty and threatens to drag
the region into another round of violence. President-elect Obama is
committed to implementing U.N. Security Council Resolutions that
reinforce Lebanon's sovereignty. We need to work with our partners on
the Security Council to consider additional measures to toughen
penalties for violators, and strengthen enforcement tools.
Additionally, the United States and others should work to strengthen
the institutions of the Lebanese government to help it exercise its
sovereignty throughout the country.
Question. Do you believe the U.N. can be helpful in resolving the
Shebaa Farms dispute between Lebanon and Israel? If so, how? Is the
U.N. viewed as an impartial player in this?
Answer. Various proposals have emerged for the United Nations to
play a role in resolving the Shebaa Farms issue by, for example, taking
control of the territory as a trusteeship until Lebanon and Israel
reach a permanent peace agreement. The input of the parties is
necessary to be able to evaluate these types of proposals. The U.N.'s
historical role in Lebanon creates both opportunities and potential
concerns about its involvement in the Shebaa Farms matter, so
discussions with the parties are essential.
Iraq
Question. Following the Oil-for-Food scandal, and the tragic
bombing of the U.N. headquarters at the Canal Hotel in August 2003, the
U.N. Assistance Mission to Iraq (UNAMI) has had few major successes.
Many Iraqis, particularly the Kurds, feel that in addition to being
complicit in undermining sanctions, U.N. agencies took credit for work
that was never done and were selective in their criticism of human
rights abuses under Saddam. Foreign Minister Zebari, in a speech at the
U.N. in December 2003, stated, ``The United Nations as an organization
failed to help rescue the Iraqi people from a murderous tyranny that
lasted over 35 years and today we are unearthing thousands of victims
in horrifying testament to that failure. The United Nations must not
fail the Iraqi people again.'' What is your assessment of UNMI's work
in Iraq? What can the U.S. do to help the U.N. and its agencies regain
its credibility in Iraq?
Answer. It is first worth recalling the extent of the U.N.'s
efforts and sacrifice in Iraq during the post-war period. The U.N. sent
its finest to Baghdad, and it was the U.N. Mission in Baghdad that
suffered one of the first major attacks, tragically killing the U.N.'s
envoy and noted diplomat Sergio Vieira de Mello and many other U.N.
officials. DeMello, Lakhdar Brahimi, and others from the U.N. played
important roles in promoting the political process in those critical
early years, and the United Nations will continue to play a
significant, important role to help Iraq become more secure and stable.
The U.N. has already demonstrated its useful role in key areas,
including preparations for multiple and critical elections scheduled in
2009; efforts to help resolve the status of disputed territories
(especially Kirkuk); and humanitarian assistance to internally
displaced persons and others. The U.S. and its partners need to work
constructively with the U.N., which will be a key component of the
international community's contribution to Iraqi stability. A
strengthened U.N. role in Iraq will promote governance, support
elections, strengthen political institutions, improve coordination of
development, and enhance regional security.
Question. Has the U.N. mission in Iraq (UNAMI) made its final
recommendation on how it will implement article 140 of the Iraqi
constitution regarding the status of the disputed territories? If not,
when can we expect it, or is something delaying the announcement?
Answer. UNAMI has yet to make its final recommendation on article
140 of the Iraqi constitution. It is expected to release its second and
final set of proposals--including on Kirkuk and disputed districts in
Al-Anbar and Al-Karbala--shortly after the January 31 provincial
elections.
Question. I understand that the U.N. Security Council may consider
as soon as today a proposal to use the U.N. assessed peacekeeping
budget to fund material support for the African Union Mission in
Somalia (AMISOM). The Department of State notified the Committee of
this proposal only late yesterday. I am concerned that using the U.N.
budget to pay the expenses of non-UN peacekeeping operations will set a
dangerous precedent that may lead regional organizations to look to the
U.N. to fund their operations on a routine basis. It would also place
further strain on the already stretched resources available for U.N.
peacekeeping. In addition, I am concerned that there are not adequate
mechanisms in place to prevent waste, fraud, and abuse of resources
transferred from the U.N. to the AU. Do you share these concerns? Do
you agree that there are better alternative means for the international
community to support the efforts of regional organization peacekeeping
operations, including through the use of foreign assistance funds? If
confirmed, will you work to ensure that the U.N. peacekeeping budget is
not used to pay the expenses of non-UN operations?
Answer. On January 16, the Security Council unanimously approved
the resolution that enabled the U.N. to use pre-commitment authority to
provide equipment and services to support AMISOM. Given the uncertainty
about a follow-on U.N. peacekeeping operation, this is an unusual use
of precommitment authority. At the same time, it is important to U.S.
national security interests that AMISOM be reinforced with equipment
and services. I understand there will be no cash transfers. More
generally, it is also clear that the international community must
develop means to more reliably support critical regional peace
operations that take place outside U.N. auspices while ensuring
accountability.
Question. The United Nations Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA) headed
by SRSG Kai Eide received a renewed annual mandate from the U.N.
Security Council on March 20, 2008, that further defined the lead role
for UNMA in international civilian efforts. Shortly before the mandate
was approved by the UNC, the U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. suggested some
priorities for the new SRSG and UNMA including:
i. the essential bolstering of the international commitment to
Afghanistan;
ii. the coordination and integration of international efforts;
iii. providing highly motivated and capable people with the right
skills in Afghanistan, as well as sufficiently robust
funding and security assets for them.
To what extent has UNMA and the new SRSG achieved improved
effectiveness in their mandate since March 2008?
Will the Obama administration seek to bolster the UNMA role? Ifso
what primary purpose do you see for UNMA going forward inthe
near to mid-term?
Should UNMA concentrate its efforts on one or two
significantprograms, such as the elections expected this year
and next?
Answer. My understanding is that the Special Representative of the
Secretary-General, Kai Eide of Norway, is working to implement the
Council's mandate for a re-energized U.N. approach to Afghanistan. To
that end, efforts are underway to augment UNMA staffing to enhance
efforts on elections, institution-building, humanitarian assistance,
and development.
Furthermore, the General Assembly, with strong leadership and
support from the United States, recently approved an increase in UNMA's
budget and staffing.
The President-elect considers Afghanistan to be one of the highest-
priority foreign policy challenges for the United States. I expect that
the new administration will review the work of UNMA in the context of
the broader U.S. strategy for Afghanistan, and look for ways to support
a U.N. role that adds value to our objectives. Of particular
significance is UNMA's support and assistance to the preparations for
elections that are currently scheduled for later this year and 2010.
Another major priority is better integration and coordination of the
work of the various U.N. development agencies in the field. Any
enhanced U.N. role should be expanded in consultation with Afghan
counterparts and key international stakeholders.
__________
Responses to Questions Submitted to Susan E. Rice
by Senator Robert P. Casey, Jr.
UN Response to Iraqi Refugee Crisis
Question. Credible reports indicate that up to two million Iraqis
have fled to neighboring countries. The Iraqi refugee crisis is
contributing to the largest population movement in the Middle East
since Israel was created. My home state of Pennsylvania has directly
been impacted by the Iraqi refugee crisis as it has been a leader in
resettling Iraqi refugees here in America. Since the mid-1970s, more
than 100,000 refugees have made Pennsylvania their home and I am proud
of this tradition.
However, as the United States looks to redeploy troops in Iraq, we
must remember our moral responsibility to those innocent Iraqis who
have been driven from their homes and to those who risked their lives
to serve the United States.
I witnessed firsthand the challenges facing Iraqi refugees last
August when I spent time in Jordan. They have become increasingly
desperate and have no where to turn. In the last Congress, I introduced
the Support for Vulnerable and Displaced Iraqis Act of 2008 to require
the State Department to formulate a comprehensive strategy to respond
to the mass displacement of Iraqi citizens.
Can you please outline what efforts the Obama administration is
likely to take to assist the U.N. High Commissioner on Refugees, the
lead agency responding to the Iraqi refugee crisis?
Answer. The President-elect believes that the United States has a
moral obligation and a responsibility for security that demands that we
address Iraq's humanitarian challenge. The magnitude of this challenge
requires a comprehensive approach developed working with the Iraqi
government, the regional states, the United Nations and other
institutions to address the full range of needs--humanitarian
assistance directly to the refugees and displaced persons, assistance
to host countries, assistance to facilitate repatriation, assistance to
help integration, and expanded resettlement. This will require
substantial resources. As you have noted, the U.N. High Commissioner on
Refugees (UNHCR) is playing, and will continue to play, a leading role.
The President-elect has committed the U.S. to expand its support to
Iraqi refugees and displaced persons.
Sexual Abuse by U.N. Peacekeepers
Question. In May 2008, sexual abuse allegations by U.N.
peacekeepers in the Democratic Republic of the Congo were reported.
Before this Committee last year, the Acting Assistant Secretary for
International Organizations Affairs testified that allegations of
sexual exploitation and abuse of women and children in conflict zones
severely hampered the effectiveness of U.N. peacekeepers.
The United Nations has recently instituted preventative and
disciplinary action to carry out its policy of zero tolerance. Ensuring
that those who have taken an oath to protect do not become the
predators, what other actions do you feel are necessary to halt these
kinds of abuses?
Answer. The incidents of sexual exploitation are totally
reprehensible and unacceptable. This issue calls for the utmost
attention and effort from the U.N. leadership and the member states, as
these scandals strike at the heart of the purpose and value of the
United Nations. I believe the U.N.'s top leaders understand the
magnitude of this threat. They are right to adopt a policy of zero
tolerance. A range of steps have been taken, including disciplinary
measures, a new model Memorandum of Understanding between the U.N. and
troop-contributing countries covering standards, and the waiving of
immunity, but more needs to be done. The U.S. will continue to work
with other member states to follow up on actions taken by troop- or
police-contributing governments against personnel dismissed from U.N.
missions for engaging in inappropriate or abusive behavior. As a woman
and a mother, I take this issue personally and will follow it closely,
if confirmed. Unless we make every effort to end this problem, the
legitimacy and credibility of the United Nations in the eyes of the
very peoples that the U.N. is supposed to protect will erode
dangerously. I will press this issue not just within the U.N. system
but also with member states in order to expand the consensus, examine
potential additional steps, and focus on ensuring full implementation
of the steps taken to date.
Question. How do resource constraints affect the ability of the
U.N. to battle sexual abuse as well as other misconduct such as
mismanagement and corruption within its ranks?
Answer. As I noted during the confirmation hearing, the United
Nations is being asked to do more than ever before and yet resources
and capacities have not been aligned with the mandates that member
states are giving the U.N. This is manifest in U.N. management and
oversight as well as program capacities, particularly in the realm of
peacekeeping. With some 90,000 peacekeepers in 16 U.N. missions--more
than ever before, the U.N. needs greater capacity for training,
monitoring and oversight. The United States has supported the recent
efforts to restructure the Department of Peacekeeping Operations and to
establish a Peacebuilding Commission to deal with the challenges of
post-conflict stabilization and reconstruction. These efforts are a
start, not an end in themselves and effective implementation will
require additional resources. As I noted during the confirmation
hearing, the President-elect, the Secretary-designate and I believe
that the United States should pay its U.N. dues, including our
peacekeeping assessment, on time and in full.
__________
Responses to Questions Submitted to Susan E. Rice
by Senator David Vitter
Question. What are your views regarding the status within the
international system of the independent, sovereign state in general,
and the importance of preserving and protecting American sovereignty in
particular? Do you ascribe to traditional views of national sovereignty
or to the theory of ``global governance?''
Answer. As I stated at the confirmation hearing, if I am confirmed,
I will always advocate and defend the United States' national interest
at the United Nations. No U.S. administration will ever or could ever
cede sovereignty to an international body or to any other institution.
President-election Obama, Vice President-elect Biden, Secretary-
designate Clinton and I believe that U.S. interests are, to a great
extent, served by the United Nations when the U.N. is operating
effectively. Too often, we are faced with difficult options when
addressing international challenges: doing nothing in the face of
violence or conflict or atrocities, and allowing threats and risks to
fester. Second, the United States can act unilaterally, often at great
cost in lives and treasure. Or, third, the United States can join
together with allies and partners and other nations, and share the
burden of addressing collective challenges. Given that the costs of
inaction or unilateral action are very often so high, the Obama
administration believes that it is in the U.S. national security
interest to invest in strengthening the United Nations to make it a
more effective tool to share the burdens and costs of meeting global
challenges.
Question. An issue you will have to focus on quickly is the World
Conference Against Racism, commonly known as Durban II and scheduled
for this April. The preparations for the conference are well underway.
Unfortunately, it appears likely to reinforce the intolerance and anti-
Semitism of the previous Durban meeting. Several countries have already
indicated they will not attend and the stated U.S. position is that
unless major progress is made in ameliorating these problems, we will
not attend either.
Should the U.S. attend the Durban II conference?
What is the policy of the incoming administration on attending the
conference? What changes do you think are necessary to make it possible
for the U.S. to attend?
Answer. Racism is and remains a serious global challenge that
merits our sustained effort, attention, and involvement. It is
appropriate to convene an international conference on this subject. As
you have stated, the problem is that in the past, and potentially now
as we head towards the conference in April, rather than focus on
racism, some member states and some nongovernmental organizations have
instead sought to equate Israel's actions with racism and promote an
atmosphere of hate and anti-Semitism. This is highly offensive and a
distortion of the meaning of the term racism. It merits our strongest
objections.
The question is how to proceed. The President-elect believes that
we should make early efforts to determine whether early U.S. engagement
could enable the upcoming conference and its draft document to be
improved, refocused on racism, and stripped of the offensive language
that we find abhorrent. If this is not possible, then we--as well as
other member states that respect basic principles of justice and
equity--should not participate in April.
Question. In its first few months, the Obama administration will
decide whether to change existing U.S. policy to attend the Durban
Review Conference (Durban II) and fully participate in the United
Nations Human Rights Council by seeking a seat in the upcoming May
election. Would you recommend that the President continue current
policy or reverse it?
Answer. Regarding the Human Rights Council, the United States has a
deep interest in ensuring strong global mechanisms to uphold the
respect for human rights. The President-elect is committed to enforcing
respect for human rights. As I stated during the confirmation hearing,
there is no question that the U.N. Human Rights Council (HRC) has been
seriously flawed and a major disappointment. Rather than focus on its
efforts and energies on most egregious instances of human rights abuses
around the world, in places like Burma, Zimbabwe, Sudan and elsewhere,
the HRC has devoted an inordinate amount of attention, and a very
counterproductive focus, on Israel, one of our closest allies.
The Obama administration intends to work to strengthen the United
Nations human rights mechanisms so that they focus on the world's most
egregious human rights abusers. If confirmed, I look forward to working
with the President-elect--and consulting with this Committee--as we
review whether and when to run for election to a seat on the Council.
Whether or not we seek election, our basic orientation will be that our
ability to effect change is far greater if we are engaged
diplomatically with friends and partners around the world to build a
broad-based understanding of the need to use these mechanisms for the
purpose they were designed, and not allow them to be hijacked for other
purposes.
Regarding the upcoming Durban II conference, see answer to the
previous question.
Question. The U.N. is charged with many serious responsibilities
and tasks. Yet, as evidenced by the well-publicized scandals involving
the Iraq Oil-for-Food program and recent revelations of corruption in
U.N. procurement, the U.N. all too often has proven vulnerable to
corruption and fraud, unaccountable in its activities, lacking in
transparency and oversight, and duplicative and inefficient in its
allocation of resources. What specifically would you do to address
these problems?
Question. As I noted in the confirmation hearing, I agree that no
one can be fully satisfied with the performance of the United Nations,
and too often we are dismayed. The United States must press for high
standards and bring to its dealings with the U.N. high expectations of
its performance and accountability. The Oil-for-Food scandal
underscored the need for institutional reform in the U.N. system to
ensure greater transparency and accountability. The subsequent
investigations and prosecutions served as a wake up call across the
U.N. system and prompted more robust efforts to address corruption and
mismanagement.
If I am confirmed, I will be committed to working to ensure that
the U.N. is maximally effective and efficient. The United Nations has
made some notable progress on reform, dating back to 1994 with the
establishment of the Office of Internal Oversight Services to
strengthen its capacity to ensure that money being spent is being well
accounted for. To date, OIOS recommendations have saved the U.N. and
the taxpayer an estimated $200 million. The U.N. has developed an
internal audit and an inspector general capability, strengthened
whistleblower protections, and enhanced financial disclosure
requirements for U.N. staff. More recently we have seen efforts to
reorient and restructure the Department of Peacekeeping Operations and
to establish a Peacebuilding Commission to deal with the challenges of
post-conflict stabilization and reconstruction. The procurement task
force has substantially improved the U.N.'s procurement operations and
has uncovered over $650 million in faulty contracts. So there have been
important steps taken. But more must be done.
My top priorities for U.N. reform would be financial
accountability, management efficiency, transparency, ethics and
internal oversight, and program effectiveness in areas such as
peacekeeping, conflict prevention, and mediation. A key challenge now
is ensuring effective implementation of ongoing initiatives and
preventing them from being watered down or weakened, even as we
consider what further steps should be taken to improve U.N.
effectiveness and ability to address the challenges of the 21st
century. I believe firmly that it is not enough to ensure that U.S.
taxpayer dollars are not being wasted. We must insist that U.S.
taxpayer dollars are being spent effectively and accomplishing their
intended goals.
Question. Information provided by UNP whistleblowers to the U.S.
Mission to the United Nations in 2006 led the U.S. to investigate the
practices and activities of UNP in North Korea. U.N. and independent
audits concluded that these activities directly violated U.N. and UNP
standard operating procedures and basic ``best practices.'' \1\ Current
law requires the U.S. to withhold 20 percent of U.S. contributions to
the UNP unless the Secretary of State certifies that UNP has given the
U.S. adequate access to information on its programs and activities, is
conducting appropriate oversight of UNP programs and activities
globally, and is implementing a whistleblower protection policy
equivalent to that of the U.N. Ethics Office. Would you agree that such
a certification is not merited at this time?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Brett D. Schaefer and Steven Groves, ``Congress Should Withhold
Funds from the U.N. Development Program,'' WebMemo #1783, January 26,
2008, at http://www.heritage.org/Research/; and George Russell,
``Report Shows U.N. Development Program Violated U.N. Law, Routinely
Passed on Millions to North Korean Regime,'' Fox News, Jun 11, 2008, at
http://coburn.senate.gov/ffm/index.cfm.
Answer. I take very seriously my responsibility to the U.S.
taxpayer to ensure that our U.N. contributions are well-spent and well-
managed. I also take very seriously compliance with U.S. law. It is
clearly in our interest for the UNP to be as efficient and transparent
as possible and to not facilitate any illicit activity in the countries
in which it has programs. And, to take this one step further, it is
vital that Member States-including the United States Government-have
access to all information necessary to have confidence in UNP programs.
I understand that in October 2008, the State Department did report to
Congress that the UNP had met the three criteria set out in the
transparency and accountability provision of section 668(b) (1)(2)(3)
of the Department of State, Foreign Operations and Related Programs
Appropriations Act, 2008 (Div. J, P.L. 110-161). If I am confirmed, I
will closely evaluate the certification requirement pertaining to the
UNP and work very closely with the Secretary-designate to examine how
best to ensure that U.S. funds, whether they are provided to the UNP or
any other multilateral institution, are spent consistent with U.S.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
national interests and U.S. law.
Question. U.N. peacekeeping is now being conducted with
unprecedented pace, scope, and ambition, and increasing demands have
revealed ongoing, serious flaws. Specifically, recent audits and
investigations have uncovered substantial problems with mismanagement,
fraud, and corruption in procurement for U.N. peacekeeping, and
incidents of sexual exploitation and abuse by U.N. peacekeepers and
civilian personnel have been shockingly widespread. Please explain the
steps that have been taken by the U.N. to address these problems, why
they have failed to address the situation, and what specific policies
and reforms you would pursue to address these ongoing problems?
Answer. The incidents of sexual exploitation are totally
reprehensible and unacceptable. This issue calls for the utmost
attention and effort from the U.N. leadership and the member states, as
these scandals strike at the heart of the purpose and value of the
United Nations. I believe the U.N.'s top leaders understand the
magnitude of this threat. They are right to adopt a policy of zero
tolerance. A range of steps have been taken, including disciplinary
measures, a new model Memorandum of Understanding between the U.N. and
troop-contributing countries covering standards, and the waiving of
immunity, but more needs to be done. The U.S. will continue to work
with other member states to follow up on actions taken by troop- or
police-contributing governments against personnel dismissed from U.N.
missions for engaging in inappropriate or abusive behavior. As a woman
and a mother, I take this issue personally and will follow it closely,
if confirmed. Unless we make every effort to end this problem, the
legitimacy and credibility of the United Nations in the eyes of the
very peoples that the U.N. is supposed to protect will erode
dangerously.
I pledge to work tirelessly to ensure that every American taxpayer
dollar is spent wisely, effectively, and efficiently. The United States
will weigh very carefully the merits of existing and proposed U.N.
peace operations, and we will continue to evaluate ongoing preventive
measures that have been undertaken as a result of recent scandals. The
United States will also continue to strongly support an independent and
effective Office of Internal Oversight Services, including the
integration of the U.N. Procurement Task Force. Finally, the United
States has supported recent efforts to reorient and restructure the
Department of Peacekeeping Operations and to establish a Peacebuilding
Commission to deal with the challenges of post-conflict stabilization
and reconstruction--in part to ensure more robust training and
oversight of U.N. peace operations.
Question. The United States has long maintained a policy--one
backed by presidents of both parties--of opposing the many one-sided
Security Council resolutions that, more often than not, criticize
Israel, but fail to address other issues, such as Palestinian
terrorism. More than forty-one anti-Israel Security Council resolutions
have been vetoed by the United States over the years.
Do you support the use of the American veto to block one-sided
anti-Israel resolutions in the Security Council?
What do you believe should be the standard employed in deciding
whether to veto or not?
Answer. Yes. The United States has a long history of using its veto
at the Security Council to ensure that it does not pass resolutions
that unfairly target the State of Israel. Each proposed resolution must
be judged on its merits, and the Obama administration will act in our
interest in the Security Council. I don't want to speculate on what
future resolutions might look like. When it is in the U.S. interest, we
will use our veto as necessary.
Question. On the nuclear front, the Director-General of the IAEA,
Mohamed El-Baradei, recently said Iran could produce enough enriched
uranium for a nuclear bomb in six months to a year. Though the Security
Council has passed three resolutions imposing sanctions on Iran for its
refusal to suspend its enrichment activity, overall, the response has
been weak with efforts to impose harsher sanctions repeatedly being
delayed and diluted by Russia and China. Iran has also violated the
U.N. charter, calling for the destruction of Israel, a fellow member.
As U.N. Ambassador, how high on your agenda is the issue of Iran?
What do you believe should be done at the Security Council regarding
the Iranian nuclear hreat?
What steps will the Obama administration push early this year? What
do you believe can be done to get better cooperation from Russia and
China?
Answer. The President-elect has said that the prospect of an Iran
armed with nuclear weapons is unacceptable, and poses a great threat to
our national security and to the security and stability of the region
and the world. As I stated during the confirmation hearing, Iran's
pursuit of a nuclear weapons will continue to demand the attention of
the U.N. Security Council as a central element of the U.S. agenda. The
President-elect believes that the U.S. should pursue a strategy that
employs all policy tools at our disposal, first and foremost direct,
vigorous, and principled diplomacy integrated with effective pressure,
including sanctions, and close cooperation with our ``P-5 plus 1''
partners, other members of the U.N. Security Council, the International
Atomic Energy Agency and other partners around the world. It is this
kind of comprehensive, integrated strategy that will improve the
prospects of more unified action by the U.N. Security Council to
enforce existing resolutions on Iran and, as appropriate, pursue
additional sanctions.
As I noted during the confirmation hearing, the United States has a
wide and complex set of interests when it comes to Russia and China.
The Obama administration will conduct these relationships by seeking to
maximize our shared interests and common objectives, notably with
respect to the challenge of Iran's nuclear program, while also
recognizing that there will be instances and areas of difference. If
confirmed, I will reach out to my Russian and Chinese colleagues early
and often in an effort to develop pragmatic working relationships with
both countries at the U.N. I will work to build these relationships to
try to maximize their willingness to join us on issues where we share
common interests vital to our national security.
Question. Can and should Iran's status at the United Nations--
particularly its leadership role in key committees--be challenged if it
continues to call for the destruction of Israel and continues to
violate multiple mandatory Security Council resolutions calling upon it
to cease its nuclear enrichment program?
Answer. The U.S. will seriously review Iran's bids for leadership
positions in the United Nations. In recent years, the United States has
persistently opposed Iran's candidacy for such positions. For example,
in October 2008, despite its intense lobbying of other members, Iran
was resoundingly defeated by a vote of 158 to 32 in the General
Assembly secret ballot for a non-permanent (two-year) membership on the
U.N. Security Council.
Question. Would you oppose decisions by international bodies--
whether sanctioned by treaties or not that would impede the movement
and operations of the U.S. Navy?
Answer. Yes, the United States would oppose such decisions. The
United States controls the movement and operations of the U.S. Navy.
Question. Would you support efforts by American companies to
explore mineral resources in the ocean on their own, outside
multilateral treaties or organizations?
Answer. U.S. law (the Deep Seabed Hard Minerals Resources Act of
1980), which contemplates international regulation of seabed mining
beyond U.S. jurisdiction, requires any U.S. company wishing to exploit
mineral resources in the deep seabed to apply for a permit from the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Under the existing
international regime, most other countries of the world would be bound
not to honor such a permit. The Obama administration supports
maximizing legal certainty and international recognition of the outer
limits of the U.S. continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles to
promote and support U.S. commercial exploration of seabed mineral
resources. This is most effectively achieved through U.S. accession to
the Law of the Sea Convention.
Question. Regarding national sovereignty, what is the bright line
beyond which you will not compromise the United States' position?
Answer. As I stated at the confirmation hearing, if I am confirmed,
I will always advocate and defend the United States' national interest
at the United Nations consistent with U.S. sovereignty. As with all
past administrations, the Obama administration will be guided by the
interests of our country and our people.
Question. In a world supposedly beset by more and more global
problems and by calls for global solutions, what role do you see for
the US continuing to act as a sovereign nation, rather than as one
entity in a global village?
Answer. I agree that in the 21st century, the United States and the
world face urgent global threats, challenges, and opportunities.
Terrorism, the spread of weapons of mass destruction, civil conflict,
climate change, genocide, extreme poverty, and deadly infectious
disease are shared challenges that no single nation can defeat alone.
It is because our security at home is affected by instability,
violence, disease, or failed states in far corners of the world that
the President-elect has affirmed America's commitment to the United
Nations as an indispensable, if imperfect, institution for advancing
our security and well-being in the 21st century. He has made it clear
that we must pursue a national security strategy, based on America's
interests and security, that builds strong international partnerships
to tackle global challenges through the integration of all aspects of
American power--military and diplomatic; economic and legal; cultural
and moral. The Obama administration will invest in the United Nations
as a sovereign nation in pursuit of our national interests. Like all
U.S. presidents, President-elect Obama will never hesitate to take the
action necessary to protect this country and secure our interests.
Question. The resources of the Arctic are becoming accessible.
Should these resources be allocated by the five nations bordering the
region, or should every nation in the world participate?
Answer. Rights over resources depend upon such factors as the
nature of the resources and their location. Coastal States have
complete sovereignty within their 12-mile territorial seas, for
example. A coastal State is entitled to sovereign rights over natural
resources within 200 nautical miles from its shores. A coastal State
also enjoys sovereign rights with respect to resources (but not the
water column above) of the continental shelf beyond 200 nm to the
extent the area meets the relevant criteria under international law.
(Parties to the Law of the Sea Convention have access to a procedure
that will maximize legal certainty and international recognition of the
outer limits of the continental shelf beyond 200 nm.) Where there are
overlapping maritime claims with respect to any of these areas between
opposite or adjacent States, it is up to those States to agree
bilaterally on the boundary between them. A separate regime would apply
to the exploitation of mineral resources in areas of the Arctic beyond
any State's jurisdiction.
Question. As you may be aware, there have been calls, for example
by a former official in the Clinton administration's State Department
named Nigel Purvis with the Brookings Institute (in a paper for
Resources for the Future), that the U.S. should disband with the
practice of seeking Senate ratification of environmental agreements
such as the Kyoto Protocol. Given that many parties have suggested the
U.S. will certainly join to a Kyoto successor expected to be negotiated
this year, this issue is one of concern to me.
Note that despite many inaccurate media reports, the U.S. signed
Kyoto during the Clinton administration (November 12, 1998), and
despite two presidents choosing to not ask the Senate to ratify, it
never officially rescinded that signature. As the Senate has not sought
to push the issue of ratifying the signed treaty, either, it is fair to
say there is a demonstrated lack of Senate support for such an
agreement.
Still, this position argues that, given Kyoto's history in the
Senate, a successor protocol should be entered but this time not
treated as a treaty, but instead called a congressional-executive
agreement thereby getting around the obviously unattainable two-thirds
requirement. This also would ensure a no amendment, no filibuster vote
on the agreement.
Now, it seems clear that the courts, should they take this
potentially ``political question,'' would look with disfavor on an
effort so transparently reactive to a lack of two-thirds Senate
support. Regardless, it seems we should want to avoid such disputes
altogether. So, do you agree that such an important, potentially
economically significant agreement should be entered in this fashion,
or do you agree that any Kyoto successor or Kyoto-style treaty should
continue to be treated by the U.S. as a treaty for purposes of Senate
ratification?
Answer. As the President-elect has said, the world is in need of an
urgent response to climate change and United States must be a leader in
developing and implementing it. The Obama administration intends to
consult closely and often with Congress regarding climate change. The
content, form, and implementation of any international agreement will
be consistent with the U.S. Constitution and a subject for close
consultation with the Senate.
Question. President-elect Obama has never endorsed the
International Criminal Court treaty. Senator Hillary Clinton has never
endorsed the International Criminal Court treaty either. Will you, if
confirmed, actively seek ratification of the International Criminal
Court treaty?
Answer. The President-elect believes strongly that it is in the
U.S. national interest to have effective mechanisms of international
justice. Now that the ICC has been operational for some years, we are
learning more about how the ICC functions. Thus far, the ICC has acted
with professionalism and fairness, pursing perpetrators of truly
serious crimes, like genocide in Darfur, and atrocities in the Congo
and Uganda. The President-elect intends for the United States to
continue to support the ICC's investigations of perpetrators of
genocide in Darfur and, working with our allies, to shape the court.
The United States will be a leader in bringing war criminals to
justice, consistent with U.S. policy interests and with U.S. law.
The United States has more troops deployed overseas than any
nation. As commander in chief, the President-elect will want to make
sure that they have maximum protection. We intend to consult thoroughly
with military commanders and other experts, and examine the full track
record of the ICC, before reaching any decision on whether to join the
ICC. A very important element of this evaluation will be engaging with,
and understanding the views of, Congress, particularly this Committee.
__________
Responses to Questions Submitted to Susan E. Rice
by Senator Robert Menendez
Darfur
Question. I applaud the stand you have taken concerning genocide in
the Darfur region of Sudan. I have long been at the forefront of trying
to put a stop to this, as I know you have been as well.
What steps can the U.S. take to speed up the deployment of
peacekeepers and otherwise improve the security situation in Darfur?
Answer. President-elect Obama, Vice President-elect Biden,
Secretary-designate Clinton and I have been very clear and forceful in
our condemnation of the genocide in Sudan and in our commitment to far
more robust actions to try and end it. As I stated during the
confirmation hearing, the pace of UNAMID's deployment needs to be
accelerated, combined with sufficient logistical support to protect
civilians on the ground, and this will be an urgent focus of mine, if I
am confirmed. We need to send a clear message to Khartoum that they
must end obstruction of the U.N. force (UNAMID), including through
endless bureaucratic hurdles and delays. We also need to address some
of the U.N.'s own requirements that have inadvertently slowed UNAMID's
deployment thus far.
Question. Assuming the international community is able to deploy
all 26,000 UNAMID peacekeepers in the near term. What is your
assessment of how this will change the situation on the ground in
Darfur? Is it likely that people in IDP camps will return to their
areas of origin? Will 26,000 be able to provide sufficient security for
the entire Darfur region? What are the major risks to this deployment?
Answer. Full deployment of the UNAMID force, including much-needed
logistics and communications units, should enable the mission to more
effectively and comprehensively protect civilians in Darfur. But
lasting security that would encourage the displaced to return to and
rebuild their homes cannot be achieved without a comprehensive
political solution that enfranchises and empowers the people of Darfur.
Failure to ensure that UNAMID is fully deployed and adequately
resourced would gravely threaten the mission, as would failure to
achieve a political solution to the crisis.
The Comprehensive Peace Agreement
Question. The genocide in Darfur has moved attention away from the
extremely important Comprehensive Peace Agreement which was signed in
2005. If the peace agreement fails and there are no consequences for
failing to adhere to the Agreement, the citizens of Sudan will suffer
greatly. I see a direct correlation between success of the CPA, and any
progress in Darfur.
What can the U.S. do to ensure success in the implementation of the
CPA?
Answer. I agree that the success of the CPA and resolution of the
crisis in Darfur are inextricably connected, and believe that policy
toward Sudan must take a comprehensive approach. The United States will
demonstrate strong recommitment to CPA implementation and work with
international partners toward this end, including by assisting all
relevant parties to prepare for safe, free, and fair elections in 2009
and working to achieve a viable wealth-sharing agreement for Abyei.
Question. With its oil revenues falling (assuming this continues),
and less cash available to Southern Darfur, is there a window of
opportunity for ending coercive politics, and for the international
community to work more effectively with Sudan to finally end the
genocide in Darfur?
Answer. It is possible that falling oil revenues will require the
Government of Sudan to make greater effort to build consensus in taking
federal decisions. The United States and the rest of the international
community should explore every potential opportunity to end the
genocide in Darfur and promote justice and peace in Sudan. That said,
we must always be mindful of the Government of Sudan's record of
abusive policies and unfulfilled commitments.
Iran
Question. Iran poses a major challenge for the U.S. and its allies.
It is the world's leading state sponsor of terror, openly threatens the
existence of U.N. member states, and is working toward achieving a
nuclear weapons capability. In June 2008, Mohamed El-Baradei, the
director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, said that
if it chose to do so, Iran could produce enough enriched uranium to
make a nuclear bomb in six months to a year. Though the Security
Council has passed resolutions imposing sanctions on Iran for its
refusal to suspend its enrichment activity, these resolutions have not
dissuaded the Iranians. Efforts to impose harsher sanctions have been
delayed or watered down by Russia and China.
Given the current circumstances, what course of action should the
U.S. take at the Security Council regarding the Iranian nuclear threat?
Answer. The President-elect has said that the prospect of an Iran
armed with nuclear weapons is unacceptable, and poses a great threat to
our national security and to the security and stability of the region
and the world. As I stated during the confirmation hearing, Iran's
pursuit of a nuclear weapons will continue to demand the attention of
the U.N. Security Council as a central element of the U.S. agenda. The
President-elect believes that the U.S. should pursue a strategy that
employs all policy tools at our disposal, first and foremost direct,
vigorous, and principled diplomacy integrated with effective pressure,
including sanctions, and close cooperation with our ``P-5 plus 1''
partners, other members of the U.N. Security Council, the International
Atomic Energy Agency and other partners around the world. It is this
kind of comprehensive, integrated strategy that will improve the
prospects of more unified action by the U.N. Security Council to
enforce existing resolutions on Iran and, as appropriate, pursue
additional sanctions.
U.N. Millennium Development Goals
Question. In the year 2000, the international community agreed to a
set of goals such as cutting global poverty in half by 2015, putting
every child in school, tackling preventable diseases, and other
critical development objectives. While significant progress has been
made in several regions, many countries, particularly in Africa,
continue to lag behind on progress towards these objectives. President
Elect Obama has stated that he will make the U.N. Millennium
Development Goals official U.S. policy, and that he expects to see
progress in meeting the Goals by the end of his first term, including
reducing by half the number of people living on less than a dollar a
day and suffering from hunger, and reversing the number of new HIV
infections and malaria cases.
How would you work with our foreign assistance agencies, and with
NGOs, to coordinate U.S. development assistance with the Millennium
Development goals?
Answer. As you note, the President-elect is committed to
integrating the Millennium Development Goals into U.S. foreign policy.
The President-elect, the Secretary-designate and I intend to strengthen
the civilian aspects of foreign policy including diplomacy and
development by increasing foreign aid and by empowering our diplomatic
and development experts to use their knowledge to manage programs
creatively. Officials and NGOs are often working in the same regions to
meet the same challenges. The Obama administration will work
constructively with NGOs, some of which are already working to advance
the MDGs. For example, at the September 25, 2008, conference on the
Millennium Development Goals in New York, NGOs, such as the Gates
Foundation, made important pledges in support of these global
objectives. Sustained dialogue with NGO partners will be an important
element of the Obama administration's approach in this regard.
Responsibility to Protect
Question. The U.S. has endorsed the concept that the international
community has a responsibility to protect civilians from genocide,
ethnic cleansing, war crimes and crimes against humanity, when a state
is unable or unwilling to do so. While the responsibility to protect,
or R2P, may include some forms of military intervention as a last
resort, there is a great deal that can be done, short of military
action, to prevent genocide and mass atrocities.
Currently, there is no mechanism within the U.N. to coordinate the
collection of information on potential threats of genocide and mass
atrocities. The U.N. Secretary General is expected to release his first
report very soon on implementing the Responsibility to Protect in the
U.N. system. One likely proposal in that report will be the creation of
a mass atrocities ``early warning'' office at the U.N., to collect
information, assess, and warn of threats of mass atrocities.
Do you support the creation of a U.N. mass atrocities early warning
office?
Answer. Yes. The Responsibility to Protect is a multi-faceted
doctrine that begins with prevention and encompasses the entire range
of policy options up to, and including, the use of force, to encourage
and enable countries to act in a fashion that protects those within
their borders and prevent them from being attacked and harmed. As I
noted during the confirmation hearing, I agree with you that there has
been a gap between the expectations that the norm created and the
realities on the ground, including regarding the international
community's ability to identify potential threats of genocide and mass
atrocities. Development of a more effective and reliable process for
assessing risk and providing early warning should be a priority.
UNDPA
Question. The second initiative involves the U.N. Department of
Political Affairs (DPA), which currently has a staff of only 223
employees. To bolster DPA's presence and peacemaking ability, Under
Secretary General for Political Affairs Lynn B. Pascoe asked the
General Assembly to increase personnel at DPA by 100 posts. The General
Assembly decided to table this proposal until 2009.
What is your view on expanding the size of the U.N. Department of
Political Affairs?
Answer. Conflict prevention is an essential, yet comparatively
weak, component of the United Nation's work. The United States has long
supported the strengthening of the Department of Political Affairs,
which means improving the focus and quality of its work--not just the
number of employees. I understand that the most recent U.N. budget
agreement included 49 new posts, as well as flexibility for how to
deploy some of the senior posts within DPA. If confirmed, I look
forward to working with the Secretary-General and other member states
to promote further enhancements to DPA's work.
Human Rights at the U.N.
Question. The U.N. Human Rights Council, created in 2006 to replace
the U.N. Human Rights Commission, was criticized by the outgoing
administration as being only marginally better than the body it
replaced, and the United States did not seek to become a member of the
Council. I would note that the criteria for membership on the Human
Rights Council is not very exacting, as states that are under U.N.
sanctions for human rights abuses are allowed to be members. The Human
Rights Council has also focused on allegations of human rights
violations by Israel, while failing to confront human rights abusers
such as Iran, Burma, Sudan, and North Korea.
The Human Rights Council is currently in a five-year incubation
period that ends in 2011. Do you think the Human Rights Council, as it
is currently set up, should become a permanent U.N. body at the end of
that period?
Answer. We have a deep interest in ensuring strong global
mechanisms to uphold the respect for human rights. The President-elect
is committed to enforcing respect for human rights. There is no
question that the U.N. Human Rights Council (HRC) has been seriously
flawed and a major disappointment. Rather than focus its efforts and
energies on most egregious instances of human rights abuses around the
world, in places like Burma, Zimbabwe, Sudan and elsewhere, the HRC has
devoted an inordinate amount of attention, and a very counterproductive
focus, on Israel, one of our closest allies. The Obama administration
intends to work to strengthen the United Nations human rights
mechanisms, including the Human Rights Council, so that they focus on
the world's most egregious human rights abusers. The incoming Obama
administration has not made a decision regarding the future of the
Human Rights Council beyond the 2011 deadline, and will evaluate this
issue based on the principles outlined above.
In your view, what is the best way for human rights issues to be
brought up and addressed at the UN?
Answer. Promoting and defending human rights has been a principle
priority of the United States and other U.N. members states since the
founding of the United Nations, and it is among the core principles of
the United Nations. The Obama administration will seek to advance human
rights across the full spectrum of venues, institutions, and
opportunities at the United Nations. And, there is a wide range of
international norms and standards and several international
institutions in which to do so. The body of international human rights
standards that are now widely acknowledged (if not always respected) by
nearly all the governments were in great measure developed within the
United Nations system. For example, the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to
which the United States is a party, were developed by the Human Rights
Commission. These and other instruments have been, and will continue to
be, important tools used to press for an end to violations of human
dignity and for the promotion of civil and political rights. Similarly,
the United Nations has played a key role in the development of treaties
signed or ratified by the United States and relating to labor rights,
the rights of women, racial discrimination, the rights of children in
conflict, and many other issues.
In addition, the U.N. plays an important role in the promotion and
protection of human rights in the field, including through human rights
monitoring and electoral assistance. Beyond that, the Office of the
High Commissioner for Human Rights deploys several different kinds of
standing human rights missions that help to ensure respect for human
rights and the rule of law: these include human rights country offices
and/or advisors providing advice and assistance to governments and
civil society; human rights advisors in United Nations peace
operations; and regional offices and centers providing advice and
assistance in Asia, Latin America, the Middle East and Africa. The
United States will support important efforts, such as these, that
reflect our commitment advancing and defending human rights.
However, as noted above, the HRC, some member states have sought to
shield from scrutiny the worst perpetrators of abuses, while providing
distorted and disproportionate criticisms on Israel. The challenge for
the United States and its partners, friends, and allies is to bring the
full weight of sustained diplomacy, shared values, and power to improve
the Human Rights Council by building broad and deep coalitions in
support of universal human rights at the United Nations.
Security Council Reform
Question. A General Assembly task force recently recommended that
negotiations take place towards increasing the number of permanent
members of the U.N. Security Council, with Japan, Germany, Brazil and
India being most frequently mentioned as new members.
What is your view on expanding the number of permanent members of
the Security Council? What do you believe the criteria should be for a
nation to become a new permanent member of the Security Council? Will
the Obama administration support permanent Security Council membership
for Japan?
Answer. The President-elect and I recognize that the Security
Council was created many years ago at a time when there were very
different international realities and that there is a strongly felt
sentiment among many member states that the Security Council should
better reflect 21st century circumstances. The factors that the Obama
administration would consider most essential, including in evaluating
additional permanent Council members, would be ensuring that a proposal
does not impede the Security Council's effectiveness and that it
enhances the standing of the Council in the eyes of those nations that
seek a greater voice in international fora. Regarding specific
candidacies for permanent Council membership, at this stage we have not
made a determination about any particular configuration of SC reform.
Use of U.S. Veto in Security Council
Question. In past administrations, both Republican and Democratic,
the United States has frequently vetoed U.N. Security Council
resolutions because the resolutions were excessively critical of
actions by Israel.
In your view, what standard should the U.S. follow in deciding
whether to veto a U.N. Security Council resolution?
Answer. Yes. The United States has a long history of using its veto
at the Security Council to ensure that it does not pass resolutions
that unfairly target the State of Israel. Each proposed resolution must
be judged on its merits, and the Obama administration will act in our
interest in the Security Council. I don't want to speculate on what
future resolutions might look like. When it is in the U.S. interest, we
will use our veto as necessary.
UN Management Reform
Question. The U.N. is being called upon to do more and more each
year, with fewer and fewer resources, making sound management of its
resources more critical than ever. The Secretary-General continues to
push member states to take further steps in the area of management
reform, particularly in the areas of procurement, accountability, and
personnel.
What actions should the U.S. take to advance the reform of
management operations at the U.N. Secretariat?
Answer. As I noted in the confirmation hearing, I agree that no one
can be fully satisfied with the performance of the United Nations, and
too often we are dismayed. The United States must press for high
standards and bring to its dealings with the U.N. high expectations of
its performance and accountability. The Oil-for-Food scandal
underscored the need for institutional reform in the U.N. system to
ensure greater transparency and accountability. The subsequent
investigations and prosecutions served as a wake up call across the
U.N. system and prompted more robust efforts to address corruption and
mismanagement.
If I am confirmed, I will be committed to working to ensure that
the U.N. is maximally effective and efficient. The United Nations has
made some notable progress on reform, dating back to 1994 with the
establishment of the Office of Internal Oversight Services to
strengthen its capacity to ensure that money being spent is being well
accounted for. To date, OIOS recommendations have saved the U.N. and
the taxpayer an estimated $200 million. The U.N. has developed an
internal audit and an inspector general capability, strengthened
whistleblower protections, and enhanced financial disclosure
requirements for U.N. staff. More recently we have seen efforts to
reorient and restructure the Department of Peacekeeping Operations and
to establish a Peacebuilding Commission to deal with the challenges of
post-conflict stabilization and reconstruction. The procurement task
force has substantially improved the U.N.'s procurement operations and
has uncovered over $650 million in faulty contracts. So there have been
important steps taken. But more must be done.
My top priorities for U.N. reform would be financial
accountability, management efficiency, transparency, ethics and
internal oversight, and program effectiveness in areas such as
peacekeeping, conflict prevention, and mediation. A key challenge now
is ensuring effective implementation of ongoing initiatives and
preventing them from being watered down or weakened, even as we
consider what further steps should be taken to improve U.N.
effectiveness and ability to address the challenges of the 21st
century. I believe firmly that it is not enough to ensure that U.S.
taxpayer dollars are not being wasted. We must insist that U.S.
taxpayer dollars are being spent effectively and accomplishing their
intended goals.
United Nations Development Fund for Women (UNIFEM)
Question. The United Nations Development Fund for Women provides
financial and technical assistance to programs that foster gender
equality in more than 100 countries. It focuses its support in areas
where women are facing the highest levels of economic and political
insecurity, often where other assistance agencies have pulled out.
Would you seek to increase attention and support for UNIFEM, both
within the U.S. government and by other member states?
Answer. Yes. If I am confirmed, I will seek to increase attention
and support for UNIFEM.
United Nations Trust Fund to End Violence against Women
Question. The United Nations Trust Fund to End Violence against
Women has supported national, regional and local efforts in the
developing world to combat violence against women. While funds have
increased, in 2007 the Trust Fund was only able to award $5 million to
29 initiatives working in 36 countries.
As U.S. Permanent Representative, would you seek to increase
attention and support for the U.N. Trust Fund to End Violence Against
Women, both within the U.S. government and by other member states?
Answer. Yes. If I am confirmed, I will seek to increase attention
and support for the U.N. Trust Fund to End Violence against Women.
U.N. Peace Building Commission
Question. In 2005, the U.N. Peace Building Commission was createdto
streamline reconstruction and peace building efforts in countries
emerging from violence. As I understand it, the Peace Building
Commission is intended to provide a mechanism to coordinate and provide
foreign assistance more effectively to countries emerging from
conflict. To date, some of the countries this commission has provided
support for include Burundi, Sierra Leone, Cote d'Ivoire and Guinea
Bissau.
What is your view of the U.N Peace Building Commission?
Answer. The United States is a member of the U.N. Peacebuilding
Commission and supports its work. The U.N. Peacebuilding Commission
(PBC) is an important pillar of U.N. reform that will enhance the
U.N.'s capacity to address post-conflict stability, reconstruction, and
governance challenges.
Cluster Munitions Convention and Oslo Process
Question. On December 3, 2008 several of our closest military
allies [Britain, France, Canada, Australia, Netherlands]--signed a
treaty in Oslo banning the use of cluster munitions. The Bush
administration took no part in the negotiation of this treaty and did
not sign it. President-elect Obama has indicated that he is committed
to restoring our diplomatic alliances and reengaging the United States
with international humanitarian law. A spokeswoman for the Obama
transition team told the Chicago Tribune after the signing of the
cluster munitions treaty that the next president would ``carefully
review the new treaty and work closely [with] our friends and allies to
ensure that the United States is doing everything feasible to promote
protection of civilians.''
Should the United States join the Convention on Cluster Munitions?
Answer. The President-elect believes that the U.S. objective should
be to stop the use of cluster bombs that pose a serious risk to
civilians. The Obama administration has not taken a position on the new
cluster bomb treaty. If confirmed, I look forward to participating in
the Obama administration's review of the new treaty and working closely
with our friends and allies to ensure that the United States is doing
everything feasible to promote protection of civilians--especially
children--while also protecting our troops.
__________
Responses to Questions Submitted to Susan E. Rice
by Senator Jim DeMint
Foreign Policy Philosophy
Question. What is your view regarding the status within the
international system of the independent, sovereign state in general,
and the importance of preserving and protecting American sovereignty in
particular? Do you ascribe to traditional views of national sovereignty
or to the theory of ``global governance?''
Answer. As I stated at the confirmation hearing, if I am confirmed,
I will always advocate and defend the United States' national interest
at the United Nations. No U.S. administration will ever or could ever
cede sovereignty to an international body or to any other institution.
President-elect Obama, Vice President-elect Biden, Secretary-
designate Clinton and I believe that U.S. interests are, to a great
extent, served by the United Nations when the U.N. is operating
effectively. Too often, we are faced with difficult options when
addressing international challenges: doing nothing in the face of
violence or conflict or atrocities, and allowing threats and risks to
fester. Second, the United States can act unilaterally, often at great
cost in lives and treasure. Or, third, the United States can join
together with allies and partners and other nations, and share the
burden of addressing collective challenges. Given that the costs of
inaction or unilateral action are very often so high, the Obama
administration believes that it is in the U.S. national security
interest to invest in strengthening the United Nations to make it a
more effective tool to share the burdens and costs of meeting global
challenges.
Question. The United States has long maintained a policy--espoused
by presidents of both parties--of opposing the many one-sided U.N.
Security Council resolution. More than forty-one anti-Israel Security
Council resolutions have been vetoed by the United States over the
years.
Do you support the use of the American veto to block one-
sided anti-Israel resolutions in the Security Council?
What do you believe should be the standard employed in
deciding whether to veto or not?
How would you have advised President-elect Obama to vote on
the recent U.N. resolution on Israel and Hamas? Would you have
recommended a veto or voting for, against, or abstaining?
Answer. Yes. The United States has a long history of using its veto
at the Security Council to ensure that it does not pass resolutions
that unfairly target the State of Israel. Each proposed resolution must
be judged on its merits, and the Obama administration will act in our
interest in the Security Council. I don't want to speculate on what
future resolutions might look like. When it is in the U.S. interest, we
will use our veto as necessary.
As for U.N. Security Council Resolution 1860, we are obviously very
concerned about the serious situation in Gaza and southern Israel.
President-elect Obama has spoken about his deep concern for the loss of
civilian life in Gaza and Israel, and it is very important that a
durable ceasefire be achieved. That will require an end to Hamas rocket
fire at civilians, an effective mechanism to prevent smuggling of
weapons into Gaza, and an effective border regime. We will work hard
with our international partners to make sure all these elements happen.
The ceasefire should be accompanied by a serious effort to address the
immediate humanitarian needs of the Palestinian people and a longer
term reconstruction and development effort. The Bush administration is
in the middle of sensitive diplomatic negotiations on behalf of the
United States, so I think it is best that I not comment specifically on
the negotiations underway. I will say that we plan to be actively
engaged on diplomacy in the Middle East in pursuit of peace agreements
to resolve conflicts and, when necessary, to bring hostilities to an
end. We are committed to helping Israel and the Palestinians achieve
their goal of two states living side by side in peace and security, and
will work toward this goal from the beginning of the administration.
Taiwan
Question. Several years ago, Asia experienced a serious infectious
disease issue with the Avian Flu. However, each nation's response had
varying degrees of success. Specifically, the lack of membership in the
World Health Organization (WHO), was a hindrance to Taiwan's ability to
respond. Do you support Taiwan's membership in the WHO?
Answer. As a matter of law and consistent with the ``one China''
policy, the United States has supported, and will continue to support,
meaningful participation through observer status for Taiwan in the
World Health Organization.
Iran
Iran poses a challenge for the U.S. and for the international
community. It is the world's leading state sponsor of terror;
it openly threatens the existence of U.N. member states; and it
is working toward achieving a nuclear weapons capability.
On the nuclear front, the Director-General of the IAEA,
Mohamed El-Baradei, recently said Iran could produce enough
enriched uranium for a nuclear bomb in six months to a year.
Though the Security Council has passed three resolutions
imposing sanctions on Iran for its refusal to suspend its
enrichment activity, overall, the response has been weak with
efforts to impose harsher sanctions repeatedly being delayed
and diluted by Russia and China.
Iran has also violated the U.N. charter, calling for the
destruction of Israel, a fellow member.
Question. What do you believe should be done at the Security
Council regarding the Iranian nuclear threat? What steps will the Obama
administration push early this year? What do you believe can be done to
get better cooperation from Russia and China?
Answer. The President-elect has said that the prospect of an Iran
armed with nuclear weapons is unacceptable, poses a great threat to our
national security and to the security and stability of Israel, the
region and the world. The President-elect believes that the U.S. should
pursue a strategy that employs all policy tools at our disposal, first
and foremost direct, vigorous, and principled diplomacy integrated with
effective pressure, including sanctions, and close cooperation with our
"P-5 plus 1" partners, other members of the U.N. Security Council, the
International Atomic Energy Agency and other partners around the world.
It is this kind of comprehensive, integrated strategy that will improve
the prospects of more unified action by the U.N. Security Council to
enforce existing resolutions on Iran and, if appropriate, pursue
additional sanctions.
As I noted during the confirmation hearing, the United States has a
wide and complex set of interests when it comes to Russia and China.
The Obama administration will conduct these relationships by seeking to
maximize our shared interests and common objectives, notably with
respect to the challenge of Iran's nuclear program, while also
recognizing that there will be instances and areas of difference. If
confirmed, I will reach out to my Russian and Chinese colleagues early
and often in an effort to develop pragmatic working relationships with
both countries at the U.N. I will work to build these relationships to
try to maximize their willingness to join us on issues where we share
common interests vital to our national security.
Question. Can and should Iran's status at the U.N.--particularly
its leadership role in key committees--be challenged if it continues to
call for the destruction of Israel and continues to violate multiple
mandatory Security Council resolutions calling upon it to cease its
nuclear enrichment program?
Answer. The U.S. will seriously review Iran's bids for leadership
positions in the United Nations. In recent years, the United States has
persistently opposed Iran's candidacy for such positions. For example,
in October 2008, despite its intense lobbying of other members, Iran
was resoundingly defeated by a vote of 158 to 32 in the General
Assembly secret ballot for a non-permanent (two-year) membership on the
U.N. Security Council.
International Atomic Energy Agency
Question. Will you pledge to consult closely with the members of
this Committee concerning who the U.S. will support as the next
Executive Director of the International Atomic Energy Agency?
Answer. Yes. If confirmed, I will work with the Secretary of State
to consult closely with the Committee on this issue.
Durban II
Question. The original Durban Conference on Racism, held in 2001,
was an anti-America, anti-Israel hatefest from which then-Secretary of
State Colin Powell walked out. The Durban Review Conference, or Durban
II, is scheduled for April 2009 and its preparatory process is being
chaired by Iran and Libya, among others. Former Assistant Secretary of
State Kristin Silverberg stated last April in testimony before Congress
that ``There is. absolutely no case to be made forparticipating in
something that is going to be a repeat of Durban I.'' \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Testimony of Assistant Secretary of State Kristin Silverberg,
``United Nations Peacekeeping Operations,'' House Foreign Affairs
Committee, April 2, 2008. http://foreignaffairs.house.gov/110/41673.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Durban II's declared agenda is ``to foster the implementation of
the Durban Declaration and Program of Action.'' That declaration
singles out Israel for accusations of racism against the Palestinians.
This is the only country-specific accusation in a document that is
supposed to address international racism and xenophobia. The Durban
Review Conference Working Group has recently revealed the latest draft
of its outcome report. The opening of the report claims it will
``preserve all themes and messages'' of Durban II which includes such
outrageous anti-Semitic attacks such as:\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ 2From the December 26, 2008 Durban Review Conference
Preparatory Committee Report found at EyeOntheUN.org. http://
tinyurl.com/6tgk2n
``Expresses deep concern at the practices of racial discrimination
against the Palestinian people as well as other inhabitants of
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
the Arab occupied territories''
`` . . . the Palestinian people . . . have been subjected to . . .
torture.''
`` . . . a foreign occupation founded on settlements, laws based on
racial discrimination . . . contradicts the purposes and
principles of the Charter of the United Nations. . . . ''
The report also includes efforts to limit the freedom of expression
and thwart international efforts to combat terrorism. Regardless of the
presence or absence of new hate-speech in Durban II's final product,
involvement in Durban II would legitimize the advancement of anti-
Semitism. As a result, Canada and Israel have refused to participate,
and the Netherlands and other EU states are also considering staying
away.
If confirmed, will you commit to continuing the United States
policy of withholding U.S. funds in order to avoid directly or
indirectly funding this event? Will you commit to continuing the U.S.
policy of refusing to participate in the conference ``unless it is
proven that the conference will not be used as a platform for anti-
Semitic behavior'' \3\ --a stance that has already prompted decisions
by some nations not to participate?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Khalilzad, April 8, 2006. http://www.usunnewyork.usmission.gov/
press--releases/20080408--075.html
Answer. Racism is and remains a serious global challenge that
merits our sustained effort, attention, and involvement. It is
appropriate to convene an international conference on this subject. As
you have stated, the problem is that in the past, and potentially now
as we head towards the conference in April, rather than focus on
racism, some member states and some nongovernmentalorganizations have
instead sought to equate Israel's actions with racism and promote an
atmosphere of hate and anti-Semitism. This is highly offensive and a
distortion of the meaning of the term racism. It merits our strongest
objections.
The question is how to proceed. The President-elect believes that
we should make early efforts to determine whether early U.S. engagement
could enable the upcoming conference and its draft document to be
improved, refocused on racism, and stripped of the offensive language
that we find abhorrent. If this is not possible, then we--as well as
other member states that respect basic principles of justice and
equity--should not participate in April.
Human Rights Council
Question. The United Nations Human Rights Council was supposed to
reform the discredited Human Rights Commission. The United States voted
against the adoption of the resolution creating the Council because of
its many inherent flaws that did not bode well for the new body. Over
the past 2 and a half years of the Council's existence that concern was
confirmed:
More than 50 percent of the resolutions adopted by the Council
condemning a specific country for human rights abuses adopted
by the Council have been directed at Israel, while the
Commission had 30 percent of its resolutions directed at
Israel.
The Council has had four special sessions condemning Israel (as
compared to 9 regular sessions for human rights issues around
the globe); the Commission had one special session on Israel.
The Council eradicated the human rights investigations that had
been created by the Commission on Cuba, Belarus, and the
Democratic Republic of the Congo.
There is deep concern that the Council has taken steps backwards
and continues to provide cover for some of the worst human rights
abusers. If you are confirmed and during your tenure, will the United
States continue to refrain from rejoining, funding, or otherwise
legitimizing the Human Rights Council?
Answer. The United States has a deep interest in ensuring strong
global mechanisms to uphold the respect for human rights. The
President-elect is committed to enforcing respect for human rights. As
I stated during the confirmation hearing, there is no question that the
U.N. Human Rights Council (HRC) has been seriously flawed and a major
disappointment. Rather than focus on its efforts and energies on most
egregious instances of human rights abuses around the world, in places
like Burma, Zimbabwe, Sudan and elsewhere, the HRC has devoted an
inordinate amount of attention, and a very counterproductive focus, on
Israel, one of our closest allies.
The Obama administration intends to work to strengthen the United
Nations human rights mechanisms so that they focus on the world's most
egregious human rights abusers. If confirmed, I look forward to working
with the President-elect--and consulting with this Committee--as we
review whether and when to run for election to a seat on the Council.
Whether or not we seek election, our basic orientation will be that our
ability to effect change is far greater if we are engaged
diplomatically with friends and partners around the world to build a
broad-based understanding of the need to use these mechanisms for the
purpose they were designed, and not allow them to be hijacked for other
purposes.
Question. What do you believe should be U.S. strategy for promoting
and advocating for human rights at the United Nations?
Answer. Promoting and defending human rights has been a principle
priority of the United States since the founding of the United Nations,
and it is among the core principles of the United Nations. The Obama
administration will seek to advance human rights across the full
spectrum of venues, institutions, and opportunities at the United
Nations. The body of international human rights standards that are now
widely acknowledged (if not always respected) by nearly all the
governments were in great measure developed within the United Nations
system. For example, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which the
United States is a party, were developed by the Human Rights
Commission. These and other instruments have been, and will continue to
be, important tools used to press for an end to violations of human
dignity and for the promotion of civil and political rights. Similarly,
the United Nations has played a key role in the development of treaties
signed or ratified by the United States and relating to labor rights,
the rights of women, racial discrimination, the rights of children in
conflict, and many other issues.
In addition, the U.N. plays an important role in the promotion and
protection of human rights in the field, including through human rights
monitoring and electoral assistance. Beyond that, the Office of the
High Commissioner for Human Rights deploys several different kinds of
standing human rights missions that help to ensure respect for human
rights and the rule of law: these include human rights country offices
and/or advisors providing advice and assistance to governments and
civil society; human rights advisors in United Nations peace
operations; and regional offices and centers providing advice and
assistance in Asia, Latin America, the Middle East and Africa. The
United States will support important efforts, such as these, that
reflect our commitment advancing and defending human rights.
However, as noted above, there also remains cause for deep concern
regarding the Human Rights Council. In the HRC, some member states have
sought to shield from scrutiny the worst perpetrators of abuses, while
pursuing distorted and disproportionate criticisms of Israel. The
challenge for the United States and its partners, friends, and allies
is to bring the full weight of sustained diplomacy, shared values, and
power to improve the Human Rights Council by building broad and deep
coalitions in support of universal human rights at the United Nations.
UN Peacekeeping
Question. According to the Government Accountability Office, U.S.
contributions for U.N. peacekeeping have more than doubled in the last
six years.\4\ In 2003, U.S. taxpayers funded over $700 million for
peacekeeping, but in 2009, the amount is expected to rise to $1.8
billion. Even though the U.S. is assessed only 22 percent for the U.N.
core budget, Congress appropriates 26 percent of the entire
peacekeeping budget.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ ``United Nations Peacekeeping: Challenges Obtaining Needed
Resources Could Limit Further Large Deployments and Should Be Addressed
in U.S. Reports to Congress,'' Government Accountability Office,
December, 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The other members of the U.N. Security Council do not even give
Peacekeeping half of what the U.S. taxpayer gives--yet they have equal
responsibility with the decisions to create, veto or maintain
Peacekeeping missions. China only gives 3 percent, Russia gives less
than 1 percent, France gives just 7.5 percent, and the U.K. gives
almost 8 percent.
Should U.S. peacekeeping assessments be lowered and the other
Security Council members' raised in order to equally share the burden?
What action will you take to change the assessment level for each of
the permanent members of the U.N. Security Council?
Answer. I do believe that the scale of assessments for peacekeeping
should be examined to address whether some members of the Council are
not paying their proper share. I do not believe it would be wise to
unilaterally lower U.S. peacekeeping assessments. The U.S. is currently
the lead financial contributor to U.N. peacekeeping, but only
marginally more so than Japan. It is not in the United States'
interest--as a founding member and host country of the U.N., and the
sole remaining superpower in the world--to cede its leadership role at
the United Nations. Furthermore, we should recognize that the U.S.
contributes less than 1 percentwhen it comes to military personnel for
U.N. peacekeeping mission--significantly less than the United Kingdom
and France.
Question. According to a leaked 2007 report from internal United
Nations auditors, 43 percent of mostly U.N. peacekeeping procurement
investigated was tainted by fraud. Out of $1.4 billion in U.N.
contracts internally investigated, $610 million was tainted by ten
``significant fraud and corruption schemes.'' \5\ Since 43 percent of
the mostly peacekeeping procurement contracts are tainted and the U.S.
taxpayer contributes up to 26 percent of all U.N. funding, it is safe
to say the entire U.S. contribution in this case has been lost to
corruption and waste.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ ``Report of the Office of Internal Oversight Services on the
activities of the Procurement Task Force for the 18-month period ended
30 June 2007,'' U.N. General Assembly, October 5, 2007. http://
tinyurl.com/9extl7
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to human rights and aid groups, such as Save the
Children, U.N. peacekeepers many times sexually exploit and abuse the
women and children that they are meant to protect in U.N. refugee
camps. Some reports state that ``children as young as six are trading
sex with aid workers and peacekeepers in exchange for food, money, soap
. . . '' \6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ ``Watchdog needed on child abuse by peacekeepers: NGO.'' AFP,
May 27, 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please explain the steps that have been taken by the U.N. to
address these problems, why they have failed to address the situation?
Answer. The incidents of sexual exploitation are totally
reprehensible and unacceptable. This issue calls for the utmost
attention and effort from the U.N. leadership and the member states, as
these scandals strike at the heart of the purpose and value of the
United Nations. I believe the U.N.'s top leaders understand the
magnitude of this threat. They are right to adopt a policy of zero
tolerance. A range of steps have been taken, including disciplinary
measures, a new model Memorandum of Understanding between the U.N. and
troop-contributing countries covering standards, and the waiving of
immunity, but more needs to be done. The U.S. will continue to work
with other member states to follow up on actions taken by troop- or
police-contributing governments against personnel dismissed from U.N.
missions for engaging in inappropriate or abusive behavior. As a woman
and a mother, I take this issue personally and will follow it closely,
if confirmed. Unless we make every effort to end this problem, the
legitimacy and credibility of the United Nations in the eyes of the
very peoples that the U.N. is supposed to protect will erode
dangerously.
Question. Given the amount of waste, fraud, and sexual abuse that
takes place in U.N. peacekeeping operations, what specific policies and
reforms you would pursue to address these ongoing problems and protect
the U.S. taxpayer from inadvertently funding these illicit activities?
Answer. As I noted above, this issue calls for the utmost attention
and effort from the U.N. leadership and the member states, as these
scandals strike at the heart of the purpose and value of the United
Nations. In addition, as I stated during the confirmation hearing, I
pledge to work tirelessly to ensure that every American taxpayer dollar
is spent wisely, effectively, and efficiently. The United States will
weigh very carefully the merits of existing and proposed U.N. peace
operations, and we will continue to evaluate ongoing preventive
measures thathave been undertaken as a result of recent scandals. The
United States will also continue to strongly support an independent and
effective Office of Internal Oversight Services, including the
integration of the U.N. Procurement Task Force. Finally, the United
States has supported recent efforts to reorient and restructure the
Department of Peacekeeping Operations and to establish a Peacebuilding
Commission to deal with the challenges of post-conflict stabilization
and reconstruction--in part to ensure more robust training and
oversight of U.N. peace operations.
Question. Do you think it is acceptable that U.N. procurement
contracts for peacekeeping or other programs are not publicly
transparent? Since the U.S. is the largest contributor to U.N.
peacekeeping, what actions will you take to bring transparency and
accountability to peacekeeping procurement?
Answer. As I noted in the confirmation hearing, I believe that
transparency and accountability remain vitally important. If confirmed,
I intend to pursue broader and deeper cooperation from friends,
partners and allies to achieve substantial and sustained reform across
the full range of management and performance challenges.
U.N. Reform
Question. Under the Bush administration, there was a concerted
effort to improve transparency and accountability at the U.N. However,
these successes were limited to the Secretariat and not the myriad of
other funds and agencies that make up the U.N. Do you support these
efforts and what policies will you promote to improve reform the U.N.?
Answer. I believe that expanding the reach of transparency and
accountability reforms to the full range of U.N. funds and specialized
agencies is important. If confirmed, I intend to pursue this issue with
our friends, partners and allies, as well as with the U.N. leadership.
In addition, as I noted during the confirmation hearing, I believe that
our challenge today regarding U.N. reform includes ensuring effective
implementation of enacted reforms and ensuring that those steps are not
weakened or watered down, but rather strengthened, over time.
UN Development Program
Question. The Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations
released a report in January 2008 which documented how the U.N.
Development Program (UNDP) lacked even basic fiscal and management
controls with its programs in North Korea.\7\ The report included
findings such as:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ ``UNDP: A Case Study of North Korea,'' Senate Permanent
Subcommittee on Investigations, January 23, 2008. http://tinyurl.com/
8w9et4
UNDP gave ``development'' money to the North Korean entity that
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
finances the regime's illicit missile sales.
The regime had free access to U.N. bank accounts and used them to
launder millions of dollars, avoid sanctions, and wire cash all
around the world.
UNDP broke U.N. rules such as permitting the regime to handpick its
own agents to staff and manage UNP programs in North Korea.
UNDP ignored U.N. ethics and whistleblower protections while
punishing-instead of rewarding-UNDP whistleblowers that rang
the alarm.
Whistleblowers, human rights groups, and press reports indicate UNP
programs in other countries of concern--such as Burma, Syria, Iran, and
Zimbabwe--suffer from the same mismanagement and lack of fiscal
controls.
The UNP has had an opportunity to reform, but instead, it has
restricting public access to program documents and audits-even refusing
to release all the evidence during the investigation into this matter
by our Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations.
Will you commit to conditioning U.S. contributions to UNP on the
following:
1. publicly posting on the internet the past 5 years worth of UNP
line-item budgets, audits, and program reviews for each UNP
program;
2. posting all new documents of this sort within 2 weeks of
completion; and
3. providing unfettered access to the U.S. Government Accountability
Office to conduct an investigation of the past 5 years of
UNP activity in Burma, Zimbabwe, Syria and Iran and
publicly report to Congress its findings as it pertains to:
a. fiscal and management controls;
b. hiring practices,
c. compliance with international accounting standards and Financial
Action Task Force recommendations;\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ ``Methodology for Assessing Compliance with the FATF 40
Recommendations and the FATF 9 Special Recommendations,'' Financial
Action Task Force, October 2008. http://tinyurl.com/98muha
d. compliance with U.S. export controls for WMD or dual-use
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
capabilities;
e. compliance with U.N. guidelines, procurement rules, and Security
Council resolutions;
f. compliance with international accounting standards; and
g. whether or not UNP programs produce independently verified and
measurable results?
Answer. This is a vital issue. I take very seriously my
responsibility to the U.S. taxpayer to ensure that our U.N.
contributions are well-spent and well-managed. I also take very
seriously compliance with U.S. law. I am very troubled by the findings
of the report from the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigation
on the UNP's programs in North Korea. I understand that te UNP
suspended its program in March 2007. I also understand that after
several reviews and investigations, a number of recommendations emerged
to correct program management weaknesses, some specific to DPRK and
others with agency-wideapplicability. And it has come to my attention
that North Korea has accepted a number of conditions for resuming UNP
activities, and that the Executive Board will take up North Korea's
request for resumption shortly.
If I am confirmed, I will work very closely with the Secretary-
designate to immediately review the conditions proposed for North
Korea, the management and program implementation practices in North
Korea, and the general steps taken and commitments made by the UNP to
improve accountability and transparency. As part of that review, we
will consider your proposed improvements on the transparency side and
develop a strategy for seeking even greater transparency from the UNP.
It is clearly in our interest for the UNP to be as efficient and
transparent as possible and to not facilitate any illicit activity in
the countries in which it has programs. And, to take this one step
further, it is vital that Member States--including the United States
Government--have reasonable access to all information necessary to have
confidence in UNP programs. I would also work with other interested
parties to try to build a strong consensus view at the United Nations
in this regard and make clear to the UNP that this is a matter of
significant focus and concern.
Question. Several U.N. programs, such as the U.N. Development
Program, utilize a method of funding called ``national execution''
where the U.N. transfers funding directly into the central banks of
countries where the U.N. works. While the U.N. claims this is to build
``capacity'' of these countries to perform their own development
programs, as in the case of North Korea and Burma, the U.N. has no
fiscal controls in place to verify the funds are used as intended. And
since money is fungible, there are no guarantees the transferred funds
will not pay for things such as the genocide in Burma or the
concentration camps of North Korea. For example, the Senate Permanent
Subcommittee on Investigations reports the UNP, while claiming to be
transferring economic development money to North Korea, ended up
transferring funds to the state-controlled entity that finances the
regimes illicit weapons sales-sales which reportedly continue even as
recently as August of 2008.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ ``UNDP: A Case Study of North Korea,'' Senate Permanent
Subcommittee on Investigations, January 23, 2008 http://tinyurl.com/
8w9et4; Hosenball, Mark and Christian Caryl, ``The Flight That
wasn't,'' Newsweek, December 1, 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Financial Action Task Force (FATF) is an inter-governmental
body whose purpose is the promotion of national and international
policies to combat money laundering and terrorist financing. FATF has a
list of 40 recommendations and 9 special recommendations it uses to
test whether financial institutions are taking necessary precautions to
avoid terror financing, moneylaundering and other illicit
activities.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ ``Methodology for Assessing Compliance with the FATF 40
Recommendations and the FATF 9 Special Recommendations,'' Financial
Action Task Force, October 2008. http://tinyurl.com/98muha
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Will you commit to protecting the U.S. taxpayer from inadvertently
funding such things as genocide in Burma or weapon sales to terrorists
by North Korea by prohibiting U.S. funds from going to any U.N. System
entity\11\ or other foreign development organization that transfers
funds to banks within states that are not certified by FATF?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ ``United Nations System: Principle Organs,'' United Nations--
http://www.un.org/aboutun/chart--en.pdf
Answer. As I noted above, I take very seriously my responsibility
to the U.S. taxpayer to ensure that our U.N. contributions are well-
spent and well-managed. We intend to carefully review the best way to
advance our interests through the U.N. while at the same time ensuring
that U.S. taxpayer dollars are not inadvertently funding the illegal
and immoral acts of rogue regimes. If confirmed, I will work with the
President-elect, the Secretary-designate and the Cabinet, will ensure
that the U.S. employs all tools of national power to crack down on
terror funding, money laundering and other illicit activity.
U.N. Budget
According to the State Department, the U.N. 2008/2009
Biennial Budget represents the largest increase for a funding
request in U.N.s history.\12\ The 2008/2009UN budget is in
excess of $5.2 billion. This represents 25 percent more than
the 2006/2007 budget that was only $4.17 billion and a 193
percent increase from 1998/1999 budget. The U.N. budget has
grown 17 percent in the previous five years, but the U.S.
budget has grown only 7 percent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ ``Presentation of Ambassador Mark Wallace on the 2008/2009
U.N. Budget,'' State Department, December 11, 2007. http://tinyurl.com/
993mba
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The State Department also reports that the overwhelming
majority of the U.N. budget--75 percent--goes to staff salaries
and common staff costs including travel to resorts for
conferences rather than direct humanitarian assistance or
conflict prevention. Despite the increasing costs, the U.N. has
yet to identify offsets in existing funding to pay for the
increased spending, a position that is supported by a U.N.
General Assembly resolution. \13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Resolution adopted by the General Assembly, 2005 World Summit
Outcome, A/RES/60/1, October 24, 2005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Following the U.N. Secretariat's poor example, the 3/4 of the U.N.
not covered by the U.N. budget have their own out of control spending
growth and lack of offsets: Peacekeeping is growing by 40 percent, the
U.N. Tribunals are growing by 15 percent, and the numerous Funds and
Programs are no better off.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ ``Presentation of Ambassador Mark Wallace on the 2008/2009
U.N. Budget,'' State Department, December 11, 2007. http://tinyurl.com/
993mba
Question. With a large U.S. deficit right now, and the U.N.'s
refusal to identify wasteful and duplicative spending to offset new
spending. Would you support a zero-growth budget at the U.N. and that
the U.S. only make zero-growth budget requests to Congress for all
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
future contributions to U.N. entities?
Answer. If I am confirmed, addressing the U.N. budget will be an
important issue for me. The United Nations is a vital institution, but
it must be run more effectively and efficiently. The U.N. budget has
increased as member states have asked the U.N. to take on increased
responsibilities. The U.N. is contributing in significant ways in
places of importance to the United States including Afghanistan and
Iraq. The U.N. Secretariat is also trying to improve its capacities,
which may in some cases require additional resources. In June 2008, the
Fifth (Budget) Committee approved an additional 45 positions for the
Department of Peacekeeping Operations' Office of Military Affairs
(OMA), in order to improve its capacity for planning operations. I
support these efforts.
At the U.N., the U.S. needs to engage in thoughtful, effective
diplomacy early on in the budget process. While the idea of zero-based
budgeting may appear attractive, it may not allow the U.N. to
strengthen those capacities that are sorely needed. Some areas may need
to grow, others be reduced, but at different rates. Diplomacy's best
resource is good people. They run the programs and staff the missions.
Therefore, staff costs are an important component of the budget of
diplomatic organizations like the U.N. Working through the U.N. enables
the U.S. to share the burdens and costs of managing international peace
and security, climate change and human dignity. When it is necessary to
act internationally, sharing the costs can help efficiency especially
in a time of economic constraints.
Increasing Transparency, Accountability and Effectiveness at the U.N.
Question. The U.N. is charged with many serious responsibilities
and tasks. Yet, as evidenced by the well-publicized scandals involving
the Iraq Oil-for-Food program and recent revelations of corruption in
U.N. procurement, the U.N. all too often has proven vulnerable to
corruption and fraud, unaccountable in its activities, lacking in
transparency and oversight, and duplicative and inefficient in its
allocation of resources. In addition to the other problems highlighted,
what other specific ideas do you have to address these problems?
Answer. As I noted in the confirmation hearing, I agree that no one
can be fully satisfied with the performance of the United Nations, and
too often we are dismayed. The United States must press for high
standards and bring to its dealings with the U.N. high expectations of
its performance and accountability. My top priorities for U.N. reform
would be financial accountability, management efficiency, transparency,
ethics and internal oversight, and program effectiveness in areas such
as peacekeeping, conflict prevention, and mediation.
As I noted above, a key challenge now is ensuring effective
implementation of ongoing initiatives and preventing them from being
watered down or weakened, even as we consider what further steps should
be taken to improve U.N. effectiveness and ability to address the
challenges of the 21st century. I believe firmly that it is not enough
to ensure that U.S. taxpayer dollars are not being wasted. We must
insist that U.S. taxpayer dollars are being spent effectively. In this
regard, and in light of the substantial cost of U.N. peace operations,
I intend to devote substantial focus to ensure that U.N. peace
operations are efficient, effective, and appropriate, including by
ensuring that U.N., as well as our own, procedures to support such
operations are streamlined.
U.N. Accountability and Transparency Reform
Question. While there are several steps taken toward U.N. reform--a
U.N. Ethics Office, permanent oversight board, and the Office of
Internal Oversight Services (OIOS)--they have turned out to be
disappointments. The U.N. Ethics Office is ignored by U.N. agencies,
such as the U.N. Development Program, while U.N. whistleblowers are
attacked, demoted, and demeaned by U.N. officials with impunity. The
OIOS is undermined by not having independent funding or free authority
to investigate senior U.N. officials and programs as necessary.
Recently, a special task force of the OIOS that focused on rooting
out fraud and corruption that undermines the entire U.N. system, has
been shut down by the U.N. bureaucrats and member state representatives
that are most threatened by accountability and sunshine. This task
force has resulted in the identification of over $630 million in U.N.
contracts that are tainted by bribery and fraud, successfully brought
criminal convictions to U.N. employees and a contractor involved in
corruption, and suspended or removed more than 45 private companies
from the U.N. contracting system, and initiated disciplinary actions
against 17 other U.N. employees including 5 who were dismissed.
However, the U.N. system will not restore funding to this task
force, and it will now close down.
Given the failure of the past two administrations to ``talk the
U.N. into reforming,'' and given that the only time the U.N. has
seriously considered reform was when the US withheld its contributions,
what actions will you be willing to take to have the U.N. reform
including a permanent restoration of funding to the anti-fraud task
force?
Answer. Regarding the U.N. procurement task force, as I noted
during the confirmation hearing, the United States strongly supports
the independent authority of an OIOS that is fully staffed and retains
its robust mandate. A stronger and more effective U.N. requires a
greater focus on accountability and transparency. It is essential that
OIOS have the capacity to undertake professional investigations. The
United States will work to ensure that, as the procurement task force
is transitioned into the OIOS, the capacity and resources to sustain
its investigative oversight of U.N. procurement practices remain
robust.
Question. What specific reforms will you pursue should you be
confirmed?
Answer. As I noted in the confirmation hearing, I agree that no one
can be fully satisfied with the performance of the United Nations, and
too often we are dismayed. The United States must press for high
standards and bring to its dealings with the U.N. high expectations of
its performance and accountability. My top priorities for U.N. reform
would be financial accountability, management efficiency, transparency,
ethics and internal oversight, and program effectiveness in areas such
as peacekeeping, conflict prevention, and mediation.As I noted above, a
key challenge now is ensuring effective implementation of ongoing
initiatives and preventing them from being watered down or weakened,
even as we consider what further steps should be taken to improve U.N.
effectiveness and ability to address the challenges of the 21st
century. I believe firmly that it is not enough to ensure that U.S.
taxpayer dollars are not being wasted. We must insist that U.S.
taxpayer dollars are being spent effectively. In this regard, and in
light of the substantial cost of U.N. peace operations, I intend to
devote substantial focus to ensure that U.N. peace operations are
efficient, effective, and appropriate, including by ensuring that U.N.,
as well as our own, procedures to support such operations are
streamlined.
Question. Will you commit to a policy of 25 percent withholdings
from the U.S. contributions to the U.N. if it continues to refuse
reform including the enforcement of the U.N. Ethics office jurisdiction
on every U.N. program and fund, permanently restoring independent
funding of the anti-fraud task force, and a "Freedom of Information
Act" U.N. rule requiring public access to budgets, contracts,
procurement documents, program reviews, and other documents showing how
the U.N. spends our money?
Answer. I do not believe that the U.S. should, as a general
practice, condition its dues to the U.N. on specific reforms. The
United States should pay its dues on time and in full. Transparency and
accountability are essential for an effective United Nations. If
confirmed, I will be committed to working to ensure the independence
and credibility of OIOS. This includes supporting existing efforts to
absorb the functions and expertise of the Procurement Task Force into
OIOS. I will also work with other member states and the Secretary-
General to push for a robust ethics and whistleblower protection regime
throughout the U.N. system.
Question. The United Nations Transparency and Accountability
Initiative is current U.S. policy in place at the State Department.
This policy seeks to have the U.N., including all its funds and
programs, enact the following reforms:
Availability of internal audits and other reports, e.g.
evaluations, investigations, etc. to Member States;
Public access to all relevant documentation related to operations
and activities including budget information and procurement
activities;
``Whistleblower Protection" policies;
Financial disclosure policies;
An effective Ethics Office;
Independence of the respective internal oversight bodies;
Adoption of IPSAS accounting standards in the Funds and Programs
and
Establishing a cap on administrative overhead costs for the Funds
and Programs.
Will you commit to maintaining this policy? If so, how will this
policy manifest in your and your staff interactions with the U.N.?
Answer. If confirmed, I intend to review and, as necessary, enhance
the capacity of the U.S. mission to press for a more effective and
efficient U.N. I will carefully review the U.N. Transparency and
Accountability Initiative being pursued by the U.S. Mission and the
State Department. In consultation with the Secretary of State, I will
ensure that a key objective, as I have noted above, will be to improve
financial accountability, management efficiency, transparency, ethics
and internal oversight, and program effectiveness in areas such as
peacekeeping, conflict prevention, and mediation.
Question. Since the U.S. is vastly outnumbered on the U.N.
executive boards for U.N. funds and programs, besides voting for
reform, what actions will you take to enforce this policy should you be
confirmed?
Achieving effective and lasting reforms at the U.N. requires a
broad-based consensus among U.N. member states to enact and fully
implement reform measures. I intend to pursue these issues with other
member states through direct and sustained diplomatic outreach. Having
a more effective and efficient United Nations serves the interests of
all member states, and I believe that more can be done through
diplomatic engagement that is not encumbered by the divisions of the
20th century.
Question. The Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act
(FFATA), coauthored by President-elect Obama, requires all federal
funding to be put on the public website, USAspending.gov. This includes
all contract, subcontract, grant, and subgrant data such as the amount
of award, source of funds, and the intended purpose of the funds.
Despite this law, the State Department has failed to comply by not
listing all its contributions to entities within the U.N. system, such
as the U.N. Development Program, UNICEF, or UNSCO. Other U.S. agencies
that transfer U.S. funds to U.N. entities-such as the Departments of
Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Treasury, Interior, Energy, and
Education-have either ignored FFATA or only have submitted partial
information for their U.N. funding.
Should the U.S. fund a U.N. entity or any other grantee or
subgrantee of the State Department if it does not comply with U.S. law
as found in the FFATA, and supply subgrant information to be posted on
USAspending.gov? If you are confirmed, what will you do to ensure
compliance at the State Department and other U.S. agencies with the
FFATA requirements regarding U.N. system funding?
Answer. As I have noted in response to previous question regarding
the UNP, I take very seriously my responsibility to the U.S. taxpayer
to ensure that our U.N. contributions are well-spent and well-managed.
I also take very seriously compliance with U.S. law. As the Department
of State has responsibility for compliance with the FFATA, I will work
with Secretary-designate Clinton to carefully review this issue and
support the Department's efforts to comply with the FFATA, if I am
confirmed. It will important to have close consultations with the
Committee and other Members of Congress on this and the full range of
issues pertaining to the United Nations.
|
NEWSLETTER
|
|
Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list
|
|
|
