[House Hearing, 112 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]
REFORMING THE UNITED NATIONS:
THE FUTURE OF U.S. POLICY
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
APRIL 7, 2011
__________
Serial No. 112-35
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.foreignaffairs.house.gov/
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
65-630 WASHINGTON : 2011
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office, http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the
GPO Customer Contact Center, U.S. Government Printing Office.
Phone 202-512-1800, or 866-512-1800 (toll-free). E-mail, gpo@custhelp.com.
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida, Chairman
CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey HOWARD L. BERMAN, California
DAN BURTON, Indiana GARY L. ACKERMAN, New York
ELTON GALLEGLY, California ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American
DANA ROHRABACHER, California Samoa
DONALD A. MANZULLO, Illinois DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey
EDWARD R. ROYCE, California BRAD SHERMAN, California
STEVE CHABOT, Ohio ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York
RON PAUL, Texas GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York
MIKE PENCE, Indiana RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri
JOE WILSON, South Carolina ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey
CONNIE MACK, Florida GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia
JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida
MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas DENNIS CARDOZA, California
TED POE, Texas BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky
GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida BRIAN HIGGINS, New York
JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio ALLYSON SCHWARTZ, Pennsylvania
BILL JOHNSON, Ohio CHRISTOPHER S. MURPHY, Connecticut
DAVID RIVERA, Florida FREDERICA WILSON, Florida
MIKE KELLY, Pennsylvania KAREN BASS, California
TIM GRIFFIN, Arkansas WILLIAM KEATING, Massachusetts
TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania DAVID CICILLINE, Rhode Island
JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina
ANN MARIE BUERKLE, New York
RENEE ELLMERS, North Carolina
VACANT
Yleem D.S. Poblete, Staff Director
Richard J. Kessler, Democratic Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
WITNESS
The Honorable Susan Rice, U.S. Permanent Representative to the
United Nations, U.S. Department of State....................... 15
LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING
The Honorable Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Florida, and chairman, Committee on Foreign
Affairs: Prepared statement.................................... 4
The Honorable Susan Rice: Prepared statement..................... 18
APPENDIX
Hearing notice................................................... 56
Hearing minutes.................................................. 57
The Honorable Gerald E. Connolly, a Representative in Congress
from the Commonwealth of Virginia: Prepared statement.......... 59
The Honorable Dan Burton, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Indiana: Material submitted for the record............ 61
Questions for the record submitted to the Honorable Susan Rice by
the Honorable Ileana Ros-Lehtinen.............................. 64
Questions for the record submitted to the Honorable Susan Rice by
the Honorable Eliot L. Engel, a Representative in Congress from
the State of New York.......................................... 71
REFORMING THE UNITED NATIONS: THE FUTURE OF U.S. POLICY
----------
THURSDAY, APRIL 7, 2011
House of Representatives,
Committee on Foreign Affairs,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 o'clock a.m.,
in room 2172 Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Ileana Ros-
Lehtinen (chairman of the committee) presiding.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. The committee will come to order.
Before we begin, on behalf of the committee, I would like to
express our condolences to the family members of the seven U.N.
personnel murdered in Afghanistan last Friday, and of the 32
people, both U.N. staff and others, who died Monday in a plane
crash in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. If I may, I
would ask that in our seats we observe a moment of silence for
those who have lost their lives.
[A moment of silence was observed.]
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you. After recognizing myself
and the ranking member, my good friend Mr. Berman, for 7
minutes each for our opening statements, we will then recognize
members of the committee who seek recognition for 1 minute
each.
The chair will then recognize our distinguished witness and
a friend of the committee, Ambassador Rice. Following her
testimony, members will be recognized for questions under the
5-minute rule.
Without objection, Ambassador Rice's prepared statement
will be made a part of the record, and members may have 5 days
to insert statements and questions for the record, subject to
the limitations of length in the rules.
The chair now recognizes herself for 7 minutes.
It is always a pleasure to welcome you back to our
committee. Thank you, Ambassador Rice, for your appearance
today.
This is the third session the committee has held this year
on reforming the United Nations. In the past decade, the U.N.'s
regular budget has more than doubled. But has the U.N.'s
transparency, accountability, or effectiveness increased in
proportion?
Well, the former head of the U.N.'s own internal ethics
office had this to say in her exit report, excerpts of which
were leaked to the press: ``There is no transparency. There is
[a] lack of accountability . . . I regret to say that the
[U.N.] Secretariat now is in a process of decay . . . It is
drifting into irrelevance.''
The U.N. has never released the full report to the public.
Former U.N. Deputy Secretary General March Malloch Brown said
earlier this year, ``There is a huge redundancy and lack of
efficiency in the U.N. system, and that the U.N. budget is
utterly opaque, un-transparent, and completely in shadow.''
Some take comfort in the U.N. General's call for a 3-
percent cut in the next biennial budget. But 3 percent? That is
like forgoing a cost of living increase. At our hearing last
month, we considered lessons learned from past U.N. reform
attempts to ensure that present and future efforts are based on
what works.
The most important lesson? Money talks. In fact, Ambassador
Rice, you recognized this is a February 2005 op-ed published in
the Washington Post, entitled ``Promoting Democracy: Money
Talks.''
Almost every productive U.S. effort at reforming the U.N.
has been based on withholding our contributions unless and
until needed reforms are implemented.
In the 1990s, when the U.N. regular and peacekeeping
budgets were skyrocketing, Congress enacted the Helms-Biden
agreement. The U.S. withheld our dues, and conditioned payments
on key reforms. When the U.N. saw that we meant business, they
agreed to changes that saved U.S. taxpayers funds.
So smart withholding works. Given that now Vice President
Biden signed on to smart withholding then, and it worked, I
hope that the administration will agree to support it now.
But smart withholding alone is insufficient to produce the
lasting, systemic reform that our U.S. taxpayers are demanding.
That is why we must move funding for the U.N. budget and the
U.N. entities from an assessed to a voluntary basis.
Americans, not U.N. bureaucrats or other countries, should
determine how much taxpayer dollars are spent on the U.N.,
where they go, and for what purpose. That is at the core of the
United Nations Transparency, Accountability, and Reform Act,
which I first introduced in the year 2007, and which I will
soon be reintroducing with updates to reflect recent
developments concerning the U.N.
We should pay for U.N. programs and activities that advance
our interests and our values. If other countries want different
things to be funded, they can pay for it. The voluntary model
works for UNICEF, for the World Food Program, and other U.N.
entities, and it can work for the U.N. as a whole.
Catherine Bertini, the former U.N. Under Secretary General
for management and director of the World Food Programs has
said,
``Voluntary funding creates an entirely different
atmosphere at the World Food Program than at the U.N.
At the WFP, every staff member knows that we have to be
as efficient, accountable, transparent, and results-
oriented as possible. If we are not, donor governments
can take their funding elsewhere in a very competitive
world among U.N. agencies, NGOs, and bilateral
governments.''
Ambassador Rice, with respect to the references in your
prepared testimony to the U.N. Office of Internal Oversight
Services, I must highlight that scores of procurement
corruption and fraud cases from the now-defunct Procurement
Task Force are collecting dust in this Office of Internal
Oversight Services.
The job of lead investigator has not been filled on a
permanent basis since 2006. The individual who currently holds
that position on an interim basis is under investigation
himself for retaliating against whistle-blowers.
Finally, Madam Ambassador, your written testimony says,
``The U.N. helps isolate terrorists and human rights abusers,''
but Iran is on the board of the U.N. Commission on the Status
of Women. The vice chair of the U.N. Human Rights Council is
the Cuban regime. The majority of the Council's members are not
free nations. And until Ghadafi's massacre of civilians forced
its expulsion, Libya had a seat on the Council.
The Council, of course, did manage at last month's session
to adopt six resolutions attacking our free, democratic ally,
Israel--more than at any previous session. The Council also
recommended the referral of the anti-Israel Goldstone Report to
the U.N. Security Council, and the International Criminal
Court.
The 5-year review of the Council has indicated no real
structural reforms will be forthcoming. Even the U.S. mission
has called this process ``a race to the bottom.''
The Syrian regime is brutally attacking its people, yet it
is running unopposed for a seat on the Human Rights Council.
The absence of structural reforms has real consequences. We
appreciate the limited tactical victories that the U.S. and
other nations won at the Council's most recent sessions, but
that is just not enough.
Most of us want a more accountable and effective U.N. I
believe that the way to achieve this is to require reform
first, pay later.
And lastly, I ask that the U.S. do all we can, Madam
Ambassador, to ensure that the Palestinian lobby does not gain
member status in the U.N. before negotiating a true peace with
our ally, Israel.
And now I am pleased to recognize our distinguished ranking
member, my good friend Mr. Berman, for his opening remarks.
Welcome, Madam Ambassador.
[The prepared statement of Chairman Ros-Lehtinen follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Berman. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. And thank
you very much for scheduling this hearing, which allows the
administration to share its views on the best approach to U.N.
reform.
This is one of those issues where, just based on what you
have outlined in your opening statement, we share the same
goals, but have very different views of how best to get there.
I want to thank Ambassador Rice for taking the time out of
her hectic schedule to be with us today. And before we get into
the arguments about where the U.N. is flawed and where it is
doing good work, I just want to follow up on the opening
comments of my chairman, and remind my colleagues that these
discussions here aren't just theoretical.
Behind every U.N. office, program, and mission, there are
real people who have dedicated their lives to feeding the
hungry, organizing democratic elections, and keeping the peace.
As the chairman mentioned, in the last week alone over 40
U.N. staff and contractors have been killed in the line of duty
in five different countries around the world. We have mentioned
the seven that were brutally murdered in Afghanistan, the 32
that perished in a plane crash in the Congo, a peacekeeper that
was abducted and killed in Darfur, and another peacekeeper that
was killed in Haiti, as well as a staff member that was killed
in the Ivory Coast. And we honor the enormous sacrifices of
these brave men and women, and send our condolences to their
families.
Ambassador Rice, you deserve an enormous amount of credit
for your work to pass the most far-reaching Iran sanctions ever
approved by the Security Council, and for your efforts to
secure U.N. backing for the no-fly zone in Libya.
We also appreciate the work you have done to promote
efficiency, accountability, and transparency at the United
Nations. With many critical issues weighing on the U.N. agenda,
including the possible recognition of a Palestinian state, the
continuation of the flawed Durban process, it is absolutely
essential that the United States maintain a leadership role in
the organization.
And our diplomatic standing in New York and Geneva will be
dramatically weakened if Congress passes legislation that may
soon be considered in this committee. By withholding a
significant portion of our assessed dues unless a nearly
impossible list of conditions is met, this bill would severely
hinder our ability to pursue U.S. foreign policy and national
security interests, support our allies, and achieve the reforms
that both the chairman and I think are necessary.
On the surface, withholding funds sounds like an attractive
option. After all, it's an approach many in Congress use to
encourage changes in the executive branch. But the U.N. isn't
like the executive branch.
Like it or not, we are one of 192 member states. And while
we certainly have tremendous leverage over the Security Council
and other U.N. organizations, simply refusing to pay our bills
is counterproductive.
The last time the U.S.--here we have a different view of
history. The last time Congress forced the U.S. into
significant arrears at the U.N., an effort led by former
Senator Jesse Helms, we lost our seat on the Advisory Committee
on Administrative and Budgetary Questions, which is really the
most important U.N. budget panel.
If the goal of the Helms arrears was to diminish U.S.
influence and put genuine U.N. reform on the back burner, then
that goal was achieved beyond anyone's dreams. If, however, the
objective was to foster meaningful reform, then this
withholding of dues must be judged a failure.
That point was clearly articulated by former State
Department official Terry Miller, one of the Republican
witnesses at our previous U.N. hearing, who testified--not a
witness that I called--``Sadly, neither Helms-Biden
withholding, nor even the long UNESCO withdrawal can be shown
to have had any--much long term impact on the efficiency,
effectiveness, or even the integrity of the U.N. system.''
Ambassador Rice, as the mission in New York gears up for
the battles ahead, I look forward to hearing your views on how
withholding U.S. dues to the U.N. would impact our efforts to
prevent the recognition of a Palestinian state, and pursue
other U.S. foreign policy and national security interests.
Unfortunately, much of the debate over U.N. reform has been
characterized by dated and sometimes exaggerated allegations,
such as the ``Cash for Kim'' scandal. I agree with Ambassador
Mark Wallace, the other Republican witness from the committee's
last hearing, who argued that the State Department and Congress
need a system of verifiable metrics in order to accurately
evaluate the progress of U.N. reform efforts.
Ambassador Wallace testified the United Nations
Transparency and Accountability Initiative, an effort he
spearheaded while serving at the U.S. mission in New York, is
``a user-friendly way for anyone interested in U.N. reform,
notably many taxpaying Americans, to evaluate the progress
being made on key reform issues, to ensure that funds were
utilized efficiently and effectively for their intended
purpose.''
We are constantly told by our friends on the other side of
the aisle that the U.N. is a cesspool of corruption, and a
money pit for U.S. taxpayer dollars. Yet based on our review of
the data, UNTAI has demonstrated marked improvement among
nearly every U.N. agency, program, and fund.
This is the initiative the previous administration achieved
before they left office. Why are my friends on the other side
of the aisle so eager to bypass and undermine a promising
reform effort begun by Republican appointees in the George W.
Bush administration?
Madam Chairman, we agree that much remains to be done to
promote greater efficiency, accountability, and transparency at
the United Nations, and to eliminate the anti-Israel vitriol
that all-too-often emanates from the Human Rights Council and
other U.N. bodies.
But we have a fundamental disagreement about the best means
to achieve that reform. Based on our experience in recent
years, I would argue that withholding U.S. dues simply doesn't
work, and that a much better approach is to continue and
accelerate the quiet but effective approach to U.N. reform
begun in the previous administration.
And finally, Ambassador Rice, I would like to reiterate my
strong support for the work you and all your colleagues in the
mission in New York have done to promote our foreign policy
interests at the U.N. Representing the U.S. at the U.N. can
sometimes be a thankless task, but we are very grateful to have
you there.
Madam Chairman, I yield back.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you very much, Mr. Berman. And
Mr. Smith of New Jersey, the Subcommittee on Africa, Global
Health, and Human Rights chair, is recognized for 1 minute.
Mr. Smith. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. And Ambassador
Rice, welcome to the committee again. Let me just very briefly
ask you--and I hope in your testimony you will cover this, but
just update the committee on the U.N.'s stepped-up efforts to
seat President Ouattara, who obviously won the election in the
Ivory Coast. And I know that the U.N. has accelerated its
efforts, if you could give us an update on that.
Also on the issue of the upcoming Durban Conference. I know
we voted no in December, and I greatly appreciate--I know we
all do--the administration stepping up and trying to defeat
that. But if you could speak to whether or not we plan on not
attending--as you know, all the major Jewish organizations have
strongly recommended that we pull out, and if you could speak
to that, as well.
And finally, as I have asked repeatedly, the ongoing
problems in DR Congo and the new, or relatively fresh,
allegations of peacekeepers abusing young people, and
especially young women--you know, it is an ongoing scandal.
Peacekeepers obviously endure a great amount of risk, but it is
intolerable to think that some of those peacekeepers are raping
and committing sexual violence. If you could speak to that, as
well.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you, Mr. Smith. Mr. Payne, the
ranking member on the Subcommittee on Africa, Global Health,
and Human Rights, is recognized for 1 minute.
Mr. Payne. Thank you very much, and let me commend you for
the outstanding work that you continue to do. I agree with
Ranking Member Berman that I don't think that withholding dues
is the way to go. As a matter of fact, I think that there are
countries that would probably want us to withhold dues, so that
we would continue to reduce our influence in the United
Nations.
I think it is the wrong way to go. I would like to commend
the U.S. for its overwhelming vote in the Human Rights Council,
which it has won. And I know that we will, once again,
hopefully, put ourselves up for reelection to the Human Rights
Council again.
Let me just say that I commend the great job done in South
Sudan with the election, and we hope that Abyei can certainly
be dealt with.
We appreciate the possible increase in troops in Somalia,
which I think is a very key area. Uganda and Burundi's
additional 2,000 troops each, I think, will go far to have more
of a stability in the Somalia region. I yield back the balance
of my time.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you, Mr. Payne. Mr.
Rohrabacher, the chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight and
Investigations.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Thank you much, Madam Chairman. And
welcome, Ambassador Rice. I would disagree with my friend Mr.
Berman. All of us do not have the same goals in mind, and there
are people on your side of the aisle and on my side of the
aisle who believe that we should move toward global government.
And the fact is, the United Nations is being used as a
vehicle, perhaps, to see how global government will function.
And if there is anything that has convinced me that we should
not be moving toward global government, it is the folly of the
United Nations.
The fact that right now we are in such an economic crisis
and we are expected to pay 22 percent of the budget of the
United Nations with no strings attached is an incredible demand
on the people of the United States of America.
So instead of trying to foist off global government on
them, perhaps we should start working to make sure that our
country is functioning well. And that means using our resources
in the best possible way, and not giving it to an organization
that permits communist China, the world's worst human rights
abuser, to have a veto power over what it does. Thank you very
much.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you. Mr. Sherman, the ranking
member on the Subcommittee on Terrorism, Nonproliferation, and
Trade.
Mr. Sherman. First, I think we have a human rights
obligation to protect Camp Ashraf from the attacks of the Iraqi
Government, a government that exists because we put it there,
and a government that is using the fact that, in actions
criticized by a United States court, the State Department still
has the MEK on the terrorist list but has not opened up the
process to determine whether that decision withstands the light
of day.
Now let me trouble you with an accounting issue. We are
dramatically understating the amount we spend for U.N. military
actions. This may help you in domestic politics, because you
can say ``Well, we are not really putting in that much money,''
but it undermines your efforts to get other countries to do
more.
We are, for example, dramatically understating the cost of
what we are doing in Libya by using the highly discredited
marginal cost accounting and reporting that as costing only
$600 million. We need to use full-cost accounting, which will
reveal what the American people instinctively understand, and
that is that effort is costing us billions a week.
If we use full-cost accounting, which is the proper
accounting approach, to tell the world what we spend on the
military actions sanctioned by the United Nations, you will see
that we are putting in 50 percent, not 20 percent. I yield
back.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you, Mr. Sherman. Mr. Chabot
is recognized. He is the Subcommittee on the Middle East and
South Asia chairman.
Mr. Chabot. Thank you, Madam Chair. Ambassador Rice, I want
to be very frank. Whereas I strongly support the
administration's decision to veto the recent U.N. resolution
condemning Israel, as chairman of the Foreign Affairs Middle
East and South Asia Subcommittee I strongly object to your so-
called Explanation of Vote, in which you not only did not
support Israel, but you actually joined in the criticism of
Israel.
In 529 short words, this administration undid most, if not
all, of the good that had been done by its veto. In my opinion,
with your words, you in effect threw America's historic ally,
Israel, to the wolves.
And secondly, on another issue, following the massacre of
U.N. staff in Afghanistan last week, the top U.N. official--the
top U.N. official in Afghanistan--stated that, ``I don't think
we should be blaming any Afghan. We should be blaming the
person who produced the news, the one who burned the Koran.''
I would like to know whether or not the administration
agrees with that statement, especially when considering that
the United States is the leading funder and supporter of the
U.N. around the world, and especially in Afghanistan.
I yield back.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you, Mr. Chabot. Mr. Engel,
the ranking member on the Subcommittee on the Western
Hemisphere, is recognized.
Mr. Engel. Thank you, Madam Chair. And welcome, Madam
Secretary. Many of us met with you last week, and I want to
again reiterate that I personally thank you for the wonderful
job you are doing representing our country.
We just met with Bank Ki-Moon for breakfast, and we
expressed some of our frustrations. And I know that will come
out later in the questions as well, but we are frustrated and
tired of the U.N. using Israel as a punching bag.
I am hoping that there can be a repudiation of the
Goldstone Report. Judge Goldstone himself repudiated it, and I
gave a speech on the House floor last night saying that the
U.N. ought to repudiate it as well.
I chair the Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere. Very
chagrined at the unilateral recognition of Palestine by some of
the South American countries, and that it becomes a
disincentive for getting the Palestinians to sit down and talk,
because this way they think they can just get recognized as
well.
So these are some of the questions I am going to ask later
on. And again, thank you personally for your good work.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you, Mr. Engel. Ms. Schmidt of
Ohio is recognized.
Ms. Schmidt. Thank you, Madam Chair. And thank you, Madam
Ambassador, for being here. I just want to focus my remarks on
two things.
The first is the Human Rights Council. You know, it came
into existence in 2006 to supposedly replace the Commission on
Human Rights, and it is really, quite frankly, difficult to see
any difference.
The Council, while consistently ignoring human rights
abuses of its own members, such as Libya and Cuba, routinely
introduces resolutions criticizing and condemning Israel. If
its only purpose is to denounce our ally in the Middle East,
then I suggest maybe we ought to move off the Council.
The second is my concern with the excessive budget of the
United Nations and the disproportionate share that is being
paid by the taxpayers of the United States. We are assessed
almost one quarter of the regular operating budget. We are also
paying 30 percent of the peacekeeping budget. We are paying 100
percent of the costs to upgrade the security at the
headquarters in New York. This amounts to $100 million for that
alone.
In the last 10 years, the U.N.'s biennial budget has more
than doubled. Larger budgets for the U.N. means larger deficits
for the United States. I think it has come time to reform our
share of contributions.
Again, thank you.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you very much. Mr. Meeks, the
ranking member on the Subcommittee on Europe and Eurasia.
Mr. Meeks. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Madam Ambassador, let
me just first thank you for the great work that you have been
doing at the United Nations. When we look at you, with all that
has been going on, we are very proud of you and how you have
been representing the United States of America.
I want to also extend my sincere regrets and condolences to
the U.N. families for the families who lost their lives in
Afghanistan in service of the United Nations.
And though we are here today focused on U.N. reform, I want
to take time to commend the vigorous and vital role the U.N.
has played in recent life- and security-threatening situations.
The Security Council's resolution coordinating and shaping
a unified engagement in Libya, and the U.N. action in Cote
d'Ivoire represents the U.N. at its muscular, nimble, and
assertive best.
On this, the 60th anniversary of the U.N. Convention on
Refugees, I would like to take special note of the United
Nations High Commission on Refugees' critical activities around
the globe, and highlight the role that UNHCR played in
providing shelter for displaced people in Krygyzstan before the
winter set in, and tending to the refugees fleeing the fighting
and discrimination in Libya. And we know that the United States
representative has shaped such engagement, and we thank you for
it.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you very much. Mr. Kelly, the
Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific vice chair.
Mr. Kelly. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Madam Ambassador, it
is nice to have you with us. I am deeply concerned with the
U.N. peacekeeping mission, and as we go forward, we are all
concerned because of the unsustainable debt that the United
States continues to run up. And using the President's term of
investments, we have quite an investment in the U.N., and we
need to see type of a return, a positive return, on that
investment.
And so my anticipation through your testimony is going to
be the U.N. peacekeeping operation in Libya right now, as it
continues to escalate, and what we look at as a kinetic
military action, I would like to know what our full commitment
is going to be as we go forward, and the impact it is going to
have on Americans and the contribution that we make to the U.N.
So thank you for being here with us today.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you, sir. Mr. Carnahan, the
ranking member on the Subcommittee on Oversight and
Investigations.
Mr. Carnahan. Thank you, Madam Chair. Welcome, Ambassador.
Welcome back. We are a little more than 2 years into the Obama
administration's reform and re-engagement agenda at the U.N.
and other multilateral organizations, and we think there has
been important progress.
While I still have serious concerns about some reform
efforts at the U.N., and with the Human Rights Council in
particular, recent successes like the establishment of the
Special Rapporteur on the human rights situation in Iran, I
think, are important.
I was also pleased to hear the announcement of the
administration that they would be running for another term. I
believe that the global challenges in the 21st century require
a strong multilateral engagement.
Being engaged and at the table is a far better policy than
one of retreat and disengagement that weakens American clout,
harms our national interest, and plays into the hands of our
adversaries.
I want to see us continue that policy of reform and re-
engagement at the U.N., and I appreciate your strong efforts to
lead that. Thank you.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you. Mr. Duncan of South
Carolina.
Mr. Duncan. Madam Chairman, I am greatly concerned that we
lack a clear indication of how much the United States
contributes to the United Nations through assessed and
voluntary contributions. In previous hearings, witnesses have
not been able to provide numbers or statistics on how much we
are spending, and what specific programs American taxpayers
support financially.
Furthermore, in those programs that we do know where the
money goes, such as the UNRWA and the IAEA, we see multiple
fundamental problems. UNRWA refuses to vet its staff for ties
to terrorist organizations, and American contributions in the
past have fallen in the hands of Hamas.
That is unacceptable. The Human Rights Council is
laughable. Its two core institutional flaws plague its system
with no recourse for change. It allows countries that commit
human abuses--China, Cuba, Saudi Arabia and Russia--to sit on
its Council and vote, while possessing continuous platforms of
one-sided criticism of Israel, a vital American ally.
America should not tolerate such actions. Ambassador Rice,
you have a responsibility to uphold the United States
Constitution, provide for the common defense, and ensure that
American taxpayer dollars receive the greatest return on our
investment. I look forward to your responses to my questions.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you, sir. Mr. Connolly of
Virginia.
Mr. Connolly. Thank you, Madam Chairman. And welcome,
Ambassador Rice. Three points. One is, I think history says
that the United Nations has been a vital and essential part in
complementing U.S. foreign policy interests around the world,
has been since its founding, which we helped create 65 years
ago. And people need to remember that.
Secondly, the idea that we are going to take our marbles
and go home because we don't like various aspects of the U.N.,
including when it exercises its democratic right to disagree
with us, is to me a juvenile posture not worthy of a great
nation. Roll up your sleeves, and make it better. That's the
answer.
And thirdly, the idea that the U.N. is part of some global
conspiracy to create a global government is rehashed right-wing
claptrap we have been hearing for over 60 years. It ain't true,
and also unworthy of a great power to even express.
Thank you, and welcome to the Foreign Affairs Committee.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Fortenberry, the vice chair of
the Subcommittee on Africa, Global Health, and Human Rights.
Mr. Fortenberry. Welcome, Ambassador Rice, and thank you
for your testimony today. The United Nations presents us with
some very serious problems, challenges, as well as potential.
The body can be used for great good, or it can also facilitate
great harm.
We have seen, for example, the commitment and resolve of
U.N. troops in the Ivory Coast to help quickly end that
country's nightmare.
However, when the power of the U.N. is used as a platform
for ideologies that are inconsistent with universal values,
whether at the so-called Human Rights Council or in our own
participation in entities such as the U.N. Population Fund,
which now goes so far as to align itself with abortion
advocacy, we are as guilty as other nations in leveraging that
body for controversial norms that are both an affront to human
dignity and human rights.
Now with that said, I believe your push and your support of
the effort to pass the resolution--end the resolution combating
discrimination and violence--had a very important effect in
defending religious freedom, and I am grateful for that.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you, Mr. Fortenberry. Mr.
Deutch of Florida is recognized.
Mr. Deutch. Thank you, Madam Chairman. And welcome,
Ambassador Rice. Ambassador, prior to Richard Goldstone's
article last weekend, the Human Rights Council had just
recently adopted a resolution by Richard Falk, Special
Rapporteur on Palestinian Human Rights--perhaps also known as
special rapporteur to encourage further anti-Israel bias--
accusing Israel of committing ethnic cleansing.
In Goldstone's admission, he confirms that the Israeli army
didn't intentionally fire on civilians in Gaza, but that Hamas
purposefully and indiscriminately aimed at civilian targets.
Based on his findings and his statement, I hope that you
will speak to the Council's ability to seek the
reconsideration, the revocation, or the retraction of the
Goldstone report, in large measure because of the opportunity
it provides to acknowledge that Israel has the right, if not
the duty, like any other civilized nation, to take action to
protect its citizens, civilians, who are under an onslaught of
attacks. And I look forward to your testimony.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you very much. Mr. Rivera of
Florida.
Mr. Rivera. Thank you, Madam Chair. I don't want to
reiterate my colleagues' concerns that they have raised
regarding the United Nations Human Rights Council as well, and
our participation along with other countries that can only be
called human rights abusers, such as China and Cuba, and to
understand the justification for why we even participate in
such a farce such as the U.N. Human Rights Council.
Also, with respect to one of those human rights abusers,
Cuba, and the annual vote that occurs at the United Nations
regarding the embargo, the embargo is U.S. policy. We always
have certain friends, staunch allies like Israel, that stand
with us on that vote, but I would like to hear a little bit
about what are our efforts to make a more multilateral approach
and bring more support to U.S. policy throughout the region.
We know that Cuba, for example, is a state sponsor of
terrorism. We know they are harboring terrorists. We know that
the Castro regime is harboring fugitives from U.S. justice,
such as drug traffickers, cop-killers, and embezzlers, and I
would like to know what our administration's efforts are at the
United Nations to make the U.S. policy of the embargo more of a
multilateral support effort in that institution. Thank you,
Madam Chairman.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you, Mr. Rivera. Mr.
Cicilline. Mr. Keating.
Mr. Keating. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I would just like
to reiterate that I hope you can comment on the issue of
Palestinian unilateralism, which I believe my other colleagues
have mentioned prior to this as well.
At that, I will yield back my time.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Wow. We are not used to that. It is
like the reform at the U.N., what do we do? What is that about?
Ms. Buerkle of New York, the vice chair of the Subcommittee on
Terrorism, Nonproliferation, and Trade.
Ms. Buerkle. Thank you, Madam Chairman. And thank you,
Ambassador Rice, for being here this morning. I just want to
echo the comments of my colleagues and the concerns they have
talked about.
Specifically, I look forward to a discussion regarding the
funding by the United States of America to the U.N.,
particularly with the peacekeeping efforts where audits have
indicated that there has been fraud and abuse of dollars in the
peacekeeping efforts.
And beyond that, I look forward to a discussion about the
anti-Israel bias that the U.N. tends to exhibit. So I look
forward to our hearing this morning, and thank you for being
here. I yield.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you. Ms. Wilson of Florida.
Ms. Wilson of Florida. Thank you, Chairman Ros-Lehtinen,
for this important hearing this morning. First, I offer my
belated condolences to the Ambassador and her family. The
Ambassador's father, Emmett Rice, who passed away a little less
than a month ago, was truly one of the economic pioneers in our
nation, and his loss will be greatly missed.
Second, during these fiscally tough times, it is important
that we have a fair and objective process, filled with
individuals capable of ensuring that the people's money is
being effectively and efficiently spent. We want to ensure that
the law and the intent of the Congress--the laws are being
followed in the programs that we authorize.
The American people expect no less.
Currently, the United Nations is on the ground in
Afghanistan, Libya, Sudan, the Ivory Coast, among other war-
torn localities. Seven U.N. staffers were beaten, shot and
killed during the attack on their compound in Afghanistan. The
U.N., while not perfect, has done much to forward the goals of
both the U.N. and the United States.
I thank Ambassador Rice for her hard work in protecting the
interests of the United States, and I look forward to your
testimony today.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you so much. Thanks to all the
members for excellent opening statements. And now we are so
pleased to welcome a friend of our committee, Ambassador Susan
Rice, back to our committee. Ambassador Rice is the U.S.
Permanent Representative to the United Nations.
She served in the Clinton administration as Assistant
Secretary of State for African Affairs from '97 to '01, and in
senior posts on the National Security Council from '93 to '97.
Following her service in the State Department, she was a senior
fellow at the Brookings Institution from '02 to '09.
Ambassador Rice has also served in the private sector, and
on numerous boards, and we thank her for agreeing to testify
today. Madam Ambassador, please proceed, and welcome back.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE SUSAN RICE, U.S. PERMANENT
REPRESENTATIVE TO THE UNITED NATIONS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Ambassador Rice. Thank you very much. I appreciate the
opportunity to be here. Representative Berman, members of this
committee, it is an honor to have the chance to come before the
committee again today. I thank you, Madam Chairman, for
including my full statement in the record, which I will
summarize now.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Without objection.
Ambassador Rice. I want to begin by expressing my gratitude
for the many kind words of sympathy that have been expressed by
many members of the committee regarding the recent losses that
the United Nations has suffered in a number of countries of
late. It has indeed been a very difficult period, and your
expressions of sympathy will be very appreciated.
I want to begin this morning by recalling the U.N.'s
response to the crisis in Libya, which in my estimation further
reminds us of the value of the United Nations in an age of 21st
century challenges.
With U.S. leadership, the Security Council swiftly
authorized the use of force to save civilians at risk of mass
slaughter. It established a no-fly zone and imposed strong
sanctions on the Ghadafi regime. With broad international
support, we also suspended Libya from the U.N. Human Rights
Council by consensus, a historic first.
As we well know, America's resources and influence are by
no means limitless, and that is why the United Nations is so
important to our national security. It allows us to share the
costs and burdens of tackling global problems, rather than
leaving these problems untended or leaving the world to look to
the United States alone.
I therefore ask for this committee's support for the
President's budget request for contributions to international
organizations, and to the CIPA accounts, to help us advance
U.S. national interests.
Our leadership at the United Nations makes us more secure
in at least five fundamental ways. First, the U.N. prevents
conflict and keeps nations from slipping back into war. More
than 120,000 military police and civilian peacekeepers are now
deployed in 14 operations worldwide in places such as Haiti,
Sudan, and Liberia. Just 98 of those individuals are Americans
in uniform, all serving under U.S. command and control.
U.N. missions in Iran and Afghanistan are promoting
stability so that American troops can come home faster. These
are examples of burden sharing at its best.
Second, the United Nations helps halt the proliferation of
nuclear weapons. Over the past 2 years, the United States led
efforts that imposed the toughest sanctions to date on Iran and
North Korea.
Third, the United Nations helps isolate terrorists and
human rights abusers by sanctioning individuals and companies
associated with terrorism, atrocities, and cross-border crime.
Fourth, U.N. humanitarian and development agencies go where
nobody else will to provide desperately needed assistance. U.N.
agencies deliver food, water, and medicine to those who need it
most, from Darfur to Pakistan, and many other places around the
world.
Fifth, U.N. political efforts can help promote universal
values that Americans hold dear, including human rights,
democracy, and equality, whether it is by spotlighting human
rights abuses in Iran, North Korea and Burma, or offering
critical support to interim governments in Egypt and Tunisia as
they prepare for elections.
Let me turn now, briefly, to our efforts to reform the
United Nations and improve its management practice. Our agenda
focuses on seven priorities. First, U.N. managers must enforce
greater budget discipline. Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon, as
was noted, recently instructed senior managers to cut 3 percent
from current budget levels, the first proposed reduction
compared to the previous year of spending in 10 years.
Second, we continue to demand a culture of transparency and
accountability for resources and results. We aggressively
promote a strengthened, independent Office of Internal
Oversight Services, and an improved ethics framework and
enhanced protection for whistle-blowers.
Third, we are pushing for a more mobile, meritocratic U.N.
civilian workforce that incentivizes service in tough field
assignments, rewards top performers, and removes dead wood.
Fourth, we are improving protection of civilians by
combating sexual violence in conflict zones, demanding
accountability for war crimes, and strengthening U.N. field
missions.
Fifth, we are insisting on reasonable, achievable mandates
for peacekeeping missions. Not a single new U.N. peacekeeping
operation has been created in the last 2 years. Not a single
one. And in 2010, for the first time in 6 consecutive years, we
closed missions and reduced the peacekeeping budget.
Sixth, we are working to restructure the U.N.'s
administrative and logistical support systems for peacekeeping
missions to make them more efficient, cost-effective, and
responsive to realities in the field.
Finally, we are pressing the United Nations to finish
overhauling the way it conducts day-to-day business, including
upgrading its information technology platforms, procurement
practices, and accounting procedures.
But the U.N., we all agree, must do more to live up to its
founding principles. We have taken the Human Rights Council in
a better direction, including by creating a new Special
Rapporteur on Iran.
But much more needs to be done. The Council must deal with
human rights emergencies wherever they occur, and its
membership should reflect those who respect human rights, not
those who abuse them.
We also continue to fight for fair and normal treatment,
every day, for Israel, throughout the United Nations system.
The tough issues between Israelis and Palestinians can be
resolved only by direct negotiations between the parties, not
in New York.
That is why the United States vetoed a Security Council
resolution in February that risked hardening both sides'
positions. We consistently oppose anti-Israel resolutions in
the Human Rights Council, the General Assembly, and wherever
they may arise.
The U.N., we all agree, is far from perfect. But it
delivers real results for every American by advancing U.S.
security through genuine burden-sharing. That burden-sharing is
more important than ever at a time when the threats don't stop
at our borders, when Americans are hurting and cutting back,
and when American troops remain in harm's way.
Madam Chairman, thank you for your willingness to give me
this opportunity. I am pleased now to answer the committee's
questions.
[The prepared statement of Ambassador Rice follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you very much. Thank you for
that excellent testimony. And now I will begin with the
question and answer period.
Madam Ambassador, since the U.N. continues to be used to
propagate anti-Israel bias, it is important for the United
States to show leadership and stand publicly and unequivocally
with the Jewish State.
So accordingly, I respectfully request this of you. Will
you take this opportunity to publicly pledge that the U.S. will
join Canada and Israel in not participating in the upcoming
Durban 3 hate-fest, and that the U.S. will withhold funding
from it?
Secondly, that the U.S. will push for the U.N. General
Assembly to repudiate the Goldstone report, just as it revoked
the old Zionism is Racism resolution in '91. Or is the U.S.
going to push for a correction in the record to accurately
reflect the retraction of Judge Goldstone on his report?
And lastly, if that resolution or statement or anything
else is brought to the U.N. that would recognize a Palestinian
state or upgrade the status of the Palestinian observer
mission, that the U.S. will do everything it can to oppose and
stop such measures, and will veto them at the Security Council
before they get to the General Assembly?
Ambassador Rice. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Let me take
those collectively first, and then individually, if I may.
First of all, as I said in my full testimony for the record,
and as I will reiterate, the United States every day stands
firmly and unequivocally in support of our ally and partner,
Israel, in the United Nations, where, as we all know, it often
comes under illegitimate and unfair attacks simply for
existing.
We do this because it is in our national interest, because
it accords with our values and principles, and because it is
manifestly the right thing to do. We have spent a great deal of
time and effort combating anti-Israel efforts, opposing them,
vetoing them when necessary, and preventing them from arising
in the first place.
We have had a great deal of frustration in some
circumstances, and success in others. For example, we have
succeeded in incorporating Israel into a number of like-minded
groups of countries at the U.N. in New York and Geneva, which
it has long sought membership to.
We have supported and seen Israel successfully achieve
leadership positions in the United Nations, for example co-
leading the Kimberly process. We successfully opposed
resolutions that arose to condemn Israel in the IAEA and
elsewhere.
So this is part of the daily work that my mission does, and
that I am proud to do every day. Now, coming to your specific
questions.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. That is Durban 3, Goldstone, and
Palestine.
Ambassador Rice. I have them. Thank you. With respect to
the Durban Conference, as you know, we withdrew from the Durban
review conference that occurred in Geneva in 2009. We did so
out of great frustration with the fact that the problems with
the original Durban conference, as they related to Israel,
remained unchanged.
And you know also that this administration and Congress
stand strongly in support of efforts to oppose racism in all of
its forms, and that remains very important to the United
States.
But as we look at this 10-year commemoration coming up in
September, we are deeply concerned both by its likely content
and its timing. And that is why the United States opposed the
resolution establishing this commemorative conference. That is
why we have not participated in any active way in the
discussions or negotiations surrounding the documents that may
be considered at that conference, and why I don't anticipate
that our posture will change.
With respect to Goldstone, the United States has been clear
from the outset that we believe that report was gravely and
fundamentally flawed, that it completely unfairly drew
conclusions about Israel's intentions and conduct. And we never
saw at the time, nor do we see now, any evidence that Israel
intentionally committed crimes against civilians, or other
forms of war crimes intentionally.
And now, of course, we have seen Judge Goldstone call into
question many of the fundamental conclusions of his original
report. We are very interested--as I said yesterday--in first
of all ensuring that all of the follow-up actions that have
been contemplated with respect to Goldstone cease and go
nowhere.
Secondly, we would frankly--as I said--like to see this
entire Goldstone proposition disappear. We are consulting
closely with core friends and partners about the appropriate
procedural steps that we might take to address both our
concerns about the original report, and Judge Goldstone's
recent revelations.
The tactics that we will choose to do that have not been
formally decided. There are various options out there, but I
want to say, Madam Chairman, that the most practical ones
require further action either by the Human Rights Council or
the General Assembly, and we know the challenges attending----
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you. And I am sure that other
members will ask about the Palestinian state recognition. Thank
you so much. I am so pleased to recognize my friend, the
ranking member, Mr. Berman of California.
Mr. Berman. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. And
Ambassador Rice, I would like you to--it is obviously a level
of speculation as to what would happen, but indicate on some of
the critical missions that you have undertaken with, I think, a
remarkable amount of success, on what I consider vital national
security issues, Iran first and foremost.
If the U.S. were in a position where we were significantly
in arrears of our treaty obligations, how would your ability to
facilitate and achieve some of the successes you have been able
to achieve around sanctions, these efforts to fight
resolutions, at the IAEA and in other places, that seek to
discriminate and seek to delegitimize Israel--how would your
skills be impeded in terms of maximizing the chances of
achieving the results we want? If you could just sort of lay
out your thoughts on that particular issue.
And I would note for this purpose, you were in the
executive branch of government the last time we were very
significantly in arrears, under the Helms language that the
chairman gave some credit to Vice President Biden for. But it
was a Helms initiative, and I think that was politics.
What damage did it do there to our standing and our ability
to do the job of pursuing American interests through diplomatic
means at the United Nations?
Ambassador Rice. Thank you, Mr. Berman. There is no
question that when the United States is in debt to the United
Nations, when we fail to meet our treaty obligations to pay our
assessed contributions, that our influence is diminished, our
standing is injured, and our ability to pursue important
initiatives that advance U.S. national security and U.S.
national interests is gravely undermined.
The dues we pay goes for things that we vote for in the
Security Council. The bulk of our expenses are for
peacekeeping. These are missions that we decide to authorize
and deploy because we think they do things that matter to the
United States, like halt genocide in Darfur, like help to
enable a referendum in South Sudan to come about, and the
creation of a new state--which we look forward to in July--in
South Sudan. Preventing the flow of refugees and stabilizing
Haiti. Bringing democracy and security to Cote d'Ivoire. The
list goes on.
But these are things that we have authorized and supported
because they serve our national security interests, because we
have taken the decision that to do nothing would be intolerable
and dangerous, and to do something with others sharing the cost
and the burden of the military operation is much more sensible
than us contemplating doing it alone. So this is why it is in
our interest.
Beyond that, Mr. Berman, when we are not fulfilling our
obligations, our influence, our leverage, the value of our
diplomacy is substantially undermined. I do recall in the '90s
how that was, and I can tell you that the cooperation we have
managed to achieve to impose tough sanctions on Iran, on North
Korea, to authorize strong action in Libya and Cote d'Ivoire
and many other things, would not be possible if we were again
in a situation of debt.
Mr. Berman. Let me just use my remaining seconds to throw
out one proposition. One thing that seems to unify this
committee, and I am very happy about it, is the focus on the
efforts, the tremendous efforts, to delegitimize Israel in the
U.N. and its component bodies.
Have the Israelis indicated to you that they would hope you
would embrace a strategy of not participating there or
withholding dues as a way of helping them to overcome this very
intentional assault on their standing?
Ambassador Rice. Absolutely not. On the contrary, we
partner every day very closely with Israel, and our ability to
be a leader in strong standing with maximum influence, I
believe, Israel sees as serving their best interests as well.
And that is why--that is among the reasons; there are many,
many reasons--but I think it is important to point out that it
is not just the Obama administration. It is the Bush
administration, and all previous administrations, that have
taken the strong view that it is counter to our interests to
use withholding of dues as a means of trying to obtain our
policy objectives. It doesn't work. It is counterproductive,
and the record shows it.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr.
Berman. Mr. Smith, the Subcommittee on Africa, Global Health,
and Human Rights chair.
Mr. Smith. Thank you, Madam Chair. Ambassador Rice, if you
could just tell us what role you believe U.N. peacekeeping
operations will play in South Sudan after July 9th? And if you
could speak to the issue of the abuse in the DR Congo--if that
has been rectified, how you see that playing out--by U.N.
peacekeepers?
Also, years back I held a series of hearings and offered an
amendment on the whole issue of anti-Semitic language in UNRWA
textbooks. Has that been fixed? We are the major donor still,
about $0.5 billion over the last 2 years alone. It seems to me
that we should have zero tolerance for anything that is either
anti-Semitic or anti-American, when we are footing the bill for
those textbooks.
And finally--and I raise this with increasing alarm, and I
have raised it since as far back as 1983, and that is the
barbaric one-child-per-couple policy, with its very heavy
reliance on forced abortion and forced sterilization.
As you know, brothers and sisters are illegal in China.
That has not changed. I recently worked on a case of a woman
who was being compelled in a major city in China to get an
abortion after her first child, because she was not allowed a
second.
I actually have a picture, because it was a very--and I
will share it with you privately--a very successful outcome,
but she is absolutely the exception in the PRC. With
resoluteness, women are allowed only one child.
As you know, for 30 years the U.N. Population Fund has
aided and abetted that barbaric policy. They have heaped praise
upon it. They have trained the cadres. I know under the Bush
administration a serious effort was made to find out exactly
what that training was, and they stonewalled.
And I am wondering if we have been able--and I would like
to be a part of that--to find out exactly what is going on with
regards to the UNFPA's work there.
Because as Secretary John Negroponte pointed out in 2008,
when we denied funding to the UNFPA, he pointed out in
pertinent part, that China's birth limitation program remains
harshly coercive in law and practice, including coercive
abortion.
It is illegal in almost all provinces for a single woman to
bear a child, so if you are an unwed mother, you are forcibly
aborted, even if it is the one child permitted to most women in
their lifetime under the law.
What was very important in his finding, the State
Department noted that Chinese law is ``the foundation of its
coercive policies and practices, and that the UNFPA comports
with and adheres to Chinese law.''
So in those counties where the UNFPA is operating, they
absolutely must follow Chinese law with regard to the one-
child-per-couple policy. And the impact--and I know you know
this, Ambassador Rice--there is the gender disparity--10 years
ago, in the State Department country reports on human rights
practices, it was revealed that upwards of 100,000,000 girls
are missing in China, as a direct result of gender-cide.
The targeting of a girl in utero, and the destruction of
that tiny infant baby girl, simply because she is female--now,
I see some people in your staff smiling and laughing. You know,
it galls me to no end, frankly, that we have not raised this
gender-cide issue--even CEDAW has raised it, not to the
proportion that it ought to.
But frankly, it is unconscionable that girls are being
targeted because of their being girls, and systematically
eliminated. By 2020, 40,000,000 men will not be able to find
wives, because they have been eliminated, systematically, year
in and year out, as a direct result of the one-child-per-couple
policy.
So I strongly encourage you, we need to be on the same page
with this. These are crimes against gender, crimes against
humanity. And where is the Genocide Convention Panel of
Experts? Where are others? Where is the Human Rights Council?
You know, the periodic review punts on this, with regard to
China. So I would ask you, please, to raise this issue
aggressively, and take back, if you would, the request that
they have real transparency with regard to UNFPA. It does not
exist currently.
Ambassador Rice. Madam Chair, I am not sure I am going to
be able to address all of those in the 30 seconds remaining. I
am going to talk as fast as I know how.
In post-Sudan, the U.N. is in the process--post-referendum
Sudan, and the U.N. is in the process of assessing and talking
to southern authorities about what would be the optimal follow-
on configuration for a U.N. mission. We expect there to be one,
but we want it to--its composition will depend, in part, on how
far the two parties get in negotiating some of the remaining
issues, and what the government itself chooses to ask for.
Sexual exploitation in the Congo is a subject of gravest
concern to the United States, to the administration, as well as
Congress----
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you, Ambassador, and I know
that this is a serious issue that merits further inquiry. And
we look forward to getting your response perhaps after the
hearing.
Ambassador Rice. Thank you.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. And if not, in written form, Mr.
Smith.
Mr. Smith. Thank you.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Payne, the ranking member on the
same committee.
Mr. Payne. Thank you very much. And I agree with my
colleague from New Jersey about the policies in China. However,
I think probably one of the things that has made China as
strong as it is is because of the embrace that U.S. businessmen
have made to China, and we have a policy where China has been
able to make itself very strong, and have its current
government stronger by virtue of the largesse of what they are
able to get out of our business community.
So I think that when we look at issues, maybe the burden is
not necessarily the United Nations' but the behavior of our
U.S. businesspeople, where this doesn't become an issues.
Let me just say that I believe that participating in issues
like the Human Rights Council--and I also think that if we were
at Durban, we could actually argue our points at the IPU, which
is International Parliamentary Union, a group that the United
States removed itself from maybe 10 or 15 years ago.
Israel is still a member. They say why don't we come back
to assist them, but we refuse to come back primarily because of
the issues. Which to me, there is no voice within the IPU to
assist Israel in its argument, as they stay there by
themselves, without the support of the U.S.
Let me just quickly, once again, commend the assistance
that you have done in Sudan with the 90-plus percent turnout of
the election, the 96 or -7 percent of people who say they
should remove--but one, I would like to know what we can do the
pressure the results for Abyei.
If Abyei remains unresolved, I believe war will happen in
Sudan between the north and the south, in the future. It will
be similar to the issue in Pakistan and India that has not been
resolved, and still continues on.
I wonder if you could comment on Somalia, and the U.N.'s
assistance to the AU with their peacekeeping. Also, in Cote
d'Ivoire, where the U.N.--and I commend them for their
resolutions--is there any more action that the U.N. will take
for Gbagbo to step down in that area.
And finally, with the Western Sahara--you know, Morocco
still continues to illegally occupy Western Sahara. Is the U.N.
doing anything to deal with that situation?
Ambassador Rice. Thank you, Mr. Payne. Let me begin with
southern Sudan, and the question of Abyei. As you know, the
United States has been very active in trying not only,
originally, to broker the CPA, but to ensure its full
implementation, and in the run-up to the referendum, and in
trying to resolve all of the outstanding post-referendum
issues.
And Abyei is not even a post-referendum issue. It should
have been, as you know, dealt with in its own referendum
simultaneous to the southern referendum.
Ambassador Princeton Lyman, who was recently named by
President Obama as his new special envoy, is out in the region
as we speak. He is working actively with both parties, as well
as with the AU high-level panel, former South African President
Mbeki and others, to try to push for resolution of Abyei.
We fully understand its significance as a critical issue
that needs to be resolved. As you also know, it is one of the
most difficult ones, and thus far we have not seen the parties
exhibit sufficient flexibility to resolve it swiftly.
There are a number of other important post-referendum
issues that are also still to be negotiated: Resource-sharing,
borders, citizenship, and the like, all of which are high on
our agenda.
Cote d'Ivoire, if I might for a second, has been raised by
others as well. The U.N. is playing a very active role, and has
been, first of all in making clear who won the election, that
President Ouattara was legitimately elected, and that Gbagbo
must step down, and do so--should have done so quite some time
ago.
We have imposed additional sanctions on Gbagbo and his
cronies, and we have beefed up the U.N. peacekeeping mission,
which is now actively taking on its peace enforcement mission
to protect civilians, to take out heavy weapons, and to
facilitate the emergence of a representative government there.
The U.N. has done--is taking a lot of casualties. It is
under attack, but it is doing, with the support of the French,
very important work to try to protect civilians, take out the
heavy weapons. And we hope that the bloody standoff which is
persisting will soon end.
Madam Chairwoman, I don't know if my----
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. So sorry. I know these are all
serious topics, and I sincerely apologize to the members for
the time limitation, but we have so many folks who want to ask
questions. I know that each one merits a fuller discussion. Mr.
Rohrabacher, Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations
chairman.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman, and
thank you Ambassador Rice. Let me just note that when we are
spending 1,500,000,000,000 deg.$1.5 trillion more than
we are taking in, and we realize that this is heading us toward
a financial catastrophe of historic proportions, as the
interest that we have to pay on that debt goes up, and as
perhaps the interests rates go up as inflation cuts into our
people's economic reality, asking--right now, the amount of
money that we are being asked to spend for the United Nations
is 6,300,000,000 deg.$6.3 billion. Is that correct? Is
that a correct figure of what we are being asked for?
Ambassador Rice. No. Thank you for your important question,
and we need to have clarity on, indeed, what is the budget
request.
Mr. Rohrabacher. What are we actually being asked to give
to the United Nations from the United States?
Ambassador Rice. We are asking for $1.619
billion1,619,000,000 deg. for the regular budget, and
for all of the U.N.----
Mr. Rohrabacher. Yes.
Ambassador Rice. As well as other international
organizations, not all United Nations. The regular budget
request, as a subset of that, is $568 million. And for
peacekeeping for Fiscal '12, we are requesting $1.9
billion1,900,000,000 dollars deg., and to apply
another $225 million,000,000 deg. in existing credits
in order to meet our assessed contributions, which we estimate
will be $2.145 billion2,145,000,000. deg.
Mr. Rohrabacher. And what does that all add up to?
Ambassador Rice. Well, I can get you that in a second. Let
me calculate that. But it is 1.619 plus 2.145.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Let me tell you, we are talking about real
money here.
Ambassador Rice. Very much so, sir.
Mr. Rohrabacher. And let me just say that providing this
type of money to an organization that uses Israel as a punching
bag is something that is not acceptable. And the fact is, the
people in the United Nations who are using Israel as a punching
bag are people who they themselves are guilty of major crimes
against humanity, whether it is China and the gender-cide that
we heard about, or whether it is other countries that murder
their own people and repress their own people.
Let me ask you this, going to the question of my position
on claptrap.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Connolly, are you ready?
Mr. Rohrabacher. All right. Do you believe that the U.N.
resolutions limit us to what we can do in our own interests, as
to what our Government can do in our own interests?
Ambassador Rice. No. Absolutely not.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Okay. So U.N. resolutions do not limit the
United States as to what we can do in our own interest.
Ambassador Rice. No. First of all, there is no such thing
as a U.N. resolution that the United States hasn't voted for.
First point.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Does not China have a veto power in the
Security Council?
Ambassador Rice. There is no resolution that can pass the
Security Council without U.S. support.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Do we--inform me, is a veto and a position
of us not voting, is that the same?
Ambassador Rice. No.
Mr. Rohrabacher. So a resolution can actually go forward,
unless we veto it. If we are refraining, a resolution can still
go through.
Ambassador Rice. We have three choices, sir, when we vote.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Okay.
Ambassador Rice. We can vote yes.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Yes.
Ambassador Rice. We can abstain, which we almost never do.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Okay.
Ambassador Rice. Or we can vote no. And when we vote no,
that is the equivalent of a veto.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Right, so----
Ambassador Rice. So nothing can be adopted by the Security
Council without the U.S. assent.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Without the U.S. not abstaining, at least.
Ambassador Rice. That is a form of assent, ultimately.
Because we have allowed it to get through.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Well, we could talk about that in greater
depth. But let me just ask about the money. How much has the
budget of the United Nations grown over the last 10 years?
Ambassador Rice. Let me answer your prior question. You
asked for the sum total, 3,539,000,000 is the sum of our
request for the CIO account, contributions to international
organizations, which includes the regular budget of the United
Nations, which we pay 22 percent of, and 1.920 for
peacekeeping.
I want to underscore that the CIO account includes a number
of international organizations, like the OAS, that are not U.N.
entities.
Mr. Rohrabacher. So what is the bottom line on it? I mean,
is that----
Ambassador Rice. I am giving you a number of--just to keep
it simple here, 3.539 is the sum total of what the
administration is requesting in Fiscal 2012 for CIO and
peacekeeping accounts.
Mr. Rohrabacher. And for all U.N. activities, we are
talking about 3.5?
Ambassador Rice. That is what I just said. That is actually
more than--that includes some other international organization
activities, but----
Mr. Rohrabacher. All right.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you----
Mr. Rohrabacher. One last note. I still have, I think, 5
seconds.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Sorry, you are over five. But thank
you.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Oh, I am sorry. Pardon me. But Camp Ashraf
is something that you need to tell your boss about, that we are
concerned about here.
Ambassador Rice. We are very aware. Thank you.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you. Mr. Sherman, the ranking
member on the Subcommittee on Terrorism, Nonproliferation, and
Trade, is recognized.
Mr. Sherman. Ambassador, I will ask you to respond for the
record to the accounting issue I brought up in my opening
statement. I hope that the administration will use full-cost
accounting, which is the legitimate system of accounting, and
live with the political disadvantage of truthfully telling the
American people how expensive it is for us to provide military
assets to these U.N.-authorized activities.
Because then you will gain for our country the diplomatic
advantage of telling the world the enormous burden that the
American taxpayer absorbs in order to make available to such
actions as Libya our unique military capacity.
As to Libya, an issue has arisen as to what the President
has the power to do in the absence of a statutory authorization
passed by both houses of Congress. And my question for you is,
has the President's legal authority expanded? Does he have more
permissible options because our actions in Libya are pursuant
to a United Nations resolution? Does the U.N. resolution have
any effect on Presidential power?
Ambassador Rice. Let me begin with your first question, if
I might. I think there are some important clarifications that
need to be made. There are U.N. operations, which are U.N.
blue-helmeted or field missions, for which we are requesting
funding in the CIPA account. And these are the 14 missions that
I described in places like Haiti and----
Mr. Sherman. Ambassador, I have so many questions. I would
hope that you would respond to the accounting question for the
record.
Ambassador Rice. I am trying my best to respond, but I have
to do it with clarity, so that we are not allowing----
Mr. Sherman. I fully understand that there are the blue-
helmeted operations, and then there is the----
Ambassador Rice. But when we talk about U.N. missions----
Mr. Sherman. Yes, I just think of it as broader.
Ambassador Rice. Then there are missions that the Security
Council might bless or authorize that we do in our own national
interest. Those would include Afghanistan and Iraq, and Libya
now.
Mr. Sherman. I regard those as costs consistent with the
U.N., but I think----
Ambassador Rice. Those aren't U.N. operations. Those are
things where we----
Mr. Sherman. Please respond to my Libya question.
Ambassador Rice. I am trying to. Now, the Libya mission is
not one that falls under U.N. accounting, or U.N. budgets. It
is something that we are undertaking in a national capacity, in
a coalition----
Mr. Sherman. Can you address my Libya question, as to the
powers of the President?
Ambassador Rice. As to the powers of the President, Mr.
Sherman, of course the powers of the President are what they
are as spelled out in the Constitution, and they are neither
enhanced or diminished by U.N. Security Council resolutions.
Mr. Sherman. So you are not claiming that the U.N.
Participation Act somehow expands the power of the President to
act with regard to Libya?
Ambassador Rice. I am not.
Mr. Sherman. Okay. What is the administration's position on
Palestinian attempts, or at least discussion of a unilateral
declaration of statehood? Will the United States work actively
to defeat this attempt in the General Assembly, should it
arise? What has the administration done so far? What are you
planning to do?
Ambassador Rice. Thank you. I appreciate that. Let me
explain again, if I can, the process here. For a new state to
gain membership of the United Nations, two things have to
happen. It has to be recommended by the Security Council, where
we have a veto. And then it must be agreed by two thirds of the
General Assembly.
If that issue were to arise, while I obviously would not
want to address definitively a hypothetical, I think I could
say with some high degree of confidence that the establishment
that way of a state, prior to the final status issues being
resolved in direct negotiations, would run counter to long-
standing U.S. policy.
So there is not a risk of a Palestinian state being
included in the United Nations as a member state without the
U.S. agreeing to that, okay? Now, what we could face separately
is the General Assembly adopting a political declaration that
doesn't have the weight of international law, but would have,
perhaps, some other form of weight, political or symbolic.
That they could do without creating a state formally,
without creating a U.N. member state. And that would be a
political declaration of the sort that could come before the
General Assembly, and where it is fair to suspect that we might
not be in the majority.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you, Madam Ambassador, and
thank you, Mr. Sherman. I am going to recognize Mr. Chabot, the
chairman of the Subcommittee on the Middle East and South Asia,
for his 5 minutes. And then we have three votes, and we will
return. Mr. Chabot?
Mr. Chabot. Thank you, Madam Chair. In my opening
statement, I only had 1 minute. Now I have five, so I would
like to return to the topic of the proposed--the statement
condemning Israel that I mentioned before.
As I previously stated, many of us in Congress were
disappointed by the administration's handling of the recent
draft resolution at the U.N. Security Council that selectively
criticized, condemned Israel.
The administration said over and over again, including to
this committee, that the Security Council was wrong. It was the
wrong place to address final status issues. But you repeatedly
refused to publicly commit in advance to veto that resolution,
leaving Israel essentially twisting in the wind.
Then we found out, not directly from the administration,
but from the press, that you had reversed your position, and
were trying to get a Security Council statement criticizing
Israel, instead of a resolution.
And then, when the statement was rejected and the
resolution came up for a vote, while you did veto it, you
issued a really astonishing Explanation of Vote that not only
did not support Israel, but actually joined in the criticism.
Many of us were extremely disappointed that the
administration thought this appropriate, let alone acceptable.
As I previously stated, in 529 short words, the administration
undid all the good that had been done by its veto.
In criticizing Israel, you used such language as ``reject
in the strongest terms,'' ``corroded hopes for peace and
stability in the region,'' ``devastates trust,'' ``folly and
illegitimacy.'' These were the words that you read before the
world stage. ``We therefore,'' you closed, ``regrettably have
opposed this draft resolution.''
Many of us read this as, ``We agree with the demonizing,
condemnation, and vilifying, but we regrettably have to vote
against it. We wanted to support the resolution, and we agree
with the substance, but we were regrettably--we have to vote
against it.''
With those words, Ambassador Rice, we essentially threw our
friend and ally, Israel, to the wolves. The United States, I
think, has to look at this very closely. The United Nations is
a deeply flawed body, and I am disappointed to say that on
February 18th, we added to those flaws instead of being a force
for good.
As a strong defender of our ally, Israel, I want to make
clear that I reject in the strongest terms this
administration's criticism of Israel. It corrodes hopes for
peace and stability in the region, and it devastates trust. I
therefore, regrettably, have to oppose the folly and
illegitimacy of that statement.
Perhaps you can clarify for me, what was the administration
hoping to accomplish with your anti-Israel statement? Would you
want the U.S. to be treated this way by our allies? How can our
calls to end the demonizing of Israel be taken seriously when
this administration refuses to speak out at a particularly
critical time, when it really matters?
Ambassador Rice. Madam Chairman, this is such an important
issue that I would like to have the opportunity to respond in
full. And if you would be a little generous with the time
constraints, I would appreciate it.
I have to say, sir, with all due respect, I reject your
characterization of that statement. Let me explain the
following. First of all, the veto itself, the first of this
administration, sent a very clear message. And our statement
was clear about our view of the decision to bring the
resolution forward, which we opposed.
The statement laid out long-standing U.S. policy. It said
we are committed to a comprehensive and lasting Arab-Israeli
peace. It said we are focused on the goal of a two-state
solution. It said the only way to achieve that peace and
security is through direct negotiations between the parties.
And it said that the draft resolution under discussion
risked hardening the positions of both sides, encouraging the
parties to stay out of negotiations, and to come back to the
Council if they hit impasses in the future.
The statement also noted long-standing U.S. policy, that we
have opposed unilateral steps by either party that could
undermine trust or prejudge any final status issues. Settlement
activity falls into that category, and the Explanation of Vote
restated long-standing U.S. policy of six prior consecutive
administrations, which has been consistent.
It was President Bush, in April 2002, who said ``Israeli
settlement activity in occupied territories must stop.'' In
2005, Secretary Rice said ``U.S. policy is clear: The expansion
of settlements ought to stop, settlement activity ought to
stop. We are particularly concerned about any kind of activity
that would prejudge the outcome of a final status agreement.''
The EOV also stated that the only way to reach a two-state
solution is through direct negotiations, and said it was unwise
for the Council to attempt to resolve core issues that divide
Israelis and Palestinians, and that every potential action must
be measured against one overriding standard: Will it move the
parties closer to the agreement?
So that was what my statement said, in sum. I think you
need to read it in its entirety. It reflects long-standing
American policy of successive administrations. We stood
strongly against the resolution. We vetoed it. And if there is
any ambiguity in a veto, I don't know what it is.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you.
Mr. Chabot. I stand by my statement. I think that the
administration----
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. And I regrettably have to say I
reject this, but it has to come to an end. So we will come
right back. We have 8 minutes to vote, and we will be back. So
the committee is temporarily in recess.
[Whereupon, at 11:30 a.m., the committee recessed, to
reconvene at 12:12 p.m., the same day.]
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. The committee is back in session,
and as soon as Ambassador Rice returns, I will recognize
Congressman Burton for his 5 minutes of questioning.
I am informed that Ambassador Rice has a prior commitment
at the White House, and so will need to leave at 12:45. I will
be merciless with my gavel. I remind members that they can
leave--they can submit questions for the record to the
Ambassador. Just get them to the committee within the next 5
days.
Thank you, Madam Ambassador. It is always great, I say, to
be interrupted by democracy. Those bells, I hope that in my
native homeland of Cuba we get to be interrupted by democracy
soon.
And with that, Madam Ambassador, I will turn to Mr. Burton
of Indiana for 5 minutes.
Mr. Burton. Thank you, Madam Speaker, I really appreciate
you yielding to me. Ambassador, I heard what you said. I would
like to--I mean, obviously you have different information than
we have.
But I have here in this vote all the money that went to the
U.N., and it was $6.347 trillion6,347,000,000
dollars deg.. Now, I don't know where you got your figures, but
if you need this I will be glad to give it to you.
The second thing I would like to say before I ask you a
question is, when I heard my colleague, who is chairman of the
Middle East Subcommittee, read your statement to the United
Nations regarding the veto which you used, it really bothered
me.
I mean, you know I have heard about damning with faint
praise, but you went way beyond the pale. It says, ``While we
agree with our fellow Council Members, and indeed the wider
world, about the folly and illegitimacy of continued Israeli
settlement activity, we think otherwise,'' and it goes on, and
on, and on.
See, you give our ally, the only real ally we have in the
Middle East, a slap in the face. And I just can't understand
that. You don't say anything in here about the rocket fire into
Israel. You talk about the settlements, you don't talk about
the 10 months that Benjamin Netanyahu did not move on
settlements because he was waiting to discuss with the
Palestinians a solution to the problem.
All you did was criticize Israel. I mean--well, I have it
right here. Here is your statement. And you can say--Madam, I
will yield to you in a minute. You can say anything that you
want, but facts are facts, and your statement is right here.
And anybody that reads what you said or hears what you said
is saying, ``We would like to really put it to Israel, because
they are going on with the settlements, but we can't, or we
won't right now, because we don't think this is the proper
venue.''
And your statement is just really unacceptable, not just to
Republicans, but to Democrats as well. I mean, there was
criticism from across the spectrum in the Congress for the
things that were said at the U.N. regarding this.
There is no question that the settlements are an issue, and
the Israeli Government has taken steps to deal with the problem
for 10 months. You don't mention that in your statement. Why
didn't you mention that? I don't understand. You didn't mention
that, but you sure criticized Israel for going on with it.
While Israel stopped for 10 months and said, ``Okay, we
will negotiate with you, and we will suspend building in the
settlement area,'' no mention of that. No mention of the rocket
fire. No mention of the civilians that are put in danger by
Hezbollah and by Hamas.
And I just don't understand that. You know, when the
administration says they are supporting Israel and they wait
till the last minute to create doubt in everybody's mind on
whether or not they are going to veto that Security Council
resolution, it bothers us.
The administration should have come out very quickly and
said, ``We support Israel. We want this solution. We want there
to be a solution. We would like to see the settlements stop,
but that can't be done until there is a reasonable expectation
that there is going to be an agreement between the Palestinians
and the Israelis.''
That should be the criteria. Not blaming Israel, beating
them over the head on the settlements, not mentioning the
rocket fire endangering civilians. I just don't get it. So
maybe you can explain, in the minute that we have left, how you
support Israel so much, and how you are with us, as far as the
Congress is concerned, in supporting Israel.
Just let us know, because your statement sure as heck
didn't indicate that at all.
Ambassador Rice. I object to your mischaracterization----
Mr. Burton. Well, I object to your statement at the U.N.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Burton.
Ambassador Rice. I object----
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Madam Ambassador, if you could just
hold the clock a second--if you could push the button on your
microphone? Thank you.
Ambassador Rice. I object strenuously to your
mischaracterization----
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. I am sorry, we are having technical
problems. They are working on it. I apologize.
Ambassador Rice [continuing]. Of my statement, and I object
even more strenuously to your suggestion that this
administration and our Government is in any way lacking in its
support for Israel.
We have the strongest, most deep military, security, and
intelligence cooperation that this country has ever had under
this administration. Every day, I and my colleagues stand up in
support of our interests and Israel's interests in the United
Nations, and we have made important progress in that regard.
From the start of this administration, from the very second
day, we have made it a top priority trying to broker a lasting
peace between Israel and the Palestinians, and a two-state
solution.
The issue on the table was a resolution on settlements.
President Obama instructed me to veto that resolution, and I
did so. My Explanation of Vote explained why we vetoed it. You
are welcome to insert it into the record, or I can.
Mr. Burton. I will.
Ambassador Rice. And it elaborated the long-standing U.S.
policy of six consecutive administrations, which is that
settlement activity is illegitimate.
But it said a lot more than that. It spoke about our
commitment to a two-state solution. It spoke about our
opposition to resolving or attempting to address or resolve
issues that can only be resolved through negotiations, in the
context of a resolution.
That is why we vetoed it, and that is why we have made
clear that for this, or any subsequent effort to bring any kind
of final status issue before the Security Council, that is
something that we have, and we will, consistently opposed.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you. Mr. Burton?
Mr. Burton. Madam Speaker, I would like to ask for
unanimous consent to include the entire statement of the
Ambassador, and also the cost to the U.N.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. That might be limited to size
limitations, but we will look into that. But this will be made
part of the record.
Ambassador Rice. Madam Chairman----
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. And I sincerely apologize for these
technical difficulties. They are trying to work this out. And
Mr. Engel, I apologize. You are recognized. I am sorry about
the microphones not working.
Mr. Engel. These don't work either? No. Okay. Madam
Ambassador, I will try to be loud. First of all, again I want
to personally thank you for the tough job you are doing. It's
not easy to defend some of the practices of the United Nations.
You can understand, I am sure, why so many people on both
sides of the aisle are frustrated, and why we think that the
United Nations needs to be seriously revamped. You take the
Human Rights Council, 42 of 65 country-specific resolutions are
anti-Israel.
And as has been said by many of my colleagues, some of the
worst human rights abusers in the world sit on that Human
Rights Council. I am wondering if you could tell us two things.
Number one, the Goldstone report was rejected on the House
Floor by this body right after it was passed in the U.N. And we
rejected it because we said that Israel--it is almost a blood
libel, as Shimon Peres said when they accused Israel of
targeting civilians.
But yet we know that Hamas targets civilians. In fact, just
this morning, the rockets from Gaza hit a school bus, injuring
several children, I understand. So we know that Hamas
deliberately targets civilians.
And therefore, Israel has undergone a whole investigation,
and has come up with the fact that Israel did not target
civilians. And that is why Judge Goldstone has repudiated his
report.
What can we do to make sure that the United Nations
repudiates the report? Because there are some in the United
Nations that want to go forward with the original Goldstone
report as if it were truth, and we now know it isn't.
And secondly, the unilateral declaration of a Palestinian
state, which I know you ran through the procedure before, that
we can veto that. And I hope that we will. And if the U.N.
General Assembly passes it, it may be a political statement but
it has no real effect.
I think that this unilateral recognition impedes a peace
agreement, because it tells the Palestinians that they need not
sit down and negotiate, that somehow or other they will get
their state by refusing to negotiate.
Israel, or any country, cannot be put in the position of
preconditions to even sitting down and talking. These are very
serious issues that will be resolved in final status talks, but
not as a precondition.
So I just wonder if you could just tell us how we can try
to ensure that Goldstone is repealed, as the infamous Zionism
is Racism resolution was repealed several years ago. And what
is the administration doing to combat this terrible anti-Israel
bias?
Because what you hear, the frustration here is that people
say, ``Well, why should we continue to fund the United Nations
when time and time again it comes out against what we think is
in the best interests of the United States and our ally,
Israel?''
And I know your arguments, which have a lot of credence, in
my opinion, that we need to stay and fight. But I am sure you
appreciate how frustrating it gets when we pay the lion's share
of things, and then we think we are kind of spit in the face,
and our ally, Israel, is spit in the face.
So I have raised a bunch of things. If you can comment on
any or all of them, I would appreciate it.
Ambassador Rice. Thank you very much, Mr. Engel. And I
appreciate the spirit of your questions. As I said earlier, we
absolutely have been unequivocal in our condemnation of the
substance and conclusions of the Goldstone report, which we
have been very clear on from the outset.
We are, as I mentioned earlier, in the process of talking
to the closest partners on this about how best, in light of
both the subsequent actions that were already in different U.N.
bodies as a result of Goldstone and Judge Goldstone's own op-ed
in the Washington Post, that we might accelerate our efforts to
just put this entire sad episode to bed.
And our aim is twofold. One is to prevent follow-up action
in the GA, in the Security Council, any referrals to other
bodies, from materializing. And secondly, we share your
interests in trying to clear the record. Whether that can be
done through repudiation--that would require a new resolution
of both the Human Rights Council and the General Assembly--or
whether there are other procedural mechanisms that we can
employ.
But the aim is to accomplish that, and we are trying to
consult with partners who have a direct stake in this as to how
best to accomplish these goals.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you, Madam Ambassador. And
thank you, Mr. Engel.
Mr. Engel. Madam Chair, I just want to take 3 seconds to
say that I also hope we can get Israel removed from the
permanent agenda of the U.N. Human Rights Council.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you very much. And we welcome
Congresswoman Terri Sewell of Alabama. Always welcome to our
committee. Ms. Schmidt of Ohio is recognized.
Ms. Schmidt. Thank you, and I am going to move down so that
we can hear each other more clearly. I have three questions for
you, two concerning the Secretary General and the third
regarding funding.
The first is, Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon appointed a
panel of experts to advise him and make recommendations to him
on the issues of accountability with regard to any alleged
violations of international human rights and the humanitarian
law during the final stages of the conflict in Sri Lanka. The
panel has submitted its report to the Secretary General. Will
the United States push the United Nations to publish this
report?
My second question, again regarding the U.N. The Secretary
General has violated the rules and regulations of the U.N. by
appointing as his Special Envoy for Libya an official from the
Government of Jordan, who both maintains outside business
interests and his fee and salary as a senator. This is in
violation of the U.N.'s own rules that U.N. officials may
receive income from outside sources. Is the U.S. aware of this
violation, and does it agree with critics that the Secretary
General should not be violating the rules of the organization?
And my final question is, can you explain to me why the
United States is paying 100 percent of the security upgrade
costs at the United Nations headquarters in New York?
Ambassador Rice. Thank you, Mrs. Schmidt. Let me begin with
your last question about security upgrades. First of all, with
regard to the U.N. building and its renovation, we paid 22
percent--that is our regular budget assessed share--of the
costs of the overall renovation.
I think it is important to note that Americans, American
contractors, have received the lion's share of all of the
contracts that have been let as a result of that renovation,
such that if you do the math we are--for every dollar we have
spent, there are $4 coming back into the United States, into
our economy.
The second point is security upgrades. The City of New
York, and the New York Police Department, recommended and
indeed insisted that in the course of the renovation, given the
terrorist threat that faces the United Nations' headquarters
building, and given its geographical location over the F.D.R.
Freeway and right up on First Avenue, that there be additional
security upgrades above and beyond what was envisioned when the
original capital master plan was implemented.
The estimated cost of that was $100
million,000,000 dollars deg.. The State Department and
administration, in conjunction with New York authorities, the
City of New York as well as the New York Police Department,
made the judgment that it was in our interests both to get
those security upgrades done and done in a timely fashion, so
that the cost overrides were not excessive down the road.
It is American citizens who are most affected by the
security of the U.N. building, both in terms of 40 percent of
those in and out of the building every day are Americans, but
also it is Americans driving under the building, walking by it,
who will be at greatest risk. So that is why we made the
decision to invest in our own security and make those upgrades.
With respect to the panel of experts, that report is just
coming forward. We look forward to it, and we think that it
would be beneficial if it were available publicly.
Ms. Schmidt. So will we push to have it published?
Ambassador Rice. I would like to read it before I make that
judgment, but in general, yes. And with respect to Mr. Khatib,
the Secretary General's Special Envoy for Libya, just
appointed. Very distinguished, very effective person who on
short notice took on a very important role. I had the
opportunity to meet with him this week as he briefed the
Security Council.
He is an excellent selection of special representative. He
is in the process of working out with the Secretary General and
the Secretariat the circumstances of his employment and
renumeration.
It happened very quickly in response to the Security
Council resolution that he was appointed, and he has been out
in the field now twice to Libya in the short time that has
elapsed since then. And we look forward to his employment
circumstances being implemented in a fashion consistent with
rules and regulations.
Ms. Schmidt. Thank you. And finally, just my personal view.
Israel is the best friend we have in the world, and we have to
make sure that the U.N. doesn't continue to use Israel as a
bully pulpit for its own agenda.
Ambassador Rice. I couldn't agree more.
Ms. Schmidt. We need to make sure that Israel's interests
are protected, because when their interests are protected, our
interests are protected.
Ambassador Rice. I couldn't agree more. And I think there
is an important distinction here that rarely gets made. There
is the U.N., the institution that sends missions out into the
field, that feeds the hungry, that inoculates children against
disease.
And then there are the 192 member states, who act and speak
and vote in their own interests, that is often not our
interest.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you. That is an important
distinction. Thank you, Madam Ambassador. Thank you, Ms.
Schmidt. Mr. Meeks, the ranking member on the Subcommittee on
Europe and Eurasia, is recognized.
Mr. Meeks. Thank you, Madam Chair. Again, Madam Ambassador,
I want to thank you for the great work that you have been doing
representing our country at the United Nations.
And I just also want to continue to thank you for your
work, that it is important that we sit and be engaged with the
rest of the world. And that is really for our own security.
Because truthfully, if we acted unilaterally, and did not have
the allies that we have, many of the nations that are sitting
in the U.N. and other places--hooray.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Eureka.
Mr. Meeks. We have the microphone again.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. The question just brought out the
juice.
Mr. Meeks. So it is important, I think, that we don't have
to go along with a kind of gunslinging-type attitude, that we
are working closely.
Because when we ask individuals to come with us to Iraq, or
Afghanistan, or other places, or to fight with us against
terrorism, where we need to work with one another to combat
terrorism, and to make sure--we need many of these same allies,
whom some would say that we just ignore. And I don't know how
we ignore them, when we will need them to help us, and then
when they need some help we don't help them.
That being said, and I think you touched on this earlier. I
think it is no secret that the previous administration, the
Bush administration, had at times rocky relationships with the
U.N. But they never proposed withholding a significant amount
of dues to the U.N.
And I know that you were not in that position during that
administration, but you started to touch on it. Could you just
tell us why even the Bush administration did not withhold a
substantial amount of money, dues, to the U.N.? What is the
significance of that?
Ambassador Rice. Thank you, Mr. Meeks. I think it was
interesting that you had former Ambassador Mark Wallace testify
recently before this committee. And he explained that, in his
judgment and the judgment of the previous administration which
he served, it has not been wise, not judged wise or beneficial,
to use withholding as a tactic to implement change.
And he was the author, to his credit, of some energetic
reform initiatives that we have sustained and augmented. The
reason it isn't wise is because it doesn't work. It has been
tried in the past, and as Mr. Berman said earlier, it resulted
only in our isolation and our loss of a crucial seat on the
Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions,
which is the body where we get to scrub the budget and ensure
that we are not asked to pay for things that we think are
unworthy.
It is also not the vehicle to achieve reform. We have
achieved the greatest progress on reform under the previous
administration and this administration, when we have worked to
and been able to remain current on our assessed contributions.
Mr. Meeks. Are there any consequences to not paying our
assessed dues?
Ambassador Rice. First of all, it violates our treaty
obligations. Secondly, if we are in arrears over a period of
time, we can lose our vote in the General Assembly.
Mr. Meeks. And some members have proposed shifting our
contributions to the U.N. on a purely voluntary basis. Can you
tell us, without assessed contributions, how do we fund
unpopular or less than compelling activities that the U.N. must
undertake? Could you talk about that briefly?
Ambassador Rice. Voluntary contributions can work to a
certain extent in field operations. It has worked for UNICEF
and WFP, as the chairwoman noted in her statement. It doesn't
work when you are talking about peacekeeping operations, the
administrative responsibilities that have to be conducted in
U.N. headquarters.
Let me give you two important examples. The two missions
that have contributed most recently to increases in the U.N.
regular budget have been the U.N. missions in Iraq and
Afghanistan. Those two missions are directly serving our
interests. They have been formed largely at our initiative, to
augment and support the work of our troops in the field.
We currently pay, under the regular budget, 22 percent of
the costs of those missions, which are together over $0.5
billion. If we took the view that we will only pay for those
missions that we like--our share is $0.5 billion.
If we were to pay for only those missions that we like, we
would find ourselves paying 100 percent of costly--or close to
100 percent of costly, important missions like that, rather
than 22 percent. And our net costs would quite likely be
higher.
As I mentioned earlier, when it comes to the peacekeeping
budget, there is nothing that we are asked to pay for that we
haven't previously voted to create. All of those missions are
created by a vote in the Security Council, and the U.S. can say
yes, because we want it and we believe it serves our interests,
or no.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you.
Mr. Meeks. Thank you.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you very much, Mr. Meeks. And
thank you, Madam Ambassador. Mr. Rivera of Florida.
Mr. Rivera. Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to go back to
this issue of the punching bag that has been mentioned before.
Israel, our greatest ally, being a punching bag of the United
Nations, which I completely agree with.
But I want to talk first about the United States being the
punching bag, particularly vis-a-vis U.S. policy toward Cuba.
And I am wondering, we always have a yearly vote, that yearly
spectacle when the United Nations uses the U.S. as a punching
bag and votes against U.S. policy of isolating the Castro
dictatorship economically, even though, as has been mentioned
previously, the Castro regime is recognized as a state sponsor
of terrorism by our own Government.
It is a regime that is harboring fugitives from U.S.
justice, including cop killers, drug traffickers. A regime that
has murdered Americans in international airspace, as occurred
in 1996 in the Brothers to the Rescue shoot down. And I am
wondering what efforts do you make personally to try and garner
support for U.S. policy toward Cuba?
Ambassador Rice. First of all, we firmly and unequivocally,
at every opportunity, condemn, for the very reasons you
described, Cuba's human rights record and its long-standing
record of abuses, as well as its record of support for
terrorism.
Secondly, every year, when the resolution comes before the
General Assembly, we work hard--I myself and my colleagues at
the U.S. mission--to garner as many votes in conjunction with
our position of voting against the resolution as we can muster.
And we have a small core of countries, including Israel, as
you pointed out, that regularly and loyally stand with us on
this. And we every year make efforts to expand that grouping.
But I think, as you well know, as we strongly make our case for
our policy, which is a bilateral policy, on the embargo at the
U.N., and we work to gain votes, we are in a minority, and a
small minority.
As you well know, the embargo has limited international
support, and even our closest allies, like Canada and the
European partners, don't share our view. And this is an issue
that has been and will remain an annual irritant.
Let me also address more broadly, though, Cuba's standing
at the United Nations, and what we do to deal with that. Cuba,
once upon a time, had a lot of juice at the United Nations, and
a lot of support and influence. And that influence is
dramatically diminished.
It is increasingly isolated within the Latin American
Group. It is increasingly isolated within the general
membership. And let me give you a couple of examples. We have
heard about the Human Rights Council, and our frustration with
that, which we share.
But there are no more than five countries out of 47 on the
Human Rights Council, at the present, Cuba being one of them,
whose record on human rights we would all agree is absolutely
abysmal.
The other 42 are either upstanding countries, or countries
that are somewhere in the middle. Cuba is at the bottom, but it
is losing ground. At the Human Rights Council this year, Cuba
worked very, very hard to block the creation of a Special
Rapporteur on Freedom of Assembly, and was roundly defeated.
That passed unanimously by the Human Rights Council.
It also tried to upset the process of our periodic review,
and other countries pointedly condemned Cuba.
Mr. Rivera. I only have 1 minute left. I appreciate those
comments, and I think it speaks to the fact that if Cuba's
standing is diminishing so much, it should allow space for you,
in your capacity, to make even greater progress on bringing
allies toward the United States' position on Cuba. In
particular, those allies that maybe do not have the
relationships with Cuba that some of those that you mentioned
earlier.
But there are a lot of countries on the planet, and I hope
you will make every effort to internationalize U.S. policy,
because it is the just policy, considering what you have just
mentioned, the dismal human rights record by the Castro
dictatorship. So I hope you will make every effort to continue
to garner that support for our policy.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you very much, Mr. Rivera. Mr.
Deutch?
Mr. Deutch. Thank you, Madam Chair. Ambassador Rice, I
wanted to turn to Iran. And as we look at recent events in the
Middle East, it seems that Iran has been emboldened. On
Tuesday, the Iranian Ambassador to the U.N. was quoted as
saying that the geopolitical picture of the region is changing
in favor of Iran. Reports in the last several weeks indicate
that Iran is continuing to move toward weaponization, and Iran
continues to look for ways to evade international sanctions.
I would like to commend you for the role that you have
played, first in the U.N. sanctions against Iran last year. The
efforts that, again, you helped to spearhead, to keep Iran off
of the Human Rights Council. And particularly the creation of
the Special Rapporteur on Iran, hopefully focusing on Iranian
human rights abuses.
On a going-forward basis, as we look to events unfolding in
the region and steps that can be taken to focus on the threats
that Iran poses, if the regime continues to defy the IAEA and
moves ahead with its illicit nuclear program, would the
Security Council impose another round of sanctions that would
include even greater sanctions to choke off the energy sector?
I wonder if there have been discussions with Security Council
members about strengthening existing sanctions.
And of greatest concern to me, if you could address what
you think it would take to get China, who continues to make $1-
billion investments in Iran's oil fields, and the Russians, who
recently spoke of rolling back sanctions, to cooperate and
support another resolution.
Ambassador Rice. First of all, thank you very much for your
kind words in support of our efforts, both in the Security
Council and other bodies, with respect to Iran.
We have been very plain that we will stand up and condemn
and seek to isolate Iran for its human rights record and its
abuses, both in multilateral fora and nationally, as we have
continued to impose sanctions on individuals responsible for
Iran's human rights abuses.
And we will do all that we can to prevent Iran from
obtaining a nuclear capacity. We do that through a variety of
means. Through multilateral measures, as we have in the United
Nations Security Council, and I will come back to what more we
can do.
But also, as you know, through your excellent legislation
and national measures that we have taken and continue to take,
to implement not only the Security Council resolutions, but the
measures and authorities given to us by Congress.
Inside the U.N., I think in the short term there is scope
for tightening enforcement and implementation of 1929 and
previous resolutions, which are having a significant impact,
and we are regularly getting the support of countries from
Nigeria to Asia in blocking an intercepting--and obviously
Israel--Iranian arms shipments.
So there is a panel of experts, there is a sanctions
committee, all of which can help tighten enforcement of
existing measures. I think it needs to be acknowledged that
China and Russia worked with us to pass that important
resolution. They have implemented it to the letter, and we have
asked them to do more.
Russia has dealt with the S-300s, which is above and beyond
the resolution. China, we have been pressing not to backfill
investments. And thus far, we have seen good response to that
sort of request.
In terms of a new resolution in the short term, sir, I
think that is unlikely to be viable. But obviously over time,
and also in response to actions that Iran may take, we will
continue to keep multilateral action, including Security
Council action, on the table.
Mr. Deutch. And I appreciate that. And just in my remaining
minute, in addition to these resolutions on nuclear
proliferation activities, Iran has consistently been found to
be in violation of arms transfer resolutions.
The interception of the Victoria by the Israeli navy with
2,500 mortars and 65,000 rounds of ammunition--the
interception, again, seizure of illegal arms shipments by
Nigeria in February, the Turkish seizure of an Iranian cargo
vessel carrying 60 AK-47s and 200 mortar shells--Iran has
continued to violate Security Council Resolution 1747.
I would respectfully request that you continue to look for
ways to penalize Iran for non-compliance with that resolution,
which prohibits Iranian arms exports.
Ambassador Rice. Thank you.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you so much. And Madam
Ambassador, I know that based on our previous arrangement you
have to be back at the White House at 1 o'clock. And so we
appreciate your time. I give my deepest apologies to Mr. Kelly
of Pennsylvania, Ms. Buerkle, who is our U.N. representative
from our committee. And so I hope that you work well with Ms.
Buerkle. She is our Ambassador. And Mr. Keating of
Massachusetts. And thank you, Congresswoman Sewell, for joining
us.
So Madam Ambassador, thank you very much for your excellent
testimony. We look forward to working with you on U.N. reform,
an issue we both are passionate about.
Ambassador Rice. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you, and the committee is--oh,
I am sorry.
Ambassador Rice. Thank you very much for your leadership,
and your kindness, and that of all of your colleagues. And
please come visit us.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. You are a good friend. And Ms.
Buerkle will be right there. The committee is now adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:47 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
Material Submitted for the Hearing RecordNotice deg.
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Minutes deg.
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Connolly statement deg.
__________
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Burton FTR deg.__
Material Submitted for the Record by the Honorable Dan Burton, a
Representative in Congress from the State of Indiana
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Questions--Ros-Lehtinen deg.
__________
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[Note: Responses to these questions were not received prior to
printing.]
Questions--Engel deg.
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[Note: Responses to these questions were not received prior to
printing.]
|
NEWSLETTER
|
|
Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list
|
|
|
