23 March 2000
Transcript: Holbrooke Calls for Reform of UN Peacekeeping Funding
(Says peacekeeping needs cannot be met without reform) (3060) The United Nations faces "a coming train wreck over the peacekeeping budget," in which the Security Council may vote for peacekeeping, but the UN will be unable to fund it, according to U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Richard Holbrooke Holbrooke told the General Assembly's budget committee March 23 that the financing burden for peacekeeping operations is spread among members according to a 1973 scale of assessment that was not meant to be permanent and that no longer accurately reflects the financial capabilities of many members. He called for "broadening the UN's tax base, but in an equitable and fair manner." He said the "UN's financial foundation should rest on the interest of all regions and opinions, and all economic countries and powers, both current and emerging." Following is a transcript of Holbrooke's statement to the committee. In the transcript, "billion" equals 1,000 million. (begin transcript) Statement by Richard C. Holbrooke United States Permanent Representative to the United Nations, 5th Committee March 23, 2000 Thank you Madame Chairman. I am delighted to be here this morning and to address this important body again. I am aware of the remarks of my friends from Nigeria and South Africa who just spoke, and I am delighted to join this important gathering. I congratulate Under-Secretary General Joe Connor for his excellent, dare I say, even somewhat encouraging, report on this organization's finances -- a subject on which I will offer some comment and suggestions in a moment. Madame Chairman, I have just returned a few hours ago from a valuable trip to Tokyo and Beijing. While there, I engaged the leadership of both countries, including Prime Minister Obuchi and President Jiang Zemin, in discussions on the future of the United Nations. Today, I can report to you that these two great nations -- one, the second largest and one of the most generous contributors to the UN; the other, the world's most populous nation and a permanent member of the Security Council -- both indicated that they consider the United Nations more vital than ever as we begin this new century. The distinguished ambassadors of both China and Japan are here today and will wish to speak for themselves, so let me say simply that I was encouraged by our conversations on the future of the UN and I look forward to continuing them with both countries. Madame Chairman, today we discuss the state of the UN finances. Under Secretary-General Connor's report is less bleak than his last and for that we should be grateful and commend him. But as he said, it should give us no cause for complacency. We have much to do if the UN is to meet the challenges it now faces. In this regard, I'm pleased to bring to your attention the fact that Ambassador Sergei Lavrov, of Russia, and I have just a few minutes ago, announced to the press that the United States and Russia will work closely on our efforts to reform the United Nations. This joint effort, coming from two founding members of the UN, whose bitter struggle during the Cold War often prevented the United Nations from achieving its full effectiveness will, we hope, stimulate others to follow suit, either on their own or in close contact with us. We, the United States and Russia, do not intend to present a specific plan or set up another task force -- we have had a myriad of these -- rather, we want to work especially closely together to bring reform to the UN and help create a more stable financial structure and we invite other countries to join in this effort. I know that the Ambassador from Russia will speak next and I know he will add his own words to this comment. Speaking for my own government, let me assert our underlying view of the United Nations once more. I can reduce it to three words, "indispensable but flawed." Our goal can be summed up in five words -- " fix it to save it." Our national interest here is simple: to improve this great institution that we are so proud to have played a central role in creating. Indeed, the very name of the United Nations came directly from President Roosevelt himself. A world without the United Nations or with a paralyzed United Nations would be far more costly to all of us and far more dangerous to peace and stability. When the UN works effectively, as it did last year in East Timor, it demonstrates its potential and leaves us all hoping for more. While we in the United States sometimes act outside the UN structure, in pursuit of our national interest, as do many other nations here, I can assure you that collective action, through the UN or the appropriate regional bodies, is preferable to all of us, as has been demonstrated time and time again. I'm talking here, of course, primarily about peacekeeping -- the core task for which the UN was formed and the one upon which it will ultimately be judged. But collective action is equally critical for the efforts of the rest of the UN and is especially important for its specialized agencies, for whose invaluable work the US contributes huge amounts of money each year. I said a moment ago that this great institution, while indispensable, also contains flaws. By flaws I do not simply refer to these minor blemishes which can be fixed by a little polishing. Unfortunately, some of the defects of the UN system are at such a scale that they seriously threaten our core goals -- especially peacekeeping. And if not corrected, they could threaten the future of the institution itself. Most urgently, my friends, my colleagues, we face a potential train wreck between our aspirations for successful peacekeeping, especially in Africa, and our current system for funding those same peacekeeping efforts -- an antiquated and inequitable system that will no longer bear the burdens and obligation placed upon it. In addressing these potent issues let me acknowledge immediately that we in the United States government are all aware of the strong feelings toward the US among some of us in this room. We have been criticized for having a double standard, "for acting outside the Security Council," for not paying our assessed share of peacekeeping costs, and for falling behind in some of our other financial obligations to the UN. We are fully mindful of these criticisms, as I said last time I addressed the Fifth Committee in October. But, as Under Secretary-General Connor's report stresses let us admit that we have made great strides since I addressed the Fifth Committee last October. Congress has passed, and President Clinton had signed into law, a series of funding bills that will contribute close to three billion dollars to the UN system this year and set aside $926 million for our arrears. By far, the largest single nation contribution to the United Nations. In regard to the arrears, as Mr. Connor has indicated, over $100 million has already been paid, the rest sits available as we work towards additional reforms. I am aware, of course, that much has already been done in regard to reform of the UN. This organization seems to go through cycle after cycle of self-examination regarding reform, yet it always leaves its critics unsatisfied. I think of the seminal study of Sir Robert Jackson in 1969, the 1975 study of the UN's economic and social machinery, the 1986 Group of Eighteen Study and most recently Secretary General Annan's 1997 Reform report, which President Clinton personally praised in his speech that same year to the General Assembly. But while each report on reform efforts undoubtedly had merit and some effect, none have gone far enough or even more importantly been sufficiently acted upon. Much of the Secretary-General's deservedly praiseworthy 1997 report was ignored. For example, his far-sighted call for "sunset provisions" whenever new programs are launched has been shelved or rejected by the member states. I do not today call for another high-level blue-ribbon panel. We have enough of those. Everyone here knows more or less what needs to be done. What is required is action, not necessarily broad sweeping action, but an accumulation of seemingly small changes which, if taken, would amount, over time to a significant strengthening of the United Nations. Let me today offer some preliminary suggestions with a strong advisory note: we are not trying to dictate to this great institution but to suggest; we are not here to issue fully formed American proposals, made in the USA, but to stimulate a new effort to work together for significant reforms. I shall today address only a handful of the areas in which we believe reform is urgently needed. I shall address separately two areas that deserve special detailed attention: the role and structure of the Security Council and the pressing crisis in the field of refugees and Internally Displaced Persons. Today, I shall focus, but only briefly, on the role of the Secretary-General, the UN Secretariat, the peacekeeping office, and a few operational proposals, and then turn to the question of financing of peacekeeping and the general assessment budget. It is not entirely clear what the intentions of the UN founding fathers were when, in Article 97 of the Charter, they designated the Secretary-General as, and I quote, "the chief administrative officer of the UN." But in today's world we need a UN that is more flexible, more creative and better managed than ever before. I, therefore, recommend that the membership consider ways to further empower the Secretary-General with additional management tools to do the job we have given him: -- to coordinate all programs and activities of the UN and specialized agencies; -- to make resource management decisions to reallocate personnel funds to deal with specific emergencies; -- to take programmatic decisions based on sound management principles in keeping with core values of this institution; -- and to hold managers accountable for the programs they are responsible for. This is our institution and it must be accountable to its members. It is time that sound management principles were applied to programs and activities of this institution. We cannot afford to allow ill managed or ill-conceived programs to have a life of their own. In order to achieve our goal, therefore, we must also strengthen the UN Secretariat. We need to find or create a more modern international civil service, one with more mobility, more management flexibility and with a greater sense of today's mission. We applaud the critical work of this committee on the 2000 and 2001 biennial budget. The result reflected an admirable compromise between our program objectives and the necessary budgetary constraint. While the regular budget scale of assessment generally provides for sound fiscal foundation, it needs to be updated and to be made flatter and more equitable. I believe the tenor of the debate on this issue so far in this year has been substantive and rigorous. This bodes well for the prospect of reaching a consensus solution. The peacekeeping picture is all together different. This year the peacekeeping budget is projected to double to a figure of $2 billion and grow even larger next year given the potential requirement for our missions in Africa, particularly in the Democratic Republic of Congo. This is why earlier in my comments this morning, Madam Chairman, I referred to the risks of a major train wreck. Neither the management structure nor the financial system currently in place will support such an expansion of the peacekeeping effort. I don't believe that it is an exaggeration to state that with demand far out-pacing this institution's capacity, we're headed for another decisive moment that will pose for all of us the most fundamental choices about whether or not the UN will stay in the peacekeeping business and do it effectively. DPKO needs more staff, strengthened planning capacity, streamlined logistical structure and the ability to move resources into the field in real time. Peacekeeping is the core function of this institution and yet, as a result of the legacy of the Cold War and some outdated ideological attitudes, we have failed to adequately institutionalize the management and funding of this critical activity. Let me be clear: the current system for financing and conducting peacekeeping will not support the goals and ideals of this institution. We need to restructure DPKO and the system of financing. We need to be strong and honest in this endeavor. The African states themselves have the most to gain by this reform because most of the challenges we face in peacekeeping will be in Africa, as well as in East Timor and Kosovo. Our greatest challenge is not dictated by legislation from any domestic legislator, including our own, or even by member states' arrears, an issue to which I have previously spoken and on which I cannot tell you how deeply I regret the fact that we were in such substantial arrears, and my hope that we will resolve this problem. Our challenge, rather, is dictated by an outdated system that is not equitable. The current peacekeeping scale of assessment was negotiated in eight days in 1973 to fund a single mission in the Sinai. It was supposedly negotiated on the basis that it would not set a precedent. It is not a system that should be locked in concrete. It concentrates 98 percent of the financial responsibility for peacekeeping with 30 member states -- and about 90 of it with less than ten states. The other 158 members -- big and small, rich and poor -- richer or poorer than they were in 1973 -- pay only token amounts regardless of how much their economies have changed in the intervening 27 years. Some countries should be allowed to pay less, some should be willing to pay more. Many countries in this room have told us privately that they are ready to pay more if an equitable revision of the scale is done. Resting the fate of the current peacekeeping operations on the shoulders of the current system is not going to succeed. The political and financial stability of this organization depends on broadening the UN's tax base, but in an equitable and fair manner. Like its political base, the UN's financial foundation should rest on the interest of all regions and opinions, and all economic countries and powers, both current and emerging. This is not an effort to foist burdens on those who cannot afford them. The bulk of the countries in this room today will not change what they are giving to the UN under any revision of the assessment, but there are countries in this room that are not contributing despite their undeniable capacity to pay. And I stress that because every other nation here talks about the capacity to pay, and we agree with that as a principle, but we need to be honest about what capacity means. We ought to establish a system that recognizes each nation's capacity to pay and spreads the financial burden equitably among the entire membership. We support the call of the EU, as made by Ambassador Monteiro, to reform the scale of assessment in peacekeeping and we are pleased that the Canadian representative has spoken similarly. If this organization is going to cope with the increased peacekeeping demands that it faces over the next year, the system must be revised. The status quo as an option will only lead to a crisis in which the Security Council may vote for peacekeeping, but we will be unable to fund it. As Under Secretary-General Connor's presentation dramatically laid out, one way or another we will see change in the next year. We need to pull together or watch this organization get mired down with differences that damage our most important responsibility -- to deal with peacekeeping challenges in at least three continents. Madame Chairman, the current Fifth Committee session continues for one more week. The Millennium Assembly is only five months away. The fate of this latest round of peacekeeping missions will be determined in significant measure over the next six months. The stakes are high and the time is short. I have enjoyed enormously, over the last few months, my detailed private discussions with many of the representatives in this room and I am grateful to all of you for the time you have all taken with us with Ambassador Hays, myself and the rest of our team. We want to work closely with you, we want to engage you, we want to pay our fair share, and above all we want to make the peacekeeping efforts of the United Nations, which reflect the desires of member states, effective and wholly funded in the field. I pledge to you again, as I did last October, my full, personal efforts in this regard. If you see me absent from time to time from New York, that is because I am in Washington, with the body of our government that pays the bills, asking for their support and understanding. I thank particularly those of you who have taken your time to meet with members of the American legislature when they have come to New York, because you have deeply, significantly increased their understanding of the role of the United Nations. We have made progress. We have made significant progress. But if the current payment system for peacekeeping is not revised, it's going to be impossible for us to fund this tremendous increase in peacekeeping which is now underway and is being considered. Let me point out that if the UN votes for peacekeeping and then cannot carry it out successfully, we will fail. I thank you Madame Chairman for your extraordinary leadership, Mr. Connor for your encouraging remarks and your appropriate words of warning, I commend the Secretary-General for his specific new panel to discuss peacekeeping which is very appropriate and I look forward to working with all of you closely in the critical days and weeks ahead. Thank you. (end transcript) (Distributed by the Office of International Information Programs, U.S. Department of State. Web site: usinfo.state.gov)
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
