The U.S. Agenda at the United Nations
US Department of State
Kim R. Holmes, Assistant Secretary for Bureau of International Organization
Affairs
Remarks to the National Forum on the United Nations
Washington, DC
June 26, 2003
Ambassador Luers, Ambassador Jazairy, Dr. Ruggie, distinguished guests, and
members,
it is a pleasure to join you at this National Forum on the United Nations. It
is a timely conference, when people around the world are debating U.S.-UN
relations. Thank you, Bill, for inviting me here to talk about this issue.
I first want to extend Secretary Powell s deep regrets for not being able to
join you. We both recognize the work your association is doing to advance
international understanding and cooperation at the UN. The UNA-USA has a
well-deserved and worldwide reputation for championing the ideals of the United
Nations.
Like all of you here, we believe the UN is a vital international arena, where
countries as new as Timor-Leste can join all other member states to advance
freedom, democracy, human rights, health, and prosperity.
It is an arena in which the hopes of millions of people reside.
When I was in the Security Council on February 5, sitting with Secretary Powell
when he made his presentation on Iraq, I was struck by what an historically
dramatic moment that was.
Sitting around that table were the foreign ministers of the most powerful and
influential nations on earth. The Iraqi Perm Rep sat two seats away from us. TV
stations all over the world were tuned in. Everyone was tense with
anticipation. I remember thinking, here is a picture of what the United Nations
should be, and frankly, what it was intended to be: Great nations seriously
debating great issues. And the world was watching.
While that particular debate did not turn out as some of us would have liked,
it did point to the tremendous effort the United States and other nations made
to make the Security Council not merely relevant, but central to international
peace and security.
And notwithstanding the failure to reach consensus on the Iraq war, the Council
DID reach consensus on the peace in Iraq. UNSC Resolution 1483 brought the
Council back together in a unanimous decision.
And in so doing, it kept alive that hope that millions of people still have for
the Untied Nations.
The United States Government is very committed to the United Nations, both in
principle and in practice. All of what we do is aimed at making it more
effective. This is true whether we are talking about the Security Council, the
Human Rights Commission, peacekeeping, or the work of the specialized agencies.
The President and the Secretary continually emphasize that they believe the UN
is a valuable forum for matters of peace and security. They increased our
FY2004 budget request for assessments to international organizations from $860
million to $1.01 billion. This commitment affirms that this Administration
wants to remain engaged in the UN.
Like you, we want the UN to be effective at defending freedom, human rights,
democracy, and all the principles upon which it was founded. Too many people
live under corrupt regimes that still deny them their human rights and
fundamental freedoms. Too many are caught in the crosshairs of civil war or
repression. Too many suffer from famine and disease; and too many are the
targets of terrorism.
Neither the United States, with all its wealth and military power, nor the
United Nations with its universal membership, can solve these problems alone.
But when we work together, there is hope.
Principles of U.S.-UN Engagement
There are three principles guiding what we want to do at the United Nations.
First, we believe not only that international cooperation is critical on major
global issues, but also that the United States brings more than just money to
the table; our expertise and leadership are often key to the UN s success. The
UN response to global terrorism is one example.
A less obvious one is our work within UN agencies and commissions to hold them
to founding principles. Take our precedent-setting effort to bring the
chairmanship of the Commission on Human Rights to a vote when it looked like
Libya, a country under UN sanctions, would win by secret ballot.
We lost that battle; but we could well win the war. The world saw how
politicized and I would say hypocritical the CHR had become with one-third of
its members human rights violators who were there primarily to defend
themselves against legitimate criticism.
We hope that rights-respecting nations will put forward better candidates from
their region for UN leadership roles in the future.
The international community expects us to lead on principle. Whether we are
trying to advance human rights, restrict terrorist financing, or improve
nuclear safeguards, we should make clear that, for us, it is not enough to
shake hands and sign agreements. Consensus is not the most important goal. At
the end of the day, the UN s work must lead to good results. This is our second
principle.
But when the task proves too large for the UN alone, such as stemming the HIV/
AIDS pandemic, we must also lead by example. President Bush understands this.
He has committed $15 billion more over five years to help combat HIV/AIDS and
other diseases. He also created the Millennium Challenge Account to tie
additional U.S. dollars to good governance and policies that promote
development.
Our third principle is that success at the UN takes more than good negotiating
and effective planning. It also depends on good stewardship of the tremendous
resources the world provides. The Secretary-General, who is taking positive
steps in the right direction, recognizes there is room for improvement.
The changes we sought in the Helms-Biden reform-and-arrears legislation should
make clear that the U.S. takes the UN s work seriously. Because of these
reforms, we have now paid nearly a billion dollars in back dues.
These three principles, then U.S. leadership to ensure the UN lives up to its
founding principles; making sure its efforts have good results; and ensuring
good stewardship of resources undergird every decision we make at the UN and
its agencies.
Where the UN Works Well
So where do we think the UN works well, and where does it need to change? I ve
mentioned a few areas already, but I d like to say a bit more, because these
examples speak to our priorities for the future.
The UN system is responding well to the threat of global terrorism. In less
than two years, the international community has put a serious dent in terrorist
financing. The Counter-Terrorism Committee has encouraged more states to take
fundamental action to suppress terrorism and join UN terrorism-related
treaties.
In peacekeeping, there are a number of good stories, particularly in East
Timor, which is now Timor-Leste. And last December, two missions in
Bosnia-Herzegovina and Prevlaka closed because they d achieved their mandates.
It s not easy to get people to work themselves out of a job, nor to get
peacekeeping missions to end; but that s what happened here.
The UN is most instrumental in providing humanitarian aid, particularly through
the World Food Program. This is the UN at its best. WFP fed 77 million people
in 82 countries in 2001. But notable also is the Iraq-related humanitarian work
of the Office of the Coordinator for Humanitarian Assistance this year.
The International Atomic Energy Agency has done a good job shining a bright
light on the nuclear aspirations of Iran and North Korea. The World Health
Organization has been effective in helping contain SARS. Measures developed by
the International Maritime Organization will help to decrease oil spills and
also make it more difficult for ships to be used as tools of terrorism. And the
consensus reached in Monterrey on the best way to finance development is
helping to transform the way UN agencies will dispense their advice and
assistance.
Our relationship with UNDP is particularly strong, as our 22 percent increase
in contributions between 2000 and 2002 shows. We work most closely in crisis
and post-conflict situations, such as Afghanistan and Iraq.
UNDP s work on the Afghan Interim Authority was crucial to the new Afghan
government s operations. Its input in Iraq, due to its long presence there and
its thorough knowledge of the electrical grid, is very useful. We also
appreciate its initiative in hosting the technical meeting leading up to a
major donors conference in October.
Where It Doesn t Work Well
As much as the UN does well, it cannot be expected to do everything or to give
all the troubled areas of the world the attention they need.
The UN alone has not been very effective at peace enforcement when real
offensive military action was needed. We saw this in Bosnia and in Rwanda.
Coalitions of the willing with a Security Council mandate, like the French-led
multinational force in Cote d Ivoire, may be warranted instead. Once conflict
has ended, these forces could then transition into UN peacekeeping operations.
Unforeseen world events will always arise and generate pressure on the UN to
take on new work; but an ever-increasing budget is simply not sustainable. The
Secretary-General understands this. His report last September pointed to wasted
resources and far too much duplication and inefficiency. His reform plan is a
good first step.
UN agencies and commissions often veer off into politicized debates that
undermine their effectiveness. This is true of the CHR. And it was true of
UNESCO, which is one of the reasons we left it over 18 years ago. Its political
agenda also favored state-controlled media.
Security Council effectiveness is another matter. Everyone understands that
when all 15 members are united, the Council can act with determination against
grave threats to international peace and security. But when its members are
divided and particularly when the Permanent Five are divided it can fail
dismally.
The reason lies less within the Council than in the realm of international
politics. The Security Council is, after all, a mirror of international
politics. It was largely ineffective during the Cold War, when divisions
between the East and West made consensus practically impossible. The gridlock
broke after the fall of the Soviet Union, and the Council quickly adopted an
unprecedented series of resolutions on Iraq.
I have no magic formula for Security Council reform. But whatever is done to
improve the way the Council works in the future should reflect the real
division of labor and responsibility among members for maintaining
international peace and security.
Our Agenda
These examples of where we think the UN works well and where it doesn t are by
no means complete. Yet they help explain our priorities at the United Nations
for the near future.
International security is still threatened by proliferation of WMD. There is no
issue that we consider of greater urgency right now than stopping North Korea s
nuclear program, which poses a threat to the international community, regional
security, and the global non-proliferation regime.
It is time for North Korea to turn away from this self-destructive course,
which offers its people nothing but a future of even greater self-isolation,
poverty, and decline.
The international community is united around the goal of a peaceful, diplomatic
resolution to ensure a nuclear weapons-free Korean Peninsula.
We are working closely with our friends and allies to achieve this outcome. A
critical venue for these efforts is the Security Council, where discussions on
North Korea have resumed. Our offer of multilateral talks stands. Talks must be
multilateral it they are to achieve the irreversible and verifiable end to
these programs that would contribute to peace and security in Asia and around
the world.
Iran s nuclear program is also deeply troubling. Dr. ElBaradei s June 6th
report documented Iran s repeated failure to meet its obligation to report its
nuclear material and activities. But Tehran is still refusing to cooperate
fully with the IAEA s requests.
We support the statement by the IAEA Board of Governors calling on Iran to live
up to its Nonproliferation Treaty obligations and to cooperate with the IAEA to
assure transparency. We encourage Iran to sign and fully implement the
Additional Protocol.
The conflict in the Democratic Republic of the Congo is also a grave concern.
Some 3 million people have died from combat, starvation, and disease. After
years of kleptocratic leadership, the Congo the size of the United States east
of the Mississippi River is in ruins, with no roads, no industry, and no
government outside of the capital.
An African-led peace process the Lusaka Accords showed a way forward. The
UN peacekeeping force, MONUC, and UN facilitators helped promote
inter-Congolese dialog, the disengagement of armed forces, withdrawal of
foreign armies, and the partial disarmament of foreign armed rebel groups.
There has been progress, and the establishment of a framework for unity and
peace in the DRC. But warring militias still control the eastern part today,
and combat is fueled by neighboring countries and those looting the country s
resources. The French and EU-led multinational force that is ramping up there
plans only to stay for 90 days.
The Security Council is considering what type of UN force might follow to
prevent renewed conflict. This is a tough problem. In a country the size of the
DRC, with no infrastructure, no effective central government, and bands of
militia in control of much of the country, the threat of chaos is real.
What the UN can and should do is to help stabilize the situation and provide
the political space for peacemakers to find a political solution. It can help
humanitarian workers support the hundreds of thousands in need. That s why we
and the other members of the Security Council are actively seeking the right
mix of peacekeepers and peacemakers to help put an end to this horrific
conflict.
Regarding the deteriorating situation in Liberia, the U.S., the Europeans and
West Africans are actively looking for a solution to end the fighting, restore
the ceasefire, and begin a process of political transition.
It is extremely unfortunate that, within days of the signing of the ceasefire
agreement, Liberian President Charles Taylor backed away from his commitment to
step down and fighting began again in Monrovia. Who will win and how it will
end is unclear. What is clear is that the Liberians and their neighbors will be
the losers if the violence continues.
Our priority and that of the Security Council at this time is to urge the
government and rebel groups to honor the ceasefire and move towards a
transitional government. We want to prevent a humanitarian disaster. We want to
see President Taylor relinquish power and answer to the serious charges leveled
against him by the Special Court in Sierra Leone.
The tense situation may prevent the Security Council mission on its way to West
Africa from visiting Liberia. Nonetheless, our message to Taylor is clear. The
international community expects him to honor his commitment to step aside and
turn over power to a transitional government.
Our message to the other parties is also clear. We expect them to cease combat,
return to the negotiating table, and honor their agreements. Continued fighting
will not lead to peace. It will only lead to more deaths and more destruction.
In other areas, we continue to work with the UN at several levels to reduce the
threat of terrorism. We will work in the Security Council, the General Assembly
and other international organizations to sanction more terrorists, freeze more
assets, ban more of their travel, and prevent them from getting arms.
We will continue to monitor state compliance with Security Council resolutions,
and we will help coordinate technical assistance for states unable to enforce
counterterrorism measures.
We also will focus on ways the Security Council can stem the proliferation of
WMD. We will continue to work with the IAEA and other member states to
strengthen safeguards, uncover violations, and offer technical assistance where
needed.
We strongly support the UN s efforts to provide emergency relief for refugees,
internally displaced persons, and others affected by disasters. We will
encourage more humanitarian donors to step forward and all donors to increase
their contributions for this important work.
We will work to secure the safety of humanitarian personnel and to ensure that
those who deliver the aid are enforcing strict codes of conduct to prevent any
abuse of those they serve.
Regarding UNESCO, I can tell you its leadership is very excited about our
coming back on October 1. They expect us to contribute ideas and expertise far
above our fiscal contribution.
We are working to secure a seat on the Executive Board. We want to promote
education for children in post-conflict areas and programs that promote
tolerance and cross-cultural communication. We also hope to find ways to expand
UNESCO s media, civic education, and democracy programs.
In the near term, at UNESCO, we want to ensure the roughly $13-$15 million we
will pay in 4th quarter dues will be spent on good programs, not treated as
surplus income and rebated to other members. We would like to see $9.5 million
of this spent to expand efforts to reconstruct educational systems in
post-conflict areas like Afghanistan and Sierra Leone. And the remainder could
be spent on a new program to help member states preserve their cultural
artifacts.
Looking forward to the UN General Assembly session this year, we plan to put
forward--and we seek support for--several important initiatives.
First, we plan to sponsor a resolution promoting the education and training of
women in political processes. Women s political participation improves not only
their lives, but also those of their families and communities.
A country cannot become a true democracy if over half its population has little
or no voice, particularly on issues like education, health, human rights, and
development. The United Nations should send a clear message that this is wrong.
Second, we want to sponsor a resolution reiterating the goals on HIV/AIDS
established at the UNGA high-level plenary, and to ensure the Global Fund has
adequate resources. We hope this will be a non-controversial resolution that
rallies the world to increased action.
Third, we need to bring the vision and commitments of the Millennium Summit,
the Monterrey Consensus, and the World Summit on Sustainable Development to the
Second Committee. We will propose that future sessions of the Committee be
organized around the six themes enunciated in the Monterrey consensus and
agreed development goals.
Good governance and market-based reforms to attract investment and commerce are
pillars of this approach and a formula for successful development that the
world should continue to embrace.
Fourth, we plan to sponsor a resolution on cyber-security, on the best ways to
protect critical information infrastructure. Our resolution will endorse the 11
principles adopted recently by the G-8 Justice and Interior Ministers. These
principles build on previous international efforts to enhance the capability of
governments and the private sector to prevent, investigate and respond to
attacks on information infrastructure.
Fifth, we want the UN to affirm that all cloning of human embryos, regardless
of the purpose, is wrong and should be banned. This could be achieved either
through adoption of a declaration or by agreement on a mandate to begin
negotiating a convention on banning all cloning of human embryos. Human cloning
is an assault on human dignity. Cloning an embryo for the purpose of killing it
for research or other uses is morally and ethically unacceptable.
Sixth, we will continue to promote good stewardship of the UN s resources and
budget discipline as the cornerstone of UN reform. This year will be a test for
the UN to translate its many reform initiatives into real savings. The budget
is slated to top $3 billion for the first time. Programs should be prioritized
and sunset provisions included in all UN mandates in order to foster a culture
of accountability based on performance.
We may undertake more initiatives, and join those of others, as the General
Assembly progress. We intend to be very active this year.
At the Commission on Human Rights, we hope to work with other democratic
nations to encourage more countries that respect and defend human rights to
seek to become members. People who are abused, tortured, and silenced deserve
no less. We will strive to ensure that the work of the CHR and its membership
clearly reflect founding principles.
We also will be working diligently to get more Americans hired throughout the
UN system. This is one important way to ensure our interests are represented
fairly and UN programs are adhering to founding principles. But all the more
important, Americans have so much to offer to make the UN stronger, such as
management, administrative, and technical skills.
The Secretary-General is open to this. He has recently appointed Jane Holl
Lute, the Executive Vice President of the UN Foundation, to a senior position
in the Department of Peacekeeping Operations.
Finally, we will work with the Food and Agriculture Organization, the WFP, and
others to boost agricultural productivity and rural development as the keys to
addressing hunger and poverty. We will work with these agencies as well to
create a better awareness of the impact that HIV/AIDS has on food security. And
we will do a better job of explaining the benefits of biotechnology.
Conclusion
Let me close by saying that this Administration, and my office, are working
very hard to make the UN more effective. We want the UN to live up to the
vision of its founders. We seek multilateralism, not for its own sake, but for
a purpose, whether it is preserving peace, protecting the innocent and helping
those in desperate need, or promoting freedom and defending human rights.
We will continue on our mission of spreading political and economic freedoms
and reducing conflicts in the world. We recognize we can do this most
effectively by securing international cooperation, whether it is in the fight
against terrorism, eliminating WMD, defusing regional conflicts, encouraging
open societies, or promoting human dignity. Central to all of these is
multilateral diplomacy based on principled, consistent leadership.
So, we have not given up on the United Nations. Far from it. We still retain
the hope that I felt that day in the Security Council chamber and the hope that
inspired President Bush to address the United Nations last fall. We still
believe in the principles on which the UN was founded.
But we believe that the depth of our commitment should be measured not merely
by our willingness to compromise with others, but by our success in challenging
the UN to stand by its principles. We should be measured not only by our
willingness to follow others, but also by our ability to convince others to
follow us.
That is, after all, what leadership is supposed to be all about.
The key is finding the right solutions to problems so others will want to
follow. That is our challenge.
And with the help of all of you, the United Nations Association, and other
organizations dedicated to peace and prosperity, we can and will find those
solutions.
Thank you.
[End]
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
