26 June 2003
Official Says U.S. Considers U.N. Vital for World Peace and Prosperity
(Assistant Secretary of State Holmes says additional reforms are needed) (5100)
Cooperation in the service of freedom and democracy "has been at the
heart of U.S.- German friendship" for over a half-century in the words
of Kim Holmes, Assistant Secretary of State for International
Organization Affairs, who added that such cooperation "should be a
central organizing principle of the United Nations as well."
Addressing the XXI German American Conference in Berlin June 13,
Holmes spoke at length about the importance of the United Nations
(U.N.), how it is working well and the areas where the United States
sees urgent need for reform.
Holmes said that the United States and many members of the U.N. still
have a vision of a "world in which peace and prosperity are the
property of all people" and "core principles of freedom, democracy,
good governance, and human rights" are shared, adding, "if the United
Nations did not exist today, we would have to create it."
He also noted a number of areas where "the U.N. indeed works well,"
citing the Counter-Terrorism Committee (CTC) -- which has encouraged
more states to take fundamental action to suppress terrorism -- as
well as the Security Council's Resolution 1267 Sanctions Committee,
which he said is "doing a good job identifying and listing
international terrorists associated with al-Qaeda and the Taliban."
Turning to peacekeeping, Holmes cited East Timor and said U.N. efforts
in the recent past have "generally been good at maintaining
cease-fires and supporting the implementation of peace agreements."
Holmes also praised U.N. efforts in providing humanitarian aid and
refugee relief, describing the World Food Program as an organization
that has been extremely effective in Iraq, where it has assisted the
Coalition Provisional Authority in the sale of Iraq's spring grain
harvest and with food distribution to the Iraqi people.
During the 1991 Persian Gulf War, Holmes said the U.N. humanitarian
agencies engaged in turf battles and created overlap and filled gaps
to support those in need. Fortunately, the United Nations established
the Office of the Coordinator for Humanitarian Assistance (OCHA). As a
result, contingency planning for humanitarian relief in Iraq "has been
exemplary," according to Holmes.
Many of the U.N.'s technical agencies are also doing important work
and avoiding politicization, Holmes said. For example, he mentioned
the effective World Health Organization (WHO) response to the outbreak
of SARS [Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome] that helped contain that
virulent and deadly disease.
Turning to those areas where the United States believes that the
United Nations is not functioning effectively, Holmes said there is
still "far too much duplication, inefficiency, and even waste in the
U.N. system. This is not just a U.S. view, but is shared by many
countries in the United Nations."
Holmes said the "U.N. is not very effective at peace enforcement when
real offensive military action is needed," pointing to Bosnia "where
command-and-control issues were a critical problem, and Rwanda, where
the Security Council did not have the political and military will to
take effective action." The official said "We must be careful not to
fall into the trap of sending poorly armed U.N. peacekeepers into
armed conflicts in which they can make little difference," adding that
"a U.N. or U.N.-authorized stabilization force should always have ...a
strong mandate from the Security Council."
Holmes said the United States left UNESCO 18 years ago as a result of
"severe mismanagement and an increasingly hostile ideological agenda,
exemplified by its support for a New World Information Order that
favored state-controlled media." President Bush's decision to rejoin
UNESCO in October recognizes that significant reforms have occurred,
and that "UNESCO is more efficient and its policies less politicized,"
but he added: "We will remain committed to reforming UNESCO."
Holmes also pointed to the U.N. Human Rights Commission as an entity
that has strayed dramatically from its founding principles to defend,
protect, and promote human rights, noting "more than a third of its
members today are human rights violators." He noted that commission
members elected Libya -- a country under U.N. sanctions -- as its
chair this year.
While there are structural limitations built into the U.N. system
itself, Holmes said, we must do what we can to overcome them. At the
very least, he said, "we need to dedicate ourselves to promoting new
membership on the Commission on Human Rights, members that respect the
basic tenets of the Commission itself."
The United States is not alone in its desire for U.N. reform, Holmes
said. "Many countries are considering how the U.N. can be reformed to
improve its efficiency and effectiveness." As a result of steps taken
by the United Nations to reform, nearly a billion dollars in arrears
payments have been authorized, Holmes said, adding, "the Bush
administration is continuing to actively review proposals for U.N.
reform."
Holmes also said that it is clear that the United Nations can't afford
to involve itself fully in every new problem and issue, which is why
the United States provided vast amounts of food to Ethiopia to counter
the famine, and recently announced a $15-billion ($15,000 million)
initiative to combat HIV/AIDS and other infectious diseases globally
(including $1 billion which will pass through the Global Fund.)
Holmes said disagreements in the Security Council about Iraq merely
reflect international political realities, and noted that the
structure of the Security Council and veto powers of the "Permanent
Five" were created long ago to mitigate against any country attempting
to challenge the vital interests of one of the great powers.
If the Council is restructured in the future in order to reflect new
geopolitical realities, he suggested "it must adequately reflect the
real division of labor and responsibility among nations for
maintaining international peace and security... And responsibility
must be determined not only by respect for the universal principles of
democracy and human rights, but also the capability to act to defend
those principles when they are threatened."
Following are Holmes' remarks as prepared for delivery:
(begin transcript)
Kim R. Holmes, Assistant Secretary for International Organization
Affairs
Remarks at the XXI German American Conference
Berlin, Germany
June 13, 2003
(As prepared)
The Future of U.S.-U.N. Relations
Thank you, Dr. Oetker, for that generous welcome and introduction. Let
me also thank the American Council on Germany and Atlantik-Brucke for
inviting me to Berlin to address an issue of great concern for
transatlantic relations the future of U.S.-U.N. relations.
It is a pleasure to be in Germany again. I had lived here for two
years as a student and have many fond memories.
First, let me add my condolences to those of President Bush and
Secretary Powell for the tragic deaths of four German peacekeepers in
Afghanistan last weekend. This attack was an assault on peace; but it
will not deter the peacekeepers, the United Nations, nor the world
community working together to end the scourge of global terrorism.
I arrived in Berlin last evening from Paris, where I met with
Director-General Matsuura of UNESCO [U.N. Educational, Scientific, and
Cultural Organization]. As you probably may know, the United States
has decided to rejoin UNESCO. President Bush and Secretary Powell are
committed to working with other nations to make UNESCO s programs as
effective as they can be. We are looking forward to expanding
international cooperation in a number of new areas of culture,
science, and education.
Before my trip to Paris, I visited our mission to the U.N. in Rome and
spent some time at the World Food Program (WFP), which is doing
excellent work feeding people in Iraq and other parts of the world.
The WFP is precisely the kind of United Nations organization that
makes a real difference in people s lives. That's why nations do and
should contribute voluntary funds to this program. It represents the
U.N. at its best: focused, dedicated to real outcomes, and
humanitarian in the true sense of the word.
The Role of the U.N. in Global Affairs
It is this question of the United Nations at its best or more
specifically, how to make the U.N. work at its best that I would like
to discuss with you this afternoon. We believe the U.N. has an
important role to play in global affairs. Defining that role,
particularly in light of the recent debate in the Security Council on
Iraq, is of keen interest to many countries around the world. So, too,
is the question of how to make the U.N. more effective.
For over six decades, the United States, the U.N., and a good number
of its members have shared a vision of the world in which peace and
prosperity are the property of all people. We shared core principles
of freedom, democracy, good governance, and human rights. Our founding
documents embody the belief that nations that respect the rule of law
at home will respect the rule of law elsewhere. We also share a belief
in the utility of placing multilateralism at the service of freedom,
democracy, and good governance.
Regardless of difficulties that we encounter at times, we will
continue to engage the U.N. because it is in our interest to do so.
Through multilateral diplomacy, we promote international peace and
security. We work with other nations to protect the innocent;
eradicate pandemic disease; advance freedom, human rights, and
democratic institutions. We fight poverty and build solid foundations
for development; and we improve health and education.
If the United Nations did not exist today, we would have to create it.
It would not look the same in all respects, but the world needs an
international forum where leaders can settle their differences at the
table of diplomacy.
Where the U.N. Works Well
There are many areas where the U.N. indeed works well. The terrorists
who breached America s shores in 2001 unleashed a huge coalition of
the willing to fight terrorism around the globe. Members of the U.N.
General Assembly and the Security Council were quick to lend support
the day after the attacks. The world saw the U.N. system work as it
was intended when the threat was grave and the cause clear.
The U.N. created the Counter-Terrorism Committee (CTC) to enhance the
capacity of nations to fight terrorism. In less than two years, the
CTC has encouraged more states to take fundamental action to suppress
terrorism and more have become party to the 12 U.N. conventions
related to terrorism. All 191 members of the U.N. have reported their
counterterrorism activities and capacities to the CTC. And 65
international and regional organizations have pledged to work with it
to exchange information and establish worldwide standards and best
practices for suppressing terrorism.
We also believe the Security Council's 1267 Sanctions Committee is
doing a good job identifying and listing international terrorists
associated with al-Qaeda and the Taliban. Resolution 1455 has
strengthened its sanctions against those listed, and the Committee has
established guidelines to assist states in preparing their
implementation reports.
Turning to peacekeeping, there have been some notable successes here
as well. U.N. peacekeeping efforts in the recent past have generally
been good at maintaining cease-fires and supporting the implementation
of peace agreements. In East Timor, the U.N. mission helped the people
create an interim government, draft and adopt a constitution, hold
elections, and become an independent state. UNMISET [U.N. Mission of
Support in East Timor] then took over to help the armed forces,
police, and key ministries of Timor-Leste develop their capacities to
function without extraordinary external assistance.
The United Nations plays many important roles in world affairs beyond
counterterrorism and peacekeeping. It is instrumental in providing
humanitarian aid and refugee relief. As I mentioned earlier, the World
Food Program has been particularly effective. It is working closely
with the Coalition Provisional Authority to get food to the Iraqi
people and to purchase grain from Iraq s spring harvest.
U.N. humanitarian agencies have improved significantly since the 1991
Gulf War. At that time, they did not have a unified approach to
dealing with massive humanitarian relief problems in Iraq. Agencies
fought, refusing to cooperate and share responsibility, and leaving
overlap and gaps in support.
The U.N. recognized the problem and established the Office of the
Coordinator for Humanitarian Assistance (OCHA). It worked. Contingency
planning for humanitarian relief in Iraq was exemplary. OCHA laid out
what each agency would do and held frequent, regular meetings in New
York and in the field. It held pre-crisis appeals, bought and
pre-positioned food and other humanitarian goods, and established a
logistics, airlift, and communications coordination center. When
conflict broke out, the result was that there was no humanitarian
crisis, food was distributed, water treatment and distribution
facilities were repaired, and health needs met.
Many of the U.N.'s technical agencies are also accomplishing important
work without getting politicized. The World Health Organization's
response to the outbreak of SARS [severe acute respiratory syndrome]
helped contain that virulent and deadly disease. New measures from the
International Maritime Organization will make it more difficult to use
ships as tools of terrorism and also decrease oil spills and
pollution. The International Civil Aviation Organization is helping
countries implement rigorous safety and security standards. The Crime
Commission has adopted a convention that will enhance international
cooperation in fighting organized crime.
We steadfastly support the International Atomic Energy Agency s (IAEA)
efforts to stem nuclear proliferation and to bring the facts about
Iran s nuclear program to light. The IAEA will present its report to
the Board of Governors on Monday. Iran's nuclear activities are deeply
troubling, and its nuclear ambitions present a serious challenge to
the international community.
The U.N. Can't Do it All
As much as the United Nations does, it clearly cannot be expected to
do everything. Not all of the areas of the world get the attention
they need. Ethiopia, for example, is on the verge of a devastating
famine, and yet it is not getting the attention it needs from the
international community. Were it not for the huge infusions of food
aid provided by the United States, Ethiopia would be in even worse
shape than it already is.
The same is true for HIV/AIDS. Dealing with this pandemic is a massive
project that far exceeds the U.N.'s capabilities. President Bush
announced a $15-billion initiative to combat HIV/AIDS and other
infectious diseases in Africa, the Caribbean and other areas. He has
committed $1 billion of this to fight pandemic diseases through the
Global Fund. And he has challenged the international community to
match our contribution.
The United Nations does an awful lot to improve the lives of people
around the world, but we cannot leave humanitarian crises to the U.N.
alone. All of us have to pitch in to do our share as well.
We also need to help change the way the U.N. dispenses advice about
economic policies and aid. We have made considerable progress in this
area. The Monterrey consensus was the seminal breakthrough that
changed the way the U.N. fosters development, good governance, and a
good business climate. Public and private sector leaders agreed that
while all have a role to play, developing countries themselves hold
the primary responsibility for their development, and good governance
is key. We have to get the process right to liberate the energies of
people and mobilize all of the resources available if development is
to take root and thrive.
We should not conclude, however, that the U.N.'s performance has been
stellar on all levels. The General Assembly is not at all effective.
Neither are many of the U.N.'s commissions and committees. There is
far too much duplication, inefficiency, and even waste in the U.N.
system. This is not just a U.S. view, but is shared by many countries
in the United Nations.
The U.N. is not very effective at peace enforcement when real
offensive military action is needed. This was true in Bosnia, where
command-and-control issues were a critical problem, and in Rwanda,
where the Security Council did not have the political and military
will to take effective action.
If a Chapter VII intervention in a crisis is warranted, a substantial
commitment of resources and personnel by interested parties (such as
the U.K. [United Kingdom] in Sierra Leone and Australia in East Timor)
is crucial. The Security Council could authorize coalitions of the
willing to carry out effective military action, such as it did for
Desert Storm in Iraq, for Interfet in East Timor, the French/EU
[European Union] multinational force in the Congo, and the French
multinational force in Cote d'Ivoire. Once the conflict has ended, the
multinational forces can be transitioned into effective U.N.
peacekeeping operations, as in East Timor.
The U.N. peacekeeping operations must have achievable objectives if
they are to be successful. We must be careful not to fall into the
trap of sending poorly armed U.N. peacekeepers into armed conflicts in
which they can make little difference, and in which they can become,
unwittingly, part of the problem. It is understandable to want to do
something when people are dying in large numbers. But we must actually
do something that works. As a general rule, a U.N. or U.N.-authorized
stabilization force should always have a strong leader, unified
command and control, as well as a strong mandate from the Security
Council.
Just as U.N. peacekeeping works best under certain conditions, the
U.N.'s specialized agencies and commissions only can meet their
objectives when they are not overly politicized or focused on divisive
ideological issues. The rule for them should be that they remain
tightly focused on their technical and specialized missions, and not
veer off into politicized debates.
We left UNESCO 18 years ago for two reasons: severe mismanagement and
an increasingly hostile ideological agenda, exemplified by its support
for a New World Information Order that favored state-controlled media.
The President s decision to rejoin UNESCO in October recognizes that
significant reforms have occurred. UNESCO is more efficient and its
policies less-politicized. We will remain committed to reforming
UNESCO. Many countries frankly expect us to play a leading role in
this area.
The same is true for reforming the various U.N. entities dedicated to
human rights. The Human Rights Commission has strayed dramatically
from its founding principles to defend, protect, and promote human
rights. More than a third of its members today are human rights
violators. And this year, its members elected Libya, a country under
U.N. sanctions, as its chair. Largely because of its makeup, the CHR's
[U.N. Commission on Human Rights] 2002 session ended without
resolutions on Zimbabwe and Sudan, among others. Yet it passed
multiple excessive resolutions on Israel.
We need to bring our concerns about structural and organizational
issues to the U.N. It is true there are structural limitations built
into the U.N. system itself. For example, the U.N. has never worked
out the contradiction between respect for national sovereignty and
belief in universal membership on the one hand, and the Charter
principles of democracy and human rights on the other. But we must do
what we can to overcome these contradictions. At the very least, we
need to dedicate ourselves to promoting new membership on the
Commission on Human Rights members that respect the basic tenets of
the Commission itself.
Efficiency and Effectiveness
And we need to dedicate ourselves to finding more efficient mechanisms
for achieving financial accountability in the U.N. system. Unforeseen
world events always will generate pressure on the U.N. to take on new
work; but new mandates do not mean automatic increases in the U.N.
budget or personnel. An ever-increasing U.N. budget is not
sustainable.
The best way to sustain support for the U.N. budget is for the U.N. to
prioritize its large array of programs. The rules permit such
prioritization, as well as the elimination of marginal or obsolete
activities. Sunset provisions that set a date in advance for
terminating funding are needed for every new mandate. This step would
help the U.N. foster a culture of accountability using performance
measures, and ensure a more sustainable budget.
Many countries are considering how the U.N. can be reformed to improve
its efficiency and effectiveness. We welcome this interest in reform.
We have had a long and abiding interest in this issue. The Helms-Biden
reform legislation tied the problem of paying our arrears aggravated
by our budget cycle to U.N. reform. The United Nations took steps to
reform, and so we have cleared nearly a billion dollars in arrears
authorized under the Helms-Biden legislation. I can tell you that the
Bush Administration is continuing to actively review proposals for
U.N. reform, and hopefully we will have ideas to share with our
colleagues in the near future.
Consensus in the U.N.
The U.N. can be reformed, indeed it can fulfill its mandate, only when
its members willingly meet their obligations, accept their
responsibilities, and adhere to the principles for which it was
founded. For our part, we take this obligation seriously. The United
States is deeply committed to an effective United Nations, so we
support it when it adheres to its core principles, and we say so when
it does not.
President Bush went to the United Nations last September and
challenged it to live up to its founding principles. He challenged the
Security Council to enforce its binding resolutions on Iraq, which
Saddam Hussein had flouted consistently for two decades. And all 15
members rallied behind that call in passing Resolution 1441.
When all the members of the Security Council are united, the Council
can become an effective instrument for international peace and
security. When we speak with one voice, as we did in November in
unanimously adopting UNSCR [U.N. Security Council Resolution] 1441,
and in May in passing the sanctions-lift resolution, we can take
effective action to promote international peace and security.
Yet, when Council members are divided -- or more accurately, when the
Permanent Five (P-5) are divided -- the Council fails as an effective
tool. This rather obvious point begs the question: Why?
The answer lies less inside the Council than in the realm of
international politics, particularly among the larger nations that
make up the P-5. The Security Council is, after all, a mirror of
international politics. And therein lie both its strength and its
weakness.
The Security Council became largely ineffective during the Cold War
when divisions between the East and West made it impossible to achieve
consensus on major issues. The Western powers decided to create the
North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and other alliances in part
because they realized they could not rely on the Security Council to
protect either their security or their interests.
The gridlock broke after the fall of the Soviet Union, and Security
Council members came together to vote for an unprecedented series of
resolutions to try to eject Iraq from Kuwait, first by diplomatic
means, then by sanctions, and when those failed through a
multinational force to eject Iraq by force. Resolution 687, the
cease-fire resolution, demarcated Iraq s borders, set up a mechanism
to resolve Gulf War claims, and set forth Iraq's disarmament
obligations. It also adopted comprehensive sanctions to prevent Saddam
Hussein from reacquiring WMD [weapons of mass destruction].
In the aftermath of the Gulf War, the Security Council experienced a
remarkable renaissance. It was not engaged, however, in every major
issue that arose concerning international peace and security. During
the post-Cold War period, the Council engaged episodically in major
issues of international peace and security. It has been heavily
engaged at times, most particularly in Iraq, the Balkans, and Africa.
Still, the international community does not view it as the exclusive
forum for settling all international disputes that involve conflict
and security.
Basing the Security Council s voting scheme on consensus was
intentional. The Council would not become an effective instrument for
one great power to use to constrain or control another great power.
The structure of the Council with veto powers for the P-5 mitigates
against trying to use it to alter the balance of power or to
fundamentally challenge the vital interests of the great powers.
Given its performance on Iraq over the last six months, some have
asked, why not reform the Council? Why not update it to overcome what
some see as an anachronistic structure whereby certain countries
selected during the immediate World War II era are more equal than
others?
I do not have any magic formulas on Security Council reform. However,
I do believe that whatever is done to change the Council, it must
adequately reflect the real division of labor and responsibility among
nations for maintaining international peace and security. Authority
must be based not solely on the claim of representation, but on
responsibility. And responsibility must be determined not only by
respect for the universal principles of democracy and human rights,
but also the capability to act to defend those principles when they
are threatened.
The Question of International Law
Anytime the question of authority of the Security Council is raised,
the issue arises as to its place in establishing international law.
This was a particularly central issue of dispute during the recent
Iraq war.
As contentious as the disagreement over Iraq was, it should not be
over-emphasized. Neither the United States nor the U.K. ever asserted
a right to operate outside their obligations under international law.
Neither took a position that called into question the existing
international legal regime related to the use of force. Each country
had lawyers examine relevant resolutions and clarify the legal basis
for use of force before the decision to proceed was made.
The decision to go to war with Iraq was based on international law:
Existing Security Council resolutions against Iraq provided a
sufficient legal basis for military action. Under the U.N. Charter
itself, there was sufficient authority to take action against Iraq
without another resolution.
Countries disagree on other international law issues as well. The Rome
Statute establishing the International Criminal Court (ICC) and the
Kyoto Protocol on global warming are notable examples. Germany
believes that being a party to the Rome Statute and the Kyoto Protocol
will advance its interests. It accepts the obligations of being a
party to each one. The United States holds the opposite view and has
not become a party to either of them. Consequently, it does not accept
any international legal obligations with respect to them.
The United States does not violate any international legal obligation
or act against international law by remaining outside the ICC. There
is no requirement, under customary international law or elsewhere,
that a nation become a party to this treaty. Nothing in existing
customary law says that we are bound by the provisions of the Rome
Statute when we are not a party to it.
Every nation has the right to decide which treaties it will sign, and
we will continue making case-by-case assessments. The fact that
another country may make a different assessment of a treaty does not
mean that one country is acting in favor of international law and the
other against it: Both are acting consistent with international law.
For this reason, while we respect the right of countries to make their
own decisions, we nonetheless wish that France, Germany, and Syria had
joined the other 12 members of the Security Council in supporting the
simple extension of Resolution 1422, which protects U.N. peacekeepers
from prosecution by the International Criminal Court. A clear majority
of the Council understood the need to preserve the integrity of U.N.
peacekeeping operations by extending the resolution. We hope that the
action of the three who abstained does not signal a desire to reopen
in the future the balanced compromise reached last year. It would be a
pity -- indeed, a tragic consequence for international peace and
security -- if non-ICC signatory states like the United States found
it legally impossible to participate in U.N. peacekeeping.
Conclusion
For the past century, America's historical role has been to address
threats to international peace, stability, and freedom and to redress
the balance of power when threatened by militarism, tyrants, extremist
ideologies, or terrorists. This was true in the world wars. It was
true in the Cold War. It is true in the war on terrorism. And it is
true in Iraq.
In each instance, the United States did not follow the paths of
imperialist powers, but instead liberated countries from tyranny. We
did not always succeed, but when we did and we did more often than not
we left countries better off than before. We left behind not
occupation forces, but democratic institutions and, as Secretary
Powell reminded us this year, cemeteries filled with our soldiers who
laid down their lives so that others could be free.
It is true that America is a singularly powerful nation. It is true
that it has strong opinions and enormous influence. Of course this
state of affairs makes some countries uncomfortable. But it is one
thing to want the United States to listen to you and to act on your
point of view. It is another to conclude that America is a threat to
world order if it doesn't.
Trying to restrain American power and influence should not be an
organizing principle for countries that care about peace, prosperity,
and freedom. It will only sow division and waste energy and resources
on matters not worthy of great nations. In the end, it will strengthen
those who challenge freedom and democracy across the globe. And it
will only weaken the solidarity needed among free nations to defend
themselves from terror and aggression.
International cooperation in the service of freedom and democracy:
this principle has guided NATO for over a half-century. It has been at
the heart of U.S.-German friendship for as many years. And it should
be a central organizing principle of the United Nations as well.
Thank you.
(end transcript)
(Distributed by the Bureau of International Information Programs, U.S.
Department of State. Web site: http://usinfo.state.gov)
|
NEWSLETTER
|
|
Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list
|
|
|
