The U.S. Agenda at the United Nations

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 [UN Security Council] 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 FY 2004 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 (CHR) 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 (WFP). 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 (IAEA) 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 [severe acute respiratory syndrome]. 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 [UN Development program] 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 [UN Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization], which is one of the reasons we left it over 18 years ago. Its political agenda also favored state-controlled media.

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 [weapons of mass destruction]. 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 (DRC) 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 [UN Organization Mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo], and UN facilitators helped promote inter-Congolese dialogue, 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 [European Union]-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 4^th 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 (UNGA) 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.

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]