Testimony of Senator George J. Mitchell at the House hearing on The Future of the United Nations under Ban Ki-Moon
 

February 13, 2007
Original Source: http://www.internationalrelations.house.gov/110/mit021307.htm

 
Chairman Lantos, Congresswoman Ros-Lehtinen, distinguished members of the Committee on Foreign Affairs.  It is an honor to testify before you this morning on the subject of the future of the United Nations.
As you know, I served as co-chairman, with former Speaker Newt Gingrich, of a Task Force on the United Nations created by the last Congress.  The members of that task force, like its co-chairmen, represented a wide range of perspectives.  Our task force reported at a time when disapproval of the United Nations in the United States was at a high point, in the aftermath of division among members of the Security Council over Iraq, and revelations about mismanagement at various bodies in the United Nations.   
It was therefore noteworthy that, even at that challenging time, a bipartisan group that represented a wide range of views was able to reach common ground on the subject of UN reform and the role of the United Nations in American foreign policy.  During my testimony, I will address issues on which I believe the United Nations has made progress since that time.  I also will address issues on which progress at the United Nations is still wanting.  
But I begin by recalling the principal finding of the task force report to the last Congress, a shared conviction that I believe to be even more important as a new Secretary General takes office.  It is, and I quote from the task force report, “The firm belief that an effective United Nations is in America’s interests.”
Americans have long hoped and wanted the United Nations to play a major role in pursuit of a better world.  As important stakeholders in the institution, Americans are vested in a United Nations that embodies our values and can advance our interests.  An effective UN can serve the American people well, not because the United Nations is the exclusive international option for the United States—it is not—but because the UN can serve as a valuable instrument for promoting democratic political development, human rights, economic self sufficiency and the peaceful settlement of disputes.  
From the perspective of the U.S. government, the United Nations can play a number of important roles that support American foreign policy interests, goals, and values. These include the legitimacy that can be conferred by the decisions of a universal organization; the unique capacity and special expertise to achieve humanitarian aims, which the UN has developed over a period of years; and the ability to step in or to mediate conflicts or broker disputes when a state may not be able to do so as effectively.  
The United States has looked to the United Nations for assistance in many such instances in recent months and years.  After the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami, the UN coordinated international donations and oversaw wide-ranging relief and recovery activities in eleven countries—from providing emergency food and shelter to developing a regional early warning system.  Following the U.S. operation in Afghanistan, the UN oversaw the creation of a transitional government, authorized the multinational International Security Assistance Force, and took the lead in coordinating development and reconstruction activities throughout the country. Last December, the Security Council approved a resolution sponsored by the United States and Europe to try to persuade Iran to suspend its nuclear weapons activities.  
Even on Iraq, the issue which drove the Security Council to the breaking point in March 2003, the United States sought assistance from the United Nations at critical moments, requesting, in February 2004, assistance in creating an interim government and in planning the first national assembly elections, held in January 2005. Last month in his State of the Union address, the President noted that U.S. and multinational forces in Iraq operate “under a mandate from the United Nations.”
While the American public’s support for the ideals of the UN Charter has historically been strong, the institution’s credibility has suffered over time because of the performance of certain UN bodies, including, at times, the General Assembly, the now defunct Human Rights Commission, and at highly publicized meetings where anti-democratic interests prevailed.  In addition, the institution has been challenged to adapt to dramatically different dangers and demands than those anticipated at its founding: the problem of weak and fragile states; catastrophic terrorism; the need for effective action to prevent genocide; the promotion of democracy; and enduring poverty and lack of opportunity for the half of the world which subsists on under two dollars a day.  In some cases, UN bodies and institutions lack authority or effective machinery to deal with these dangers and challenges.  There is also a need for much greater accountability, transparency, and efficiency that is suited to the shift in the UN’s mission, from convener of meetings to coordinator of action.
Those seeking reforms at the United Nations must keep in mind that the United Nations is a body composed of individual nation states.  Regrettably, too often member states have found it convenient to lay the blame for failures solely on the United Nations in cases where they themselves have blocked or opposed action by the United Nations.  As Ambassador Bolton testified before this committee while serving as America’s permanent representative to the UN mission, “While it is easy to blame the UN as an institution for some of the problems we confront today, we must recognize that ultimately it is member states that must take action, and therefore bear responsibility.”  
That said, far-reaching reforms are necessary for the effective operation of the institution.  Without fundamental reform, the United Nations’ reputation will suffer, reinforcing incentives to bypass the UN in favor of other institutions, other coalitions, or self help.
Reform of the United Nations is necessary on two levels.  The first is institutional reform, without which other goals of the United Nations will be much more difficult to implement.  
In this regard, America’s interest in reforming the UN takes place at a time of growing consensus on the need for change within the institution. The new Secretary General, Ban Ki-moon, has made management reform one of his top priorities.  Secretary General Ban’s appointment also follows the release of a number of reports, from inside and outside the UN, which identifies a range of concerns, and makes recommendations for improvements.  
What these reports have established is that management systems common throughout the world in public and private institutions have been lacking in a number of UN agencies and bodies, including gaps in oversight, management, budget, and personnel systems.  The task force on which I served identified five areas in which management reforms are necessary.  Over the last eighteen months there has been a measure of progress in several of these areas.  These include:
·                    Agreement, in principle, to establish an independent audit advisory committee with system-wide oversight authority and capacity; 
·                    Enhanced financial disclosure requirements for senior UN staff, and new protections for whistleblowers; enactment of a unified code of conduct on sexual abuse and misconduct; and the creation of confidential channels for reporting abuse for all peacekeeping missions;
·                    Ban Ki-moon has led by example by publicly releasing his own financial disclosure forms.  He also acted quickly after reports surfaced about possible irregularities in the UN Development Program in North Korea, and has called for an external audit of UN activities around the globe, beginning with the UNDP program in Pyongyang;  
·                    Secretary General Ban has also taken a number of encouraging steps to support professional development at the UN, including inviting career staff to apply for senior positions normally held for political appointments; and pursuing a plan that would permit and encourage UN officials to move from the Secretariat in New York into the field and back.
UN reform, however, is a process, not an event, and there is much more that needs to be done. The list of needed reforms includes:  
·                    The proposal to create an independent audit advisory committee has been agreed, but not yet implemented;
·                    The Secretary General has been formally granted a greater degree of management flexibility. As a practical matter, however, it is still difficult for the Secretary General to move money within the Secretariat’s budget from one program to another to address emergencies, and he faces resistance when he tries to use his formal authority to move people from one office to another within the Secretariat;
·                    The General Assembly agreed at the World Summit in September 2005 to review all of its mandates older than five years.  This review is under way, but progress has been slow.  
·                    There is resistance to the idea of identifying operational programs that may be more efficiently managed if they were funded entirely by voluntary contributions.  
More broadly, the effort to bring about institutional reform of the UN has become a controversial proposition.  Some member states have chosen to interpret reform as a power grab by the most prosperous nations, including the United States. Overcoming such resistance will be difficult and will require consistent American leadership and diplomacy.  
On an operational level, the United Nations must reform in order to meet today’s challenges and the goals articulated in its Charter.  Management reform needs to be connected to a clear set of mandates for the organization that corresponds to the world’s expectations for the institution.  Nowhere is this more necessary than in crafting effective strategies for preventing and halting genocide, mass killing, and major human rights abuses, and in efforts to prevent and end deadly conflicts.  The American people will strongly support a United Nations that is more effective in these areas, but will not be favorably disposed to an institution that is not.  The record of the past eighteen months is uneven.  Let me highlight three areas of special significance: the principle of humanitarian protection, human rights, and peacekeeping.
 
The Responsibility to Protect
The congressional task force on the United Nations called on the U.S. government and the UN to “affirm that every sovereign government has a ‘responsibility to protect’ its citizens and those within its jurisdiction from genocide, mass killing, and massive and sustained human rights violations.”  The General Assembly, with the support of the United States, clearly endorsed this principle in September 2005.  The adoption of the responsibility to protect is a very significant step in light of past international resistance to any provision that would seem to endorse interference in a state’s “sovereign internal affairs.”  It is important now that the United Nations work to convert these words into a program of action.  To that end, Secretary General Ban has said his reform program will include an effort to “operationalize” the responsibility to protect.  I strongly support and encourage that effort.
 
Human Rights
Unfortunately, the Human Rights Council has not been a major improvement over the Human Rights Commission that preceded it.  The hope was for the creation of a body, ideally consisting of democracies, committed to upholding and promoting the highest standards in human rights, to replace its tainted predecessor.  New voting procedures were adopted for the Council and, although imperfect, they dissuaded some states from seeking seats on the Council.  As a result, some of the most egregious violators of human rights are not members of the new body, and a majority are members of the Community of Democracies.  But the composition of the Council is far from ideal, and the record to date shows that the democracies serving on the Council have not worked with one another to coordinate positions, allowing other better-organized blocs of states, including the non-aligned members, to shape the agenda.
As a consequence, the work of the Council in its first year has largely failed to address the most serious human rights abuses occurring in the world.  The Council has been silent, for example, on North Korea, Burma, and Cuba.  Just four country-specific resolutions have passed to date.  The first three condemned Israel.  A resolution on Darfur passed in December, after intensive effort by the democracies on and off the Council, including the United States, which played a constructive role despite the fact that it is not a member.   
This record is not encouraging.  With the right effort, however, the United States working with other democracies can encourage the Council toward more useful outcomes.  Concerted leadership by the United States in helping to unify action by the world’s democracies is needed to make the Human Rights Council a more effective body.  Ideally, the United States will run and be elected to serve as full member of the Council.  Whether or not the United States serves as a member, however, the administration should appoint a special envoy to the Human Rights Council to ensure that Washington’s interests and values are vigorously promoted.
 
Peacekeeping
UN peacekeeping is now experiencing an unprecedented peak in operations, with the number of blue helmets likely to reach 100,000 this year.  Only the United States has more troops deployed overseas. Unfortunately, however, the United Nations continues to lack a capability to deploy troops for operations authorized by the Security Council when it matters most.  Last summer the deployment of troops to the expanded peacekeeping operation in southern Lebanon was put in jeopardy because of an initial lack of troops.  Today, it is unclear where troops would come from for a proposed peacekeeping force for Darfur.  
In his State of the Union Address, President Bush proposed the establishment of a voluntary reserve of civilians that could be deployed to peacekeeping and other operations.  I encourage the administration to develop and promote this proposal.  In light of the current high demand for UN peacekeepers, and U.S. support for peacekeeping deployments in Darfur and elsewhere, the time may be right to consider steps to increase substantially the availability of capable, designated forces, properly trained and equipped for rapid deployment to peace operations on a voluntary basis.  The President’s concept for a voluntary civilian reserve may provide a model.  Troops could be earmarked by countries to be available for rapid deployment to operations authorized by the Security Council, subject to the national decisions of each country.  Forces could be trained to UN standards and exercise with one another.  
With respect to current peacekeeping operations, I support the administration’s request to enact legislation without further conditions to permit the United States to pay the full amount it is billed by the United Nations for peacekeeping assessments.  The existing cap that limits U.S. payments to 25 percent of the total peacekeeping bill is a remnant of another era, and the significant and growing debt to UN peacekeeping that accrues as a result undercuts U.S. efforts in the push for reform.  Lifting the cap would also support Ban Ki-moon, who last month asked the administration and Congress to resolve the issue.
In the past, the United States used withholding to change the structure of UN dues.  It was a money-only issue.  There has been, ever since, an unresolved debate as to whether and, if so, how much withholding dues actually helped in that effort.  The number and complexity of the structural and policy reforms now needed are different and more complex, so the negative consequences to the United States of withholding payments to bring about these reforms would outweigh any benefits.
 
Leadership
Concerted leadership by the United States in helping unify action by the world’s democracies is needed to make the United Nations more effective in meeting the challenges of today’s world.  Implementing true reform will require a 365-day-a-year effort to win key arguments and to organize a broad coalition of democracies who agree that the future of international institutions depends on adopting reforms that implement the highest standards of honesty, accountability, and transparency.
Today democracies and countries moving toward democracy make up an increasing share of the 192 UN member states.  However, democracies are not organized to cooperate effectively at the United Nations.  It is a particular problem when Europe and the United States do not work closely together. Transatlantic frictions and division create opportunities for those opposed to change to thwart progress at the United Nations.  The opposite is also true. When Europe and the United States work together, they can achieve significant progress, as they did in successfully overcoming opposition to a Security Council resolution on Iran last fall and winter.
The challenges and problems faced by the United Nations cannot be successfully addressed without leadership by the United States.  This will also require bipartisanship in our approach to the organization.  Divisions between and within the parties will hamper any serious U.S. effort to bring about reform.  The executive and legislative branches must be jointly involved and equally committed to reform efforts.  To the extent possible, there should be a unified American position toward the United Nations.