The Congressional Record is a unique source of public documentation. It started in 1873, documenting nearly all the major and minor policies being discussed and debated.
“THE NEED FOR UNITED NATIONS REFORM” mentioning the U.S. Dept of State was published in the Extensions of Remarks section on pages E967-E968 on May 9, 1995.
The publication is reproduced in full below:
THE NEED FOR UNITED NATIONS REFORM
______
HON. LEE H. HAMILTON
of indiana
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, May 9, 1995
Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, there is growing pressure in the Congress for meaningful reforms in the United Nations system. Due to U.S. budgetary constraints, the need to pare down our contributions to the United Nations and focus our resources on its most effective programs has become more urgent.
On April 7, I wrote to Secretary of State Warren Christopher urging high-level attention to the issue of U.N. reform. On May 4, I received the State Department's response.
Because there is a high degree of congressional interest in this issue, I ask that this correspondence be included in the Record.
U.S. Department of State,
Washington, DC, May 4, 1995.Hon. Lee Hamilton,House of Representatives,Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Hamilton: Secretary Christopher has asked me to respond to your letter of April 7 regarding our UN reform efforts and the possibility that Congress will not approve the full amount of our request for contributions for the UN System.
We agree that UN reform is a high priority. Like most international--and national--institutions, the UN must adapt to changing times if it is to succeed. Today, that means learning, whenever possible, to deliver better results at a lower cost. That is a goal we are working with other UN members and the UN Secretariat to achieve.
As you rightly note, this Administration has taken the lead on UN reform in preparations for the Halifax Summit. We believe that the Group of Seven should commit themselves to improve the UN's efficiency, productivity and professionalism, and to make more equitable the scale of assessments for peacekeeping. We are working cooperatively with our G-7 partners in an effort to reach consensus on these issues and to increase the likelihood that we will gain support elsewhere. It is a fact of life that real reform cannot be achieved at the United Nations without broad support from other countries.
Overall, the Administration supports peacekeeping, management, personnel and budgetary reforms designed to produce greater value for each dollar we--and others--contribute to the UN. We agree with you that the success of the new Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS) is important. A strong UN Inspector General is an essential ingredient for true UN reform. We believe that the appointment of Karl Paschke of Germany to this post was a good choice. To help ensure his success, our own Inspector General has agreed to detail a member of our OIG staff to the UN. We have also forwarded to the OIOS the names of several Americans for the position of Principal Investigator. We are doing our best to see that OIOS is adequately funded, and we appreciate the support you have shown for our efforts.
OIOS has the authority already to undertake audits and investigations of separately administered UN organs such as UNDP, UNICEF, and UNEP. We have recently taken steps to pursue the institutionalization of an ``IG-type'' function in the specialized agencies, beginning with the largest--UNIDO, IAEA, FAO, WHO, and ILO. We believe there is no organizational substitute for an oversight mechanism modeled after the UN Secretariat's OIOS, which affords the qualities of accountability, transparency, and operational independence to the membership of these organizations.
In addition, following up on President Clinton's proposal at last fall's UN General Assembly, we are working with the President of the General Assembly to establish a special high-level working group to review existing studies on UN reform for the purpose of developing a practical strategy for implementing key recommendations on a timely basis.
We still believe that the Administration's budget request to meet our commitments to the United Nations and other international
[[Page E968]] organizations is essential to our national interests. However, if our requests are not met, we will act to preserve U.S. leadership where it counts most.
Let us share with you some of our thoughts and actions as we prepare for that possibility:
First, we are continuing to closely scrutinize peacekeeping budgets, especially as we take factors from Presidential Decision Directive 25 (PDD-25) into consideration. For example, we limited operations in Georgia and Tajikistan to a small number of military observers, a relatively inexpensive means of maintaining a UN monitoring presence. The UN Mission for the Referendum in Western Sahara (MINURSO) has continued longer than we expected and has encountered several delays in achieving its objectives. Recently, however, the parties have demonstrated a commitment to the process and real gains have been made in registering and identifying potential voters, the first step necessary for holding the referendum. We agree with you that we cannot continue to support an operation that does not accomplish its goals and is not cost-effective. We will review MINURSO's progress in all areas to determine if it should be terminated or if an extension should be granted and a referendum can be successfully held.
Second, we are examining the ways and means of withdrawing from some organizations whose activities are of lesser priority to us.
Third, we are pushing for UN agency and other international organization budgets for the coming biennium that are below the zero real growth rate we have historically supported.
Fourth, we are actively reviewing options for reducing waste, decreasing costs and improving performance through the possible consolidation of agencies and programs where that is possible.
Fifth, we are opposing the scheduling under UN auspices of new global conferences or summits (and note that each of the conferences this Administration has participated in was scheduled prior to 1993).
Finally, we are prepared to signal to organizations in which we continue to participate that U.S. withdrawal from some is possible if they are unwilling to undertake needed reforms.
In the context of considering how we can pare down our contributions while limiting damage to our leadership, it is important to recognize that in the case of most UN organizations, we are obligated either by the terms of the treaty or other international agreement establishing the organization or by general principles of international law to pay assessment through calendar year 1996, even if we notify our intent to withdraw now. We also remain similarly obligated for arrears from previous withholdings.
We note, as well, that a number of the activities you cite specifically in your letter fall within the core programs of the UN Secretariat; these are not separate organizations from which we can ``withdraw.'' Any decision on our part to reduce our contributions in an amount equal to our share of such an activity would simply be carried on the books by the UN as an arrearage to the organization as a whole. This underlines the importance of gaining UN member support and understanding for any actions that we might take.
Many UN activities are important to us; so is the success of the organization as a whole. There is a grave risk that substantial budget reductions will harm our leverage and leadership within the UN system. We must be frank about the possibility that substantial damage to our interests will result. Nowhere is this more clearly illustrated than with peacekeeping operations which provide us options in between doing nothing and going it alone. The strategy of this Administration is to make the case for our budget as persuasively as we can, and to develop a plan for minimizing harm to our interests should the reductions nevertheless occur. In doing so, we want to emphasize that Congress must allow us to decide where to cut and not tie our hands by earmarking funds. We welcome your support and counsel with respect to this strategy.
As a matter of policy, we want to see a leaner, less-costly, more productive United Nations. We are making progress in this direction. Our prospects will be better,
however, if it is clear to our allies and those around the world that our emphasis is on helping international organizations to work better, rather than on reducing costs to ourselves regardless of consequences. One approach reflects the essence of leadership; the other retreats from it.
It is not possible to paint a comprehensive picture of our thinking on this important issue in one letter. Accordingly, we would be happy to discuss this with you in more detail or put together a briefing team to meet with you at your convenience.
Thank you again for your provocative and timely letter, and for your continued leadership and support.
Sincerely,
Wendy R. Sherman,
Assistant Secretary,
Legislative Affairs.
____
Committee on
International Relations,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC, April 7, 1995.Hon. Warren Christopher,Secretary of State, Department of State, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman. I write to urge you to continue to give your personal attention to the issue of reforming the United Nations.
I know you face many crises every day, and there is much which demands your attention. But U.N. reform has become a serious and urgent issue because of pending Congressional budget cuts for the U.N.
I believe this Administration generally has the right policy on U.N. reform. I also commend the Administration for the efforts undertaken thus far, such as establishing an office of Inspector General at the United Nations. Your efforts to put U.N. reform on the agenda for the upcoming summit in Halifax is an excellent way to demonstrate our seriousness of purpose on this issue. We need to keep pushing for concrete action to implement our U.N. reform policy.
It is quite possible if not likely that hundreds of millions of dollars are going to be cut from the U.N. budget, both assessed and voluntary. Supporters of the U.N. and peacekeeping will not be able to stop these cuts, and I doubt the Administration can veto them at the end of the day.
The Congress will be faced with the tough choice of either cutting indiscriminately across the board, or deciding which U.N. programs are most important to us, and trying to save those programs by de-funding or withdrawing from those which are less important.
I believe the second option is the proper one. It is better to have a smaller, more effective United Nations than a crippled and ineffective United Nations.
Reforming the U.N. is so tough that it will require sustained, high-level attention. Ambassador Albright, who is doing an excellent job in a critical assignment, needs your continued, full support and the support of the President on U.N. reform.
I would urge you to take the following steps.
First, the G-7 reform initiative is a good step, but this step needs to be tightly focused, and coordinated with US/UN reform efforts. The state Department might want to consider some sort of Task Force on U.N. reform, perhaps on an inter-agency basis.
Second, the Administration must decide its priorities in the U.N. assessed and voluntary budgets, and communicate those to Congressional Democrats. I would suggest that we closely examine whether we still need UNCTAD, UNIDO, the regional U.N. economic commissions, the ILO, and the FAO. The funding crisis is reaching the point where we must consider withdrawal from, or de-funding of, some of these activities.
Third, we must be prepared to push for a stronger U.N. Inspector General. He should have authority over the whole U.N. system, as well as adequate, trained staff and a reasonable budget. And, his reports must be made available, unchanged, to Members States. This has not yet happened, to my knowledge.
Fourth, we must give greater scrutiny to U.N. peacekeeping budgets. And, you must consider whether we can continue to vote for operations, which are very expensive and have operated for years without tangible progress, such as MINURSO in the Western Sahara.
All of these efforts will require close coordination with other major donor countries, as you have recognized through the G-7 initiate. We must continue working hard with those countries in order to make these reforms happen.
We will likely face these issues in a HIRC markup in early May. If the Administration doesn't decide on its priorities and let Democrats try to help you support them, Republicans will make these decisions for you. The only line of defense against those who want to destroy the U.N. is to reform it. But it must be real reform in order to get votes for U.N. funding.
I appreciate your consideration of this letter, and I stand ready to work with you in any way I can to help make these reforms happen. I would stress once again the gravity and urgency of these problems, and urge that we press ahead on U.N. reform efforts.
With best regards,
Sincerely,
Lee H. Hamilton,
Ranking Democratic Member.
____________________
