[House Hearing, 112 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

REFORMING THE UNITED NATIONS:
LESSONS LEARNED

=======================================================================

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

__________

MARCH 3, 2011

__________

Serial No. 112-4

__________

Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.foreignaffairs.house.gov/

______

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
64-870 WASHINGTON : 2011
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center, U.S. Government Printing Office. Phone 202�09512�091800, or 866�09512�091800 (toll-free). E-mail, gpo@custhelp.com.

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida, Chairman
CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey HOWARD L. BERMAN, California
DAN BURTON, Indiana GARY L. ACKERMAN, New York
ELTON GALLEGLY, California ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American
DANA ROHRABACHER, California Samoa
DONALD A. MANZULLO, Illinois DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey
EDWARD R. ROYCE, California BRAD SHERMAN, California
STEVE CHABOT, Ohio ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York
RON PAUL, Texas GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York
MIKE PENCE, Indiana RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri
JOE WILSON, South Carolina ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey
CONNIE MACK, Florida GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia
JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida
MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas DENNIS CARDOZA, California
TED POE, Texas BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky
GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida BRIAN HIGGINS, New York
JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio ALLYSON SCHWARTZ, Pennsylvania
BILL JOHNSON, Ohio CHRISTOPHER S. MURPHY, Connecticut
DAVID RIVERA, Florida FREDERICA WILSON, Florida
MIKE KELLY, Pennsylvania KAREN BASS, California
TIM GRIFFIN, Arkansas WILLIAM KEATING, Massachusetts
TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania DAVID CICILLINE, Rhode Island
JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina
ANN MARIE BUERKLE, New York
RENEE ELLMERS, North Carolina
VACANT
Yleem D.S. Poblete, Staff Director
Richard J. Kessler, Democratic Staff Director

C O N T E N T S

----------
Page

WITNESSES

The Honorable Mark D. Wallace, president and chief executive
officer, United Against Nuclear Iran (former United States
Representative to the United Nations for Management and Reform) 11
The Honorable Terry Miller, director of the Center for
International Trade and Economics, The Heritage Foundation
(former United States Representative to the United Nations
Economic and Social Council, United States observer at the
United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural
Organization, and deputy assistant secretary of state for
economic and global issues).................................... 22
Mr. Ted Piccone, Brookings Institution, senior fellow and deputy
director for foreign policy.................................... 32

LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING

The Honorable Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Florida, and chairman, Committee on Foreign
Affairs: Prepared statement.................................... 4
The Honorable Mark D. Wallace: Prepared statement................ 13
The Honorable Terry Miller: Prepared statement................... 24
Mr. Ted Piccone: Prepared statement.............................. 34

APPENDIX

Hearing notice................................................... 72
Hearing minutes.................................................. 73
The Honorable Howard L. Berman, a Representative in Congress from
the State of California: Material submitted for the record..... 75
Questions submitted for the record by the Honorable Ileana Ros-
Lehtinen and responses from:
The Honorable Terry Miller..................................... 76
The Honorable Mark D. Wallace.................................. 80

REFORMING THE UNITED NATIONS: LESSONS LEARNED

----------

THURSDAY, MARCH 3, 2011

House of Representatives,
Committee on Foreign Affairs,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 o'clock a.m.,
in room 2172 Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Ileana Ros-
Lehtinen (chairman of the committee) presiding.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. The committee will come to order.
After recognizing myself and the ranking member, my good friend
Mr. Berman, for 7 minutes each for our opening statements, we
will then proceed to hear from our witnesses.
The Chair would ask our witnesses to keep their oral
summaries of their written testimony to no more than 5 minutes
each. I am getting quite a reputation for being ruthless with
this gavel, Mr. Chairman. I will have to be kinder.
Following their testimonies, members will be recognized to
question witnesses under the 5-minute rule. Without objection,
the witnesses' prepared statements will be made part of the
record. And members may have 5 days to insert statements and
questions for the record subject to the length limitation of
the rules. The chair now recognizes herself for 7 minutes.
Today, we consider lessons learned from past U.N. reform
attempts, to ensure that present and future efforts are based
on what works. What a concept.
Lesson One: Money talks. The biggest problem with the U.N.
is that those who call the shots don't have to pay the bills.
Most U.N. member nations pay next to nothing in assessed
contributions, but work together to adopt U.N. programming
decisions and budgets, passing the costs on to big
contributors, like the U.S. The U.S. goes along and pays all
contributions that the U.N. assesses to us: 22 percent of the
U.N. regular budget, plus billions more every year.
The current administration has unconditionally repaid our
U.N. arrears. When the U.N. bureaucracy and other member
countries know that we will pay in full, no matter what, they
have zero incentive to reform.
Almost every productive U.S. reform effort has been based
on withholding our contributions unless and until needed
reforms are implemented. In the 1980s, for example, Congress
adopted an amendment to withhold funding until the U.N. changed
how budgets are voted on. That effort showed some success until
the amendment expired. The threat was no longer credible and
the U.N. returned to business as usual.
In 1989, Arafat pushed for the PLO to gain full membership
in the U.N. agencies, meaning the PLO would be essentially
recognized as a state without making peace with Israel. The PLO
strategy looked unstoppable until the George H.W. Bush
administration made clear the U.S. would cut off funding to any
U.N. entity that upgraded the status of the PLO.
The PLO's effort was stopped in its tracks. While Arafat is
gone, his successors are up to the same tricks today. The U.S.
response must be just as strong.
In the '90s, when the U.N. regular and peacekeeping budgets
were skyrocketing, Congress enacted the Helms-Biden agreement.
The U.S. withheld our dues and conditioned repayment on key
reforms. When the U.N. saw that we meant business, they agreed
to change, and that saved U.S. taxpayer funds. Smart
withholding worked.
Withholding alone is insufficient to produce lasting
reform. That is why we must demand that funding for the U.N.
budget and U.N. entities move from an assessed to a voluntary
basis. That way, Americans, not U.N. bureaucrats or other
member countries, will determine how much taxpayer dollars are
spent on the U.N., and where they go.
We should pay for U.N. programs and activities that advance
our interests and our values. If other countries want different
things to be funded, they can pay for it. The voluntary model
works for UNICEF and other U.N. entities. It can work for the
U.N. as a whole.
Lesson Two: Principled, credible, consistent U.S.
leadership matters. The U.S. is not just another member nation
at the U.N. American leadership is what our allies expect from
us, and what our enemies fear. We should not be afraid to block
consensus and stand up for our values and interests, even if
that means standing alone, though we should lobby other
responsible nations to join us.
Last week, the working group reviewing the U.N. Human
Rights Council came out with an outcome document that made no
structural reforms needed to turn the Council from a rogues'
gallery to a useful entity. Even as the U.S. criticized the
review process, calling it a ``race to the bottom,'' we did not
demand a vote, allowing it to be adopted by consensus. Such
indecisiveness undermines our credibility with our allies, and
weakens our ability to advance our goals at the U.N.
Lesson Three: Require real reforms, and don't settle for
cosmetic changes. In 2006, the U.N. finally abolished the
shameful U.N. Commission on Human Rights, which had fallen so
far that it had been chaired by Qadhafi's Libyan regime.
Instead of replacing the Commission with a body based on real
membership standards, the U.N. created a Human Rights Council
that is as bad, if not worse, than its predecessor. Even the
New York Times rejected the U.S. joining the Council, calling
it ``an ugly sham, offering cover to an unacceptable status
quo.''
The majority of the Council's members, including China,
Cuba, Russia, and Saudi Arabia, are not free nations. The
Council even has a permanent agenda item criticizing Israel.
The Council is expected to adopt several more anti-Israel
resolutions at the current March session.
When the Council does periodically adopt resolutions
criticizing real human rights abuses, they are usually too
little and too late. Why did it take the massacre of hundreds
of people in the streets for the U.N. to throw Libya off the
Council? Why was Qadhafi's regime permitted to join the Council
to begin with?
Now that the 5-year review of the Council has indicated no
real reforms will be forthcoming, the U.S. should finally leave
the Council and explore alternative forums to advance human
rights.
Lesson Four: Don't compare apples and oranges. Some of the
U.N.'s defenders like to cite some good U.N. activities to gain
support for funding bad ones. However, we are not here to play
``Let's Make a Deal.'' Each U.N. office, activity, program, and
sub-program must be justified on its own merits and funded
voluntarily. UNICEF aid to starving children cannot excuse
UNRWA having members of Hamas on its payroll.
To incorporate lessons learned, I will soon introduce a
revised version of the United Nations Transparency,
Accountability, and Reform Act, which I first introduced in
2007. Its fundamental principle will be ``Reform first. Pay
later.'' I hope that my colleagues will join me in lending
strong, bipartisan support to this bill.
And I am now pleased to recognize our distinguished ranking
member, Mr. Berman, for his opening remarks.
[The prepared statement of Chairman Ros-Lehtinen follows:]

Mr. Berman. Well, thank you much, Madam Chairman. I
appreciate you calling this hearing and our witnesses for
agreeing to appear before the committee. We may have a slightly
different perspective on this issue.
As I noted at our previous hearing on this subject, the
flaws, shortcomings, and outrages of the United Nations, both
past and present, are numerous and sometimes flagrant. The
Human Rights Council's obsession with and biased treatment of
Israel, the failure to adequately resource the Office of
Internal Oversight Services, contracting scandals, and lax
management standards, which have allowed taxpayer dollars to be
squandered, that should anger members of this committee,
Republican and Democratic alike. But these problems, while
serious, don't even begin to tell the whole story.
Any honest assessment of the United Nations would have to
conclude that the organization, very far from perfect, plays an
important and often essential role in supporting U.S. foreign
policy and national security interests.
From UNDP's work organizing the recent referendum in Sudan
to the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugee's efforts to protect
and resettle refugees fleeing from the violence in Libya, to
the Security Council resolution imposing tougher sanctions on
Iran, the U.N. serves as a force multiplier for U.S. interests.
So what should we do to address the U.N.'s shortcomings?
Some continue to propose withholding dues as a way to leverage
change at the U.N. But the fact is previous attempts to
withhold dues simply haven't produced necessary reforms and
certainly not on the scale of those achieved over the past 6
years through constructive engagement, like the creation of the
U.N. Ethics Office or the Independent Audit Advisory Committee.
Instead, withholdings severely weakened our diplomatic standing
and made it much more difficult to achieve positive change.
For just that reason, the George W. Bush administration
strongly opposed a bill authored by our late colleague Henry
Hyde that would have resulted in new withholdings. In a
Statement of Administration Policy dated June 16th, 2005, they
said the legislation would ``detract from and undermine'' their
efforts to pursue U.N. reform. Apparently, even the threat of
withholding isn't enough for many in this body.
Two weeks ago, when the House debated the Republican
continuing resolution, 177 Members voted for an amendment to
prohibit the use of any funds to pay our assessed dues. In
effect, that was a vote to withdraw from the U.N. I wasn't
aware that the slogan ``Get the U.S. out of the U.N.'' was
still such a popular one in this country.
Others have argued that all of our contributions to the
U.N. should be voluntary. I note with some irony that the
advocates of this approach are often the same ones who then
support slashing our voluntary contributions to U.N. agencies.
So is this just a guise, another guise, for withdrawal?
Unilaterally moving to a system of all voluntary
contributions would violate our international treaty
obligations. I am pleased we have two former senior-level Bush
administration officials appearing before the committee today.
In their prepared testimony, both of them are highly critical
of the rapid growth in U.N. budgets, which began at just about
the time President Bush took office.
Let me offer two possible explanations for this growth.
First, the U.N. budget, like our Federal budget, grew rapidly
in the years after 9/11, as the U.N. was asked by the Bush
administration to assume more responsibilities in Iraq,
Afghanistan, and other countries.
And, second, during the previous administration, we also
saw the largest proliferation of peacekeeping missions in the
U.N.'s history, all of them approved by the United States in
the previous administration and the other permanent members of
the Security Council.
These are some important issues worth examining, in
contrast to the old allegations about UNDP operations in North
Korea. Those allegations were examined in excruciating detail
by the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, as well
as a U.S.-backed independent panel. While both investigations
concluded that UNDP should improve management and
accountability, neither found evidence to support spectacular
allegations that the organization funneled vast sums of money
to the regime in Pyongyang.
By recycling discredited old rumors, we diminish our own
credibility and miss a valuable opportunity to work in a
constructive way to repair what we all agree is a flawed
system. Madam Chairman, since we are here to discuss the
subject of U.N. reform, I thought it would be appropriate to
reflect for a moment on the U.N.'s response to the political
upheaval in the Middle East.
Two days ago, we heard from Secretary Clinton about the
response of the U.S. and the international community to the
crisis in Libya. In fact, she had just arrived back in
Washington from Geneva, where she addressed the Human Rights
Council at the opening of its March session.
As we all know, the anti-Israel vitriol that all too often
emanates from the Council and the membership of serious human
rights offenders on the Council has been a deep stain on the
U.N.'s reputation. That said, the Council's unprecedented
special session last Friday on Libya, along with the General
Assembly's unanimous decision to remove Libya from the Council,
demonstrates that the administration's strategy of engagement
in Geneva has borne fruit.
I am also very encouraged by Secretary Clinton's
determination to put Iran's reprehensible human rights record
on the Council agenda for this month. It is worth noting that
even Hillel Neur of the U.N. Watch, one of the strongest and
most informed critics of the Human Rights Council and a witness
called by the Majority at our previous hearing, does not
support withdrawing from or withholding dues to the Council.
I look forward to hearing from our witnesses on ways we can
constructively promote reform at the United Nations,
recognizing the importance of the institution to U.S. foreign
policy and national security.
Thank you, Madam Chairman. And I yield back the balance of
my time.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you so much, Mr. Berman.
I now would like to give an opportunity to the members to
make a 1-minute opening statement. We will begin with Mr.
Chabot, the chairman of the Middle East Subcommittee.
Mr. Chabot. Thank you, Madam Chair.
And some of the things that I have heard this morning I
agree with, both from the ranking member and the chairman of
the committee, particularly with respect to the U.N. Human
Rights Council.
What a morally bankrupt organization it has become when you
have some of the world's worst actors that are on there, Libya
being one example and many others. And I think that is what is
most outrageous to so many members of this committee. And I
would hope that we can look into that at some length and with
some particularity because I think it is just an outrage. The
types of organizations, countries, individuals that are being
represented there. And the U.S. is to some degree by being on
there giving some sort of moral support to what has happened
there. And I think we shouldn't be in that position.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you very much, Mr. Chabot.
Mr. Cicilline? Thank you for coming to the event last
night.
Mr. Cicilline. Thank you. Congratulations.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you.
Mr. Cicilline. Good morning. Thank you very much for being
here. And I am anxious to get to the questions, but I just want
to say that I know of no example of an organization or an
institution that has been successfully reformed or improved by
disengaging in the work of performing or improving it.
And while I think I certainly am new to this issue, we
heard lots of testimony last time we discussed the United
Nations about some reforms which must take place. And I think
we all have a right to expect that and to demand it, but, in
addition to that, to work aggressively to make it happen.
It strikes me that the best way to do that is to remain
actively engaged in the United Nations as a full participant.
And my concern is that anything that would suggest that we
should disengage by not supporting it with adequate funding
would make our voices much less strong at the table and would
undermine, really, our credibility and our ability to actively
press for just the reforms we all want.
So I look forward to hearing your testimony and having the
opportunity to ask some questions on this. Thank you, Madam
Chair Schmidt of Ohio? Thank you.
Congressman Carnahan?
Mr. Carnahan. Thank you, Madam Chair, for having this
hearing. I think it is very timely and especially because it
comes at a time, a little more than 2 years into the Obama
administration's reform efforts.
Efforts have been underway in various forms for many years
and actually through many administrations. Some have been
successful, and some have not. I would note that we still have
progress that needs to be made through the U.N. system.
I urge the administration to continue these efforts. I have
long believed that the best way to achieve meaningful reform is
to meet our financial obligations, demand accountability, and
pursue a policy of constructive engagement.
We have a better chance of achieving lasting, sustainable
progress by being at the table, in the tent, and not on the
outside. And I think we have years of experience to prove that.
Just one example of a recent success with the creation of
U.N. Women. They combined many different agencies into one that
I think could be a powerful development tool.
So I am pleased that we are here today to talk about this
and how we can pursue that policy of constructive engagement at
the U.N. Thank you.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you.
Congressman Smith of New Jersey?
Mr. Smith. Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
I want to welcome our distinguished witnesses and thank
them for their service. You know, the U.N. has such great
potential. And so often it squanders it, both by what it allows
its treaty bodies to do and by what the Human Rights Council,
in particular, has done.
I remember year in and year out going and visiting Geneva
during the Human Rights Commission gatherings. And they were
usually hate fests toward Israel. Unfortunately, the Human
Rights Council, with all the fanfare about how it was supposed
to be the agent of reform, has fallen far short of any of those
expectations. And many of us who said it then have been proven
right. And I, frankly, wish we had been proven demonstrably
wrong.
Rogue states sit on that Council. Periodic reviews become
exercises in futility. So much more has to be done. The Human
Rights Council ought to be the premier body for human rights
enforcement, compliance--bringing the spotlight in scrutiny--
and it has not. And that is with great sadness I say that.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you.
Mr. Ackerman in New York?
Mr. Ackerman. I disagree very strongly very often with some
of the things the U.N. says and does and often doesn't do. But
I remain even more concerned that we not withdraw into a
cocoon, bury our heads in the sand and become an isolationist
nation of know nothings. I think in the interests of our own
concerns in the world, we should recall that if we are not at
the table, we are on the menu.
Thank you.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you, Mr. Ackerman.
Mr. Fortenberry of Nebraska?
Mr. Fortenberry. Thank you, Madam Chair, for holding this
hearing.
Just briefly let me say I think it is important for the
United States to actively and eagerly participate in
multilateral institutions, in spite of the effrontery we often
have to endure in many of them.
The U.N. serves some essential roles in providing
international stability, particularly in terms of humanitarian
outreach and peacekeeping forces. Other aspects of it just
create a hotbed for political rhetoric that is not constructive
at all. So I think as we move forward, we can also keep in mind
there are other multilateral institutions that can serve to
provide a platform for international dialogue and problem-
solving that could potentially replace certain aspects of the
U.N.'s role currently.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you, Mr. Fortenberry.
Ms. Buerkle and Judge Poe, do you have any statement that
you would like to make?
Ms. Buerkle. Madam Chair, I will yield my time. Thank you.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you.
So we will continue to now welcome today's witnesses: The
Honorable Mark D. Wallace, president and chief executive
officer of United Against Nuclear Iran. Ambassador Wallace has
served in a number of senior positions in the executive branch,
including most recently as U.S. Representative to the United
Nations for Management and Reform from the years 2006 to 2008.
He has also served as principal legal adviser to the Bureau of
Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the Bureau of
Immigration and Citizenship Services and as general counsel of
the INS and the Federal Emergency Management Agency.
I might add, most importantly, that Ambassador Wallace is a
fellow alum of the University of Miami. Go 'Canes.
The Honorable Terry Miller--welcome, Ambassador--is the
director of the Center for International Trade and Economics at
the Heritage Foundation and is the editor of the foundation's
Annual Index of Economic Freedom.
Ambassador Miller is a veteran of the U.S. Foreign Service
and has served in a number of senior positions in the executive
branch. From 2006 to '07, Ambassador Miller served as the U.S.
Representative to the U.N. Economic and Social Council. He
served as the deputy assistant secretary of state for the
Bureau of International Organization Affairs from the years
2003 to 2006, after serving as the director of a number of
other bureau offices for several years.
Ambassador Miller has also headed the U.S. observer mission
at UNESCO from '86 to '90 and served on delegations to U.N.
meetings that are permanent mission to the U.N. in New York
from '79 to '86. We welcome you.
And Mr. Ted Piccone is a senior fellow and deputy director
for foreign policy at the Brookings Institution. From 2001 to
2008, Mr. Piccone served as executive director and co-founder
of the Democracy Coalition Project.
He is a veteran of Capitol Hill and the executive branch.
From '98 to 2001, he was associate director of the State
Department's Policy Planning staff. From '96 to '98, he was
director for Inter-American Affairs at the National Security
Council. He also served as a policy adviser in the Office of
the Secretary of Defense from '93 to '96.
The Chair thanks all of our witnesses and would remind them
to keep their oral testimony to no more than 5 minutes each.
Without objection, the witnesses' written testimony will be
inserted into the record at this time.
So we will begin with Ambassador Wallace.
Thank you, sir.

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE MARK D. WALLACE, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF
EXECUTIVE OFFICER, UNITED AGAINST NUCLEAR IRAN (FORMER UNITED
STATES REPRESENTATIVE TO THE UNITED NATIONS FOR MANAGEMENT AND
REFORM)

Ambassador Wallace. Thank you, Madam Chairman and
distinguished members of the committee. Thank you for the
opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the United
Nations reform. Thank you for your continued interest and
dedication in the area.
I would like to introduce two people, Mark Groombridge and
David Ibsen, who are behind me, who did great work in this area
at the U.S. mission to the U.N., also Clarke Cooper. I am sure
there are other refugees from the U.S. mission, but there are
many fine people who worked on this, in this portfolio and have
done great work. I want to acknowledge them for their help.
Fortunately, I can continue to work with two of them in our
effort at United Against Nuclear Iran. A more efficient and
effective U.N. can better serve both the interests of the
United States and the international community. The United
Nations continues to do important work in a number of areas,
but it is an institution which after six decades critically
needs reform and remains deeply flawed.
My remarks today are intended to provoke discussion on how
to make the United Nations a more efficient and effective
institution. Too often people who suggest ways to reform the
U.N. are viewed as having an agenda to undermine the United
Nations.
My remarks should be reviewed firmly in the context of
someone who is trying to make the U.N. a more effective and
transparent institution that is accountable to member states.
With that in mind, I hope to share some of my experiences and
lessons learned during my time at the U.S. mission.
To help set the stage for our talk today, I will briefly
highlight a few important experiences and areas: First, mandate
review. Mandates are a U.N. euphemism for almost all budget-
based things that the U.N. does. The reform related to mandate
review was simply to conduct a thorough review of existing
mandates and evaluate the degree to which they aligned with
modern priorities.
In 60 years, the U.N. added thousands of such mandates but
never materially evaluated or eliminated any. The U.N., like
all bureaucracies, has a strong tendency to expand to over
9,000 mandates, the vast majority of which had budgetary
implications and that were often outdated and duplicative.
By attempting to do everything, the United Nations was
eroding its ability to accomplish anything. Unfortunately,
mandate review failed. And only some 400 out of the 9,000
mandates were even discussed. And none of them had been
repealed, combined, or modified.
This redundancy and bureaucratic disarray is fueled in
opaque culture at the United Nations that can lead to
disastrous consequences. A lack of transparency and
accountability manifests itself in ways that are at times far
more subversive than duplicative reports and blooming budgets.
For example, we discovered the United Nations developed a
program for a Cash for Kim scandal. We, along with the Senate
Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, had come to learn
that North Korea had perverted the UNDP for its own benefit.
The U.N. Transparency and Accountability Initiative was a
key effort that we designed to combat that opaque culture by
promoting eight specific management reforms within the U.N.'s
funds, programs, and specialized agencies. These arms of the
U.N. lacked even the most basic management reform mechanisms.
In creating UNTAI, we were hardly placing an unreasonable
burden on the U.N. We were merely calling on the U.N. to adopt
a basic set of management and oversight tools that would be
found in any responsible public or private sector organization
in the twenty-first century.
Finally, the United States should strongly consider
voluntarily funding the U.N. funds, programs, and specialized
agencies to promote competitive efficiencies, a better U.N. I
believe the transparency is the foundation of accountability.
To not have transparency or accountability in the U.N. is
simply an invitation for another ``Oil-for-Food'' or ``Cash for
Kim'' scandal. These scandals not only compromised the
reputation and viability of the U.N., but they also compromised
our national security interest. Our taxpayer money must go to
its intended purposes. That is our responsibility to taxpayer.
In closing, I would again like to thank you, Madam Chairman
and the members of the committee, for hosting this hearing and
allowing me to testify today. The stakes of today's discussion
in my opinion go well beyond the $6.3 billion given by the
United States to the United Nations in Fiscal Year 2009.
Thank you for your time. I will be happy to answer any
questions that you all have. I look forward to the comments and
insights of my colleagues on this panel.
I will keep talking a minute or 2 longer. [Laughter.]
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. I apologize. I had some
constituents----
Ambassador Wallace. Sorry, Madam Chairman.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen [continuing]. Who flew in for the
meeting, but I had one ear on what you were saying. Plus, I
read your written testimony. Thank you so much.
Ambassador Wallace. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ambassador Wallace follows:]

Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Ambassador Miller, the floor is
yours.

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE TERRY MILLER, DIRECTOR OF THE CENTER
FOR INTERNATIONAL TRADE AND ECONOMICS, THE HERITAGE FOUNDATION
(FORMER UNITED STATES REPRESENTATIVE TO THE UNITED NATIONS
ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COUNCIL, UNITED STATES OBSERVER AT THE
UNITED NATIONS EDUCATIONAL, SCIENTIFIC, AND CULTURAL
ORGANIZATION, AND DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF STATE FOR
ECONOMIC AND GLOBAL ISSUES)

Ambassador Miller. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman and
distinguished members of the committee for the opportunity to
discuss this important issue with you today.
As we speak, citizens are dying in the streets of Libya.
But the United Nations Human Rights Council has on its agenda
the adoption of a report praising the government of Muammar
Qadhafi for its--and I quote--``commitment to upholding human
rights.'' How absurd.
Now, it would be easy to hold up the Human Rights Council
as a prime example of why reform is urgently needed in the
United Nations, but the story is actually worse than that. In
fact, the Human Rights Council is one of the most recent
products of U.N. reform, touted as the crowning achievement of
the 2005 World Summit.
Unfortunately, the new Council operates in a fashion almost
identical to its predecessor, the same focus on Israel, the
same membership dominated by countries with poor human rights
records. The reform changed little, but that didn't matter to
most U.N. members nor to the Obama administration, which
decided to join the Council anyway.
Efforts to reform the U.N. are almost as old as the U.N.
itself. As early as 1947, the Senate was citing--and I quote
again here--``Serious problems of overlap, duplication of
effort, weak coordination, proliferating mandates and programs,
and overly generous compensation of staff.'' Not much has
changed. U.N. reform has never been easy, and only rarely has
it been successful.
Over the years, U.N. reform efforts have been plagued by
disagreements and confusion about the basic nature and purpose
of the organization. They have been hampered by the complexity
of the issues with which the U.N. system deals, and they have
been frustrated by structural flaws in U.N. governance,
decision-making, and budgeting. The U.S. has occasionally tried
more robust methods to achieve reform with some success.
One strategy implemented with congressional cooperation has
been to use America's financial leverage as the largest
contributor to the U.N. budget to press for reform. The
Kassebaum/Solomon amendment and the Helms/Biden Act both used
budget leverage to achieve reforms. Later, during the Oil-for-
Food scandal, just the threat of withholding was sufficient to
inspire some new accountability in the organization.
But perhaps the most robust and effective approach to
forcing reform was the withdrawal of the U.S. from membership
in UNESCO at the end of 1984. This immediately cost that
organization 25 percent of its operating revenue and forced
major reforms and reductions in programming.
Priority UNESCO activities in areas such as oceanography
and world's heritage continued to enjoy U.S. financial support
on a voluntary basis. Interestingly, the organization also
improved its political orientation in an effort, which was
ultimately successful, to regain U.S. membership. This reform
was a 20-year effort.
A similar strategy of withdrawal from the ILO was much
shorter and, frankly, didn't work. Yet another U.S. withdrawal,
this time from UNIDO, has lasted from 1996 to the present and
reportedly has had a positive impact on streamlining UNIDO's
priorities and actions.
What lessons can we take away from all of this? I have two.
First, the U.N. system is fundamentally flawed in ways that
hamper its efficiency and effectiveness. There will be no quick
fixes Second, massive pressure and sustained commitment will be
required to generate positive change.
Madam Chairman, the pursuit of significant U.N. reform has
often been a lonely endeavor for U.S. diplomats, but we may be
entering an era in which other governments under severe
budgetary pressures at home are willing to join us in a more
robust examination of the cost and benefits of various U.N.
activities.
Just this week, the United Kingdom has announced that, as a
result of such review, it will stop funding four U.N. agencies
it has determined to be ineffective. That is the kind of
exercise that the U.S. Government needs to undertake if it is
to properly exercise its fiduciary responsibilities to the
American public.
History shows that such activities have been effective only
when there was strong congressional leadership and oversight. I
am, therefore, grateful and encouraged by your attention to
this issue.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Ambassador Miller follows:]

Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you very much.
Mr. Piccone?

STATEMENT OF MR. TED PICCONE, BROOKINGS INSTITUTION, SENIOR
FELLOW AND DEPUTY DIRECTOR FOR FOREIGN POLICY

Mr. Piccone. Thank you, Madam Chairman and Congressman
Berman, for inviting me to be part of this hearing.
I want to focus my remarks on why constructive U.S.
engagement of the United Nations, especially on issues of human
rights, serves our interests. Ever since Eleanor Roosevelt led
the campaign for adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights, the U.S. has played a leading role in creating an
international human rights system that has had a real impact
for victims of abuse.
Regarding the Human Rights Council, I agree that a lot of
what goes on in Geneva is downright offensive, starting with
how its members handle Israel. The Human Rights Council,
however, is a reality. Therefore, we must not abandon the field
to adversaries like Cuba, Algeria, and China. This would be an
unconscionable act of betrayal of rights defenders and victims
around the world, who depend on the U.N. and U.S. leadership.
We know from past experience that walking away doesn't
work. During negotiations to create the Council in 2005, the
U.S. chose a combative approach in getting just three other
states to join us. Meanwhile, we withdrew from the Council in
its critical formative years, leaving a vacuum that was quickly
filled by such countries as Pakistan and Egypt.
Israel was left without a traditional ally as it faced five
special sessions while the U.S. was absent. Since we joined the
Council, Israel has been the subject of only one special
session.
The recent action on Libya is another example of the impact
constructive U.S. engagement has had in turning things around.
U.S. leadership helped pave the way to condemn Qadhafi's
actions and demand Libya be removed from the Council, an
unprecedented step now adopted by the General Assembly in
record time.
The lesson learned is clear. Cutting and running only
allows our adversaries more room to control the results while
direct participation protects our interests and those of our
allies. Let me highlight a few specific areas how the U.S. is
making a difference.
On country scrutiny, since it was elected to the Council,
the U.S. has actually increased this kind of scrutiny. In
addition to Libya, the Council has convened special sessions on
Cote d'Ivoire, Guinea and Kyrgyzstan, thanks to U.S.
leadership. The United States has led efforts to ensure that
Sudan stays on the Council's agenda and won renewed mandates on
North Korea, Burma, and Cambodia.
Building on this success, Secretary Clinton announced this
week the U.S. is spearheading efforts this session to establish
a special rapporteur on Iran as well as a commission of inquiry
on abuses committed by the regime in Burma.
Another tool that the Council has is the special
procedures. These are the independent experts, who go out in
the field and investigate human rights issues. My own research,
which I request be submitted for the record, on how these
mechanisms work yielded concrete evidence of their positive
impacts.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Without objection.
[Note: The research of Mr. Piccone is not reprinted here
but is available in committee records or on the Internet at:
http://www.brookings.edu/reports/2010/
10_human_rights_piccone.aspx (accessed 3/30/11).]
Mr. Piccone. Thank you.
They have influence because they are independent, they
serve in an unpaid personal capacity, but they work under the
U.N. flag. Front-line activists tell me they rely on these
experts to get heard at the highest levels of power.
One of the main hurdles they face, however, is the
increasing pressure from certain states to constrain them. The
U.S. has played a critical role in successfully pushing back
against these attempts.
On membership, while it is unfortunate that rights-abusing
states are elected to the Council, there is another more
positive side of the story. In every case when elections have
been competitive, rights abusers have lost: Venezuela, Iran,
Belarus, Sri Lanka, Azerbaijan. Year after year, these states
have been defeated in the elections. And last year, thanks to a
vigorous but quiet U.S. campaign, Iran was forced to withdraw
as a candidate for election to the Council. It is critical that
the U.S. remains engaged in this effort and that competitive
slates become the norm.
The real problem with the Council is not its structure or
its processes but the lack of political will. One way to
address this problem is to lean on our democratic allies,
Brazil, India, South Africa, Indonesia, to carry their weight
on the Council. The U.S. is pressuring these states to do
better. And we are starting to see some results. It would also
be helpful if Members of Congress could weigh in directly with
their counterparts in these countries to encourage better
performance.
I can think, though, of no more powerful tool for cleaning
up the Council than the unprecedented action this week to
remove Libya from the Council. This is an historic step, a shot
across the bow.
There are other issues, like universal periodic review,
which I hope to get to in the questions and answers. We have an
important new initiative on freedom of association that the
U.S. led the charge on.
On Israel, the U.S. works very hard to defend Israel
against the bias of the Council. It is not logical that we
should conclude that the U.S. should disengage. Indeed, Israel
itself has not jumped to that conclusion. Israel is very
actively engaged.
In the short 5 years since the Council was created, we have
seen two styles of leadership, one approach where we withdraw,
the other where we are engaged. It is making a difference.
Progress will be slow, but we need to stay in the fight and
continue to demand respect for the universal values we call our
own.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Piccone follows:]

Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you very much. Excellent
testimony.
And we will begin our round of questioning. I will cede my
time to Ms. Ellmers of North Carolina.
Mrs. Ellmers. Thank you, Madam Chairman. And thank you to
our distinguished panel today.
You know, I had in mind a question having to do with Mr.
Robert Appleton, who actually was with us a few weeks back, who
was fired from the U.N. after he was exposing some corruption,
but I don't want to just stop there. I want to get to the root
of the issue.
Back in North Carolina, many of my constituents are just
outraged at the level of corruption and lack of accountability
in the U.N. And, with all due respect, Mr. Piccone, you are
pointing out some of the vital jobs and situations where the
U.N. is probably on the ground doing some wonderful work, but
in comparison to the level of corruption, the political chess
games that go on, it is hard for us in North Carolina to see
our way to not being able to create or build a school. And,
yet, we are pouring billions of dollars into countries who have
dictators, terrible situations. And that just doesn't boil down
to the American household budget.
So my question to you is, as Americans, are we nothing more
than enablers? What would be the most effective way that we can
reform the U.N. straightforward, pulling out, pulling back on
our funding? Would that wake up the U.N. so that we can get the
true reform that we need? And I will ask all of our members
that question. Thank you. Starting with you, Mr. Wallace?
Ambassador Wallace. Thank you for the question. Just a
quick comment on Bob Appleton. I think those of us who served
in the department at that time when Bob served at the U.N. I
think would only have high praise for Bob. He had a very
difficult task in conducting investigations, which any good
organization needs when there are accusations of corruption.
And he ferreted out some problems.
I think one of the great challenges for a thoughtful
diligent investigator like Bob, who is as apolitical in my
opinion as they come, just a solid guy, is that when you find
wrongdoing and you bring a complaint or charge against an
individual in the U.N. system, that individual has a country
that they are from. And frequently because U.N. is home to so
many former civil servants from various countries, it becomes a
bit of gamesmanship between member states seeking to protect
their nationals from allegations of wrongdoing. And when you
are good at your job and find corruption and it affects enough
individuals from enough member states, you incur the wrath of
the member states. So it is a challenge.
I do think that the issue of the U.N.--and I think that it
is really important that we thoughtfully engage and see the
good part and the bad part. I obviously was a Republican
appointee. My job was to try to engage in the reform of the
U.N. Whenever you try to reform something, you have to identify
weaknesses. So you are by definition a critic.
U.N. does perform some valuable tasks: Peacekeeping, one. I
think some of the sanctions resolutions are very important.
There are other important things that it does, too. But I think
we have to impose some twenty-first century levels of
management transparency and accountability on this organization
just similar to what we do in a nonpartisan way here in the
United States, whether it is our NGOs, our not-for-profits,
even our Government institutions.
That is why when we rolled out the United Nations
Transparency and Accountability Initiative, we wanted to
overlay and try to have true transparency in operations the way
we do in our Government, where you can get in close to it and
then with that transparency holding the U.N. and its related
funds programs and specialized agencies accountable to member
states.
I think that is a reasonable thing to ask of somebody, of
an entity that we give money to. And I don't believe that
anybody in this room in a private discussion would look at any
of these reforms that we are talking about and say that they
are unreasonable or somehow Republican or Democrat. It is just
not the case. These are reasonable things that we should demand
and expect of our international colleagues.
Mrs. Ellmers. Thank you.
Ambassador Miller. Thank you very much for this question.
You talk about corruption. This really goes to the heart of the
issue. The U.N. is a membership body, 192 member states right
now. And each of these states brings with them their own values
and their own habits. And many of the states in the world,
sadly, are horribly afflicted with corruption.
Corruption is a daily fact of life in these states. Many of
them don't respect human rights. Many of them are not
democracies. And when they come to the U.N., they bring these
values with them. So that afflicts the organization.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you, Mr. Ambassador. We will
continue with that, I am sure, in some of the other questions.
Sorry. Ran out of time.
Now, please, to yield to our ranking member, Mr. Berman,
for his 5 minutes.
Mr. Berman. Well, thank you, Madam Chairman. Ambassador
Wallace, I particularly liked what I thought was an eloquent
critique of the piling on of mandates that the U.N. has adopted
over the course of years and need to reform it.
For a while, I thought you were talking about the Foreign
Assistance Act of 1961, same kind of problem. We pass stuff. We
don't review it. We end up not really looking at what today's
priorities are and addressing them. And I support that effort
at the U.N. as well as in reviewing our foreign assistance
legislation.
Ambassador Miller, two things. One is you made note of--and
it would be humorous if it weren't so depressing to look at the
universal periodic review document for Libya. But I am happy to
tell you that based on my conversations with the State
Department yesterday, that has been shelved. There is something
that goes even too far for the Human Rights Council.
But I do want to call you on one other thing. I think it
was your testimony that left the impression that the Helms/
Biden language produced reform at the U.N., but your written
testimony I think is more accurate on this account.
That deferral of payment of dues, that withdrawal, which is
apparently the model for legislation we will be considering
soon, was probably helpful in achieving the lower assessed
rate, but it produced no lasting reforms. And I quote from no
less an authority than Ambassador Miller, ``Sadly, neither
Helms/Biden withholding nor even the long UNESCO withdrawal can
be shown to have had much long-term impact on the efficiency,
effectiveness, or even the integrity of the U.N. system.''
I would argue that these withholdings don't accomplish the
kind of reform that a sustained engagement would. And for that
purpose, I would like to give the rest of my time to Mr.
Piccone, who never got to answer Congresswoman Ellmers'
question and to perhaps address that and points you would like
to make with reaction to the testimony of the first two
witnesses.
Mr. Piccone. Thank you, Mr. Berman.
I would want to start by noting that when we think about
the investment that we are making and what this costs, in fact,
the U.S. contribution to the U.N. amounts to only \1/10\ of 1
percent of the Federal budget. And what are we getting for
that?
We are getting a tremendous amount of services that are the
force multipliers we have talked about before and feeding
people and supporting elections, vaccinating children, keeping
the peace, sheltering refugees. This is a good return for our
dollar because we care about those kinds of issues around the
world. And we have an important role to play.
As you also know, in terms of peacekeeping operations, it
would cost the United States eight times as much as the U.N. to
respond, for example, to the earthquake disaster in Haiti. We
are sharing the burden of responsibilities that we have adopted
as the leading state of the world. And by sharing that burden,
we are returning good investment for the U.S. taxpayer. And I
think that is important.
The other point to make in terms of reform more generally
is that the U.N. is slowly changing in some important ways in
terms of management reform. Thanks to Ambassador Wallace,
Ambassador Miller, and the work of many other diplomats over
many years, we have pushed internally, because we have been
constructively engaged, for internal oversight reforms,
whistleblower protections, new Office of Ethics run by an
American. On and on there are lists of things that show that we
are starting to grasp the real details, modernize the
institution, and get some control over the situation.
At the end, there does need to be some review and control
of mandates. They are out of control. But the real money is in
the peacekeeping. I mean, that is what a lot of our
contribution goes to. And I think on general terms, we get a
good return on the dollar for our peacekeeping operations.
Thank you.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you very much.
Now I would like to recognize Mr. Chabot, the chairman of
the Subcommittee on Middle East and South Asia, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Chabot. I thank the chairman.
Ambassador Miller, just under a year ago, Secretary Clinton
announced that the U.S. would be joining the U.N. Human Rights
Council. As we all know, the Council was created back in 2006
out of the ashes of the Commission on Human Rights when after
years of failed reforms the international community simply gave
up.
Unlike its predecessor, the new Human Rights Council was
supposed to embody the principles laid out in the U.N. General
Assembly resolution 62-51. Now, that resolution states, and I
quote, ``When electing members of the Council, member states
shall take into account the candidates' contribution to the
promotion and protection of human rights and their voluntary
pledges and commitments made thereto.''
Over half of the Council's current members do not even meet
Freedom House's basic standards for freedom. They are members
of the Council, but they can't even be called free. Let's face
it. The Human Rights Council that exists today could not be
further from the principles in this resolution.
According to a recent NGO report, more than 80 percent of
all the Human Rights Council's condemnatory resolutions, 27 out
of 33, have been against Israel. Moreover, the Council failed
to adopt any resolution, special session, or investigative
mandate for numerous violators on Freedom House's list of the
20 worst abusers in the whole world.
Upon being elected to the Council, Ambassador Rice noted
that she looked forward to working from within the Council with
a broad cross-section of member states to strengthen and reform
it. From where I sit, it seems to me that this was a mistake. I
believe that by joining the Council, all we have done is lent
our legitimacy to a Council that is so rotten it is an
international joke. And our association soils our image.
When speaking on Libya's suspension from the Council, it
noted that the General Assembly, by contrast, today has acted
in the noblest traditions of the United Nations and made it
clear that governments that turn their guns on their own people
have no place on the Human Rights Council.
Membership on the Human Rights Council should be earned
through respect for human rights and not accorded to those who
abuse them. This would be a nice sentiment if countries like
Cuba and China weren't on the Council, mocking its very
existence.
Why not withdraw our participation from the Council? And if
not, what in your opinion should the U.S. be doing to reform
this--in my view--morally bankrupt institution?
Ambassador Miller. Thank you very much. And I agree
completely with your sentiments.
In terms of elections to the Council, it is important to
note that though the lip services paid to the idea of
competitive elections, most of the regions put forward agreed
slates that are based just on rotation among the regions. So
everyone has an equal chance to participate.
The only region that dependably has competitive elections
is the Western European and others' grouping, which includes
the United States and Western Europe. So they have competitive
elections, but the other regions in general don't. So that is
how you get these serial violators of human rights on the
Commission over and over again.
I just want to make the point there is a tendency here in
the discussion to draw a dichotomy between engagement, on the
one hand, and these measures of power that the U.S. might
enforce on the other two to try to increase reform.
And when we use the budgetary card that we have, which has
been given to us by the fact that we are a very big country and
we pay a disproportionate share of the U.N. budget, that
reflects our power in the world. And for us to play that card
does not mean we are not engaged in the reform process.
In fact, when we are negotiating on the basis of Helms/
Biden or the Kassebaum/Solomon Act or when we withdrew from
UNESCO, for example, we were more engaged with the U.N. as a
result of those discussions or those actions than we were when
we were just going along as a normal member, like all of the
other 192 countries. These are tools with which we engage the
reform debate and with which we exercise U.S. leadership and
the reform process.
So it is not a let's disengage and say goodbye to the U.N.,
on the one hand, or let's just accept the normal membership,
just like every other small country in the world. The point is
to exercise the power and influence of the U.S. in ways that
reflect our values and our position in the world and our
contribution to the activities of these organizations.
Thank you.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you so much. Thank you.
Mr. Deutch from Florida?
Mr. Deutch. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank the panel for
being here today. And, Ambassador Wallace, I would especially
like to thank you for your leadership at United Against Nuclear
Iran. And I would like to start with your work there and how
that ties into this hearing.
The Security Council has often given the United States a
platform to advance its international interests. The passage of
sanctions against Iran at the U.N. not only sent a message
about the international community's intolerance of the regime's
quest for nuclear weapons but provided a legal platform for
other countries around the globe to enforce sanctions.
In the wake of the IAEA reports last week that Iran is now
looking at weaponization, is there a chance for tougher
sanctions coming out of the Security Council? And if you could
speak more broadly to the role of the United States at the U.N.
in furthering those efforts?
Ambassador Wallace. Thank you for the question. I feel very
strongly, obviously, about promoting economic pressure on Iran
and trying to change the behavior of that regime as it relates
to obtaining a nuclear weapon and treatment of its own people
sponsoring terrorism and the like.
I certainly hope there is an opportunity for additional
sanctions of the Security Council. I think that your
legislation, Iran Transparency and Accountability Act, that was
introduced recently, which focuses on SEC disclosure of
companies that do business in Iran; the recent statements by
the Treasury Department listing additional individuals. And
what we are seeing now occurring in Iran will hopefully spur
action on the Security Council.
I spoke to Ambassador Rice recently. I believe that there
is hope for that. I think what we are seeing, there are
obviously large dramas in populations around the Middle East
and North Africa right now. And I hope the very important
potential change that could occur in Iran is not being lost in
that. I think that this, the United States Congress and the
United States, can lead. I think European Union can lead as
well by imposing rigorous sanctions, even beyond the
Comprehensive Iran Sanctions Act that was passed last year.
I think the next step would be to say to any company that
is involved in doing business in Iran to the extent that they
avail themselves of the U.S. capital markets, that they need to
disclose in their financial statements whether or not they do
business in Iran. It is time for every company that touches
these U.S. capital markets to come clean about doing business
in Iran.
Mr. Deutch. Thank you, Ambassador Wallace.
Mr. Piccone, when we, when this committee, had its last
hearing on the U.N. a few weeks ago, we briefly touched on the
idea of imposing standards for membership in the Human Rights
Council. We need to look no further than this week's action by
the Council to suspend Libya as evidence why standards should
be imposed.
I would like you to speak to the ongoing efforts to create
standards for membership to the Human Rights Council and why
such standards were absent from the recommendation to the 5-
year working group adopted on February 24th.
And then if you could really try to flesh out what those
standards would look like and then apply them to the current
members of the Human Rights Council?
Mr. Piccone. I will do my best to answer that. There are
some standards in the original creation of the Council. States
need to make pledges showing that they are committed to
upholding human rights and that they once elected will
cooperate with the Council.
And we know that many of those states do not cooperate with
the Council. So that criterion should be enforced more
directly. I mean, they should spell out ways of showing that
this state is not cooperating with the Council and is,
therefore, not eligible for membership. That is one idea.
The other point to make is that the Libya case I think
exactly proves that the membership criteria that exist are
meaningful. It says, ``States that commit gross and systemic
abuses shall be removed from the Council in a two-thirds vote
of the General Assembly.'' We just saw that happen. That
crossed an important new threshold and set a new precedent that
I think may be used in the future and could deter others.
Mr. Deutch. All right. Mr. Piccone, just in the remaining
time that I have, if you could focus on the current members of
the Human Rights Council and applying those standards, where
should we turn next as we seek to enforce those standards?
Mr. Piccone. I think there are a number of states that we
would want to focus on and say, ``Hey, it is time to also hold
this state accountable'' and start a debate.
I think it goes back to the competitive slates issue again.
Unfortunately, WEOG has not run too many competitive slates.
And the competitive slates we have seen in Asia and other
countries----
Mr. Deutch. Which states? Where should we start on the
Human Rights Council?
Mr. Piccone. Well, there are, you know a number of states.
One case that is coming up is Syria. Syria wants to be a member
of the Council. And we should make sure that they are not
elected.
Mr. Deutch. And the first state that we should focus on
after Libya?
Mr. Piccone. I would have to come back to you and look at
the list. Thank you.
Mr. Deutch. We can try. Thank you.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you very much, Mr. Deutch.
Congressman Chris Smith, Chairman of the Subcommittee on
Africa, Global Health, and Human Rights?
Mr. Smith. Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
Let me just ask you about the issue of mandates and the
various U.N. agencies as well as the treaty bodies. I am very
concerned that, although the U.N. agencies and treaty bodies
are intended to work within their mandates--and it should be
very specific because, certainly with regards to the treaties,
it couldn't be more specific--and be receptive to the input of
a wide variety of nongovernmental organizations, the fact of
the matter is that U.N. agencies and treaty bodies clearly
favor certain ideologically driven NGOs in both funding and the
opportunity to shape policy.
For example, if you search the unfpa.org Web site, there
are over 1,000 references to the International Planned
Parenthood Federation. Just last Friday at a U.N. event, UNFPA
praised a Center for Reproductive Rights report and asked the
attending ambassadors to read it, regardless of the fact that
the center's worldwide goal is to establish an unfettered right
to abortion in every country of the world, including access to
abortion by minors without parental notification or consent.
We all know that U.N. agencies push their mandates, as they
should, but they also almost like contract out and empower NGOs
to do what the agencies are not permitted to do. They seem to
exceed it and nobody holds them to account from time to time.
My question is, how do we ensure that those NGOs who have a
different point of view have access to the U.N. and can
participate more robustly? They are absolutely marginalized.
And I know that for a fact. Do you have any ideas on this, no
matter where you come down on any of these other issues?
I was at the U.N. population conference in Cairo. I was at
the Beijing women's conference. Even though there are prep coms
and the like, we know who wrote the language. It was the NGOs
that wrote the language for those conferences.
What are your thoughts on that? How do we open this system
up for more diversity and opinion? Yes, please?
Ambassador Wallace. I will be brief to allow Terry because
Terry covered a lot of these issues. I think the first step--
and perhaps this is a perilous thing to raise, but the very
public debate that we are having about the budget of the United
States Government that is going on right now is instructive.
Why shouldn't every one of these U.N. funds programs and
specialized agencies publish their budgets online, put their
procurement activities online to show where there money is
going? Because then we can have a political debate whether or
not we think it is right, wrong.
And I am sure there will be divergent views. But the very
first step that we should have is transparent budgeting,
transparent procurement activities. And that is something that
is reasonable to ask of these U.N. funds programs and
specialized agencies if we are going to continue to fund them.
That is a basic thing that we should all be able to agree upon
here today.
Terry?
Ambassador Miller. Yes. Thank you very much.
This is a very serious problem. And I think at the heart of
it is the lack of democratic accountability anywhere in the
system. What happens is that these various agencies and
activities get captured by special interests. And those special
interests, then, have enormous, exert enormous, influence over
the work program and the ideological agenda that are pursued in
these agencies.
And I think we are going to have to find a way to insist
that if, in fact, we are going to involve NGOs in the
activities of the U.N., I think that is a good thing in
general. It must be an absolutely evenhanded, open, and
transparent purpose. We probably need more NGOs, not fewer. And
we need more evenhanded treatment of them in the process.
What we have now are many--Planned Parenthood you mentioned
is one--that have an extraordinary amount of influence because
of their historical cooperation and the funding that they
receive.
I think we probably need to look at the funding issue very
carefully because many of these NGOs actually receive funding
from the U.N. system. And then they, in turn, exert influence
back on the programs. So it would be easy to imagine a kind of
corrupt cycle involving funding there.
So we need the transparency, as Mark said. We need the
absolute openness in the system. And then we need some way to
make the activities of these specialists in the system
accountable, at least to member states, if not in the true
sense of democratic accountability that we enjoy here in the
U.S.
Mr. Piccone. I am all for more civil society involvement
with the U.N. because it is the U.N. NGO committee that needs
reform. I know from personal experience what it means to go up
against that committee. I was denied credentials. We appealed
it to ECOSOC and won, thanks to countries like U.S. and Israel
and others that defended us. That is what we need to do more
of.
Mr. Smith. I appreciate it, Madam----
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you so much, Mr. Smith. Thank
you.
Mr. Cicilline?
Mr. Cicilline. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
This hearing comes at a particular interesting time, I
think, as we are engaged in an increasingly complicated and
interconnected world. And we see examples of this springing up
all over the world.
I think the testimony today reveals that everyone agrees
that the single greatest source for reform and improvement of
the U.N. is the United States. And so I think our challenge is,
how do we determine a greater and more forceful role for the
United States in this important institution?
Clearly we should not tolerate in any way fraud, waste,
corruption of any kind. And the efforts to ferret that out
should continue relentlessly. But what I would like to ask
about specifically is the Human Rights Council because since
the United States joined that Council in 2009, some things have
happened.
Our membership on the Council has allowed us to better
support Israel and to reduce the imbalance that has been
referenced today and the Council's work. The efforts of the
United States and other nations derailed Iran's candidacy for a
seat on the Council. U.S. diplomats overcame objections by
countries such as China and Cuba and succeeded in persuading
the Council to establish a new monitor for implementation on
the rights of assembly and association and to hold governments
accountable that do not uphold fundamental freedoms.
The Council also created a new mechanism to fight
discrimination against women and to provide expertise to
governments that seek advice on improving the opportunities
available to women and girls. And the Council also extended the
mandate of the Human Rights Monitor in Sudan, overcoming the
really strong objections of the Sudanese and other African
countries.
And so it would seem to an outside observer that our
presence on the Council has, in fact, improved the operations
of the Council. And my question is whether or not you think any
of those things would have happened if the United States had
not actively participated in the Council. And specifically
would you speak about the efforts of American diplomats in
preventing Iran from becoming a member of the Council? We will
start with Mr. Piccone, please.
Mr. Piccone. Thank you very much. I think you have given a
good list of some of the accomplishments. I would note that on
country scrutiny, this goes on not just with the condemnatory
resolutions and special sessions, but the universal periodic
review process means every single country is being reviewed.
And there is a year-round process. The special rapporteurs
bring country reports to the table. And they are debated and
discussed. All countries are facing this but particularly
countries that the old commission never really addressed before
in the past. I think that is critical.
Another way that U.S. leadership has made a difference is
we have a new U.S. Ambassador who is full-time engaged with the
Council, Eileen Chamberlain Donahoe. And I hope that the
committee gets to hear from her because she is an outstanding
example of what U.S. leadership can do.
She has made a big difference in the kind of hand-to-hand
combat that has to go on not only in Geneva but in capitals.
And working with the team both in Washington and New York, we
have a much more concerted effort going on. So when there are
problems that we face in Geneva, a phone call is made by senior
officials to capitals to get them to change their positions.
And it is really starting to make a difference.
And, as I said before, with some of those kind of middle-
tier states that sit on the fence or abstain, we are starting
to see some progress with those states. And I think, thanks to
the kind of role that the U.S. is playing, we need to remain
engaged in that kind of spirit of, you know, we recognize, we
are realistic about the faults and the problems of the Council,
but we can fight from within.
I think if we leave, we are really abandoning the field.
And we are abandoning our friends on the front lines who need
us to be the voice of reason at the Council.
Thank you.
Mr. Cicilline. Thank you. I yield back.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you.
Mr. Griffin, Subcommittee on Europe and Eurasia vice chair?
Mr. Griffin. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Mr. Wallace, great to have you here today. I have known you
for a long time. And I appreciate your testimony. I have a few
questions about Iran. I want to explore a little bit about what
my colleague was just discussing.
With regard to the sanctions that have been implemented, it
seems that Iran has tried to mitigate the sanctions and
mitigate the impact of the sanctions by trying to accomplish
some things through the U.N., such as membership, as we just
heard, on the Human Rights Council.
Can you comment generally about Iran and its work within
the U.N. and maybe other examples of it trying to leverage its
position in the U.N. to mitigate some of the international
sanctions and problems that it has had?
Ambassador Wallace. Thank you for the question. It is great
to see you up there, Congressman.
I think that it is important in discussing exactly what
membership in the U.N. means. Why should a sanctioned U.N.
member country, like Iran or North Korea, be allowed to run for
leadership positions in the U.N. when they are defying the very
rules ostensibly of the membership organization?
I mean, Iran, North Korea, and others are subject to
rigorous sanctions and are defying those sanctions. And I think
that it would be a reasonable thing to assert that if you were
defying the rules, if I were defying the rules of this
committee, I am sure I would not be allowed to testify before
this committee. I think that is a reasonable thing to assert.
Sanctions are like a game of Whack-a-Mole. The targeted
sanctions are the best sanctions. When they are targeted on
individuals or on specific areas, they are the best. In the
wake of the comprehensive Iran Sanctions Act, focusing on
refined petroleum, Iran moved the cheese. They tried to enhance
their refined petroleum capacity.
I think that the goal that we must take in Iran sanctions,
whether it be at the U.N. or in this Congress, is to try to
find a mechanism to make it such that any company and companies
that do business in Iran are as pariah or treated as pariahs,
as a pariah regime.
I think you have seen that happen because of the great work
of this body. Members on both sides of the aisle have done
great things with legislation, the work of the U.N. sanctions
resolutions and the Security Council have been very, very
valuable in that regard. The European Union has passed
sanctions rules. We can do much more and, as I mentioned
previously with Congressman Deutch and others who are
supporting legislation, to make it so that any company that is
doing business with Iran has to come clean.
For too long when we started United Against Nuclear Iran 3
years ago, we were really troubled because there was no place
to go to find the list of companies and entities that were
doing business in Iran. We have tried to compile that list.
With your help, we can make it be so that any company,
wherever they are based around the world, if they avail
themselves of the U.S. capital markets, that they have to
disclose in their regulatory filings whether or not they are in
Iran. That will be precise information that our diplomats at
the U.N., our diplomats in the European Union can then take and
focus that sanction work on that information that is disclosed
in our regulatory filings. And I know that this committee and
various members on both sides of the aisle are very much
focused in that area.
One thing on the Human Rights Council, there are only two
options. The United States lends its imprimatur to a U.N. body
that is bad or we try to go in and make it better. That is a
thoughtful debate.
I disagree with my colleague, respectfully, on this. The
Bush administration didn't want to lend its imprimatur to the
Human Rights Council because they thought it was fundamentally
flawed.
The Obama administration has said that it wanted to engage
and show leadership. I believe that they have shown the
leadership. They are doing a good job of making sure that the
Human Rights Council functions sort of in a way that it should,
but I don't know that it is affecting human rights around the
world. I know it is affecting human rights on the Human Rights
Council, but I don't know if it is doing anything else around
the world.
And I think that there is a real question of a difficult
decision. The Durban Review Conference on Racism, the Bush
administration took the position that we should not fund it and
we should not support it. The Obama administration ended up
walking out and leaving that conference, leaving it. That was
abandoning the field under that analysis.
I think both sides are actually reasonable positions. And
they are difficult things. The question is, do you lend your
imprimatur of the great power of the United States, the one
hegemon in the world and the one that we are all so devoted to,
or do you go in and try to reform it in the inside? The case is
that the Bush administration, the Obama administration have
done both on both sides.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you very much.
Mr. Carnahan, ranking member of the Subcommittee on
Oversight and Investigations?
Mr. Carnahan. Thank you, Madam Chair.
And, again, we appreciate the witnesses here today. I
really wanted to focus on a couple of areas and start with Mr.
Piccone. We have had a lot of discussion here today about
engagement or not, funding or not, you know, voluntary or not.
Can you quantify some of the achievements that you see from
being engaged and, you know, fulfilling our obligations versus
times when we have taken another course and how you see that,
how you can really quantify that difference?
Mr. Piccone. Sure. As I tried to point out in my remarks, I
think when we look at the creation of the Council, there was a
time when the U.S. did take a combative approach that really
sought to cross the agenda of the summit in 2005, sought to
push things through in a way that did not bring allies around.
So in the end, we were isolated. I think that is not the way to
go about it.
I think a more engaged process has got us the kinds of
results we are starting to see, starting to see, in Geneva.
There is a lot more work that needs to be done. But whether it
is the number of special sessions that are focused on other
countries, where real problems are occurring--and I would have
to say that in terms of impact on the ground--and I have done a
lot of research on this issue--the Human Rights Council does
have impact on the ground, particularly through these
independent experts.
I mean, these independent experts get in and see political
prisoners. They see journalists who have been charged on
outrageous claims of deformation. And they are getting them out
of jail. They have gone to visit prisons and helped women and
children in prisons get food and health care. And there are
cases and cases that I document in my report where the U.N.
Council's instruments are actually on the ground in the field
making a difference.
And we don't hear about those stories very much. But they
are happening. And I think the U.S. support to not just the
Council but there is a wider system of work that the Office of
the High Commissioner, the International Criminal Court and its
other tribunals, their field offices that OHCHR runs. I mean,
these are the kinds of arms and eyes and ears that we are out
there in the field helping people who need help. And I think
that is the kind of results that we get when we are engaged and
paying our dues.
I think when we say that we should move to voluntary
funding, what worries me about that is that it is kind of an a
la carte cherry picking what we want, but I think we are going
to end up having to pay more.
I mean, if you look about our missions in Iraq and
Afghanistan, I mean, we are investing, you know, billions of
dollars. It is important that we leave behind the kinds of
institutions that work. I mean, we have to respect the
sacrifice of our own soldiers in leaving something behind. The
U.N. is in there with the kind of political missions that are
making a difference in the ground in those as well.
So if we didn't have that kind of instrument, I think we
would end up paying a lot of the costs ourselves. This is a way
to share the burden with our allies, with others on things that
we need to get done.
Mr. Carnahan. Thank you.
And, Ambassador Wallace, I wanted to ask you. In '05, when
the Hyde U.N. Reform Act came up, I voted against that, but
also the Bush administration said at the time that the bill
could detract from and undermine our efforts to reform the U.N.
Do you agree with that kind of approach in this debate we are
having here today?
Ambassador Wallace. Again, not to tread imperilous ground,
if this committee were considering a U.S. Government budget
that was a 25 percent increase from last year, nobody here
could vote for that. You would be voted out of office in my
opinion.
When I was considering the budget and we were negotiating
the budget, it was a 25 percent increase from one budget to the
next exclusive of the peacekeeping missions, which I agree when
we are so heavily invested in these peacekeeping missions, we
have an obligation to pay. But a 25 percent increase, that is
outside of the norms of any state around the world or any
international organization.
In terms of withholding, at the risk of saying a bad word,
I have a slightly nuanced approach. I think that it is very
reasonable, Madam Chairman, to impose the things that you seek
to impose in your model legislation. These are basic things
that no one in this room in private should be able to disagree
with and say to a U.N. agency or an international organization,
``You need to do these very basic transparency and
accountability measures, like having your budgets online,
having an ethics office, having financial disclosure, very
basic things. And if you don't do those, we are going to
seriously consider not paying our dues in the future.''
I don't like not putting agencies on notice now of what we
expect of them and then withholding. I don't think that is
appropriate.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you.
Ambassador Wallace. I think we should let them know.
Mr. Carnahan. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you so much. Thank you, Mr.
Carnahan.
Ms. Buerkle of New York, Subcommittee on Terrorism,
Nonproliferation, and Trade vice chair? Thank you.
Ms. Buerkle. Thank you, Madam Chairman and thank you to our
guests here this morning.
My first question is a simple ``Yes''/``No'' to the three
of you. You know that Congress has just looked at the health
care bill. And we looked at it. It was so complicated, so
costly. Many argued it was not in the best interest of the
American people. And so, rather than trying to fix what was
there, we opted to repeal it. We voted to repeal it. And we
will replace it with true health care reform.
So my question to the three of you today--and I had this
thought as my colleague Steve Chabot was speaking--is the U.N.
fixable or should we do as he said and just withdraw? I will
start with Ambassador Wallace.
Ambassador Wallace. I think it is our obligation to try to
fix the U.N.
Ms. Buerkle. Ambassador Miller?
Ambassador Miller. I think it is probably not fixable
without huge effort and undertaking by the United States, maybe
a charter reform conference, something like that. This
piecemeal reform we undertake is not having much of an impact.
Ms. Buerkle. Thank you.
And Mr. Piccone?
Mr. Piccone. I think the U.N. is fixable with a tremendous
amount of effort and constant, constant regular attention by
this committee and by the Congress and by, you know, our really
top diplomats in New York who are on the case.
Ms. Buerkle. And so in response to your responses, would
you be willing to lay out for us what you would consider to be
effective reform that would truly get our participation in the
U.N. to a point where the American people and the Members of
Congress are comfortable with that?
Ambassador Wallace. I think you have it before you. I think
that the U.N. Transparency and Accountability Act that the
chairman described is really important. There are eight areas
of reform that we laid out, budgets online identifying
procurement activities, financial disclosure policies, ethics
offices, oversight bodies, adoption of IPSAS, International
Public Sector Accounting Standards. These are basic things.
The first thing that we have to do is understand what is
happening in the U.N. And because of these exploding mandates
that I think are unlike anything in the world, even though I
understand the comparison by Mr. Berman and I think it is a
good one and I appreciate it--I really do--I think that these
exploding mandates are a different level of bureaucratic
expansion than anywhere else in the world. And the first thing
that we have to do is understand what every one of these U.N.
funds programs, specialized agencies, and the Secretariat are
doing.
The Secretariat has actually made some progress in the
area. I mean, in terms of these eight areas, these eight areas
really mostly apply in my opinion to the funds programs and
specialized agencies, which is very, very important.
As soon as we identify and have transparency and understand
what is happening in those agencies, then I think we can impose
and have a thoughtful policy debate about what we like and what
we don't like.
Ms. Buerkle. Thank you.
Go ahead. I have a question for Mr. Piccone that I want to
end up with. Go ahead. Go ahead, Ambassador Miller.
Ambassador Miller. Thank you very much. I agree completely
with Ambassador Wallace, but I wanted to add two things to
essential elements. One is you absolutely need to somehow
attack the one country, one vote decision-making process in the
U.N. That is a corrupting process that doesn't reflect the
realities of power in the world or the realities of levels of
contribution to the organization.
The other thing is you need to move to a system where much
more of the funding is on a voluntary basis, where only the
core activities of maintenance of the Secretariat are done on
an assessed basis. And that should probably be evenly shared
among the membership. And then the additional activities could
be funded voluntarily.
Ms. Buerkle. Thank you.
And my next question, Mr. Piccone, is for you because in
your opening remarks, you mentioned that it is better for us to
be a participant because we can affect change from the inside
much easier than from the outside. And we heard that from the
administration in 2009 as well.
And I should say you also mentioned our participation. And
how we are helping is real. Can you give me some specifics that
the United States in our participation--what we are doing to
help decrease the anti-Israel bias in the U.N.?
Mr. Piccone. There is a long record and a good one that
shows that the U.S. has defended Israel throughout, not only in
Geneva but in New York as well.
I mean, I think the point about the special sessions having
gone from five to one since the U.S. has been on the Council,
that is one example. The U.S. stands with Israel in voting
against those biased resolutions and demands that those
corrections happen wherever possible.
The U.S. has supported Israel in various ways in New York
as well. I mean, the Durban protest is an example where the
U.S. can walk away selectively. I think there is a time and
place where you have to say that this isn't working. But up
until that point, we need to be fighting. You know, sometimes
it is tedious and difficult, but----
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you so much.
Mr. Ackerman, the ranking member of the Subcommittee on
Middle East and South Asia?
Mr. Ackerman. Thank you, Madam Chair.
I am glad I came. I just heard a new thought. The U.N. is
very complicated. Just repeal and replace it. You know, nobody
I knew ever really liked the kid who, when he didn't get his
way, would just take his ball and go home. I don't know if that
is what we do with the U.N., take our money and leave. How does
that make anything any better?
I think part of the problem is that some of my colleagues
are too young. They don't remember the cowboy movies. About 46
or -7 minutes into the movie, there was always a runaway
stagecoach. And the good guy, you knew who he was because he
always had the white hat, and it never fell off. And he would
be riding, risking life and limb to catch up, and he would jump
on the runaway lead horse of the runaway stagecoach so that he
could help steer it in the right direction.
If you have got a runaway, you can't fix it unless you help
drive. I don't know, if we walk away from the U.N. because we
don't like a decision that it makes, that it helps us any.
Maybe we should just set up a different U.N. with those
countries that agree with us all the time. Then you could have
two U.N.s. Or maybe you could join both, so you walk out of
one, one day and come to a pretty good consensus with the
people that you are with, and maybe just go over to the other
one the next day. I don't know how that works to make the world
a better place. How does that help us?
I mean, everybody brings up Israel in this context. I
haven't heard the Israelis tell us to quit the U.N. I don't
know of a country on the planet that was happier when the
United States of America was at the United Nations the other
day and vetoed an important resolution that would have
condemned it and further isolated it in a very dangerous world.
I don't know how we speak for the Israelis and say we
shouldn't be in the U.N. because of them. I mean, don't put
that on them. I don't think they would be ashamed to tell us we
should quit the U.N. It doesn't seem to me that they have quit
the U.N. It seems to me that they sit at pretty raucous tables.
And sometimes they plead with the other guys, they disagree
with to come back to the table, or sit at the table, so they
could discuss the differences.
Much has been made about some of the wacky people or
countries that get to sit on this Council. You know, these
ambassadors and countries are selected by their own people.
They are the judge of their own qualifications, whether they
think they meet the standards or not. I mean, every once in a
while some of us come to a conclusion that there are some
pretty crazy people that get elected around here, nobody in
this room for sure.
But, you know, when crazy people have a crazy notion and I
don't agree with it, should my side just get up and leave the
room because we know what the vote is going to be? Or should we
stay here and fight for what we believe in to try to change
people's minds and make the points that we have to make? I
think that is what is at stake here, our credibility to stay in
the game, not cut and run, as I think is the phrase of the day,
which in my mind, Mr. Piccone used.
How does it help us, or if you are here to defend Israel,
tell me, you know? I can appreciate that. But how does it help
anybody if we just walk away? Anybody?
Ambassador Wallace. Well, sure. Just quickly. I think that
you made a very eloquent statement. The Bush administration, we
didn't want to support funding for Durban, but we were open to
attending. The Obama administration walked out of Durban and
refused to attend. I don't believe that was cutting and
running. It was----
Mr. Ackerman. I have been to Mets games like that where I
got up and left.
Ambassador Wallace. But they didn't----
Mr. Ackerman. You have to----
Ambassador Wallace. I think that is a fair point, sir, but
I think it is a thoughtful debate whether you lend the
imprimatur of the United States or you attend. And it is not
black and white.
The Obama administration said that you couldn't salvage a
conference on racism by all member states because it was so
anti-Israel. The Bush administration said you couldn't salvage
the Human Rights Council.
Mr. Ackerman. Yes, but that is----
Ambassador Wallace. I think they are both right.
Mr. Ackerman. That is a ``pick and choose.'' That is not an
``I am never going to attend the meeting.''
Ambassador Wallace. Because both administrations did it.
Ambassador Miller. Yes, but, sir, nobody here is talking
about cutting and running. We are all, all of us, trying to
talk about ways to increase the influence of the United States
in these international discussion and debates.
Ambassador Wallace. You do it long distance.
Ambassador Miller. And you use a variety of tools that you
have available to you to do that. Sometimes that means you
engage in the process, as Mr. Piccone is talking about.
Sometimes you might walk away on a temporary basis, like I was
talking about and experienced with UNESCO. Sometimes you fund
fully. Sometimes you might withhold.
The point is to use a variety of tools, every tool
available to you.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you so much.
Mr. Rohrabacher, the Subcommittee on Oversight and
Investigations chairman?
Mr. Rohrabacher. 192 nations in the General Assembly. How
many of them are democratic nations and free countries out of
the 192? Half? A little less than half but right around half?
Mr. Piccone. If you call them electoral democracies, it is
over 100.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Okay. So about half, really, because if it
is over 192. So I would like to remind my good friend from New
York that all of these representatives in the U.N. that we are
talking about, they were not selected by their people to
represent them anywhere to control their countries or to
represent what is right and wrong in an international body.
What you have is an organization in which half of the
members, voting members in the General Assembly, not only are
brutalizing their own people and don't represent their own
people in the United Nations but they don't represent their own
people at home as well.
So we have a fatally flawed concept where we are saying
that we are going to look for a global policy based on a
relationship with an organization in which half the members are
actually gangsters, thugs, and lunatics, who do not even
reflect their own people and their own peoples' interest, much
less the interest of a better world.
Six billion dollars is what we spend in the United Nations.
Is that correct? Around $6.3 billion I understand is the
figure? Now, the point was made earlier that if we were to use
our own troops somewhere else, rather than a U.N. operation,
that it would cost eight times as much for a United States
military force as it would for U.N. troops.
I understand that we do not get credit for when American
troops are actually put into use supporting a U.N. operation,
that we do not get credit in terms of that being part of our
assessment credit, but other countries do. Is that right? I
believe it is. So we will let you----
Mr. Piccone. I don't know the answer other than to note
that I think there are less than 100 U.S. military personnel in
peacekeeping operations.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Right now. That is correct, right now.
Ambassador Wallace. That is correct. It is small, a
relatively small number. I don't know the answer to that
specifically.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Okay.
Ambassador Wallace. One of the things that Ambassador Rice
has done I think that has been very helpful is focusing on
making our peacekeeping missions more effective and----
Mr. Rohrabacher. Right. And, of course, when we talk about
the United States and our commitment to peace overseas, never
in the calculation is it put in how much we spend in countries
like Afghanistan or Iraq or Kosovo, maybe Kosovo, maybe. I
would suggest so now, of the 192 members of the General
Assembly, about half of them are not legitimate governments.
What about the Security Council?
Is it true that the world's worst human rights abuser has a
veto power over anything the U.N. can do through the Security
Council? I am referring to China, of course.
Well, yes, it is, isn't it? So what do we put in our faith
and our money in? An organization that has such a dominant role
being played by countries, by governments, by gangsters, by
groups of people who have fundamentally a different approach to
human rights and the human condition than we have in the United
States of America. It is bound to fail. And it has been failing
and has been a tremendous waste of our resources.
I am not talking about retreating from the world. I am not
talking about isolationism. I am talking about making sure that
we do things in a way that is more likely to achieve our global
objective, which is a more peaceful, a freer and more
prosperous world.
The United States, we are now spending $1.5 trillion more a
year than we are taking in. We have got to find a way of not
wasting that money. What we have heard today is a huge waste of
that money. And there are ways we can spend less money and have
a more positive impact on the world working with the democratic
missions of the world, rather than putting ourselves at mercy
of an organization dominated by crooks and gangsters and
dictators.
Thank you.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you, Mr. Rohrabacher.
Mr. Connolly of Virginia?
Mr. Connolly. Thank you, Madam Chairman. And welcome to the
panel.
I would note, Ambassador Miller, that you in response to
Mr. Ackerman said that, well, nobody is talking about
withdrawing from the United Nations or gutting the institution.
We are talking about improving it. I thought I just heard my
colleague actually say precisely that.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Absolutely.
Mr. Connolly. Ex post facto, I yielded to my colleague for
confirmation. So your rhetoric sometimes has perhaps unintended
consequences.
Let me ask you, Ambassador Wallace or Ambassador Miller,
did the Bush administration favor the withholding of U.N. dues?
What was the official position of the previous administration
on that issue?
Ambassador Wallace. They did not favor it.
Mr. Connolly. They did not favor it. And at the time
Ambassador Bolton, our Ambassador to the United Nations, did he
comment on that issue of withholding dues to the United
Nations?
Ambassador Wallace. You know, I don't remember precisely
how John phrased it, but I am sure you did the research. I
don't have it here. I have been out of the government a couple
of years. I don't remember precisely.
But I think your point is----
Mr. Connolly. Ambassador Wallace, officially was it not
true that our U.N. Ambassador, Mr. Bolton, in fact, went on
record as saying he did not favor the withholding of U.S. dues
to the United Nations?
Ambassador Wallace. I believe that Ambassador Bolton----
Mr. Connolly. The----
Ambassador Wallace. I should be able to finish if you want
to ask me a question, respectfully. But I believe that he did
say that if I remember correctly.
Mr. Connolly. I am sorry. I thought you said you didn't
know the answer.
Ambassador Wallace. Well, you are refreshing me. I am not
trying to be contentious in any way. I know that when you are
an ambassador, you reflect your instructions of your
department.
Mr. Connolly. Well, Mr. Wallace, I am not asking you----
Ambassador Wallace. I believe that he personally believed--
--
Mr. Connolly. Mr. Wallace, I am sorry. This is my time. I
am not asking you to be an apologist for Mr. Bolton's actions.
I asked you a simple question. Did he or did he not favor the
withholding of U.S. dues?
You said you didn't know the answer. I refreshed your
memory. The answer is he did not. He went on record as saying
it would be wrong and it would be harmful to U.S. interests for
an institution, for an institution, that apparently does so
many awful things and is no ineffectual and works so often
against U.S. interests. That is a striking thing for somebody
who was appointed to that job, not confirmed by the Senate at
the time, who was perhaps one of its chief critics.
I note that for the record.
Ambassador Wallace. I don't think anybody in this room
believes that John Bolton doesn't support withholding. He does
support withholding. I am sure at the time that he was
Ambassador, he was following instructions. But Ambassador
Bolton, no one in this room believes that he doesn't support
withholding. And that is his opinion. He should come testify to
that.
Mr. Connolly. Well, we would be glad to have him come and
testify, but, again, the purpose of the question was to get on
the record what was the official position of the Bush
administration and its spokesperson, both here and at the
United Nations.
Mr. Piccone, the United Nations--I am listening to all of
this--has been an abject failure when it comes to U.N. foreign
policy interests, has it not, in terms of peacekeeping
operations, in terms of support for various and sundry
resolutions that the United States would care about? It has
pretty much been for its existence nothing but a thorn in the
side of United States foreign policy.
Would that be a fair statement?
Mr. Piccone. No, it has not been an abject failure. And I
tried to point out ways in which it has helped us share the
burden of things that we would need to do anyway to protect our
core interests in international peace and security.
Mr. Connolly. Any striking examples of where there has been
a coincidence of U.S. foreign policy interest and United
Nations action?
Mr. Piccone. Well, I have mentioned Iraq and Afghanistan,
where the U.N. has come behind U.S. military operations to help
lay the groundwork for sustainable peace and democracy in those
countries. I have mentioned Haiti, where the U.N. came in. And,
of course, as you know, over 100 U.N. officials and civil
servants were killed in that earthquake, which shows that they
were putting their lives on the line in cases where we need
them to help in situations that are really important to our
core interest. Those are just two examples. There are many,
many more.
Mr. Connolly. Ambassador Wallace, if I could sneak in one
last question? The United Nations Security Council passed
resolution 1929, subjecting Iran to what had been called some
of the perhaps strictest sanctions ever imposed by the United
Nations.
Those sanctions and that resolution were, in fact, praised
by Secretary Gates, our Defense Secretary, as being a good
example of multilateral cooperation against Iran. Do you share
that view?
Ambassador Wallace. Let me repeat my testimony earlier. I
am not sure if you were here at the time when I said that
peacekeeping and sanctions are two important things that the
U.N. does. It doesn't mean that we shouldn't strive to make the
U.N. a better place and more reflective of our U.S. national
security interests. Do you need me to say it again? I will.
Peacekeeping----
Mr. Connolly. No.
Ambassador Wallace [continuing]. Is important and sanctions
are----
Mr. Connolly. Ambassador Wallace, again, that is not my
question. My question was, do you share Secretary Gates'
opinion that that resolution and those sanctions represent, in
fact, a multilateral success of the United Nations?
Ambassador Wallace. Every sanctions resolution against
Iran, North Korea, Burma I think is a good thing. So yes.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you.
Mr. Connolly. Thank you.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you so much.
Mr. Kelly, Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific vice chair?
Mr. Kelly. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Since there is some confusion as to what Ambassador Bolton
actually says,--I am going to quote from his book, ``Surrender
is Not an Option,'' I go to page 443--

``Accordingly, I conclude that only one U.N. reform is
worth the effort. And without it, nothing else will
succeed. Voluntary contributions must be replaced,
assessed contributions. If America insisted it would
pay only for what works and that we get what we paid
for, we would revolutionize life throughout the U.N.
system. There is simply no doubt that eliminating the
entitlement mentality caused by relying on assessed
contributions would profoundly affect U.N. officials
around the world.''

So, rather than us trying to figure out what the Ambassador may
have said or needing to refresh other people's memory, let's
just go to his book and use that.
Mr. Wallace, Ambassador Wallace, let me just ask you
because I come from the private life, where competition means
everything. And I know that a lot of what we do in the U.N., we
look at it as does it have any worth or does it not have any
worth?
On page 6 of your written testimony, you talk about
fostering competition. And you say that some U.N. agencies
perform at a much higher standard from their counterparts and
especially the World Food Programme. This is a voluntary
program that is funded voluntarily. And it seems to have better
efficiency, accountability, transparency. Everything works
better than when it is up to competition.
So recognizing that the largest contributor to the World
Food Programme is the United States at $1.57 billion, or 40
percent, of its $3.82 billion budget, let me just ask you this.
This fostering competition sounds like a good way to fix some
of these things that we think and lessons that we have learned
from the past history. How can we overcome some of the
challenges to the competitive model? What could we do to bring
this about in other facets of what we do with the U.N.?
Ambassador Wallace. I do believe and agree with the premise
that that those U.N. funds, programs, and specialized agencies
that are voluntarily funded have to compete for dollars in that
competition makes them more accountable to member states. I
think that is crystal clear. I think the World Food Programme
is a classic example.
I think that you should seek a voluntarily funding model
certainly much more across the board than the funds programs
and specialized agencies. It doesn't mean that we should pull
out or otherwise, but we should ask these funds programs and
specialized agencies to conduct themselves in a manner that is
twenty-first century, Republican, Democrat, NGO, not-for-
profit, country, corporation.
And some of the things that you all have outlined in the
legislation in terms of suggesting reforms, those apply in my
opinion to both voluntarily funded programs and those that are
mandatorily funded.
I think those reforms are good. I think, generally
speaking, those that are voluntarily funded are more
transparent and more accountable because they are competing and
they have to satisfy you that they are doing a good job. They
have to show where the money is going in a detailed manner. And
that is more accountability. And that is what voluntarily
funding does.
I think, coupled with the Transparency and Accountability
Initiative that you all have outlined that we supported, I
think voluntary funding, funds programs, and specialized
agencies are the way to go.
Mr. Kelly. Okay. Thank you. Let me ask you that. What U.N.
committees and agencies would you think were the prime
candidates? What could we look at, any of the three of you,
please?
Ambassador Miller. Every U.N. specialized agency is a
candidate to have the majority of their budget put on a
voluntary basis. I think it would be appropriate in many cases
to have a very small component of the budgets of these agencies
put on a permanent and assessed basis as a condition of
membership.
But when the agencies are actually undertaking activities
in the world, when they are undertaking assistance activities,
aid activities, when they are undertaking any kind of
activities that involve going out and helping citizens around
the world, any kind of engagement around the world and the same
way peacekeeping activities tend to be funded in a different
way, well, we ought to think about funding these activities of
these specialized agencies that way as well by voluntary
funding.
Then, as Ambassador Wallace says, they have to compete.
They have to be accountable for results. The problem with have
with aid expenditures around the world is that we measure
inputs. We measure how much we spend. There is no ability,
really, at all, in an effective way to measure the results of
those expenditures. You get that through the competitive
process.
Mr. Kelly. Yes. And I ask you, then. So some of the metrics
that you use, I mean, how do we gauge the return on our
investment? How do we gauge the success or how would we improve
it? What kind of metrics could we use?
Ambassador Miller. It has got to be the results that you
achieve in real terms in the world. One of the most serious
problems with the U.N. is that we tend to judge its results by
the promises that it makes in terms of addressing problems. We
need to go out and actually measure, is development taking
place? Is health improving? Is education taking place?
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you.
Ambassador Miller. Is peace happening anywhere in the
world?
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you.
Ms. Schwartz from Pennsylvania?
Ms. Schwartz. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I appreciate the
opportunity to inquire.
Actually, while it seems that there is a disagreement,
there actually is I think remarkable agreement that we ought to
stay engaged with the U.N. I think Ambassador Miller sort of
answered it slightly differently but did come to the conclusion
the last time around that we ought to stay engaged.
And I think that I wanted to appreciate the Ambassador
Wallace's mention that when you focus on the problems and the
concerns and the reforms that have been made, which was part of
your mission, they are only talking about the problems and the
concerns. And there are forms that have to be done and some of
the things we neglected to talk about and some of the things
that were just mentioned that are keenly important that the
U.N. does that really help us in our mission to be safer or
more secure in a world community.
So I think maybe that is something we ought to focus on,
what do we get for the dollars and what does the U.N. do that
we actually find extremely valuable to our own U.S. interests
and to recognize the U.N. is not the only way we engage in the
world community. I believe it is an important one, but it is
not the only one. It doesn't preclude us from many other both
unilateral and multilateral discussions of interest to the
United States.
So the U.N. is one tool. And I think all of you pointed out
quite keenly that the issues of peacekeeping and political
missions that we engage in in the sanctions are extremely
important to have our allies around the world agree with us and
be able to move forward in a more multilateral way than not.
And recently, of course, the U.N. Security Council taking a
very swift action on Libya was really--we talked about Iran
already and Libya as well--something that I think many of us
were very proud to see happen. And I have to say certainly our
engagement in the U.N., well, it might not have happened at all
without us being engaged.
You are all nodding. So I will put that on the record. They
are all nodding yes, which is a good thing.
And I do want to recognize that because I think a unanimous
adopted resolution that condemns and demands an end to violence
in Libya is really important in posing those tough sanctions.
Iran and Libya are very important to us.
I mean, given what is going on, we talk about many places
around the world but the real threats around the world, the
real uncertainties. And, of course, the current violence in
Libya is of deep concern to all of us. It is a very volatile
part of the world unexpectedly in some ways. I think many would
recognize that the last couple of months have really changed
the dynamic so much: Tunisia, Egypt, Libya. You could say maybe
Jordan, maybe elsewhere.
So I wanted to really ask the question about the role in
both again on peacekeeping but, really, also more on the
political mission going forward and the role that we will play
but could also play, the U.N. could play, in helping to make
sure that those countries, particularly Egypt, for example,
move ahead with democratic reforms and democratic institution
building. It has been a concern of many of ours.
So I do want to reserve a minute for the ranking member. So
just really quickly, Mr. Piccone, if you would start there,
that would be very helpful because I think helping them get it
right but not having interfered too broadly is extremely
important to safety and security in the region and for us.
Mr. Piccone. I would point out that in the case of what is
going on in North Africa, you already have U.N. agencies on the
ground that are feeding and sheltering refugees crossing the
border from Libya into Tunisia and Egypt.
I would also note that, you know, when political change
happens, you start to see results. So Tunisia, which has always
been a very difficult member of the Council, is now inviting
the Council experts to come. And they want a field office to
advise them on how they can move forward on building democratic
institutions.
This is just one example of the role that the U.N. can play
in parts of the world where, frankly, when we come in and do it
on our own, it is not as easily swallowed by some of these
states. But when the U.N. comes in under a blue U.N. flag,
people say, ``Oh, I can accept this.'' This is how we can have
influence.
Ms. Schwartz. Okay. I appreciate that statement.
And I did want to yield the rest of my remaining time to
the ranking member. Mr. Berman wanted to----
Mr. Berman. I thank the gentlelady very much for yielding.
And it is right in line with what she was saying.
Ambassador Wallace, I very much appreciate your discussion
of this in the context of nuance. I am actually, I have to
admit, surprised by not because of you but just, you know, all
the polarization.
The reason I think it is better not to withhold, to achieve
the transparency in budgeting, the transparency in procurement,
the member state access to audits, which are absolutely right,
every one of them, is our closest allies if we start
withholding, we need them to achieve these things.
I am convinced from my conversations that if we play that
withholding game, we will lose them in this effort. And that is
why I think withholding is a mistake.
Thank you.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you, Mr. Berman. Thank you,
Ms. Schwartz.
Mr. Manzullo, the chairman of the Subcommittee on Asia and
the Pacific, is recognized.
Mr. Manzullo. Thank you, Madam Chair.
I have a question I would like to ask. Do you believe that
international treaties that are based upon U.N. organizations
should trump domestic laws in different countries?
Mr. Piccone. No. We have a process under our law where our
Senate ratifies treaties. And, therefore, it does become part
of our law. And, therefore, there is some commitment we have
made to abide by----
Mr. Manzullo. So, then, you----
Mr. Piccone. So we have a treaty requirement and, for
example----
Mr. Manzullo. So, then, you would allow the United States
Senate, without any input from the House of Representatives, to
adopt the treaty or the convention of rights of the child to
trump U.S. law?
Mr. Piccone. I am not familiar enough with the details of
that particular convention, but that is the role that our
Constitution gives to ratify.
Mr. Manzullo. I understand that, but what is going on is
the UNICEF has come up with this treaty on convention of the
rights to the child that says if a nation adopts it, it is for
the purpose of recognizing the best interest of the child, and
I quote, ``in the child's evolving capacities'' as the umbrella
principle under riding the exercise of all rights in the
convention. It would actually go on to overturn recent Supreme
Court decisions on who has the ultimate decision to make in
raising the family. That is the Troxel case.
Ambassador Miller?
Ambassador Miller. Thank you, Mr. Manzullo. I am very
familiar with that convention and was actively involved in some
of the negotiating processes for it and believe very strongly
that the United States should not ratify it, but because many
portions of it are in fundamental conflict not only with our
basic values and principles but with our principles of the
Federal system because many of the things that are covered by
that convention are actually handled at the state and local
level and U.S. law and practice.
I think were the Senate to ratify that convention, were the
Obama administration to decide they wanted to join, the Senate
ratified, I think it would be the subject of court cases and
judicial action for years in the United States.
Mr. Manzullo. But would you agree then, that now, here is
an international organization to which the United States has
the biggest share of dues? Taking that dues money and coming up
with an international treaty that, if adopted by the Senate,
would trump all law in this country with regard to the raising
of children?
I mean, is that a correct use of U.S. taxpayers' money to
have an international organization determine how children
should be raised?
Ambassador Miller. I think it is a complete distortion of
anything that we would ever want to achieve. And it is really
important to understand that when we try to partner with these
other countries around the world, you have to look at who your
partners are in that case. And these are countries, many of
which do not share our values. So I think we need to exercise
the utmost caution when we are talking about----
Mr. Manzullo. Okay. Mr. Piccone?
Ambassador Miller [continuing]. Social issues or----
Mr. Manzullo. Do you believe that is okay to have----
Mr. Piccone. I think the U.N. isn't forcing us to do
anything and can't force us to do anything,----
Mr. Manzullo. They are involved in this.
Mr. Piccone [continuing]. Signing a treaty in this case. If
there is objection to signing the treaty, we don't sign it or
if maybe in another treaty where we express reservations and we
make it clear certain----
Mr. Manzullo. But, I mean, this is----
Mr. Piccone [continuing]. Provisions we do not----
Mr. Manzullo. The U.N. is doing this in terms of a treaty.
This bypasses not only traditional state law, but any Federal
law that may have to do with raising a child in favor of
something called the ``evolving capacities'' of a child.
It just bothers me that taxpayers' money should be used to
give to organizations where people sit around and spend that
type of money to come up with things like this, this convention
on the rights of a child.
Mr. Piccone. I would just say that if you look at the array
of human rights treaties that have been negotiated and
ultimately ratified by this country and many other countries,
that we have succeeded in putting forward American values as
universal values. There are exceptions.
Mr. Manzullo. So you can defend the expenditure of U.N.
money on a study like this, in a treaty presented before the
United States?
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you, Mr. Manzullo. We will
continue that----
Mr. Manzullo. Can he give an answer? Can he say ``Yes'' or
``No,'' which?
Mr. Piccone. I took it as a rhetorical question.
Mr. Manzullo. I don't ask rhetorical questions.
Mr. Piccone. I would say, you know, minimal, minimal
resources. This is a universal organization.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you. We will continue that
conversation.
Mr. Manzullo. Thank you.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Payne of New Jersey, the ranking
member on the Subcommittee on Africa, Global Health, and Human
Rights?
Mr. Payne. Thank you very much.
How many countries have not ratified the treaty--I am not
familiar with it--the treaty, the one that Mr. Manzullo is
talking about? Do you know?
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Manzullo, hold on. If we could
start the time again because he is referring to the countries
of the treaty?
Mr. Payne. Yes.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. We will start the time again. Mr.
Payne is recognized.
Mr. Payne. Great. Thank you. Thank you very much.
I certainly support the United States rejoining or joining
the Human Rights Council. Mr. Piccone, could you tell me the
differences of the changes made by the Human Rights Council
from its inception, how you were voted on? It was done by
blocks of countries or so forth? And what changes were made in
the new one?
Mr. Piccone. Under the old Commission, it was a clean slate
for each region. And then you had an open-ended appointment, in
effect. Now states have to run in competitive elections. And
the competitive elections have led to defeat of some bad
states. So that process works.
You are also term-limited. So states cannot serve for more
than two consecutive terms. So Cuba, China, they will rotate
off the Council. They shouldn't have been elected in the first
place. I totally agree they should not have been elected in the
first place, but they will rotate off. And it is critical that
good states then run. And that is what the U.S. has been trying
to do.
I think the universal periodic review is a new mechanism
that for the first time allows every state to be reviewed. We
used to have huge fights in Geneva over just getting China to
be reviewed. And there would be no action motions. And we often
lost. I think we won once on that.
And now China is being reviewed, publicly webcast. And this
allows Chinese civil society to actually create a record and
submit their own criticisms of the Chinese Government in the
U.N. forum. That is unprecedented. That is also another example
of something that is new.
Mr. Payne. And also the U.S. ran and did pretty well,
right, in this new round since we entered?
Mr. Piccone. Yes, I think the U.S. leadership, as I
mentioned in my testimony, has made a big difference in
focusing more on country scrutiny away from Israel with cases
like Cote d'Ivoire, cases that I didn't mention, like
Democratic Republic of Congo. After the crisis of the rapes in
that country, a session was called for that case, et cetera.
Mr. Payne. Right. Yes. I think that it made no sense for us
not to participate at the beginning. You know, here you have
the most powerful nation in the world and we say we are not
going to sit down there because they are going to say bad
things about us, rather than being in the room and saying,
``Wait a minute. You don't talk about me like that. Let me tell
you about yourself.'' In other words, to me it made absolutely
no sense.
And I am glad that this administration had the courage to
say, ``Let's participate in it. Let's go there and let's argue
our position. Let's take Amman when they are off the board on
Israel or any other area that they are making mistakes on.''
And so I am glad to see us participate.
I think there still has to be a lot of reform. But I do
believe that we are on the right track.
The question of the U.S. dues being withheld, I think that
really also doesn't make too much sense. As you know, when the
U.N. started, we procured about 50 percent because the world
was in shambles. When it came to actual dues, we were down to
33 percent was what it was fixed on. As you know, from the 33
percent that we have been paying for U.N. dues, the general
assessment, we have reduced ourselves by one-third. As you may
know, we are down to 22 percent, just a little bit above, say,
Japan, for example.
So the fact that I think we are getting increasingly much
more bang for the buck because we, too, have said that we will
not ever let a U.S. troop be boots on the ground peacekeeping.
So the rest of the world, you bring the troops. And we will pay
our assessment, but we are not going to get in harm's way.
So I think that in Haiti and in other places, where we
would possibly have had troops, the U.N. is covering that for
us. So I think that there are tremendous amounts of positive
things that are happening as a result of the U.N. being around.
And I think that it is going to play a key role in the Middle
East, where we can set up, as you mentioned, we can set up U.N.
offices to do democracy building, rather than the U.S. going
in, because that would just be what other countries would use
against us.
So, as you can see, I am a pretty strong supporter of the
U.N., feeling that it has a lot of flaws, but I think it has
improved and we still have to keep the pressure on them to make
them improve more.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you very much, Mr. Payne.
And I would like to recognize our ranking member, Mr.
Berman, for a unanimous request.
Mr. Berman. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman.
And I would like unanimous consent to present a letter into
the record of this hearing from the Foreign Minister of Israel
to the Secretary of State regarding the U.S. efforts in UNESCO
to prevent the adoption of five anti-Israel resolutions.
It is relevant to the conversation that Ms. Buerkle had
with Mr. Piccone earlier. And, for that, I would like to
include this letter in the record, if I could.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you. And I would just like to
point out that we did return to UNESCO after being out for so
many years. And they saw the light. It is so wonderful.
Mr. Berman. Well, I don't know if they saw all of the
light, but they are----
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Well, they have seen some light.
Mr. Berman. But they----
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. But they like withdrawing.
Mr. Berman. They are a lot better than they were,----
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Yes. Okay.
Mr. Berman [continuing]. Anybody, than they were in 1988.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. All right. Thank you.
And for the last word, I will yield 5 minutes to Mr.
Burton, the chairman of the Subcommittee on Europe and Eurasia.
Mr. Burton. Thank you, Madam Chair.
First of all, my good friend Mr. Berman, the ranking
member, indicated that--and I think Mr. Payne did as well--we
shouldn't be cutting the U.N.'s funds. Great Britain and the
House of Commons--let's see; it was Mr. Mitchell--said that
they were going to cut 50 million in pounds by cutting
development funding to 4 United Nations organizations, United
Nations Industrial Development Organization, U.N. Habitat, U.N.
Agency for International Labor Organizations, and the U.N.
International Strategy to Disaster Reduction.
Mr. Berman. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. Burton. No. I am sorry. I will if I have time at the
end because----
Mr. Berman. Okay.
Mr. Burton [continuing]. I love you, man. [Laughter.]
Let me just tell you that I listen to this kind of
discussion. And I have been here for 28 years. I know I look a
lot younger, but I have been here for a long time. And I have
to tell you I get so frustrated sometimes when I listen to this
stuff. You know?
We shouldn't be passing any treaty or anything that cedes
our constitutional authority to anybody but especially the U.N.
And I will do everything in my power as long as I am in this
place to stop any of our rights that are given to us by our
forefathers I the Constitution to any agency in the world,
especially the United Nations.
And the next thing I would like to say is my good friend
Mr. Payne said, ``Well, we don't pay much more than the
Japanese do.'' Well, the Japanese pay 16 percent of the budget.
We pay 22 percent. And I would say that is a pretty big
difference.
But, nevertheless, we should I think hold the U.N.
accountable. We spend over 25 percent of the budget for
defensive actions around the world, for the United Nations
military forces.
When we talk about Haiti, the U.N. does do some things, but
we spend a lot of money down in Haiti. We spent $6.3 billion so
far. So we are doing more than our share if we didn't give the
U.N. a thing.
Now, what I would like to know, I am not a big fan of the
U.N. I mean, you might have gathered that. I think that, you
know, they end up opposing us on so many things. And since the
Korean War, I can't think of very many areas where the U.N. has
been supportive of what the United States wants. And so, you
know, if somebody is constantly kicking you in the fact, I
don't see any reason to give them a whole lot of money. But,
nevertheless, I realize where we are.
Now let me just ask a quick question of you folks. And you
can give me the answers within the time frame. How many U.N.
agencies and offices and officials publicly disclose their
budgets and finances?
And, second, are all U.N. agency audits and investigations
available to donor states? U.N. entities are subject to the
transparency that we expect from publicly held companies here
in the United States. I can remember when they were spending
tremendous amounts of money, double, triple what an accountant
would make in New York. They are giving their kids college
money. They are paying for their houses. They are paying for
their cars. They are paying for everything with our tax
dollars. And I would like to know if there is any transparency
in those areas. And I will yield to any of you.
Ambassador Wallace. In that order, not enough, no, and no.
Mr. Burton. I love your succinctness.
Ambassador Wallace. But I want to give one caveat. I think
in this time when we have such tight budget dollars, we have to
have the thoughtful discussion about the benefits of our ODA
dollars and what it gets to, the end users or intended
beneficiaries, or donations as we contribute to international
organizations.
Let me read you one quote, ``Approximately 75 percent of
the budget resources are related to salaries and common staff
costs,'' 75 percent. That wasn't me. That was my friends from
the G-77 in China in the budget discussion in 2008 and 2009.
One of the reforms that we should seek to have, which is
the cutting edge of not-for-profit giving and international
aid, is to have a cap on administrative overhead and costs. I
think we should narrow that down so only 5 to 10 percent goes
to overhead, administrative, and costs. That is a better deal.
Let's have a thoughtful discussion about that. And let's
move these funds programs, specialized agencies to lower their
overhead from upwards of 50 to 75 percent down to a more
appropriate 5 percent.
Right now our ODA when we give it directly to the field is,
arguably, a much better deal. Why should we be paying overhead?
We should be paying directly to the field. Our dollars should
go to help people around the world, not to pay overhead.
Mr. Burton. Go ahead, Mr. Miller.
Mr. Piccone. Well, I----
Mr. Burton. I can't read. I don't have my glasses on.
Ambassador?
Ambassador Miller. One of the most frustrating things that
happened when Ambassador Wallace and I were in New York was we
would go into a meeting of UNDP, for example, and ask for a
financial document or information about how much was spent on a
given area. How much was spent in North Korea, for example?
And that information was never forthcoming. There was a
systematic effort to prevent us from obtaining the information
that we needed in order to exercise proper oversight.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you so much.
This was a wonderful set of panelists, good witnesses, good
interaction from our members. And the committee is now
adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:11 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]

A P P E N D I X

----------

Material Submitted for the Hearing RecordNotice deg.

Minutes deg.

Berman FTR deg.__

Material submitted for the record by the Honorable Howard L. Berman, a
Representative in Congress from the State of California

QFRs--Wallace deg.Written responses from the Honorable Mark D.
Wallace to questions submitted for the record by the Honorable Ileana
Ros-Lehtinen