A Report Card on Reform of the United Nations
Ambassador John R. Bolton, U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations
Testimony before the House International Relations Committee
Washington, DC
March 16, 2006
Introduction
Mr. Chairman, distinguished members of the Committee:
Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. Your continued scrutiny and attention to both the reform of
the United Nations and critical matters related to international peace and security discussed by the Security Council
are vital. Increasingly, the Secretariat and other Member State representatives recognize that working with Capitol Hill
on areas of mutual concern is not just beneficial, but indispensable, as is evidenced by those representatives'
participation in recent meetings with U.S. delegations. In the time I have before you today, I would like to provide you
with an update on progress toward implementing reforms critical to the revitalization and stronger effectiveness of the
United Nations, since I appeared before you in September. Per your request, I am also pleased to brief you on several
matters pending before the Security Council, including Sudan and Iran.
UN Reform Since the World Summit Meeting: A Mixed Report
Management Reform Mr. Chairman, in evaluating the results of our efforts to overhaul the structures guiding and managing
UN agencies and activities, I have to conclude that reform is a work in progress, but our efforts are ongoing and
progress has been made. The establishment of the independent ethics office, adoption of whistleblower protection, and
the growing role of the Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS) are important first steps. It is critical, though,
that OIOS maintain its independence and autonomy if it is to function effectively. A well-functioning OIOS can serve as
an important catalyst for fundamental change, or what Secretary Rice has termed, a "lasting revolution of reform" in the
way the UN operates.
I believe we are beginning to make some progress in recognizing how deep the structural problems run, which is an
important first step. Whether it is Mr. Volcker citing a "culture of inaction" at the UN, or OIOS citing a "culture of
impunity" in how procurement matters are handled at the Department of Peacekeeping Operations (DPKO), the world is
waking up to the glaring deficiencies within the UN system deficiencies that provide an inviting target for those would
abuse the system, as we saw in the Oil-for-Food scandal.
It is not just outsiders saying this, Mr. Chairman. Many of us, myself included, were struck by the comments and report
issued by Secretary-General Kofi Annan last week. In his own words he noted, "The earlier reforms addressed the
symptoms, more than the causes, of our shortcomings. It is now time to reach for deeper, more fundamental change. What
is needed, and what we now have a precious opportunity to undertake, is a radical overhaul of the entire Secretariat its
rules, its structure, its systems to bring it more in line with today's realities, and enable it to perform the new
kinds of operations that Member States now ask and expect of it." This was necessary, he continued, because "in many
respects our present regulations and rules do not respond to current needs, and indeed that they make it very hard for
the organization to conduct its work efficiently or effectively." The United Nations has changed and so, too, must the
rules and regulations.
We share the view of the Secretary-General and applaud his forthright and blunt acknowledgment of the nature of the
problem. The notion of "radical overhaul" is exactly what we have been stressing. And it is exactly because we share
that assessment, Mr. Chairman that the United States galvanized many in the international community in support of our
efforts to authorize only interim spending of the 2-year budget of UN operations. We would not accept a "business as
usual" approach to UN reform.
We are about to begin a thorough top-to-bottom review of all programs mandated for UN agencies and operations. This
review is sure to be a long, tedious process. This thorough scrub, though, is exactly what is needed. It provides a
long-overdue opportunity for all UN Member States to thoroughly assess the thousands of mandates, many of which are
vague, unclear, and sometimes intentionally confusing, to sort out those that are still relevant to today's problems
from those that are duplicative or no longer needed. There will undoubtedly be disagreements between delegations, as
some will cling to special pet projects, but the U.S. Mission will approach this review with a seriousness of purpose.
This review affords us the best opportunity to eliminate the significant waste and overlap which pervades the UN system.
As the report issued last week by the Secretary-General pointed out, past reviews of programs and operations have been
piecemeal. This new review of mandates will instead be comprehensive. As difficult as this task will be, we fully concur
with Secretary-General Annan, who stated unequivocally that, "Only by an effort of this scale a management reform as
broad as it is deep can we create a United Nations Secretariat fully equipped to implement all mandates, using its
Member States' resources wisely and account for them fully, and winning the trust of the broader world community."
Reform of Financing Mr. Chairman, every 3 years there is a review of the scale of assessments of each member state's
dues to the United Nations. Currently, the United States is the largest contributor paying some 22% of the UN budget, a
number to which we remain committed. With specific regard to peacekeeping operations, the UN assesses us at about 27%,
although in accordance with U.S. law, our payments are currently capped at the 25% rate. While the United States remains
a strong supporter of a more effective, streamlined and efficient UN, we do believe that other Member States can and
should contribute more. Currently we are exploring with other member states a variety of mechanisms through which a
reform of finances can help to achieve our shared goals.
As I discussed before you late last year, we are still analyzing how different funding mechanisms influence or impact
performance, such as whether an agency is receiving a voluntary or assessed contribution. Many have observed that some
specific agencies competing for funding against non-governmental organizations or other international institutions for
the services provided perform better.
Applying more sound economic and financial rules to UN financing can also have implications more broadly for the scale
of assessments debate. Currently, for example, the assessment is based on Gross National Income (GNI) as determined by
Gross Domestic Product. These numbers can be greatly skewed, however, by distortions introduced into the marketplace by
currencies which are non-convertible. By contrast, the World Bank, OECD, and Asian Development Bank rely not just on
this indicator but uses data based on Purchasing Power Parity (PPP) as well. PPP does not look at official exchange
rates, but compares the value of countries' currencies (and thus GDP values) based on how much is needed to buy the same
basket of goods and services in those different countries. This method, as the World Bank notes, "allows us to make more
accurate comparisons of standards of living across countries."
We have proposed that the Fifth Committee in the United Nations, the body that handles such issues, begin utilizing PPP
indicators as an important economic tool in its discussions of scale of assessments. In so doing, it will be better
equipped and have more balanced data. We have been actively consulting with other delegations and have received strong
support from some members, notably Japan.
Human Rights Council Mr. Chairman, let me turn now to the issue of the Human Rights Council. As you know, the United
States has expressed its dissatisfaction with the current proposal under consideration to create a new Human Rights
Council. We appreciate Senator Coleman's introduction of a resolution before the Senate on the subject. Our
dissatisfaction is one of principle, based on our unwavering belief that that we must ensure the credibility of the
body's membership. Because we believed the membership criteria mechanisms in the resolution were not strong enough, we
called a vote and voted "no" in the General Assembly. We cast a no vote more in sadness than in anger, but it was the
right vote for a simple and straightforward reason: the United States is deeply committed to the preservation and
promotion of human rights and we will not settle for "good enough." The United States remains a champion of human rights
and looks forward to working with others to improve the primary human rights body at the UN.
Mr. Chairman, we can and must do better. The United States had raised a number of objections to the draft resolution. We
strongly believe that human rights violators must be kept off the Council. The United States made clear that the new
Human Rights Council needs to have mechanisms in place to ensure that the world's most egregious violators and abusers
of human rights do not serve on the Council and stand hypocritically in judgment of others. The resolution did not
sufficiently allay these concerns and we were concerned that it would simply replicate some of the same flaws that have
crippled the existing Commission. We were shocked by the staunch resistance to our proposal that those countries under
human rights or terrorism-related sanctions by the UN Security Council be excluded from serving on the Human Rights
Council.
A second mechanism that we believe should be in place, and which would serve to secure a more credible membership for
the Council is requiring a 2/3 majority vote for membership to the Council. Secretary General Annan himself has endorsed
this requirement and we are, again, surprised and disappointed that it was not included in the draft resolution brought
up for adoption.
As I've stated before, we will refuse to put lipstick on a caterpillar and call it a butterfly. We are not, however,
abandoning the process. We will work cooperatively with other Member States to make the Council as strong and effective
as it can be. We will be supportive of efforts to strengthen the Council and look forward to a serious review of the
Council's structure and work in two years. We remain committed to support the UN's historic mission to promote and
protect the basic human rights of all the world's citizens. The real test will be the quality of membership that emerges
on this Council and whether it takes effective action to address serious human rights abuse cases like Sudan, Cuba,
Iran, Zimbabwe, Belarus, and Burma. I know this subject is of profound interest to the Committee and I will keep you
informed of future developments.
High Priority Matters on the United Nations Security Council
Sudan and Darfur Mr. Chairman, let me turn my attention now to issues we consider to be of the highest priority for
consideration by the Security Council issues I know the Committee is concerned with as well. First is the tragedy we are
still witnessing in Darfur. We are working assiduously through the Security Council to push forward our plan to provide
additional troops under UN command to supplement the forces already there under the auspices of the African Union (AU).
In that regard, we and others in the international community, including the African Union, are working closely with DPKO
to generate and develop a plan for a peacekeeping force equipped to address the declining security situation. We have
provided U.S. military planners to help them develop a range of options to present to the Security Council for
consideration. We are pleased that the African Union, most recently at their Peace and Security Council meeting on March
10, as well as the UN Secretariat shares our view on the importance of increasing the UN's involvement in Darfur. We
will work with the African Union and the UN to ensure that a UN mission in Darfur operates with African troops at its
core and under African leadership. We will simultaneously work closely with Sudan's Government of National Unity and our
African and European partners to energize the African Union-mediated Darfur peace talks in Abuja, Nigeria. This remains
a top priority for President Bush. The continued escalation of violence in Darfur only strengthens our resolve. I want
to thank Congress for the interest you have shown in this matter as well.
Iran Mr. Chairman, let me now turn to the threat posed by the Iranian regime and its pursuit of nuclear weapons. As
Secretary Rice noted in her testimony last week, we face no greater challenge from a single country than from Iran. The
Bush Administration has been engaged in intense efforts to seek a peaceful, multilateral solution to the problem posed
by Iran's nuclear weapons program. Although the United States is often accused of unilateralism, we have pursued
multilateral efforts through the IAEA and in conjunction with the EU3, Russia, other like-minded nations and now the
United Nations.
We are pleased that by an overwhelming vote, the International Atomic Energy Agency reported Iran to the United Nations
Security Council. And we are now working with other Security Council members to reinforce the IAEA's continuing
investigation of Iran's nuclear program and international calls on Iran to meet all IAEA Board requests.
With the conclusion of the IAEA Board of Governors meeting in Vienna just a few days ago, and the arrival in New York of
the report by Director General El Baradei, the Security Council will remain "seized with the matter" the term of art we
use in Turtle Bay to convey that this matter is actively on the agenda.
We are encouraging the UNSC to consider as a first step the adoption of a UNSC Presidential Statement (PRST) that calls
on Iran to comply fully with the IAEA Board's repeated requests, including resuming a full suspension of all
enrichment-related and reprocessing activities, cooperating fully with the IAEA, and ratifying promptly the Additional
Protocol. As diplomacy enters this new phase, we are committed to working with others in the international community to
seek a peaceful, diplomatic resolution. Such a resolution must include Iran giving up its pursuit of a nuclear weapons
capability. It is now up to Iran to demonstrate that it seeks the same outcome. If Iran defies the UNSC, however, as it
has defied the past nine IAEA Board resolutions, we believe the UNSC should consider taking additional measures to seek
Iran's compliance with those steps.
While it is premature to discuss the exact steps, sequence and pace at which the Security Council will take action, rest
assured that our view is that Iran will face additional, graduated isolation and diplomatic pressure if it does not
reverse course, take the steps called for by the IAEA Board, and return promptly to negotiations.
It is important to bear in mind that we do not see action in the Security Council as supplanting the role of the IAEA in
resolving this matter. Indeed, we envision the Security Council as supporting and enhancing the efforts of the IAEA to
address the international community's concerns over Iran's nuclear ambitions.
The government of Tehran's trumpeting of its right to a civil peaceful nuclear program is a canard. Russia has presented
a proposal that would enable the Iranians to reap the benefits of safeguarded civil nuclear power while addressing
concerns that they are really pursuing nuclear weapons. The EU-3 proposal also opened the possibility of technical
cooperation on nuclear power and a range of other areas. As the President has said, we do not oppose Iran enjoying the
benefits of peaceful, safeguarded nuclear energy. It is clear, however, that Iran's pursuit of the nuclear fuel cycle is
neither peaceful nor solely for civilian energy generation. Frankly, Iran's track record justifies this suspicion. As
the resolution adopted on February 4 by the IAEA Board of Governors notes, there have been "many failures and breaches
of its obligations to comply with its NPT Safeguards Agreement." Put differently, with rights come responsibilities --
responsibilities that Iran has not come close to meeting.
Our work with the international community to seek a peaceful, diplomatic resolution within the UNSC is not the only tool
we will use to address this problem. In addition to our diplomatic efforts at the IAEA, the UN Security Council, and
bilaterally, we are beefing up our defensive measures to cope with the Iranian nuclear threat. As Secretary Rice has
said, "In conjunction with our multilateral diplomacy, the United States will develop sensible measures, security
measures, including looking further at our Proliferation Security Initiative and those who cooperate with us to try and
deny to regimes like Iran, North Korea and others the materials for covert programs that threaten the international
system."
This combined pressure, we hope, will persuade the Iranian regime to make the strategic decision to abandon its pursuit
of nuclear weapons. Our hope is that the Iranian regime will make the same strategic calculation that Libya and many
others have that the pursuit of weapons of mass destruction make them less, not more secure. The Iranian people have
many ties to the world, whether economic, social, or cultural. We must use those ties to help to raise the pressure on
the Iranian regime, while taking care not to isolate the Iranian people. The United States already imposes numerous
bilateral sanctions on Iran; it is noteworthy that many other governments around the world have begun to include the
word "sanctions" in their discourse when discussing Iran.
Conclusion
Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank you and your distinguished colleagues for this Committee remaining "seized of all
the matters" confronting the United Nations. Your continued close and personal attention to matters of vital importance
has been extremely beneficial in helping those of us at the Mission to advance U.S. national interests.
As I noted at the beginning of my remarks, there has been some progress made in reforming the United Nations to make it
stronger and more effective, but much work remains to be done. Recognition of this problem, though, is a critical first
step. We fully share the view of Secretary-General Annan who, when discussing management reform last week, said that,
"Failure to carry through reform in any one of these areas can greatly reduce, or even nullify, the value of reform in
all the others." Whether it is management reform, reform of financing, or establishing a Human Rights Council worthy of
its name, rest assured that we will continue to work diligently with Congress, the UN Secretariat and other delegations
to achieve our shared objectives. But as we demonstrated in the case of the Human Rights Council, we must have the
resolve, strength and courage to cast a "no" vote on principle when necessary. We will continue to work with Member
States to do the most possible to advance what the Charter calls "fundamental freedoms" in the everyday lives of people
worldwide.
And as I noted in my remarks on several of the pressing issues confronting the Security Council, I promise to keep you
and Committee staff fully abreast of ongoing developments. I am proud of the working relationship we have developed over
the six months I have resided in New York, and I look forward to continuing and deepening that relationship. Thank you.
I stand ready to answer any questions you may have.
Released on March 16, 2006
ENDS