[House Hearing, 112 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
THE UNITED NATIONS: URGENT PROBLEMS THAT NEED CONGRESSIONAL ACTION
=======================================================================
BRIEFING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
JANUARY 25, 2011
__________
Serial No. 112-3
__________
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
64-009 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, [email protected].
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
BRIEFERS
Mr. Brett Schaefer, Jay Kingham fellow in International
Regulatory Affairs, Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom, the
Heritage Foundation............................................ 10
Ms. Claudia Rosett, journalist-in-residence, Foundation for
Defense of Democracies......................................... 32
Mr. Hillel C. Neuer, executive director, UN Watch................ 44
Mr. Peter Yeo, vice president for public policy and public
affairs, United Nations Foundation and executive director,
Better World Campaign.......................................... 53
Mr. Mark Quarterman, senior adviser and director, Program on
Crisis, Conflict, and Cooperation, Center for Strategic and
International Studies.......................................... 59
Mr. Robert Appleton, former chairman, United Nations Procurement
Task Force..................................................... 68
LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE BRIEFING
The Honorable Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Florida, and chairman, Committee on Foreign
Affairs: Prepared statement.................................... 4
Mr. Brett Schaefer: Prepared statement........................... 12
Ms. Claudia Rosett: Prepared statement........................... 34
Mr. Hillel C. Neuer: Prepared statement.......................... 46
Mr. Peter Yeo: Prepared statement................................ 55
Mr. Mark Quarterman: Prepared statement.......................... 61
Mr. Robert Appleton: Prepared statement.......................... 70
APPENDIX
Briefing notice.................................................. 102
Briefing minutes................................................. 103
THE UNITED NATIONS: URGENT PROBLEMS THAT NEED CONGRESSIONAL ACTION
----------
TUESDAY, JANUARY 25, 2011
House of Representatives,
Committee on Foreign Affairs,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 o'clock a.m.,
in room 2272 Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Jean Schmidt
(acting chairman of the committee) presiding.
Mrs. Schmidt. I want to call this briefing to order. This
briefing of the Committee on Foreign Affairs will come to order
at 10:06 in the morning. Unfortunately, our chairwoman, Ileana
Ros-Lehtinen, is unable to be in Washington this week. She is
at her family's side. Her mother is in failing health from
complications with Alzheimer's and so I would ask that we all
remember she and her mother and her family in this very
troubled time. It's very difficult to lose a loved one,
especially a parent. So Ileana asked me to chair this briefing
and I was very gracious and happy to accept.
I will now recognize myself for 7 minutes to read the
chairman's opening statement, which should be considered
attributable to her. As I said, this is her statement.
``As I said at this committee's last hearing on
United Nations reform, `With significant leadership by
the United States, the United Nations was founded on
high ideals. The pursuit of international peace and
development, and the promotion of basic human rights
are core, historic concerns of the American people. At
its best, the U.N. can play an important role in
promoting U.S. interests and international security,
but reality hasn't matched the ideals.'
``Accordingly, U.S. policy on the United Nations
should be based on three fundamental questions: Are we
advancing American interests? Are we upholding American
values? And are we being responsible stewards of
American taxpayer dollars?
``Unfortunately, right now, the answer to all three
questions is `No.'
``Here's some simple math: With no strings attached,
we pay all contributions that the United Nations
assesses to us--22 percent of their annual budget--plus
billions more every year. According to the OMB, in
Fiscal Year 2009, the U.S. contributed well over $6
billion to the U.N.--at a time of high unemployment,
skyrocketing deficits, crushing debt, and other great
economic and fiscal challenges to our nation.
``What have we gotten in return from the U.N.? Here
are a few examples.
``The U.N. Development Program fired a whistle-blower
who revealed that the United Nations Development
Program's office in North Korea was not being managed
properly, and was being exploited by Kim Jong Il's
regime.
``In 2008, a Senate subcommittee found that: The U.N.
Development Program's local staff was selected by the
regime, and UNDP paid staff salaries directly to the
regime--in foreign currency--with no way to know the
funds weren't being diverted to enrich the regime; UNDP
prevented proper oversight and undermined whistleblower
protections by limiting access to its audits and
refusing to submit to the U.N. Ethics Office's
jurisdiction; the regime used its relationship with
UNDP to move money outside North Korea; and UNDP
transferred funds to a company tied to an entity
designated by the U.S. as North Korea's financial agent
for weapons sales.
``The UNDP briefly pulled out of North Korea, but now
they're back, and this time they can select staff from
a list of three candidates hand-picked by the regime,
not just one candidate.
``That's what passes for reform at the U.N.
``U.S. taxpayers are also paying over one-fifth of
the bills for the U.N.'s anti-Israel activities,
including the U.N. Human Rights Council, a rogues'
gallery dominated by human rights violators who use it
to ignore real abuses and instead attack democratic
Israel relentlessly. The council was also the
fountainhead for the infamous Durban Two conference and
the Goldstone Report.
``One more example: An independent Procurement Task
Force uncovered cases of corruption tainting hundreds
of millions of dollars in U.N. contracts. In response,
the U.N. shut down the Task Force. When the head of the
U.N.'s oversight office tried to hire the chairman of
the task force, former U.S. prosecutor Robert Appleton,
as the top investigator, the U.N. Secretary-General
blocked it.
``Well, the U.N. may not want him, but we're pleased
to have Mr. Appleton here today.
``Ironically, the U.N.'s current chief investigator--
who has reportedly failed to pursue cases--is now under
investigation himself for retaliating against whistle-
blowers!
``Ambassador Susan Rice says that the U.S. approach
to the U.N. is, `We pay our bills. We push for real
reform.' Instead, we should be conditioning our
contributions on `reform first, pay later.'
``In the past, Congress has gone along by willingly
paying what successive administrations asked for--
without enough oversight. This is one of the first true
U.N. reform hearings held by this committee in almost 4
years, but it won't be the last.
``Right now, the vast majority of countries at the
U.N. General Assembly pay next to nothing in assessed
contributions, creating a perverse incentive because
those who make decisions don't have to pay the bills.
So I,'' meaning Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, ``am going to
reintroduce legislation that conditions our
contributions--our strongest leverage--on real,
sweeping reform, including moving the U.N. regular
budget to a voluntary funding basis. That way, U.S.
taxpayers can pay for the U.N. programs and activities
that advance our interests and values, and if other
countries want different things to be funded, they can
pay for it themselves.
``This will encourage competition, competence, and
effectiveness.
``The voluntary model works for UNICEF and many other
U.N. agencies, and it can work for the U.N. as a whole.
``One more point: Some of the U.N.'s defenders like
to cite some good U.N. activities to gain support for
funding bad ones. However, we're not here to play
`Let's Make a Deal' with hard-earned U.S. taxpayer
dollars. Each U.N. office, activity, program, and sub-
program, country by country and function by function,
must be justified on its own merits.
``UNICEF programs to help starving children cannot
excuse the United Nations Relief and Works Agency's
having members of Hamas on its payroll. The World
Health Organization's vaccination programs cannot
excuse the Human Rights Council's biased actions.
``My colleagues, reforming the U.N. should not be a
Republican or Democrat issue. It is in the interest of
all Americans. And so I hope and trust that U.N. reform
efforts will be strongly bipartisan.''
That concludes the chairwoman's opening remarks. Following
the opening remarks by our ranking member, we will follow the
protocol of other briefings in this Congress and proceed
directly to oral statements by our presenters.
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. Madam Chairwoman, thank you very much for
yielding me this time and initially let me say that I think all
of us, our thoughts and our prayers are with Ileana as she is
by her mother's side at this very difficult time and understand
why she's not here.
Madam Chairwoman, the flaws, shortcomings, and outrages of
the United Nations, both past and present, are numerous and
sometimes flagrant. These include the Human Rights Council's
obsession with and biased treatment of Israel. As the
chairwoman pointed out, the membership, a rogue's gallery of
human rights abusers who have worked to highjack that
organization's agenda; the anti-Israel vitriol spewed from
innumerable U.N. platforms, led by the Committee on the
Exercise of Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People; the
oil for food scandal; sexual violence perpetrated by U.N.
peacekeepers; the unnecessarily high vacancy rates and other
problems at the Office of Internal Oversight Services; and the
overlapping jurisdiction of agencies, the duplications of
services, and inefficient procurement practices of the U.N. as
a whole
And like almost all Americans, I'm repelled by these
examples of corruption, mismanagement, and bias. But there is
another side to the U.N. ledger and it's wrong to ignore it.
The United Nations often plays an essential role in supporting
American foreign policy and national security interests. From
UNDP's work organizing the recent referendum in South Sudan to
the wonderful work of the UNHCR and its efforts to protect and
resettle refugees to the Security Counsel resolutions imposing
sanctions on Iran, the U.N. acts as a force multiplier for U.S.
interests.
During the Bush administration, we saw a significant rise
in U.N. peacekeeping costs. Why? Because President Bush
understood that having blue helmets on the ground reduced or
eliminated the need for U.S. troops. The U.N. peacekeeping
presence in Haiti is perhaps the clearest example of how the
U.N. systems advances our own interests at a far lower cost
than direct U.S. intervention.
In an analysis of that U.N. force, the Government
Accountability Office concluded it would cost twice as much for
the United States to carry out a similar peacekeeping mission
using our own troops. So what should we do about the many
shortcomings we've referenced? I strongly believe that the best
way to successfully achieve the improvements that are needed is
to work with our allies to constructively engage the U.N. on a
reform agenda. Experience has shown that this strategy is much
more effective than withholding our dues. Not only did previous
attempts to force us into arrears that the U.N. failed to
achieve the significant reforms that have taken place in the
last few years, but they severely weakened our diplomatic
standing. Had we been in such deep arrears last year, does
anyone honestly think it would not have impeded our ability to
get an additional round of Iran sanctions through the Security
Council?
The many reform efforts currently underway in New York,
Geneva, and elsewhere in the U.N. system are a testament to the
strategy developed under both the Bush and Obama
administrations to work with the U.N. to enact common sense
reforms, many of which were laid out in a 2005 report co-
authored by former Speaker Newt Gingrich and Senator George
Mitchell. The fruits of the Gingrich-Mitchell work were clearly
evident with the establishment of the U.N. Ethics Office 4
years ago.
The same can be said about the creation of an independent
Audit Advisory Committee, a body now headed by former U.S.
Comptroller General David Walker, to review the activities of
the Office of International Oversight Services and the U.N.
Board of Auditors.
The recent creation of the U.N. Woman Organization and the
U.N.'s Delivering as One Pilot Initiative have demonstrated the
U.N.'s determination to remedy the fragmentation and
organizational incoherence that have plagued parts of the U.N.
system and has resulted in overlapping mandates, lack of
coordination, waste of resources.
Much more remains to be done to develop a fully transparent
and financially accountable budget process. Strengthen program
monitoring and evaluation, streamline the U.N. Secretariat,
promote a strong culture of ethics and accountability, and
encourage U.N. agencies to work together to achieve greater
cost savings. But make no mistake about it, there has been
progress on the reform front.
I would also like to take a moment to further discuss the
issue of the U.N. Human Rights Council. As we all know, the
council was created to replace the thoroughly discredited Human
Rights Commission. Unfortunately, the previous administration
chose not to constructively engage the council in its early
days, thus ceding the organization to the same block of nations
who take advantage of every opportunity to attack and to
delegitimize Israel in international fora. I supported the
Obama administration's decision to join the council in the
hopes of reforming the organization and transforming it into a
serious voice on human rights in the U.N. system.
In less than 2 years, progress has been made on the
council. The U.S. has used its voice as the leading global
advocate for human rights to push strong council action on a
number of significant human rights abuses from the ethnic
violence in Kyrgyzstan to the recent standoff in Ivory Coast.
And the Obama administration deserves significant credit for
its successful diplomatic campaign to deny Iran a seat on the
council.
Notwithstanding these important accomplishments, the anti-
Israel vitriol that all too often emanates from the council and
the inclusion of serious human rights violators among the
council's membership remains a deep stain on the U.N.'s
reputation.
Madam Chairwoman, in closing, let me just say again that I
agree with you that the U.N. needs significant reforms. Where I
think we differ in our approach is the best way to achieve
those reforms. Based on our experience in recent years, I would
argue that we have a much greater chance of success if we work
inside the U.N. with like-minded nations to achieve the goals
that I think both sides on this committee and in our Congress
share.
With that, I yield back my remaining time.
Mrs. Schmidt. Thank you very much, Congressman Berman. The
chair is pleased to welcome our six presenters. Mr. Brett
Schaefer is the Jay Kingham fellow in International Regulatory
Affairs at the Heritage Foundation's Margaret Thatcher Center
for Freedom, focusing primarily on the U.N. He previously
served at the Pentagon as an assistant for International
Criminal Court Policy from March 2003 to March 2004.
Ms. Claudia Rosett is a journalist-in-residence with the
Foundation for Defense of Democracies. She previously worked
for 18 years at the Wall Street Journal.
Mr. Hillel Neuer is an international lawyer and the
executive director of UN Watch, a human rights NGO in Geneva.
He previously practiced commercial and civil rights litigation
in New York and served as a law clerk for an Israeli Supreme
Court Justice.
We are pleased to welcome Mr. Peter Yeo back to the
committee. He is currently the vice president for public policy
and public affairs at the United Nations Foundation and
executive director of the Foundation's Better World Campaign.
Mr. Yeo previously served for 10 years as the deputy staff
director on the committee's Democratic staff, first for ranking
member Sam Gejdenson, then for our late chairman, Tom Lantos,
and then for our current ranking member, Mr. Berman, while he
was chairman.
Another former Foreign Affairs Committee alum will brief us
today, Mr. Mark Quarterman. He is currently senior adviser and
director of the Program on Crisis, Conflict, and Cooperation at
the Center for Strategic and International Studies. Mr.
Quarterman previously served at the U.N. in a number of
capacities for almost 12 years, including as chief of staff to
the U.N. Commission on Inquiry into the assassination of the
former Prime Minister of Pakistan and in the U.N.'s Office of
Legal Affairs and Department of Political Affairs. Before that,
Mr. Quarterman served as a staff member for our committee's
Africa Subcommittee and as a program office at the Ford
Foundation for South Africa and Namibia.
Last but not least, Mr. Robert Appleton served as the
chairman of the United Nations Procurement Task Force, a
specially-created anti-corruption unit that conducted hundreds
of investigations of fraud and corruption in the U.N. He also
served as a special counsel and deputy chief legal counsel to
the Independent Inquiry Committee investigation into the U.N.
Oil-for-Food Programme, also known as the Volcker Committee.
More recently, he was selected to serve as the lead
investigator for the U.N.'s Office of Internal Oversight
Services, but his selection was not approved, and we'll no
doubt hear more about that later. Mr. Appleton served for about
13 years as an assistant United States attorney in the District
of Connecticut, prosecuting a wide range of national and
international Federal criminal offenses. Mr. Appleton presently
serves as director of investigations and senior legal counsel
in the Office of the Inspector General in the Global Fund to
Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria in Geneva. Mr. Appleton is
presenting his remarks in his personal capacity.
Again, the chair thanks all of our briefers and we remind
them to keep their respective oral summaries to no more than 5
minutes each, and having watched Ms. Ros-Lehtinen for one time,
I know she's adamant about the 5 minute rule. So I might give
you a few seconds over, but don't test the waters.
Anyway, thank you all for coming and right now, I believe,
Mr. Schaefer, we will hear your testimony.
STATEMENT OF MR. BRETT SCHAEFER, JAY KINGHAM FELLOW IN
INTERNATIONAL REGULATORY AFFAIRS, MARGARET THATCHER CENTER FOR
FREEDOM, THE HERITAGE FOUNDATION
Mr. Schaefer. I would like to thank the committee for
inviting me to today's briefing.
The past six decades have seen dozens of reform proposals
both from inside the United Nations and outside. For the most
part, these reforms have been ignored, cosmetic, watered down
or defeated outright. As a result, the U.N. and many of its
affiliated organizations remain hindered by outdated or
duplicative mandates and missions, poor management practices,
ineffectual oversight, and a general lack of accountability.
A key reason for the lack of reform in the U.N. is the
practice of granting equal voting rights to each nation over
budgetary management issues, even though they have vastly
different financial contributions. The bulk of U.N. member
states simply do not pay enough to the U.N. for mismanagement,
corruption, or inefficiency to concern them. For instance,
Sierra Leone is assessed at 0.001 percent of the U.N. regular
budget and 0.0001 percent of the peacekeeping budget. The U.S.,
by contrast, is assessed 22 percent and 27.14 percent,
respectively. Therefore, while Sierra Leone and the dozens of
other organizations with similar assessments pay less than
$35,000 per year to the U.N. in these budgets, the United
States pays billions of dollars.
With this in mind, it's hardly surprising that the United
States cares deeply about how the U.N. is managed and how those
funds are used, but most countries simply don't care very much
about it. Yet, these are the countries that possess most of the
votes. The combined assessments of the 128 least-assessed
countries to the United Nations, enough to pass those budgets,
totals less than 1 percent of the U.N. regular budget and less
than one third of 1 percent to the U.N. peacekeeping budget.
These countries, combined with influential voting blocks can
and do block U.S. attempts to implement reforms and curtail
budgets. The U.S. can't fix this problem with diplomacy alone.
Moreover, while American administrations are often
interested in pressing for reform, the reform agenda is
frequently abandoned in favor of short-term political
objectives. That is why the State Department is rarely
aggressive in pressing for reform at the U.N.
The reluctance to press for U.N. reform occurs under most
administrations, but it has been particularly apparent over the
past 2 years under the Obama administration as it sought to
distance itself from the previous administration's policies at
the U.N. Criticism of the U.N. is rarely uttered by Obama
administration officials and its U.N. reform agenda is notable
only for its lack of detail and enthusiasm.
Luckily, U.N. reform doesn't necessarily require an eager
administration. Past successful U.N. reform efforts have
typically shared one thing in common, congressional involvement
backed by the threat of financial withholding. Congressional
intervention led to U.S. budgetary restraint in the 1980s and
the 1990s. It led the U.N. to create the Office of Internal
Oversight Services, the first Inspector General equivalent in
the history of the United Nations. And it led the U.N. to
reduce U.S. assessments earlier this decade.
Regrettably, Congress has neglected its oversight role in
recent years. Only a handful of U.N. oversight hearings have
been held and U.N. reform legislation has not been seriously
considered. Without Congress spurring action, the U.N. has been
free to disregard calls for reform.
Meanwhile, U.S. contributions are at an all-time high.
Congressional scrutiny is overdue.
Let me finish my statement by highlighting some reforms
that I think deserve particular attention. First, the
discrepancy between obligations and decision making is perhaps
the greatest impediment to U.N. reform. The U.S. unsuccessfully
pressed for weighted voting in the 1980s and got consensus
voting on budgetary issues as a compromise. That compromise has
since been shattered and the U.N. budget has been approved over
U.S. objections. Congress needs to revisit the issue and
consider options to increase the influence of major
contributors over the U.N. budget.
Second, the U.N. regular budget has grown even faster than
the U.S. budget over the past decade. A few things could be
done to curtail that growth and streamline the budget. 1)
reestablishing the zero nominal growth policy for the United
States to the U.N. regular budget which would prevent further
increases in the future and lead to a gradual reduction through
inflation. 2) sunsetting all U.N. mandates and revitalizing the
mandate review. Nearly all U.N. mandates remain unreviewed, but
if the preliminary reports are indicative, up to half of all
U.N. mandates could be outdated or irrelevant.
Finally, the Human Rights Council continues to disappoint.
The key problem with the council is the membership. Congress
should withhold U.S. funding to the council until credible and
serious membership standards are adopted, including forcing
regional groupings to provide competitive slates for elections.
In conclusion, if the United States does not press this
issue and back diplomatic carrots with financial sticks, U.N.
reform will continue to be sound and fury with little
substance. The U.N. is patient. It will publish reports and
promise reforms. Action will always be imminent but rarely
realized. Nothing perseveres like bureaucratic inertia. I have
a whole stack of U.N. reports on my desk to prove the point
that U.N. reform is always promised, but very rarely
implemented.
If Congress wants U.N. reform, it must heed the history and
demand quick action and link specific reforms to financial
withholding. The U.N. may have five official languages, but the
bottom line speaks loudest.
Thank you very much and I look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Schaefer follows:]
Mrs. Schmidt. Thank you very much. You are right on time.
Next we have Ms. Claudia Rosett, journalist-in-residence at the
Foundation for Defense of Democracies. We'll begin when you
begin.
STATEMENT OF MS. CLAUDIA ROSETT, JOURNALIST-IN-RESIDENCE,
FOUNDATION FOR DEFENSE OF DEMOCRACIES
Ms. Rosett. I'm ready to begin. Thank you.
Mrs. Schmidt. Thank you.
Ms. Rosett. My thanks to the committee for the chance to be
here today.
The United Nations is an enormous, opaque, labyrinthine,
and a collective in which the United States, as Brett has just
described, basically sustains the system. The contributions
that the United States make are more than the sum of their
parts. It's not just roughly one quarter of the system-wide
budget, whatever that is. It's also U.S. credibility, gravitas,
the headquarters, things that basically mean the U.S. provides,
in effect, the fixed costs, others hop a ride. And this is a
system which invites waste, fraud, and abuse.
But what I'd like to highlight here today is that the
problem goes well beyond simple theft or waste. The U.N. is not
like a pilfering clerk. It's an organization unlike many which
operates across borders, with immunities, moving large amounts
of goods, personnel, services, and so on. It's basically immune
to censure. It's really under no jurisdiction of local law.
This is a system that invites exploitation and what we have
seen over the years is that the worst of the worst, regimes
like the former regime in Iraq, like North Korea today, become
very good at exploiting this. The problem I would like to
describe is the United States is sustaining a system in which a
lot of harm can be done even without drawing directly on U.S.
money. That, for instance, was Oil-for-Food.
Oil-for-Food did not take U.S. tax dollars. It ran on Iraqi
oil money. But the U.N. via Oil-for-Food, having put sanctions
on Iraq then provided cover and sustained a program which
became the world-wide bonanza of graft. It ended up corrupting
the U.N. itself and corruption thousands--companies around the
world, payments to suicide bombers, purchase of convention
weapons, if not WMD. And the head of the program was alleged,
in the end, to have been on the take for $147,000, peanuts by
U.N. standards, but enough if it's somebody who's running a
significant U.N. program so that it has at least the effect
that he will not blow the whistle.
How do you find out what's going on inside the U.N. with
that kind of leverage? In my experience, it almost always
requires some kind of very energetic investigation. The U.N.
does not readily give information up. In Oil-for-Food, we
discovered a lot because documents spilled out of Baghdad after
the fall of Saddam. In North Korea, it took very energetic
efforts over strenuous objections from the U.N. Development
Program by the then Ambassador for Reform, U.N. Management and
Reform at the U.N., Mark Wallace, who really went to the mat
pointing out troubles, and when this lone whistleblower came
forward who was then fired. And in the end what emerged was
just this incredible nest of malfeasance.
I've described it in my written statement, but you had and
Chairman Schmidt described it in her opening remarks. You had
North Korean employees handling the checkbook and the accounts
in Pyongyang. You had transfers on behalf of other agencies via
an entity tied to North Korean proliferation. You had the
import of dual-use items into North Korea. There's an exhibit
in the back of my written testimony showing you how the
spectrometers, global mapping systems, satellite receiving
stations imported by the U.N. Development Program into North
Korea could have been used to make missiles which is one of
North Korea's big proliferation businesses.
When this all surfaced, UNDP has also been involved in a
Burmese currency fiddle which tells us much. I'm happy to
answer questions on that. It was not broken by the U.N., it was
broken by a blogger who covers the U.N., Matthew Russell Lee.
When the Cash-for-Kim scandal broke in North Korea,
Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon promised a system-wide inquiry,
independent inquiry. He backed off that within a week. It has
never been held. It was a very good idea. As you just heard,
the U.N. issues endless promises of reform. I've made some
recommendations about that in the back. The Secretary-General
was just boasting last week that he actually requires senior
officials now at the U.N. to disclose their financial
information. I have two exhibits in the back of my written
statement which show you what that amounts to. One of them is a
sheet in which you can check a box showing that you choose not
to disclose anything at all. The other is Ban Ki-Moon's
statement which consists of 18 words, nine of which are
Republic of Korea with no price at all. That's public
disclosure.
And I would finally recommend that if there is to be a
debate over withholding funds from the United Nations as a way
of imposing leverage, it would be very useful to keep in mind
that this is an institution which years ago began to regard $1
billion as a rounding error.
Thank you very much and I would be happy to answer your
questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Rosett follows:]
Mr. Smith [presiding]. Thank you very much. Before going to
Mr. Neuer, I just want to note that Walker Roberts is here--we
have a number of former staffers--who was a top staffer for
Chairman Henry Hyde, and Mark Tavlarides, who was chief of
staff for the Human Rights Committee back in the 1980s and I'm
sure there are a few others.
Mr. Berman. They're all here to hear Peter.
Mr. Smith. Exactly. We'll go to Mr. Neuer now.
STATEMENT OF MR. HILLEL C. NEUER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, UN WATCH
Mr. Neuer. Distinguished members of the committee, thank
you for inviting me here today. The urgent problem that I was
to address concerns the state of human rights at the United
Nations. The U.N. Human Rights Council this year undergoes a
review of its first 5 years of work. How has it performed?
Let's first recall the history. In 2005, then U.N.
Secretary-General Kofi Annan called to scrap the old Human
Rights Commission. He explained why. Countries had joined ``not
to strengthen human rights, but to protect themselves against
criticism or to criticize others.'' The Commission was plagued
by politicization and selectivity. It suffered from declining
professionalism and a credibility deficit which ``cast a shadow
upon the reputation of the U.N. system as a whole.''
To remedy these fatal flaws the U.N. created the council 1
year later. The 2006 resolution promised a membership committed
to human rights, that would respond to severe abuses, including
by urgent sessions. Its work would be impartial and
nonselective. Today, 5 years later, we ask, Has the council
redressed the shortcomings of its predecessor? Has it lived up
to its promise?
Let us consider first the council's current members. They
include Bangladesh, China, Cuba, Pakistan, Russia, and Saudi
Arabia. The newest member is Libya under the dictatorship of
Colonel Qaddafi. As measured by Freedom House, 57 percent of
the members fail to meet basic democracy standards.
Mr. Chairman, imagine a jury that includes murderers and
rapists or a police force, run in large part by suspected
murderers and rapists who are determined to stymie
investigation of their crimes. That was said by Kenneth Roth of
Human Rights Watch in 2001, but the analogy applies even more
today.
Second, let's look at the council's response over the past
5 years to the world's worst human rights violations. Here's
what we find. For the one fifth of the world's population
living in China where millions have suffered gross and
systematic repression, for the minority Uighur who have been
massacred, the Tibetans killed, the council adopted not a
single resolution. Its response was silence. For the peaceful,
civic activists, bloggers and dissidents in Cuba, who are
beaten or languish in prison, no resolutions. For the victims
of Iran, massacred by their own government while the Human
Rights Council was actually in session, subjected to torture
rape, and execution, no action. For the women of Saudi Arabia
subjugated, the rape victims, sentenced to lashes, the council
looked away. For the people of Zimbabwe who suffer under the
jackboot of the Mugabe regime, no resolutions.
Mr. Chairman, apart from a handful of exceptions, the U.N.
Human Rights Council in the 5 years of its existence has
systematically turned a blind eye to the world's worst abuses.
It has failed the victims most in need.
You may ask then, What does it do with its time? I will
tell you. To an astonishing degree, the council has reserved
its moral outrage for demonizing one single country, Israel,
the only liberal democracy in the Middle East.
Consider one, in total, the council has adopted some 50
resolutions condemning countries, of these 35 have been on
Israel, i.e., 70 percent. All have been one-sided condemnations
that grant impunity to Hamas and Hezbollah terror and to their
state sponsor, the Islamic Republic of Iran.
Two, built into the council's permanent agenda is a special
item on Israel. No other country is singled out in this
fashion.
Three, the council's machinery of fact-finding missions
exist almost solely to attack Israel. The most notorious
example is the Goldstone Report, a travesty of justice that
excoriated Israel and exonerated Hamas. This was not surprising
given that the mission operated according to a prejudicial
mandate, a predetermined verdict, and with members like
Christine Chinkin, who declared Israel guilty in advance.
Four, out of ten special sessions that criticize countries,
six were on Israel, four for the rest of the world combined.
Five, the council has a permanent investigator, Richard
Falk, mandated solely to report on ``Israel's violations of the
principles of international law.'' Mr. Falk also happens to be
one of the leading proponents in this country of the conspiracy
theory that the 9/11 terrorist attacks were an inside job
orchestrated by the U.S. Government. Now in response to our
protest last week, I'm pleased to report that yesterday the
Secretary-General sent me a letter stating that he condemns the
preposterous remarks of Mr. Falk and regards him as an affront
to the memory of the 3,000 victims that perished that day. We
call on Mr. Ban Ki-Moon to take action to remove Mr. Falk
immediately.
Mr. Chairman, the promises of the council's founding
resolution improved membership, action for victims, an end to
politicization and selectivity have not been kept. On the
contrary, if we consider the fatal flaws identified by Kofi
Annan in the old Commission, every single one applies equally
today to the new council.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Neuer follows:]
Mr. Smith. Mr. Neuer, thank you very much for your
testimony and having worked with you, thank you for your
leadership at the U.N.
I'd like to now recognize Mr. Yeo.
STATEMENT OF MR. PETER YEO, VICE PRESIDENT FOR PUBLIC POLICY
AND PUBLIC AFFAIRS, UNITED NATIONS FOUNDATION AND EXECUTIVE
DIRECTOR, BETTER WORLD CAMPAIGN
Mr. Yeo. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Ranking Member
Berman, for inviting me to appear before the committee today.
Right now, across the globe, the U.N. stands by America as
we struggle for democracy, human rights, and world prosperity.
We need the U.N. to run smoothly because we have a stake in
where the U.N. is headed. We need the U.N. to continue, even
hurry, on its current course straight toward a more stable and
prosperous world that serves America's strategic, economic,
humanitarian, and political interests.
As we meet here today, votes in Sudan are being counted to
determine whether South Sudan should secede. America has
strongly backed this process with enormous diplomatic and
financial contribution and in that, we are joined by the United
Nations which has allocated money, more than 10,000 U.N.
workers, peacekeepers, and volunteers, to support the
referendum. The Cote d'Ivoire, where the United States has long
sought peace and stability, the entire U.N. system holds fast
for democracy and against genocide.
The Security Council has called on the nation's defeated
President to recognize the results of the referendum and U.N.
peacekeepers now stand as the sole line of protection for Cote
d'Ivoire's democratically-elected President.
The U.N. has partnered with America to battle the nuclear
threat Iran poses. Just last summer, the U.N. Security Council
imposed its toughest ever sanctions on Iran. Defense Secretary
Gates heaped praised on the U.N. resolution and EU and others
have joined America in putting in place tough sanctions that
are having an economic impact on the Iranian Government.
In Afghanistan, the U.N. has joined American forces to
promote security and battle the rise of extremist forces. The
U.N. provided support for Afghanistan's independent electoral
authorities and has facilitated the removal of land mines and
weapons, making Afghanistan safer for civilians and American
forces.
And not far from our shores, the U.N. battles mightily to
stabilize, reconstruct earthquake-shattered Haiti, a country
with close ties to America. U.N. peacekeepers patrol the
streets, provide security to many displaced Haitians, train
Haitian police, and feed nearly 2 million Haitians a day.
And right here at home, the U.N. is promoting American
economic interests in creating jobs. For every dollar invested
by the U.S. in the U.N., American firms receive approximately
$1.50 in U.N. contracts and other benefits.
As we've heard from the witnesses who preceded me, the U.N.
is not a perfect institution, but it serves a near-perfect
purpose, to bolster American interests from Africa to the
Western Hemisphere and to allow our nation to share the burden
of promoting international peace and stability.
The U.N. now has greatly improved its ability to identify
and correct waste, fraud, and abuse. The General Assembly
created the Independent Audit Advisory Committee, a move
recommended by the Gingrich-Mitchell U.N. Task Force which is
now headed by David Walker, the former U.S. Comptroller and
head of GAO. The Secretary-General recently appointed a
Canadian with decades of auditing and oversight experience as
Under Secretary-General for Internal Oversight Services. The
U.N. has also moved aggressively to strengthen its ethical
culture. A U.N. Ethics Office is in place and all U.N. funds
and programs created individual ethics offices or agreed to use
the Secretariat's Ethics Office. Led by a U.N. attorney, the
U.N. Ethics Office oversees the new financial disclosure
statements required by U.N. employees above a certain level and
with fiduciary responsibilities.
Since 2007, the U.N. has mandated ethics and integrity
training for all U.N. staff members.
Over the past 2 years, the U.N. has also taken significant
steps to ensure that it has the most productive and effective
work force possible. The U.N. created a professional and
independent system made up of 15 judges to address employment
issues. The U.N. decision to join the Human Rights Council has
also produced tangible results. The U.S. led 55 other countries
in a successful effort to criticize Iran for its human rights
violations. Effective U.S. diplomacy has also improved the
council's ability to address specific countries of concern.
Nevertheless, some of the most challenging and serious human
rights violations continue to go unaddressed and the council
itself places undo focus on Israel.
As with any public institution, fine tuning the operation
is a continual process, but the U.N. is a very different
institution today than it was just 5 or 6 years ago. The U.N.
has implemented most of the reform recommendations made by the
congressionally-mandated Task Force on the U.N. and by Paul
Volcker's Independent Investigation Commission. But further
progress will not happen unless the United States is at the
table pressing for changes. And that means we must pay our dues
to the U.N. on time and in full without threats of withholding
our contribution. When we act otherwise we send a strong and
provocative signal that we are more interested in tearing the
U.N. down than making it better and going it alone, rather than
working with all sides.
Over the last few years, as Congress has paid our dues
without drama and delay, we have been able to work well with
the U.N. to move forward on many important management changes.
And polls tell us that this cooperation is what the American
people want and bipartisan research released by BWC this
October, 63 percent of Americans support payment of U.S. dues
to the U.N. on time and in full and 70 percent felt the same
way about U.N. peacekeeping dues. But in the end, we need to
our U.N. dues, not just because it's popular, but because it's
necessary, necessary to maintain a healthy U.N., ready to stand
by America and our deep and abiding interest in peace,
stability, and democracy around the world.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Yeo follows:]
Mr. Smith. Mr. Yeo, thank you very much.
Mr. Quarterman.
STATEMENT OF MR. MARK QUARTERMAN, SENIOR ADVISER AND DIRECTOR,
PROGRAM ON CRISIS, CONFLICT, AND COOPERATION, CENTER FOR
STRATEGIC AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES
Mr. Quarterman. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Berman,
distinguished members of the committee, I'm honored to have
been invited to appear before you today.
As the result of my service with the United Nations, I'm
well aware of the organization's strengths and weaknesses, as
well as of its vital role in the world. The U.N. makes real
contributions to the global good on a daily basis and is often
the first responder in times of natural or man-made disaster.
The World Food Programme feeds 90 million people in 73
countries. The Office of the High Commissioner for Refugees
supports 34 million forcibly displaced. UNICEF provides
immunizations to more than half of the world's children.
Peacekeeping has often been referred to as a force
multiplier for the United States, but I believe that in a
broader sense, the U.N. is an influence multiplier for the
United States as well. And it plays this role in three ways.
First, the U.N. operates in places where the United States
might have concerns, but not fundamental interests. An example
includes Sudan where the U.N. helped to keep the peace and
played a central role in the recent successful referendum. This
provides for burden and cost sharing. It allows U.S. interests
to be addressed without U.S. troops being deployed.
Second, the U.N. talks to people and parties the United
States will not or cannot talk to. In Sudan, for example, along
with the African Union, the U.N. has directly applied pressure
on the regime in Khartoum to allow the referendum to go
forward.
Third, the U.N.'s legitimacy and credibility around the
world enables it to carry out tasks that governments alone are
not able to do. Thus, the Pakistani Government asked the United
Nations to undertake an inquiry into the assassination of
Benazir Bhutto, their former prime minister, which was my last
job at the United Nations and something I was honored to do.
The U.S. remains the most influential member of the U.N.
and it does more to set the agenda of the organization than any
other nation. Examples of the United States being outvoted in
the U.N. come largely from the General Assembly, where the
principle of one member, one vote pertains, but where
resolutions are not binding on member states.
However, the United States has a significant and powerful
voice in the Security Council, in part because of its status as
a permanent member with a veto and in part because of the
initiative that America traditionally and consistently takes in
the council. For example, the last 2 years of the Bush
administration was among the most active and productive periods
for the Security Council and resulted in groundbreaking
resolutions.
An emblematic earlier example of U.S. leadership is the
skillful diplomacy deployed by the administration of George
H.W. Bush in response to the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. A more
recent example of leadership in the council was the Obama
administration's successful effort to place serious sanctions
on Iran.
U.S. leadership and influence in the U.N. results in part
from its status as the largest contributor to the organization.
We must not return to the days of withholding funds as some
have suggested. Withholding funds hurts the U.N. and doesn't
advance U.S. interests. This does not mean that the United
States should not take a close look at management and budget
issues in the U.N. Congress and the Executive Branch must
ensure that America's contributions which are substantial are
used effectively, efficiently, and for the purposes intended
and approved.
It's necessary for the United States to be actively engaged
to exercise its influence in the U.N. fully. The Human Rights
Council is a good example of this. There should be no doubt
that the Human Rights Council needs reform. Reasonable people
can disagree about whether the United States should engage or
stay out. However, only by being at the table can the United
States bring about the changes necessary to assist it to evolve
into a more credible vehicle to protect and promote human
rights around the world.
No one is fully satisfied with multilateralism. Having
working in the U.N. I saw that firsthand and felt that. It's
hard. Multilateralism is very hard and we use it to tackle the
toughest issues of the global commons, most of which touch on
fundamental national interests of many countries. It requires
bargaining, negotiation, and compromise. And it requires that
in a way that's not unlike the legislative process we see in
this venerable institution. While most of us are dissatisfied,
we have to realize that there is no effective alternative
method of dealing with transnational problems that do not
respect borders and that have the potential of significantly
affecting our lives.
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Berman, distinguished members
of the committee, as I stated at the outset, and as has been
stated, I served with the U.N. for 12 years. I served Because
of the organization's ideals and I am proud that they were
profoundly shaped and influenced by American ideals. I have
friends and close colleagues at the U.N. who died in the line
of duty in furtherance of the aims of the U.N. charter, for the
global good. I honor them for their service and am honored by
my time in service at the U.N. I believe in the United Nations
and I want us to work together to help the U.N. to live up to
its ideals. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Quarterman follows:]
Mrs. Schmidt [presiding]. Thank you.
And now we will hear from Mr. Appleton.
STATEMENT OF MR. ROBERT APPLETON, FORMER CHAIRMAN, UNITED
NATIONS PROCUREMENT TASK FORCE
Mr. Appleton. I'd like to thank the committee for the
invitation to appear today. I'm deeply honored for the
opportunity.
From 2006 to 2008, I served as the head of the United
Nations Procurement Task Force, the PTF, a special independent
anti-corruption investigations unit the U.N. created in the
wake of the Oil-for-Food scandal, the responsibility to
investigate fraud and corruption in the operations of the U.N.
Secretariat, throughout the world, which included all of its
peacekeeping missions and overseas offices. I reported to the
Under Secretary-General of OIOS.
The PTF was temporary, formed for specific purpose and
independent of the U.N. General Assembly for its funding. Over
3 years, this 26-person investigation unit comprised of
lawyers, former prosecutors, white collar fraud specialists,
and forensic accountants from 14 countries under my direction
conducted hundreds of corruption investigations, issued 36
major reports, complete with findings, conclusions and an
aggregate total of 187 recommendations which included referrals
to national authorities for prosecution, legal advice and
proposals based on our previous experience to recover losses
and damages and recommendations to pursue misconduct charges
against staff that violated the rules and regulations of the
organization or committed fraud or corruption.
Through these investigations we identified at least 20
major fraud schemes, hundreds of millions in losses and waste
and more than $1 billion in tainted contracts. Forty-seven
contractors were debarred for corruption and the PTF marked the
first time within the U.N. that the external investigations of
those conducting business with the U.N. were properly and
thoroughly investigated. A vendor sanctions panel and framework
began a function and worked well.
In those cases in which the PTF found fraud or other
illegality, the results were largely substantiated by national
courts. In an audit that was conducted by the PTF's operations
in 2008 by the U.N. Board of Auditors found our methods
appropriate, staff well qualified, and its existence served as
a deterrent to fraud and corruption. A number of prosecutions
by national authorities resulted from or were supported by the
PTF, all of it explained herein. Many more could have been
pursued.
Nevertheless, much success was achieved despite the
impediments. One of our most significant cases in the Southern
District of New York, a senior procurement official and an
agent of a large U.N. vendor were convicted after a 2-month
trial engaging in $100 million fraud, collusion and bribery
scheme in connection with a series of U.N. contracts. The
procurement official was subsequently sentenced to 8\1/2\ years
imprisonment and the evidence for this case was principally
gathered by the PTF as contained in its report.
However, despite the confirmation of the accuracy of the
findings of the PTT in many cases, most unfortunately, the
efforts of the PTF were opposed by certain Member State
delegations who came to the defense of either citizens or
officials who were nationals or their companies or citizens.
The U.N. administration accepted the PTF, but showed lethargy
in moving forward on many of its recommendations to pursue
matters in civil courts or charging wrongdoers with misconduct.
Prior to the expiration of the PTF at the end of 2008, the
General Assembly at the behest of a Member State who opposed
their efforts commissioned an audit of the PTF which ultimately
found that we were compliant with U.N. rules, regulations, and
standards and did not selectively target individuals, regions,
or countries and the staff was well qualified.
Hostility to the unique status and independence of the PTF
for Member States who opposed its investigations finally led to
the PTF's demise. In 2008, those Member States were able to
successfully block further funding by the unit and the PTF was
forced to close. Despite an admonition that the expertise and
staff were to be incorporated into the OIOS, that did not
happen. Despite this, PTF's efforts did not diminish and the
professionalism to accomplish as much as possible did not wane.
In the final months of the PTF's tenure, we identified--we
completed five major corruption reports that had identified
significant fraud and corruption, including a report on fraud
in Iraq, significant and pervasive fraud in elections, roads,
and rebuilding in Afghanistan, fraud and corruption in the
Economic Commission of Afraid, and in several matters involving
high value contracts for transportation in Africa. Despite
that, as far as I am aware, and despite the recommendation,
significant follow up has only been made in one case.
The vision of the Under Secretary-General at the time for
Financial Crimes Unit has been scuttled in place of a
nondescript unit simply known as Unit 5 which until recently
had but a few investigators and none with serious white collar
fraud experience. At one time, investigators were informed that
they were not going to investigate parties external to the
organization, including tens of thousands of contractors that
do business with the organization. Even worse, the former PTF
investigators were subject to harassment and retaliation. Some
were even the subject of investigations themselves for wholly
spurious reasons, and when they were cleared by independent
entities, no public mention was made of this fact.
In short, all the achievements and advancements that were
made by the PTF have since lapsed following its conclusion and
the stark reality is that the ills that the U.N. experienced in
the wake of the Oil-for-Food scandal are now distant memories
in the halls of U.N. buildings and unless serious action takes
place, there is no question history will repeat itself.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Appleton follows:]
Mrs. Schmidt. Thank you very much, and before I give myself
my allotted 5 minutes, I think Mr. Berman wants to make a
statement regarding his committee's side.
Mr. Berman. Thank you very much. Simply to point out that
this is a briefing, not a hearing because the committee has not
yet formally organized. Both sides have a number of new members
and it's my intention to wait until that organizational meeting
to introduce our side of the new members' group. We're glad to
have all these members, but we'll wait until the organizational
meeting which is, as I understand it, now will not occur until
after we come back from the recess in 2 weeks.
Mrs. Schmidt. We wanted to get that piece of housekeeping
out of the way.
Okay, I'm going to budget myself 5 minutes, which means I'd
like your answers to be very short and very concise.
Mr. Yeo and Mr. Quarterman, you have talked about how
important it is for the United States to pay our assessed dues
in full, but you've worked in Congress and you know the biggest
leverage we have with the Executive Branch is the power of the
purse. Past history contradicts your arguments, like the 1990s,
when we got substantial reform with the Helms-Biden agreement,
which conditioned payment of past dues on specific key reforms.
But I'd like to ask all of our briefers: If the U.N. agencies
and other Member States know that we're going to pay our
assessed contribution in full, no matter what, why on earth
would they agree to real reforms? And the second part: So
doesn't simple facts and logic call precisely for using our
contributions as leverage and not just as paying our dues in
full? I'm going to give you about 20 seconds each to answer
that.
Mr. Schaefer?
Mr. Schaefer. Well, the short answer is that the U.N.
regards U.S. assessments as an entitlement. They don't think
that the United States should use those assessments as leverage
and they resist reform in general. As I mentioned in my oral
statement, the U.N. is nothing but patient. It is willing to
outlast and wait for certain individuals to turn their
attention to other matters. And you have to tie financial
leverage if you want to get the U.N.'s attention. I mentioned a
number of specific reforms in my written statement and I'd like
it submitted for the record, if I could.
Mrs. Schmidt. Mrs. Rosett?
Ms. Rosett. There are two levers I have seen have any
effect, shame and money. Money is far more powerful. The two
are linked and the thing that I think does matter and should be
done of the main focuses right away is we endlessly talk about
transparency at the U.N. It is an endless game in which it is
promised and again I refer you to that financial disclosure
form where they disclosed nothing. And the Secretary-General
boasts about it.
There are things, especially in the digital age, that are
both important for security reasons, important for information,
and important for any reform. There should be enormous pressure
for the U.N. to actually produce intelligible, consolidated
databases. If you ask everyone in this room what is the U.N.'s
system-wide budget you will get answers where actually the
rounding errors are $5 billion. That's strange. That needs
remedy.
Mrs. Schmidt. Thank you.
Ms. Rosett. Thank you.
Mrs. Schmidt. Mr. Neuer?
Mr. Neuer. We've always supported the United States paying
its fair share of the dues. There's no question that U.N.
agencies that are voluntary are known and U.S. diplomats will
tell you to be far more accountable and to operate better. It's
something that we see in Geneva regularly.
In addition, there are, of course, U.N. agencies such as
the Division on the Palestinian Affairs which gets some $5, $6
million every biennial budget that clearly ought to be anti-
funded.
Mrs. Schmidt. Mr. Yeo?
Mr. Yeo. Over the past 5 to 6 years you've seen concrete
changes in the way the U.N. is run whether it's in terms of
ethics, oversight, personnel, all of which have occurred
without any legislative threat between dues and reform, so we
do not need the threat of withholding dues to actually make
something happen at the U.N. to make it a more efficient
institution.
Second of all, 70 percent of all of America's assessed
contributions to the U.N. each year are for U.N. peacekeeping.
As a permanent member of the Security Council, we must actively
support the creation and the change of any U.N. peacekeeping
mission. So we already have more power than 187 other states at
the U.N. that do not have the veto.
Mrs. Schmidt. Thank you. Mr. Quarterman?
Mr. Quarterman. Thank you very much. The U.S. has multiple
needs at the U.N. It needs, of course, to oversee the use of
its funds to make sure that those funds are used effectively,
to make sure the U.N. is run effectively. It also has
diplomatic needs. The United Nations, as Mr. Yeo pointed out,
puts peacekeeping missions in the field, carries out a variety
of other tasks as well. The U.S. has substantial influence over
the shape and organization and deployment of peacekeeping
missions, but it needs to--but I've seen that U.S. influence
has lessened when the United States has not contributed and the
diplomatic atmosphere is less positive.
Mrs. Schmidt. Thank you. Mr. Appleton?
Mr. Appleton. Thanks, very briefly, it's the only
legitimate, real tool that can be used and it's what most
officials inside the U.N. Secretariat are most fearful of. And
the irony is that the fear of bad news is and its possible
effect on donations is the reason why the organization is not
transparent. Thank you.
Mrs. Schmidt. Thank you. And in keeping with my policy of a
firm 5 minutes. I've got 17 seconds left, so I'm going to yield
back my balance and give Mr. Berman his 5 minutes.
Mr. Berman. Well, thank you very much, Madam Chairwoman and
I thank all of you for coming and for your excellent testimony.
I found a great deal o fit very interesting and educational.
Mr. Schaefer touches on an issue that I think we have to cope
with, the notion that 128 of the member countries pay about 1
percent of the total U.N. regular budget and can drive in a
non-consensus budget process. The thing is something that I
think we do have to come to grips with.
But Mr. Yeo's recent comment is--the comment he just made,
that 70 percent of American expenditures that are assessed, go
to the peacekeeping where no peacekeeping occurs if the United
States doesn't want it to occur because those are ordered by
the Security Council and we have a veto there.
It adds a little context to what you were saying, Mr.
Schaefer. I also find your testimony useful in that it told me
things I had no idea that there were these regional commissions
drawing and expending apparently significant sums of money and
work that I have no idea what they do and I've never heard
anything about them before. So I thank you for that.
But I'd like to ask--and the other thing I might note
though is if I listen to the harshest critics on this panel
regarding the U.N., apparently nothing that the U.N. does do
they find to be positive. It did seem to be the glass is
completely empty sort of position.
Mr. Neuer, I'd like to ask you a couple of questions. Do
you agree with the opening statement essentially that the
United States should not have joined the Human Rights Council?
That's sort of a yes or no question.
Mr. Neuer. Thank you. We welcomed the U.S. joining provided
that they would do certain things.
Mr. Berman. Do you think that the United States should get
off that council right now?
Mr. Neuer. No, we have not taken that position and we
continue to urge the United States to do the things necessary.
Mr. Berman. Do you think the United States should withhold
the amount of dues one assumes is being spent by the Human
Rights Council or a proportionate share of that dues?
Mr. Neuer. It's not something we've taken a position on.
Mr. Berman. You're not advocating that?
Mr. Neuer. We haven't taken a position on that at this
time.
Mr. Berman. Okay. Do you think the U.S. role has produced
some useful changes at the Human Rights Council?
Mr. Neuer. Yes, there have been some changes in tone. One
of them is described in my prepared testimony regarding, for
example, defending the rights of NGOs and of course, the United
States has stood with Israel. One example is something that
happened today regarding the regional groups where the
Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon was addressing an Assembly in
Geneva of all member states and Israel being excluded from any
of the regional groups in Geneva, while it is a member of the
western group in New York, it is excluded in Geneva. It was not
represented when those five groups made their statements. The
United States' mission stood for principal, stood with Israel
disassociating itself from the western group's statement
because Israel was excluded and discriminated against in that
fashion. That's, of course, something that out to be saluted.
Mr. Berman. In fact, if you don't mind, I'd like to quote
in my remaining time that part of your prepared testimony that
you weren't able to give because you summed it up. ``The
council's abysmal record''--and I'm quoting you--``comes in
spite of the determined efforts of a few stakeholders. In this
regard, we commend the dedicated work of the U.S. delegation in
Geneva. We have had the privilege to interact with Ambassador
King, Ambassador Donahoe, and their colleagues, and we greatly
appreciate their leadership and support. When UN Watch brought
victims of Libyan torture to testify before the council, a
string of repressive regimes interrupted and sought to silence
them. The U.S. delegation spoke out and successfully defended
the victims' right to speak. We equally appreciate the
important work of Ambassador Barton and his colleagues at
ECOSOC in defending the rights of NGOs'' of which your
organization is one. So I appreciate you sharing this
information and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mrs. Schmidt. Thank you to my good colleague from
California and now I'd like to turn it over to my good
colleague from New Jersey, Mr. Smith, subcommittee chairman on
Africa Global Health and Human Rights.
Mr. Smith. I thank my good friend, the distinguished chair
from Ohio, for yielding and welcome to the panelists. Thank you
for your testimony.
You know, last week, Hu Jintao evaded any meaningful
accountability for presiding over some of the most egregious
human rights abuses and violations in the world. By Friday, the
press in China and I read much of the press were calling it a
master stroke of diplomacy. At a press conference on Thursday,
President Obama offered what the Washington Post called in its
editorial President Obama makes Hu Jintao look good on rights'
excuses for Chinese human rights violations. He said ``China
has a different culture.'' Yes, it has a different culture. ``A
wonderful culture.'' The people of China as expressed in
Charter 08, desperately want human rights to be protected and
tens of thousands of people languish in the Laogai simply
because they wanted democracy and human rights protected,
including Lu Xiaobo, the 2010 Nobel Peace Prize winner.
President said they have a different political system. Yes,
it's a dictatorship. And they rule by guns and force and
torture. So those excuses were at best lame and I think they
were very, very enabling and the press in China clearly shows
that.
But for the U.N.'s part, frankly, they have failed
repeatedly; the Human Rights Council, CEDAW, the treaty body,
which should have and continues to not hold China accountable.
The Convention on the Rights of the Child treaty body has
failed to hold them to account. In instance after instance,
China, except for people like Manfred Nowak who is a great
piece of torture in China, it is largely just brushed aside and
the world community looks askance at China's egregious
violations of human rights. Nowhere is this more egregious in
my view than in the 30-year program known as the one-child-per-
couple policy where brothers and sisters are illegal, where
forced abortion is pervasive. It is every woman's story to be
coerced into having an abortion or an involuntary
sterilization.
I met with Pong Piun, a woman who ran the program in the
1990s and all she kept telling me was that the UNFPA is here
and they see no coercion. Last week, Speaker Boehner asked Hu
Jintao whether or not--about forced abortion--and what did Hu
Jintao say? There's no forced abortions in China. When you
deny, deny, deny and lie and deceive as they do and that's
enabled by the UNFPA which has a program there and trains
family planning cadres, that makes the UNFPA complicit in these
crimes against women and crimes against humanity.
Let me just mention a few final points and Mr. Yeo, you
might want to speak to this. Ted Turner, in December at the
Cancun meeting on global climate change, said that the U.N. or
the world needs a one child per couple policy, again, brothers
and sisters are illegal in China. The only way you enforce it
is with coercion, heavy fines, and of course, this crime
against humanity which the Nazis were held to account for at
the Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal as a crime against humanity
because they practiced forced abortion against Polish women.
Ted Turner said we need one-child-per-couple policy. Upon
questioning, he said I don't really know the intricacies as to
how it is implemented. Are you kidding?
Mr. Yeo, you might want to speak to that. I have held 27
hearings on human rights abuse in China alone, most of those
with a heavy emphasis on this terrible attack against women.
This is the worst human rights violation of women's rights ever
and we have been largely silent. The U.N. has been totally
silent. Beyond that, they've been complicit. So if you could
speak to that and Mr. Yeo, you might want to speak to it first.
Mr. Yeo. Sure. Thank you, Congressman, first of all, for
your passionate interest in this issue. You and I completely
agree that a coercive abortion, coercive family planning and
forced sterilization is absolutely outrageous. It has no place
in any type of family planning programs anywhere in the world.
So we 100 percent agree on this.
Let me make two comments. First of all, in the context of
UNFPA's work in China, they have repeatedly indicated to the
Chinese that they oppose the coercive nature of the one-child
policy and in the counties in which UNFPA was operating under
its previous plan, the abortion rate went down, forced
sterilization rate went down, and the rate at which people had
access to voluntary family planning went up.
What's happening now in the context of China is UNFPA is
working directly with the Chinese Government to continue to
emphasize the voluntary nature of their program.
Mr. Smith. I'm almost out of time. Let me say very briefly,
that is contested. And let me also say for everyone, we need to
be considering the missing girls. Chai Ling, the great leader
of the Tianneman Square, activist movement, who thankfully got
out of China, she's running a group called All Girls Allowed,
trying to raise the issue of the missing girls. One hundred
million is one estimate. The disproportionate between males and
females, completely attributable to the one-child policy. A
terrible, terrible crime of gender.
Mrs. Schmidt. Thank you very much to my good friend from
New Jersey and to my other good friend from New Jersey--is this
a New Jersey thing going on here?
Mr. Sires, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Sires. Thank you very much. You know for all the
positives and the strengths of the U.N., I think it's
overshadowed by its weaknesses and I'm not in favor of reducing
money for the U.N., but I'll tell you, I'm getting very close.
As I look at this Human Rights Council, I'm a Cuban-
American. I lived in Cuba until I was 11 years old. I saw Che
Guevara set up the firing squads. I see what's going on with
the prisoners in jail. I saw Orlando Zapata die. I read all
about it. I read what they do to the Women in White. I see what
they do with Israel. I see that we have Alan Gross in jail for
over a year. And the resolutions don't seem to come up. And
what is the answer to reform? What do they do? They elect the
Ambassador from Cuba as vice president of the council.
My friends, it's not that we need reform. It's broken. You
should throw it in the East River the whole committee. I mean
it is just shameful that you have a Human Rights Commission
that elects these people and all they do is beat up on the only
democracy that we have and make a mockery of the human rights
conditions in Cuba.
So when you talk about reform, it is just so dysfunctional.
It's so shameful. I don't even know how they can sit in a
committee and have the Vice President talk about human rights.
I believe they crank up the propaganda machine, 128
counties on any resolution, they vote against the interests of
the United States all the time. So I guess I am frustrated as
my colleague from New Jersey is. It's turning into a tool to
beat up on this country. It's turning into a tool to protect
themselves from criticism on human rights, so how do you reform
it? Can anybody tell me? Other than--and I'm not advocating
taking the money away, but I tell you, I'm getting very close.
Peter, my friend?
Mr. Yeo. Thank you for your question. Obviously, Cuba's
human rights record, I couldn't agree with you more in terms of
how dismal it is. I would just note though that since the
United States has rejoined the council, Cuban influence over
certain decisions has decreased significantly and in fact, Cuba
opposed the creation of a special rapporteur in terms of
freedom of assembly and was overruled on that move.
Second of all, since the United States has rejoined the
council, the council itself has spoken out on important human
rights issues around the world, and has done so even over Cuban
objections and the objections of other countries. By being at
the table, the United States can stand up for our allies, can
stand up for human rights. If we're not there, our voice goes
away. And so the United States is an imperative to use the
Human Rights Council as a way for us to stand up for human
rights and for us to stand up for democracy.
Mr. Sires. Mr. Schaefer, will you comment on that?
Mr. Schaefer. The council hasn't passed a resolution on
Cuba.
Mr. Sires. I've been a rights advocate for 48 years and I
never heard a resolution yet.
Mr. Schaefer. The human rights advocates that go before the
council are repeatedly abused and interrupted, intimidating
them from speaking freely by Cuba and its allies on the
council. The council is broken and a big part of the problem is
the membership. The membership needs to change. There is a
review that is mandatory this year for considering reforms to
the council to try and improve it. And there needs to be
serious membership criteria to keep countries like Cuba from
getting on the council and influencing unduly its agenda.
Mr. Sires. How do you do that when they have so much
influence, some of these other countries? How do you keep these
people away from this committee?
Mr. Schaefer. Well, one way to do it is to force regional
groups to offer competitive slates. I'm not saying that Cuba
wouldn't get elected, but if there is actually a competitive
election the chances of Cuba getting elected are diminished,
and other countries with reprehensible human rights records as
well.
Mr. Sires. This is an election that elected the Vice
President. This reminds me of the election in Cuba. Castro gets
98 percent of the vote, but nobody else runs.
Mr. Schaefer. If you take a look at the elections they
have, most regional groups offer clean slates, meaning the only
number of candidates that are open slots on the council are put
forward. And so essentially it's a rigged election. You need to
have competition so that viable candidates with better human
rights records are on the ballot and hopefully they would draw
more support.
Another thing is that the Human Rights Council is funded
through the U.N. regular budget so it's an assessed
contribution. The U.S. can symbolically withhold the U.S.
proportional amount of that, but it gets spread throughout the
U.N. regular budget and so the council never really feels it.
We need to spin those types of activities out of the U.N.
regular budget so that if Congress is upset with the conduct of
the council or its actions, it can directly target the council
itself for the financial leverage that it has available to it.
Mr. Sires. Thank you very much. Thank you for your time.
Mrs. Schmidt. Thank you very much. And now I will turn to
my good friend from California on the Subcommittee on Oversight
and Investigations, the chairman. It's your turn, sir.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Thank you very much. I've been trying to
get a handle on how much money we're talking about. One of you
referenced that it was--when you take a look at the overall
picture and the very different things that we're talking about
are part of the U.N. that was close to $5 billion. What are we
talking about here? How much are we spending--or how much is
the budget of all of these U.N.--yes?
Mr. Schaefer. Congressman, that's an excellent question and
to be honest with you, nobody really had an answer until fairly
recently. Congress actually mandated that OMB consolidate all
of the monies that the United States gives to the United
Nations' organizations in general and the first report on that
was produced by OMB in 2005. The most recent report by OMB said
that the United States gave total $6.3-plus billion to the
United Nations' system in 2009. The legislation----
Mr. Rohrabacher. Excuse me, is that what the United States
gave or is that the budget for all----
Mr. Schaefer. That's what the United States gave in 2009.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Oh.
Mr. Schaefer. The best estimate I've seen for the entire
U.N. system including regular budget and extra budgetary
figures was $36 billion and that was produced in the U.N.
report in 2010.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Okay, and anyone else on the panel have
more to add to that?
Mr. Yeo. I would just add that in terms of U.S.
contributions, the 2.1 that is sent every year in terms of our
assessed contributions to peacekeeping is all done with
American approval through the concept of the Security Council.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Yes, through the Security Council which
also I might add China has a veto over anything that can be
done from the Security Council. So let's add that to America's
approval.
Yes, ma'am?
Ms. Rosett. The answer is actually nobody knows. If you
call the Secretariat which I do periodically and ask them what
is the U.N. system-wide budget, the answer they do not even
systematically keep track. And different agencies take in
different amounts. The OMB figures are missing some items. So
even the U.S. $6.3 billion answer isn't obvious.
Mr. Rohrabacher. All right.
Ms. Rosett. The U.N. has gone in for public/private
partnerships, trust funds. That's why I'm saying what is needed
is a consolidated, clear database that really tells you not
just what they're budgeting but what they're spending, because
right now--some years ago, former chairman Henry Hyde said he
could not get a handle on the total budget.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Let's just note that the chairman of this
committee told us earlier, Mr. Berman, that he didn't even know
about these regional U.N. operations and he's chairman of the
Foreign Affairs Committee, for Pete's sake. I would say that
we've got some work to do if we're going to be representing the
interest of the American people. So maybe $6.3 billion, maybe
more, out of a possible $36 billion budget--how much of that is
of the $36 billion is China paying?
Yes, ma'am?
Ms. Rosett. They pay about a tenth of what the United
States pays in assessed dues. For the rest, again, we simply
don't know. If you ask for a consolidated statement, you can't
get it. Each agency is supposed to keep track in itself. The
agencies are opaque. There's no way to know.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Let me just note with the answers we just
got there is a global fund that fights AIDS, for example. And
the United States has spent in the last 8 years, $4.3 billion.
This isn't a U.N. agency. That's not even included in the $36
billion. So we spent $4.3 billion, that's 28 percent of all the
contributions, similar to what we're doing. Yet, China has
given $16 million to the fund. Let us note for just that fund,
China has received $1 billion while contributing $16 million
and let me just note that they've only had 38 cases a year of
malaria and AIDS--or malaria, which is the malaria money that
we're talking about that while the Congo has massive death from
malaria, it received just $149 million to combat malaria is
what China received, and the Congo which has massive problem,
received $122 million.
So in other words, you've got this big country, China, who
is not contributing very much and receiving great benefits from
these U.N. programs. We can't put up with that. This is absurd.
When we have a $1.5 trillion deficit in this country, we're not
going to put up with any more. What we're doing is loaning--
we're taking loans from China in order to give to U.N. programs
that then are being ripped off by China. This has got to stop
and I would say, Madam Chairman, that the U.N. should be one of
our prime targets for reducing expenditures in order to bring
down this deficit in our next few years. Thank you very much.
Mrs. Schmidt. Thank you very much. And now I'd like to turn
this over to Mr. Ted Deutch from Florida.
Mr. Deutch. Thank you, Madam Chair. I'd like to follow up
on where the ranking member left off, that is, the Human Rights
Council and the United States role. The U.S. on a positive
note, the United States helped block Iran's membership in the
Human Rights Council and the United States helped mobilize a
statement condemning repression in Iran, but I'd like to
understand the process a little bit.
How is it that of the 50 resolutions, Mr. Neuer, that
condemned countries, 35 condemned Israel? Where do they
originate? And ultimately, I'd like to talk about how we reform
that. But if you could speak to that, please?
Mr. Neuer. Sure, thank you. The resolutions, the 35 on
Israel, for example, are all, as far as I can recall,
introduced by the Islamic group and the Arab group at the Human
Rights Council. They control an automatic majority. Of the 47
Member States, approximately 30 will approve anything that is
introduced by these groups. The resolution could propose that
the earth is flat and that resolution would be adopted by 30
votes out of 47. So the moment anything happens in the Middle
East, or doesn't happen, these resolutions are being introduced
and adopted automatically. And that's the problem.
There's an automatic majority that is dominated by
repressive regimes. There are countries who vote for them that
are not repressive regimes, countries like India. That's a
democracy, for example, or South Africa. Regrettably, they
continue to vote along dynamics that are either consistent with
the non-aligned movement, the anti-Colonial, anti-Western
ideologies and so we have this majority.
The question is, how can we stop it? And the answer in the
near term is that we cannot stop these resolutions and it is
almost impossible to pass a resolution. As we heard before, the
situation in Cuba, an organization, Human Rights Watch, has
worked with victims from Cuba, like Nestor Rodgriguez Lobaina
who has been beaten up and was denied permission to attend a
human rights summit that we organized last year. It's
impossible to pass a resolution on these situations.
However, and this is a critical point, we spoke here today
about the power of the purse. Well, at the U.N. that resides in
New York and the General Assembly. Geneva Human Rights Council
has the power of shame. It is very significant. It is the power
to turn an international spotlight on some of the worst abuses
of the world that would otherwise go hidden and to help victims
who have no independent voice, no freedom of the press, or free
Parliament, or free judiciary. And what we have not seen is a
determined effort by the democracies, the United States, the
European Union, and others, to introduce resolutions even if we
know they're going to fail. And being in the opposition, as
members here will know, has a lot of tools.
And what we want to see is resolutions introduced on Iran,
on Cuba, on China, on Zimbabwe. Even if they fail, the
attention, the diplomatic energy and commotion that is
generated would have, in our view, the same effect and would
take the offensive and put the worst abusers on the defense.
Mr. Deutch. Is there some history of that? Are there
resolutions that have been proposed and rejected that would
further our human rights agenda?
Mr. Neuer. Not at the Human Rights Council, but previously
at the Human Rights Commission under the Bush administration
this did happen. There were resolutions introduced on China, on
Zimbabwe that failed. And in our view, had a positive effect.
Mr. Deutch. In the short time left, Mr. Schaefer, you
talked about membership standards. I'm intrigued. I think that
would permit us to have a frank discussion about the nature of
the nations that are making determinations about human rights
standards throughout the world. Can you elaborate a bit?
Mr. Schaefer. Sure. The resolution that created the U.N.
Human Rights Council said that countries have to submit a
declaration of their dedication to human rights. So you have
this farcical process wherein China or Iran submit their human
rights bona fides to the United Nations General Assembly saying
why they deserve to be elected to the U.N. Human Rights Council
and no one pays attention to it. I think that there needs to be
an outside evaluation of that, perhaps by NGOs, Freedom House,
some other organizations could take a look at that and give an
assessment, an objective assessment of the actual grades and
hopefully, that could influence the process. Perhaps if you
move away from a secret ballot to a recorded vote on some of
these things you may actually see some changes in votes, but
the key thing, I think, is moving to a competitive election,
rather than a clean slate election wherein countries are just
locked into it.
Mr. Deutch. I only have a few seconds. Could you speak
though to the credentials that China, for example, would have
put forth to justify its membership?
Mr. Schaefer. It said that it had freedom of assembly. It
said that it was a democracy. It said that they respected
freedom of the press. I mean you can go----
Mr. Deutch. Iran as well?
Mr. Schaefer. Iran as well, all across the board. These
countries basically say they espouse the fundamental freedoms
endorsed in the U.N. charter and in the universal declaration
because that is the criteria you're supposed to meet in terms
of being eligible for a council seat.
Mr. Deutch. Thank you very much. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Mrs. Schmidt. Thank you, and now I'd like to give 5 minutes
to my esteemed colleague from southern Ohio, Steve Chabot,
Subcommittee on Middle East and South Asia, chairman.
Mr. Chabot. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. Before I get in a
couple of questions, I want to tell you a personal thing that
happened. For a year, I was the Republican representative from
Congress to the United Nations. Each year we have one
Republican and one Democrat. And it was the year after 2001,
coincidentally. And we happen to be at the U.N. and the topic
for discussion at this U.N. event was human trafficking and
international child abduction and that sort of thing. And we
spent a lot of the day in meetings all over the place. Well, it
turned out even though that was supposed to be the topic, most
of our U.N. diplomats spent most of the day behind the scenes
trying to prevent the Arab bloc from kicking Israel out of the
conference. And it seemed to be apparently just a typical day
at the U.N.
The U.N. needs to be completely overhauled. We talked about
this, the Human Rights Council and you have Cuba and Libya and
the rest of them on there, probably the world's worst abusers
of human rights and I think number one, relative to our dues,
we shouldn't give a penny to the U.N. until they disband that
Human Rights Council and completely overhaul it and completely
reform it. That's just one member's up here view.
But let me get to a couple of questions. The U.N.
Humanitarian Agency for Palestinian Refugees, UNRWA, refuses to
vet its staff for aid recipients for ties to terrorist groups.
It doesn't even think Hamas is a terrorist organization. It
engages in anti-Israel and pro-Hamas propaganda and banks with
Syrian institutions designated under the USA Patriot Act for
terror financing and money laundering. Why is the United States
still the largest single donor? Why have we given them about
$0.5 billion in the last 2 years alone? Why hasn't the United
States publicly criticized UNRWA for these problems and
withheld funding until it reforms, given that Hamas controls
security in Gaza and that Hamas has confiscated UNRWA aid
packages in the past? How can we possibly guarantee that U.S.
contributions to UNRWA will not end up in Hamas' hands?
And I'd invite any, maybe two folks on the panel to take
this before I get to my last question.
Yes, Ms. Rosett?
Ms. Rosett. You can't guarantee it. In fact, it does. A
conversation I had with someone--UNRWA is headquartered in Gaza
and basically provides support services for what has become a
terrorist enclave. So they've actually created a terrorist
welfare enclave there. And I asked, ``How do you vet your staff
to make sure that they are not terrorist members of Hamas?''
The answer I was given was, ``We check them against the U.N.
1267 list.'' That sounds very impressive, unless you happen to
know that the 1267 list is al-Qaeda which is maybe a problem in
Gaza, but it's not the main problem. The problem is Hamas.
The U.N. has no definition of terrorist. Therefore, what
that means is it does not recognize Hamas or Hezbollah as
terrorists. In other words, there really is no way. They don't
check--in order for you to check, you would have to ask for a
full accounting of who exactly is spending the money in Gaza.
And may I just say in looking at the things that do come out of
UNRWA that are visible, I pondered--I came across UNICEF
country appeal in which they were asking donations from inside
Iran for a Gaza appeal. Remember, Iranian-back terrorist Hamas
runs Gaza where UNRWA is headquartered.
Mr. Chabot. Let me go to my last question. I appreciate the
response.
Ms. Rosett. Sure.
Mr. Chabot. In September, the United Nations is scheduled
to hold an anniversary celebration of the infamous Durban
Conference on racism, taking place only days after the tenth
anniversary of the September 11th attacks on this nation. This
Durban III Conference is likely to feature the same hateful,
anti-American, and anti-Israel rhetoric that characterized the
previous two conferences. Canada and Israel have both announced
that they will not attend, but the U.S. administration has
refused to announce a boycott of the event.
Shouldn't the United States immediately join Israel and
Canada in announcing that it will not participate in or support
Durban III and isn't there no hope that the conference will
address real issues of racism, given that it would be
commemorating the biased Durban declaration of 2001? And
shouldn't we finally give up on this failed Durban process and
seek credible alternatives?
I've got 30 seconds, so yes, sir.
Mr. Schaefer. I think that that's entirely likely. In fact,
the Obama administration boycotted the Durban II conference
because of concern that it was not going to be addressing the
issues in an unbiased fashion in regards to Israel. And that's
likely to occur again. I'm kind of startled that they haven't
made a strong statement in that regard and announced a boycott
already.
One thing I will mention is that conference and UNRWA also
received money through the U.N. regular budget, so it's
assessed, and the U.S. withholding is extremely impeded by this
assessed process. If we decide to withhold our proportional
amount to UNRWA or to this conference from the U.N. regular
budget, again it gets spread around and therefore the U.S.
target of that withholding is insulated from that effort.
Mr. Chabot. Thank you.
Mr. Schaefer. So we need to spin these activities outside
and have them be voluntarily funded.
Mr. Chabot. Thank you.
Mrs. Schmidt. And now I'd like to turn to my good friend
from Rhode Island, Mr. Cicilline, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Cicilline. Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to first
associate myself with the remarks of our ranking member and
recognizing that we have much work to do in reforming the
United Nations and thank him for identifying some of those
issues. I think we all recognize we live in an increasingly
complex and interconnected world with a growing global economy
and so I think we have a responsibility to figure out how we
strengthen and improve the operations of the United Nations.
And one of the areas, the question I want to ask relates to
the peacekeeping function of the United Nations, recognizing
that the United Nations peacekeepers are in 14 of the most
dangerous places in the world and has the second largest
deployed military presence in the world. And looking at kind of
the costs because a lot of this conversation is about costs. We
spent in this country in 2010 $70 billion in Afghanistan and
over the last 10 years we've spent over $1 trillion in Iraq and
Afghanistan.
There was a GAO study that said that the U.N. is eight
times less expensive than if the U.S. were to do much of this
work unilaterally. The RAND Corporation said that the U.N. has
been effective as a peacekeeping force. And so in light of that
and in light of the fact that under both President Bush, both
Democrat and Republican administrations, there seems to have
been an increased number of missions in terms of the
peacekeeping function.
I just wanted to hear from the witnesses about, you know,
are there improvements that need to be made in that area? It
seems to be effective, certainly cost effective in terms of
what we would spend if we were to engage in unilateral action
and are there--so is there some consensus on the panel that
that's a function that is bringing peace to the world, doing it
in a cost efficient way and that it isn't as if we do nothing?
We'd have to respond to some of these issues and at a cost
sometimes eight times as expensive. Is that a fair analysis?
Mr. Yeo. Thank you, Congressman, for your question. I would
say that first of all there is room for improvement in terms of
peacekeeping. The Secretary-General has launched a 5-year
strategy to ensure that we better have the capability to launch
peacekeeping missions quickly and that the cost associated with
running the missions are shared between missions through
regional centers so there are concrete measures that are being
considered that we can move forward with to make the missions
themselves more efficient and more cost effective.
The other point I would note is that the U.N. does have
strong special political missions in Afghanistan and Iraq. And
as we think about our extensive involvement in both of those
countries and the presence of American troops, the U.N. will be
there for a decade to come, working with the governments,
promoting peace and stability and security so that when
American troops come home, we leave behind strong and effective
governments that can combat terrorism in both of those
countries. And I think that that's an important role for the
U.N. to play moving forward. Thank you.
Mr. Schaefer. The U.N. peacekeeping operations often
support U.S. interests. There's nobody, I don't think, that
would deny that characterization. But I think that the analysis
that was provided by the studies is subject to an inherent
assumption that I don't think is true. That is the assumption
that the United States would be conducting these operations if
the U.N. weren't. I don't think that that's necessarily the
case. I think that the decision would go to U.S. interests. But
that being said, the U.N. operations there often do support
U.S. interests, if not U.S. core interests that would lead to a
U.S. direct intervention.
But U.N. peacekeeping also has a number of flaws and there
are a number of things that need to be addressed substantially.
An OIOS report audit of $1 billion in U.N. peacekeeping found
that over a quarter of it, $265 million was subject to waste,
corruption, fraud, and abuse. A 2007 OIOS report examined $1.4
billion in peacekeeping contracts and turned up significant
corruption schemes that tainted $619 million or over 40 percent
of that amount in terms of the contracts due to corruption.
An audit of the United States mission in Sudan revealed
tens of millions of dollars lost to mismanagement, waste, and
substantial indications of fraud and corruption. So there is a
lot that needs to be done here and not enough has been done to
address these problems.
And on the issue of sexual abuse and misconduct, all too
often the U.N. fails to hold these individuals to account for
their sexual misconduct and their criminality. They are often
sent home, but very, very rarely are cases pursued or
individuals brought to trial or punished for their crimes.
Mr. Cicilline. Thank you. I yield back the balance of my
time.
Mrs. Schmidt. Thank you. Now I'd like to give 5 minutes to
the gentleman from South Carolina, Mr. Duncan.
Mr. Duncan. Thank you, Madam Chairman. First off, let me
say that I appreciate the comments made by the distinguished
gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Smith, and I thank him for the
passion with which he makes them. It hit home with me and
actually answered one of the questions that I was going to
address the panel.
So let's turn back to the budgeting and financing issues,
and I want to address my comments to Mr. Schaefer first. I
agree with many of the members and presenters here today that
reforms in U.N. financing and budget is an absolute necessity.
I think that we must ensure as Congress and stewards of
taxpayer dollars that they are well spent and well accounted
for.
So given the level of support that the United States gives
to the U.N. and taken with the relatively small amount
contributed by other Member States, could you address the
possibility of a weighted voting system which would assure that
the U.S. has more input on how taxpayer dollars are spent? I
know you addressed those in your comments, but I'd like to have
those on the record.
Mr. Schaefer. There are a number of different options that
could be explored in terms of giving major contributors more
influence over U.N. budgetary decisions. In the 1980s,
congressional legislation led the U.S. to seek weighted voting
on U.N. budgetary matters so that if the U.S. pays 22 percent
of the U.N. regular budget, it would have 22 percent of the
weighted vote in terms of approving that budget. That was
opposed by the U.N., but the Reagan administration succeeded in
getting what was a compromise wherein the U.N. budget would
only be adopted by a consensus vote. Through that process and
the U.S. policy of a zero nominal growth budget, the United
States was able to oppose budget increases and constrain U.N.
budget growth in the late 1980s and 1990s. But it wasn't
actually able to reduce things because even though the U.S.
could stop an increase, other countries could stop a reduction.
And so you essentially had a tug of war that kept things at a
status quo. That consensus-based agreement, the informal
agreement of adopting the budget by consensus has been
shattered in recent years.
The U.S. presented a number of proposals for reducing the
U.N. budget and eventually a budget was proposed that the U.S.
opposed. It voted no. And that budget was approved over the
objection of the United States and so that consensus process no
longer exists. And the U.N. could do this without any kind of
repercussions because the teeth behind the consensus-voting
agreement was legislation that said if the U.N. adopted a
budget over the objection of the United States or without those
processes in place, it would be subject to financial
withholding. That legislation was removed in the early 1990s
and so now there are no repercussion for doing that.
So even though the consensus budget was successful in a
certain way in terms of constraining the U.N. budget growth, it
wasn't successful in what we would like to do, I think, in
terms of trying to go through the U.N. budget and eliminate
funding for duplicative or outdated mandates and spinning
certain things out of the U.N. budget.
So I would do a couple of things. First, I would try and
seek a dual key approval of the U.N. budget, one approval by
two-thirds of the U.N. Member States, but also requiring two-
thirds approval of the contributions to the U.N. regular
budget. So you have major contributors having to approve the
budget alongside the bulk of the U.N. Member States. But more
importantly, I would focus on trying to spin as much of the
independent activities of the U.N. out of the regular budget,
so you just focus it on the core support of the U.N.
Secretariat of the Security Council of the General Assembly of
the International Court of Justice and so forth, the core
organizations of the United Nations. And spin out activities
like the Human Rights Council and the regional commissions, the
various human rights committees, UNEP, UNRWA, all these other
organizations that are funded through U.N. regular budget and
have them be funded voluntarily. That gives Congress much more
discretion in terms of financing programs that it thinks
support U.S. interests and withholding funding from programs
that do not.
Mr. Duncan. Thank you. In the balance of my time, I'd like
to ask quickly, Ms. Rosett. You made a statement a minute ago
that struck me that we don't have a good accounting of how the
money is spent.
What's the process of getting that started? I think
congressional oversight would like to see a detailed accounting
of the number spent in the U.N.
Ms. Rosett. You would have to find a way to get the U.N. to
actually put it in and produce. I would say the more specific
request or demand is made outlining what really has to be there
the better, because if you leave it to their discretion, you
will end up with the again, I refer you to the back of my
written testimony, the sample one-page document disclosing
nothing that pretends to be financial disclosure.
You would probably have to hand them the template, here's
what we want and what you will find--I'll give you one example.
The U.N. flagship agency, the U.N. Development Program which
was involved in the North Korea Cash-for-Kim scam. They have
procurement Web sites which look--they have a main Web site
which looks quite neat, if you just look at it, until you start
looking for things that actually matter. For instance, start
asking and what exactly did they ship into Iran last year with
their U.N. immunities, this agency that shipped missile, dual
use parts that could be used for missile production to North
Korea and you won't find anything. You would need to specify
what--exactly what you want to see and I would strongly
recommend, we see U.N. budgets and even that is like
deciphering Sanskrit.
Mr. Duncan. Thank you.
Ms. Rosett. You would need to ask spending.
Mrs. Schmidt. Thank you. Now I'd like to give 5 minutes to
the gentlelady from California, Mrs. Bass.
Ms. Bass. Thank you very much and I'd like to thank the
witnesses for taking their time to present testimony today. I'm
struggling with the idea of the U.S. withholding funding and
wanted to know if you could articulate a little more. We have
done that in the past and I'd like for you to elaborate on how
we were able to impact reforms when we withheld funding before.
And then if we did do that, what does that do to our standing
internationally?
And if you think about the Iran sanctions that made it
through the Security Council, if we were to withhold funding,
then what kind of position would that put us in when we then
obviously want the U.N. to have those sanctions? And maybe you
have some other examples of how we could impact reforms that
didn't involve withholding funds.
Mr. Schaefer. I'd be happy to talk about that. My written
testimony I actually go through a number of historical
instances where Congress has used its financial leverage to get
the United Nations to adopt specific reforms. One was the
Kassebaum-Solomon amendment in the 1980s which led to the
consensus-based voting process which helped constrain U.S.
budget growth in the 1980s and 1990s. A second was
congressional withholding, demanding that the U.N. create an
Inspector General equivalent organization. That led directly to
the creation of the Office of Internal Oversight Services in
1994. And third was the Helms-Biden legislation wherein the
United States agreed to pay U.S. arrears to the United Nations
in return for certain specific reforms including reductions in
the U.S. level of assessment for the regular budget and for
peacekeeping. Under that agreement, the U.N. was supposed to
reduce the U.S. peacekeeping assessment to 25 percent. It never
reached that level, although it did get within 2 percentage
points back in 2009. More recently, the U.N. has actually
reversed pace and increased the U.S. assessment for U.N.
peacekeeping to over 27.1 percent. So we're seeing some back
tracking on the part of the U.N. in terms of the reforms that
they agreed to in return for Helms-Biden. So you do see that
there are specific pieces of congressional legislation and a
specific response by the United Nations that is tied to that
legislative effort.
Other types of U.N. reform have been pursued, but often it
is out of a fear that Congress may do something about the
issue. For instance, the Volcker Commission was created to
investigate the Iraqi Oil-for-Food Programme and that was
created specifically because Congress was becoming very, very
interested in pursuing the matter itself and so the U.N. took
preemptive action and created the Commission. You could also
say that U.N. peacekeeping rules and regulations, while
insufficient still, were adopted in part because Congress was
focusing through hearings and other pieces of legislation on
that problem.
I think Congress has a vital role to play for pressing for
U.N. reform. In terms of how it affects our diplomacy, there's
no doubt that pressing for budgetary cuts and U.N. reform
ruffles feathers at the United Nations. They'd much rather
spend their time focusing on other things. But that is a long-
term issue and U.S. administrations have historically focused
on short-term political priorities, passing a resolution,
getting something immediately done to address a more imminent
problem from their perspective. Congress has a longer-term
perspective on this and I think that's where they complement
each other. Congress can play a bad cop role, the
administration and State Department diplomats can play a good
cop role. Having Congress playing the heavy can actually
improve prospects for reform in the United Nations.
Ms. Bass. So then you're not necessarily suggesting that we
completely defund the U.N.?
Mr. Schaefer. No.
Ms. Bass. Just threaten?
Mr. Schaefer. No. I think we should withhold to try to spur
specific reforms, but I'm not saying withhold every single dime
that we give to the United Nations. I think that a lot of the
things that the U.N. does are very useful and support U.S.
interests. But there's no doubt in my mind that a number of
reforms that have been advocated in the past remain undone.
Some talk has been made about the U.N. Ethics Office. Yes, they
created a U.N. Ethics Office, but almost immediately the
authority of that office was challenged by the United Nations
Development Program. The Ethics Office found that UNDP's
retaliation against a whistleblower was illegitimate, demanded
UNDP to take certain actions to repair that issue. And UNDP
rejected the authority of the U.N. Ethics Office. The
Secretary-General, instead of backing his own Ethics Office,
backed UNDP. Now you have divergent ethics standards throughout
the U.N. system and NGOs that analyzed this issue say they're
completely inadequate and weak compared to international
standards.
More recently, the OIOS official in charge of
investigations was charged with retaliation against two
whistleblowers himself and he also rejected the authority of
the Ethics Office. So there's a question of whether the Ethics
Office even has authority within the U.N. Secretariat.
Ms. Bass. Thank you.
Mrs. Schmidt. Thank you. And now I'd like to give 5 minutes
to my good friend from California, Mr. Royce, of the
Subcommittee on Terrorism and Nonproliferation.
Mr. Royce. Brett, Mr. Schaefer, the case you were talking
about, was that the North Korean case or the----
Mr. Schaefer. In terms of UNDP----
Mr. Royce. The example you just gave.
Mr. Schaefer. Yes, it was.
Mr. Royce. I'd like to ask Claudia, Claudia Rosett about
this because she's reported for many years on this situation
with respect to North Korea. One of the things I remember is
talking to a defector from North Korea who had worked in the
missile program. He said every time the regime ran short of
hard currency it couldn't purchase on the market the equipment
it needed for the missile technology, and had to wait until the
regime could come up with more hard currency. The part that
concerns me about this whole process is that $6 billion spent
by the UNDP per year, and half of it goes to authoritarian
regimes, according to Freedom House. We're learning more and
more about how that money is spent in countries like Iran and
Zimbabwe. We have concerns about how it's spent in Syria and
Venezuela. But North Korea in particular is a case where if we
thought that this currency was going for fine wine and sushi
for the ``Dear Leader,'' it would be one thing, but the
suspicions that the use of the hard currency and the
documentary evidence, and that's what I'd like to get into here
for a little bit with you Claudia, basically, it was a case of
the checkbook for the UNDP being turned over to the regime.
The CFO was picked by the regime. And when somebody blew
the whistle on this, the UNDP unanimously, just as they have in
every other case circled the wagons to basically try to cover
this up. But North Korea was able to use the UNDP to procure
dual use items in the name of development and then they got
their hands on equipment that happens to also be used to
develop and target and test missiles. And that's the part that
really makes us wonder about the amount of contribution we made
here in the United States, I think about $290 million a year or
more than that. We're one of the top three donors into this
program and yet we have no ability to get across to the UNDP
that we're not going to finance our own suicide here by
allowing hard currency to get in to the development of nuclear
weapons or how to deliver them with missiles.
The questions I'd ask Claudia is--I remember they
temporarily shut this down and then it started right up. So how
much money now is moving into North Korea? Is Kim Jong-Il still
able to pick the CFO for this position? I don't know the answer
to that. What's going on with the program today? How much do we
know?
Ms. Rosett. Well, once again we don't know enough. I will
tell you a few things about the U.N. Development Program which
ran this office in North Korea and is now running it again. Two
years ago, its governing body at the U.N., a 36-member
executive board was chaired by Iran. This was while Iran was
having the murderous riots in the streets. Iran still sits on
the board. When Cash-for-Kim broke, North Korea was sitting on
the board. This is the flagship U.N. agency and so on.
I am actually less concerned with the exact amount that
is--of dollars that is going into this program in North Korea
than with the abilities it gives the UNDP Office in Pyongyang
and North Korea to bring in items or UNDP in Iran which we have
no insight into right now. These places only become transparent
when there's a major inquiry and it took more than 1\1/2\ years
to pry out of the U.N. the information that finally told us
that the UNDP had been bringing things like a satellite image
receiving station into North Korea. North Korea is a starving,
poor country. Certainly the people there need help. The
government there puts the military first. You don't need to be
bringing that kind of equipment in. That was clearly a North
Korea shopping list which UNDP rushed to procure for them.
One thing that Congress might do is ask the Bureau of
Commerce to produce something I can't get. It's confidential.
The export licenses for all U.N. purchasing abroad, because
that will show you what the U.N. is requisitioning, at least in
this country. You might get a glimpse. I venture to guess it
would make your jaw drop. And it would be useful if other
countries would produce similar lists.
The point I think is really important to get across here is
the U.N. is a brilliant machine for laundering goods and money
across borders with no oversight. That needs looking at.
Mr. Royce. We will do that, Madam Chair, this committee
will do that and I appreciate the testimony of the panel.
Mrs. Schmidt. Thank you. And now I would like to turn my
attention to our good friend from Missouri, Mr. Carnahan.
Mr. Carnahan. Thank you, Madam Chair, and I want to thank
Madam Chair and ranking member for holding this hearing, our
witnesses for being here. I believe it's very important that
the United States is at the table at the U.N., at the table
engaged in various international organizations. Even though the
issues are complex, the parties are difficult and the
bureaucracies entrenched at the U.N. I think we have to be
looking at ways to best leverage the U.S. involvement and I
think also the best exercise, congressional oversight. So I
appreciate you all being part of this process.
I wanted to ask Mr. Neuer, the Human Rights Council has
properly come up in this discussion today. Last year, we had a
hearing on the rise of anti-Semitism around the world and the
council clearly came up in those conversations. There's been
some very well directed and well founded criticisms of the
council, but there also have been some successes and some
improvements in the council with our involvement. I wanted to
ask your assessment on the progress that's been made since we
have rejoined and whether or not you think we could have made
these improvements if we were not at the table. And do you
think that were the U.S. to leave the council would that stymie
further progress?
Mr. Neuer. Thank you. The changes that have been made in
our view have been mere specks on a radar screen for a
situation that is abysmal. As I presented in my oral summary,
in my written testimony, the state of human rights at the U.N.
is a disaster at the Human Rights Council. And so in terms of
U.S. involvement, as the ranking member read from my prepared
statement, we certainly salute the determined efforts of the
U.S. mission in Geneva. They are trying their best. They are
doing what they can. They have tried to defend principles, to
defend human rights groups who bring victims and so forth.
There have been a number of resolutions which we welcome, on
Ivory Coast recently, on Kyrgystan and on one or two others.
These resolutions haven't had the strength of some other
resolutions. They haven't all been condemnatory. The one on
Kyrgystan, for example, was introduced regarding a situation
that had happened under a previous government, so it wasn't
necessarily the most courageous text in condemning a seated
government and holding it accountable and that's been a pattern
that we've seen on some resolutions that appear to be
meaningful, but in fact, are critical of prior governments.
So again, we encourage U.S. efforts and we want them to do
far more. And as we've said, we still don't understand why
nothing has been introduced on Iran. Actually, we've crunched
the numbers. As you know, there is a resolution in General
Assembly that is adopted each year. It's run by Canada. And it
passes in the General Assembly in New York. And if you run the
numbers, actually, in theory, if the missions in the Geneva
would vote the same way, the 47 countries, you would have more
yes votes than no votes. So actually with significant
diplomacy, we could have a resolution on Iran that would pass.
It wouldn't be easy.
Why is it not being introduced? I don't know the answer to
that question. I hope it will be introduced and I hope we'll
see the creation of a special investigator on the massacres
that have taken place in Iran. So to summarize, we have always
supported robust engagement. UN Watch was founded by a former
United States Ambassador, Morris Abram, who was a civil rights
leader as well. We've always believed in the value of U.S.
leadership and engagement and in our recommendations that we
submitted here last year which was co-sponsored by bipartisan
group, Representative Engel and Congresswoman Ros-Lehtinen, we
set forth numerous recommendations for what the U.S. working in
concert with the European allies need to do and fundamentally
it's to take the offensive. It's not to allow the abusers to
veto and to only introduce that which will pass. That will
really limit it to countries of little influence. As I said,
Iran, China, Syria, the list goes on, have all been ignored.
That is something that is not satisfactory.
Mr. Carnahan. Thank you. And quickly to go to Mr. Yeo, with
regard to the Millennium Development Goals, your colleague,
Kathy Calvin, testified last year at our hearing. I'd like to
hear your thoughts on how the U.N. can best partner with the
private sector and what U.S. engagement has meant to those
efforts.
Mr. Yeo. Sure. I would say that as we think about shrinking
national budgets for foreign aid and foreign assistance,
public-private partnerships, including corporations around the
world who wish to support the NDGs' and the U.N.'s work, are
very important. It's something that we try to facilitate at
UNF. Thank you.
Mr. Carnahan. Thank you.
Mrs. Schmidt. Thank you. And now I'd like to give 5 minutes
to my good friend from North Carolina, Mrs. Ellmers.
Ms. Ellmers. Thank you, Madam Chairman, and thank you,
panel, for being with us today.
I just want to ask my questions in regard to some of the
corruption issues and I'm going to address my question to Mr.
Appleton. But I would like to state this. You just understand
the concerns of the American people, the hard-working taxpayers
who are the ones who are funding you, the U.N. And when it
comes to these issues of corruption and misconduct, it's hard
for us and I can tell, I know, I can tell you the people of
North Carolina District 2 are very concerned about this issue.
So again, to Mr. Appleton, you tried to oversee and help
reform the U.N. and uncover over $1 billion in tainted
contracts. And as thanks, you got fired and blocked from being
hired for further jobs there. And many of your cases remain
open and unaddressed at this time. Is this what generally
happens when a U.N. investigator takes this course? And can you
discuss with us today what happened to your appointment to be
the lead investigator at the U.N.'s Office of Internal
Oversight Services?
Mr. Appleton. Thank you very much. I'm honored to have been
asked to appear. I think in 3 minutes it's tough to describe
the overall dynamic of oversight in the U.N. and conducting
investigations, but I'll give it a shot.
I think conducting true, real, deep investigations to
ferret out the actual facts and circumstances is not a best way
of career advancement in the U.N. And the reason why I think
you'll see a number of Inspector General-type offices in many
of these international organizations that do not--aren't very
aggressive because you can see what happens. You do not make a
lot of friends. And if you pick the wrong subject, it could
have very fatal consequences.
So what's critical for oversight in the U.N. is complete
independence, not just operational independence, but budgetary
independence. So ultimately, your funding is not at risk, your
career is not at risk, your job is not at risk. Because
otherwise, if it is, what advantage is it for you to pursue
real, honest and objective investigations?
So historically, I think I would agree with some of what
Mr. Schaefer said about focus of this Congress. And when there
is focus it can happen properly. There are episodes where
sometimes privileges and immunities have been waived and cases
have been advanced, but if there isn't an eye and a focus and
attention on the issues, they're not, in my experience, not
going to advance. You've got to have will and you've got to
have an apparatus and machinery that protects investigators
from retaliation and I'm not saying you don't hold them to a
certain standard. There's no question. The investigations have
to be genuine, integrous, unbiased. No question about that.
And I think the way to challenge them is through a judicial
mechanism that is properly functioning, so you need all these
apparatus. A strong and effective independent oversight office
has to be complemented and supplemented by an effective ethics
office, a sound, judicial machinery, an effective appeals
process, and effective sanctions and penalty regime. So all of
that needs to be put in place. What had been started it seemed
to have faltered and going into reverse. So the way in which
the dynamic is it does not set the atmosphere for thorough and
deep and intense inquiries.
With respect to my own situation, I guess I would
respectfully say that because the case is in the judicial
system I really can't speak too much about it other than the
fact that this was an example of a lack of independence of the
Under Secretary-General who attempted to--went through proper
procedures, conducted a recruitment exercise, presented my
nomination and it was not accepted. So the argument certainly
is and she's a forceful advocate of this that there's a real
example of a lack of true independence in oversight. You need
to be able to appoint your own staff. Thank you.
Mrs. Schmidt. Thank you. And now I'd like to give 5 minutes
to my good friend from Nebraska, Mr. Fortenberry.
Mr. Fortenberry. Thank you, Madam Chair, for the time.
Thank you all for coming today. Given the drama of the
institution, perhaps we could start a new reality TV show and
call it the U.N. Makeover or something like that.
With that said and seriously, let me say I think it's
important for the United States to belong to multi-lateral
institutions. The world is complex, but without some platforms
for the development of mutual understanding we could be in a
worse off situation in spite of the effrontery that we
sometimes have to endure in this particular multi-lateral
entity.
With that said, I'd like to point out what I perceive to be
some of the U.N. strengths and I think some of you spoke to
this. Perhaps you could confirm that. And then I'd like to try
to unpack further the reforms that could be engaged that would
actually strengthen the part of the institution that makes
sense, but either jettison or rethink the other components that
are causing such serious problems.
I was in the country of Liberia a little while back and had
a one-on-one chat with a U.N. peacekeeper, a Nigerian who was
in a blue helmet, way out on an outpost in the interior of the
country. He was very well informed as to what his mission was
and how he would carry it out and I was impressed. And it does
seem to me that the U.N. peacekeeping forces around the world
provide a stabilization factor, sometimes imperfectly, but a
stabilization factor. That is very important.
Secondly, the U.N. is very well positioned to provide
humanitarian outreach, particularly in crisis times and I think
that's very important work and it seems to be a strength of the
institution.
Now with that said, we've talked about a lot of the other
difficulties, one being the Human Rights Council. Since the
United States has joined, we've not even offered a resolution
condemning the human rights abuses of China and Cuba. And so
with that said, how can we unpack this further that looks at
the institution from the portions of it that are really viable,
potentially reforms or gets us away from or shames or withholds
money as you suggested, Ms. Rosett, in the areas that again
give real effrontery?
And third is, are there other multi-lateral institutions
that can begin to replace that which cannot be reformed in the
internal dynamics of the institution? Yes.
Ms. Rosett. The internal dynamics have a certain
mathematics and logic where it would be nice to believe, for
instance, that the Human Rights Council can be sort of brought
around like a super tanker. But if you actually look at the
makeup of the General Assembly, we need to wait until the
change of the character of the majority of nations on the
planet before that actually happens. And the essence of success
in the modern world really is competition and I think turning
to some alternative grouping in which you are not obliged to
haggle with Cuba and Russia and China over how to define human
rights is something that might be very productive and at the
end of the day would also honor the people whose rights you're
actually trying to protect. Because as you know, on the ground
it translates into complete abandonment. These things that
sound academic when they're discussed in the council, talk to
people from Zimbabwe who live under the kinds of rules that
need to be addressed.
So competition makes a great difference. One other note----
Mr. Fortenberry. Do you see any current institution that
might fulfill that role or some emerging fledgling institution
that could do that in the near term?
Ms. Rosett. Absolutely, where you are not constrained by
the U.N. membership problems. One other note, peacekeeping also
can have the very dangerous, dangerous drawback, that it sounds
as if something is being done. At the moment, the ramped up
UNIFIL mission in Lebanon, the peacekeepers in Lebanon who
remember were needing rescue from their bunkers after Hezbollah
built up weapons nests around----
Mr. Fortenberry. I said albeit imperfectly.
Ms. Rosett. They're re-arming again. And I think it is a
question that needs to be very seriously asked, is it more
dangerous to have them there giving the illusion that they are
protecting things, waiting until the next rescue.
Mr. Fortenberry. Thank you, I'm sorry, I've run out of
time.
Mr. Schaefer. I think it's just important to note that the
U.N. is not the only multi-lateral option and that multi-
lateral activities are not legitimate only if they go through
the United Nations. Take a look at an organization like the
Proliferation Security Initiative which was introduced by the
Bush administration to counter trafficking in weapons of mass
destruction. If you take a look at ad hoc interventions by the
African Union, by NATO forces around the world, you can do
peacekeeping, you can do interventions outside of the U.N.
framework.
And if the reforms are not adopted to implement membership
standards for the Human Rights Council, I think the U.S. and
other countries should seriously consider creating a non-U.N.
human rights body so that you can keep human rights violators
off of that body and really dig into the human rights issues
and confront human rights abusers.
Mr. Fortenberry. That may be the answer here. I'm sorry,
I'm out of time. Thank you.
Mr. Fortenberry. Thank you and without objection, the full
written statements of all of our briefers will be made as part
of the record. Members have up to 5 days to submit their
statements for the record and to my good friend from
California, do you have any more witnesses, sir?
Mr. Berman. I do, but I didn't bring them with me.
Mrs. Schmidt. Thank you. In the full interest, do we have
any more witnesses in the back room? Can somebody check before
I gavel this down?
Mr. Berman. Members?
Mrs. Schmidt. Members, I mean. I'm new at this. No more
members, all right. This briefing is now closed and again,
members have up to 5 days for written statements and your
prepared remarks as well. Thank you very much gentleman and
lady for your attention in this matter.
[Whereupon, at 12:16 p.m., the briefing was concluded.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
Material Submitted for the Briefing RecordNotice deg.
Minutes deg.