[Senate Hearing 114-136]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 114-136
OVERSIGHT OF MULTILATERAL AND BILATERAL INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT
PROGRAMS AND POLICIES
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON MULTILATERAL
INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT, MUTILATERAL,
INSTITUTIONS, AND INTERNATIONAL ECONOMIC,
ENERGY, AND ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
MAY 6, 2015
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Relations
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
98-151 PDF WASHINGTON : 2016
________________________________________________________________________________________
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center,
U.S. Government Publishing Office. Phone 202-512-1800, or 866-512-1800 (toll-free).
E-mail, [email protected].
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS
BOB CORKER, TENNESSE, Chairman
JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland
MARCO RUBIO, Florida BARBARA BOXER, California
RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey
JEFF FLAKE, Arizona JEANNE SHAHEEN, New Hampshire
CORY GARDNER, Colorado CHRISTOPHER A. COONS, Delaware
DAVID PERDUE, Georgia TOM UDALL, New Mexico
JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia CHRISTOPHER MURPHY, Connecticut
RAND PAUL, Kentucky TIM KAINE, Virginia
JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
Lester E. Munson III, Staff Director
Jodi B. Herman, Democratic Staff Director
------------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON MULTILATERAL INTERNATIONAL
DEVELOPMENT, MULTILATERAL INSTITUTIONS,
AND INTERNATIONAL ECONOMIC, ENERGY, AND
ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY
JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming, Chairman
DAVID PERDUE, Georgia TOM UDALL, New Mexico
JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho BARBARA BOXER, California
JEFF FLAKE, Arizona JEANNE SHAHEEN, New Hampshire
CORY GARDNER, Colorado EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Barrasso, Hon. John, U.S. Senator From Wyoming................... 1
Coleman, Hon. Isobel, Ambassador, U.S. Representative to the
United Nations for U.N. Management and Reform, U.S. Mission to
the United Nations, Washington, DC............................. 7
Prepared statement........................................... 9
Crocker, Hon. Bathsheba Nell, Assistant Secretary, Bureau of
International Organization Affairs, U.S. Department of State,
Washington, DC................................................. 3
Prepared statement........................................... 5
Detchon, Reid, Vice President for Energy and Climate Strategy,
United Nations Foundation, Washington, DC...................... 55
Prepared statement........................................... 57
Garber, Hon. Judith G., Acting Assistant Secretary, Bureau of
Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs,
U.S. Department of State, Washington, DC....................... 10
Prepared statement........................................... 12
Schaefer, Jay Brett D., Kingham Senior Research Fellow in
International Regulatory Affairs, Margaret Thatcher Center for
Freedom, Heritage Foundation, Washington, DC................... 42
Prepared statement........................................... 44
Tong, Hon. Kurt, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau of
Economic and Business Affairs, U.S. Department of State,
Washington, DC................................................. 21
Prepared statement........................................... 23
Udall, Hon. Tom, U.S. Senator From New Mexico.................... 2
Additional Material Submitted for the Record
Written statement submitted by Peter Yeo, Better World Campaign.. 68
Material Submitted for the Record by Senator John Barrasso of
Wyoming, Subcommittee Chairman................................. 71
Copy of a letter submitted to the U.N. Secretary General and
U.N. Executive Heads by former U.N. whistleblowers......... 71
The Climate of Insecurity, by Jeff Kueter, president, George
C. Marshall Institute...................................... 74
Copy of a letter submitted to the EPA by Wyoming Governor
Mathew H. Mead............................................. 84
(iii)
OVERSIGHT OF MULTILATERAL AND BILATERAL INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT
PROGRAMS AND POLICIES
----------
WEDNESDAY, MAY 6, 2015
U.S. Senate, Subcommittee on Multilateral
International Development, Multilateral
Institutions, and International Economic,
Energy, and Environmental Policy Committee on
Foreign Relations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:30 p.m., in
room SD-419, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. John Barrasso
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Senators Barrasso, Risch, Gardner, Udall, and
Markey.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BARRASSO,
U.S. SENATOR FROM WYOMING
Senator Barrasso. Good afternoon.
I would like to call to order this hearing of the
subcommittee of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
This afternoon, our subcommittee is holding its first
hearing in the 114th Congress.
So I am pleased to be chairing the subcommittee, along with
my good friend, Senator Tom Udall, who is the subcommittee's
ranking member. Senator Udall, I look forward to continuing to
work with you in a very productive way as we have done in the
past. Thank you.
The subcommittee is meeting today to evaluate the resource,
management, and performance of the international programs under
our jurisdiction. I believe Congress needs to ensure that these
programs focus on U.S. priorities, that they evaluate the
effectiveness of all the programs, that Congress needs to
support programs that are getting real results and eliminate
programs that are not working.
In preparation for a potential State Department
reauthorization, I have asked all of our witnesses today to
identify ways to achieve efficiencies and savings, as well as
opportunities to more effectively advance U.S. priorities
around the world.
The American people I believe are very generous.
Individuals, groups, and communities across the country give
their time and precious resources to help others, both to
people here and people around the world. There is a long
history of people across this Nation generously supporting
victims of international disasters, famines, diseases, and
wars.
With our national debt, however, at around $18 trillion, I
think it is irresponsible to borrow more money to fund
initiatives that are failing to prove results or provide real
value for taxpayers. The Government must be a good steward of
U.S. taxpayer dollars. Every Government branch and agency needs
to be carefully evaluated and streamlined to eliminate
duplicative and wasteful spending. Each program needs to be
carefully analyzed to ensure it is being designed and
implemented in the most effective and efficient manner. And we
must also be focused on whether participation at multilateral
institutions is actually advancing American values, American
ideals, American standards.
So there is a lot of area to cover here today, including
the greatly needed reforms at the United Nations, promoting
economic opportunities for U.S. businesses around the world,
implementing real budgetary discipline at multilateral
institutions, and eliminating duplication and wasteful
spending. These are all important issues.
I look forward to hearing the testimony of our witnesses,
and we will now turn to our ranking member, Senator Udall, to
offer his opening remarks.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. TOM UDALL,
U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW MEXICO
Senator Udall. Thank you very much, Chairman Barrasso. And
as you have said, we have had a good working relationship and
look forward to doing the same on this subcommittee.
Our subcommittee's jurisdiction covers a lot of ground,
some would say from the ocean floor out to space. The Bureau of
Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs I
think would agree on that. Their work, ranging from
environmental issues such as climate change to emerging issues
such as space is crucial to our foreign policy.
In addition, Congress has a vital interest in international
institutions. The United Nations and other international
institutions impact how we interact with the world and how the
world views the United States.
Also, I think it is important to note that this is an area
where we share burdens a lot, and I am going to talk a little
bit in questions about how the GAO has looked at the idea of
the U.N. and doing things through other countries and the
United States doing things alone. And I think it is an
interesting perspective there.
So I am pleased that we have two great panels here today to
examine ongoing efforts to strengthen the United Nations and
also discuss U.S. support for other key issues that are before
this panel such as peacekeeping and humanitarian activities,
economic diplomacy, and the negotiations for a new climate
change agreement that will take place in Paris this December.
I recognize that the United Nations is a highly complex and
decentralized organization. Potential reforms may be slow, but
I believe it is also important to highlight the position that
this administration has taken to engage the United Nations on
many fronts and to elevate the status of the U.S. Permanent
Representative to the United Nations to a Cabinet-level
position that reports directly to the President. I know that
the President has directed the State Department to see how we
can evaluate and improve U.N. system transparency and
effectiveness. I will be happy to hear more about our progress
and challenges in those areas from Assistant Secretary Crocker.
I am also looking forward to a discussion of the role the
Economic Bureau plays. Chairman Barrasso mentioned that. This
Bureau is helping businesses and workers succeed in a global
economy. Senator Barrasso, I think, would agree there are many
areas, particularly in energy and natural gas, where the United
States can excel if businesses are given the opportunity to
export overseas. In addition, I would like to know how the
Economic Bureau is working to support normalization efforts
with Cuba and how Congress can support these efforts further.
And finally, I am hoping our panelists can provide us with
an overview of ongoing international climate negotiations and
perhaps give us a sense of the steps we need to take to make
sure that a successful agreement is reached.
So with that, Chairman Barrasso, I have finished with my
opening. I turn it back to you.
Senator Barrasso. Well, thank you very much, Senator Udall.
At this point, I would like to welcome all of our
witnesses. I know you have all very busy schedules, important
responsibilities. I appreciate you taking the time to be with
us today.
Joining us this afternoon on the first panel is Assistant
Secretary of State Sheba Crocker with the Bureau of
International Organization Affairs; also Ambassador Isobel
Coleman, U.S. Representative to the United Nations for
Management and Reform; Acting Assistant Secretary Judith
Garber, Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental and
Scientific Affairs; and Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary
Kurt Tong with the Bureau of Economic and Business Affairs.
Secretary Crocker, since Senator Udall mentioned you,
perhaps we could start with you. I would say that your full
statement will be entered into the record, and I would ask you
to summarize it in about 5 minutes in order for members to have
an opportunity to ask questions.
Secretary Crocker.
STATEMENT OF HON. BATHSHEBA NELL CROCKER, ASSISTANT SECRETARY,
BUREAU OF INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION AFFAIRS, U.S. DEPARTMENT
OF STATE, WASHINGTON, DC
Ms. Crocker. Chairman Barrasso, Ranking Member Udall, it is
my pleasure to appear before you today to discuss U.S. actions
to promote efficiency and effectiveness across the United
Nations and other international organizations.
As Assistant Secretary of State for International
Organization Affairs, it is my job to ensure that U.S.
multilateral priorities are advanced across the entire
multilateral system, including at the United Nations and
several dozen other international organizations. That effort
spans seven U.S. multilateral missions, including our mission
to the United Nations in New York, and requires collaboration
with other Federal agencies that depend on international
organizations to help advance their priorities.
The organizations we work with are diverse, from
distributing emergency food assistance through the World Food
Programme, to ensuring global aviation safety standards through
the International Civil Aviation Organization. But the core
U.S. objectives at each of these organizations are the same: to
advance our national interests, to promote American values, and
to advocate for the efficient and effective use of American
taxpayer resources.
I think it is important to recognize how much we ask of the
U.N. and other international organizations. Consider the recent
headlines. U.N. agencies are leading the effort to respond to
the devastation in Nepal. They are addressing humanitarian
emergencies in Yemen, Iraq, South Sudan, the Central African
Republic, and in and around Syria. We rely on the World Health
Organization to address the impact of Ebola in West Africa and
to eliminate polio and other diseases once and for all. In many
cases, U.N. political missions are the international
community's last remaining eyes and ears on the ground in areas
experiencing significant insecurity or political instability.
In 16 missions around the world, nearly 130,000 U.N.
peacekeepers are contributing to stability and promoting peace
and reconciliation.
And these are just some of the countless examples where
U.S. interests are advanced through coordination at the United
Nations and across many other international organizations. The
United States simply cannot and should not address such global
challenges alone. Working through the multilateral system
enables us to mobilize global action and ensure that the
financial burdens of that action are broadly shared.
Still, there is no denying that the U.N. and other
international organizations have not always proven to be
effective stewards of U.S. taxpayer resources. For too long,
the U.N. operated without the necessary commitment to
transparency, accountability, and results. And so the United
States and numerous partner countries have pressed the U.N.
system to embrace modern management and budgeting practices.
Since becoming Assistant Secretary in September 2014, I
have prioritized management and budget reform issues and I have
used my position and voice as frequently as possible to push
for progress. The results of this kind of sustained engagement
are clear.
Within the past month alone, we have reached agreement to
no-growth budgets at both the International Labor Organization
and the Food and Agriculture Organization. At over half of the
more than 45 organizations we fund through the contributions to
the international organizations account, we are projecting no
increases in assessments for fiscal year 2016.
Just 2 weeks ago, I cochaired a meeting in Geneva of the
top donors to the U.N. system where we agreed to work together
to look at U.N. performance management practices and to
increase scrutiny of how U.N. agencies are handling their own
audits and ethics rules, including protection of
whistleblowers.
We are seeing gradual progress on needed reforms. Two
organizations that previously did not provide access to audit
reports, the International Maritime Organization and the
International Telecommunications Union, have begun providing
access. At the U.N., we gained agreement in December to
permanent public access to audit and evaluation reports. The
Organization of American States and the World Health
Organization have corrected shortcomings in their whistleblower
policies over the past year.
Last month, I traveled to a UNICEF coordination facility in
Copenhagen where UNICEF is working with partners to create
economies of scale to drive down the price of immunizations and
other crucial goods. That effort will not only save the U.N.
tens of millions of dollars a year, but it will bring untold
benefits to communities around the world. We are trying to
replicate these kinds of efforts across the multilateral
system.
We remain determined in our efforts to improve
accountability and transparency measures in peacekeeping
operations. We initiated a comprehensive review of civilian
staff in missions, which resulted in significant reductions in
cost savings. We are holding troop-contributing countries
accountable through financial penalties if they deploy to U.N.
peace operations with missing or nonfunctioning equipment. And
we worked with our partners at the United Nations to initiate a
firm prohibition on payments to troops sent home for
misconduct, including for sexual exploitation and abuse.
These examples of reforms and best practices are promising.
But we remain frustrated by sluggish progress. Some
organizations continue to struggle to provide whistleblower
protections, and the formulas that determine how much funding
each member state contributes to the U.N. remain woefully
outdated. There is certainly more work to be done across the
board.
So I am grateful to this subcommittee for holding today's
hearing and for your continued interest in our work at the
United Nations. The investments we make in the multilateral
arena today are more important than ever to advancing U.S.
interests, and Congress, and especially members of this
subcommittee, play a critical role in helping to ensure
taxpayer resources are used efficiently at multilateral
institutions to help advance U.S. objectives.
I welcome the opportunity to discuss these issues with you
and your staff at any time, and I am happy to answer any
questions you may have.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Crocker follows:]
Prepared Statement of Assistant Secretary of State Bathsheba N. Crocker
Chairman Barrasso, Ranking Member Udall, and distinguished members
of the committee. It is my pleasure to appear before you today to
discuss U.S. actions to promote efficiency and effectiveness across the
United Nations and other international organizations.
As the Assistant Secretary of State for International Organization
Affairs, it is my job to ensure that U.S. multilateral priorities are
advanced across the entire multilateral system, including at the United
Nations and several dozen other international organizations. That
effort spans seven U.S. multilateral missions, including our mission to
the United Nations in New York, and requires collaboration with other
federal agencies that depend on international organizations to help
advance their priorities.
The organizations we work with are diverse--from distributing
emergency food assistance through the World Food Programme, to ensuring
global aviation safety standards through the International Civil
Aviation Organization--but the core U.S. objectives at each of these
organizations are the same: to advance our national interests, to
promote American values, and to advocate for the efficient and
effective use of American taxpayer resources.
As we begin our conversation today, I think it is important that we
recognize one truth: we ask a great deal of the United Nations and
other international organizations, and to a remarkable degree, those
organizations are largely responsive to our demands.
Consider the recent headlines: United Nations agencies are leading
the effort to respond to the devastation in Nepal. They are addressing
humanitarian emergencies in Yemen, Iraq, South Sudan, the Central
African Republic, and in and around Syria. We rely on agencies like the
World Health Organization not only to address the impact of Ebola in
West Africa, but also to eliminate polio and other diseases once and
for all. In many cases, United Nations political missions are the
international community's last remaining eyes and ears on the ground in
areas experiencing significant insecurity or political instability. In
16 missions around the world, nearly 130,000 United Nations
peacekeepers are contributing to stability and promoting peace and
reconciliation.
These are just some of the countless examples where U.S. interests
are advanced through coordination at the United Nations and across many
other international organizations. The United States simply cannot, and
should not, address such global challenges alone. Working through the
multilateral system enables us to mobilize global action. And it allows
us to leverage the commitments of other countries to ensure that the
financial burdens of that action are shared across the international
community.
Now, with all of that being said, there is no denying that the
United Nations and other international organizations have not always
proven to be effective stewards of U.S. taxpayer resources. For too
long, the United Nations operated without the necessary commitment to
transparency, accountability, and results.
In recognition of that reality, the United States and numerous
partner countries have pressed the United Nations system to embrace
modern management and budgeting practices. Since becoming Assistant
Secretary in September 2014, I have prioritized management and budget
reform issues across the United Nations and other international
organizations, and I have used my position and voice as frequently as
possible to push for progress. The results of this sustained engagement
are clear.
Within the past month, we've reached agreement to no-growth budgets
at both the International Labor Organization and the Food and
Agriculture Organization. This continues a trend of limiting growth in
international organizations' budgets. For instance, at over half of the
more than 45 organizations we fund through the Contributions to
International Organizations account, we are projecting no increases in
assessments for fiscal year 2016.
Just 2 weeks ago, I cochaired a meeting in Geneva of the top donors
to the United Nations system, where we agreed to form a working group
of senior government and United Nations agency representatives to look
at United Nations performance management practices. We also agreed on a
plan to increase scrutiny of how United Nations agencies are handling
their own audits and ethics rules, including protections of
whistleblowers from retaliation.
We're seeing gradual progress on needed reforms in this area. Two
organizations that previously did not provide access to audit reports,
the International Maritime Organization and the International
Telecommunication Union, have begun providing access. At the United
Nations, we gained agreement in December to permanent public access to
audit and evaluation reports. And two other organizations that had
shortcomings in their whistleblower protection policies, the
Organization of American States and the World Health Organization, have
corrected those shortcomings. This week, we are hosting here in
Washington two additional gatherings of the top donors to the United
Nations system to focus on finding additional efficiencies in the
multilateral system, including discussing the status of World Health
Organization reforms in the wake of their response to the Ebola crisis.
Last month, I traveled to a UNICEF coordination facility in
Copenhagen that shows the United Nations' procurement system at its
best. At the facility, UNICEF is working with partners to create
economies of scale to drive down the price of immunizations and other
crucial goods. That effort will not only save the United Nations tens
of millions of dollars every year, but it also will bring untold
benefit to communities around the world. It is these kinds of efforts
that we are trying to replicate across the entire multilateral system.
Furthermore, we remain determined in our efforts to improve
accountability and transparency measures in peacekeeping operations. We
initiated a comprehensive review of civilian staff in missions,
resulting in significant reductions and cost savings. We are holding
troop contributing countries accountable through financial penalties if
they deploy units to United Nations peace operations with missing or
nonfunctioning equipment. And we worked with our partners at the United
Nations to initiate a firm prohibition on payments to troops sent home
for misconduct, including for sexual exploitation and abuse.
These examples of reforms and best practices are promising. But
unfortunately, they are not yet the norm, and we remain frustrated by
sluggish progress in other areas. For example, some organizations
continue to struggle to provide whistleblower protections, and the
formulas that determine how much funding each member state contributes
to the important work of the United Nations remain woefully outdated.
There is clearly more work to be done across the board.
I am grateful to this subcommittee for holding today's hearing and
for your continued interest in our work at the United Nations and other
international organizations. As I said in my confirmation hearing
before this committee, we have a deep stake in shaping the continual
renewal of the international system and making sure it is as efficient
and effective as possible. The investments we make in the multilateral
arena today are more important than ever in advancing U.S. national
interests around the globe. Congress, and especially members of this
subcommittee, play a critical role in helping to ensure taxpayer
resources are used efficiently at multilateral institutions to help
advance U.S. objectives. I welcome the opportunity to discuss these
issues with you and your staff any time, and I am happy to answer any
questions you may have.
Senator Barrasso. Well, thank you very much, Secretary
Crocker.
Next we will hear from Ambassador Coleman.
STATEMENT OF HON. ISOBEL COLEMAN, AMBASSADOR, U.S.
REPRESENTATIVE TO THE UNITED NATIONS FOR U.N. MANAGEMENT AND
REFORM, U.S. MISSION TO THE UNITED NATIONS, WASHINGTON, DC
Ambassador Coleman. Thank you, Chairman Barrasso, Ranking
Member Udall, and distinguished members of the committee, for
inviting me to testify on our efforts to make the United
Nations a more efficient and effective institution.
I have been in my role as U.S. Ambassador for U.N.
Management and Reform for nearly 5 months now and have had
numerous opportunities to see firsthand how the work of the
U.N. is both indispensable and imperfect. I recently returned
from visiting with the U.N.'s largest peacekeeping mission in
the Democratic Republic of Congo, a country where a decade-long
war starting in the mid-1990s claimed some 5 million lives.
Today, the U.N. plays a critical role in contributing to the
maintenance of a fragile peace in Congo. I visited bases in
North and South Kivu from which U.N. peacekeepers patrol the
surrounding areas and assist in disarming militias. I toured a
U.N. camp where child soldiers are being demobilized and
reintegrated into their communities.
My trip to the DRC provided me with a powerful
demonstration of the U.N. at its best, how it can help prevent
conflict, keep the peace, go where nobody else will go to care
for the neediest of the world, and promote universal values
that Americans hold dear.
However, I also saw an organization struggling to do
critical work in more effective ways. There is ample room for
improvement, from how troops are trained and equipped to how
complicated missions staff up and draw down. As the Ambassador
for U.N. Management and Reform, my job is to ensure that U.S.
taxpayer dollars are spent wisely, and I recognize that
opportunities and challenges abound in making the U.N. a more
efficient, transparent, and accountable organization.
As the largest financial contributor to the United Nations,
we put budget discipline at the forefront of our efforts to
ensure that the U.N. is constantly seeking ways to do more with
less. Last December, we kept the increase in U.S. assessments
below 2 percent compared to 4 percent or higher in biennia
past, even in the face of new commitments such as responding to
the Ebola crisis. We further set a budget planning figure for
the next biennium that is 1.6 percent lower than the current
level. This followed a significant reduction in the staffing
level during the previous budget period, the first such action
in almost 20 years.
Equally as important as controlling the top line is
ensuring fairness in how much we are required to pay to the
United Nations. This means, first and foremost, protecting the
22 percent ceiling on the regular budget, as that ceiling not
only lowers our rate on the regular budget but also our
starting point on the far larger peacekeeping budget.
Nevertheless, we are committed to paying our U.N. dues on time
and in full, and we will be working hard this fall during the
scales of assessments negotiations to ensure that all countries
pay their fair share.
Additionally, we continue to promote long-term structural
savings in U.N. budgets through innovation, including through
new IT systems that will enable the U.N. to modernize its
approach to functions such as procurement, human resources,
finance, and supply chain management. A recent change we
secured in procurement methodology, for example, will enable
the U.N. to get better value on the more than 700 million
dollars' worth of annual air contracts that it has. And we are
pleased to note that an American company was one of the first
to win a contract under the new rules. We have pushed these
reforms as an important means of achieving substantial U.N.
headcount reductions and cost savings from the streamlining of
business processes.
We have also worked hard to ensure that U.N. staff costs
are more in line with the U.S. Federal Government because the
U.N. uses the U.S. Government's pay scale as the basis of
comparison. To that end, we have achieved freezes in U.N. pay
and benefits, a powerful lever for budget control since staff
costs comprise more than 70 percent of the U.N.'s budget.
We have also focused on ways to make peacekeeping
operations more effective, such as promoting the Global Field
Support Strategy, a move to shared services for peacekeeping
missions that has led to at least $250 million in savings. As a
result of this and other initiatives, the cost per U.N.
uniformed peacekeeper has been reduced by 17 percent since 2008
when adjusted for inflation. We continually keep U.N. missions
under review to ensure they are right-sized, and seize the
opportunity to draw down when appropriate, as will occur this
year in peacekeeping missions in Cote d'Ivoire, Haiti, Liberia,
and the U.N.'s emergency response to Ebola, among other
missions.
We also press the U.N. to be more transparent and
accountable. We achieved a significant increase in transparency
in December by making permanent the public disclosure of the
U.N. audit and inspection reports of the various programs so
that all taxpayers can see how their money is spent. We
continue to seek to strengthen the Inspector General of the
U.N. by providing the resources and personnel needed to
effectively fulfill its oversight role in headquarters and in
the field.
However, we recognize that our efforts at reform will be
diminished unless we ensure the U.N.'s integrity. Too often,
incidents of fraud, abuse, and mismanagement undermine the
organization's good work, hurting the very people the U.N. is
supposed to be protecting. We continue to push the U.N. to
address misconduct issues, especially sexual exploitation and
abuse. We support the establishment of an office to improve the
evaluation of the performance and readiness of peacekeeping
units in the field. And we also continue to work with the U.N.
to strengthen its whistleblower protection policies.
Reform can succeed at the U.N. even though the pace is
frustratingly slow. But we owe it to U.S. taxpayers and to the
billions of people who depend, many for their lives, on crucial
services of the U.N. to push for change.
Thank you again for the opportunity to testify today, and I
welcome any questions you might have.
[The prepared statement of Ambassador Coleman follows:]
Prepared Statement of Ambassador Isobel Coleman
Thank you Chairman Barrasso, Ranking Member Udall and distinguished
members of the committee for inviting me to testify on our efforts to
make the United Nations a more efficient and effective institution.
I have been in my role as U.S. Ambassador for U.N. Management and
Reform for nearly 5 months now, and have had numerous opportunities to
see firsthand how the work of the U.N. is both ``indispensable'' and
``imperfect.'' I recently returned from visiting the United Nations
largest peacekeeping mission in the Democratic Republic of Congo--a
country where a decade-long war starting in the mid-1990s claimed some
5 million lives. Today, the U.N. plays a critical role in contributing
to the maintenance of a fragile peace in Congo. I visited bases in
North and South Kivu from which U.N. peacekeepers patrol the
surrounding areas, and assist in disarming militias. I toured a U.N.
camp where child soldiers are being demobilized and reintegrated into
their communities.
My trip to the DRC provided me with a powerful demonstration of the
U.N. at its best: how it can help prevent conflict, keep the peace, go
where nobody else will go to care for the neediest of the world, and
promote universal values that Americans hold dear. However, I also saw
an organization struggling to do its critical work in more effective
ways. There is ample room for improvement, from how troops are trained
and equipped, to how complicated missions staff up and draw down.
As the Ambassador for U.N. Management and Reform, my job is to ensure
that
U.S. taxpayer dollars are spent wisely, and I recognize that
opportunities and challenges abound in making the U.N. a more
efficient, transparent, and accountable
institution.
As the largest financial contributor to the United Nations, we put
budget discipline at the forefront of our efforts to ensure that the
U.N. is constantly seeking ways to do more with less. Last December, we
kept the increase in U.S. assessments below 2 percent compared to 4
percent or higher in biennia past, even in the face of new commitments
such as responding to the Ebola crisis. We further set a budget
planning figure for the next biennium that is 1.6 percent lower than
the current level. This followed a significant reduction in the
staffing level during the previous budget period, the first such action
in almost 20 years.
Equally as important as controlling the topline is ensuring
fairness in how much we are required to pay to the United Nations. This
means first and foremost protecting the 22 percent ceiling on the
regular budget, as that ceiling not only lowers our rate on the regular
budget, but also our starting point on the far larger peacekeeping
budget. Nevertheless, we are committed to paying our U.N. dues on time
and in full, and we will be working hard this fall during the scales of
assessments negotiations to ensure that all countries pay their fair
share.
Additionally, we continue to promote long-term structural savings
in U.N. budgets through innovation, including through new IT systems
that will enable the U.N. to modernize its approach to functions such
as procurement, human resources, finance, and supply chain management.
A recent change we secured in procurement methodology, for example,
will enable the U.N. to get better value on its 700 million dollars'
worth of annual air contracts. And we are pleased to note that an
American company was one of the first to win a contract under the new
rules. We have pushed these reforms as an important means of achieving
substantial U.N. headcount reductions and cost savings from the
streamlining of business processes.
We also have worked hard to ensure that U.N. staff costs are more
in line with the U.S. Federal Government--because the U.N. uses the
U.S. Government's pay scale as basis of comparison. To that end, we
have achieved freezes in U.N. pay and benefits, a powerful lever for
budget control since staff costs comprise more than 70 percent of the
U.N.'s budget.
We have also focused on ways to make peacekeeping operations more
effective, such as promoting the Global Field Support Strategy, a move
to shared services for peacekeeping missions that has led to at least
$250 million in savings. As a result of this and other initiatives, the
cost per U.N. uniformed peacekeeper has been reduced by 17 percent
since 2008, when adjusted for inflation. We continually keep U.N.
missions under review to ensure they are right-sized, and seize the
opportunity to draw down when appropriate, as will occur this year in
peacekeeping missions in Cote d'Ivoire, Haiti, Liberia, and the U.N.'s
emergency response to Ebola (UNMEER), among other missions.
We also press the U.N. to be more transparent and accountable. We
achieved a significant increase in transparency in December by making
permanent the public disclosure of U.N. audit and inspection reports of
the various programs so
that all taxpayers can see how their money is being spent. We continue
to seek to strengthen the Inspector General of the U.N. called the
Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS) by providing the resources
and personnel needed to effectively fulfill its oversight role in
headquarters and in the field.
However, we recognize that our efforts at reform will be diminished
unless we ensure the U.N.'s integrity: too often, incidents of fraud,
abuse, and mismanagement undermine the organization's important work by
hurting the very people the U.N. is supposed to be protecting, and
damaging public support for the U.N. We continue to push the U.N. to
address misconduct issues, especially sexual exploitation and abuse
(SEA), to ensure that effective processes are in place for prevention
and accountability. We supported the establishment of an office to
improve the evaluation of the performance and readiness of peacekeeping
units in the field. We also continue to work with the U.N. to
strengthen its whistleblower protection policies and how they can
implement those policies more robustly.
Reform can succeed at the U.N., even though the pace is
frustratingly slow. But we owe it to U.S. taxpayers and to the billions
of people who depend, many for their lives, on crucial U.N. services to
push for change.
Thank you again for the opportunity to testify today and I welcome
any questions you may have.
Senator Barrasso. Well, thank you very much, Ambassador
Coleman. We appreciate your testimony.
And we will now move to Acting Assistant Secretary Garber.
STATEMENT OF HON. JUDITH G. GARBER, ACTING ASSISTANT SECRETARY,
BUREAU OF OCEANS AND INTERNATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL AND SCIENTIFIC
AFFAIRS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, WASHINGTON, DC
Ms. Garber. Good afternoon, Chairman Barrasso, Ranking
Member Udall. Thank you for the opportunity to testify on the
programs and policies of the Bureau of Oceans and International
Environmental and Scientific Affairs at the State Department.
It is truly my honor to highlight a few of OES's major program
priorities today.
Secretary Kerry has made ocean conservation an imperative
of U.S. foreign policy. The June 2014 Our Ocean Conference
already is having concrete results to improve sustainable
fisheries, to reduce marine pollution, and to better monitor
ocean acidification. We have launched an ocean action plan with
significant public engagement around the world, including
working to bring the Port State Measures Agreement into force.
I would like to thank the Senate for its support of these
efforts. This agreement will recoup some of the billions of
dollars lost each year to illegal, unreported, and unregulated
fishing.
In another example of our work, on April 24, the United
States assumed the chairmanship of the Arctic Council and
introduced an ambitious and balanced program focusing on three
crucial areas: improving economic and living conditions for
Arctic communities; Arctic Ocean safety, security, and
stewardship; and addressing the impacts of climate change. In
the months ahead, OES will work with Arctic stakeholders to
improve community sanitation and public health to better
prepare those responsible for search and rescue challenges in
the Arctic and to reduce contaminants in the Arctic, including
black carbon.
Although OES does not lead U.S. negotiations on climate
change, we take critical steps to spur a global all-hands-on-
deck effort. For example, we are working closely with the
leadership of the Office of the Special Envoy for Climate
Change to reduce climate pollutants such as methane, black
carbon, and hydrofluorocarbons through the Climate and Clean
Air Coalition. The CCAC is a voluntary initiative with dozens
of countries and other stakeholder groups participating that
enjoys bipartisan support in Congress.
Combating wildlife trafficking is a whole-of-government
effort, which OES coordinates among Federal agencies and pushes
for stronger international commitment and collaboration. For
example, we are seeking to leverage trade agreements such as
the Trans-Pacific Partnership to press countries which account
for a sizeable portion of the demand for illegal wildlife to
live up to their international commitments.
Science and technology are key drivers of the global
economy, making them vital tools in diplomacy. S&T engagement
creates partnerships with countries to tackle shared challenges
such as energy security, food security, global health, climate
change, and water scarcity. OES, with its strong complement of
Ph.D. scientists and subject-matter experts work to ensure that
objective scientific data informs public policy decisionmaking.
The Joint Committee Meetings, such as the one we are having
later this week with Germany, and science dialogues that OES
hosts with other countries create platforms to promote
innovation and advance policy priorities such as combating
antibiotic-resistant bacteria and data access for U.S.
scientists.
OES helps advance the U.S. global health mission. The Ebola
epidemic is a striking example of the impact that health
threats have on our own security and of the critical importance
of sustainable health systems overseas. Looking to the future,
we are working to ensure the continued commitment of
international resources for health system build-back in the
affected Ebola countries, leaving them stronger and more
resilient than they were before the epidemic.
In addressing global health, we work with the Department of
Health and Human Services, USAID, and other U.S. agencies to
facilitate U.S. policies to counter international bioterrorism
and infectious disease, provide surveillance and response, and
improve health in post-conflict situations.
The last example I would like to highlight is space. OES
furthers the goals of national space policy by helping to build
an international policy framework that supports the peaceful
exploration and utilization of outer space by both public
institutions and new private ventures. A number of U.S.
companies have recently announced plans for unprecedented
commercial activities in outer space. A safe, transparent, and
accountable approach is critical in providing commercial space
companies and investors a degree of certainty enabling them to
make investments and spur innovation.
By addressing these many complex challenges, OES seeks to
leave a healthier planet for generations to come. We are
supporting these efforts by our foot soldiers, some 300
environment, science, technology, and health officers at our
embassies overseas. Together we promote American values, foster
an entrepreneurial spirit, and build relationships.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify today, and I look
forward to responding to any questions you may have.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Garber follows:]
Prepared Statement of Acting Assistant Secretary
of State Judith G. Garber
introduction
Chairman Barrasso, Ranking Member Udall, and distinguished members
of the subcommittee, thank you for the invitation to testify today on
the programs, policies and resources of the Bureau of Oceans and
International Environmental and Scientific Affairs (OES) at the State
Department. The OES Bureau traces its beginnings within the Department
back to 1973. In 1973, Congress passed a State Department authorization
bill (Public Law 93-126) establishing OES with wide-ranging global
responsibilities, including science, pollution, conservation, and
health, to name a few. From an historical perspective, the Bureau was
created against the backdrop of space exploration and landmark
legislation establishing the Clean Water, Clean Air, and Marine Mammal
Protection Acts, among others. At a time when foreign policy was viewed
through the lens of the cold war, Congress correctly saw the need for
these issues to be treated as an integral part of our foreign policy.
Since 1973, OES Assistant Secretaries and the many foreign and civil
servants in OES have worked hard to this end. Today, OES issues are
front and center on the international agenda and are recognized
worldwide as critical foreign policy and security issues. Our foreign
policy efforts to address these fundamental topics are more critical
than ever.
Changes to our organizational structure are helping OES meet the
opportunities presented by the rising prominence of these foreign
policy challenges. The Department's first Quadrennial Diplomacy and
Development Review (QDDR), released in 2010, realigned the three
Bureaus addressing economic growth, energy and the environment under
the Office of the Under Secretary for Economic Growth, Energy and the
Environment. This realignment has created new synergies among the three
Bureaus to strengthen America's security and prosperity and has fueled
the evolution of our diplomacy and development strategies. The just
released 2015 QDDR contains further evidence of the priority placed
upon OES issues, and the incorporation of these issues into the broader
diplomatic and development mainstream.
As coordinator of the interagency process for many international
ocean, environmental, scientific and health issues, OES brings federal
entities together such as the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA), U.S. Agency for International Development
(USAID), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the National
Science Foundation (NSF), and the Department of Health and Human
Services (HHS), to meld our collective agendas into coherent U.S.
Government policies, negotiating positions, and programs. We integrate
into this work the interests of private stakeholders (including
nongovernmental domestic and international entities). Against this
backdrop, I will now turn to a description of the Bureau's major
program priorities; address how they serve U.S. national and economic
interests; and describe some of our plans moving forward.
seizing the momentum on ocean issues
Secretary Kerry has made ocean conservation a centerpiece of U.S.
foreign policy, including by hosting the groundbreaking ``Our Ocean''
Conference in Washington last June. The conference was a tremendous
success, spurring new partnerships and initiatives valued at more than
$800 million to conserve the ocean and its resources, as well as new
commitments on the protection of more than 3 million square kilometers
of the ocean.
In the wake of that conference, we have made significant progress
on sustainable fishing, marine pollution and plastics, ocean
acidification, and marine protected areas. For example, the
administration just rolled out its historic plan to fight illegal,
unreported, and unregulated fishing and seafood fraud. This plan,
developed by the Task Force on Combating Illegal, Unreported, and
Unregulated Fishing and Seafood convened by the President provides a
comprehensive framework of integrated programs to combat IUU fishing
and seafood fraud. The plan breaks new ground in sustainable fisheries
and aims to level the playing field for legal fishers and fishing
businesses in the United States and around the world by strengthening
enforcement, creating and expanding partnerships among local, regional,
and international actors, and creating a risk-based traceability
program to track seafood from harvest to entry into U.S. commerce.
Last year the United States created the largest marine protected
area (or ``MPA'') in the world by expanding our Pacific Remote Islands
Marine National Monument by six times its original size. We also want
to make sure MPAs around the world are not just paper parks, so we are
working to improve cooperation, capacity, and the application of new
technologies to detect illegal activities in these areas. We are very
interested in working with other governments to create more, and more
effective, MPAs to help the long-term health and sustainability of our
ocean.
Our priorities for the next Our Ocean Conference, which Chile will
host later this year in Valparaiso, are to move forward on promoting
sustainable fisheries (especially by bringing the Port State Measures
Agreement into force), reducing marine debris (especially plastic
waste), improving worldwide capability to monitor ocean acidification,
and creating new and more effective MPAs.
Although we are working to take advantage of the opportunities
presented by the recent focus on the ocean, the United States has a
strong, decades-long record of global leadership in conserving and
managing shared fisheries resources. We negotiated innovative
mechanisms like the U.N. Fish Stocks Agreement, the U.N. Food and
Agriculture Organization (FAO) Fisheries Compliance Agreement and the
FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fishing, to strengthen the
conservation and management regimes of the world's fish stocks. With
science underpinning the work of our regional fisheries management
organizations, the United States is already a party to more than a
dozen such regional agreements governing such diverse resources as
tunas in the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans, groundfish in the North
Atlantic Ocean and the Bering Sea, and salmon in the North Pacific and
North Atlantic Oceans, among others.
In addition to conserving target fish stocks, international
fisheries agreements and other forms of cooperation can advance
important economic benefits for the owners and operators of U.S.
fishing vessels, associated industries, and consumers. In negotiating
agreements, OES works to promote fair and equitable fishing access
opportunities for U.S. vessels, while also protecting our global and
regional marine conservation interests. For example, the 1987
Multilateral Treaty on Fisheries--also referred to as the South Pacific
Tuna Treaty--has for decades set the terms and conditions for the U.S.
purse seine fleet to fish in a vast area of the western and central
Pacific Ocean, providing access for up to 40 vessels to some of the
most valuable tuna resources in the world. In collaboration with
Department and interagency partners, OES leads U.S. efforts to revise
and extend the terms of the treaty and explore other ways to ensure
economically viable fishing access to waters under the jurisdiction of
Pacific Island parties. The parties met most recently in March 2015 to
discuss renegotiation of the treaty, as well as fishing access
opportunities for the U.S. purse seine fleet in 2016. We remain
committed to working with the Pacific Island parties to achieve an
outcome that meets the economic objectives of both sides and
contributes to an effective and transparent conservation and management
regime.
We are extremely pleased to note that the Senate, acknowledging the
importance of taking action to address IUU fishing and sustainable
fisheries management, gave its advice and consent to the following four
important treaties last year to help cement U.S. leadership in these
areas: The FAO Agreement on Port State Measures to Prevent, Deter and
Eliminate Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated Fishing (hereinafter the
``Port State Measures Agreement'' or ``PSMA''); The Convention on the
Conservation and Management of High Seas Fisheries Resources of the
North Pacific Ocean (hereinafter ``NPFC Convention''); The Convention
on the Conservation and Management of High Seas Fishery Resources of
the South Pacific Ocean (hereinafter ``SPRFMO Convention''); and
Amendments to the Convention on Future Multilateral Cooperation in the
Northwest Atlantic Fisheries (hereinafter ``NAFO Amendments''). These
four agreements represent significant progress in protecting U.S.
interests to prevent illegal fishing activities from undermining our
global and regional efforts toward these ends, advance our
international policies and priorities to conserve and manage shared
living marine resources, and protect U.S. interests and the broader
marine environment from the effects of destructive fishing practices.
OES participated in all four negotiations that led to agreements the
U.S. Senate approved and we continue to work with NOAA and USAID as
part of an effective strategy to educate and raise awareness among
foreign governments and the fishing industry of the deleterious effects
of destructive fishing practices.
Turning to a brief description of the four treaties, the Port State
Measures Agreement is the first binding global agreement specifically
intended to combat IUU fishing. IUU fishing undermines efforts to
conserve and manage shared fish stocks and threatens the sustainability
of all fisheries. The global values of economic losses due to IUU
fishing have been estimated to be in the billions of dollars each year.
The large number of developing nations that depend on fisheries for
food security and export income are particularly vulnerable. A
secondary benefit to the United States joining the Port State Measures
Agreement and the other treaties under consideration is that it will
give the United States additional tools to address illegal activities
that are often intertwined with IUU fishing, including labor
exploitation, drug trafficking, environmental degradation, and
organized crime. Since IUU fishers can operate anywhere, detecting
activities at sea is difficult and expensive. But, in order to sell or
trade their illegal catch, they ultimately need to ensure that it is
brought to a port for landing or transshipment. The Port State Measures
Agreement establishes standards and requirements for port States to
ensure IUU-caught fish will not be landed, transshipped, packaged, or
processed in their ports.
The OES Bureau is working to bring the Port State Measures
Agreement into force in order to combat illegal, unreported, and
unregulated (IUU) fishing by driving up the bad actors' cost of doing
business and preventing illegally caught fish from entering global
seafood markets. This is just one example of how we are carrying out
the Secretary's vision on ocean conservation.
Turning to the Convention on the Conservation and Management of
High Seas Fisheries Resources of the North Pacific Ocean, the
Convention Area of the NPFC Convention includes areas of the high seas
immediately adjacent to the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) off
Alaska, the Pacific west coast, Hawaii, and U.S. territories and
possessions in the North Pacific. U.S. accession will create a stronger
United States leadership role in managing fishing activities outside
the U.S. EEZ that could have a direct impact on resources within waters
under U.S. jurisdiction.
The SPRFMO Convention establishes the South Pacific Regional
Fisheries Management Organization (SPRFMO) through which the Parties
will cooperate to ensure the long-term and sustainable use of fisheries
in the Convention Area. Although the United States currently has no
fishing activity for fish stocks covered by the Convention, accession
to the Convention will yield significant benefits to U.S. interests.
The Convention Area includes areas of the high seas closest to the U.S.
territory of American Samoa, and immediately adjacent to the U.S.
Exclusive Economic Zone off a number of U.S. Pacific possessions
including Jarvis, Howland and Baker Islands, Kingman Reef and Palmyra
Atoll. As in the NPFC, U.S. accession to the SPRFMO Convention will
ensure participatory rights for U.S. fishers in fisheries within the
Convention Area.
NAFO is charged with coordinating scientific study and cooperative
management of the fisheries resources of the Northwest Atlantic Ocean,
excluding salmon, tunas, and sedentary species of the Continental
Shelf. The NAFO-adopted amendments add additional rigor and
transparency to the decisionmaking process, establish a dispute
settlement procedure, improve the guiding language for allocating
catches, and provide a more equitable basis for calculating Contracting
Parties' budget contributions more equitably.
These agreements have strong economic benefits as well as strong
support from a broad and diverse range of U.S. stakeholders from both
the fishing industry and conservation community. In the weeks ahead, we
will continue to work diligently with the Senate and the House of
Representatives to move implementing legislation this year to make
joining these agreements a reality.
leading the arctic council
The Arctic Council is the preeminent international forum for
promoting cooperation, coordination, and interaction among the Arctic
States (Canada, Denmark (via Greenland), Finland, Iceland, Norway,
Russia, Sweden, and the United States). Its mandate encompasses
critically important environmental and economic issues with the active
engagement of indigenous communities and other stakeholders. Created in
1996, the Council is chaired by each member state for 2 years.
On April 24, the United States assumed the Arctic Council
Chairmanship and introduced an ambitious and balanced program focusing
on three crucial areas: improving economic and living conditions for
Arctic communities; Arctic Ocean safety, security and stewardship; and
addressing the impacts of climate change. These priorities are
consistent with the priorities laid out in the National Strategy for
the Arctic Region and its subsequent Implementation Plan. Under the
leadership of ADM Robert Papp, the U.S. Special Representative for the
Arctic and former Commandant of the United States Coast Guard, OES is
working with its domestic and international Arctic partners to assist
remote Arctic communities with adapting to the rapid changes that are
altering traditional ways of life, prioritize collaborative search and
rescue and oil pollution preparedness and response exercises, implement
circumpolar demonstration projects to reduce contaminants in the
Arctic, including black carbon, develop national black carbon emission
inventories, and work with Arctic stakeholders to encourage positive
collaborative relationships, while continuing to see the region's
marine ecosystems and resources flourish. As Chair of the Arctic
Council, we are committed to advancing our national interests, pursuing
responsible stewardship, and strengthening international cooperation in
the Arctic Council among all Arctic stakeholders. OES intends to
contribute in a sustained and meaningful way toward achieving these
objectives.
Joining the Law of the Sea Convention remains a top priority for
the Obama administration, including for important considerations
relating to the Arctic. The Convention, which sets forth a
comprehensive legal framework governing uses of the oceans, protects
and advances a broad range of U.S. interests, including U.S. national
security and economic interests. U.S. accession will secure, as treaty
law, highly favorable provisions that guarantee our military and
commercial vessels worldwide navigational rights, and accord to the
United States expansive sovereign rights over offshore resources,
including oil and gas on the continental shelf beyond 200 nautical
miles. Accession will also support important U.S. geostrategic
interests by underscoring our engagement in the Arctic and
strengthening our engagement in East Asia, particularly around South
Asia maritime issues. Becoming a Party to the Law of the Sea Convention
would allow the United States to fully secure its rights to the
continental shelf off the coast of Alaska, which is likely to extend
out to more than 600 nautical miles.
confronting climate change
As the February 2015 National Security Strategy states, ``climate
change is an urgent and growing threat to our national security,
contributing to increased natural disasters, refugee flows, and
conflicts over basic resources like food and water. The present day
effects of climate change are being felt from the Arctic to the
Midwest. Increased sea levels and storm surges threaten coastal
regions, infrastructure, and property. In turn, the global economy
suffers, compounding the growing costs of preparing and restoring
infrastructure.''
Although OES does not lead U.S. negotiations on climate change, the
Office of the Special Envoy for Climate Change (SECC) relies on the
Bureau for scientific and technical support. In confronting this
challenge, we have taken numerous steps to exercise leadership and spur
a global all-hands-on-deck effort. I will highlight just a few examples
of this leadership. In November, the United States and China made a
historic announcement of their intended post-2020 targets to reduce
carbon emissions. The United States announced a strong national target
to reduce carbon emissions 26-28 percent below 2005 levels by 2025 and
China agreed--for the first time--to peak its CO2 emissions around the
year 2030--and to make best efforts to peak before then. China also
announced an ambitious target of achieving around 20 percent nonfossil
energy in its energy mix by 2030. The United States and China are the
world's two largest economies and the two largest emitters of carbon
pollution. As crucial participants in climate change negotiations, the
U.S.-China joint announcement provides momentum for the climate
negotiations and firmly establishes that the outcome of the Paris
conference later this year will reflect action from both developed and
developing countries. The United States also has a critically important
overall bilateral foreign policy relationship with China which the
announcement reinforces.
The administration exercised leadership in promoting climate-
resilience international development when he signed an Executive Order
13677 in September 2014. The EO directed United States department and
agencies to integrate climate-resilience into all U.S. international
development work. These additional considerations are critical for
managing risks posed by climate change in vulnerable populations and
for insuring U.S. investments would continue to benefit developing
countries even as climate changes. The Working Group on Climate-
Resilient International Development is actively developing guidelines
for integrating climate change considerations in international
decisions, identifying and facilitating the exchange of existing
climate-change data and tools, and sharing best practices with other
donor countries to advance climate-resilient developmental policies.
In another example, in November, 2014, President Obama announced
the intention of the United States to contribute $3 billion to the
Green Climate Fund (GCF), reflecting the U.S. commitment to reduce
carbon pollution and strengthen resilience in developing countries,
especially the poorest and most vulnerable. By financing investments
that help countries reduce carbon pollution and strengthen resilience
to climate change, the GCF will help leverage public and private
finance to avoid some of the most catastrophic risks of climate change.
By reducing those risks, the GCF will help promote smart, sustainable
long-term economic growth and preserve stability and security in
fragile regions of strategic importance to the United States. We would
also note that the United States will play a significant role in
deciding how and where to disburse funds from the GCF, and our
contributions to the GCF will not subject the United States to any new
enforceable international obligations or oversight. The U.S. pledge of
up to $3 billion to the GCF demonstrated U.S. leadership and was
instrumental in catalyzing further contributions from developed and
developing countries to the GCF. The GCF is just one element of a much
larger effort by the international community to mobilize $100 billion
from a variety of sources, including both public finance and private
investment by 2020.
The U.S. contribution to the GCF builds on a history of U.S.
leadership to support climate action. In 2008, the Bush administration
pledged $2 billion to the Climate Investment Funds, which were
established as a transitional measure to finance efforts to help
developing countries address climate change. The U.S. pledge to the GCF
demonstrates a continuation of the bipartisan resolve to help
developing nations reduce their own emissions as well as to help the
most vulnerable cope with the impacts of climate change. The GCF will
also help spur global markets in clean energy technologies, creating
opportunities for U.S. entrepreneurs and manufacturers who are leading
the way to a low-carbon future.
In addition to concluding a successful international climate change
agreement this December, we are committed to the success of the Climate
and Clean Air Coalition (CCAC) to reduce climate pollutants such as
methane, black carbon and hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs). The CCAC, a
voluntary initiative with 41 country and 52 nonstate partners, is a
pillar of international efforts to reduce pollution and protect human
health. We appreciate the bipartisan efforts of Senators Murphy and
Collins in championing landmark legislation to address these short-
lived climate pollutants in the United States.
We are also working with Mexico and Canada to garner global support
for a North American amendment to the highly successful Montreal
Protocol to phase down the production and consumption and eliminate
byproduct emissions of HFCs. These potent greenhouse gases are rapidly
increasing in the atmosphere mostly due to increased demand for
refrigeration and air conditioning, and because they are the primary
replacements for ozone depleting substances (ODS) being phased out
under the Montreal Protocol. This amendment could produce benefits of
more than 90 billion tons of carbon dioxide-equivalent through 2050.
Last month, I had the honor of participating in an important
symposium on climate change at St. John's College in Santa Fe with
former New Mexico Senator Jeff Bingaman and other distinguished
panelists. I was impressed by the enthusiasm, genuine interest and
reservoir of good will the audience displayed.
wildlife trafficking
Wildlife trafficking is a multi-billion-dollar criminal enterprise
that is both a conservation concern and an acute security threat. The
increasing involvement of organized crime in wildlife trafficking
promotes corruption, threatens the peace and security of fragile
regions, strengthens illicit trade routes, destabilizes economies and
communities that depend on wildlife for their livelihoods, and
contributes to the spread of disease.
Driven by high demand and high profits for wildlife and wildlife
products, coupled with low risk of detection and often inadequate
penalties, criminal syndicates are increasingly drawn to wildlife
trafficking, which generates revenues conservatively estimated at $8-10
billion per year. Rhino horn, for example, is currently worth more than
gold, yet in many parts of the world those caught engaging in wildlife
trafficking may risk small fines or minimal jail sentencing.
Recognizing that this issue will require significant and sustained
effort, OES worked closely with the cochairs and other members of the
Presidential Task Force on Wildlife Trafficking over this past year to
develop an Implementation Plan for the National Strategy for Combating
Wildlife Trafficking. The Implementation Plan was released this past
February on the first anniversary of the release of the National
Strategy. The Plan will be our roadmap going forward. It details how we
will further realize the Strategy's goals, it lays out specific next
steps, it identifies lead agencies for each objective, and it defines
how we will measure our progress.
OES is leading the coordination of two elements of the Strategy--
building international cooperation and public-private partnerships to
combat wildlife poaching and illegal trade; and reducing demand for
illegally traded wildlife at home and abroad. To this end, we are
engaging diplomatically to catalyze political will and mobilize global
support for the fight against wildlife trafficking. This includes
efforts to strengthen international agreements that protect wildlife,
promote conservation commitments, and fight wildlife trafficking within
and between countries and regions, while enlisting the support of our
partners--ranging from nonprofit conservation groups and grass-roots
activists to private industry and the media.
We've made progress in our interactions with China. Last July,
during the U.S.-China Strategic and Economic Dialogue, Secretary of
State John Kerry, together with China's Vice Premier Liu and State
Councilor Yang confirmed their commitment to stamp out illegal trade in
wildlife. And in November, President Obama and Chinese President Xi
Jinping reaffirmed this commitment and agreed to cooperate in the areas
of e-commerce, public outreach, joint training, and law enforcement.
Last month, I met with Chinese officials in Beijing for an exchange on
the concrete activities we are undertaking on these commitments, as
well as with Chinese wildlife NGOs who expressed appreciation for our
focus on combating wildlife trafficking.
Through our support for regional Wildlife Enforcement Networks
(WENs), OES is also contributing to the third strategic priority--
strengthening domestic and global enforcement, including assessing the
related laws, regulations, and enforcement tools.
Addressing the threats that wildlife trafficking poses is truly a
whole-of-government effort with more than a dozen federal agencies
working collaboratively on this issue. OES works within and outside the
Department to promote greater information-sharing and coordination
within and among governments, law enforcement and intelligence
agencies, conservation groups and other actors working in this area.
One important effort is to leverage trade agreements and trade policy
to press countries and regions which account for a sizeable portion of
the consumption, illegal take and trade of wildlife and wildlife
products to uphold their commitments to combat wildlife trafficking and
strengthen wildlife conservation.
We appreciate the strong attention Congress is paying to the issues
of poaching, smuggling, and the involvement of transnational organized
crime. We would like to extend our thanks to Senator Udall, in
particular, for his commitment to raising the profile of this issue.
This is evidenced by legislation he has cosponsored in the past to
strengthen the role of the United States in the international community
to conserve natural resources to further global prosperity and
security. We believe that the steps the United States is taking to
implement the national Strategy will go a long way to achieve the
legislation's goals.
increasing markets for u.s. goods and services
OES leads implementation of environmental cooperation mechanisms
that provide capacity-building and technical assistance to support
fulfilment of environmental provisions USTR negotiates in free trade
agreements. Since 2012, the Bureau has provided critical support to FTA
partners from Latin America to the Middle East, with notable successes
including capacity building for environmental oversight and enforcement
bodies; bringing over 40.5 million hectares under improved natural
resource management; training for over 30,700 farmers in
environmentally friendly practices; and assistance to 829 small and
medium sized enterprises to reduce their energy and water use and waste
and emissions.
Looking ahead, OES anticipates that trade-related cooperation
programs will help support implementation of FTA obligations in future
agreements. For example, the administration is pursuing environmental
commitments in the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP) with 11
other countries in the Asia-Pacific region as well as the Transatlantic
Trade and Investment Partnership Agreement (T-TIP) negotiations with
the European Union (EU). The TPP in particular includes countries
accounting for an estimated $8-$10 billion in illegal wildlife trade,
and one-quarter of global marine catch and global seafood exports. The
TPP is on track to include commitments that the parties maintain high
levels of environmental protection and effectively enforce domestic
environmental laws. It would also include strengthened protections for
wildlife, and commitments to combat IUU fishing, and prohibit harmful
fisheries subsidies, including those that contribute to overfishing.
These commitments would also be fully enforceable, including through
recourse to trade sanctions.
The United States has already concluded numerous free trade
agreements and cooperated extensively with six TPP countries, including
Australia, Canada, Chile, Mexico, Peru, and Singapore. We also have
significant ongoing environmental capacity-building activities with
Brunei, Malaysia, and Vietnam. To give you an idea of Bureau's
successes related to trade and the environment, since 2012, over 40.5
million hectares are under improved natural resource management; over
30,700 farmers have been trained in environmentally friendly practices;
a total of 829 small and medium sized enterprises have been helped to
reduce their energy and water use and waste and emissions. In a
nutshell, we are pushing for the world's highest standards in the
environmental chapters of the trade agreements that we are pursuing.
water and sanitation
Perhaps no two issues are as important to human health, economic
development and peace and security as access to water and sanitation.
By 2025, nearly two-thirds of the world's population will be living
under water stressed conditions, including roughly a billion people
that will face absolute water scarcity (a level that threatens economic
development as well as human health). According to the 2012
Intelligence Community Assessment on Global Water Security, ``During
the next 10 years, many countries important to the United States will
experience water problems--shortage, poor water quality, or floods--
that will risk instability and state failure, increase regional
tensions, and distract them from working with the United States on
important U.S. policy objectives.'' Without water, countries will
struggle to produce food, generate energy, and sustain the ecosystems
on which all life depends. These impacts are being translated across
the global economy. For instance, the 2011 flooding in Thailand shut
down manufacturing and disrupted global supply chains, impacting the
production of cars and computers in the United States. As water
resources become scarce, tensions are likely to rise. Globally, more
than 260 rivers are shared by two or more nations. Many countries view
water as a national security issue which is often embedded within
broader set of regional relationships and concerns.
The State Department is working to expand access to safe drinking
water and sanitation, improve the management of water resources, and
promote cooperation on shared waters. On the Nile, OES has supported
efforts by the riparian countries to establish a cooperative framework
for managing the basin's water resources and to reach an agreement on
controversial projects. OES also leads the Environment and Water pillar
in the Lower Mekong Initiative--working within the region to improve
the sustainability of hydropower infrastructure on a river system that
produces some 90 percent of the protein consumed regionally, and which
will likely become a major source of energy for the region.
Many water resource issues will be exacerbated by climate change.
The State Department is working with other federal agencies to insure
climate-resilience will be addressed in international development
decisions. This insures that investments in the future of developing
countries would withstand and adapt to changes in temperature,
precipitation, and sea-level rise.
We have developed partnerships, like the U.S. Water Partnership, a
public-private partnership which unites and mobilizes American
knowledge, expertise and resources to address international water
challenges, especially in developing countries where needs are
greatest. We have supported colleagues from USAID, the Millennium
Challenge Corporation and many others from across the U.S. Government
in their efforts to bring safe drinking water and sanitation to
millions of people throughout the world.
leading in science & innovation
Science and technology (S&T) are among the most respected fields of
endeavor in our society, creating opportunities for international
leadership in science diplomacy. Science and technology are key drivers
of the global economy, making them vital tools in diplomacy and
development. S&T engagement can create partnerships with developed and
developing countries to tackle the most pressing problems confronting
humanity: climate change, energy security, food security and water
shortages. OES, with its strong complement of Ph.D. scientists and
subject matter experts, helps to ensure that our decisions are rooted
in science and that objective scientific data informs public policy
decisionmaking. Through our bilateral science and technology
relationships, we provide a framework for scientific engagement and
contribute to a diversity of thought in line with key U.S. policies,
including intellectual property rights and access to data. Our science
diplomacy facilitates access for U.S. researchers to cutting edge
research as well as research infrastructure overseas. The Joint
Committee Meetings and science dialogues that OES hosts create
platforms to promote the administration's policy and program
initiatives, such as the national strategies on innovation and
combatting antibiotic-resistant bacteria.
I just returned last week from Colombia where I participated in an
environmental and scientific dialogue to enhance U.S. understanding of
the complexities that Colombia faces to sustain its natural resource
base in a post-conflict environment. The importance of the State
Department's efforts, including those of our embassies and consulates
overseas, to build relationships with representatives of foreign
governments in respective areas of expertise cannot be overstated. This
communication leads to more confidence, trust and understanding of
cultures. Absent such an exchange of ideas, fostering U.S. economic
growth and opening up new markets for Americans becomes a more
difficult undertaking.
The Bureau's investments in science, technology, and innovation
have shown results. The OES-sponsored Global Innovation through Science
and Technology (GIST) initiative has worked in 86 emerging economies to
train over 4,500 startups and has created a network of over 243,000
young motivated entrepreneurs who are moving their science and
technology based innovations into the commercial arena. As the National
Security Strategy notes, ``More than 50 percent of the world's people
are under 30 years old. Many struggle to make a life in countries with
broken governance.'' Our GIST program is a small and inexpensive effort
to tap into the collective global entrepreneurial spirit and to the
sharp and nimble minds of young people everywhere to foster sustained
growth and prosperity. The GIST initiative does not operate in a
vacuum. It is part of the Department's larger Shared Prosperity Agenda
that seeks to advance U.S. commercial and economic interests worldwide,
elevate the role of economics in U.S. foreign policy, and provide the
Department's personnel with the needed tools and training to carry out
that mission.
Additionally, the Science Envoy program continues to build on its
previous successes, with the unveiling of the fifth cohort of eminent
scientists, bringing their expertise and engagement to bear in our
engagement with countries and civil society around the world. This new
cohort is focusing on infectious disease, energy, women in science, and
the ocean.
addressing global health
Building health capacity abroad is a central pillar of U.S. foreign
policy; OES is a critical partner in advancing the U.S. global health
mission. The Ebola epidemic is a striking example of the impact health
threats have on the security, stability and the development potential
of nations and of the critical importance of sustainable health
systems. OES works with foreign governments, international
organizations, and civil society to help countries develop the health
standards and systems they need for stable, healthy, productive
societies. We work with global partners to improve their ability to
prevent, detect, and respond to health emergencies, whether from
disease, disaster, food contamination, or the accidental or intentional
release of a biological agent. In addressing global health, we also
coordinate the work of the Department and other federal agencies to
facilitate U.S. policies to counter international bioterrorism and
infectious disease, provide surveillance and response, protect
environmental health and improve health in post-conflict situations.
Having seconded key staff members to the Department's Ebola
Coordination Unit since September 2014, the OES Bureau reassumed lead
responsibility for addressing the health, science, and technology
related aspects of the response effort when the Unit stood down
effective March 31. We are working hand in hand with the Department's
Bureau of African Affairs, as well as a host of U.S. agencies and
international organizations and the affected country governments to
ensure that all three affected countries reach--and stay at--zero new
cases. Reaching ``zero'' will require epidemiological teams to track
down every step in the transmission chain. New flareups in Guinea and
Sierra Leone, coupled with continued challenges with social
mobilization, make clear the need for continued international action to
stop future and ongoing transmissions. OES is working to secure a
sustained commitment from donor nations to ensure that the resources
needed are available to end the epidemic. In one specific example, OES
led diplomatic outreach efforts to encourage francophone countries to
deploy senior epidemiologists as a first priority.
Looking to the future, the OES Bureau is working to ensure the
continued commitment of international resources for health system
build-back in the affected countries, leaving them stronger and more
resilient than they were before this epidemic. With the heightened
global awareness of the devastating impact of health emergencies, we
are actively pursuing international efforts to improve local, national,
regional and global efforts to prevent, detect, and respond to health
threats. We are involved in extensive diplomatic engagement and
coordinate the work of the Department and other federal agencies to
advance measurable progress under the Global Health Security Agenda
launched by President Obama and 40 nations on September 26, 2014. In
addition to advancing GHSA globally, OES enables advancement of some of
the GHSA core elements including vaccination, the International Health
regulations, and combating antibiotic resistance.
The OES Assistant Secretary serves as the Special Representative on
Avian and Pandemic Influenza and Pandemic Influenza Coordinator. In
this capacity, OES led the successful adoption of the Pandemic
Influenza Preparedness Framework at the World Health Organization. This
broke new ground by creating a public-private partnership to improve
influenza preparedness capabilities around the world. This required
taking an innovative approach with both funding and donated vaccines
from the private sector and utilizing WHO's surveillance and response
network. As a result of the norms established by this Framework, China,
the WHO, and other international partners such as the United States
were able to rapidly and transparently share information during the
2013 outbreak of H7N9 avian influenza and thereby facilitate
surveillance activities and the immediate development of a vaccine to
prevent an epidemic from ever arising.
OES also supports global vaccination activities such as the global
effort to eradicate polio. OES engages donors, regional organizations,
and multilateral organizations to encourage support of global polio
eradication efforts and to condemn violence against polio workers in
Pakistan. While the world is closer than ever to eradicating polio,
substantial political and security challenges remain. OES engagement
has led to an increased commitment from new donors to the polio
eradication effort including the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia.
OES addresses environmental risks to human health through
negotiations on chemicals, ozone, air quality, climate change, and
other environmental issues--with particular attention to vulnerable
populations such as children and nursing mothers as well as in
communities in high risk locations such as the Arctic and Small Island
Developing States. We are working to limit mercury deposition, improve
quality, remove lead additives from paint, reduce risk in artisanal and
small-scale gold mining operations and seek better interim means for
storing mercury. These dangerous pollutants are well known to cause
severe health effects and even death. For example, last year the World
Health Organization released a report noting that there are 7 million
premature deaths every year caused by largely preventable air
pollution. We also promote cross-sectoral coordination among the
medical, veterinary, agricultural, environmental, and security fields
and corresponding governmental bodies. Both human health and prosperity
are linked to animal health through organisms that can infect both
humans and animals and the economic importance of livestock.
expanding space cooperation
As the 2010 National Space Policy notes, ``Space systems allow
people and governments around the world to see with clarity,
communicate with certainty, navigate with accuracy, and operate with
assurance. The United States hereby renews its pledge of cooperation in
the belief that with strengthened international collaboration and
reinvigorated U.S. leadership, all nations and peoples--space-faring
and space-benefiting, will find their horizons broadened, their
knowledge enhanced, and their lives greatly improved.'' The OES Bureau
is furthering the goals of our national space policy by helping to
build an international policy framework that supports the peaceful
exploration and utilization of outer space by both public institutions
and new private ventures. A number of U.S. companies have recently
announced plans for unprecedented commercial activities in outer space,
including on-orbit satellite servicing and exploitation of lunar and
asteroid resources. Ensuring that the executive branch is in a position
to authorize and supervise them consistent with U.S. international
obligations, and assuring our foreign partners that these activities
will be conducted in accordance with international law, is critical in
providing commercial space companies and investors a degree of
certainty enabling them to make greater investments and spurring
innovation.
The Bureau represents the Department on civil space policy
formulation within the executive branch, leads interagency coordination
on all civil space-related international agreements implementing
important NASA, NOAA, and USGS cooperation with other space agency
partners, and plays a key role in the implementation of National Space
Policy focused on dual-use space applications such as space-based
positioning, navigation, and timing, satellite-based remote sensing and
earth observation, and the monitoring of physical phenomena in the Sun-
Earth system (space weather). A little known fact about the work of the
Bureau is that OES maintains the official U.S. registry of objects
launched into outer space and has primary responsibility for U.S.
representation to the United Nations (U.N.) Committee on the Peaceful
Uses of Outer Space (UNCOPUOS).
A huge success for the Bureau over the past 15 years has been the
coordination of a broad diplomatic effort to encourage acceptance of
the U.S. Global Positioning System (GPS) as a worldwide standard for
satellite-based navigation. GPS has grown into a global public asset.
Its multiuse services are integral to U.S. national security, economic
growth, transportation safety, and homeland security, and are an
essential element of the worldwide economic infrastructure. OES leads
both bilateral dialogues with other global navigation satellite system
(GNSS) providers and multilateral coordination through the
International Committee on GNSS (ICG), to promote compatibility and
interoperability with GPS, and transparent civil service provision, and
trade practices that ensure open and fair market-driven competition for
GNSS goods and services.
conclusion
With the support of Congress, OES is helping to promote American
values, promote global stability and protect the environment both at
home and abroad by leading and supporting crucial international
negotiations and creating valuable partnerships among key stakeholders
on crucial topics such as oceans, water and sanitation, pollution,
science cooperation, and public health. By helping young science and
technology entrepreneurs, we are leading the way in providing
opportunities for U.S. businesses and economic growth. Though we
address many complex challenges in OES, our overarching objective is to
leave a healthier planet for generations to come than the one we
currently occupy.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify and I look forward to
responding to any questions you may have.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you very much, Secretary Garber.
Now we will turn to Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary
Tong. Mr. Secretary.
STATEMENT OF HON. KURT TONG, PRINCIPAL DEPUTY ASSISTANT
SECRETARY, BUREAU OF ECONOMIC AND BUSINESS AFFAIRS, U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF STATE, WASHINGTON, DC
Mr. Tong. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Ranking Member
Udall. Let me add my thanks for this opportunity to appear
today to discuss how the State Department's Bureau of Economic
and Business Affairs works to keep Americans safe and
prosperous.
In my 25 years with the Department of State, serving mostly
in the dynamic economies of East Asia, I have seen firsthand
how economic ties can strengthen and transform our diplomatic
and security relationships with other nations. I have also seen
how vital successful economic diplomacy is to both U.S.
leadership abroad and to American prosperity here at home.
Although I speak for my Bureau today, we work as a global
team, functional and regional bureaus in the State Department
working seamlessly with our dedicated economic policy personnel
at over 270 U.S. posts overseas, all of that in concert with
colleagues serving in other economic policy agencies here in
Washington.
We have three strategic priorities.
First, we use economic diplomacy to benefit the lives and
livelihoods of Americans. Whether it is expanding U.S. exports
overseas, attracting new job-creating investment to our shores,
protecting U.S. innovations and intellectual property rights,
crafting and implementing sanctions, promoting
entrepreneurship, or helping U.S. air carriers expand their
rights, every day we fight for the interests of American
businesses, workers, farmers, travelers, consumers, and
citizens.
Through technology, we can now reach a broader array of
U.S. stakeholders much more efficiently than before, for
instance, via our Direct Line program, which is a big plus in
responding quickly to emerging issues and commercial
opportunities.
Our second priority is to negotiate agreements that foster
a more open, inclusive, and rules-based economic environment
around the world. The scope of these agreements extends well
beyond trade to include investment, transportation,
telecommunications, agriculture, intellectual property, and it
is State Department economic officers in the field who help
ensure that these agreements are implemented.
Third, we use economic diplomacy as a tool to advance
broader policy objectives by supporting, for example,
sustainable development and good governance in partner
countries and by applying tough, targeted sanctions where
necessary. All of these efforts, of course, are taking place in
an increasingly complex international policy environment.
The good news here is that the global middle class is
expanding worldwide and expanding rapidly, creating new
opportunities to benefit America. Also, it is good news that
more and more nations are concentrating wholeheartedly on being
more competitive based on market principles, and more and more
regions around the world are cooperating to promote mutually
beneficial growth.
However, as more nations have a voice in shaping global
economic policy, the United States itself must be both more
aggressive and more sophisticated in shaping what is going on.
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, in my remaining time, I would like to
mention how we are tackling new challenges with new tools.
The State Department's key asset, of course, is its people,
but our resources in that regard are limited. So it makes sense
that we are concentrating on training, improved communications,
and making sure that our operations are informed by smart
strategies. The recently issued Quadrennial Diplomacy and
Development Review, or QDDR, has specific suggestions for how
we can further upgrade our work on economic diplomacy by
improving coordination between regional and functional bureaus
at the State Department and by assuring that our most talented
officers lead our economic teams in key embassies overseas. The
QDDR also calls for more and enhanced training, including
distance learning, as well as long-term detail assignments to
give our officers firsthand experience working at U.S.
companies and in other parts of Government. We are also
developing new tools to make our diplomacy more agile and data-
driven, including new IT platforms to collaborate across the
globe and an organization-wide push to better use and share
information. The QDDR calls for investing in an agile, skilled,
and diverse workforce ready to lead, and I could not agree
more.
So, Mr. Chairman, I think you will agree that it is an
extraordinarily active period for economic diplomacy. Mr.
Ranking Member, I thank you for using the term ``economic
diplomacy.'' And so I welcome your questions on these and other
issues going forward. And thank you again for the opportunity
to testify.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Tong follows:]
Prepared Statement of Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary Kurt Tong
Thank you Chairman Barrasso, Ranking Member Udall, and other
members of the subcommittee, for this opportunity to discuss how the
State Department works for the United States and for the U.S. economy,
helping to create jobs and prosperity for Americans. I am here
representing the Department's Bureau of Economic and Business Affairs;
it is a privilege to be joined by colleagues from our Bureau of
International Organizations, Bureau of Oceans and International
Environmental and Scientific Affairs, and U.S. Mission to the United
Nations.
The Bureau of Economic and Business Affairs (``EB'') uses economic
diplomacy to advance the prosperity and security of all Americans by
working with partners around the world to negotiate and implement
agreements which shape the rules of global commerce. We give the
Secretary a global perspective on economic, financial, and development
issues; lead efforts to expand trade, investment, transportation, and
telecommunications links; shape U.S. engagement in global economic
discussions including at the G7, G20, Organization for Economic
Cooperation and Development (OECD), and the Asia-Pacific Economic
Cooperation (APEC) forum; craft and implement U.S. sanctions; promote
entrepreneurship overseas, especially in unstable societies; and ensure
that the success of the U.S. economy and U.S. business is at the heart
of our foreign policy.
economic diplomacy matters
As Secretary Kerry has said on many occasions, we at the State
Department view economic policy and foreign policy as two sides of the
same coin: economic diplomacy and support for sustainable development
are part and parcel of defending our Nation's interests and ensuring
the well-being of all Americans. The 2015 Quadrennial Diplomacy and
Development Review (QDDR), released April 28, reaffirms the central
role of economic diplomacy and offers concrete proposals to strengthen
our capacity to work for freedom, prosperity, and stability around the
world. Through the Secretary's Shared Prosperity Agenda, we are working
across regional and functional lines to ensure unity of effort in our
foreign policy. Whether the issue is ensuring access to energy in
Central America and South Asia, supporting economic growth and
stability in the Middle East, building prosperity in the Mekong Delta
region, or broadening access to the Internet and modern
telecommunications in world's poorest countries, these efforts can and
must be mutually reinforcing. Inclusive economic growth is a central
pillar of these efforts and a principal driver of our commitment to
help end extreme poverty, an aim that is central to USAID's mission.
The rapid growth of emerging markets, particularly in east Asia and
Africa, makes it critical that we use economic and commercial tools to
support U.S. jobs and unlock opportunities for U.S. business in
overseas markets, consistent with broader U.S. foreign policy
objectives. This entails commercial advocacy to promote U.S. exports,
protect intellectual property, and attract job-creating investment to
the United States; economic diplomacy to shape the rules of global
trade, finance, travel, transport, and the digital economy; and U.S.
support for foreign government policies that advance economic
prosperity, stability, entrepreneurship, and good governance. Sanctions
and financial countermeasures have also become key tools to address
broader challenges including terrorism, organized crime, and threats to
international peace and security.
We help the U.S. economy grow, by expanding access to overseas markets
and attracting job-creating foreign investment to our shores
EB has no higher priority than supporting exports of U.S. goods and
services and the inflow of job-creating foreign investment, both of
which sustain economic growth here in the United States. In 2014, the
State Department contributed to U.S. Government advocacy efforts that
supported $80 billion in U.S. export deals and 11.3 million jobs linked
to exports. Through EB's Partner Post program with the Department of
Commerce--in which our embassies without U.S. Foreign Commercial
Service (CS) presence can offer CS-branded services--we are doing
superb work supporting U.S. companies in those markets and in
attracting foreign investors to the United States. For instance, our
Embassy in Kosovo, a market of only about 2 million people, conducted
trade promotion activities in 2014 contributing to $770 million in
prospective business deals between U.S. companies and the Government of
Kosovo. Commercial advocacy and facilitation are our top priority,
because when U.S. firms win overseas contracts and expand into new
markets, they benefit and so do the foreign countries in which they
operate. In North Africa and Central America, for instance, the State
Department and its missions work with leading U.S. companies to offer
cost-effective solutions for those economies in transition.
We are always looking for new ways to support and communicate with
U.S. business. In FY 2014, EB launched the BIDS/Business Information
Database System portal (bids.state.gov) to alert U.S. businesses to
significant global procurement opportunities. BIDS currently features
440 leads with a combined value of over $218 billion. Since 2013, EB
and U.S. missions overseas have conducted over 130 ``Direct Line''
calls and webinars with U.S. companies. Direct Line lets U.S.
businesses talk directly to our Ambassadors and economic officers at
Posts ranging from Shanghai (the most recent example) to Libya, Costa
Rica, and points in between. Since its inception in 2012, over 5,000
U.S. companies and nearly 200 Posts have participated in Direct Line
calls and webinars.
On any given day, the Department and its economic officers in the
field engage with dozens of foreign governments to ensure that U.S.
businesses can sell their goods and services in those markets. For
instance, when the Saudi Government implemented new fuel economy
standards, we worked to keep that market open for our automotive
producers while advancing U.S. climate objectives. In Kenya, we
successfully addressed a customs issue that had made the distribution
of U.S. films in that market uneconomical. Around the world, we address
gaps in the protection of our intellectual property rights (IPR) and
support public outreach to convey the importance of protecting IPR.
Often this work is innovative. In Cambodia, EB worked with Embassy
Phnom Penh and the local Ministry of Health to host a poster
competition to increase awareness of the dangers of counterfeit and
substandard medications: over 2,000 poster designs in English and Khmer
were submitted, and the winner was printed and displayed at every
pharmacy in the country. Another example is our support for Consulate
General Guangzhou's hugely successful smartphone application, which
offers job-search advice for young professionals--an influential
segment of China's population--so that they can consider intellectual
property issues when they apply for jobs at multinationals. The app
features videos by top executives from Google, Hasbro, and Harley-
Davidson who talk about their companies' core values and what they seek
in potential employees, with examples of ``good'' and ``bad'' resumes
and cover letters, all to help instill a culture of valuing and
protecting IPR.
Likewise, we and our missions overseas are active on agricultural
trade and Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS) issues to ensure that U.S.
farmers--who are without peer in their productivity and innovation--can
sell their products in fast-growing foreign markets. EB worked with
dozens of partner countries to adopt an international standard for
ractopamine in animal feed, enabling U.S. pork and beef producers to
gain access to a number of foreign markets.
My Bureau has been particularly active in the ICT (Information and
Communications Technology) and digital economy sectors, which have
accounted for much of our economic growth and innovation in the past 25
years. In recent years, the Department of State has worked successfully
to avert localization and privacy rules in foreign jurisdictions that
would unnecessarily impede the digital infrastructure vital to U.S.
commercial interests and to open flows of information across borders.
Since U.S. investment overseas and U.S. exports go hand in hand--
and since the United States is a leading recipient of job-creating
foreign investment--we work hard to ensure that U.S. companies enjoy
the benefits of strong bilateral and multilateral investment
provisions. In 2014, I was pleased to help launch the EB-facilitated
``Global Enterprise Registration'' portal (www.globalereg.co), that
makes it easier for startups to register and grow through cross-border
investments. EB also worked closely with Commerce to recruit SelectUSA
initiative as part of our Cross-Agency Priority Goal to attract more
job-creating investment to the United States.
We negotiate agreements that foster a more open, inclusive,
transparent, and rules-based global economy
The Department of State and its missions around the world are where
``the rubber meets the road'' for the international agreements that
make possible an expanding and interconnected global economy, something
that is essential for our prosperity and that of our partners.
Currently, public attention is focused on the administration's
ambitious negotiations for a Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and
Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP)--agreements
which, if enacted, will substantially expand U.S. commercial
opportunities and support continued economic growth here in the United
States. EB sends subject matter experts to support both these key
negotiations. At the same time, EB, State Department Posts, and our
partners in U.S. Trade Representative and Department of Commerce work
to negotiate and implement a wide range of bilateral and multilateral
agreements and understandings, all with the aim of fostering a more
open, inclusive, and rules-based global economy consistent with U.S.
interests.
For instance, EB and USTR cochair the negotiation of bilateral
investment treaties (BITs), including our ongoing talks with China.
This negotiation provides a major opportunity to engage with China on
issues related to its economic reform, and to improve market access,
investor protection, and transparency for U.S. firms operating in
China's market. We are also assessing the prospects for a high standard
BIT with India, and with other key partners, including in sub-Saharan
Africa and Asia.
In 2014, we helped conclude the Trade Facilitation Agreement (TFA)
under the World Trade Organization (WTO); studies estimate that trade
facilitation, including via the TFA, could increase global GDP by as
much as $1 trillion. Through the WTO, OECD, World Customs Organization
(WCO) and a number of other technical bodies, and working directly with
host governments, we help ensure that international agreements are
translated into national policies that allow U.S. goods and services to
flow across borders. Given the critical role of foreign governments and
state-owned enterprises (SOEs) in the global economy, EB continues to
work on expanding the coverage of the WTO Government Procurement
Agreement, to monitor the role of SOEs, and to support fiscal
transparency efforts in partner countries. The global fight against
corruption and foreign bribery remains critical, and EB, which
spearheaded the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention two decades ago, continues
to lead the U.S. effort to ensure that our partners enact and implement
measures against foreign commercial bribery along the lines of our
Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA); we have seen substantial progress
in this area in recent years, but much work remains to be done.
Here too, the ICT and digital economy sectors are critical and EB
has led the effort to advance U.S. priorities on Internet governance,
ensuring an open and global Internet, free from governmental controls.
EB led the United States delegation to the International
Telecommunication Union's (ITU) highest level treaty conference late
last year, securing agreement that there would be no expansion of ITU's
role in Internet governance or cybersecurity. EB is leading the U.S.
push to expand access spectrum for mobile broadband and pave the way
for remotely piloting aircraft and myriad space science activities at
the ITU's World Radiocommunication Conference (WRC-15) later this year,
seizing the opportunity to advance U.S. innovation and economic growth,
further strengthen national security, and accelerate U.S. research and
leadership. In multilateral discussions of ICT issues--and in our
robust dialogues on Internet Economy issues with partners such as
Japan, China, the Republic of Korea, Brazil, Colombia, and the European
Union and several of its member states--the U.S. side incorporates both
government and industry voices to ensure that U.S. business and other
stakeholder views are considered in policy discussions.
Aviation is another key sector where the State Department has
pioneered agreements that expand market access for U.S. carriers and
other U.S. business. Over the past year, we negotiated a new bilateral
aviation agreement with Mexico that, when implemented, will allow U.S.
airlines to fly as often as they want between any U.S. city and any
point in Mexico, a boon for our carriers and other U.S. businesses that
will support jobs here in the United States. Since the safety and
security of the traveling public must always come first, EB recently
worked to design and implement a new interagency procedure to ensure
that information about U.S. Government actions affecting U.S.
commercial aviation near global conflict zones is shared with foreign
partners via the U.N. International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO)
and with American travelers.
The Department of State works with the Department of Treasury to
realize repayment of U.S. Government debts with sovereign borrowers,
working bilaterally and through the Paris Club group of creditors. In
May 2014, we negotiated an arrangement with the Government of Argentina
that provides for full repayment over 5 years of $608 million in
outstanding debt owed to U.S. taxpayers. We also work closely with U.S.
Government creditor agencies to ensure timely payments from sovereign
borrowers throughout the year.
We work to expand the scope of stable and prosperous democracies with
well-functioning, market-driven economies
As Secretary Kerry has persuasively argued, most recently at the
Atlantic Council on April 23, U.S. leadership on economic issues and
our national security are inextricably connected. For that reason, the
State Department and USAID are closely engaged in supporting the
economic stability and prosperity of our partners around the world, and
EB is part of that effort.
In recent years and months, the Department of State has facilitated
official loan guarantees to key partner countries (Jordan, Tunisia, and
Ukraine); worked to expand U.S. economic and commercial ties with
African partners, culminating in the historic U.S.-Africa Leaders'
Summit in August 2014; helped lead the campaign that made 2014 the
first year of full European Bank for Reconstruction and Development
(EBRD) operations in the Middle East and North Africa region with over
$1 billion in financing for Egypt, Jordan, Morocco, and Tunisia; and
supported entrepreneurship programs around the world including high-
profile Global Entrepreneurship summits in Morocco (November 2014) and
this summer in Kenya, among many other efforts. EB works with Treasury
to promote debt sustainability both bilaterally as a sovereign creditor
and multilaterally through the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the
World Bank, the OECD, and the Paris Club. This is particularly
important given our investment in the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries
(HIPC) initiative that helps reduce debt burdens to sustainable levels.
It is also increasingly important as developing countries diversify
their financing, including through private bond offerings, many of
which are first time or ``frontier'' issuances.
Because national security and the economy are so closely
intertwined, EB works closely with the Treasury Department to craft and
implement economic sanctions and financial measures in support of U.S.
foreign policy objectives and the international fight against terrorism
and organized crime. Over the past year, EB helped forge sanctions
against Russia that imposed costs for its actions in Ukraine; shaped
new sanction measures in Central African Republic and South Sudan; and
implemented limited sanctions relief for Iran while negotiations
continue. Because U.S. companies and NGOs are active worldwide,
including in conflict areas, EB has worked to speed processing of
sanctions licenses and exemptions to civil society and the private
sector where these are warranted.
Telecommunications and the Internet are critical to improving
economic conditions around the world. EB has supported the APEC
Telecommunications Mutual Recognition Arrangement (TEL MRA), which
helps bring new telecommunications technologies to market faster. TEL
MRA allows mutual recognition of testing and certification of new
technologies done in certified labs, but requires engagement from
regulators and standards authorities in participating APEC economies.
With more than half the world's mobile phone subscribers in Asia, this
arrangement saves consumers and industry billions of dollars annually
and opens new opportunities for U.S. business in fast-growing markets.
In Africa, the Department of State is working on a broad range of
economic issues, in particular telecommunications and the Internet.
Following on the heels of the U.S.-African Union Commission (AUC) High
Level Dialogue (HLD), EB is joining forces with U.S. industry and other
U.S. agencies to accelerate the adoption of national broadband plans
across Africa. This week, EB is partnering with our Embassy in Rwanda,
USAID's Development Lab, the Alliance for Affordable Internet and Intel
Corporation to host an Africa-wide National Broadband Plan and
Universal Service Funds (NBP-USF) forum to share insights on promoting
ICT-enabled economic growth and fostering a better investment climate.
With this forum, EB has worked with U.S. industry to facilitate the
training of nearly 400 African officials working on ICT issues.
Around the world, the Department of State and our missions press
partner governments to improve labor and environmental practices and
workplace safety, most notably in Bangladesh's apparel and textile
sector. I am proud of EB's role in highlighting the many exemplary
cases of Responsible Business Conduct (RBC) by U.S. companies overseas
via the Secretary of State's Award for Corporate Excellence (ACE),
established in 1999, which recognizes outstanding contributions by U.S.
businesses in their overseas operations as good corporate citizens. We
are engaged on the administration's National Action Plan (NAP) on RBC,
to articulate U.S. commitments to create an enabling environment for
U.S. businesses operating abroad and to spotlight best practices by
those companies.
We adjust our tools, tactics, and resource outlays to advance U.S.
economic diplomacy and to respond to world events
Finally, EB takes the administration's performance agenda and our
stewardship of taxpayer resources to heart. Through the BIDS portal,
Direct Line communications, and other efforts, EB is making measurable
progress in supporting U.S. economic and foreign policy interests. EB
and our Posts provide critical support for the Commerce-led Cross-
Agency Priority (CAP) goal of attracting job-creating investment, which
recently culminated in the 2015 SelectUSA Summit, to which almost 50 of
our Ambassadors led investor delegations from their countries of
posting. EB worked with Commerce to recruit over 1,300 potential
foreign investors for that successful event. Expanding our engagement
with U.S. stakeholders is also a priority, in particular through the
State Department's Advisory Committee on International Economic Policy
(ACIEP)
In recent years, EB has supported the President's and Secretary's
ambitious foreign policy agenda--including on fast-moving world events
such as the response to economic and security challenges in Ukraine and
the Middle East, support for U.S. business, and support for critical
engagement on Iran and Cuba--while holding the line on our budget. We
have met these challenges by realigning people, portfolios, and
resources: in a resource-neutral reorganization, EB was able to
strengthen the offices that lead on these high profile issues and
others. At the same time, we shifted portfolios to ensure that enduring
responsibilities such as trade and aviation negotiations were met with
the same high-caliber expertise. We have also leveraged technologies to
expand our commercial outreach via the aforementioned BIDS, Direct
Line, and GER platforms. Our small investment in IT continues to reap
benefits for the American people, and we would like to do more in this
area.
EB manages several relatively small, but strategically targeted,
operational policy programs:
EB's Agricultural Biotechnology outreach program helps
missions conduct activities to encourage the adoption of
science-based regulatory systems and promote acceptance of
agricultural biotechnologies in key overseas markets. Most
activities are in the range of $10,000 to $25,000, with some as
small as $500 and others as large as $50,000.
Our Business Facilitation Incentive Fund (BFIF) helps
missions that do not have Commercial Service presence
(currently 56 Posts) to conduct field activities to promote
U.S. exports and attract inward investment to the United
States. For FY 14, BFIF supported 123 activities ranging from
$575 to $14,000.
EB and USAID jointly manage the Fiscal Transparency
Innovation Fund (FTIF), which supports mission-proposed
projects that assist partner governments and NGOs working to
improve fiscal transparency in countries that do not currently
meet minimum standards for fiscal transparency or have
continuing weaknesses in public financial management. The
Department will provide up to a total of $7 million in FY 2014-
appropriated Economic Support Funds (ESF) for FTIF projects.
The Department's IPR Public Diplomacy outreach program
supports mission efforts to raise awareness in key countries on
the dangers of counterfeit goods (especially medicines and
medical products), the role of IP in commercializing
innovation, and the negative impact of Internet piracy.
Activities funded in recent years range from $2,000 to $15,000.
The State Department has no greater resource than its people, and
EB has worked closely with regional bureaus and our Bureau of Human
Resources to design and implement new mechanisms to give Department
employees a broad range of experience on economic issues--including at
other agencies and at U.S. companies--and to improve coordination among
functional bureaus (who focus on issue-areas), regional bureaus (who
coordinate U.S. policy toward countries and geographic areas), and our
missions in the field. The Department's 2015 QDDR offers significant
innovations in this regard, which we will work to implement in the
coming months. The QDDR, among other recommendations, calls on each
State Department regional bureau to designate a Deputy Assistant
Secretary to coordinate economic policy efforts; introduces procedures
to ensure that talented individuals take senior economic positions in
key embassies overseas; sets up rotational programs among the regional
and functional bureaus; and enhances and expands external detail
assignments to help deepen the professional development of our
officers. The integration of U.S. regional foreign policy and economic
policy is particularly critical in this era, when many emerging middle-
income economies are seeking to reduce trade and investment barriers
with other nations in their same neighborhood. Such regional economic
integration--as seen notably in Southeast Asia, Central America, or
East Africa--is strongly in the interests of the United States: it
promotes regional peace and stability, accelerates growth, creates
regional economies of scale, and enhances opportunities for U.S.
exporters and investors.
The QDDR also embraces a ``data-driven'' foreign policy, informed
by diagnostics, and suggests new ways to integrate foreign economic
policy with our policy toward particular countries and regions. For
instance, we are in the process of building a comprehensive inventory
of economic challenges facing our partner countries, drawing on the
expertise of thousands of U.S. personnel in Washington and in the field
(from State, USAID, and other agencies). The QDDR endorses an array of
diagnostic tools successfully used by the Millennium Challenge
Corporation (MCC) and USAID to identify and address country-specific
barriers to inclusive economic growth--since there is no ``one size
fits all'' approach to fostering economic growth and addressing related
economic challenges--and highlights key policy areas to support
inclusive growth abroad: income inequality, corruption, and youth
unemployment.
Since economic diplomacy requires specialized knowledge of evolving
issues, the State Department's Foreign Service Institute (FSI)
currently runs over 20 training programs in economics, commercial
diplomacy, and related areas including science, environment, energy,
and health. Our long-standing and comprehensive 6-month Foreign Service
Economic Studies course delivers the equivalent of a high-quality
graduate degree in economics, along with a strong dose of applied
economic work. The Department also assigns two employees annually to a
1-year University Economics Training detail at prestigious U.S.
universities. Other courses focus on trade dispute resolution, illicit
finance and sanctions, global health diplomacy, intellectual property,
biotechnology, aviation, telecommunications, and energy. FSI's hands-on
tradecraft courses prepare officers for their work, stretching from
their first tours overseas all the way to service as section chiefs,
and its distance-learning courses cover commercial diplomacy,
investment treaties, trade, and intellectual property rights. FSI
recently launched a new distance-learning course on bilateral
investment treaties and is developing another on global health
diplomacy.
The State Department and its missions overseas also work with FSI
to offer economic training in the field. In January, Embassy London
hosted a customized training course on Internet Governance and the
Digital Economy at Embassy London, with the participation of Under
Secretary Catherine Novelli, Assistant Secretary Charles Rivkin, and a
number of Internet pioneers. In March, FSI and State's ENR Bureau
coorganized extensive training in Doha on energy issues in the Middle
East, North Africa, and Eastern Mediterranean. Later this month, FSI
will partner with our mission in Japan to train field personnel on the
Trans-Pacific Partnership, the economic challenges facing Japan, and
how to ``message'' the U.S. economy.
Whatever the economic policy issue--whether trade, finance,
transportation, telecommunications, development, sanctions, or the
economic dimensions of broader challenges such as terrorism, violent
extremism, climate change, energy, and migration--we put U.S. interests
and our citizens' well-being first, and endeavor to work as part of a
whole-of-government effort.
conclusion
Continued U.S. leadership in the world requires a dynamic economy
at home and active engagement overseas; these objectives are fully
consistent and mutually reinforcing. Through economic diplomacy, EB
works to advance the livelihoods and security of Americans and makes a
substantial contribution to a more just, free, and stable world.
I thank you for your continued engagement on these issues and look
forward to your questions.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you very much, Secretary Tong.
We will have a couple of questions, and I would like to
start with Ambassador Coleman.
The Office of Management and Budget has previously provided
Congress with a list of total U.S. contributions to the United
Nations from the State Department, as well as 18 other U.S.
Departments and agencies. The last report from OMB explained
that the United States contributed $7.92 billion in fiscal year
2010. Many of us on this committee believe that the American
people deserve to know exactly how much U.S. taxpayer money is
going to the United Nations and how it is being spent. Do you
know the total annual U.S. contribution to the United Nations
from all agencies, including in-kind contributions?
Ambassador Coleman. Thank you, Senator, for that question.
There is not a quick, easy answer to that question because,
as you said, there are many different sources of contributions
to the U.N. There is our assessed contribution. There are
voluntary contributions and in-kind contributions. So in terms
of what we are contributing across all of it, I do not have a
quick and easy answer for that. But what I can tell you is
looking very closely at the assessed contribution, we do know
that we are paying approximately $2.5 billion on the regular
budget and more than $3 billion on the peacekeeping budget.
But I think Assistant Secretary Crocker might be able to
answer across the entire U.N. system more clearly than I can on
that point.
Senator Barrasso. Well, the reason I asked--and I did not
expect you to give me a complete number because you are right.
It is a complicated system. But during Ambassador Powers'
confirmation process, I asked her if she supported Congress and
the American people receiving an annual report from OMB of
total U.S. contributions to the U.N., and she said yes. So the
question is, do you support Congress and the American people
receiving a report from OMB on the total U.S. contributions
provided to the United Nations each year?
Ambassador Coleman. Senator, I do support that. And what I
really support is transparency. I think that transparency is
critically important, and I think American taxpayers deserve
transparency on important budgetary issues such as how much we
are contributing to the U.N. system. Thank you.
Senator Barrasso. And then, Secretary Crocker, following up
with Ambassador Coleman's comments, do you also agree that the
American people deserve--and Congress--a report from OMB on the
total U.S. contributions?
Ms. Crocker. Thank you, Chairman. I do agree very much that
the American taxpayer should have full transparency, as
Ambassador Coleman indicated, and full visibility into the full
amount of contributions both assessed and voluntary that go to
the entire U.N. and broader international system every year.
And in fact, our Bureau and other parts of the Department are
working closely with OMB and other Federal agencies to try to
ensure that we have a more rigorous way to assess what all of
those contributions look like.
I can tell you that the last year for which we have from
the United Nations a full estimate of all of their costs, their
full budget across the full range of U.N. agencies and
institutions was in 2013, and that number was about $44
billion. And in 2013, that same year we reported to you that
the full amount of U.S. contributions, again both assessed and
voluntary contributions, was about $6.6 billion of that $44
billion total.
But as I said, we are working now to try to ensure that we
can more effectively collect that kind of information and
report to you and more broadly to the American people.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you. That is very helpful.
Ambassador Coleman, since 1994, there has been a 25-percent
cap on the United States assessment to the U.N. peacekeeping
budget. Despite the law, the U.S. contribution has risen to
over 28 percent for the U.N. peacekeeping budget. Fiscal year
2016 budget request from the administration--the administration
requested funding to meet the U.N.'s 28.36 percent assessment
despite the fact that we have this 25-percent cap authorized by
Congress back in the 1990s.
Do you know why the administration has not been able to
abide by the cap on U.N. peacekeeping?
Ambassador Coleman. Thank you, Senator, for that question.
The scales of assessment, the rate that every country pays
to the U.N. is negotiated every 3 years, and this is one of
those years for scales of assessment to be reevaluated. Part of
my job as Ambassador for U.N. Management and Reform is to lead
those negotiations in the Fifth Committee, and what I can
assure you is that I will be working extremely hard to make
sure that countries pay their fair share.
The difference between the cap that you referred to and the
rate that we are assessed has been covered in many years, and I
think it is extremely important that we are able to pay our
assessed dues to the U.N. in full. As the Ambassador for
Management and Reform, what I can tell you is that countries
who share our values for budget discipline and reform at the
U.N. look to the United States to lead, and we have been very
active in leading the reform agenda, particularly on the
peacekeeping side of the house where we have implemented a
number of measures to ensure performance and budget discipline
on the large peacekeeping budget. And so I do think it is
extremely important that we are able to keep our seat at the
table and pay our assessed rate in full.
Thank you, Senator.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you.
Secretary Crocker, if I could. I want to talk about
whistleblower protections. April of this year, nine
whistleblowers from U.N. organizations sent a letter to the
U.N. Secretary General asserting that U.N. whistleblower
policies failed to protect them from retaliation. And I have a
copy of the letter that I am going to ask to be submitted for
the record. Without objection, submitted.
[Editor's note.--The letter mentioned above can be found in the
``Additional Material Submitted for the Record'' section at the
end of this hearing.]
Senator Barrasso. They wrote, put simply, the U.N. system
of justice fails whistleblowers and most of us have been forced
to leave the U.N. to save our livelihoods, our health, and our
reputations. They also wrote, without proper whistleblower
protections, wrongdoing at the United Nations, be it sexual
exploitation, abuse of power, fraud, or corruption, will not be
reported and will continue to go unchecked.
Could you share with us what steps the United States is
taking to address the failings of the United Nations and other
multilateral institutions from protecting whistleblowers from
the kind of retaliation that has been addressed in this letter?
Ms. Crocker. Thank you, Chairman Barrasso, for that
question. And I am glad you raised it because this is one of
the priority issues in terms of management/reform questions
that the United States pushes both at the United Nations in New
York and more broadly across the U.N. system. It is a high
priority issue for us. We feel very strongly, as does this
Congress, appropriately, that whistleblowers should receive the
right kinds of protections across the U.N. system from
retaliation, and we consistently raise this issue in all of our
conversations with U.N. leadership.
That having been said, some U.N. agencies and the U.N.
itself have struggled to provide the appropriate kinds of
whistleblower protections, and so we are in constant
communication with them about where we think those standards
should be and what we think they need to do to change their
policies and practices. And we have appreciated the close
coordination that we have had with this committee and your
staffs on this question.
We have seen some improvements. The U.N. Ethics Office at
this moment is reviewing its own whistleblower policies in
anticipation of issuing revised policies on whistleblower
protection for the U.N. But we have seen some real improvements
at some of the other U.N. agencies that we participate in. For
example, this year, as I mentioned in my testimony, at the
Organization of American States and the World Health
Organization, we have seen some real efforts to correct
shortcomings that we had seen at those two agencies previously
on whistleblower protections.
But we are required by law every year to look very closely
at this question across the full range of U.N. agencies, and we
take that responsibility very seriously. We engage our various
multilateral missions around the world who engage directly with
the U.N. entities to ensure that their policies and practices
are up to speed, but also importantly to ensure that it is not
only what is on paper, but that they are being effectively
enforced.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you so very much. My time has
expired.
Senator Udall.
Senator Udall. Thank you, Chairman Barrasso.
Assistant Secretary Crocker, in addition to their ongoing
work in Syria, South Sudan, and the Central African Republic,
the U.N. is also working to reach hundreds of thousands of
civilians who have been displaced this year by violence in
Iraq. Given the current strains on the U.N. humanitarian system
caused by these crises, can you describe how the United States
is working to support them in their work and what more can we
do to ensure a robust global response in these emergency
situations?
Ms. Crocker. Well, thank you very much, Senator, for that
question.
Of course, the U.N.'s efforts across the humanitarian
system and in addressing the global humanitarian emergencies
that we face include those that you just listed, and the list
goes on and on, including now the U.N. leading the response
efforts in Nepal in response to the devastating earthquake.
So I think it is very important, as you highlight, to note
how many serious humanitarian crises we as a global community
are facing around the world right now and how much we are
relying on the U.N. system to help us address those crises. And
that system is somewhat under strain, and we have seen that
over the past year, for example, when WFP for a short period of
time had to reduce some of what it was able to provide to the
refugees in and around Syria because it simply did not have the
money.
So one thing that we have been focused on, in addition to
the extremely generous U.S. taxpayer support for that
humanitarian system, has been ensuring that we expand the base
of countries that contribute to the humanitarian system so it
is not always the same list of countries that we are going to,
but we are actually in serious conversations around the world
with other countries that we think it is high time for them to
be also contributing in the same way that we do in a sustained
manner to help ensure that this humanitarian system is able to
respond across the board.
We also focus on ensuring the effectiveness and efficiency
of that system. So we work very closely with the Office for the
Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs in New York, and we work
to ensure that the agencies are well placed and resourced to
respond wherever these emergencies crop up. So they were
already under strain before the emergency in Nepal, but still
we have WFP, UNICEF, and WHO out in full force in Nepal to try
to help address the emergency there. It is very important to
the United States and all of our likeminded countries around
the world that we continue to find ways to ensure both that
these humanitarian agencies have the resources they need but
also that they are operating as effectively as they need to to
really get at these problems.
Senator Udall. Thank you very much for that answer.
Assistant Secretary Garber, the Department of State's QDDR
[Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review] rightly elevates
climate change as a strategic priority for the State
Department. And for years now, the Department of Defense has
regarded climate change as a threat multiplier, a factor that
will exacerbate conflict, resource scarcity, mass migration,
and humanitarian crises, all of which can impact U.S. national
security.
How is the OES [Bureau of Oceans and International
Environmental and Scientific Affairs] working to elevate the
growing nexus between climate change and security, and how does
this inform the State Department's broader diplomatic efforts?
What do you see as the near-term security threats arising from
climate change?
Ms. Garber. Thank you very much for that question, Senator.
I think as you point out, there is growing international
recognition of the important relationship between climate
change fragility and conflict. Climate change stresses our
economic, political, social systems. And where institutions and
governments are weak and unable to manage the stress, the risk
of stability clearly increases.
The OES is working both within the Department as well as
with our international partners to better understand this
dynamic and how to integrate climate security considerations
into our work. For example, the recent G7 Foreign Minister's
statement on April 15 highlighted the need for countries to get
their own houses in order on the issue and to work together
with interested partners to factor climate fragility
considerations into our foreign policymaking.
Senator Udall. Thank you.
Assistant Secretary Tong, how is your Bureau working to
advance the President's efforts to normalize relations with
Cuba? Specifically, how can your Bureau help American
businesses start the process to engage in Cuba and with the
Cuban people? Would you agree that increased access to telecoms
and the Internet will be an important part of this effort to
engage Cuba?
Mr. Tong. Senator, thank you for that question.
Of course, the historic opening in our new conversation
with Cuba is aimed at resulting in a Cuba which is democratic,
prosperous, and stable. Let me highlight three activities that
my Bureau is actively engaged in.
The first is in making sure that our businesses understand
the full range of U.S. law as it still currently applies, the
sanctions which are still in place, the embargo which is still
in place, and what they can and cannot do legally. And that is
actually rather complex. And a portion of my Bureau is involved
in sanctions policy and helps in explaining that to U.S.
business.
On the more proactive side of the ledger, there are two
areas I would like to highlight. You mentioned one of them,
which is telecommunications. Ambassador Danny Sepulveda
recently led a team to Cuba, which is a first step in what will
be a rather complex negotiation with Cuban authorities, to make
it possible for U.S. telecommunications firms to be active and
forward-leaning in bringing information to the Cuban people
over the Internet. There is a lot of complexity to this, and
there are again issues of licensing and legalities involved.
But Ambassador Sepulveda is off to a good start in pushing that
agenda forward.
The third is in the area of aviation. There are currently
12 licensed activities through which Americans can legally
travel to Cuba. But despite those restrictions, there is a lot
of interest in going there. There is also a lot of interest on
the part of Cubans to visit family members. In order to meet
that increased demand for transportation, our aviation people
in my Bureau are in active dialogue, and they have had one
round of negotiation with Cuban counterparts, the objective of
which is to set up regularly scheduled flights under the
current authorities.
Senator Udall. Thank you. My time is running out.
But the other point that I would like, as I finish here, is
that all of us as Senators I think have agricultural sectors in
our States, and it is terrifically important that we try to
open up those markets and bring down the barriers and obstacles
that have prevented our farmers from selling their goods to the
11 million people that are there. They are there. They eat. We
need to open up those markets.
Thank you, Chairman Barrasso.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you very much, Senator Udall.
Senator Gardner.
Senator Gardner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thanks to the witnesses for being here today.
Secretary Crocker, the 2016 budget--the administration
requested $1.54 billion for the entire contributions to
international organizations account, which a little over $1.1
billion would fund U.S. contributions to the United Nations and
its affiliated agencies. Of the amount designated for U.N.
entities, about $630 million would go to the U.S. assessed
contribution to the U.N. regular budget.
The U.N. General Assembly's current 2014-2015 session has
adopted a total of 20 resolutions, singling out Israel for
criticism, and only 3 resolutions on the rest of the world
combined.
Given that record, do you think Americans are getting their
money's worth at the United Nations?
Ms. Crocker. Well, thank you, Senator, for raising that
question, which I think is always an important one to talk
about when we are looking at the overall credibility,
effectiveness, efficiency, and legitimacy of the U.N. system.
Fighting against efforts to delegitimize Israel and the
undue structural bias that is placed on Israel across the U.N.
system is one of my top priorities as IO Assistant Secretary
and more broadly is one of the administration's top priorities.
We do this for many different reasons, and I think it is
important to recognize that in over 75 multilateral fora over
the past 2 years, we have intervened in one way or another on
hundreds of occasions on Israel's behalf to fight against this
bias that you spoke of. We do this for a number of reasons,
one, because Israel is our close friend and ally, but also, as
I mentioned, because undue focus on any one particular country
in the U.N. system threatens to undermine the credibility of
the entire system which, as you suggest, is an important thing
for us to focus on given the amount of money that the U.S.
taxpayer contributes to that system every year.
We also do it to protect U.S. interests. Often what that
means is fighting against or trying to stop resolutions that
would impact or undermine our ability ultimately to get to a
two-state solution, which remains the ultimate U.S. objective
on this issue.
And we also, very importantly, support Israel's own efforts
to enhance its normalization across the U.N. system, and this
can take many different forms. It can mean supporting the
efforts of Israel to get Israeli employees in U.N. jobs. It can
mean supporting the efforts of Israel to have leadership
positions on executive boards, for example, or to serve as the
vice president of the U.N. General Assembly, which it did some
years ago, and it can also mean that we fight, as we did
recently last year in Geneva, to make sure that Israel has
membership in regional blocs such as the one in Geneva. That
means that it can help as we coordinate on positions that we
take, for example, at the Human Rights Council.
This work is not done and it is never done, as your
statistics rightfully point out, but we slowly are making
progress in some of these venues. And the important thing to
realize is that Israel tells us consistently how much they
support our efforts on their behalf across the multilateral
system both to protect and defend their interests and also to
support their own efforts to normalize their relationships in
the multilateral system. And we work hand in hand and very
closely with the Israelis on all of these efforts.
Senator Gardner. I just want to make something clear. In
your answer, you used the word ``bias.'' Is it then your
position that there is a bias against Israel at the United
Nations?
Ms. Crocker. In certain parts of the United Nations system,
we have seem some evidence of that bias in the sense that there
are an undue number of resolutions, for example, or at the
Human Rights Council, that there is a standing agenda item on
Israel, and it is the only country that has a standing agenda
item.
Senator Gardner. Are there other areas where there is a
bias against Israel at the United Nations?
Ms. Crocker. In the U.N. General Assembly, which is the one
that you mentioned, again we see some undue focus on Israel
given the number of resolutions that are anti-Israel
resolutions as opposed to the number of resolutions on other
countries.
But we are working consistently to fight against that. We
have allies in that effort. And I think it is important to note
that in the Human Rights Council, since the United States
joined that council in 2009, we have seen a real reduction in
the amount of time that the council focuses on Israel. And this
is just an example of the importance of U.S. leadership across
the board in the U.N. system because we are able to take that
fight where we need to take it, and we are seeing some progress
as a result of our actions.
And again, the Israelis tell us consistently how much they
appreciate those efforts both on the question of whether there
is bias or exaggerated focus on Israel in the form of
resolutions, for example, or in the case when they are
themselves trying to run resolutions in the U.N. General
Assembly and the United States supports them and cosponsors
those resolutions.
Senator Gardner. Mr. Chairman, thank you for the time.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you very much.
Secretary Garber, I want to talk a little bit about
international climate change negotiations. August 26 of last
year, the New York Times had a story entitled ``Obama Pursuing
Climate Accord in Lieu of Treaty.'' The article says the Obama
administration is working to forge a sweeping international
climate change agreement to compel nations to cut their planet-
warming fossil fuel emissions but without ratification from
Congress.
It also talks about the administration working on a, quote,
``politically binding deal to cut emissions rather than a
legally binding treaty that would require approval by two-
thirds of the Senate.''
So will any agreement be legally binding on the United
States?
Ms. Garber. Thank you for that question, Mr. Chairman.
It is at an early stage in the international negotiation
process right now, and everything is on the table.
I understand that staff from the Office of the Special
Envoy on Climate Change, as well as some staff from my own
Bureau from the Office of Global Change, have been coming up
and consulting pretty regularly in recent weeks with
congressional staff on the progress of the negotiations. I can
tell you that it is our intention to continue to do so as the
negotiations proceed and we get closer to the final agreement
in Paris.
Senator Barrasso. So I guess the question is, does the
administration plan to pursue a course to try to make it
legally binding in the United States by bypassing Congress at
the same time?
Ms. Garber. Our objective for Paris is to have a
significant agreement, a meaningful agreement with robust and
transparent emissions reduction targets that include all
countries, including the major emerging economies. At this
point, the question of what that agreement would look like at
the end is still an open question because we are in initial
stages of the negotiations and everything is still on the
table.
Senator Barrasso. So no decision has been made about
whether the administration plans to submit the agreement from
Paris to the Senate for advice and consent.
Ms. Garber. It is at a very early stage of the
negotiations.
Senator Barrasso. In March of last year, Jeff Kueter, who
is President of the George C. Marshall Institute, released a
recent study called ``Climate of Insecurity.'' And I ask that
that study be entered into the record. Without objection.
[Editor's note.--The study mentioned above can be found in the
``Additional Material Submitted for the Record'' section at the
end of this hearing.]
Senator Barrasso. The report says efforts to link climate
change to the deterioration of U.S. national security rely on
improbable scenarios, imprecise and speculative methods, and
scant empirical support. It goes on to say accepting the
connection can lead to the dangerous expansion of U.S. security
concerns, inappropriately applied resources, and diversion of
attention from more effective responses to known environmental
problems.
He also provides information to show that factors other
than the environment are much more significant in explaining
the onset of conflict. A recent survey cited in the report
found that the primary causes of intrastate conflict and civil
war are political not environmental.
So if the cause of war is political not environmental, as
is stated in this report, then is it not possible that the
United States could be spending millions of dollars on foreign
climate change assistance that will not actually prevent
instability?
Ms. Garber. In response to the question from the ranking
member earlier, Mr. Chairman, I noted in my response that
climate insecurity is something that acts as a stressor where
other factors can be going on as well.
In terms of climate assistance, we tend to focus it on
three areas. Clean energy and sustainable landscapes are two
out of those three.
Senator Barrasso. So stressors could also be expensive
energy, and sometimes the focus I see of the administration on
clean energy as opposed to affordable energy--and if you talk
to Bill Gates and say what is important--and so much of the
work that he has done in other countries has been aimed at
affordable energy--he said that a country grows when energy for
transportation fuel and for electricity are affordable. It
would just seem to me that sacrificing affordability for the
focus of the administration, the fixation if you will, on clean
energy could be an unnecessary stressor. And perhaps the
administration is focused on the wrong stressors in terms of
global instability.
Ms. Garber. In my Bureau, we have the pleasure of working
on over 50 bilateral science and technology dialogues with
other countries. And one of the themes that comes up, time and
time again, from varying countries is their interest in sort of
the leading U.S. technological edge and our knowledge base on
clean energy systems. This is something we see coming back
many, many times.
So from our perspective in OES, this is one of the key
areas that we are working on as well is to try and get the best
science together, create economic opportunities because the
United States is a leader in clean energy technologies and
being able to create those economic opportunities as well as
bring down the affordability of these types of technologies.
Senator Barrasso. Obviously, this is a tight budget
environment. We have this huge debt. There are many competing
priorities across the globe. The President's budget request
includes $1.29 billion for the Global Climate Change
Initiative. This is a 55-percent increase in funding from
fiscal year 2014.
So for fiscal year 2016, the Bureau has requested an
increase of another $330 million in economic support funds to
go toward a brand new green climate fund.
Given the increasing need for humanitarian assistance,
democracy promotion, embassy security measures, countering
global terrorist threats, I am wondering why the administration
is requesting such a large increase for global climate change
where I think most people would think this could be better
spent on the issues of humanitarian assistance, democracy
protection, embassy security, and countering global terrorist
threats.
Ms. Garber. The focus of our $3 billion request for the
green climate fund is to help reduce climate pollution and
strengthen resilience with a particular focus on developing
countries and the most vulnerable.
In 2008, the Bush administration provided $2 billion to the
climate investment funds, and we see the green climate fund as
an opportunity to take this type of climate support and bring
it forward to be even more robust and resilient.
It has four different areas which is significantly
different from the existing climate investment funds.
One, from the get-go, it is going to have a dedicated
private sector facility because we really believe the private
sector has to be part of that solution working with it going
forward.
Second, it has a focus, as I had stated before, on the most
vulnerable.
Third, it is going to have a much broader donor base, which
is something that we think is really important because we agree
that everybody has to be part of the solution. There cannot be
countries that are going to be sitting on the outside.
And the fourth and also incredibly important is that it has
much better safeguards, and we are going to make sure that it
is transparent and that there is accountability in how those
monies are going to be used.
Senator Barrasso. Senator Udall, do you have additional
questions?
Senator Udall. Yes, thank you, Chairman Barrasso.
I asked one question on climate change and I want to come
back to that. It seems to me that this problem is only going to
be solved if all of the countries in the world are working
together. That is the first point. And so the fact that we are
going to Paris and trying to work with countries around the
world I think is very important because if we just sit here
isolated, we are not going to be able to do that. And so I urge
you to try to work with all the other countries around the
world and work, as President Obama has, with China where both
countries, the two biggest emitters, set specific targets of
where they are going.
And my understanding is that as a result of that discussion
and the targets that are out there and how we are trying to
move, we are seeing a dramatic change in attitude in terms of
countries around the world going into Paris. Has that happened?
Do you sense that, Assistant Secretary Garber, from the work
that you are seeing being done on the ground?
Ms. Garber. I think absolutely. The agreement between
President Obama and President Ji and the announcement from last
November was truly a game-changer. And we are seeing a higher
level of ambition coming. We have seen announcements from over
60 percent of countries that represent over 60 percent of
global emissions as we move toward Paris since that
announcement. So again, this is a sign of how we are trying to
work with many other countries to get more ambitious targets so
we can reach a meaningful agreement that would be applicable to
all, including the major emerging economies.
Senator Udall. And when it comes to doing the things like--
you mentioned the two of three areas you are focusing on, clean
energy, sustainable landscapes. Is it not in our national
interest to decrease foreign pollution, especially pollution
that is impacting Americans negatively right now? It seems to
me we are not just working on the international basis. We are
trying to do things that will change the situation here at
home. As we know, many of the measurements on our coasts
where--Los Angeles--they can look at where the pollution comes
from--my understanding about a third of that pollution is
coming from across the seas. And so we are all interconnected
in this. We just need to make sure that we are all working
together to try to be a part of the solution.
And the question I guess is on that impact here in America.
Ms. Garber. Absolutely. Climate change is a global
challenge that requires a global solution, and we believe that
by forging a meaningful agreement we are actually helping to
improve the quality of life and the environment here at home.
The World Health Organization recently came out with
statistics that one out of eight deaths worldwide is due to air
pollution and related factors. So again, this is something that
we believe will help to improve the situation for American
citizens as well.
Senator Udall. Ambassador Crocker, I want to come back to
the question about Israel because I think it drives home a
point in terms of our engagement with the U.N. You mentioned
that before the Human Rights Council, there was another
commission. We were not involved at all. But as you know,
recently we have been very involved in this Human Rights
Council. And as you have testified, there has been less focus
in terms of being anti-Israel, and to me that highlights the
point that if we get engaged, then other countries are willing
to see us working through the process at the U.N. and allowing
us then to move forward.
Would you agree with that? And are there other examples of
where direct engagement, whether it is reform area or other
areas? Ambassador Coleman, you may want to comment on this
also.
Ms. Crocker. Well, thank you for coming back to that
question because I think it is a very important point to
underscore that we see time and again and we hear time and
again from other countries how much they want U.S. leadership
and strong engagement at the full range of international
organizations in which we participate.
The Human Rights Council is an example of where U.S.
leadership not only has meant over the course of years since we
have been a member of that council a decrease in focus on
Israel, but also importantly, an increase in the council's
focus on those things that it should be focused on, namely
shining a spotlight on the world's worst human rights abusers.
And since the United States has taken a leadership role and
engaged strongly in the work of the council, we have worked
across regional groupings and with other countries to turn the
council's attention to some of those worst abusers from Iran
and the DPRK to Sudan to Syria to Belarus, Eritrea, Sri Lanka.
And we have also worked with the council to help other
countries build their own capacities for human rights
protections, and we are seeing that in Somalia and in Haiti and
in Lebanon, for example.
We have used the council effectively to elevate
international attention on people around the world who were
otherwise underrepresented, including persons with disabilities
and LGBT persons. We have used it to advance U.S. interests on
human rights, including the protections of the rights of
expression and assembly and association. And we have been able
to do all of this despite the fact that there are some bad
human rights abusers on the council itself, which is something
we also work against. But the important point is that U.S.
leadership on the council enables us, nonetheless, to drive the
council's agenda and to turn its focus to those things that it
should be focused on.
I would cite what we are doing right now on the efforts on
peacekeeping reform as another area where we hear time and
again and we see for ourselves that the United States being at
the table as a full member of the United Nations, paying our
dues in full and on time, and having the kind of standing that
we do enables us to speak with a strong voice whether it is
looking at mandate renewal questions, looking at new missions
that we are agreeing on in the Security Council or encouraging
other countries to either come back into peacekeeping when they
have been out for some years or to enter U.N. peacekeeping for
the first time.
Senator Udall. Ambassador Coleman, just 30 seconds or so.
Ambassador Coleman. Sure. I mean, I would just underscore
what Assistant Secretary Crocker has already said. I think that
many of the countries who share our values and are interested
in promoting the reform agenda that we feel is so important at
the U.N.--they really look to us for leadership. I have had
personal experience of that in many of the negotiations in the
Fifth Committee. It is really a number of countries who rely on
the United States as the largest financial contributor at the
U.N. to use its weight and to use its influence to promote that
very important reform agenda across a whole range of different
issues, whether it is Israeli inclusion or whether it is
peacekeeping reform, as Assistant Secretary Crocker just
mentioned, or budget discipline. On all of these issues,
countries look to the United States for leadership.
Senator Udall. Thank you.
Thank you, Chairman Barrasso.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Senator Udall.
Senator Markey.
Senator Markey. Thank you very much.
Secretary Garber, you have a significant responsibility for
carrying out a range of tasks. The White House, February 2015,
issued the implementation plan for the national strategy for
combating wildlife trafficking. Could you discuss your efforts,
how they address the international conservation goals and
anticipated challenges that oceans, environment, and science
may face in responding to the national call to combat wildlife
trafficking?
Ms. Garber. Thank you very much for that question, Senator.
Wildlife trafficking is a growing crisis. Not only are
there species that are facing extinction, but we have seen a
trend for this wildlife trafficking to become more of a
security issue with the transnational criminal gangs, as well
as some terrorist groups taking advantage of what is truly a
low-risk, high-reward enterprise.
The national strategy has really elevated the approach of
the U.S. Government on this issue, and we are actually meeting
quite regularly. We have come out, as you have pointed out, in
February with a robust implementation plan. We are focusing it
on three areas: strengthening law enforcement at home and
abroad, reducing demand, as well as increasing and
strengthening international commitment and cooperation. We are
focused very much on some of the high-demand countries such as
China in our international diplomacy, as well as trying to get
this as an issue on the agenda in fora such as APEC and ASEAN.
At an interagency level, we meet on a regular basis, and in
fact, we are having a meeting of our task force tomorrow where
we will be addressing many of these different approaches and
what we can do to help solve this global crisis.
Senator Markey. Talk a little bit about deforestation. Talk
about the Amazon. Talk about what we can do to help to create
sustainable landscape programs. How would that affect
deforestation work?
Ms. Garber. Deforestation is a focus of a lot of the effort
of my bureau in some of our assistance programs. The drivers of
Amazon deforestation are genuinely complicated, but agriculture
is one of the main factors behind that. Secondly,
infrastructure development is another key element and issue
there.
We are focusing our programs on better governance in those
areas, trying to get at the heart of those issues. In addition,
we are trying to create, such as our activities with Peru,
better tracking systems and helping build capabilities in those
that are forcing these particular issues.
Senator Markey. Thank you.
Secretary Garber, I know that our climate negotiations are
in great hands. I know Todd Stern is doing a great job. You are
doing a great job. Secretary Kerry is doing a great job. I love
the progress that we have made with China and with other
countries beginning to step up to the plate to play their role
in making sure that every country is making a commitment. And I
am very optimistic about what can happen, what we can unleash
as a future.
I just actually left a meeting with 10 MIT scientists who
are very bullish on solar and the role that it can play in the
years ahead in dealing with this issue. We just have to put the
right incentives on the books, and then we can just watch this
whole area explode.
So I think it is in good hands. So I feel good about
climate and the negotiations.
So I am going to move on to something else that I am
concerned about which is seafood fraud and illegal fishing,
which is bad for everyone from fishermen to seafood lovers, and
it threatens the health of the ocean and the bottom lines of
fishermen in Massachusetts and all of America's coasts. And I
was glad to work with my colleagues on this committee last year
to move the Port State Agreement that will help combat illegal
fishing and the economic and environmental harm it causes. And
I look forward to working with the Commerce Committee to move
additional legislation to combat illegal fishing in this
Congress.
But I am happy that through Secretary Kerry's leadership on
ocean issues, the State Department is already making strides to
level the playing field for our domestic fishing industry,
which operates under some of the toughest conservation
requirements in the world.
I know the final recommendations, Ms. Garber, of the
Presidential task force on combating illegal, unreported, and
unregulated fishing and seafood fraud were just released in
March. But could you tell us where you have seen positive
results already or are anticipating seeing those results in the
future?
Ms. Garber. Thank you for that question, Senator.
Our sense is that the Secretary's Our Ocean Conference and
following ocean action plan has really changed the global
dialogue on oceans issues. We are very excited by the
enthusiasm that we are finding all over the world and newfound
enthusiasm to tackle these issues. We are pressing for
ratification of the Port State Measures Agreement in many
different countries.
As you noted, we just came out recently with the
recommendations of the Presidential task force that was set up
during the Our Ocean Conference. I hope as a Senator from
Massachusetts you had the opportunity to see the op-ed that
myself and Deputy Assistant Secretary Russell Smith put in
there on the date that the task force recommendations were
released emphasizing how important we think it is to put in
place and explaining to the general public why it is so
important to have seafood traceability so consumers know what
they are eating in the United States, we know what is on our
plate, and that we do not have illegal seafood entering the
commercial chain and also emphasizing the international office
that we are going to be making overseas because we believe that
it is very difficult for us to show international leadership on
this issue if we are not addressing some of our weaknesses here
at home as well.
So we are very enthusiastic about where this is going. I
was in Colombia last week at an environmental working group
meeting as part of our high-level policy dialogue with
Colombia, and all my counterpart wanted to talk about was the
Our Ocean action agenda.
Senator Markey. That is great because if you are a
fisherman in Gloucester or New Bedford, you got big problems if
we do not begin to crack down on illegal fishing. It is just
absolutely going to be devastating to us. And so I am glad that
you are leading that effort. I think it is absolutely
critically important.
And we have to do something again in your portfolio on
climate change. There were readings in the ocean off of
Massachusetts in January, 21 degrees warmer than normal in
January off of the ocean in Massachusetts. So the cod need cold
water. The lobster need cold water. So it is having a
fundamental impact on huge industries. And, in fact, that cold
air coming down from the Arctic kept hitting this very warm
ocean, and to a large extent, that is what gave us 111 inches
of snow, that incredible impact that cold weather has when it
hits warm water. And I know that you are working on that. And I
appreciate your being here.
My colleagues from Wyoming and New Mexico are not as close
to the ocean as I am sure they would like to be. [Laughter.]
Senator Markey. So these issues are central to us. But Mark
Twain used to say that an expert is anyone who lives further
than 500 miles from the problem. So we got people here to help
us to solve those issues.
So thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much for your indulgence.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you. Thank you very much.
I appreciate all of you being here today. Thank you for
your service to our Nation and for working to advance the
American interests all across the globe.
At this time, we will take a minute to transition to the
second panel. I would ask that second panel of witnesses to
move to the table.
I want to welcome our second panel of distinguished
witnesses to the committee. I appreciate your efforts to be
with us today to provide valuable insights. I appreciate your
patience by sitting attentively through the first panel.
Joining us on the second panel is Mr. Brett Schaefer, the Jay
Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory
Affairs at the Heritage Foundation. Thank you very much for
joining us. And also Mr. Reid Detchon, the Vice President for
Energy and Climate Strategy at the United Nations Foundation.
As I noted earlier, your full statements will be included
in the record in their entirety, hearing no objection to that.
I do ask that you try to summarize your statements in about 5
minutes.
Mr. Schaefer.
STATEMENT OF BRETT D. SCHAEFER, JAY KINGHAM SENIOR RESEARCH
FELLOW IN INTERNATIONAL REGULATORY AFFAIRS, MARGARET THATCHER
CENTER FOR FREEDOM, HERITAGE FOUNDATION, WASHINGTON, DC
Mr. Schaefer. Thank you, Chairman Barrasso, Ranking Member
Udall, and other members of the subcommittee. I would like to
thank you for the opportunity to come and speak to you today
about key issues facing the United States at the United
Nations.
In my opinion, it is in the interest of the United States
to have an effective United Nations. To be useful, the U.N.
must carry out its responsibilities competently and
efficiently. It must operate in a transparent and accountable
fashion, and it must hold itself and its employees and
representatives to the highest standards of conduct.
Unfortunately, the current organization falls short.
Let me focus on a few key points from my testimony which
has a number of examples of suggestions and ways to address
these problems.
First, the current methodology for calculating the scale of
assessments, the percentage of the budget assigned to
individual countries, has over the years increasingly shifted
costs of the organization away from the bulk of the membership
onto a relative handful of high-income nations, particularly
the United States. The differences are stark. The United States
will be assessed approximately $3 billion this year based on
the projected budgets for the regular and peacekeeping budgets,
while the 20 least assessed countries will be assessed less
than $37,000 this year for both of those budgets. This is not
just a few states that are underassessed in this manner. For
the regular budget, the United States is assessed more than 176
other U.N. member states combined. For the peacekeeping budget,
the United States is assessed more than 185 other U.N. members
states combined. This year over half the U.N. membership will
be assessed less than $1 million each for their share of the
regular and peacekeeping budgets.
This reality helps explain why many member states are blase
about budget increases. The financial impact on them for
individual budgetary decisions is relative minor and in some
cases insignificant, which undermines the incentives for them
to fulfill their oversight role and seriously consider
budgetary restraint. A long-term solution requires a more
equitable distribution of the costs of the U.N. activities so
that all member states have an incentive to watch the bottom
line.
Second, because the U.N. and its employees enjoy broad
protections and immunities, the organization has an extremely
heavy responsibility to self-scrutinize, self-police, self-
correct, and punish wrongdoing. Unfortunately, the internal
oversight in the organization has been lacking. A low point was
the elimination of the incredibly effective Procurement Task
Force by the General Assembly in 2008. Worse, however, is the
fact that the Office of Internal Oversight Services has not
filled the gap. No major corruption cases have been completed
since the PTF was disbanded in 2008. This deliberate neglect is
abetted by some member states that dislike having their
citizens subject to corruption investigations.
The U.N. also seems to have an embedded hostility toward
whistleblowers who can serve as a critical safety valve for
reporting mismanagement and misconduct. As stated by nine
prominent whistleblowers in a recent letter to the Secretary
General, ``retaliation against whistleblowers affects the
entire U.N. system and goes largely unchecked at all levels.''
The fear of reporting wrongdoing undermines the effectiveness
and integrity of the U.N. It must be shored up.
Third, U.N. peacekeeping is being conducted on an
unprecedented pace, scale, and ambition. These increasing
demands have revealed ongoing serious flaws, including
corruption in procurement and contracting, the potential for
unintended tragedies such as the introduction of cholera to
Haiti by U.N. peacekeepers, questions about the relevance and
impact of long-standing operations, and based on recent reports
of peacekeepers failing to respond when civilians were
threatened, whether peacekeepers are actually prepared and
willing to protect civilians in hostile environments even when
instructed to do so by Security Council resolutions.
But the most horrible problem is the troubling frequency of
peacekeepers, both civilian and military, preying on the very
people that they are supposed to protect. Recent harrowing
reports of sexual exploitation and abuse underscore that this
problem has not been resolved and more robust steps must be
taken.
Finally, the United States should take more proactive steps
to increase the transparency and effectiveness of its own
contributions to the U.N. system by reviving the annual
reporting requirement on all U.S. contributions to the U.N.
system conducted by OMB, conducting periodic analyses on U.S.
participation in the U.N. system to identify those most and
least vital to U.S. interests, those providing most and least
value for money, using that analysis to inform decisions on
membership and contributions, and increasing U.S. scrutiny of
how U.S. dollars are spent in the U.N. system.
In conclusion, I want to emphasize the critical role played
by Congress on U.N. reform issues over the years through the
use of financial carrots and sticks that among other reforms
have led to the adoption of consensus-based budgeting in the
1980s, the establishment of the OIOS in 1994, and the adoption
of maximum assessment of the regular budget, and encouraging
conduct and personnel changes under the Helms-Biden agreement.
In my opinion, Congress can be a very effective ally in
executive branch efforts to pressure the organization to adopt
reforms and should be active in this area.
Thank you very much, and I look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Schaefer follows:]
Prepared Statement of Brett D. Schaefer
My name is Brett Schaefer. I am the Jay Kingham Research Fellow in
International Regulatory Affairs at The Heritage Foundation. The views
I express in this testimony are my own, and should not be construed as
representing any official position of The Heritage Foundation.
I want to thank Chairman Barrasso, Ranking Member Udall, and the
other members of the subcommittee for the opportunity to discuss key
concerns facing the United States at the United Nations, including U.N.
budgets and the scale of assessments, oversight and accountability,
peacekeeping, and transparency and analysis from the U.S. perspective.
While I am not able to fully discuss all of these matters in my
testimony, I will touch on them and provide footnotes to published
papers and articles expanding on specific points.
u.n. budgets and scale of assessments
When discussing the U.N. budget, it is important to clarify what is
being discussed. The United Nations is a complex system of
organizations, funds, programs, offices, and other bodies. The ``core''
United Nations is generally considered to be the entities established
in the U.N. Charter: the Security Council, the General Assembly, the
Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC), the International Court of
Justice, the largely defunct Trusteeship Council, and the Secretariat.
These bodies conduct various activities and oversee a wide array of
committees, commissions, and working groups. Although most of these
activities are focused on the New York headquarters, the core U.N.
budget also funds staff and activities at the various U.N. offices in
other countries and affiliated bodies.
Other bodies within the U.N. system have varying degrees of
autonomy. Approximately two dozen U.N. funds, programs, and other
entities--such as the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF) and the
United Nations Development Program--ostensibly ``report'' to the U.N.
General Assembly, but typically act independently and often have
separate governing boards. Another 16 specialized U.N. agencies and
related organizations are even more autonomous. Some of them, such as
the International Telecommunication Union, predate the United Nations.
Others, such as the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank,
were established contemporaneously.
Funding of these bodies and their activities is provided through
agreed assessments (a percentage of the organization's budget assigned
to individual countries), voluntary contributions, or a combination of
both. According to U.N. data, the U.N. system nearly tripled its
revenues from 2002 and 2012 from $14.963 billion to $41.504 billion.\1\
Over that period, the U.S. share of U.N. revenue has averaged about 19
percent of total assessed and voluntary contributions.\2\
My testimony will focus on the ``core'' United Nations, which has
two main budgets approved by the General Assembly:
The regular budget. The U.N. regular budget funds the
activities, staff, and basic infrastructure of the Secretariat
and most of the activities of the entities established in the
U.N. Charter except for U.N. peacekeeping. The regular budget
also provides funds (ranging from full funding to token
amounts) to support the activities of various U.N. bodies
including the United Nations Human Rights Council, the United
Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the
Near East, and the United Nations Environment Program. It is a
2-year (biennial) budget that is adjusted mid-period to account
for new activities approved during the period. For instance,
the current 2014-2015 U.N. regular budget was originally
approved by the General Assembly at $5.538 billion, but was
increased to $5.654 billion this past December.\3\
The peacekeeping budget. The U.N. peacekeeping budget funds
most of the peacekeeping missions established by the Security
Council. Unlike the regular budget, the peacekeeping budget is
an annual budget. It can fluctuate significantly as missions
are established, expanded, contracted, or terminated. The
originally approved peacekeeping budget from July 2014 to June
2015 was $7.06 billion.\4\ The current estimate, as of March
31, 2015, is $8.47 billion.\5\
There are 193 member states in the United Nations. Article 17 of
the U.N. Charter states that the ``expenses of the Organization shall
be borne by the members as apportioned by the General Assembly.''
The United States has been the U.N.'s largest financial supporter
ever since the organization's founding in 1945. The United States is
currently assessed 22 percent of the U.N. regular budget and 28.3626
percent of the U.N. peacekeeping budget.
Since the U.N.'s establishment in 1945, these expenses have been
apportioned ``broadly according to capacity to pay.'' \6\ This means
that wealthier nations, based principally on per capita income and
adjusted by other factors, are asked to pay larger shares of the budget
than poorer nations.
This was done in recognition of fiscal reality. The founders of the
U.N. did not wish U.N. membership to cause severe financial hardship.
However, as evidenced from their actions in establishing a minimum
assessment of 0.04 percent in 1946, they did not believe that
membership should be costless or insignificant, either, even though the
original member states included very poor countries such as Haiti.
Over the past six decades, the regular budget assessments provided
by poor or small U.N. member states have steadily ratcheted downward.
Specifically, the minimum assessment for the regular budget fell from
0.04 percent to 0.02 percent in 1974 to 0.01 percent in 1978 to the
current minimum assessment of 0.001 percent adopted in 1998. For the
peacekeeping budget, the minimum is 0.0001 percent.
Additional discounts have also been adopted to reduce the
assessments of most nations, including a debt burden discount for
countries under a specified income threshold, a low per capita income
discount, and a maximum assessment of 0.01 percent for the nearly 50
least-developed countries.\7\ In addition, the vast majority of the
U.N. membership receives further discounts ranging from 7.5 percent to
90.0 percent on their peacekeeping assessments (that are based on their
adjusted regular budget assessments) which are then added to the
assessments of the permanent members of the Security Council.\8\
The primary result of these adjustments is to shift the costs of
the organization away from the bulk of the membership onto a relative
handful of high-income nations, particularly the United States. As
presented in the accompanying table, for the regular budget, the United
States is assessed more than 176 other U.N. member states combined and
22,000 times more than the least-assessed countries.
These differences are even starker in dollar terms:
The 35 countries charged the minimum assessment in 2015 each
will pay only $28,269 based on the current 2014-2015 regular
budget.
The 20 countries paying the minimum peacekeeping assessment
of 0.0001 percent in 2015 each will be assessed approximately
$8,470.
By contrast, the United States is assessed 22.0 percent of
the regular budget (approximately $622 million) and 28.3626
percent of the peacekeeping budget (approximately $2.402
billion).
In other words, the United States will be assessed approximately $3
billion this year while the 20 least-assessed countries each will be
assessed less than $37,000. Over 40 countries will be assessed less
than $100,000 this year. As observed by U.N. expert Edward Luck,
``Surely it should not cost a nation less to belong to the U.N. than an
individual to go to college or to buy a car.'' \9\
This reality helps explain why so many member states are blase
about increases in the U.N. budget: The financial impact on them is
miniscule and undermines incentives for them to fulfill their oversight
role and seriously consider budgetary restraint. A long-term means for
addressing this problem requires all member states to have financial
skin in the game.
Since the first scale of assessments, the United States has
objected to excessively relying on a single member state for the budget
and argued for establishing a maximum assessment level and,
subsequently, lowering that maximum. The historical struggle of the
United States to constrain growth in U.N. budgets and focus resources
on high priority, effective activities versus outdated, duplicative, or
unproductive activities illustrates the wisdom of this stance. The
organization would be healthier and more effective if the costs were
more equitably distributed. To address these concerns the United States
should:
Review and seek to adjust the U.N. scale of assessment to
more equitably distribute the costs of the regular budget.
Unless a stronger relationship between budget decisions and
financial contributions is achieved, the United States too
often will remain a lonely voice calling for budgetary
restraint. The U.N. Committee on Contributions meets this June
to recommend a new 2016-2018 scale of assessments for
consideration by the General Assembly this fall. The United
States should propose options for adjusting the scale to ensure
that even the lowest assessed countries have a greater stake in
financial decisions. An example would be to return the minimum
assessment to 0.01 percent as it was before 1998, which would
have the effect of increasing the minimum assessment from
roughly $28,000 per year to about $280,000 per year. These
changes would affect approximately 80 countries, but should be
within the means of even the poorest sovereign nations.
Review and adjust the U.N. scale of assessment to more
equitably distribute the costs of the peacekeeping budget. To
address the even greater disparity in the peacekeeping
assessment, the United States should seek to increase the
peacekeeping floor to 0.001 percent. This would have the effect
of increasing the minimum assessment from roughly $8,470 per
year to about $84,700 per year. In addition, considering that
the peacekeeping assessment is based on the regular budget
where many countries already receive significant discounts, the
extent of additional peacekeeping discounts should be trimmed
as should the number of eligible countries, which currently
apply to wealthy nations like Saudi Arabia. Finally, the United
States should also seek a change in the methodology to reflect
the prestige of membership on the Security Council by
proposing: (1) a new minimum peacekeeping assessment of 0.5
percent for nonpermanent members of the Security Council; (2) a
new minimum peacekeeping assessment of 5 percent for permanent
members of the Security Council; and (3) barring the permanent
members from using the debt adjustment, low income adjustment,
or other regular budget scale of assessment discounts for the
purposes of calculating their peacekeeping assessment.
Enforce the 25 percent cap on America's peacekeeping
assessment. Fifteen years ago, Ambassador Richard Holbrooke
testified to the Senate that he had secured a deal to lower the
U.S. peacekeeping assessment to 25 percent as required under
U.S. law and as a condition for payment of U.S. arrears under
the Helms-Biden agreement.\10\ By 2009, the U.S. share had
fallen to less than 26 percent. In 2010, however, the U.S.
assessment rose sharply, costing taxpayers hundreds of millions
of dollars. The U.S. share of the peacekeeping budget has risen
to 28.3626 percent under the current scale and is likely to
rise even further in the next scale of assessments unless
changes are made.\11\ The United States should resume pressure
on the U.N. to fulfill its commitment to lower the U.S.
peacekeeping assessment to 25 percent by withholding the
difference between our peacekeeping assessment and the 25
percent cap until the U.N. implements a maximum peacekeeping
assessment of 25 percent.
Seek institutional changes to give more influence on U.N.
budgetary decisions to major contributors. Together, the top 17
contributors (those assessed more than 1 percent of the budget)
are assessed more than 81.6 percent of the U.N. regular budget
in 2015, but under U.N. rules, the 129 member states that
contribute just over 1.5 percent can pass the budget over their
objections. The United States should demand that U.N. budgetary
decisions, in addition to approval by two-thirds of the member
states, must also be approved by member states collectively
paying two-thirds of the regular budget assessments.
Another part of this problem is how the U.N. budget is allocated.
The failure to arrest growth in U.N. employment, salaries, and benefits
is especially problematic because personnel costs account for over 70
percent of U.N. spending according to the U.N.'s Advisory Committee on
Administrative and Budgetary Questions (ACABQ).\12\ Without a
significant reduction in the number of permanent U.N. posts or a
significant reduction in staff compensation and related costs, real and
lasting reductions in the U.N. regular budget will be difficult.
Therefore, the United States should:
Rein in excessive U.N. salaries and benefits. In order to
attract and retain qualified staff, the U.N. has long operated
under the Noblemaire principle, which states that professional
staff compensation should be determined according to the
schedule of the civil service of the member state with the
highest national civil service compensation levels. Since the
U.N. was founded, this ``comparator'' has been the U.S. federal
civil service. In 2014, the U.N. reported that net remuneration
averages 32.2 percent higher than that of their U.S. equivalent
in Washington and 17.4 percent higher than their U.S.
equivalent in New York.\13\ The United States should seek to
ratchet this down to no more than the same level of equivalent
U.S. civil servants.\14\ Considering the large portion of the
U.N. budget consumed by salaries, this issue is critical to
budgetary restraint as evidenced by calls from U.N.
organizations like the Food and Agriculture Organization and
the International Maritime Organization to arrest rising staff
costs.\15\
Related to this is the failure of the U.N. to regularly evaluate
its activities or ``mandates'' in U.N. terminology. As part of the 2005
reform agenda, the U.N., for the first time, compiled a comprehensive
list of the more than 9,000 individual mandates of the General
Assembly, Security Council, and Economic and Social Council.
Unfortunately, the subsequent review was quickly ended after the first
report concluded that a number of mandates should be eliminated.
Specifically, the 2008 report from the cochairmen of the mandate review
concluded that only 155 (56 percent) of the 279 mandates in the
Humanitarian cluster were ``current and relevant'' and that only 18 (35
percent) of the 52 mandates in the African Development cluster were
current and relevant. There is no evidence that these outdated or
irrelevant mandates have been terminated or altered to improve their
relevance. The deliberate avoidance of this scrutiny wastes resources
and undermines the U.N.'s ability to discharge its responsibilities
effectively. To address this, the United States should:
Seek to revive the mandate review. Lack of progress on
reviewing U.N. mandates greatly inhibits the U.N.'s ability to
allocate funds according to priorities and eliminate
unnecessary tasks, personnel, and functions that drain and
divert resources.
oversight and accountability
The U.N. and its employees enjoy broad protections and immunities
from national and local legal jurisdiction. In practice, U.N. employees
cannot be sued in national courts, arrested, or prosecuted for actions
related to their official duties unless those immunities are waived.
This places an extremely heavy responsibility on the U.N. to
scrutinize, self-police, correct, and punish wrongdoing by the
organization and its employees.
Unfortunately, oversight and accountability at the U.N. have
historically been weak. The U.N. did not have anything even resembling
an inspector general until 1994, when the Office of Internal Oversight
Services (OIOS) was created after U.S. demands--backed by the threat of
financial withholding--for such an office. Three major scandals,
including corruption in the Iraqi Oil-for-Food program, sexual abuse
committed by U.N. peacekeepers, and corruption and mismanagement in
U.N. procurement, spurred calls for stronger oversight and
accountability in the mid-2000s and provoked a series of U.N. reports
and resolutions identifying the problems and proposing solutions.
Unfortunately, current procedures remain unacceptably weak when they
have not been eliminated altogether.
A depressing example is the Procurement Task Force (PTF). When the
extent of U.N. fraud and mismanagement in the Iraqi Oil-for-Food
program became clear, the United States was able to convince the U.N.
to create the PTF to investigate and pursue allegations of fraud and
mismanagement. The PTF began work in January 2006 and over the next 3
years uncovered fraud, waste, and mismanagement in U.N. procurement and
other activities involving contracts valued at more than $630 million.
The evidence unearthed by the PTF led to misconduct findings against 17
U.N. officials and the conviction of several senior U.N. officials. In
the end, the PTF did its job too well. As punishment for pursuing cases
against Singaporean and Russian nationals, those countries led a
successful effort to eliminate the PTF in December 2008.\16\
This outcome would not be so serious if the OIOS was willing and
able to fill the gap of the eliminated PFT. Unfortunately, it does not.
According to a 2014 Associated Press report on a senior OIOS official
impeding an investigation and retaliating against two OIOS
whistleblowers, it was revealed that a ``review of the reports
submitted by OIOS to the General Assembly through mid-2013 shows that
the U.N.'s oversight functions still have not completed any major
corruption cases since the [Procurement Task Force] was disbanded.''
\17\
This lack of U.N. internal oversight is exacerbated by the
hostility toward U.N. whistleblowers. Whistleblowers should serve a
particularly valuable function in the U.N. system because of the broad
protections and immunities the organizations and their employees
possess. In essence, whistleblowers should serve as a safety valve by
alerting the organization to wrongdoing. Unfortunately, whistleblowers
are themselves too often punished for coming forward. The Government
Accountability Project (GAP), which advocates for whistleblowers, has
compiled numerous instances illustrating ``the consistent failure of
the United Nations and its funds, programs and agencies to protect
whistleblowers from retaliation.'' \18\
Only a few weeks ago, nine whistleblowers from various U.N.
organizations sent a letter to the U.N. Secretary General asserting
that U.N. whistleblower standards lag behind the modern standards and
are poorly implemented affording little to no measure of real or
meaningful protection for whistleblowers.
As our experience shows, retaliation against whistleblowers affects
the entire U.N. system and goes largely unchecked at all levels,
including in the Executive suites. Some U.N. whistleblowers have been
fired or demoted; others have been subject to more subtle forms of
abuse like nonrenewal of contracts or sudden transfer to duty stations
on the other side of the globe; many face plain, simple harassment and
intimidation.
As a result, fear of reporting wrongdoing is widespread. U.N.
whistleblowers are forced to go through lengthy, and often expensive,
internal appeal processes in which the burden of proof, as a practical
matter, rests on the whistleblower to demonstrate retaliation (the
usual standard in national systems requires the employer to justify
their actions were not retaliatory).
Put simply, the U.N. system of justice fails whistleblowers, and
most of us have been forced to leave the U.N. to save our livelihoods,
our health and our reputations.\19\
Statistics compiled by GAP on the performance of the U.N. ethics
office, which found that it had denied the whistleblowing allegations
of over 96 percent of those who had come forward (more than 447
preliminary inquiries) as of July 2014, support this conclusion.\20\
Considering these problems, the United States should seek to:
Encourage stronger whistleblower protections. Congress has
expressed great concern over the failure of the U.N. to
implement measures to protect whistleblowers. The Consolidated
and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2015, requires the
United States to withhold 15 percent of U.S. contributions
unless the Secretary of State certifies that the organization
has implemented specified whistleblower protections including
the option for external arbitration.\21\ Congress should
consider expanding its whistleblower protection language to
incorporate recommendations from the letter from U.N.
whistleblowers, including applying whistleblower protections to
U.N. peacekeepers and police.
Apply pressure for the implementation of current standards.
Although the current protections for whistleblowers in the U.N.
system should be improved, the biggest problem is a consistent
failure of the U.N. to actually adhere to those standards and
apply them. As noted by Beatrice Edwards, executive director of
the Government Accountability Project, ``[T]he problem is not
with the policy. It's that it's not implemented, no political
will at the top to protect whistleblowers.'' \22\ History has
shown that the U.N. will respond to financial pressure and
Congress should take steps to ensure that its efforts are not
negated by broad use of the waiver authority granted the
Secretary of State.
Reconstitute the PTF. The unwillingness of the OIOS to
investigate corruption necessitates a supplementary effort that
could be addressed by a reconstituted PTF or an equivalent
independent entity empowered to investigate any entity or
mission that receives funding from the U.N. regular budget or
the U.N. peacekeeping budget or reports to the General
Assembly.
peacekeeping
One of the United Nations' primary responsibilities is to help to
maintain international peace and security. At the end of March 2015,
U.N. peacekeeping had more than 125,000 personnel (including 106,595
uniformed personnel, 17,092 civilian personnel, and 1,846 volunteers)
involved in U.N. peacekeeping and political missions overseen by the
U.N. Department of Peacekeeping Operations. These activities are
increasingly expensive with the current annual peacekeeping budget
estimated at $8.47 billion.\23\
U.N. peacekeeping is being conducted with unprecedented pace,
scope, and ambition. Increasing demands have revealed ongoing, serious
flaws.
Fraud and Corruption. Over the years there have been numerous
reports, audits, and investigations revealing mismanagement, fraud, and
corruption in procurement for U.N. peacekeeping. For instance, in a
2007 OIOS report, an examination of $1.4 billion of peacekeeping
contracts turned up ``significant'' corruption schemes that tainted
$619 million (over 40 percent) of the contracts.\24\ An audit of the
U.N. mission in Sudan revealed tens of millions of dollars lost to
mismanagement and waste and exposed substantial indications of fraud
and corruption.\25\ According to then-head of OIOS Inga-Britt Ahlenius
in 2008, ``We can say that we found mismanagement and fraud and
corruption to an extent we didn't really expect.'' \26\
More recent reports are scarce, most likely due to OIOS disinterest
in pursuing investigations as detailed above, but recent news stories
on possible corruption in U.N. air charters to favor Russian
contractors,\27\ allegations of selling U.N. peacekeeping jobs in Haiti
and the Democratic Republic of the Congo,\28\ and assertions by
independent watchdogs like Transparency International that the U.N. has
failed to prioritize fighting corruption in peacekeeping operations
\29\ indicate that the issue remains problematic.
Unintended Consequences. Ten months after the 2010 earthquake,
Haiti was ravaged by cholera for the first time in over a century. Over
8,000 Haitians have died and more than 600,000 more have been sickened
from cholera. Infections first occurred in the vicinity of an outpost
of U.N. peacekeepers from Nepal--where cholera is widespread--and
quickly spread across Haiti. A U.N. investigation concluded that the
cholera cases involved a single strain of the disease, indicating a
single source, and that the strain was closely related to strains
contemporaneously circulating in South Asia. Subsequent studies and
reports, including one by the scientists that originally conducted the
U.N. report, confirmed these conclusions and identified the Nepalese
peacekeepers as almost certainly the source of the cholera outbreak.
Because of the broad immunities and privileges enjoyed by the U.N.,
efforts to sue the organization have been unsuccessful. The U.N. has
repeatedly refused to admit responsibility or take steps to provide
compensation to the victims leaving the victims with little
recourse.\30\
Increasing Financial Burden. As the number and scope of
peacekeeping operations has risen, so has the cost borne by the member
states. As the largest contributor with an assessment of 28.3626
percent of the peacekeeping budget, the United States has a special
interest in constraining these increasing costs. To this end, the
United States should more carefully scrutinize long-standing
peacekeeping operations. The unfortunate reality is that after billions
of dollars in international assistance and decades of U.N. peacekeeping
efforts, many long-standing peacekeeping operations have not
demonstrably facilitated the resolution of the conflict or situation
that the mission was originally deployed to address. For instance, the
United Nations Truce Supervision Organization (UNTSO) and the United
Nations Military Observer Group in India and Pakistan (UNMOGIP) have
been in place since the 1940s. The United Nations Peacekeeping Force in
Cyprus (UNFICYP) has been in place since 1964, the United Nations
Disengagement Observer Force (UNDOF) has been operational since 1974,
the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) since 1978, and
the United Nations Mission for the Referendum in Western Sahara
(MINURSO) since 1991. Peacekeeping should be a temporary endeavor, not
a permanent presence. Priority should be given to more urgent crises
with older, stagnating missions phased out to provide resources.
Protection of Civilians. U.N. peacekeeping debacles in the 1990s
led to a reevaluation of U.N. peacekeeping. However, as troubling
situations have arisen in recent years, many of them in Africa, the
Security Council has found itself under pressure to respond and ``do
something'' even though it may violate the central lesson learned in
the 1990s that ``the United Nations does not wage war.'' \31\ This does
not mean, however, that U.N. peacekeepers are necessarily more capable
or willing to act with force to prevent violence. A 2014 study of eight
of the nine U.N. peacekeeping operations with a mandate to protect
civilians found that of 570 reported instances, peacekeepers ``did not
report responding to 406 (80 per cent) of incidents where civilians
were attacked.'' \32\
This also assumes that those reports are accurate or complete.
Whistleblower Aicha Elbasri, who served as spokesperson for the African
Union-United Nations Mission in Darfur (UNAMID) between August 2012 and
April 2013, provided leaked documentation to Foreign Policy that showed
in a series of articles that the mission was deliberately
underreporting and concealing attacks by Sudanese forces on civilians
and U.N. peacekeepers.\33\
Sexual Exploitation and Abuse. By far the most horrible of the
problems facing U.N. peacekeeping is the disturbing frequency of sexual
exploitation and abuse committed by troops and civilian personnel
participating in those operations. This is not a new problem. There
have been numerous reports of U.N. personnel committing serious crimes
and sexual misconduct, from rape to the forced prostitution of women
and young girls. U.N. personnel have been accused of sexual
exploitation and abuse in Bosnia, Burundi, Cambodia, Congo, the
Democratic Republic of Congo, Guinea, Haiti, Kosovo, Liberia, Sierra
Leone, and Sudan. The United States and other member states
successfully pressured the U.N. to adopt stricter requirements for
peacekeeping troops and their contributing countries and Secretaries
General Kofi Annan and Ban Ki-moon repeatedly announced their
commitment to a ``zero-tolerance policy'' on sexual exploitation and
abuse and have commissioned and conducted numerous reports on the
matter.\34\
Conduct and discipline teams charged with strengthening
accountability and upholding the highest standards of conduct in
peacekeeping missions are now present in nearly all U.N. peacekeeping
missions and some political missions and troops are required to undergo
briefing and training on behavior and conduct.\35\ Statistics on the
United Nations Conduct and Discipline Unit Web site chronicle a steep
decline in allegations of sexual exploitation and abuse.
Recent leaked reports, however, belie these statistics and indicate
that the problem is as bad, if not worse, than it has ever been. A
U.N.-commissioned experts report from November 2013, which was never
released, was leaked earlier this year.\36\ The report directly
challenges U.N. claims on sexual exploitation and abuse, stating:
``The U.N. does not know how serious the problem of SEA
[sexual exploitation and abuse] is because the official numbers
mask what appears to be significant amounts of underreporting
of SEA'' due to poor record keeping, fear of retribution, a
culture of silence, and a sense of futility due to ``the rarity
of remedial outcomes including rarity of victim assistance.''
``Overall, there was noted a culture of enforcement
avoidance, with managers feeling powerless to enforce anti-SEA
rules, a culture of silence around reporting and discussing
cases, and a culture of extreme caution with respect to the
rights of the accused, and little accorded to the rights of the
victim.''
``This impunity has been debilitating for the many U.N.
personnel who believe in, adhere to, and try to promote the
zero tolerance policy, and creates unremediated harm to its
victims.''
Just last week, another report carried out by UNICEF and the U.N.
Office of the High Commissioner on Human Rights to investigate
allegations of sexual abuse and misconduct involving young boys in the
Central African Republic between December 2013 and June 2014 was
leaked. The confidential investigation reportedly provided strong
evidence of repeated rape and sexual abuse of starving boys ages 9 to
15 by French, Chadian, and Equatorial Guinean peacekeepers present in
the country before the United Nations Multidimensional Integrated
Stabilization Mission in the Central African Republic (MINUSCA) was
stood up.\37\ It is unknown if the abuse continued under MINUSCA or if
any of the perpetrators currently serve in MINUSCA. However, the
reluctance of the U.N. to pursue the matter is deeply troubling. As
stated by Paula Donovan, codirector of the advocacy group Aids Free
World, who received the leaked report: ``The regular sex abuse by
peacekeeping personnel uncovered here and the United Nations' appalling
disregard for victims are stomach-turning, but the awful truth is that
this isn't uncommon. The U.N.'s instinctive response to sexual violence
in its ranks--ignore, deny, cover up, dissemble--must be subjected to a
truly independent commission of inquiry with total access, top to
bottom, and full subpoena power.'' \38\
Considering these problems, the United States should:
Press the U.N. to clarify the steps and circumstances
required for the U.N. to waive immunities for employees in
order to facilitate claims and efforts to punish serious
misconduct. The U.N. and its affiliated organizations are
engaged in a multitude of activities that could result in
casualties, property damage, or other negative consequences.
Elimination of U.N. immunities would likely lead to a reduction
in U.N. field activities, which could lead to even broader
suffering. Although the U.N. has a mixed record, the United
States has an interest in preserving the ability of the U.N. to
respond to crises where it is unwilling or unable to respond
directly. But this interest must not supersede the need of
victims of sexual abuse, criminality, or neglect to hold those
responsible for their suffering to account. U.N. privileges and
immunities are important, but they must not create an
unreasonable barrier to accountability.
Take steps to hold troop-contributing countries accountable.
The standard memorandum of understanding between the U.N. and
troop contributors appropriately grants troop-contributing
countries jurisdiction over military members who participate in
U.N. peace operations, but little is done if these countries
fail to investigate or punish those who are guilty of such
crimes. The U.N. should demand that troop-contributing
countries investigate, try, and punish their personnel in cases
of misconduct and publicly release updates and outcomes of
their investigations into allegations. U.N. resources should be
enhanced to more rapidly investigate potential crimes and all
troop contributing countries must be required to grant full
cooperation and access to witnesses, records, and sites where
crimes allegedly occurred so that evidence is collected in a
timely manner and preserved. Equally important, the U.N. must
be stricter in holding member countries to these standards.
States that fail to fulfill their commitments to discipline
their troops should be barred from providing troops for peace
operations or receive substantially reduced peacekeeper
reimbursements. Likewise, if compensation is deemed appropriate
for damages resulting from negligence by the troop-contributing
government, extracting penalties from peacekeeping payments to
the troop-contributing country should be the first option.\39\
Press the U.N. to automatically establish standing claims
commissions in peacekeeping missions. The current situation
gives the appearance of avenues of redress for damages caused
by U.N. action, but the failure of the U.N. to ever establish a
standing claims commission indicates that the system is not
operating as it should. A key reason for this is likely that a
government in a country where the U.N. has a peacekeeping
operation is almost always highly dependent on the U.N. for
security, resources, and political support. As a result, the
government will be reluctant to anger the U.N. by requesting
the establishment of a standing claims commission. To avoid
this complication, a standing claims commission should
automatically be established when a mission stands up, although
it would be prudent to tightly define the claims eligible for
consideration to avoid frivolous petitions.
Evaluate long-running U.N. peacekeeping missions. The United
States should reevaluate all U.N. operations that date back to
the early 1990s or earlier--some date back to the 1940s--to
determine whether each U.N. mission is contributing to
resolving the situation or retarding that process. If an
operation is not demonstrably facilitating resolution of the
situation, the United States should use its authority in the
Security Council to wind them down. Alternatively, if some
concerned countries wish to continue U.N. peacekeeping
operations that have not resolved the conflicts despite being
in place for decades, they should be asked to assume all or
part of the financial burden of the continued operation as is
currently done with the U.N. Peacekeeping Force in Cyprus
(UNFICYP) where Greece and Cyprus pay for a large portion of
the mission's cost.\40\ These long-standing missions are
generally relatively small and among the least costly, but such
a reevaluation would help to reduce the enormous peacekeeping
budget and send a welcome message of accountability and
assessment.\41\
Be more judicious in authorizing U.N. peacekeeping
operations. A U.N. peacekeeping operation may not be the best
option for addressing every situation, particularly those where
there is no peace to keep. The pressure to ``do something''
must not trump sensible consideration of whether a U.N.
presence will improve or destabilize the situation, which
includes clearly establishing the objectives of the operations,
ensuring that they are achievable, carefully planning the
requirements for achieving them, and securing pledges for
providing what is needed to achieve them before authorizing the
operation.
u.s. transparency and analysis
Finally, there is also a lack of transparency and analysis on the
U.S. side. Because of the complexity of U.S. funding to the U.N., prior
to 2006 there was no definitive data on total U.S. contributions to the
U.N. system. In 2006, Congress required the White House Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) to submit a comprehensive report on total
U.S. contributions to the U.N. system for fiscal year (FY) 2001 through
FY 2005. Because OMB is in charge of overseeing the preparation of the
President's budget, it was able to require all U.S. agencies to report
the requested information.
That 2006 report confirmed that actual U.S. contributions to the
U.N. were higher by about 25 percent than previously reported by the
State Department. Congress mandated similar reports for FY 2006 through
FY 2010 but was inconsistent in assigning authorship. In each instance
where the State Department compiled the report, U.S. contributions to
the U.N. implausibly fell below the amount reported for previous years
by the OMB.
The reporting requirement lapsed in 2011. As a result, a
comprehensive accounting of U.S. contributions to the U.N. system after
FY 2010 is not available and the last reliable accounting by the OMB
was for FY 2010, which reported contributions totaling $7.692
billion.\42\ Incomplete data based on State Department reports to
Congress indicate that U.S. contributions have not declined, but
without the OMB report it is not possible to provide a definitive
figure.\43\
In addition, the United States lacks a comprehensive analysis of
whether these contributions are advancing U.S. interests or being used
to maximum effect. An example of what the United States should do is
the Multilateral Aid Review conducted by the United Kingdom's
Department for International Development that assessed the relative
value for U.K. aid money disbursed through multilateral organizations.
This report identified those U.N. agencies providing poor value for
money and led to the decision to zero out-funding for four U.N.
agencies.\44\ The last time the United States conducted a similar
exercise, albeit in a far less rigorous manner, was under the Clinton
administration in 1995 and directly led to the U.S. decision to
withdraw from the United Nations Industrial Development Organization
(UNIDO).\45\ The United States should not let two decades lapse before
repeating this type of analysis. To address these issues Congress
should:
Enact a permanent annual reporting requirement on all U.S.
contributions to the U.N. system to be conducted by the OMB.
Most U.S. contributions to the U.N. system come from the State
Department, but millions of dollars also flow from other parts
of the Federal Government. Thus, relying on State Department
data, such as that in State's annual report to Congress on U.S.
contributions to international organizations, presents an
incomplete picture. Because the OMB is in charge of overseeing
the preparation of the President's budget, it is able to
require all U.S. agencies to report the requested information.
The first of these reports should require information for FY
2011 through the most recently completed fiscal year to fill in
the reporting gap.
Require the State Department to conduct a periodic analysis
of U.S. participation in all U.N. organizations and submit it
as a report to Congress. Although a number of U.N.
organizations provide important contributions to U.S.
diplomatic, economic, and security interests, not all do.
Congress should require the State Department to conduct a
detailed review to identify those most and least vital to U.S.
interests and providing the most and least value for money.
U.S. membership and contributions should be informed by this
analysis.
Establish a dedicated unit within the State Department
Office of Inspector General charged with inspecting and
auditing use of U.S. funds by international organizations. This
unit would help ensure that U.S. funds are being used
appropriately and, hopefully, provide independent oversight to
spur better performance within the U.N. system. The size of the
unit should be commensurate with the proportion of U.S.
contributions to international organizations within the
International Affairs budget. To ensure compliance, Congress
should make a portion of U.S. contributions to international
organizations contingent on cooperation with the unit.
conclusion
It is in the interests of the United States to have an effective
United Nations. To be useful, the U.N. must carry out its
responsibilities competently. The current organization falls short. The
United States should not hesitate to encourage and demand reforms
intended to improve the organization. The cost of failing to reform the
U.N. is high, not just for the U.N., which risks being sidelined if it
cannot be relied upon to address key issues, but also for America,
which would be forced to expend greater resources and effort to resolve
problems, such as the recent Ebola outbreak in West Africa that was
poorly addressed by the World Health Organization,\46\ that should
normally fall under the responsibility of the U.N.
An administration focused on advancing its policy priorities in the
United Nations can block many counterproductive initiatives put forth
in the U.N. Rallying support for positive change is much more
difficult. Such efforts require the assistance of other member states
or the use of leverage to impose reforms on an unwilling organization.
Congress has a critical role to play in U.N. reform. Congress has
played an active role on U.N. reform since the very beginning of the
organization and can be a very effective ally in executive branch
efforts to pressure the organization to adopt targeted reforms.\47\
Financial carrots and sticks have been effective in the past in
spurring reform, including the establishment of the OIOS in 1994 and
the adoption of a maximum assessment for the regular budget.48 Congress
and reform-minded member states should not be reluctant to use such
tactics to spur reform.
Chairman Barrasso, Ranking Member Udall, and the other members of
the subcommittee thank you for the opportunity to testify today and I
look forward to your questions.
----------------
Notes
\1\ This data has not been updated since 2012. Chief Executives
Board for Coordination, ``United Nations System: Total Revenue by
Revenue Type.''
\2\ For a fuller discussion, see Brett D. Schaefer, ``U.S. Should
Demand Increased Transparency and Accountability as U.N. Revenues
Rise,'' Heritage Foundation Issue Brief No. 4154, February 26, 2014.
\3\ United Nations General Assembly, ``Programme Budget for the
Biennium 2014-2015,''
A/RES/69/263 A-C, December 29, 2014.
\4\ United Nations General Assembly, ``Approved Resources for
Peacekeeping Operations for the Period from 1 July 2014 to 30 June
2015,'' A/C.5/69/17.
\5\ United Nations, ``Peacekeeping Fact Sheet,'' as of March 31,
2015.
\6\ For a detailed history of this practice, see Brett D. Schaefer,
``The Window of Opportunity to Overhaul the U.N. Scale of Assessments
Is Closing,'' Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 2701, June 18, 2012.
\7\ Report of the Committee on Contributions, Seventy-second
session, June 4-29, 2012.
\8\ United Nations General Assembly, ``Scale of Assessments for the
Apportionment of the Expenses of United Nations Peacekeeping
Operations,'' A/RES/55/235, January 30, 2001.
\9\ Edward C. Luck, ``Mixed Messages: American Politics and
International Organization, 1919-1999 (Washington, DC: Brookings
Institution Press, 1999), p. 253.
\10\ Richard C. Holbrooke, U.S. Permanent Representative to the
United Nations, testimony before the Committee on Foreign Relations,
U.S. Senate, January 9, 2001.
\11\ For a fuller discussion, see Brett D. Schaefer, ``U.S. Must
Enforce Peacekeeping Cap to Lower America's U.N. Assessment,'' Heritage
Foundation Backgrounder No. 2762, January 25, 2013.
\12\ Joseph M. Torsella, ``Remarks on the Proposed U.N. Program
Budget for 2012-13 before the Fifth Committee,'' U.N. General Assembly,
October 27, 2011.
\13\ United Nations, ``Report of the International Civil Service
Commission for the Year 2014,'' Annex VI, p. 67.
\14\ For a fuller discussion, see Brett D. Schaefer, ``U.S. Should
Lead Effort to Arrest Excessive U.N. Pay,'' Heritage Foundation Issue
Brief No. 4099, November 26, 2013.
\15\ Brett D. Schaefer, ``U.S. Should Lead Effort to Arrest
Excessive U.N. Pay,'' Heritage Foundation Issue Brief No. 4099,
November 26, 2013.
\16\ For a fuller account, see Brett D. Schaefer, ``The Demise of
the U.N. Procurement Task Force Threatens Oversight at the U.N.,''
Heritage Foundation WebMemo No. 2272, February 5, 2009.
\17\ John Heilprin, ``U.N. Whistleblower Case Shows Accountability
Limits,'' Associated Press, January 10, 2014.
\18\ Government Accountability Project, ``GAP Releases Report on
U.N. Whistleblower Cases,'' August 22, 2014.
\19\ GAP, ``Letter from United Nations Whistleblowers to U.N.
Secretary General and U.N. Executive Heads,'' April 8, 2015.
\20\ According to GAP, ``From the time the Ethics Office was
established through July 31, 2014 it received 447 `preliminary
inquires.' The Ethics Office launched preliminary reviews in 140 of
these cases. It is unclear from the Ethics Office's reports exactly how
many preliminary reviews were completed, but it was somewhere between
113 and 135. The Ethics Office found 14 prima facie cases of
retaliation. If it completed preliminary reviews in 113 cases, then it
has found a prima facie case of retaliation in 12 percent of those
cases (14 of 113); if it has completed 135 then the number drops to 10
percent. In these 14 cases, the Office ultimately established
retaliation and made recommendations to the Secretary General in 4
cases. An additional case was settled through mediation and another is
still pending, reducing the number completed to 12. So the Ethics
Office substantiated retaliation in 4 out of 12 cases that proceeded to
an investigation, or 33%. If the Ethics Office completed prima facie
reviews in 111 cases (subtracting the two that are pending or settled),
then it ultimately substantiated retaliation in 3.6% of the cases it
reviewed (4 of 111). If the number was 133 then this drops to 3%. So
96% of whistleblowers who filed retaliation complaints with the Ethics
Office received no relief. In brief, slightly over 96% of
whistleblowers who filed retaliation complaints with the Ethics Office
received no relief.'' E-mail communication from GAP.
\21\ Section 7048, ``Consolidated and Further Continuing
Appropriations Act, 2015,'' P.L. 113-235, December 16, 2014.
\22\ Associated Press, ``Whistleblowers to U.N. Chief: World Body
Offers Little Protection for Exposing Wrongdoing,'' April 9, 2015.
\23\ United Nations, ``Peacekeeping Fact Sheet,'' as of March 31,
2015.
\24\ Office of Internal Oversight Services, ``Report of the Office
of Internal Oversight Services on the Activities of the Procurement
Task Force for the 18-Month Period Ended 30 June 2007,'' A/62/272,
October 5, 2007.
\25\ Colum Lynch, ``Audit of U.N.'s Sudan Mission Finds Tens of
Millions in Waste,'' The Washington Post, February 10, 2008, p. A16.
\26\ Louis Charbonneau, ``U.N. Probes Allegations of Corruption,
Fraud,'' Reuters, January 10, 2008.
\27\ George Russell, ``U.N. Paid Russian Air Charters Hundreds of
Millions While Putin Invaded Ukraine,'' Fox News, April 9, 2015.
\28\ Matthew Russell Lee, ``On Selling of U.N. Jobs in DRC & Haiti
U.N. Says It's Up to Cote d'Ivoire: Cover Up?'' Beacon Reader, February
11, 2015.
\29\ Transparency International, ``Corruption & Peacekeeping:
Strengthening Peacekeeping and the United Nations,'' October 2013.
\30\ For a fuller discussion, see Brett D. Schaefer, ``Haiti
Cholera Lawsuit Against the U.N.: Recommendations for U.S. Policy,''
Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 2859, November 12, 2013.
\31\ Commonly known as the Brahimi Report after Lakhdar Brahimi,
Chairman of the Panel on United Nations Peace Operations. United
Nations, ``Comprehensive Review of the Whole Question of Peacekeeping
Operations in All Their Aspects,'' A/55/305-S/2000/809, August 21,
2000, p. 10.
\32\ Report of the Office of Internal Oversight Services,
``Evaluation of the Implementation and Results of Protection of
Civilians Mandates in United Nations Peacekeeping Operations,'' A/68/
787, March 7, 2014.
\33\ Colum Lynch, ``They Just Stood Watching,'' Foreign Policy,
April 7, 2014.
\34\ For instance, the 2002 Task Force on Protection from Sexual
Exploitation and Abuse in Humanitarian Crises, the 2003 Special
Measures for Protection from Sexual Exploitation and Sexual Abuse
Bulletin, the 2005 Comprehensive Strategy to Eliminate Future Sexual
Exploitation and Abuse in United Nations Peacekeeping Operations, and
the annual report of the Secretary General on special measures for
protection from sexual exploitation and sexual abuse.
\35\ United Nations Conduct and Discipline Unit.
\36\ Dr. Thelma Awori, Dr. Catherine Lutz, and General Paban J.
Thapa, ``Expert Mission to Evaluate Risks to SEA Prevention Efforts in
MINUSTAH, UNMIL, MONUSCO, and UNMISS,'' November 3, 2013.
\37\ Sandra Laville, ``U.N. Aid Worker Suspended for Leaking Report
on Child Abuse by French Troops,'' The Guardian, April 29, 2015; Sandra
Laville and Angelique Chrisafis, ``U.N. Accused of `Reckless Disregard'
for Allegations of Peacekeeper Child Abuse,'' The Guardian, April 30,
2015; and George Russell, ``African Troops Involved with French in U.N.
Rape Report Scandal,'' Fox News, May 1, 2015.
\38\ Laville, ``U.N. Aid Worker Suspended for Leaking Report on
Child Abuse by French Troops.''
\39\ This policy is consistent with the position laid out in the
1997 Report of the Secretary General, endorsed in Resolution 52/247,
which states, ``If such claims [arising as a result of gross negligence
or willful misconduct] are established, the Organization would assume
liability to compensate a third party, retaining the right to seek
recovery from the individual or the troop-contributing State
concerned.''
\40\ While UNFICYP is the only current example of this practice,
there are other precedents. The U.N. Yemen Observation Mission (UNYOM),
which was established by the Security Council in 1963 to observe and
certify the withdrawal of Saudi Arabian and Egyptian forces from Yemen,
was funded entirely by Saudi and Egyptian contributions. Similarly, the
Netherlands and Indonesia evenly divided the costs of the U.N.
Temporary Executive Authority (UNTEA), which was established in 1962 to
administer the territory of West New Guinea until it was transferred to
Indonesia in 1963, and the U.N. Security Force in West New Guinea
(UNSF), which was established to monitor the cease-fire and maintain
law and order during the transition. See United Nations, ``Yemen--
UNYOM''; United Nations, ``West New Guinea--UNSF''; and United Nations,
``UNFICYP Background.''
\41\ For instance, together, five of the older U.N. missions
(MINURSO, UNFICYP, UNDOF, UNMOGIP, and UNTSO) cost approximately $273
million. If the U.S. could shift these missions to voluntary funding,
the U.S. could save tens of millions of dollars per year and perhaps
focus the most affected parties on resolving these outstanding
disputes.
\42\ Office of Management and Budget, ``Annual Report on United
States Contributions to the United Nations,'' June 6, 2011.
\43\ For a fuller discussion, see Brett D. Schaefer, ``U.S. Should
Demand Increased Transparency and Accountability as U.N. Revenues
Rise,'' Heritage Foundation Issue Brief No. 4154, February 26, 2014.
\44\ The United Nations Human Settlements Program (UN-HABITAT), the
International Labor Organization (ILO), the United Nations Industrial
Development Organization (UNIDO), and the U.N. Office for Disaster Risk
Reduction (UNISDR).
\45\ The assessment concluded that ``UNIDO has not been able to
define its purpose and function very well, much less become effective
in its programmatic activities,'' and urged member states to consider
phasing the organization out. Brett D. Schaefer, ``The U.S. Should Not
Rejoin the United Nations Industrial Development Organization,''
Heritage Foundation Issue Brief No. 4291, October 29, 2014.
\46\ Abhik Chanda, ``WHO Pledges Reforms as It Admits Ebola
Mistakes,'' AFP, January 25, 2015.
\47\ Only 2 years after the U.N. was created, Congress issued a
report calling for sweeping reform of the U.N. system. A September 1947
study by the Senate Committee on Expenditures in the Executive
Departments found ``serious problems of overlap, duplication of effort,
weak coordination, proliferating mandates and programs, and overly
generous compensation of staff within the infant, but rapidly growing,
U.N. system.'' Edward C. Luck, ``Reforming the United Nations: Lessons
from a History in Progress,'' Academic Council on the United Nations
System Occasional Paper No. 1, 2003.
\48\ Brett D. Schaefer, ``A Progress Report on U.N. Reform,''
Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 1937, May 19, 2006.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you very much.
Mr. Detchon.
STATEMENT OF REID DETCHON, VICE PRESIDENT FOR ENERGY AND
CLIMATE STRATEGY, UNITED NATIONS FOUNDATION, WASHINGTON, DC
Mr. Detchon. Mr. Chairman, Senator Udall, thanks for the
opportunity to testify today. It is an honor to appear before
you to discuss the critical role of the United Nations as a
venue for international engagement, especially with regard to
global climate change.
I am vice president for Energy and Climate Strategy at the
U.N. Foundation here in Washington, and while my background and
expertise are in energy and climate, I will also say a few
words about the importance of strong and constructive U.S.
engagement with the U.N.
The U.N.'s most important role is to serve as a forum for
the world's nations to address global challenges. The challenge
of climate change is a textbook case of the U.N.'s value to the
international community. If you are confronted with a problem
of global scale and significance, anyone would want to assemble
the best experts from all over the world to assess it and
propose possible responses. In fact, that describes exactly
what the U.N. has done on climate change. For such problems, it
is often said that if we did not have a U.N., we would have to
invent it.
A precedent for action was the Montreal Protocol, the
highly successful international agreement to phase out the use
of chlorofluorocarbons, or CFCs. As would later happen on
climate change, countries came together under the auspices of
the U.N., first to understand an emerging threat to the global
environment, then to conclude a framework agreement on how to
address it, and finally to negotiate a plan of action.
In 1988, 27 years ago, the U.N., with the support of
President Reagan and Margaret Thatcher, created the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the IPCC, to prepare
scientific assessments on all aspects of the issue. The IPCC
has reported five times since then, most recently last year,
with increasingly definitive assessments endorsed by more than
190 member states.
In 1992, the world agreed in Rio to the U.N. Framework
Convention on Climate Change. President George H.W. Bush, for
whom I served in the Department of Energy, signed the treaty on
behalf of the United States, and it was approved by the Senate
without dissent later that year.
The countries that ratified the convention, again more than
190 in number, have grappled since then with how to move
forward on this thorny topic. In December in Paris, negotiators
will meet again for the 21st time, and this year they seem
ready to agree.
No country likes to be told what to do, not the United
States or China or India. Instead, the agreement being forged
in Paris will build on national commitments to action taken in
each country's own self-interest.
The U.S. position, for example, will reflect the decision
we have made to double the fuel economy of our cars and light
trucks, as well as new efforts to reduce carbon dioxide
pollution from power plants.
China will present its pledge to get 20 percent of its
total energy consumption from zero-emission sources by 2030.
That will require China to deploy an astonishing 800 to 1,000
gigawatts of nuclear, wind, and solar energy, almost as much as
the entire generating capacity of the United States today. That
is the equivalent of building a major power plant every week
for the next 15 years.
India will showcase its plans to deploy 100 gigawatts of
solar in just 7 years and another 75 gigawatts of wind,
biomass, and hydro. These are remarkable numbers that are
changing the global energy landscape.
The agreement expected to be reached in Paris will involve
action by nearly every country on earth. It reflects a new
global approach to climate action, based on leadership by
companies and by governors and mayors in addition to national
governments. Investors are responding with more than $300
billion a year in capital investment in clean energy. These
technologies are creating business opportunities and new jobs
today.
In support of this direction, the U.N. Secretary General
launched an initiative called Sustainable Energy for All, with
an innovative new partnership model that brings together the
public and private sectors on equal footing to support best
policies and practices and mobilize private investment.
Mr. Chairman, the U.N. provides a vital platform for the
world to come together and address global challenges, from
climate change to peacekeeping to infectious disease. This
includes the efforts by the U.N. and partners, including the
U.N. Foundation, to vaccinate more than 1 billion children
against polio. And today as we speak, U.N. humanitarian
agencies are helping to feed, shelter, and provide medical care
to earthquake victims in Nepal.
Efforts to reform the U.N.'s budgetary management and
accountability processes are critical to ensuring that the U.N.
can continue this vital work in the most effective and
efficient way possible. The United States has been a strong
supporter of these reforms. Some have suggested that we should
attempt to force additional reforms by refusing to pay our
financial obligations to the U.N.
We believe that the United States is best positioned to
advance a constructive reform agenda when we are fully engaged,
which means in part paying our dues on time, in full, and
without preconditions. Otherwise, we alienate our allies, whose
support we need and put U.N. activities that are directly in
our national interests such as peacekeeping in financial
jeopardy. Maintaining our good financial standing at the U.N.,
in short, is critical to our ability to advance a constructive
reform agenda.
Thank you for your time and attention.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Detchon follows:]
Prepared Statement of Reid Detchon
Mr. Chairman, Senator Udall, members of the subcommittee, thank you
for giving me the opportunity to testify today. It is an honor to
appear before you to discuss the critical role of the United Nations as
a venue for multilateral engagement, and especially with regard to
global climate change.
My name is Reid Detchon, and I am Vice President for Energy and
Climate Strategy at the United Nations Foundation here in Washington,
DC. While my background and expertise lie in the energy and climate
fields, I would like to say a few more general words at the outset
about the importance of strong and constructive U.S. engagement with
the United Nations. This is an issue that my organization cares about
deeply, and while partially beyond my scope, I would be happy to relay
any questions you might have to my colleagues at the Foundation.
The U.N. is an imperfect but necessary institution, providing a
universal platform to address some of the most vexing challenges facing
humanity--issues that no country, no matter how prosperous or powerful,
can address alone. The United States has played a central role in the
U.N.'s work from the very beginning, and will continue to do so as long
as the organization exists. The benefits to our Nation and to the world
range from peacekeeping to humanitarian relief, as the U.N. takes on
the problems that are too tough for any one country to handle. One need
look no further than the current work being undertaken by U.N.
humanitarian agencies to help feed, shelter, and provide medical care
to millions of people in earthquake-hit Nepal, or efforts by the U.N.
and partners to vaccinate more than 1 billion children against polio
over the years, to understand the ongoing need for this type of
multilateral institution.
Over the years, Congress has demonstrated a keen interest in
continuing efforts to reform the U.N.'s budgetary, management, and
accountability processes. Such initiatives are critical to the U.N.'s
ability to meet the challenges of the 21st century and ensure that
member state resources are used most effectively, and the U.N. has made
notable progress in this regard. Significant changes in how the
organization does business have occurred in a number of areas in recent
years, from the management of peacekeeping operations, to tougher
ethics rules, to streamlined budgeting processes, to improvements in
how the U.N. delivers humanitarian and development aid on the ground.
These and other measures have fundamentally strengthened the U.N. as an
institution, although much work remains to be done to build on these
achievements.
Some additional, more recent reforms accomplished at the U.N.
include, among other things: a new policy of making all of the
institution's internal audit reports publicly available online--a
victory for transparency that the United States called ``a turning
point in how the U.N. does business''; the General Assembly's approval
of a core budget for 2014-15 that cut spending, reduced staffing by 2
percent, and stabilized compensation for U.N. employees; and
implementation of the Global Field Support Strategy--an initiative
aimed at improving the efficiency and speed of administrative and
logistical support to U.N. field missions--which has led to a $250
million reduction in operational costs for U.N. peacekeeping.
Despite this progress, however, some have suggested that the United
States should withhold its financial contributions to the U.N. in order
to force additional reforms. This strategy means well but is fatally
flawed. None of the recent reforms I just described would have been
possible without strong U.S. engagement. That means, in part, meeting
our financial obligations to the institution by paying our dues on
time, in full, and without onerous preconditions. Failing to do so can
take away our seat at the table; it reduces our influence over the
reform process, alienates our allies, whose support is critical to
progress on our policy objectives, and puts U.N. activities that are
directly in our national interest--such as peacekeeping operations--in
financial jeopardy. Maintaining our good financial standing at the
U.N., in short, is critical to our ability to advance a constructive
reform agenda.
The United Nations' most important role is to serve as a convening
body for the world's nations to address global challenges. Turning to
the subject I know best, the challenge of assessing and responding to
the threat of global climate change is a textbook case of the U.N.'s
value to the international community. If confronted with a problem of
global scale and significance, anyone would want to assemble the best
experts from all over the world to assess it and propose possible
responses. In fact, that describes exactly what the U.N. has done with
regard to climate change. For such problems, it is often said that if
we didn't have a U.N., we would have to invent it.
Two U.N. agencies--the World Meteorological Organization and the
United Nations Environment Program--created the Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change (IPCC) 27 years ago to prepare assessments, based on
available scientific information, on all aspects of climate change and
its impacts, to help formulate realistic response strategies. The
initial task for the IPCC, as outlined in a resolution of the U.N.
General Assembly in 1988, was to prepare a comprehensive review and
recommendations with respect to the state of knowledge of the science
of climate change, the social and economic impacts of climate change,
and possible response strategies and elements for inclusion in a
possible future international convention on climate.
The scientific evidence assembled by the first IPCC Assessment
Report in 1990 underlined the importance of climate change as a
challenge that inherently requires international cooperation. Two years
later, in June 1992, the world agreed in Rio de Janeiro on the U.N.
Framework Convention on Climate Change. President George H.W. Bush, for
whom I served in the Department of Energy, signed this treaty on behalf
of the United States, and it was ratified by the U.S. Senate without
dissent later that year. Its central objective was to achieve
``stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a
level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the
climate system.''
Since then the IPCC has delivered four more comprehensive
scientific assessments on climate change. This process is based
entirely on published, peer-reviewed studies; it does not involve
independent research. The Fifth Assessment Report, the product of more
than 830 experts from more than 80 countries, consisted of three
Working Group reports and a Synthesis Report for policymakers. It was
approved by the IPCC's member countries (195 in number) and released in
four parts between September 2013 and November 2014.
What did this report conclude?
Warming of the climate system is unequivocal.
It is at least 95 percent certain that human influence has
been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-
20th century.
Continued emission of greenhouse gases will cause further
warming and long-lasting changes in all components of the
climate system, increasing the likelihood of severe, pervasive,
and irreversible impacts for people and ecosystems.
Those are scientific assessments, produced impartially by a U.N.
process, to inform public policy.
In December, negotiators from all the countries in the world will
meet in Paris for the 21st Conference of the Parties to the U.N.
Framework Convention on Climate Change. Ever since 1992, the U.N.'s
member states have grappled with what to do about this thorny topic.
This year, they seem ready to agree.
No country likes to be told what to do--not the United States or
China or India. Instead, the agreement being forged for Paris will
build on national commitments to action, taken in each country's own
self-interest. The U.S. position will reflect the decision we have made
to double the fuel economy of our cars and light trucks, as well as new
efforts to reduce carbon dioxide pollution from power plants. China
will present its pledge to get 20 percent of its total energy
consumption from zero-emission sources by 2030. That will require China
to deploy an additional 800 to 1,000 gigawatts of nuclear, wind, and
solar energy--almost as much as the entire electricity generation
capacity of the United States today. India will showcase
its plans to deploy 100 gigawatts of solar in just 7 years--that's the
equivalent of
100 giant nuclear or coal power plants--and another 75 gigawatts of
wind, biomass, and hydro. These are remarkable numbers that are
changing the global energy landscape.
The agreement expected to be reached in Paris, incorporating the
actions of nearly every country on Earth, will have ``legal force''
because it represents the sum of legally binding actions taken at the
national level, but it is not binding on the United States in the sense
of requiring change in existing statutory authority. Rather, it
reflects a new global approach to climate action, based on leadership
by companies and by governors and mayors in addition to national
governments. New business opportunities are emerging every day as the
cost of clean energy technologies becomes increasingly competitive
throughout the world, and investors are responding with more than $300
billion a year in capital investment.
The U.N.'s Secretary General, Ban Ki-moon, recognized this
opportunity in 2011 in launching his initiative on Sustainable Energy
for All, which sets three ambitious but achievable global goals for
2030:
Ensuring universal access to modern energy services--to
reach the 1.2 billion people without any electricity and the
2.7 billion people who still use polluting fuels like wood and
charcoal for cooking and heating.
Doubling the global rate of improvement in energy
efficiency--from roughly 1.3 percent to 2.6 percent a year.
Doubling the share of renewable energy in the global energy
mix--to roughly 36 percent from 18 percent today, while
reducing the use of traditional biomass.
The U.N. General Assembly is poised to include all three of these
objectives in a new Sustainable Development Goal on energy as part of
the post-2015 development agenda, expected to be agreed in New York in
September.
Sustainable Energy for All also represents an innovative new
partnership model for the U.N., bringing the public and private sectors
together on equal footing to support best policies and practices and
mobilize private investment toward common goals. Literally trillions of
dollars will be required to achieve the initiative's three global
objectives by 2030--a level of investment that governments alone cannot
provide. The projects must therefore be economically viable, and
private-sector investment will be needed to complement the important
work of governments, development banks, other institutions, and civil
society. The structure, systems, and processes of Sustainable Energy
for All are intended to reflect this essential partnership between
government, the private sector, and civil society.
Another example that illustrates the value of the U.N. system for
protecting the global environment is the Montreal Protocol, the highly
successful international agreement to phase out the use of
chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), adopted pursuant to the Vienna Convention
for the Protection of the Ozone Layer, which was itself drafted by the
U.N. Environment Program and agreed in 1985. As would later happen on
climate change, countries came together under the auspices of the
U.N.--first to understand an emerging threat to the global environment,
then to conclude a framework agreement on how to address it, and
finally to negotiate a plan of action.
Mr. Chairman, I hope these examples serve as vivid illustrations of
the value of the United Nations as a forum for convening all the
nations of the world to agree on concerted action to address global
threats--not just in peacekeeping, but also in protection of the global
environment.
Thank you for your time and attention and for the honor of
addressing this subcommittee today.
Senator Barrasso. Well, thank you very much for your
thoughtful testimony today.
I would like to start with the questioning. Mr. Schaefer,
with regard to the U.N. budget, I appreciate you providing this
subcommittee with several concrete proposals for responsible
reforms at the United Nations. The United States is the largest
financial contributor to the U.N., and I am concerned that the
financial burden at the United Nations is not shared equally or
in accordance with current economic realities.
So could you explain why the United States is paying more
to the U.N. budget than all of the other permanent members of
the U.N. Security Council combined?
Mr. Schaefer. Well, the U.N. bases its scale of
assessments, which is the apportionment of the expenses of the
organization, on their portion of the global GNI. Then a number
of discounts are applied to certain countries based on whether
they are below income thresholds and whether they are
considered least developing countries. If they are below a
certain income level, they also receive debt burden adjustments
that ratchet their assessments down. And all of these
deductions are then added to the assessments of countries that
do not receive those reductions.
The United States has the largest share of the global
economy among the Security Council members, and if you add up
the other countries there, they do in fact have an assessment
lower than the United States. A part of that is because China
receives discounts for its regular budget assessment. If you
take a look at China's share of the global economy, it should
be between 10 and 11 percent of the U.N. regular budget, but it
receives low-income adjustments and debt-burden adjustments to
its regular budget assessment which reduces its final regular
budget assessment. Since the peacekeeping budget is based on
the regular budget assessment, this ends up reducing China's
peacekeeping budget assessment as well.
So all things being equal, if you just added up the share
of the global economies, China should have a much higher
assessment. Russia should be a little bit higher, and Britain
and France are about the right level. And the United States
should be lower.
Senator Barrasso. So what actions could Congress take to
limit the growth in the U.N. budget and ensure a more equitable
distribution of the costs as you just outlined?
Mr. Schaefer. Well, right now there is a maximum cap on the
regular budget at 22 percent. That cap was implemented because
the United States made it mandatory in return for payment of
arrears that accrued during the 1990s as part of the Helms-
Biden agreement.
The Helms-Biden agreement also had a requirement in there
that the U.N. put in place a hard cap of 25 percent on
peacekeeping assessments for the United States as well. That
cap was not put into place, but Ambassador Holbrooke came to
the U.S. Senate and testified that they had reached an
agreement whereby the U.S. assessment would gradually be
reduced over 4 or 5 years to 25 percent. That level was never
reached.
The U.S. assessment declined more slowly than promised by
Ambassador Holbrooke and got below 26 percent in 2009. But it
has increased over the past two scales of assessments and now
is just about 28.4 percent, and it is going to reach, I think,
higher than 29 percent with the next scale. And with the size
of the peacekeeping budgets coming up, that has very important
implications for the U.S. taxpayer.
Senator Barrasso. Because it does seem the administration's
request for funding to meet the 2016 budget for the U.N., is
again higher than the 25 percent. I think the request this time
was at 28.36 percent. So without any changes, you do expect the
amount owed by the United States at the U.N. to continue to
increase.
Mr. Schaefer. Absolutely. And the other U.N. member states
have very little incentive to go along with changes to lower
the U.S. assessment down because that would, of course, lead
them to paying higher costs. The way that the United States
solved this problem before was withholding. Congress enacted
and President Clinton signed into law the hard cap that led to
arrears in the 1990s. Those arrears put pressure on the
organization and led other member states to agree to, first of
all, the 22 percent cap on the regular budget, but also to
agree to other reforms, including the new formula for
peacekeeping assessments that Ambassador Holbrooke presented to
the U.S. Senate.
I think that the United States should enforce that 25
percent cap and hold the resulting arrears away from the
organization with the promise to pay once they do, indeed,
follow through and put a hard 25-percent cap for the United
States and for any other member state.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you.
Mr. Detchon, on November 3 of this past year, you wrote a
column entitled ``Climate Action Means a Brighter Future.'' In
the column you said there is good reason for us to act not only
because of the dangers, you said, of disruptive climate change.
You said, but because of a new climate economy, it will be
better for business. You go on to say it will improve our
health, prosperity, and security, as well as our environment.
I would like to highlight a letter from Wyoming Governor
Matt Mead to the EPA Administrator, Gina McCarthy, about--this
was a letter last week. And I am going to submit the Governor's
letter to the record.
[Editor's note.--The letter mentioned above can be found in the
``Additional Material Submitted for the Record'' section at the
end of this hearing.]
Senator Barrasso. In his letter, he highlights a recent
study by the Center for Energy Economics and Public Policy at
the University of Wyoming, and the study is called The Impact
of the Coal Economy on Wyoming.'' It was published this year in
February. And I am going to put that study in the record too.
[Editor's note.--The Wyoming Study mentioned above was too
voluminous to include in the printed hearing. It will be
retained in the permanent record of the committee.]
Senator Barrasso. The study says overall proposed carbon
regulations result in a predicted declined in the State's
combined coal and natural gas revenues of between 36 and 46
percent by the year 2030. It says Wyoming can expect to lose
7,000 jobs.
So my State is finding that the President's clean power
plant, as part of his international climate change commitment,
is going to cost thousands of good paying jobs, dramatically
slash State revenue that pays for college scholarships,
schools, medical emergency services, road safety programs,
environmental protection programs, water quality services,
veterans services, vital State services.
So as a doctor, I attest that unemployment caused by any
plan will lead to serious health impacts for unemployed
husbands and mothers, as well as children of the unemployed. I
have actually written a report called ``Red Tape: Making
Americans Sick.'' I am going to put that in the record.
[Editor's note.--The report mentioned above was too voluminous
to include in the printed hearing. It will be retained in the
permanent record of the committee.]
Senator Barrasso. It talks about the high impacts of
individuals of long-term unemployment.
So given all this information, is the deal the President is
trying to commit America to in Paris through the United
Nations, without approval from Congress, it seems--is this
going to improve Wyoming's health, prosperity, and security, as
well as our environment, as your column suggests?
Mr. Detchon. I certainly hope so, Mr. Chairman. The
President, of course, has to represent the whole country, and
there will be varying impacts by State. I was very impressed to
read about the 3,000-megawatt wind project that you have
underway in Wyoming, and I think that is an example of some of
the new opportunities that are emerging.
I think that you would say that AT&T is not the same
company it was in 1970, nor is IBM, but newer technologies that
are more agile and deliver better outcomes were able in a
competitive marketplace to out-compete the existing monopolies.
And I think much the same is happening in the energy industry
today. We are getting diversified energy supplies that, in many
cases, are out-competing the existing ones. I think that most
of the decline in coal demand is due to natural gas
substitution. So that is unrelated to the clean power plan,
which is prospective and will occur in several years as
implemented at the State level.
Finally, I would say that the EPA, as I understand it, has
made very careful attempts at the State level to recognize
existing realities that each State has different circumstances
and needs to be given a chance to respond appropriately. And so
I think that the impacts will vary a lot by State in generally
positive ways.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you very much.
Senator Udall.
Senator Udall. Thank you, Chairman Barrasso.
And one of the things, Mr. Detchon, you seem to be hitting
on is that there are opportunities for our businesses also with
regard to, say, the Sustainability for All initiative. Do you
believe there are opportunities for U.S. businesses to engage
with developing countries as they work to improve access to
renewable energy and improve energy efficiency? How can the
State Department work with these businesses to ensure that they
have access to these emerging markets? And do you do that too
at the U.N. Foundation?
Mr. Detchon. Yes. Thank you, Senator.
The Sustainable Energy for All initiative is, as I noted in
my testimony, a public-private partnership working with, in
particular, financial leaders to accelerate the deployment of
clean energy technologies.
It is ironic that in the United States, where we invented
many of these technologies, we have the most competitive energy
market in the world. And so it is the hardest place in the
world for these new technologies to penetrate. In many other
countries, it is quite the opposite. I read recently that the
National Bank of Abu Dhabi said that solar is competitive in
that region with oil at $10 a barrel. So you have very
different circumstances around the world.
In areas that are not served by the electricity grid around
the world, poor people are paying the equivalent of 40 to 50
cents a kilowatt-hour for the little electricity that they get
from diesel-fired generator sets. It has been said by Harish
Hande, who runs SELCO Solar in India, that solar energy is a
luxury for the rich and a bargain for the poor.
So we need to think about the particular context in which
these technologies compete. I think that the advent of
available energy and clean energy in areas that now have none
and have no prospect of economic development is going to create
a virtuous cycle of economic growth and new markets for
consumer companies, including those in the United States.
Senator Udall. And you would expect that with aggressive
action by U.S. companies, that they will get a part of those
markets in terms of creating jobs and growing jobs here and
probably growing jobs other places in the world.
Mr. Detchon. Absolutely. Certainly you can see from the
President's Power Africa initiative that General Electric was
one of the major partners there and was concluding, I think,
some 7 billion dollars' worth of deals to deliver electricity
into East Africa. So I think that there are opportunities,
large and small, around the world, and that leading the world
in these technologies through our R&D is going to lead to the
sort of Silicon Valley of energy.
Senator Udall. Now, one of the things you mentioned in your
testimony here was that it was the marketplace and the pricing
that was driving utility companies to go to natural gas rather
than coal. And really, what you have is, as Senator Barrasso
and I both know, additional production of natural gas. You
really, in a way, have a glut on the market. It has driven down
the price. And so these utility companies looking at the
situation and with natural gas being cheaper--they would much
rather be burning natural gas than be burning coal. And so that
is really the big transformation we are seeing take place,
rather than this being the administration putting regulations
in place. Is it not?
Mr. Detchon. Yes, sir. I think that is exactly right.
Senator Udall. Now, it has been mentioned several times
with our previous panel and then with this panel about the
total U.N. budget being about $44 billion. This amounts roughly
to the same overall budget as Angola. In return, the U.N.
manages 16 peacekeeping missions with over 130,000 troops--that
is the largest deployed military in the world--11 political
missions, including ones in Iraq and Afghanistan; the largest
humanitarian organization in the world, the World Food
Programme plus vital organizations like UNICEF and WHO, who
help the U.N. vaccinate 60 percent of the world's children. If
they were not doing that, those children were not vaccinated,
we would have some big problems out there. Plus, there are
dozens of specialized agencies which work closely with American
businesses on issues like shipping, civil aviation, and of
course, the U.N. offers a forum for all countries to gather and
discuss the critical issues of the day.
I think if you put those kinds of things that the U.N. is
doing every day, put that in light, many would say the overall
budget does not seem out of proportion. And I am wondering, Mr.
Detchon, you looking at it from--it sounds like you specialize
in energy and in climate. Would you agree with that in terms of
some of the things that are out there? And what are the
examples you would bring to the table in terms of energy and
climate change?
Mr. Detchon. Thank you, Senator.
I am reminded that nobody likes to pay taxes either, and
they get imposed upon us but that is the price we pay to keep
society safe and secure.
I think that trying, as Mr. Schaefer said, to find
appropriate measures of fair share, based on capacity to pay,
is absolutely the right metric to pursue. I would note that in
the last round of negotiations, the General Assembly raised the
contribution rates of China and Russia by 50 percent or more,
and we hope that that will continue in the same direction to
make it more equitable.
But I would also note that there are two questions here.
One is equity and one is cost. The equity issue has to do with
capacity to pay, but as an absolute number, the cost of
peacekeeping is a number that essentially is under our control
because we have to vote for each of these missions as a member
of the Security Council. So no mission is going to go forward
without U.S. approval.
And finally, I would note that money is not the only
measure of a country's contribution. The United States provides
roughly 100 military experts, troops, and police to U.N.
peacekeeping. Bangladesh, the leading country, contributes
9,500 individuals. Others among the top countries contributing
troops are Rwanda, Nepal, Senegal, and Ghana. Now, these are
countries that do not have the capacity to pay large amounts of
money, but they are sharing the blood of their children to
protect people around the world, and I think they should be
honored as well.
Senator Udall. Thank you.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Senator Udall.
Mr. Schaefer, I want to just follow up on this line of
questioning regarding the U.N. peacekeepers because currently
the United States is paying about $2.4 billion in taxpayer
funds to U.N. peacekeeping budgets, and we have just heard the
number of personnel that may be representing different
countries and the issues of oversight and accountability,
responsibility, because there have been numerous reports
describing the sexual exploitation and abuse by the U.N.
peacekeepers and civilian personnel participating in these U.N.
peacekeeping missions. And I think we would all agree this is a
very serious problem.
So despite years of focus on this issue and the United
States contributing such a percentage with 28 percent to the
U.N. peacekeeping budget, really we seem to be unable to stop
the criminal conduct of these troops. So what steps can we take
to address the abuse and the misconduct of U.N. peacekeepers,
as well as preventing it from happening in the future?
Mr. Schaefer. One point I would like to make first is that
the U.N. does good work in a number of different areas, but
that does not mean that everything the U.N. does is equally
valuable. The Clinton administration did a review of U.N.
organizations back in 1995, and it led them to actually
withdraw from the U.N. organization called the United Nations
Industrial Development Organization because it was not
providing any value that they could determine.
I think similar evaluation should be done across the U.N.
system on a periodic basis to evaluate and determine whether we
should and should not continue to participate and provide
support the way we have.
There are also parts of the U.N. regular budget like the
economic commissions that together comprise about a half a
billion dollars. These largely replicate the activities of the
regional development banks, the countries' own development
plans, U.S. and other countries' bilateral development
programs, the World Bank and other economic bodies. They are
largely redundant and do not provide anything uniquely of
value, but yet they are very expensive in terms of the U.N.
regular budget.
So these are the types of things that need to be looked at
in terms of cost-effectiveness within the U.N. system, and the
United States should try and focus resources where they would
be more effective.
In terms of sexual exploitation and abuse, it has been
absolutely horrendous what these past two reports have
revealed.
The first one was a leaked experts report that was
commissioned actually by the U.N. itself and was presented to
the U.N. in 2013. That report found not only that there was a
culture of secrecy in the U.N. that prohibited reporting the
sexual exploitation and abuse, they found that the U.N. itself
is inaccurately reporting and tabulating these numbers.
Therefore, the claims that the U.N. is making in terms of
advancement on these issues do not stand up to scrutiny.
The U.N. has been making claims for a number of years to
have a zero tolerance policy in sexual exploitation and abuse
by its peacekeepers and its civilian personnel. Unfortunately,
this report also revealed that it is nearly impossible to sever
civilian employees in the U.N. system when they do these things
partially because their process for gathering necessary
evidence to make a case are so slow and are also not preserved
appropriately in the U.S. system. Those matters need to be
addressed.
Troops are only under the authority of their militaries and
their home country governments, which is appropriate as a
military deployment. But they also need to be held to account.
The U.N. should demand that troop-contributing countries
provide the U.N. with specific data as to what they are doing
to process these investigations, how they are proceeding, what
the eventual results are, and to report back to the person
making the allegations and the victims in these cases what has
actually happened. That is not occurring either.
Troop-contributing countries that do not cooperate with
these measures should be constrained in their participation in
U.N. peacekeeping operations or have their compensation to the
troops, their per-troop compensation, severely cut back as a
punishment for failing to comply with these things, which not
only impugn the reputation of the organization but harm an
untold number of people around the world that are supposed to
be protected by those U.N. peacekeepers.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you.
Senator Udall.
Senator Udall. Thank you, Chairman Barrasso.
On this issue of peacekeeping, I think it is important that
we keep in mind what we are getting there. And the current
peacekeeping budget is around $8.5 billion, and it sounds like
a big number and is a big number. That $8.5 billion funds the
lifesaving work of more than 130,000 uniformed personnel
spanning 16 missions around the world. But to put it in
context, that is less than the city of Chicago's annual budget.
In some of these cases, if the U.N. was not there, it would
cost the United States much more.
And I am citing here a GAO study that has looked at this
and found U.N. missions were eight times cheaper than U.S.
forces acting alone. For a U.N. mission, the cost per
peacekeeper per year is about $15,000. In 2014, each U.S.
soldier in Afghanistan cost $2.1 million.
Admiral Mike Mullen, the former Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff, observed that U.N. peacekeepers ``help reduce
the risks that major U.S. military interventions may be
required to restore stability in a country or a region.'' So I
think you have some of our major military people weighing in
and saying this is important work. We need to be out there
doing this with the U.N. Obviously, we have many
responsibilities to do with our military also.
Mr. Detchon, do you have any comment on that?
Mr. Detchon. Well, I certainly agree, Senator, that it is a
bargain for the United States.
At the same time, I respect the chairman's comments about
misbehavior by troops. That is extremely serious and it ought
to be pursued vigorously and transparently. Unfortunately, such
misbehavior is a tale as old as time and has occurred under
every flag and now even the U.N's.
I would recall that not only do we have more than 100,000
peacekeepers in 16 missions around the world, but as of March,
1,564 have given their lives to keep the peace. So I think we
have to recognize that bad comes with good sometimes and
balance the two. But the contribution that these peacekeepers
are making is remarkable and also, as you say, Senator, an
economic bargain for the United States.
Senator Udall. And obviously, as Chairman Barrasso has made
the point--and you have just made it too--misbehavior should
not be tolerated. Also, we should not have situations like in
Haiti where U.N. troops go in and apparently are the cause--it
has been pretty well documented--of the cholera and the
spreading of cholera. And there has been no real accountability
there. So I mean, the U.N. needs to be just as accountable as
other governments and organizations around the world. No doubt
about that.
Just a final question because you mentioned, Mr. Detchon,
about the IPCC conclusions on climate change. And I think one
of the things that is important to emphasize--you talked about
190 countries agreeing. The important point there is that these
countries are working together on the IPCC, but they have
scientists in their own countries that are reviewing what is
said by other scientists and they are only signing on if their
scientists look at the science and say this is looking pretty
solid and we believe in these conclusions. And it is pretty
remarkable when you think of all the disagreements we have
around the world, that 190 countries would agree with the
conclusions and where we are. Do you have any comment on that?
Mr. Detchon. Well, that is exactly right, Senator, and I
would even make it stronger than that. The scientists
participate. In the category of bargains, more than 800
scientists participated in this last round, and they were not
compensated for that work. They do this as a contribution to
the world. They give their time freely to help assess the
scientific evidence as best they can.
And I have lost my train of thought. Your point, sir.
Senator Udall. About the IPCC and the scientists.
Mr. Detchon. What I wanted to say was that not only do the
scientists participate, but these reports are approved by
governments. Now, this is a really important point because if
there is appropriate criticism of the IPCC process in my
judgment, it is that governments weaken the statements that the
scientists want to make. Governments are unwilling to be as
clear as the scientists are willing to be. And so if anything,
the IPCC reports represent a conservative reading of the
evidence and, as you say, Senator, have to be approved by every
country that participates.
Senator Udall. Chairman Barrasso, thank you. A very
productive hearing I thought.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you very much, Senator Udall, for
your thorough preparation and questioning.
I appreciate all the witnesses for making the time to be
here today. I will thank each of you for sharing your thoughts
and insights with our subcommittee.
We are going to leave the record open until the close of
business on Monday, May 11, for any members of this committee
who are not able to attend. They may have written questions for
either our first or second panel. And since our committee will
be considering a potential State Department reauthorization
bill, I ask that you quickly respond to any written questions
from the members of the committee. Thank you very much.
And the hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 4:25 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
----------
Additional Material Submitted for the Record
Written Statement Submitted by Peter Yeo, Better World Campaign
On May 6, 2015, the Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee on
Multilateral International Development, Multilateral Institutions, and
International Economic, Energy, and Environmental Policy held a hearing
to examine various aspects of U.S. foreign policy related to
multilateral and bilateral development policy. One of the key issues
discussed was proposals to reform the management, budgeting, and
accountability processes of the United Nations. Given the Chair's
interest in U.N. reform, the Better World Campaign wanted to provide
some additional information and recommendations on several specific
issues raised during the discussion.
u.n. peacekeeping assessment rates
U.N. peacekeeping missions are one of the most important and
publicly visible activities undertaken by the organization in the
field. Each day, U.N. peacekeepers work to stabilize some of the
world's most dangerous and remote conflict zones, protecting civilians
from violence, facilitating the delivery of humanitarian assistance to
vulnerable communities, disarming, demobilizing, and reintegrating
former combatants into society, building the capacity of national
police forces, and promoting free and fair elections and the creation
of stable governing institutions. The work of these missions is
squarely in our national interests, as countries undergoing conflict
threaten U.S. national security, risk becoming havens for terrorist or
criminal organizations, and feature levels of deprivation and abuses of
human rights that are an affront to the values of the American people.
With nearly 130,000 personnel serving on 16 missions around the
world, U.N. peacekeeping constitutes the largest deployed military
force in the world. Despite the sheer size of this endeavor, its
geographic reach, and the diversity and complexity of the mandates
described above, U.N. peacekeeping is highly cost-effective. In fact,
the U.N.'s annual peacekeeping budget only represents around 0.5
percent of total global military spending, and U.N. operations overall
are eight times cheaper than fielding a comparable U.S. force.
Peacekeeping is also an important example of global burden-sharing:
while the United States, as a permanent member of the Security Council,
has final say over the decision to deploy, withdraw, expand, or
contract any U.N. peacekeeping mission, it provides very few uniformed
personnel. Indeed, other countries--particularly developing countries
like Bangladesh, Ethiopia, Nepal, and Ghana--provide the vast majority
of troops for these operations.
For these reasons, BWC strongly opposes the arbitrary 25 percent
cap on U.S. contributions to U.N. peacekeeping operations enacted in
the 1990s. This policy represented a troubling break from the long-
standing policy of member states paying their treaty-obligated U.N.
membership dues. This is because if every member state chose to pay at
a self-determined percentage level, then underfunded peacekeeping
missions would be a constant, as countries would almost certainly pay
less than necessary. (Little different than if individuals could choose
how much they pay in taxes.) Unfortunately, this arbitrary cap
continues to be on the books, forcing Congress to revisit the issue
every year.
Failing to lift the cap also risks putting the United States into
arrears at the U.N.; underfunds critical peacekeeping missions--such as
those in South Sudan and Liberia--that are clearly in our national
interest and that we have voted for on the Security Council; and denies
reimbursement to countries, including key U.S. allies like Jordan, who
contribute troops to these missions so the United States doesn't have
to. Moreover, far from saving U.S. taxpayers money, failing to pay our
peacekeeping dues at the full rate assessed by the U.N. simply kicks
the can down the road. Due to the fact that our contributions to U.N.
peacekeeping missions are treaty-obligated (by virtue of our membership
in the U.N.), failing to pay our dues in full now simply requires us to
pay a larger sum at some point down the road. Partially because of
this, Congress has included language lifting the cap in annual
appropriations bills for 15 of the last 21 years. It is critical that
Congress do the same for FY 2016 and include language in any State
Department Reauthorization bill repealing the cap language.
Nevertheless, we also understand the concerns expressed by members
of the subcommittee about ensuring that all U.N. member states are
paying their fair share of these critical efforts. After all, while
peacekeeping rates are renegotiated every 3 years, the current
methodology for apportioning peacekeeping expenses has not changed
since 2000. During that same period, however, peacekeeping has become a
much more dangerous endeavor, with peacekeeping forces being called
upon to carry out more complex, multidimensional mandates in places
where there is often no peace to keep. In fact, over the last decade,
more than 1,400 peacekeepers have died on mission, representing more
than 43 percent of all U.N. peacekeeping fatalities since the first
mission was deployed in 1948. Consequently, it is critical that any
effort to adjust assessment rates ensure that troop-contributing
countries are fairly compensated.
As such, the United States should use its voice, vote, and
influence to advance the following four recommendations regarding U.N.
peacekeeping assessment and reimbursement rates:
1. Share Assessment Rate Data. While the criteria and elements of
the scale of assessments are publicly explained by the U.N., it should
also share the raw data used to calculate assessment rates. If
implemented, such steps could address concerns that political
motivations affect rate determinations.
2. Update the Assessment Rate Formula. The current formula for
determining peacekeeping assessments dates from 2000 and is based
primarily on gross national income (GNI), though it is also adjusted by
other factors like per capita income. The current system may result in
some countries paying more or less than their fair share. The scale of
assessments should better reflect the principle of capacity to pay by,
for example, using GNI adjusted for purchasing power parity (PPP).
3. Periodically Review Reimbursement Rates. Given the increasing
danger of missions and the persistent friction between troop
contributing countries and donor countries regarding reimbursement
rates for U.N. peacekeepers, the rates should revisited every 3 years,
similar to the way peacekeeping assessment rates are renegotiated.
4. Report on Reimbursement Funds. Future decisions to raise
reimbursement rates need to be based on accurate and timely data in
order to ensure that such increases are evidence-based. The lack of
such data has been decried by major funders of U.N. peacekeeping and
the dearth also makes it difficult to know where gaps exist.
Information on the use of funds must also highlight when countries lack
resources due to member state funding shortfalls. Member states must
understand how underfunding missions and/or not paying at their full
assessed rate negatively impact the troop contributing countries (TCCs)
ability to adequately resource missions and how it can undermine the
overall effectiveness of U.N. peacekeeping. TCCs should report on how
their reimbursement funds are utilized, along with--when relevant--how
any shortfalls in member state contributions impact their ability to
resource missions.
strengthening oversight and accountability of u.n. procurement
Efforts to ensure greater oversight and accountability in U.N.
procurement are critical toward ensuring that the organization uses
member state resources in the most efficient and effective way
possible. One major past initiative mounted by the U.N. in this regard
was the Procurement Task Force (PTF), a temporary entity established in
2006 to investigate and reform procurement problems and to address
fraud and corruption in the U.N. Secretariat. In its 3 years of
operation, the PTF racked up successful criminal convictions of a U.N.
employee and contractor, initiated disciplinary actions against 17
other U.N. employees, and suspended or removed more than 45 private
companies from the U.N. contracting process, according to records and
interviews. It identified more than $25 million that it says was wasted
or ended up unjustly enriching vendors.
In 2008, the U.N. Board of Auditors issued a report which concluded
that although some cases of fraud and corruption were found, there was
no evidence of ``widespread corruption'' in the U.N. Accordingly, it
recommended the ``skill and competencies of the Procurement Task
Force'' be ``incorporated permanently'' in the U.N. We support this
proposal, and believe that the United States should use its voice,
vote, and influence in the U.N. General Assembly to push for the
reestablishment of the PTF--or a similar entity--on a long-term, rather
than ad hoc, basis, and encourage its integration within the
Investigations Division of the Office of Internal Oversight Services
(OIOS). Such an action could help improve the U.N.'s ability to ensure
proper oversight and accountability over its contracts.
whistleblower protections
The FY 2015 Omnibus Appropriations Act calls for the U.N. to
implement ``best practices'' for the protection of whistleblowers from
retaliation. BWC agrees with the spirit of these proposals, and
recommends that the United States use its voice, vote, and influence to
further improve whistleblower protections at the U.N. However, we
strongly disagree with the law's requirement that the United States
withhold 15 percent of its contributions to the U.N. unless the
Secretary of State certifies implementation and enforcement of such
measures. This is because the concept of withholding dues as a way to
force progress on reform is a fundamentally flawed strategy. Recently,
the United States has been able to use its seat at the table at the
U.N. to support successful reform efforts on a broad range of issues,
including:
Budget Cuts: In December 2013, the General Assembly approved
the U.N.'s core budget for 2014-2015, cutting spending from the
U.N.'s previous 2-year budget, following the budget reduction
trend seen in the previous biennium. The new budget also
included a 2-percent staffing cut, translating to approximately
221 posts, and a freeze in staff compensation.
Transparency: The U.N. now makes all internal audit reports
issued by the Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS)
publicly available online. This development followed similar
decisions by UNICEF, UNDP, and UNFPA. The U.S. Mission to the
U.N. has called this new commitment to transparency ``a turning
point in how the U.N. does business.''
Peacekeeping Reforms & Greater Efficiencies: The U.N.
continues to implement the Global Field Support Strategy, a 5-
year project (2010-2015) aimed at improving the efficiency,
cost-effectiveness, and speed of administrative and logistics
support to U.N. peacekeeping and political missions.
Implementation of this strategy has led to a $250 million
reduction in operational costs for peacekeeping missions. In
addition, the cost per peacekeeper has declined by 18 percent,
and there are currently 3,000 fewer support and security staff
in U.N. peacekeeping missions than in 2008.
The Secretary General recently established a High-Level
Panel on Peace Operations to undertake a comprehensive
assessment of the state of U.N. peace operations. This is a
significant development, as peace operations today are
increasingly called on to confront politically complex and
challenging conflicts, often in volatile security
environments where U.N. missions are directly targeted. Mr.
Jose Ramos-Horta, former President of Timor-Leste, is
chairing this panel. The Panel's recommendations will be
available for consideration by the General Assembly at its
2015 General Debate in September.
None of these achievements would have been possible without strong
U.S. engagement. That means, in part, meeting our financial obligations
to the organization by paying our dues on time, in full, and without
onerous preconditions. Failing to do so takes away our seat at the
table and reduces our influence over the reform process; alienates our
allies, whose support is critical to make progress on our policy
objectives; and puts U.N. activities that are directly in our national
interests--such as peacekeeping operations--in financial peril. The
dangers of withholding our U.N. dues have been acknowledged by
Presidents from both parties. Indeed, in 2005, the Bush administration
strongly opposed a bill introduced in the House of Representatives that
would have withheld a substantial percentage of U.S. contributions to
the U.N. Regular Budget pending certain reforms, as it would ``detract
from and undermine our efforts.'' In 2011, former George W. Bush
Ambassador to the U.N., Mark Wallace, explained before the House
Foreign Affairs Committee that it would not be ``wise or beneficial to
use withholding funds to implement change.'' In conclusion, maintaining
our good financial standing at the U.N. is critical to our ability to
continue pushing a constructive reform agenda.
______
Material Submitted for the Record by Senator John Barrasso
of Wyoming, Subcommittee Chairman
copy of a letter submitted to the u.n. secretary general and
u.n. executive heads by former u.n. whistleblowers
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
______
copy of a letter submitted to the epa by
wyoming governor mathew h. mead
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]