[Senate Hearing 116-211]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 116-211
CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR ADVANCING U.S.
INTERESTS IN THE UNITED NATIONS SYSTEM
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON MULTILATERAL
INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT,
MULTILATERAL INSTITUTIONS, AND
INTERNATIONAL ECONOMIC, ENERGY,
AND ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
NOVEMBER 20, 2019
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Relations
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web:
http://www.govinfo.gov
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
40-624 PDF WASHINGTON : 2020
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS
JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho, Chairman
MARCO RUBIO, Florida ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey
RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland
CORY GARDNER, Colorado JEANNE SHAHEEN, New Hampshire
MITT ROMNEY, Utah CHRISTOPHER A. COONS, Delaware
LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina TOM UDALL, New Mexico
JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia CHRISTOPHER MURPHY, Connecticut
JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming TIM KAINE, Virginia
ROB PORTMAN, Ohio EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
RAND PAUL, Kentucky JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon
TODD, YOUNG, Indiana CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey
TED CRUZ, Texas
Christopher M. Socha, Staff Director
Jessica Lewis, Democratic Staff Director
John Dutton, Chief Clerk
SUBCOMMITTEE ON MULTILATERAL INTERNATIONAL
DEVELOPMENT, MULTILATERAL INSTITUTIONS,
AND INTERNATIONAL ECONOMIC, ENERGY,
AND ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY
TODD YOUNG, Indiana, Chairman
MITT ROMNEY, Utah JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon
RAND PAUL, Kentucky TOM UDALL, New Mexico
JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Young, Hon. Todd, U.S. Senator from Indiana...................... 1
Merkley, Hon. Jeff, U.S. Senator from Oregon..................... 3
Moore, Jonathan, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau of
International Affairs, U.S. Department of State, Washington, DC 4
Prepared statement........................................... 5
Tom, Hon. Kip, to the United Nations Agencies for Food and
Agriculture, U.S. Mission to the U.N. Agencies, Rome, IT....... 7
Prepared statement........................................... 8
Busby, Scott, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Democracy,
Human Rights, and Labor, U.S. Department of State, Washington,
DC............................................................. 10
Prepared statement........................................... 12
Schaefer, Brett, Jay Kingham Fellow in International Regulatory
Affairs, The Heritage Foundation, Washington, DC............... 25
Prepared statement........................................... 28
Yeo, Peter, Better World Campaign, Washington, DC................ 40
Prepared statement........................................... 41
Lehr, Amy K., Director of the Human Rights Initiative, Center for
Strategic and International Studies, Washington, DC............ 49
Prepared statement........................................... 52
Additional Material Submitted for the Record
Response of Jonathan Moore to Question Submitted by Senator Todd
Young.......................................................... 62
(iii)
CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR ADVANCING U.S. INTERESTS IN THE UNITED
NATIONS SYSTEM
----------
WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 20, 2019
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 2:33 p.m. in
room SD-419, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Todd Young,
chairman of the subcommittee, presiding.
Present: Senators Young [presiding], Romney, and Merkley.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. TODD YOUNG
U.S. SENATOR FROM INDIANA
Senator Young. This hearing of the Senate Foreign Relations
Subcommittee on Multilateral International Development,
Multilateral Institutions, and International Economic, Energy,
and Environmental Policy will come to order.
Today the subcommittee will hold a hearing to examine an
important question: what challenges and opportunities exist for
advancing U.S. interests in the United Nations system?
Now, to fully assess this matter, we will hear testimony
from two panels of well qualified individuals, one comprised of
executive branch officials, and the other comprised of
individuals from the private sector. With their help, I
anticipate a thought-provoking examination of whether or not
United States foreign policy objectives are being fulfilled
within the U.N. framework, and I look forward to hearing their
testimony shortly.
I will add that we expect votes in the Senate to be called
in just moments, and so what I will be doing as chairman of
this committee is reading my opening remarks here. I will ask
the ranking member to do the same, and then each of our
witnesses. I will have you read briefly your opening remarks.
At that point, we are likely to recess, go vote, and return
into session.
So as we look at the news today and we see the range of
conflicts around the world, one thing is clear. Those conflicts
are increasingly complex and have impacts that extend beyond
their region.
Iran continues to extend its tentacles throughout the
Middle East, sowing instability and conflict wherever it goes.
Russia no longer even attempts to hide its aspirations to
influence foreign elections around the globe, including here in
the United States.
China's unfair trading policies and practices affect every
one of its trading partners.
The common thread with each of these challenges is they
will be more easily resolved if we work together with
international partners and allies. Our role in multilateral
organizations is one that continues to be debated among
government officials, think tanks, and academics. And while
this debate is very important, we cannot lose sight of the
changing landscape at the United Nations and other multilateral
organizations where the United States and our allies are at
risk of ceding moral and policy grounds to those who do not
share our conviction for standards and norms.
Today Chinese nationals are at the helm of four U.N.
agencies. Americans are only at the head of three. One of the
key issues we hope to explore in today's hearing is the
implications for senior Communist Party members leading the
United Nations in these agencies: the Food and Agricultural
Organization, the International Telecommunications Union, the
International Civil Aviation Administration, and the Industrial
Development Organization.
What types of policies will these Communist Party members
implement? Who will they bring in? U.N. staff--will they
represent the interests of the United Nations and its members
or those of the Communist Party of China? And how should we
advance our interests, which we believe to be universal given
this backdrop?
President Trump has repeatedly said that other countries
need to step up and do more to shoulder the weight of
addressing the major crises around the world.
As China's economy continues to grow and it exerts greater
influence in the world, it is natural that it would seek more
positions of power within the U.N. system. But as it does so,
it is incumbent upon the United States and our allies to ensure
China supports and defends universal values rather than its own
domestic political agenda. Human rights, free speech, freedom
of movement, freedom of religion, due process, and access to
information are just a few of the values that are essential
elements of the U.N. Charter and its goal to maintain
international peace and security.
We need look no further than Xinjiang or Hong Kong to have
serious concerns about China's lack of respect for fundamental
human rights. We should be very concerned about how the United
Nations gives a platform to countries like Cuba, Venezuela, and
China to talk about human rights. The U.N. itself publishes
reports citing these and other members of the Human Rights
Council as countries that retaliate against their own citizens
for defending human rights.
We should be similarly concerned about Russia's role at the
United Nations and its willingness to exercise its veto power
to protect Assad, Maduro, and other autocratic leaders.
Spending time on the council has not reformed these bad
actors, but rather given them a larger mouthpiece to share
their misguided view of what is considered a human right.
There is no issue more controversial and divisive in the
U.N. context than Israel. Each year, the U.N. takes up a
disproportionate number of unbalanced resolutions that assign
blame to Israel for perpetuating unrest in the Middle East.
These resolutions do not include references to Hamas, a known
terror organization. Further, fellow U.N. member countries have
resisted U.S. efforts to draw any attention to Hamas activities
in any forum.
We look forward to our witnesses' statements on this
complex issue and examining how the United Nations can play a
more productive role in mediating and resolving conflicts in
the Middle East and elsewhere.
Finally, I feel it is necessary to again note why this
subcommittee and this hearing are important.
The United States remains the largest donor to the United
Nations, paying 22 percent of the regular budget and 25 percent
for peacekeeping operations. In 2017, the United States was
assessed $3.5 billion by the U.N. and volunteered an additional
$7 billion in funds.
Given these enormous sums of funds, it is essential that we
as Members of Congress keep a watchful eye on how these funds
are being used and ensure they are going toward issues that
reflect our values and our priorities.
All that being said, I would like to recognize my
distinguished ranking member for his comments. Senator Merkley.
STATEMENT OF HON. JEFF MERKLEY,
U.S. SENATOR FROM OREGON
Senator Merkley. Thank you very much, Chairman Young. It is
a pleasure to be here with you today working in a bipartisan
fashion to look at the challenges and opportunities to advance
U.S. interests and leadership in the United Nations.
Thank you to our distinguished guests and for your
willingness to testify on this important topic.
The United Nations was stood up after the oppression,
brutality, and destruction of World War II. In fact, the U.S.
Constitution served as an inspiration for the United Nations
Declaration of Human Rights. The United States played an
instrumental role in shaping that post-war order and laid in a
concert of nations to collaborate in defending liberty, human
rights, and religious freedom to ensure that the horrors of the
past did not reproduce themselves.
In this era of great power competition where countries like
China and Russia attempt to rewrite the global rules of the
road, the United States is needed more than ever to push back.
It is with great concern that I have seen the United States
retreat from global leadership in recent years to our detriment
and to the detriment of the world. Our withdrawal from the
Human Rights Council and a repeated hesitance, even refusal to
act meaningfully on human rights issues have created a void in
the United Nations system that China, Russia, and other
likeminded countries have eagerly exploited.
The challenges we are facing today on existential threats
such as those posed by climate chaos to the threats to
democracy and human rights in authoritarian states are global
in nature and require a global response. In the battle of
ideas, China's vision puts development ahead of human rights,
seeks to curtail access to the United Nations to human rights
activists who challenge China's human rights record or policies
and applies economic pressure on nations to support its
interests.
I look forward to hearing from our first panel on what we
are doing to preserve and strengthen the post-World War II
international order and to our second panel on how we work with
the United Nations to best advance our interests and values.
This is the first oversight hearing on the United Nations in a
couple years, and I very much appreciate the chairman
scheduling this hearing to take a closer look.
So with that, let us get going. Thanks.
Senator Young. Well, thanks so much, Senator Merkley.
We will now turn to our first witness, Mr. Moore. Mr.
Jonathan Moore serves as Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary
for International Organizations at the State Department. He is
a career member of the senior Foreign Service with decades of
diplomatic experience. Mr. Moore, your full statement will be
included in the record, without objection. So if you could
please keep your remarks to no more than 5 minutes or so, we
would certainly appreciate it so that members of the committee
can engage with you on their questions. Mr. Moore?
STATEMENT OF JONATHAN MOORE, PRINCIPAL DEPUTY ASSISTANT
SECRETARY, BUREAU OF INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
STATE, WASHINGTON, DC
Mr. Moore. Chairman Young, Ranking Member Merkley, thank
you very much for the opportunity to appear before you today.
As you said, Mr. Chairman, I am here on behalf of the State
Department's Bureau of International Organization Affairs. We
are dedicated to ensuring that the views of the administration
and the values of the American people are accurately reflected
and respected in multilateral fora, including in United Nations
resolutions, statements, reports, correspondence, and
activities.
In addition to our foreign affairs professionals, we are
extremely fortunate to have energetic, expert, informed, and
influential ambassadors and permanent representatives in New
York, Geneva, Rome, Montreal, Vienna, and Nairobi. Thank you
very much for including Ambassador Kip Tom in this hearing.
Mr. Chairman, as the ranking member cited as well, the
United States played the lead role in founding the United
Nations nearly 75 years ago, and we continue to host the U.N.
Security Council and General Assembly in New York. The U.N. and
other international organizations have key responsibilities on
the global stage, and American leadership is crucial.
The challenges we face are real: active conflicts,
humanitarian crises, terrorism, threats to global health.
The opportunities are also real from protecting
intellectual property to improving aviation safety, reinforcing
human rights, and helping people in need.
The administration has repeatedly demonstrated its
determination to promote American interests and prosperity in
and through international organizations.
As you noted, Mr. Chairman, the United States remains by
far the largest financial contributor to the U.N., well over $9
billion last year, the vast majority of which supports
humanitarian response efforts.
U.N. peacekeeping operations are among the most effective
mechanisms to address global challenges to international peace
and security and remain an essential tool in protecting the
most vulnerable populations.
Across the multilateral system, the administration's
commitment to reform is unwavering. Much more can and must be
done to cut waste and overlap, improve hiring practices,
including for American citizens, and embrace transparency.
Eliminating sexual exploitation and abuse is another
critical aspect of reform, both in peacekeeping operations and
throughout U.N. agencies.
Reform also extends to fixing parts of the multilateral
system that have failed to keep pace with global trends. At the
Universal Postal Union, grossly outdated pricing systems
created market distortions that harmed U.S. business. In
October 2018, the President announced his intent to withdraw
from the UPU unless corrective action was taken. Over the
following year, we coordinated intensive diplomatic outreach
and accomplished that goal, with the result that U.S.
businesses will no longer face severe disadvantages related to
the international shipping of small packages. This is just one
example.
The U.N. Human Rights Council, however, as cited, is a less
positive example. Our efforts to spur reform of the council
were genuine and sustained, but it remains fundamentally
broken. Nevertheless, with the strong support of Congress, the
United States remains vigorously engaged in protecting human
rights around the world. My colleague, Scott Busby, will speak
to this.
As a further example of our multilateral engagement, the
administration is considering our return, with the consent of
Congress, to the U.N. World Tourism Organization, recognizing
that tourism is a significant economic driver in many areas of
the United States.
Mr. Chairman, as we approach the U.N.'s 75th anniversary,
we need the U.N. to remain relevant and serve our national
interests, particularly as other centers of power, such as
China, become increasingly assertive.
Over its history, the U.N. has been responsible for some
impressive successes and some spectacular failures. Your
attention and that of Congress are invaluable in helping us
serve the United States and keep the U.N. on track.
Thank you again for the opportunity to discuss these and
other important issues today. I look forward to my colleagues'
testimony and to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Moore follows:]
Prepared Statement of Jonathan Moore
Chairman Young, Ranking Member Merkley, and Members of the
Subcommittee, thank you very much for the opportunity to appear before
you today.
I'm here on behalf of the State Department's Bureau of
International Organization Affairs. We are dedicated to ensuring that
the views of the administration and the values of the American people
are accurately reflected and respected in multilateral fora, including
in United Nations resolutions, statements, reports, correspondence, and
activities.
In addition to our foreign affairs professionals, we are extremely
fortunate to have energetic, expert, informed, and influential
ambassadors and permanent representatives in New York, Geneva, Rome,
Montreal, Vienna, and Nairobi. Thank you for including Ambassador Kip
Tom in this hearing; he will speak to his perspectives from our mission
to the U.N. in Rome.
Mr. Chairman, the United States played the lead role in founding
the United Nations nearly 75 years ago, and continues to be the proud
host of the U.N. Security Council and General Assembly in New York. The
U.N. and other international organizations have key responsibilities on
the global stage, and American leadership is crucial.
The challenges we face are real--active conflicts, humanitarian
crises, terrorism, and threats to global health.
The opportunities are also real--from protecting intellectual
property to improving aviation safety, reinforcing human rights
protections, and helping people in need.
The administration has repeatedly demonstrated its determination to
promote American interests and prosperity in and through international
organizations.
As you know well, Mr. Chairman, the United States remains by far
the largest financial contributor to the United Nations--well over 9
billion dollars last year, the vast majority of which supports
humanitarian response efforts.
U.N. peacekeeping operations are among the most effective
mechanisms to address global challenges to international peace and
security, and remain an essential tool in protecting the most
vulnerable populations.
It's important to note that the U.N. has recently concluded peace
operations in Cote d'Ivoire and Liberia, and that the peacekeeping
mission in Haiti has transitioned to a special political mission.
Across the multilateral system, the administration's commitment to
reform is unwavering. Much more can and must be done to cut waste and
overlap, improve hiring practices, and embrace transparency.
Eliminating sexual exploitation and abuse is another critical
aspect of reform, both in peacekeeping operations and throughout U.N.
agencies.
Reform also extends to fixing parts of the multilateral system that
have failed to keep pace with global trends. At the Universal Postal
Union, grossly outdated pricing systems created market distortions that
harmed U.S. business. In October 2018, the President announced his
intent to withdraw from the UPU unless corrective action was taken.
Over the following year, we coordinated intensive diplomatic
outreach and accomplished that goal, with the result that U.S.
businesses will no longer face severe disadvantages related to the
international shipping of small packages.
This is just one example of how the administration is scrutinizing
international organizations to guarantee that our international
commitments do not result in unfair or inequitable treatment for the
United States.
The U.N. Human Rights Council is a less positive example. Our
efforts to spur reform of the Council were genuine and sustained, but
it remains fundamentally broken. Nevertheless, with the strong support
of Congress, the United States remains vigorously engaged in protecting
human rights around the world. My colleague, Scott Busby, will speak to
this.
As a further example of our multilateral engagement, the
administration is considering our return--with the consent of
Congress--to the U.N. World Tourism Organization, recognizing that
tourism is a significant economic driver in many areas of the United
States.
As we approach the U.N.'s 75th anniversary, we need the U.N. to
remain relevant and serve our national interests, particularly as other
centers of power such as China become increasingly assertive.
Mr. Chairman, over its history, the U.N. has been responsible for
some impressive successes and some spectacular failures. Your
attention, and that of Congress, are invaluable in helping us serve the
United States, and keep the U.N. on track. Thank you again for the
opportunity to discuss these and other important issues today. I look
forward to responding to your questions.
Senator Young. Thank you, Mr. Moore.
Our next witness is Ambassador Kip Tom. Ambassador Tom
serves the United States now at the United Nations Agencies for
Food and Agriculture in Rome. He is a farmer with a lifetime of
agricultural and development experience, and I would be remiss
if I did not mention his most important attribute. He happens
to be a fellow Hoosier. Mr. Ambassador, please proceed.
STATEMENT OF HON. KIP TOM, REPRESENTATIVE TO THE UNITED NATIONS
AGENCIES FOR FOOD AND AGRICULTURE, U.S. MISSION TO THE U.N.
AGENCIES, ROME, IT
Ambassador Tom. Chairman Young, Ranking Member Merkley and
to all members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity
to appear here today.
The U.S. Mission to the United Nations Agencies in Rome
represents the United States' interests to the three U.N.
principal organizations dedicated to food and agriculture, as
well as our three international organizations handling the rule
of law, harmonization of commercial law, and cultural heritage
preservation.
As a successful seventh generation farmer and businessman,
I came into this job knowing what it takes to grow a business,
create jobs, and empower youth. I also came into this position
appreciating the strong leadership of this committee and the
United States on global food security. After more than 6 months
in Rome, I am pleased to report to you on the central
leadership role that the United States takes at the United
Nations as we advance our nation's interests.
First, the World Food Programme, or WFP, is in the good
hands under the leadership of Executive Director David Beasley,
the former Governor of South Carolina. The scale of
humanitarian need and forced displacement around the world is
unprecedented, and WFP provided food, cash-based transfers, and
commodity vouchers to over 86 million people in 2018. The
United States remains a leader in generosity and assistance, as
we are likely to donate nearly $3 billion USD through the WFP
this year alone. With a staggering 821 million people globally
who are under-nourished, WFP demonstrates the value of the
international community coming together under strong U.S.
leadership to deliver critical lifesaving support to so many of
the world's most vulnerable. Our continued leadership is saving
lives and furthering the interests of our country each and
every day.
The Food and Agriculture Organization, or FAO, is equally
critical to American interests, given its role in Codex
Alimentarius and setting the food standards that give the
framework for American farmers and food companies to be the
leading exporter of agricultural products globally. FAO must
also provide the tools and policy support for agriculture
practitioners and rural communities to transform in response to
modern challenges. These tools should include biotechnology and
other innovations so farmers can make sustainable choices. If
FAO works the way it should by enhancing people's livelihoods
and economic potential in all communities, we can advance key
American objectives, including by addressing some of the root
causes of conflict and economic migration. Simply put, if we do
not get the FAO right, we can never put enough money into the
World Food Programme.
However, there are challenges at FAO. Like other U.N.
agencies, FAO needs to address issues such as opaque hiring
practices, waste and overlap, and concerns about misconduct.
FAO, like U.N. agencies, has just begun to undertake specific
commitments to fight sexual exploitation and abuse of
humanitarian workers operating its auspices. FAO is under new
leadership, with former Chinese Vice Minister of Agriculture,
Dr. Qu Dongyu, taking office in August of this year. As Dr. Qu
himself has said, we can and must hold FAO's leadership to
account in ensuring that FAO is an organization that meets the
interests of all member states and directly addresses the
significant challenges facing rural communities today.
Dr. Qu has promised to improve FAO's models by giving
farmers expanded access to all tools and knowledge to help them
feed themselves and grow their economies. He also recognizes
that the world is changing and his team needs to increase
partnerships with the private sector to ensure agriculture and
rural communities are economically sustainable. We will both
hold FAO and Dr. Qu to these promises.
With this leadership change, the strong U.S. voice at the
FAO is more critical than ever. We provide more than $100
million in assessed contributions annually and almost an equal
amount in voluntary funding to support critical work such as
addressing animal and plant health globally and responding to
agricultural crises. But we are also working to ensure that FAO
is held accountable and is transparent in decision-making and
crafting the programs that truly impact the global community.
I am proud of our strong team at U.S. U.N. Rome Mission as
they work daily to ensure American citizens are equitably
represented amongst the FAO employees, including at the senior
level. Our scientists and agriculture experts, for instance,
are best in class. We need the critical thinking skills and
evidence-based decision-making they bring to the table for
discussions about agriculture policies and tools. We also seek
to ensure a fair playing field for American agricultural
interests through negotiations and policies on agriculture and
standards.
Today I am proud to uphold the work we do in Rome as a
clear example demonstrating that the United States remains a
central leader at the United Nations and in the multilateral
sphere. We need to increase our presence to further American
interests globally. As a business leader, I have always
believed that there is nothing more important to a leader's
success than the ability to unify those with different
backgrounds and interests behind a common purpose. We see this
daily at the U.N. agencies in Rome, and with your support, we
will continue our work to ensure American leadership in
addressing food insecurity and the rule of law around the
world.
Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Ambassador Tom follows:]
Prepared Statement of Ambassador Kip Tom
Chairman Young, Ranking Member Merkley, and all Members of the
Committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear here today.
The U.S. Mission to the United Nations Agencies in Rome represents
the United States' interests to the three U.N. principal organizations
dedicated to food and agriculture, as well as three international
organizations handling the rule of law, harmonization of commercial
law, and cultural heritage preservation. As a successful seventh-
generation family farmer, I came into this job knowing what it takes to
grow agriculture, create jobs, and empower youth. I also came into this
position appreciating the strong leadership of this Committee and the
United States on global food security. After more than 6 months in
Rome, I am pleased to report to you on the central leadership role that
the United States takes at the United Nations, as we advance our
nation's interests.
First, the World Food Programme (or WFP) is in good hands under the
leadership of Executive Director David Beasley, the former Governor of
South Carolina. The scale of humanitarian need and forced displacement
around the world is unprecedented, and WFP provided food, cash-based
transfers, and commodity vouchers to over 86 million people in 2018.
The United States remains a leader in generosity and assistance, as we
are likely to donate nearly 3 billion U.S. dollars through WFP this
year. With a staggering 821 million people globally who are
undernourished, WFP demonstrates the value of the international
community coming together, under strong U.S. leadership, to deliver
critical life-saving support to so many of the world's most vulnerable.
Our continued leadership is saving lives and furthering the interests
of our country every day.
The Food and Agriculture Organization (or FAO) is equally critical
to American interests, given its role in Codex Alimentarius and setting
the food safety standards that give the framework for American farmers
to be the leading exporters of agricultural products globally. FAO must
also provide the tools and policy support for agricultural
practitioners and rural communities to transform in response to modern
challenges. These tools should include biotechnology and other
innovations so farmers can make informed choices. If FAO works the way
it should, by enhancing people's livelihoods and economic potential in
all communities, we can advance key American objectives, including by
addressing some of the root causes of conflict and economic migration.
Simply put, if we don't get FAO right, we simply cannot put enough
money into WFP to meet future challenges.
However, there are challenges at FAO. Like other U.N. agencies, FAO
needs to address issues such as opaque hiring practices, waste and
overlap, and concerns about misconduct. FAO, like all U.N. agencies,
has undertaken specific commitments to fight potential sexual
exploitation and abuse by humanitarian workers operating under its
auspices. FAO is under new leadership, with former Chinese Vice
Minister of Agriculture Dr. Qu Dongyu taking office in August of this
year. As Dr. Qu himself has said, we can and must hold FAO's leadership
to account in ensuring that FAO is an organization that meets the
interests of all member states and directly addresses the significant
challenges facing rural communities today.
Dr. Qu has promised to improve FAO's models by giving farmers
expanded access to all the tools and knowledge to help them feed
themselves. He also recognizes that the world is changing and his team
needs to increase partnership with the private sector to ensure
agriculture and rural communities are economically sustainable. We will
hold both FAO and Dr. Qu to these promises.
With this leadership change, the strong U.S. voice at FAO is more
critical than ever. We provide more than $100 million in assessed
contributions annually--and a similar amount in voluntary funds--to
support critical work such as addressing animal and plant health
globally, and responding to agricultural crises. But w are also working
to ensure that FAO is held accountable and is transparent in decision-
making and crafting the programs that impact the global community.
My team works daily to ensure American citizens are equitably
represented amongst FAO employees, including at the senior level. Our
scientists and agriculture experts, for instance, are top-notch. We
need the critical thinking skills and evidence-based decision-making
they bring to the table for discussions about agriculture policies and
tools. We also seek to ensure a fair playing field for American
agricultural interests through negotiations and policies on agriculture
and standards.
The United States demonstrates similar leadership at the other
international agencies in Rome. For example, as the president of the
Standing Committee of the International Development Law Organization,
we just led a process to select a strong new Director General to lead
this critical organization in addressing rule of law challenges
globally. This week, our negotiators are concluding a protocol to
facilitate financing for the sale of mining, agriculture, and
construction equipment to developing countries. We work with
institutions like the International Fund for Agriculture Development to
ensure low-cost loans or grants for growing new small businesses in
rural areas, thereby generating jobs.
Today, I am proud to uphold the work we do in Rome as a clear
example demonstrating the United States remains a central leader at the
United Nations and in the multilateral sphere. We need to maintain and
increase our presence to further American interests globally. As a
business leader, I have always believed that there is nothing more
important to a leader's success than the ability to unify those with
different backgrounds and interests behind a common purpose. We see
this daily at the U.N. agencies in Rome. With your support, we will
continue our work to ensure American leadership in addressing food
insecurity and rule of law around the world.
Thank you.
Senator Young. Thank you, Mr. Ambassador.
Our third witness, Mr. Scott Busby, serves as Deputy
Assistant Secretary for Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor at
the Department of State. He served his nation in a series of
roles for over 25 years. Mr. Busby, you may now proceed.
STATEMENT OF SCOTT BUSBY, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY, BUREAU OF
DEMOCRACY, HUMAN RIGHTS, AND LABOR, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE,
WASHINGTON, DC
Mr. Busby. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Merkley, thank you for this
opportunity to testify on how the U.S. is promoting human
rights in multilateral fora and organizations. We are committed
to working closely with you on this issue.
The United States continues to work through a variety of
multilateral and multi-stakeholder venues and mechanisms to
educate, persuade, and fight for human rights. That said, all
of these tools have challenges ranging from simple disagreement
among U.N. member states to actions by malicious governments to
thwart human rights.
At the United Nations, the U.S. interacts with myriad U.N.
bodies, programs, special mandate holders, and agencies that
address human rights and democracy. From work on
counterterrorism efforts to development, the U.S. insists that
human rights, good governance, and respect for the rule of law
are integral to achieving the peace, prosperity, and security
to which these entities and the U.S. are committed.
Thus, for instance, at the U.N. Third Committee, the body
charged with taking up human rights issues within the General
Assembly, the U.S. recently led or supported a variety of
resolutions on troubling country situations, including Iran,
North Korea, Burma, Syria, and Russia, Russian occupied Crimea,
as well as important thematic issues like a U.S.-sponsored
resolution on elections and democratization.
We also seek to highlight human rights by organizing or
joining events or statements in U.N. fora on countries or
issues of concern. For example, during this year's U.N. General
Assembly high-level week, the U.S. along with several other
countries sponsored a widely publicized event on the horrible
abuses occurring in the Xinjiang region of China. Subsequently,
we joined 22 other countries to deliver a strong statement of
concern at the Third Committee about the abuses taking place
there.
At the Security Council, we have also sought to elevate
attention to human rights by, among other things, sponsoring
discussions on human rights in countries like North Korea and
Syria and supporting the inclusion of human rights and justice-
focused mandates in peacekeeping missions, where appropriate.
We also support the U.N. Secretary-General's efforts to end
impunity among U.N. peacekeeping forces, including by
implementing the U.N.'s zero-tolerance policy on sexual
exploitation and abuse and ensuring that peacekeepers are not
drawn from security forces responsible for human rights abuses.
Consistent with the recently released U.S. Women, Peace,
and Security strategy, we are also steadfast advocates for
increasing the meaningful participation of women in
peacekeeping operations and at all levels of negotiation and
dispute resolution.
We also raise and act on concerns about U.N. bodies that do
not live up to the human rights ideals of the United Nations.
For example, we withdrew as a member of the Human Rights
Council out of concern about the process for electing its
members and its biased, unfair, and unacceptable singling out
of Israel. Just last month, for instance, U.N. member states
inexplicably elected Venezuela over Costa Rica to the council.
While we chose to leave the council for these reasons, we will
continue our reform efforts so that the council might realize
its potential.
While we are no longer members of the council, the U.S.
does participate in the Universal Periodic Review process,
through which every member state of the U.N. undergoes an
evaluation of its human rights record. We have also supported
certain country and thematic mandates and mechanisms created by
the HRC that genuinely advance human rights including, for
instance, country mandates on Iran, North Korea, Cambodia,
Eritrea, Burundi, Syria, South Sudan, Venezuela, and Myanmar,
as well as thematic mandates on freedom of expression, freedom
of association and peaceful assembly, and freedom of religion.
We also regularly engage with the U.N. High Commissioner
for Human Rights and her office and support its activities in a
number of countries and on a range of issues.
Moreover, we continue to strongly support the International
Labor Organization, which serves as a key U.S. partner for
combating exploitative child labor and human trafficking,
promoting worker rights, and improving working conditions.
In addition to our work at the U.N., we continue to
actively promote human rights and democracy in regional
organizations and other multilateral and multi-stakeholder
initiatives. For instance, for more than four decades, the
United States has been the foremost champion of human rights
within the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe.
Among other things, we support OSCE missions in Ukraine, the
Balkans, and Central Asia that work with host governments and
civil society to monitor and advance human rights, the rule of
law, good governance, and rights-respecting approaches to
security.
Closer to home, the Department also works with the
Organization of American States and the inter-American human
rights system to promote and defend the democratic principles
in the Inter-American Democratic Charter. For instance, in June
at the OAS General Assembly, we led efforts to adopt new text
paving the way for coordinated action to hold the former Maduro
regime accountable for its ongoing violations of human rights
and democratic principles.
We also contribute similarly to the African Union and its
organs to build their capacity to promote human rights.
In recent years, we have also strongly supported the
establishment of new multi-stakeholder processes that bring
together likeminded governments and other key players such as
business and civil society to work on specific human rights
problems. We have played a leading role in developing and
sustaining a number of such initiatives, which are described in
my written testimony.
Promoting human rights and democracy in international fora
is a lengthy, iterative, and often slow process. Since the end
of the Cold War, we have made progress, but there has been
backsliding, as well as significant pushback. China, as both of
you mentioned, seeks to weaken human rights action in
international fora with flowery resolutions that use benign
phrases like ``mutually shared beneficial cooperation'' or
``win-win'' outcomes. Russia pushes resolutions that try to
elevate undefined traditional values over rights in the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights. And many try to ensure
that independent NGOs have no voice at the U.N. Despite these
efforts, we continue to believe that the U.N. and other
international fora are crucial arenas in which to advance human
rights, and we will continue to fight there for the unalienable
rights and fundamental freedoms in America's founding documents
and the Universal Declaration.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Busby follows:]
Prepared Statement of Scott Busby
Chairman Young, Ranking Member Merkley, and distinguished Members
of the Subcommittee on Multilateral International Development and
Multilateral Institutions, thank you for this opportunity to testify on
how the U.S. is promoting human rights in multilateral fora and
organizations. I commend the committee for its attention to these
issues. The Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor at the State
Department is committed to working closely with the committee to
address pressing human rights problems around the globe through
multilateral organizations.
On the occasion of the seventieth anniversary of the Universal
Declaration on Human Rights, Professor Mary Ann Glendon wrote:
Ultimately, promoting human rights depends on deep support across
cultural and ideological divides. This is what Eleanor Roosevelt
envisioned, when she declared that documents expressing ideals ``carry
no weight unless the people know them, unless the people understand
them, unless the people demand that they be lived." \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ https://www.the-american-interest.com/2018/12/19/the-universal-
declaration-turns-70/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
These words provide insight on what any successful promotion of
human rights and democracy, particularly in a multilateral setting must
do--build support across divides. The Government of the United States
works through a variety of multilateral and multi-stakeholder venues
and mechanisms to educate, persuade, and fight for human rights. Our
task in these institutions is to establish and sustain platforms where
governments can seek to reach consensus on international human rights
law, where human rights defenders and civil society voices can be
heard, and where the international community can call to account those
governments and individuals that violate or abuse human rights. That
said, all of these mechanisms have challenges ranging from simple
disagreement among U.N. member states to actions by malicious
governments to thwart attention to human rights.
At the United Nations, the U.S. interacts with myriad U.N. bodies,
programs, special mandate holders, and agencies that address human
rights and democracy issues. From work on counterterrorism efforts to
development, the U.S. insists that human rights, good governance, and
respect for the rule of law are integral to achieving the peace,
prosperity, and security to which these entities and the U.S. are
committed. During UNGA High Level Week, for instance, the President
hosted the Global Call to Protect Religious Freedom with the Secretary
General of the U.N. Over 130 delegations from U.N. member states,
observers, and U.N. agencies attended, as well as religious leaders,
business leaders, and civil society.
At the U.N. Third Committee, the body charged with taking up human
rights issues within the General Assembly, the U.S. supports a variety
of resolutions on troubling country situations and important thematic
issues. The Third Committee is concluding its session now and we have
actively advocated for resolutions on the human rights situations in
Iran, North Korea, Burma, Syria, and Russian-occupied Crimea, as well
as the U.S.-sponsored resolution on elections and democratization. Last
year, we led efforts to get the Third Committee to pass important
resolutions on Freedom of Expression and Freedom of Association and
Peaceful Assembly.
We also seek to highlight human rights by organizing and co-
sponsoring events and marshalling joint statements in U.N. forums on
countries or issues of concern. For example, during this year's U.N.
General Assembly high-level week, the U.S. along with several other
countries sponsored an event on the horrible abuses occurring in the
Xinjiang region of China. Hearing from Uighurs who have suffered or
whose families have experienced abuses, we learned more about the
repressive measures the Chinese Communist government has undertaken. We
brought the international community together to hear about mass
detentions in internment camps; pervasive, high-tech surveillance;
draconian controls on expressions of cultural and religious identity;
and coercion of individuals to return from abroad to an often perilous
fate in China, and we challenged the international community to do
more. Subsequent to the event, we joined 22 other countries to deliver
a strong joint statement of concern at the Third Committee about the
abuses taking place in Xinjiang. The U.S. hosted a similar event on
Xinjiang on the margins of the March U.N. Human Rights Council session
and has hosted similar events on Nicaragua in conjunction with its
Universal Periodic Review; on Venezuela, also on the margins of the
March U.N. Human Rights Council; and, together with the European Union,
on female detainees in Syria on the margins of the July U.N. Human
Rights Council session.
At the Security Council, we have sought to elevate attention to the
link between human rights and international peace and security by,
among other things, sponsoring discussions on the human rights
situation in countries like North Korea and supporting the inclusion of
human rights and justice-focused mandates, and strengthening of
civilian institutions in peacekeeping missions, where appropriate. For
example, in Haiti over the last year, we successfully pushed for the
reconfiguration of the peacekeeping mission to focus on justice,
police, and the rule of law and added a robust human rights monitoring
mandate, including recognition that more must be done to counter
pervasive gender-based violence. As the justice mission in Haiti
progressed, the U.N. Security Council transitioned from a justice-
focused peacekeeping operation to a special political mission. The U.N.
special political mission in Haiti now joins other U.N. civilian
missions charged with strengthening political stability and good
governance while monitoring and reporting on human rights abuses,
including in Afghanistan, Guinea-Bissau, Iraq, Libya, and Somalia. In
the Central African Republic, we have supported the peacekeeping
mission's mandate to assist the CAR specialized domestic court to hold
accountable those responsible for atrocities. Last month, we noted the
critical role the U.N.-AU Mission in Darfur plays in promoting
accountability for human rights abuses.
At the United States' urging, the U.N. Security Council in August
held the first standalone session on the Assad regime's ongoing
practice of arbitrarily detaining, torturing, and extrajudicially
killing hundreds of thousands of Syrian civilians in order to silence
calls for reform and change. The session provided an unprecedented
platform for raising the concerns of Syrian civil society, as well as
former detainees, and bolstered international consensus on the
importance of tangible progress towards the release of those
arbitrarily detained in Syria, greater access for families to
information on their detained loved ones, and improved prison
conditions as a key component of efforts towards a political resolution
to the Syria conflict in line with UNSCR 2254.
We also support the U.N. Secretary-General's efforts to end
impunity among U.N. peacekeeping forces, including implementing the
U.N.'s zero-tolerance policy on sexual exploitation and abuse. As the
leading bilateral partner for peacekeeping capacity-building
assistance, the U.S. demands the best of our partners and of ourselves
as we support effective development and delivery of peacekeeping
training that meets or exceeds U.N. standards. We regularly reiterate
the importance of pre-deployment and in-mission training of all
peacekeeping personnel on preventing sexual exploitation and abuse and
gender-based violence, including in context-specific scenario-based
training and early-warning preparedness.
We have also supported the U.N. Secretariat's efforts to ensure
that peacekeepers are not drawn from security forces that have been
responsible for human rights abuses. For instance, the U.N. recently
suspended future Sri Lankan Army deployment to peacekeeping operations
in response to Lieutenant General Shavendra Silva being appointed as
Sri Lanka's army chief, a person who is credibly alleged to be
responsible for gross violations of human rights. We are also steadfast
advocates for increasing the meaningful participation of women in
peacekeeping operations, which results in ``higher reporting of sexual
and gender-based violence, as well as lower incidents of sexual
exploitation and abuse.'' \2\ The State Department's Global Peace
Operations Initiative (GPOI) increases women's participation in
peacekeeping training and peacekeeping deployments. Since 2007, more
than 9,300 female peacekeepers have participated in GPOI training
events. Moreover, since 2010, GPOI partners have increased the number
of deployed women military peacekeepers by 105 percent, while non-GPOI
countries have only increased their numbers by 21 percent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ https://www.un.org/press/en/2019/sc13773.doc.htm
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Women peacekeepers are able to more effectively engage with women
at the local level, and therefore, can gather more valuable information
on threats to the civilian population, including conflict-related
sexual violence, than their male counterparts. Similarly, consistent
with the recently released U.S. Women, Peace, and Security Strategy, we
are actively promoting the meaningful participation of women at all
levels of dispute resolution, including in decision-making and
negotiating bodies and meditating teams. We know that meaningfully
including women in decision making and peace processes, highly
contributes to whether that peace process will be successful and
sustainable.
Furthermore, throughout the U.N. system, the United States works to
ensure that the voices of human rights defenders are heard and that
they may speak without fear of reprisals. In this respect, one of our
focuses is on the Economic and Social Council's NGO accreditation
committee, which is populated by a number of states that prefer to
silence human rights defenders and non-governmental organizations. In
this respect, we recognize the unique threats that women human rights
defenders face and have mobilized attention and support to this issue.
We are also strong supporters of the Secretary-General's efforts to
collect and call out reprisals taken against members of civil society
for their participation in U.N.-related meetings or processes. And we
have fought to counteract efforts by other countries to prevent human
rights defenders from speaking at the U.N.
We also raise concerns about U.N. bodies that do not live up to the
human rights mandates of the United Nations, and act on those concerns
when necessary. For example, we withdrew as a member of the Human
Rights Council out of concern about the criteria and process for
electing its members, which has resulted in some of the world's worst
human rights abusing governments serving on the Council. Just last
month, for instance, U.N. member states inexplicably elected Venezuela
to join the HRC over Costa Rica--an outrageous outcome for a body
founded to advance human rights. Similarly, we object to the Human
Rights Council's biased, unfair, and unacceptable singling out of
Israel, which remains the only country that has a Council agenda item
specifically devoted to it. While we chose to leave the Council for
these reasons, we will continue our efforts to try to reform the
Council to address these shortcomings and realize its potential.
While we do not engage on Human Rights Council resolutions, the
U.S. does participate in Universal Periodic Review--a process in which
every member state of the U.N. submits a self-evaluation of its
domestic human rights practices and engages in an interactive dialogue
with other governments their recommendations for improvement. As every
U.N. member state participates in the UPR, we use the process to raise
our concerns and make human rights recommendations to every country in
the world. We continue to believe that the UPR process sets benchmarks
that the country under review agrees to uphold, allowing the
international community to hold every member state accountable for its
commitments. We have also supported certain country and thematic
mandates and mechanisms created by the HRC that genuinely advance human
rights, including, for instance, the special rapporteurs on Iran, North
Korea, Cambodia, and Eritrea; the Commissions of Inquiry on North
Korea, Burundi,, and Syria; the Commission on Human Rights in South
Sudan; the Fact Finding Missions on Venezuela and Myanmar; the thematic
rapporteurs on freedom of expression and freedom of peaceful assembly
and association; and the independent expert on sexual orientation and
gender identity, among others.
We also regularly engage with the High Commissioner for Human
Rights and her office (OHCHR) and support their activities in a number
of countries and on a range of issues.
OHCHR has field presences throughout the world that provide
technical assistance, monitor human rights, serve as the human rights
component of peacekeeping operations and respond to immediate crises.
The U.S. is the second largest donor to OHCHR so far in 2019.
We further support work on human rights, good governance and
democracy issues in a variety of other U.N. independent agencies,
offices, including U.N. Women, UNICEF, the U.N. Development Program,
the International Labor Organization, the International
Telecommunications Union, the U.N. Democracy Fund, the U.N. Office of
Drugs and Crime, and the World Bank. The United States remains UNICEF's
largest donor both in terms of core funding and overall resources,
helping the U.N.'s flagship agency promote and protect children's
welfare and well-being.
At the ILO, which serves as a key U.S. partner for achieving
international labor-related objectives, such as combating exploitive
child labor and human trafficking, promoting worker rights, and
improving working conditions we have focused on the problem of forced
labor in Myanmar and have supported the Government of Qatar's attempts
to reform its kafala system, which can facilitate forced labor. The
tripartite nature of the ILO--where governments, workers and business
all have an active role--encourages a balanced and representative
discussion on international labor standards.
The U.S. continues to actively engage with the U.N. and other
multilateral institutions to enhance coordination on atrocity
prevention, mitigation, and response efforts, while also advancing the
institutionalization of this agenda within the U.N. system.
Additionally, we are a member of the Group of Friends for the
Responsibility to Protect (R2P) where we continue to reaffirm the
United States' commitment to atrocity prevention and strengthen U.S.
ties to partner nations and civil society actors. Further, we regularly
participate in exchanges with likeminded countries to develop shared
recommendations and coordinated action to mitigate the risk of mass
atrocities.
We also support mechanisms that lay the ground for accountability
for atrocities through our diplomatic and/or financial support to a
number of U.N. investigative mechanisms, including the U.N.
International Impartial and Independent Mechanism (IIIM) for Syria, the
U.N. Investigative Team to Promote Accountability for Crimes Committed
by Da'esh (UNITAD), and the U.N. Independent Investigative Mechanism
for Myanmar (IIMM).
In addition to our work at the U.N., the State Department does a
great deal of human rights and democracy promotion work in regional
organizations and other multilateral and multi-stakeholder initiatives.
For instance, for more than four decades, the United States has been
the foremost champion within the 57-member Organization for Security
and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) of fundamental freedoms and of human
rights defenders targeted for repression by their governments. The
United States uses weekly meetings of the OSCE's Permanent Council to
speak out about ongoing human rights concerns--from abuses against
Crimean Tatars and others opposed to Russia's occupation of Ukraine's
Crimea, to Russia's persecution of Jehovah's Witnesses and members of
other religious minority groups, the undermining of the rule of law in
Turkey, the crackdown on dissent in Azerbaijan, the plight of political
prisoners in the post-Soviet states of Central Asia, and the rise in
anti-Semitism and other forms of intolerance in the OSCE region. We
also are a leading participant in the OSCE's annual Human Dimension
Implementation Meeting (HDIM) in Warsaw, which constitutes the largest
human rights gathering in Europe and Eurasia, drawing hundreds of
frontline civil society activists and representatives of human rights
advocacy organizations in addition to governments.
We also support the work of the OSCE's independent institutions,
such as its High Commissioner on National Minorities, its
Representative on Freedom of the Media, and its Office for Democratic
Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR). ODIHR's methodologies are
considered the world's gold standard for independent elections
observation. We also support OSCE field missions in Ukraine, the
Balkans, and Central Asia that work with host governments and civil
society to advance human rights, the rule of law, good governance, and
rights-respecting approaches to security. The OSCE's Special Monitoring
Mission provides invaluable reporting on the mounting human cost of
Russia's continuing aggression against Ukraine. We use OSCE diplomatic
tools to spotlight other serious abuses. For example, in December 2018,
the United States and 15 other countries invoked the OSCE's Moscow
Mechanism in response to reports of serious abuses committed against
LGBTI individuals, human rights monitors, and others in Russia's
Republic of Chechnya. The resulting fact-finding Mission drew
unprecedented international attention to the alarming human rights
conditions in Chechnya, which the Kremlin allows to continue with
impunity.
In addition, the U.S. also engages with and supports the work of
the Council of Europe (COE), which promotes democracy and the rule of
law in its 47 member states, including all EU members. The U.S. is an
observer to the COE and a full member of some COE subsidiary bodies,
including the European Commission for Democracy through Law (Venice
Commission) and the Group of Countries Against Corruption (GRECO).
Closer to home, the Department works through the Organization of
American States and the Inter-American human rights system to promote
and defend, throughout the entire hemisphere, the democratic principles
enshrined in the Inter-American Democratic Charter. We actively
participate in Permanent Council meetings on matters of shared concern,
as well as other bodies including sessions of the Inter-American
Commission on Human Rights, the Inter American Women's Commission
(CIM), and the regional anti-corruption peer review mechanism (MESICIC)
supporting the Inter American Convention Against Corruption.
For instance, at the June OAS General Assembly in Medellin, we took
decisive action to strengthen the OAS's role in forging a hemisphere
distinguished by democracy, peace, respect for human rights, and
cooperation. In particular, we adopted new texts paving the way for
coordinated action to hold the former Maduro regime accountable for its
ongoing violations of democratic order. We also established a clear
process to review the state of democracy in Nicaragua, through a new
high-level fact finding commission of the OAS. And we sponsored the
first ever OAS text on religious freedom, allowing us to partner with
countries around the hemisphere to strengthen best practices and
dialogue in support of liberty and religion or belief.
As an observer at the African Union (AU), we have worked with the
AU and its organs to build their capacity to promote human rights,
strengthen democratic governance, and support the rule of law and
access to justice. For instance, the United States is working with the
AU to stand up the Hybrid Court for South Sudan to hold perpetrators of
violations of international law and applicable South Sudanese law
accountable.
We have long believed that getting like-minded governments and
other key stakeholders such as business and civil society together to
work on specific human rights problems can reap benefits and have
strongly supported the establishment of such processes in recent years.
We have been active participants in the Organization for Economic
Cooperation and Development (OECD) as it develops guidance for
companies on respecting human rights. The OECD is a venue to share best
practices and help develop guidance alongside governments, companies,
NGOS, and labor and provides an important venue to discuss corporate
implementation of international best practices around human rights. In
the wake of the human rights tragedies in the Niger delta in the 1990s,
the U.S. led the founding of the Voluntary Principles on Security and
Human Rights--an initiative involving governments, businesses, and
civil society organizations that seeks to promote human rights in the
security operations of extractive companies. We have also played a
leading role in developing and sustaining the International Code of
Conduct for Security Providers and its related association, which seeks
to encourage all private security providers to respect human rights;
the Freedom Online Coalition--a group of like-minded governments
committed to advancing human rights online; the Centre for Sport and
Human Rights, which is committed to addressing human rights concerns
throughout the lifecycle of mega-sporting events; the Equal Rights
Coalition, a group of likeminded governments that addresses human
rights and dignity of LGBTI individuals, the Open Government
Partnership--a multi-stakeholder initiative in which governments and
civil society work together to promote accountable governance and
empower citizens, and the Community of Democracies--the primary
international grouping of governments working to advance democratic
values and principles globally.
Promoting human rights and democracy in international fora is a
lengthy, iterative, and often slow process that moves in fits and
starts. It is a long-term endeavor. It was only in 1948 that the
Universal Declaration on Human Rights was approved. The High
Commissioner's position was created in 1993. Since the end of the Cold
War, we have made progress, but there is also significant pushback as
well as backsliding. The People's Republic of China seeks to weaken
respect for human rights and deflect and water-down human rights
criticism and action in international fora with flowery resolutions
that use seemingly benign phrases like ``mutually shared beneficial
cooperation'' or ``win-win'' outcomes to advance its policy priorities.
Russia pushes resolutions that try to elevate indeterminate
``traditional values'' over the rights enshrined in the Universal
Declaration. Cuba, Venezuela, Iran, Russia, China and others fight to
ensure that NGOs that are critical of governments will have no voice at
the U.N. These efforts seek to avoid or thwart accountability for human
rights violations and abuses at the U.N. and elsewhere. On the
contrary, we believe that the U.N. and other international fora are
crucial arenas in which to advance human rights internationally and we
will continue to fight for American values and for the unalienable
rights and fundamental freedoms in the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights.
Senator Young. Well, thank you, Mr. Busby.
I appreciate each of you gentlemen for your testimonies,
and we will be adjourning and then going to vote, as I said
earlier, and then back as soon as possible. So in just minutes,
I know Senator Merkley and I will return. We are eager to hear
your answers to all of our questions.
[Recess.]
Senator Young. The subcommittee reconvenes. I thank
everyone for their patience, including the tens of viewers we
have on C-SPAN too.
[Laughter.]
Senator Romney. I was going to say that would be our peak.
Senator Young. That is right.
My apologies to Hoosier Brian Lamb.
So, listen, we will run with questions for about 30 minutes
because I am very eager to dive into those. I am actually going
to take the chairman's prerogative here, if the ranking member
is ready, and defer to him, allow him to begin questions. We
will do 7-minute rounds until we get to about the 30-minute
mark, and then we will bring on the next panel.
Senator Merkley. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I am
happy to jump in.
I want to start first on the human rights front. And I
appreciate your testimony, Mr. Busby. But I am concerned. I am
concerned that I did not hear the names of Russia in your
presentation. I did not hear the names of the Philippines. I
did not hear Saudi Arabia. I did not hear North Korea. It seems
to me, as we get feedback from across the world, that the
inconsistent advocacy for human rights and the U.S. routinely
dissing its allies while promoting dictatorships from the Oval
Office is really damaging our international credibility. I know
it is your job to say otherwise, but I wanted to raise the
concern and just hear what you have to say.
Mr. Busby. Thank you for the question, Senator.
I did, in fact, mention Russia and North Korea in my
testimony. Russia in particular has undertaken several
resolutions in the Human Rights Council, one on traditional
values, which we have consistently opposed. And on North Korea,
we recently agreed with the consensus on a resolution at the
Third Committee in New York and continue to work closely with
the special rapporteur on North Korea who is cataloging abuses
there.
We have not shied away from calling out human rights abuses
in places like Saudi Arabia and the Philippines and other
places. In Saudi Arabia, we did apply Global Magnitsky
sanctions against I think 16 of the individuals implicated in
the death of Jamal Khashoggi. And in the Philippines, we also
have called attention to the unjust killings of many people in
conjunction with the drug war there. So we are calling out
other countries.
We do continue to publish our annual human rights reports,
which do cover every country in the world, and we do not pull
any punches in those reports.
Senator Merkley. I know you could go on at length about all
the effects and so forth. But it does not look that way to the
rest of the world.
And on Saudi Arabia, do you not think there is something
fundamentally wrong with us attacking the 16 who were following
orders from the crown prince while ignoring the crown prince
and promoting him as a leader we can work with in the world?
And I must say you did mention Burma in your remarks, but
the President of the United States has never said a single word
about Burma. Not a single word. And he did not know what the
Rohingya were when he had a Rohingya in his office. He said I
think, where is that or what is that. It is very clear that
when you have the worst genocide on the planet back 2 years
ago, that not having the President of the United States take a
stand on it sends a message, even when all of you in the State
Department are working very hard. So I just wanted to express
that concern.
I want to turn to the role of China in the United Nations
and specifically its increasingly assertive use of the United
Nations, various agencies. My colleague pointed out that they
now head a number of agencies. They have been quite assertive
in the Human Rights Council in tabling resolutions, which is
very concerning. They have used their influence in the General
Assembly to neuter resolutions on peacekeeping mandates and
funding related to human rights.
Share a little bit with us about the strategy of how we
address the growing role of China in the United Nations.
Mr. Moore. Senator, thank you very much for that question.
It is a very comprehensive problem and it is being dealt
with in a very comprehensive way. We are working with
coalitions at many levels and in many regions to push back on
China's efforts to erode or co-opt the norms of the U.N.
system, and we are strengthening those coalitions in particular
with likeminded states. We are seeing China seeking the
leadership of U.N. institutions, particularly those which are
responsible for setting rules and standards. We see in many
cases China seeking exactly those positions to subvert the
standards and the rules of the U.N. system for its own national
purposes. This is something which is recognized by other
countries and other partners in the U.N. We are combating this
again through building coalitions, through bilateral and
multilateral diplomacy to seeking to make sure that key U.N.
institutions have the strongest possible leaders, persons who
are expert and who have the goals and values of the U.N. and
all of its member states, not just China, in mind. It is a very
comprehensive effort.
Senator Merkley. Well, let us take an individual example.
The International Telecommunications Union is under the
leadership of a Chinese official, which some argue gives China
a platform to push its concept of a digital Silk Road. Is there
a risk that the ITU can be used to push other countries to
adopt Chinese models of surveillance or other key issues
related to communications?
Mr. Moore. Senator, thank you for raising the ITU. It is
one of those organizations that is absolutely at the top of our
list of concerns. Our mission to the U.N. in Geneva works
directly every day to focus on the work of ITU. We have
directly criticized the head of the ITU for having engaged in a
memorandum of understanding with Huawei, the Chinese company,
on the subject of 5G. We are very concerned that the leadership
at all levels of ITU again reflect international standards, and
ITU should not be used by anyone, not its head and not by
external actors for the interests of a specific country.
Senator Merkley. Thank you. I pass it back.
Senator Young. Mr. Romney.
Senator Romney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you to each of the participants today for your
testimony.
There are some people in my party, my wing of the world, if
you will, that are very wary of international institutions of
any kind, particularly the U.N. I got a lot of questions when I
was campaigning about support for the U.N. They feel a degree
of skepticism about what role these institutions have, and I
think there is a fear that international institutions will, in
some way, impede on American sovereignty, our right to set our
own course and do what is in the best interests of America.
But at the same time, these international institutions are
shaping international standards, and those standards affect
everything from agriculture to communications, electronics, and
so forth. And so if you want to have America participate in the
global economy, it would strike me as important for us to
participate in the international institutions.
I would also note that if we want to see, I will call them,
malign players having less influence in international
institutions, the only way that I know how to effectively do
that is by having us play a greater role. And when we pull back
from participating in international organizations, then
obviously someone else is going to step in. It will be someone
who considers themselves the heir apparent to become the super
power of the world.
So let me ask each of you. First of all, Mr. Tom, with
regard to Chinese leadership in the Food and Agriculture
Organization, what does that mean? What kind of things can they
do? Is it just a nice title to have, or is there actual impact
that might have that would affect America's farmers, America's
growers, America's packagers, and so forth?
Ambassador Tom. Senator, thank you for that question.
Over the past 6 months since arrival in Rome, I can assure
you I have spent significant time at the World Food Programme
where we provide aid around the world. And the role of FAO was
to create resilience and capacity. And I can share with you. On
my many mission trips to South Sudan, Rwanda, Zimbabwe, and in
conversations at the WFP, I can share with you that it
continues to be a problem across the Sahel, from the east coast
to the west coast of Africa, where we see people giving up
hope. They migrate. And when they migrate, tens of thousands,
sometimes hundreds of thousands go into IDP camps, some of whom
have been there for four generations. Some give up hope from
that and join extremist groups that are moving across Africa.
We see people involved in human trafficking, guns movement, and
illicit drugs. All this is because we are not holding our line
in the continent of Africa to make sure we can have reliable
food systems to feed people that want to stay home.
We will work hard at the FAO to make sure that the
standard-setting at Codex Alimentarius stands for American
values and has a high standard to make sure that our nations in
the global food supply remain safe. At the same time, we will
keep a watchful eye, as we would on any nation that leads the
Food and Agriculture Organization regardless of whether it is
China or whoever. We would be held to those standards. So we
have got a lot of work to do.
Thank you.
Senator Romney. And that certainly has wonderful salutary
impact on other nations and the poor and those that are
destitute around the world. Does it also have impact on us and
our national interests?
Ambassador Tom. It has a significant impact on our peace
and security and our national standards to make sure that the
United States remains safe. If we continue to see these
migrations and these people joining Boko Haram, ISIS, al-Qaeda,
we are not living in a safe world any longer. And if the
population of the continent of Africa doubles in the next 32
years, the problem exponentially grows. We have to play a role
to making sure the world is food secure. Our own national
security and peace counts on that.
Senator Romney. Thank you.
Mr. Moore, why is China becoming so actively involved in
some of these international organizations? What are their
objectives? What are they doing this for?
Mr. Moore. Senator, we are seeing China taking on an
increasingly large role. For many years, China, despite having
a permanent seat in the Security Council, together with us and
three other countries, took rather a passive role, hid behind
the G77 and other blocs. Over the past few years, China is
taking an aggressive role not looking at it from a Cold War
perspective, what does Washington have, what does Moscow have,
but rather seeking control of those specific U.N. institutions
that do set rules and standards. They are engaging in this in a
very direct and extremely aggressive way to ensure that they
get the votes that they want, to ensure that they have the
influence they want throughout the world, opportunities for
their companies who, of course, in nearly every instance are
state-owned, and that they have control of all of the world's
regions and sympathy for policies, including the so-called Belt
and Road Initiative and other things of which you are familiar.
It is a concerning and comprehensive approach. It has
forced all of us to remind ourselves what the true goals and
values of the U.N. are and why some of those institutions
exist. And at the same time, it has also led us to reevaluate
some elements of the U.N. system which may not be as relevant,
may not serve the interests of the American people, those parts
of the U.N. where the administration has made a principal
decision to leave them, for example, UNESCO, which previous
administrations have stepped away from, which Israel has also
stepped away from because of inherent anti-Semitism, or the
Human Rights Council, which we discussed earlier, which we see,
as I mentioned in my testimony, as fundamentally broken. We
need to focus our energies on those parts of the U.N. system
where again the rules and standards are set. As we heard for
ITU, the World Intellectual Property Organization also in
Geneva is extremely important. And there are other parts of the
U.N. system. I would be very happy to brief you or your staff
in a separate setting in greater detail.
Senator Romney. Thank you.
Mr. Busby, I am going to just end with a question here. We
do not have time to have you necessarily respond to it, but it
would probably be something all of you would respond to. But
that is that China has been extremely successful in getting
itself installed in places of significance where they can set
standards and can influence the world. Has that happened
because we are ineffective? Has that happened because we have
not tried? Why have they been able to be so successful and we
have not? Is it lack of effort on our part, just lack of
prioritization, or is it that we just do not know how to do it?
Senator Young. Mr. Busby, feel free to respond.
Senator Romney. Yes, to answer that easy question.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Busby. Thank you, Senator, for the attention to China.
In the human rights space, China is being equally
aggressive. They have yet to seize any of the senior positions
relating to human rights, but they are trying to change the
nature of the discourse on human rights from one focused on the
individual and the rights that accrue to the individual to a
discourse focused on governments, on the state. So China is
saying before we address the rights of the individual, we
should require that the state concerned agree to that
discussion, and that is deeply troubling to us.
China exercises a lot of influence because, as Jonathan
mentioned, they have a strategy through the Belt and Road
Initiative to sort of buy off the votes of other governments.
And that I think has been extremely successful. It is a bit
harder for us to unilaterally do what they have done, but we
are working to fight back by coming up with our own strategies
for demonstrating to countries that the U.S. approach is better
by developing programs and projects to help these countries and
to show why it is that China's approach is simply not a healthy
or a long-term productive approach.
Senator Young. Thank you.
Mr. Moore, I note that each of you indicated in various
ways that China is ramping up its engagement in the United
Nations and affiliated agencies. Chinese nationals--it seems
like there has been a concerted effort to lead more specialized
agencies for a period of time. In fact, the last three
appointments prior to this Food and Agriculture Organization
election, if my reading informs me correctly, occurred under
the previous President's watch. Is that correct?
Mr. Moore. I believe so, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Young. And then China has used its veto to block a
U.N. Security Council resolution 12 times by my reading since
1971, and all but three of those vetoes occurred since 2007 and
served to prevent Security Council action against Burma, Syria,
Venezuela, and Zimbabwe.
So that suggests to me--I would conclude just from that
limited information--tell me if this inference is correct--that
expansion of Chinese influence at the U.N. is not a new
phenomenon, nor is it solely attributable to this
administration.
Mr. Moore. Mr. Chairman, I would be pleased to take the
question to give you a more detailed response. But from what I
know in my present position, this is something which has been
going on for several years, including prior to the beginning of
the present administration. They are looking for a variety of
opportunities to build influence, to take control, to build
indebtedness. And it must be added, Mr. Chairman, China does
not feel remotely constrained by some of the same tools and
legislation that we fully respect in the United States, notably
the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act or the standards of OECD, by
which U.S. businesses and U.S. Government operate. And those
are formidable obstacles to us combating some of the tactics
that China chooses to engage in.
Senator Young. Mr. Moore, like Senator Romney indicated, I
see great value in multilateral organizations like the one we
created in the United Nations. And the reason I started with
that question is to make sure that this conversation steers
very far from any sort of partisanship, recognizing that China
has a strategy. They have a strategy in this area as they do
seemingly in all areas. It is part of their society. It is part
of their economic model as well.
With respect to China's influence at the U.N., what issues
are of greatest concern to your bureau in terms of China's
actions within the U.N. system?
Mr. Moore. Mr. Chairman, we are particularly concerned
exactly about those elements of the U.N. system which set rules
and standards, the rules and standards which apply to all of us
in the world, the work that the ITU does, for example, to set
radio frequencies. There are other U.N. agencies like the U.N.
Office of Outer Space Affairs, which is quite small based in
Vienna. That still has huge responsibilities for any number of
items in orbit around the earth on any given day.
We need to make sure that throughout all of those elements
of the U.N. system, that we are vigilant to make sure that
those institutions do not fall solely into Chinese hands, that
everyone in the U.N. system, including in the U.N. Secretariat,
recognizes, again as we face nearly 75 years of the U.N., the
principles and the standards by which the very organization was
founded.
Senator Young. So, Mr. Moore, briefly. You know, Secretary
Guterres called for an inclusive, sustainable, and durable
development, speaking at China's Belt and Road Forum in April
of this year. In other media interactions, he has seemingly
praised the Belt and Road Initiative such that some have seen
it as an unofficial endorsement of China's premier development
effort.
Now, I have had some hearings on the Belt and Road
Initiative, and I recognize that there is some value that
countries receive with respect to the investment, but there is
oftentimes predation and deception involved as well.
So is it appropriate for the United Nations as an
organization to endorse China's project?
Mr. Moore. Mr. Chairman, as you note, this is a topic which
we have raised with Secretary-General Guterres on many
occasions. He did participate in the summit in Beijing on the
Belt and Road, and we have stressed to him exactly as you have
just said, the importance of ensuring that the United Nations
does not engage in or directly support any single country's
particular initiative, but rather looks out for the interests
of all member states.
Senator Young. Are there other countries sending similar
messages to Mr. Guterres, and are you speaking from the same
songbook, as it were?
Mr. Moore. I would say there are any number of member
states who agree with us that the Belt and Road Initiative,
also referred to as ``One Belt, One Road,'' is an obstacle and
is a concern, and it is not the task of the United Nations to
support it, to spread word about it, or certainly to build the
foundations of any activity on the basis of it.
Senator Young. Thank you.
Ambassador Tom, you are our representative in Rome where
the Food and Agriculture Organization, or FAO, is based. You
spoke earlier to the importance of this organization and its
future. It is led by the recently elected Chinese national Qu
Dongyu. There were a number of media reports about alleged
Chinese manipulation and strong-arm tactics as part of that
election.
What did you and your counterparts witness at the U.N.
mission in Rome in the events surrounding that election?
Ambassador Tom. Our observations were that the Chinese had
been focused on this role for a long time, maybe 8 or 10 years,
as all these U.N. organizations. They had a very strong
presence leading up to that vote.
There was no means to try to change the outcome of that
vote in the weeks leading up to or even probably the year or 2
leading up to it at that point in time. They wanted it. They
got it.
Senator Young. In the months since the new Director General
has taken the reins, have you seen anything in his leadership
role that raises concerns for you or makes you question his
support for the United Nations?
Ambassador Tom. Yes, sir. Thank you for that question.
We stay very close to the FAO organization. I stay very
close to the Director General. We are working with the Director
General to make sure that we get as many Amcits employed at the
FAO to make sure we can help support and have impact. But we
will hold him accountable like we would any other nation in
that role, in that position. We will keep a watchful eye on to
make sure that we drive outcomes.
As I said, David Beasley at the World Food Programme can
never raise enough money if we do not get the FAO right, and it
has been broken for many decades.
Senator Young. So, Ambassador Tom, I am going to have to
follow up. I asked you if you had seen anything in his
leadership that would raise concerns.
Ambassador Tom. Not at this time.
Senator Young. All right. You were just expressing your
vigilance and professionalism, which I appreciate.
According to the latest figures, Mr. Ambassador, the United
States contributed $2.5 billion to the World Food Programme in
2017. You indicated that if we do not get the FAO right, we can
never put enough money into the World Food Programme.
So with that in mind, given the significant amount of money
that is funding the World Food Programme, what is your
assessment of the value that the U.S. has received from that
contribution?
Ambassador Tom. Quite candidly, in the field you are seeing
returns on investment. In Rome, Italy, maybe not so much. They
have been working on policy that is very skewed. It is
idealistic driven by a number of member states and NGOs running
across Africa thinking the food systems that they support,
which are food systems that my grandfather put to the side 50-
60 years ago. We will not feed this nation unless we bring some
of the modern innovations in biotech to the place where farmers
across the continent of Africa can use.
Senator Young. So with an eye towards U.N. reform and
accountability to U.S. taxpayers and other member countries,
what recommendations might you have provided to the World Food
Programme and other agencies to improve what you have seen thus
far?
Ambassador Tom. Absolutely. Thank you, Senator, for that
question.
I have worked tirelessly with Director Beasley, and we work
together. He is very connected to a number of presidents and
leaders around the world. And it is disheartening when we go
places and we see countries that have the resources, the people
can feed themselves, yet policy blocked by certain member
nations has not allowed them to bring in some of the modern
innovations that American farmers have at their access. They
are available. They will make a difference, and we need to stop
denying them the access because nothing good comes of it except
for migration, human trafficking, and people involved in
extremism. It is our own national security. It is a risk.
So I encouraged Director Beasley to weave that into his
conversation with presidents and leaders around the world that
they need to have a policy framework to allow these modern
innovations to come to their country.
Senator Young. Thank you, Mr. Ambassador.
And lastly, Mr. Busby, one question. We held a hearing,
myself and Ranking Member Merkley, some time ago about the
Human Rights Council. At the time, the United States had not
withdrawn from the entity. There was I think among the expert
witnesses, I believe there was uniform belief that for the time
being we should uncomfortably stay in, but at some point pull
out. We did at some point disengage.
Now my question for you is, has our withdrawal in your
assessment from the Human Rights Council reduced our
effectiveness in promoting important values, human rights?
Mr. Busby. Thank you for the question, Senator.
As I tried to lay out in my testimony, despite our
withdrawal from the Human Rights Council, we have sought to up
our game on human rights in the wide array of fora and agencies
that address the human rights issue, whether it is in New York
at the Third Committee and the General Assembly, whether it is
in the OSCE, the OAS, which has become a far more robust
advocate for human rights. We have sought other ways of
increasing U.S. attention to human rights and trying to move
the needle on the ground.
When it comes to the council itself, I should point out
that we do remain engaged in the Universal Periodic Review, and
we do that because every country in the world is reviewed
there, including Israel and the United States. And we felt that
that is a fair forum in which to make our concerns known.
We also continue to engage with mechanisms of the Human
Rights Council that we think are genuinely advancing human
rights, whether it is special rapporteurs focused on particular
countries or mechanisms focused on particular issues.
Senator Young. Thank you, Mr. Busby.
We are on schedule. In fact, we are a couple of minutes
ahead of schedule, and I am comfortable with that.
So I want to thank the members of our first panel for your
testimonies and responses.
For the information of members, the record will remain open
until the close of business on Friday, including for members to
submit questions for the record.
Thank you again, gentlemen. This hearing will now adjourn
for a few minutes to allow preparations for our second panel.
[Pause.]
Senator Young. This hearing will now reconvene. We will now
be hearing testimony and responses from our second panel.
First, we are joined by Mr. Brett Schaefer. Mr. Schaefer,
currently serves as the Jay Kingham Fellow in International
Regulatory Affairs at The Heritage Foundation. Mr. Schaefer,
your full statement will be included in the record, without
objection. So if you could please keep your remarks to no more
than 5 minutes or so, we would appreciate it so that members of
the committee can engage with you on their questions. You may
proceed, sir.
STATEMENT OF BRETT SCHAEFER, JAY KINGHAM FELLOW IN
INTERNATIONAL REGULATORY AFFAIRS, THE HERITAGE FOUNDATION,
WASHINGTON, DC
Mr. Schaefer. Chairman Young, Ranking Member Merkley, thank
you for inviting me to testify today.
My written testimony is too long to discuss fully, so I
will only cover a few key points that I think are particularly
relevant considering recent events.
First, I want to point out that the U.S. is extraordinarily
generously in funding international organizations. I raise this
issue because some have criticized the U.S. for being ``a
deadbeat'' or not honoring its obligations. To correct this
mischaracterization, let me present a few key facts.
The U.S. is currently a member of nearly 200 international
organizations and contributes over $12 billion to those
organizations, according to the most recent data. In most
cases, the U.S. pays it assessment fully and on time and often
provides voluntary contributions above its obligations. The
vast majority of this U.S. funding goes to the United Nations,
U.N. peacekeeping operations, and dozens of other entities
affiliated with the organization--a total of over $10 billion a
year.
The U.S. has contributed, on average, nearly 19 percent of
all U.N. system revenues since 2010. The second largest
contributor has paid, on average, about 6 percent. China, which
has garnered attention for its increased payments in recent
years, contributed $1.4 billion to the U.N. system in 2018--
fifth overall. The U.S. paid over seven times that amount.
Second, even taking U.S. withholding into account, the U.S.
is by far the largest source of U.N. funding. Nevertheless, the
U.S. does withhold funding at times. It does so because the
U.S. Government has a higher obligation to the U.S. taxpayer
than it does to the United Nations. Our government has a
responsibility to make sure that taxpayer dollars are not
misused or put to purposes that harm U.S. interests. Often this
requires withholding because other member states do not share
our concerns and pressure is necessary to spur changes. Why? In
part because of the vastly different level of financial
contributions among the member states. The U.N. assesses some
countries less than $37,000 a year while the U.S. is charged
over $2.4 billion. For the majority of U.N. member states, the
financial impact of wasteful spending or budgetary increases is
so minuscule that they have very little incentive or reason to
fulfill an oversight role or to consider budgetary restraint.
Unsurprisingly, in the vast majority of cases, U.S. withholding
targets budgetary issues, mismanagement, and threats to the
interests of the U.S. and our allies such as confronting anti-
Israel bias in the United Nations.
American leadership can be decisive in improving the
performance of international organizations and focusing them on
their original missions and purposes, but if the U.S. is to
succeed, it must not hesitate to use the tools available to it.
This includes financial withholding to bolster efforts to
reform those organizations and to advance U.S. interests.
Third, some believe that membership in international
organizations automatically conveys benefits to the United
States. This is not true. Membership in international
organizations is not an end in itself. It is a means for
securing the safety, prosperity, and opportunities of the
American people. Not all international organizations meet this
standard. For instance, the Clinton administration withdrew
from the World Tourism Organization and the U.N. Industrial
Development Organization because they provided poor value for
money and were unable to define their purpose or function to
any real specific value.
Just as the Clinton administration deserves recognition for
looking out for the interests of the American people at that
time, so should the Trump administration for its recent
decisions to withdraw from UNESCO and the International Coffee
Organization.
Every administration should conduct a regular evaluation of
the costs and benefits of membership and, in coordination with
Congress, use the results of that analysis to shift funding to
best support U.S. interests.
In short, the U.S. should participate in international
organizations where membership benefits U.S. interests, adjust
its support when the costs outweigh the benefits, and always
seek to improve performance, efficiency, and accountability.
Finally, I want to conclude my remarks by briefly
addressing Chinese influence in the United Nations system. This
is an example of how the United States must routinely
reevaluate its policy and approach to international
organizations.
Twenty years ago, China was not particularly active in the
U.N. Today it is a major player. China is increasingly acting
to protect itself and other repressive regimes, place its
nationals in leadership positions, and modify U.N. resolutions
and statements to reflect Chinese policies, values, and
interests. This is concerning because China's policy priorities
are in many areas antithetical to U.S. interests. As China
becomes more economically and militarily powerful, its
influence will grow. The U.S. cannot reverse that trend, which
is based on political and financial realities. However, the
U.S. must take steps to counter Chinese influence through
aggressive diplomacy, strategic action, and applying financial
incentives to advance U.S. interests in the U.N. and other
international organizations.
Thank you very much for inviting me to testify today, and I
look forward to your questions. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Schaefer follows:]
Prepared Statement of Brett Schaefer
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Young. Thank you, Mr. Schaefer.
We are also joined by Mr. Peter Yeo. Mr. Yeo serves as
President of the Better World Campaign. Mr. Yeo, I apologize if
I have mispronounced your name. I think I have correctly
pronounced it. And you may proceed with your statement.
STATEMENT OF PETER YEO, PRESIDENT,
BETTER WORLD CAMPAIGN, WASHINGTON, DC
Mr. Yeo. You got it right. Thank you.
Chairman Young, Ranking Member Merkley, thank you for the
opportunity to explain how the United Nations furthers the
values and the priorities of the United States.
Over the past decade, I have been fortunate to see the
lifesaving work of the United Nations in more than 2 dozen
countries around the world, many emerging from conflict and
disaster. Last November, I traveled to Mali where U.N.
peacekeepers opposed no less than six terrorist organizations,
offshoots of ISIS and al-Qaeda, each fighting for territory and
the overthrow of a democratically elected government in a
strategic area for us.
In Jordan, the United Nations Refugee Agency provides
shelter for more than a half million Syrian refugees, while the
U.N. Population Fund, working in the largest refugee camp, has
safely delivered more than 10,000 babies with zero maternal
mortality.
In Mexico, the U.N. Office on Drugs and Crime helps fight
against opioids by tracking illicit crop production, working
with the Mexican army to locate and destroy nearly 200,000
plots of poppies in 2017.
In Yemen, one of the world's worst humanitarian disasters,
the World Food Programme feeds 12 million people per month,
while UNICEF and the World Health Organization are responding
to a massive cholera outbreak.
Now, the member states of the U.N. finance these many
operations through both assessed and voluntary contributions.
While the U.S. is the largest single financial contributor to
the U.N. system, the current model is ultimately beneficial to
the United States, as it requires all U.N. member states, no
matter how big or small, how rich or poor, to help shoulder the
burden of the U.N.'s regular and peacekeeping budgets. Some
have suggested that moving to an entirely voluntary funding
model would lead to more accountability and cost effectiveness.
It will not. It is more likely to increase the amount of money
spent by the U.S. taxpayers as they are saddled with more
expenses. Let me explain.
Our country, under Democratic and Republican
administrations alike, has a very broad definition of its
foreign policy and national security interests. That is why we
support peacekeepers in Mali and the U.N.'s negotiators in
Yemen. It is also why we support investigating the human rights
situation in North Korea and support programs that stop the
flow of opioids into our country. All of these efforts are
funded by assessed contributions to the U.N. Few U.N. member
states, including Russia and China, share this expansive view
of national interests and would not shoulder the burden
voluntarily.
Now, as it stands, though, we are one of the few member
states not fully paying our assessed contributions for either
the U.N. regular budget or peacekeeping. These shortfalls have
contributed to what the Secretary-General has deemed a
financial crisis at the U.N. Right now on peacekeeping alone,
we are $776 million in arrears, a shortfall that the Senate
Appropriations Committee stated last year damages U.S.
credibility and negatively impacts U.N. peacekeeping missions.
At the same time that the U.S. is underfunding operations,
the stock of our rivals, particularly China, is rising at the
U.N., as has been discussed extensively. China is now the
second largest financial contributor to U.N. peacekeeping, its
assessment rate having risen to 15 percent this year from just
3 percent 10 years ago.
So in the U.N. context, increased Chinese support for the
U.N. has boosted Chinese influence, as it would in any large
organization with dues-paying shareholders. While the U.S. has
withdrawn from several key U.N. bodies, China has increased its
leadership and now holds the top jobs in four of the U.N.'s 15
specialized agencies. The Chinese Government also become
increasingly assertive at promoting its vision of human rights,
which of course values the state over the rights of the
individual, in bodies like the Human Rights Council, in which
we no longer participate. China is seeking to use the U.N. to
promote the Belt and Road Initiative involving infrastructure
investments in more than 60 countries.
The right response to the rise of China in the U.N. is
clear.
First, the U.S. should boost our level of involvement in
U.N. agencies. Sadly the State Department office that pushes
U.S. participation in international organizations was cut from
five staff to zero.
Second, we should engage in the U.N. system rather than
withdraw from it when the U.S. does not achieve all of its
negotiating objectives, a position backed by nearly 60 percent
of Americans in polling last summer.
Third, the U.S. should pay its dues on time and in full.
China has paid its regular and peacekeeping dues. The U.S.,
meanwhile, is set to be a billion dollars in arrears by next
year unless Congress acts. As the State Department stated in a
report to Congress this summer, such shortfalls resulted in
diminished U.S. standing and the ability to pursue U.S.
priorities. Simply put, the other 192 U.N. member states are
more likely to vote with the U.S., support its candidates for
key U.N. positions, and quietly push against Chinese
initiatives if the U.S. is seen as being a fully engaged and
supportive player.
This is the time to work cooperatively with the U.N. and
other likeminded U.N. member states to focus on implementation
of the Secretary-General's ambitious reform agenda, which has
been approved with active Trump administration support. And
this also means American leadership to ensure that the U.N.
remains as much in America's image as it did when we crafted
the U.N. Charter with our allies nearly 75 years ago.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I look forward to your
questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Yeo follows:]
Prepared Statement of Peter Yeo
Chairman Young, Ranking Member Merkley, thank you for the
opportunity to testify before the Subcommittee today about an issue of
great importance to U.S. foreign policy: the effectiveness of the
United Nations and the state of U.S.-U.N. relations. I'm Peter Yeo,
President of the Better World Campaign, a Washington, DC-based
organization whose mission is to support a strong and constructive
U.S.-U.N. relationship by educating American policymakers and members
of the public alike about the importance of the U.N.'s work and how it
advances U.S. interests.
2020 marks the 75th anniversary of the San Francisco Conference and
the entry into force of the U.N. Charter, the treaty that gave birth to
the United Nations. Over the past three-quarters of a century, the U.N.
has been one of the bedrock international institutions of the post-
World War II international order. Established in the wake of that
devastating conflict at the initiative of the United States and its
Allies, the organization was conceived in order to ``save humanity from
the scourge of war'' and provide a framework for international
cooperation on efforts to address challenges in the security,
humanitarian, development, economic, and human rights spheres.
I have seen first-hand what this ideal means in practice. Over the
past decade, I've been fortunate to see the life-saving work of the
U.N. up close in more than two dozen field presences:
Last November, I traveled to Mali, a country twice the size of
Texas, where U.N. Peacekeepers are opposing no less than six
terrorist groups--offshoots of ISIS and al-Qaeda--each vying
for territory and the overthrow of a democratically elected
government in a strategic region;
In Jordan, the U.N. Refugee Agency provides shelter for more than a
half-million Syrian refugees, while the U.N. Population Fund,
working in the largest refugee camp there, has safely delivered
more than 10,000 babies with zero maternal mortality;
In Mexico, the U.N. Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) has helped in
the fight against opioids and the increase in heroin coming
from the country over the border. Through a UNODC initiative,
they are using satellite imagery and aerial photographs to
depict where illicit crops are grown and then sharing that
information with the Mexican government. This information in
turn helped the Mexican army destroy nearly 200,000 plots of
poppy in 2017, up 22 percent from the previous year.
In Yemen, one of the world's worst humanitarian disasters, the
World Food Program is feeding 12 million people per month,
while UNICEF and the World Health Organization are operating
treatment facilities and vaccinating the population in response
to a massive cholera epidemic.
But the U.N. has a broader reach than these global hot spots. The
U.N. Security Council--despite the inability of its members to reach
consensus on some foreign policy issues--is the preferred vehicle to
impose global sanctions, which it has done in a comprehensive way
against North Korea. And as you know from your meetings with your local
Rotary Club, the U.N. vaccinates more than 45 percent of the world's
children and helps more than 2 million women per month overcome
pregnancy-related risks and complications.
The member states of the U.N. finance many of these operations
through ``assessed'' contributions--a percentage of money owed the U.N.
based on a country's gross national income and other factors--as well
as voluntary contributions. While the U.S. is the largest single
financial contributor to the U.N. system, the current model is
beneficial to the U.S. because it requires all U.N. member states, no
matter how big or small, rich or poor, to help shoulder the U.N.'s
regular and peacekeeping budgets at specified levels. Some have
suggested that moving to an entirely voluntary funding model would lead
to more accountability and cost effectiveness. It won't. It's more
likely to increase the amount of money spent by U.S. taxpayers as
they'll be saddled with more expenses.
Our country--under Democratic and Republican administrations
alike--has a broad definition of its foreign policy and national
security interests. That's why we support peacekeepers in Mali, and the
U.N.'s negotiators in Yemen. It's also why we believe in investigating
human rights violations in North Korea and supporting U.N. programs
that stop the flow of opioids into the U.S. All of these efforts are
funded by our ``assessed'' contributions to the U.N. Few U.N. member
states--including Russia and China--share this expansive view of
national interests and would not shoulder the burden.
As it stands though, we are one of the few member states not fully
paying our assessed contributions for either the regular budget or
peacekeeping. These shortfalls have contributed to what the Secretary-
General has deemed a ``financial crisis'' at the U.N. Right now, on
peacekeeping alone, we are $776 million in arrears; a shortfall that
the Senate Appropriations Committee stated last year ``damages U.S.
credibility and negatively impacts U.N. peacekeeping missions.''
At the same time that the U.S. is underfunding these operations,
the stock of our rivals--particularly China--is rising at the U.N.
China is now the second largest financial contributor to U.N.
peacekeeping; its assessment rate having increased to 15 percent this
year from just over 3 percent 10 years ago. It is also one of the
largest troop contributors to U.N. peacekeeping operations, providing
more uniformed personnel than the rest of the permanent members of the
Security Council combined.
In the U.N. context, increased Chinese support for the U.N. has
boosted Chinese influence--similar to any large organization with dues-
paying shareholders. But that influence brings challenges that the
U.S.--due to its accrual of debt on its financial obligations and
withdrawal from key U.N. bodies--may be unable to adequately address.
It is our view that by working through the U.N. system, the U.S.
helps share the burden for tackling a range of issues, harnessing the
resources and political will of most of the world to achieve common
diplomatic objectives, while also allowing us to marshal coalitions
against those who have objectives that stand in stark contrast to our
own. I will provide more detail on how specific aspects of the U.S.-
U.N. relationship advance U.S. interests, as well as some of the
challenges currently facing U.S. engagement with the U.N., below.
peacekeeping operations
U.N. peacekeeping operations are among the most visible, impactful,
and complex activities undertaken by the U.N. in the field. Multiple
academic studies have confirmed that peacekeeping is an effective tool
for saving lives and ending wars. One new book, which analyzes more
than two dozen different statistical studies of peacekeeping, states
that, ``The vast majority of quantitative studies of peacekeeping come
to a similar conclusion: U.N. peacekeeping is effective. Using
different data sets, leveraging different time periods and controlling
for everything one can imagine, the most rigorous empirical studies
have all found that peacekeeping has a large, positive, and
statistically significant effect on containing the spread of civil war,
increasing the success of negotiated settlements to civil wars, and
increasing the duration of peace once a civil war has ended. In short,
peacekeepers save lives, and they keep the peace.'' \1\
In addition, a 2013 study by Swedish and American researchers found
that deploying large numbers of U.N. peacekeepers ``significantly
decreases violence against civilians.'' Their findings were striking:
in instances where no peacekeeping troops were deployed, monthly
civilian deaths averaged 106. In instances where at least 8,000 U.N.
troops were present, by contrast, the average civilian death toll fell
to less than two. The paper concluded that ensuring U.N. peacekeeping
forces ``are appropriately tasked and deployed in large numbers'' is
critical to their ability to protect civilians.\2\
What is also remarkable is that all of this lifesaving work is
being done at such a relatively low financial cost. Currently, there
are more than 100,000 peacekeepers--soldiers, police, and civilians--
deployed to 13 missions around the world, making U.N. peacekeeping the
second-largest military force deployed abroad (after the U.S.). And
yet, the total budget for the U.N.'s peacekeeping activities this year
is just $6.5 billion, less than 1 percent of what the U.S. spent on its
own military in FY'19. Moreover, a 2018 report by the U.S. Government
Accountability Office (GAO) found that deploying U.N. peacekeepers is
eight times cheaper than U.S. forces.\3\ It's hard to think of many
other programs where the cost-benefit ratio is that favorable.
Right now, peacekeepers are playing a critical role promoting
stability in a number of contexts, including Mali in the restive Sahel
region of West Africa, where extremist groups linked to al-Qaeda and
the Islamic State have proliferated in recent years. Since the
peacekeeping mission began, the peacekeepers have facilitated free and
fair presidential and parliamentary elections, helping the country
return to democracy after a 2012 military coup. They have also overseen
a shaky peace agreement between the government and Tuareg separatists
in the north, and--most importantly--kept the extremists at bay,
preventing them from reasserting control over northern population
centers like Timbuktu, Gao, and Kidal.
Peacekeeping in Mali is not a panacea. But things would arguably be
much worse if blue helmets weren't on the ground working to promote
security and stability. Indeed, the last thing that the region needs is
a proto-state run by jihadists emerging in that country. The U.N., by
virtue of its presence and its activities in the country, is preventing
that from happening, at a significant cost--dozens of peacekeepers have
been killed in Mali since the mission began 6 years ago.
Peacekeepers are working to promote stability and civilian
protection in a number of other theaters of operation as well. In South
Sudan, for example, which was plunged into a devastating civil war in
2013, peacekeepers have been protecting more than 200,000 civilians who
fled their homes and sought shelter at U.N. bases. Given the
exceptionally brutal nature of the violence in South Sudan and the fact
that civilians have been targeted on the basis of their ethnicity, it
is likely many of these people would have been killed had the U.N. not
intervened to protect them. Further south, peacekeepers are also
playing a critical role in eastern Congo, a region that has been
ravaged by several decades of conflict and is currently experiencing
the second worst Ebola outbreak in history. In addition to their normal
stabilization activities, peacekeepers have stepped in to provide
protection to health care workers and treatment centers, which have
been targeted in attacks by armed groups, as well as provided
logistical and operational support to Ebola response efforts. The U.S.,
for its part, has endorsed the efforts of both missions, by continuing
to support the reauthorization of their mandates on the Security
Council.
providing lifesaving humanitarian relief
The U.N.'s work in the field extends far beyond peacekeeping
missions though. Every year, U.N. humanitarian agencies provide
lifesaving aid to tens of millions of people around the world who have
been driven from their homes or had their lives turned upside-down by
conflict, famine, and other calamities. These activities have long
enjoyed bipartisan support on Capitol Hill, and for good reason: the
provision of food, shelter, medical care, education, and protection to
people in need reflect our deepest values as a nation. Moreover, there
is an important national security imperative to this type of work, as
the desperation caused by humanitarian crises can provide openings for
extremists and other bad actors to exploit.
Currently, one of the U.N.'s largest humanitarian responses is to
the civil war in Syria, which over the last 8 1/2 years has claimed
hundreds of thousands of lives and displaced millions. While the U.N.
Security Council--largely because of Russia's willingness to deploy its
veto in support of the brutal dictatorship of Bashar al-Assad--has
mostly been sidelined from dealing with the conflict, particularly on
the issue of chemical weapons, U.N. agencies are on the ground working
to save lives and provide a measure of hope in the bleakest of
circumstances.
The World Food Program, for example--led by former South Carolina
Governor David Beasley--distributes food aid to several million
displaced civilians inside Syria every month, and provides electronic
vouchers that allow more than 1.5 million Syrian refugees to purchase
food in local markets, providing a much-needed cash infusion for host
communities in Turkey, Jordan, Lebanon, and Iraq. Overall, WFP is the
world's largest humanitarian organization addressing hunger and
promoting food security; it provides food assistance to an average of
91 million people in 83 countries each year. Around the world on any
given day, WFP has 5,000 trucks, 92 aircraft, and 20 ships on the move.
It is a humanitarian logistics operation of unrivaled proportion.
The U.N. Children's Fund does equally vital work in size and scale.
As noted, the agency supplies vaccines reaching 45 percent of the
world's children under the age of 5 as part of its commitment to
improving child survival. Immunization is one of the most successful
and cost-effective public health interventions, saving an estimated 2
to 3 million lives every year. In Syria, UNICEF is working to help
children gain access to vaccines, as well as clean water, hygiene and
sanitation services, and education. In addition, the U.N. Refugee
Agency (UNHCR) is a provider of shelter for Syrian refugees and works
to find durable solutions to their plight, including through
resettlement in third countries. And the U.N. Population Fund (UNFPA),
a critical provider of sexual and reproductive health care in emergency
situations, operates a maternal health clinic in Za'atari--Jordan's
largest Syrian refugee camp--that has safely delivered more than 10,000
babies with zero maternal mortality, a huge feat given that 60 percent
of all maternal deaths occur in the context of humanitarian
emergencies.
The lifesaving work of the U.N. is also in full force in Yemen,
which is currently facing the world's worst humanitarian crisis, with
more than 80 percent of the population reliant on some form of aid.
Here, WFP is working to reach 12 million people per month with food and
nutritional assistance; UNICEF and the World Health Organization (WHO)
did critical work responding to a massive cholera epidemic, operating
treatment facilities and vaccinating people across the country; and
UNFPA has integrated nutrition assistance for pregnant women into its
reproductive health and safe delivery services in the country. These
activities have undoubtedly saved many thousands of lives, even as the
country's brutal civil war continues to grind on.
But the U.N.'s work in Yemen is not merely confined to addressing
the humanitarian consequences of the conflict. The U.N. is also deeply
involved--through the Secretary-General's Special Envoy for Yemen
Martin Griffiths--in efforts to navigate a negotiated, political
solution to what has become a complex and multi-faceted conflict
involving an array of local interests and factions, with the
increasingly intense rivalry between Gulf Arab monarchies in the region
and Iran layered on top. The U.N. was instrumental in brokering talks
that took place in Sweden in December of last year between the Houthis
and the Yemeni government, the first time the two sides had met face-
to-face in nearly 2 1/2 years. While relatively modest in scope, the
agreement they reached on a ceasefire and military redeployment from
Hodeidah and several other key ports could--if fully implemented--
contribute much to alleviating the suffering of the Yemeni people and
set the stage for further diplomatic efforts to peacefully end the
conflict. In a recent op-ed published in The Washington Post,
Ambassador William J. Burns, a former U.S. diplomat and current
President of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, endorsed
the U.N.'s efforts, recommending that the Trump administration ``throw
our full support behind'' the U.N.-led framework for peace talks
between the parties.
promoting and advancing human rights
The U.N.'s work on conflict mitigation dovetails with another key
pillar of the organization: the promotion and protection of universal
human rights. This has been baked into the U.N.'s ethos from the very
beginning: Article I of the Charter establishes one of the U.N.'s core
purposes as ``promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and
for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex,
language, or religion.'' These principles were further elaborated in
the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), adopted by the U.N.
General Assembly in 1948. This seminal document, which Eleanor
Roosevelt played a key role in crafting, lays out a litany of basic
human rights standards to which all human beings are entitled,
including the right to life, liberty, and security of person and the
right to freedom of thought, association, expression, and religion.
Seventy-one years later, the U.N. works to advance human rights
through a number of tools, mechanisms, institutions, and partnerships,
including perhaps most prominently the Office of the U.N. High
Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR). Established in 1993 with U.S.
backing, this office conducts fact-finding missions and provides
support to independent investigative mechanisms established by the U.N.
Human Rights Council (UNHRC) that probe serious violations in specific
countries. These activities help raise public awareness of human rights
violations, magnify the voices of dissidents and civil society
organizations on the ground, and provide a tool for pressuring
repressive governments and holding abusers accountable. The Office also
has a Rapid Response Unit which can swiftly deploy to the field in
human rights emergencies. This mechanism has recently supported fact-
finding missions for DR Congo, Myanmar, Nicaragua, North Korea, Syria,
Bangladesh, Central African Republic, Sri Lanka, and Venezuela, among
other countries.
Another key component of the U.N. human rights system are the more
than 50 special procedures-- independent experts who do not receive a
salary and serve in their personal capacity--who work to promote human
rights around the world. Existing special procedures include mandates
for country-specific human rights monitoring, as well as the special
rapporteurs focused on thematic human rights issues, such as freedom of
peaceful assembly and of association; freedom of religion and belief;
freedom of expression; and combatting human trafficking. Once referred
to by the late former U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan as the ``crown
jewel'' of the U.N. human rights system, these independent experts
regularly speak truth to power, calling out governments by name for
violating international human rights standards, and supporting the work
of local advocates on the ground. In June, for example, Agnes
Callamard, the U.N. special rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary, or
arbitrary executions, released a report on the murder of Saudi
journalist Jamal Khashoggi, which found evidence suggesting
premeditation for the killing at the highest levels of the Saudi
government. This report was an important touchstone in efforts by a
number of parties--including this body--to hold the Saudi government to
account for Mr. Khashoggi's brutal slaying.
Unfortunately, the U.N.'s human rights advocacy has at times been a
source of controversy and tension in the U.S.-U.N. relationship. In
recent years, there has been understandable concern in Congress about
the activities and composition of the U.N. Human Rights Council
(UNHRC), a body made up of 47 member states (elected to 3-year terms by
the General Assembly) that seeks to advance international human rights
standards.
To be clear, I'm not here to defend the UNHRC's disproportionate
focus on Israel, or the human rights records of some of its member
states. Those are valid criticisms, and areas where there is bipartisan
agreement on the need for improvement. What I think is clear though is
that when the U.S. reversed course and decided to engage actively with
the Council from 2010-2017, the record of the Council improved
markedly, in ways that benefited and advanced U.S. interests and core
values. With strong U.S. diplomatic engagement, the Council:
Established a Commission of Inquiry (COI) to investigate human
rights violations in North Korea. As a result of a landmark
report drafted by the Commission, the Office of the U.N. High
Commissioner for Human Rights established a field office in
Seoul, South Korea to continue to track rights violations in
North Korea;
Created a COI on the human rights situation in Syria, which has
helped gather evidence against specific individuals in the
Assad regime for their involvement in crimes against humanity,
and created a ``perpetrators list'' to be shared with
international judicial bodies;
Established a special rapporteur to investigate human rights
violations in Iran, which has issued strong denunciations of
Iranian government policy on a number of issues, including
arbitrary arrests, executions, persecution of religious
minorities, and efforts to curb press freedom;
Passed three historic resolutions on combatting discrimination and
violence based on sexual orientation and gender identity in
2011, 2014, and 2016. The most recent resolution established an
independent expert focused on combating violence and
discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity,
which allows for unprecedented global-level reporting on
international human rights challenges facing LGBTI individuals.
In addition, during the period when the U.S. was a member of the
Council, we saw positive movement on Israel's treatment as well. Just
to provide some additional context, the UNHRC was created in 2006 to
replace a previous U.N. human rights body. During its first several
years, the U.S. refused to run for a seat on the new Council, fearing
it would be no better than its predecessor. In fact, it was during this
period when the U.S. refused to participate that the Council voted to
place ``the human rights situation in Palestine and other occupied Arab
territories'' on its permanent agenda (known as ``Item 7'').
The Council's record began to shift in 2009, when the U.S.'s
posture towards the Council changed and the U.S. won its first term.
While Item 7 remains in place, there have been noteworthy improvements
in other areas. According to the American Jewish Committee's Jacob
Blaustein Institute for the Advancement of Human Rights, there was a 30
percent decrease in the proportion of country-specific resolutions
focused on Israel during U.S. membership on the Council versus the
period when we were off. In March 2018, the State Department itself
reported that the Council saw ``the largest shift in votes towards more
abstentions and no votes on Israel-related resolutions since the
creation of the [Council].''
In 2018 though, the Trump administration decided to walk away from
the U.S. seat on the Council, as it could not convince others about the
proposed U.S. reform agenda. It was a decision welcomed by nations,
like China, that do not share our views on human rights.
In addition to our decision to leave the Council, since Fiscal Year
2018, the State Department has withheld a portion of our Regular Budget
dues directed towards the Office of the High Commissioner for Human
Rights (OHCHR). While amounting to about $19 million each year, this
money nevertheless has an impact: earlier this year, OHCHR was almost
forced to suspend the activities of a number of human rights treaty
monitoring bodies--including those overseeing member state compliance
with the Convention Against Torture and the International Covenant on
Civil and Political Rights--due to funding shortfalls caused in part by
the U.S. withholding. Ironically enough, the U.S. is a party to both of
these treaties. Plus, for the first time in nearly a quarter century,
beginning in 2020, no American will have a seat on any U.N. human
rights treaty body, which weakens our ability to influence
international law and fundamental freedoms at the global level. It also
provides an opening to other member states, particularly China, who are
working to increase their own profile at the U.N. and use it to weaken
the organization's human rights pillar.
the challenge of a rising china and u.s. retreat from multilateralism
In addition to key human rights bodies, other parts of the U.N.
system are witnessing a U.S. retreat from the basic tenets of
multilateralism as well. With regards to peacekeeping operations, the
U.S. is currently in debt on its peacekeeping assessments--by $776
million--because of Congress's decision to reimpose a 1990s-era cap on
U.S. contributions. In part because of these underpayments, the U.N. is
facing a major cash shortfall, which has serious consequences. The
State Department itself has weighed in on this issue, outlining--in a
report to Congress this past June--the following impacts of growing
U.S. arrears to the U.N.: ``(1) Loss of vote or inability to be a
member of governing bodies; (2) Diminished U.S. standing and diminished
ability to pursue U.S. priorities; (3) Reduced U.S. ability to promote
increased oversight and accountability through reforms that promote
efficiency, cost savings, and improved management practices; (4)
Reduced standing needed to successfully promote qualified U.S. citizens
to assume senior management roles; and (5) Impairments of peacekeeping
missions to operate, including addressing objectives that may directly
impact the national security of the United States.''
With respect to peacekeeping, this also means that troop-
contributing countries are not being fully reimbursed for their
contributions of personnel and equipment, to the tune of tens of
millions of dollars. This can create significant challenges for troop-
contributors, most of whom are lower-income countries that rely on
reimbursements to help sustain complex longer-term peacekeeping
deployments. For example, last year, Rwanda--a major provider of troops
to U.N. operations in sub-Saharan Africa--reportedly had to withdraw a
planned rotation of one of its troop contingents to the Central African
Republic because it had not received reimbursements sufficient to make
necessary updates to military equipment. If the U.S. keeps accruing
arrears, these cash flow challenges will only grow, potentially denying
peacekeepers the resources necessary to project force and conduct
patrols, discouraging countries from providing troops and equipment in
the first place, and threatening the long-term sustainability of U.N.
peacekeeping as a whole.
The knock-on effects of these policies are not solely confined to
the effectiveness of the programs in question, however. At the same
time that the U.S. is underfunding peacekeeping mandates that it votes
in favor of on the Security Council, withdrawing from the Human Rights
Council, withholding funding for OHCHR, and abrogating its
participation in other U.N. institutions and initiatives, including the
Paris Climate Agreement, other countries--particularly China--are
taking a far more active role. As noted, China is now the second
largest financial contributor and one of the largest troop contributors
to U.N. peacekeeping operations. It has also aggressively pushed to
expand its role in a range of U.N.-affiliated institutions, and Chinese
nationals currently holding the top job in four of the organization's
15 specialized agencies: the International Civil Aviation Organization
(ICAO), the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), the International
Telecommunication Union (ITU), and the U.N. Industrial Development
Organization (UNIDO).
While greater Chinese participation at the U.N., and a greater
share of the financial burden for its costs, are not necessarily
negative outcomes in their own right, the way China has sought to use
its growing clout is far from benign, particularly in terms of the
organization's work on human rights. According to a recent report by
the Center for a New American Security, the Chinese government has
become increasingly aggressive in recent years in seeking to promote a
particularist view of human rights at the U.N.--one which devalues
minority rights, elevates a narrow conception of ``state sovereignty''
over the rights of the individual, gives primacy to economic and social
rights over civil and political rights, and seeks to mute criticism of
individual countries' human rights records, particularly its own.\4\
Naturally, the Human Rights Council has been ground zero for many of
these efforts. In 2017 and 2018, for example, China tabled its first-
ever resolutions before the Council, on ``The contribution of
development to the enjoyment of all human rights'' and ``Promoting
mutually beneficial cooperation in the field of human rights.'' While
seemingly innocuous on the surface, both proposals encapsulate
Beijing's hostility to universal human rights norms. According to a
September 2018 report by Ted Piccone, formerly of the Brookings
Institution, an expert on the U.N. human rights system, ``Both
resolutions emphasized national sovereignty, called for quiet dialogue
and cooperation rather than investigations and international calls to
action, and pushed the Chinese model of state-led development as the
path to improving their vision of collective human rights and social
stability. They also represent an important changing of tides toward a
Council where China is both an active participant and a key influencer
of other countries' votes, at a time when its chief protagonist, the
United States, has absented itself from the field.'' \5\ Given our
absence from the Council, these efforts are likely to only accelerate.
China's efforts on this front extend beyond the UNHRC, however. In
June 2018, during negotiations at the U.N. on the 2018-2019
peacekeeping budget, China pushed for the elimination of a number of
important human rights monitoring and civilian protection posts in U.N.
peacekeeping missions. While ultimately unsuccessful, the fact this was
even tried in the first place is evidence of an emboldened China that
is increasingly willing to use its influence--particularly, in this
case, its large financial contribution to U.N. peacekeeping--to tilt
the field in order to achieve the policy outcomes it desires. Of note,
China's efforts in this case were premised on the budgetary limitations
caused by the U.S. focus on funding cuts.
U.S. policy has unwittingly aided and abetted China's rise in other
ways as well. As previously noted, a central pillar of China's strategy
is filling senior posts with Chinese nationals in order to extend and
solidify its influence throughout the U.N. system. Unfortunately, this
is happening at a time when the State Department, and especially the
Bureau of International Organization Affairs, has been hollowed out,
thereby limiting our ability to push back against China's efforts or
support our own preferred candidates for these positions. For example,
there has long been a unit within the Bureau responsible for helping to
promote jobs for Americans in international organizations. According to
Foreign Policy, that office has shrunk from five employees to zero,
putting the U.S. at a severe disadvantage in the competition over
coveted posts in the U.N. system.\6\
Beyond these examples, China has also sought to use the U.N. system
to promote Xi Jinping's signature foreign policy effort--the Belt and
Road Initiative--which carries a host of unique strategic, human
rights, and environmental challenges; sought to deny U.N. accreditation
to civil society organizations critical of Chinese policies; and,
through the ITU, support its ``Digital Silk Road'' initiative, which
according to a recent piece by the Council on Foreign Relations, ``has
the capacity to spread authoritarianism, curtail democracy, and curb
fundamental human rights.'' \7\
If the U.S. continues to draw down its engagement with the U.N.--by
withdrawing from key U.N. bodies, unilaterally cutting funding to core
U.N. programs and agencies, or abrogating its obligations under
multilateral treaties or agreements--it will leave a void that
countries like China have shown they are more than willing, and
increasingly able, to fill. That could mean a very different U.N. than
the one the U.S. sought to create in the aftermath of World War II--one
where U.S. national security interests and foreign policy objectives,
as well as our longstanding commitment to advancing universal human
rights, are increasingly sidelined. Preventing such a scenario requires
more engagement, not less, and that means, in part, honoring our
financial obligations to the organization, which account for a tiny
fraction of the federal budget.
reform & the way forward
Before I wrap up my testimony, I would like to say a few words
about the issue of reform. In recent years, the U.N. has undertaken a
number of measures to make its operations more transparent and
efficient. With regards to peacekeeping, for example, earlier in the
decade the U.N. initiated efforts that reduced the cost per peacekeeper
by 18 percent and cut the number of support staff on peacekeeping
missions by 4,000 to save on administrative costs, even while the
number of uniformed personnel deployed to the field, and the complexity
of the activities they were expected to undertake, increased. The U.N.
also undertook important efforts to combat sexual exploitation and
abuse by U.N. personnel, including an unprecedented policy calling for
the repatriation of entire units whose members engaged in widespread
instances of abuse. More recently, under the leadership of current U.N.
Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, the U.N. has made significant
progress on achieving gender parity in its senior leadership,
promulgated stronger whistleblower protections, and sought to
strengthen the role of Resident Coordinators--officials responsible for
heading up the U.N.'s development work on the ground--in order to make
the U.N.'s delivery of development assistance more streamlined and
accountable. In a Wall Street Journal op-ed, the Secretary-General was
praised for taking the lead against anti-Semitism.\8\ As with so many
other things at the U.N., the achievement of these reforms would not
have been possible without strong U.S. support and engagement, and
while there remains much work to be done on a range of reform-related
issues, it's clear that the organization is moving in the right
direction. Put simply, the U.N. of today is a world away from the U.N.
of nearly 75 years ago.
Nevertheless, that has not stopped some in Washington from
advancing certain theories for spurring further progress on reform
that, while perhaps well-intentioned, would cripple the organization
and nullify our efforts to achieve meaningful and realistic reforms.
One such proposal would have the U.N. move from a funding structure
that relies on both mandatory assessments and voluntary contributions
from member states to an entirely voluntary financing scheme. This
approach is problematic for a number of reasons:
The fact that assessed funding structures require other countries
to share in the financial burden is actually beneficial to the
United States. All U.N. member states are required to help
shoulder the U.N.'s regular and peacekeeping budgets at
specified levels. This, in turn, prevents U.S. taxpayers from
being saddled with the majority of these expenses. By contrast,
the U.S. often pays more under voluntary funding arrangements.
Successive administrations and outside experts have recognized the
limitations inherent in voluntary funding structures.
In June 2005, the House passed The United Nations Reform Act of
2005 which would automatically withhold dues from the U.N.
unless certain specific reforms are met, including
switching to a voluntary system. The Bush administration
issued a Statement of Administration Policy (SAP) which
said that it has ``serious concerns'' about the legislation
because it ``could detract from and undermine our
efforts,'' and ``asks that Congress reconsider this
legislation.'' Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has
stated that ``the administration doesn't support those
bills.''
The 2005 Congressionally-mandated Newt Gingrich-George Mitchell
report on U.N. reform, for example, noted that such schemes
are often slow and lead to U.S. priorities being
underfunded.
While the U.S. must continue to push hard for progress on reform at
the U.N., it is critical that Congress avoid proposals that will
substantially underfund key U.N. activities that are critical to U.S.
interests, and could lead to U.S. taxpayers footing a higher proportion
of the bill for certain activities.
The U.S.-U.N. relationship has gone through its share of ups and
downs over the years. But one constant has been the importance of
positive U.S. leadership, and its capacity to steer the organization in
a way that both advances U.S. national interests and helps the U.N.
live up to the ideals upon which it was founded. Now is no different:
this is the time to work cooperatively with U.N. leaders and like-
minded U.N. member states to focus on implementation of the Secretary-
General's ambitious reform agenda, which has been approved with active
U.S. support. It is also the time to ensure that America's voice and
presence continues to be heard in New York. Without our steadfast
diplomatic engagement and financial support, it is difficult to see how
the U.N. will be able to continue all of the important responsibilities
it was first invested with nearly 75 years ago.
Thank you again for the opportunity to testify about U.N.
effectiveness and the importance of a strong U.S.-U.N. relationship.
----------------
Notes
\1\ Howard, Lise. ``Power in Peacekeeping.'' Cambridge University
Press, 2019.
\2\ Hultman, Lisa, Jacob Kathman, and Megan Shannon. ``United
Nations Peacekeeping and Civilian Protection in Civil War.'' American
Journal of Political Science 57(4). 8 May 2013. pp. 875-91.
\3\ ``UN Peacekeeping Cost Estimate for Hypothetical U.S. Operation
Exceeds Actual Costs for Comparable UN Operation.'' Government
Accountability Office GAO-18-243. February 2018.
\4\ Lee and Sullivan. ``People's Republic of the United Nations:
China's Emerging Revisionism in International Organizations.'' Center
for a New American Security. May 2019.
\5\ Piccone, Ted. ``China's Long Game at the United Nations.'' The
Brookings Institution. September 2018. p. 4.
\6\ Lynch and Cramer. ``Senior Officials Concede Loss of U.S. Clout
as Trump Prepares for U.N. Summit.'' Foreign Policy, 5 September 2019.
\7\ Cheney, Clayton. ``China's Digital Silk Road: Strategic
Technological Competition and Exporting Political Illiberalism.''
Council on Foreign Relations. 26 September 2019.
\8\ Foxman and Lasensky. ``A Righteous U.N. Secretary-General.''
Wall Street Journal, June 27, 2018.
Senator Young. Thank you, Mr. Yeo, for your instructive
testimony.
Finally, we are joined by Ms. Amy K. Lehr. Ms. Lehr serves
as the Director of the Human Rights Initiative at the Center
for Strategic and International Studies. Ms. Lehr, please
proceed.
STATEMENT OF AMY K. LEHR, DIRECTOR OF THE HUMAN RIGHTS
INITIATIVE, CENTER FOR STRATEGIC AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES,
WASHINGTON, DC
Ms. Lehr. Chairman Young, Ranking Member Merkley, thank you
so much for holding a hearing on this important topic and for
offering me an opportunity to speak today.
Today, I will talk about how perceived U.S. disengagement
at the U.N. at a moment of shifting geopolitics is severely
damaging to U.S. influence and to human rights. I will also
offer some recommendations on how to reassert leadership. This
is really the moment we need to up our game, not be stepping
back.
When the administration pulled out of the U.N.Human Rights
Council and the U.S. was left without an Ambassador to the U.N.
for 9 months, that led to a perception that this was a lack of
confidence and interest in the U.N. system. So it had a
signaling effect.
This was a mistake. The U.N. is not perfect, but it is
still a really important forum for advancing democracy, human
rights, and good governance.
And the problem is that U.S. disengagement could not be
more poorly timed. As others have discussed today, it has
created a vacuum that other governments are using to advance
their own interests that are very much counter to human rights
and to long-term U.S. values. Faltering U.S. leadership has
coincided particularly with the rise in Chinese engagement,
which has shifted in its form in recent years, and that
engagement is long-term, strategic, and aimed at really
altering the rules of global governance.
I am focusing on China due to this increasing leadership in
the U.N., but obviously it is not the only government seeking
to undermine human rights and other core values there.
So I am going to overly simplify this, but China is
advancing several key goals at the U.N. regarding human rights.
So first, it is seeking to avoid scrutiny of its own abuses by
changing the rules of the game. And second, it is seeking to
weaken human rights and global governance by advancing new
ideologies at the U.N.
So what does this look like in practice? I will just give a
few very quick examples.
So U.N. human rights bodies are struggling to engage in any
kind of oversight over what is happening in Xinjiang in terms
of abuses against Muslim minorities there. Moreover, 22
countries drafted a letter that they submitted to the President
of the Human Rights Council expressing concern about the human
rights situation in Xinjiang. I was told that was given to the
president of the council instead of read on the floor because
no one country was willing to take on that role of really
angering China. And in an unprecedented move, China convinced
37 countries to write a rebuttal--this is not normal--praising
China's treatment of its Muslim minorities. European
governments I have spoken with have expressed the urgent need
for the U.S. to reengage in the Human Rights Council so this
does not ever happen again.
I do want to acknowledge that the U.S. is providing
leadership on human rights in other fora within the U.N.
The U.N. has long provided for civil society organizations
to have official consultative status at the U.N., with the idea
that this enhances transparency and support for democracy and
democratic values. Unfortunately, Chinese diplomats at the U.N.
have intimidated NGOs and journalists on U.N. grounds and
sought to have them banned. In fact, they tried to have Tibetan
and Uighur organizations stripped of their accreditation.
I have described some actions by China to avoid criticism
at the U.N., but the U.S. really needs to be focused on the
long game. So that is playing out across the multiple U.N.
agencies and not just ones that have ``human rights'' in their
titles. This occurs, for example, through the insertion of
Chinese ideology into U.N. documents and through senior-level
appointments, as has been discussed today.
For example, a recent and successful China-sponsored
resolution in the Human Rights Council called for ``mutually
beneficial cooperation'' in human rights. This is a euphemism
for state-requested capacity building to be the main means to
promote human rights at the U.N. The concept also supports the
principle of complete non-interference and would help China and
other abusive states reject U.N. oversight over human rights,
like in Xinjiang, Tibet, Hong Kong, et cetera. The approach is
getting the support of other autocratic states, and of course,
China is increasingly making economic threats against other
actors so they can benefit from their votes.
Other U.N. bodies also matter for human rights. And the ITU
has been discussed here today, but I think technology and
technology governance will have enormous implications for human
rights. So staying engaged on these standard-setting bodies
will be incredibly important, including from a human rights
perspective.
I do want to talk about a number of steps the U.S. could
take to ensure that the U.N. remains a forum supportive of
human rights and democratic governance.
So, one, it is my view, based on the data, that the U.S.
should rejoin the Human Rights Council. The data shows that
when the U.S. was part of it, the body's membership included
fewer of the worst human rights abusers, the number of
resolutions targeting Israel dropped significantly, and the
Human Rights Council passed more resolutions enabling oversight
for abuses in places such as Syria. And many I have spoken to
ascribe these positive developments to U.S. diplomacy and
leadership in that body. Our large mission just has the ability
to do the legwork to get votes on crucial issues that others
cannot do.
The U.S. also needs a whole-of-U.N. strategy. The U.S.
should really signal that the U.N. matters. The strategy should
be principles-based focused on strengthening support for human
rights, democratic norms, and rule of law across the U.N. The
strategy should not be framed in terms of competition with
particular countries. That will not get the support of the
allies we need. We have to do it in coordination with
likeminded countries. We are not going to be able to do this
alone and succeed.
Congress should maintain or increase funding for U.N.
agencies, and the administration should not try to cut it.
And last, the U.S. needs to lead by example. Every country
in the world can improve its human rights practices. We need to
engage with U.N. special rapporteurs that are exercising their
oversight functions. Otherwise we make it really easy for other
countries to thwart oversight and then cite the U.S. to justify
what they are doing.
Thank you so much, and I look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Lehr follows:]
Prepared Statement of Amy K. Lehr
Chairman Young, Ranking Member Merkley, and distinguished Members
of the Subcommittee, thank you for holding a hearing on this important
topic and offering me an opportunity to speak.
I am the Director of the Human Rights Initiative at CSIS and
previously worked for the U.N. Special Representative on Business and
Human Rights.
Today, I will address how U.S. disengagement at the U.N. at a
moment of shifting geopolitics is severely damaging to U.S. influence
and to human rights. I will also offer recommendations on how to
reassert leadership.
The administration signaled its lack of confidence and interest in
the U.N. system. It pulled out of the U.N. Human Rights Council
(``HRC'') and the U.S. was left without an Ambassador to the U.N. for 9
months. This was a mistake. The U.N. system is not perfect, but is
still an important forum for advancing democracy, human rights, and
good governance around the world.
U.S. disengagement could not be more poorly timed. It has created a
vacuum that pernicious actors are using to advance agendas that are
counter to human rights and thus counter to the long-term interests of
the U.S. and its allies. Faltering U.S. leadership has coincided with a
rise in Chinese engagement, which is long-term, strategic, and aimed at
altering the rules of global governance. In principle, having more
countries engaged at the U.N. is positive, but it is problematic when
they seek to undermine human rights and civil society there. I'll focus
on China due to its increasing leadership in the U.N. system, although
it is not the only government seeking to undermine human rights and
other core values.
China is advancing several goals at the U.N.\1\ First, it seeks to
avoid scrutiny of its own abuses. Second, it seeks to weaken human
rights and global governance by advancing new ideologies at the U.N.
How does this play out in practice?
U.N. human rights bodies have struggled to engage in any oversight
over the situation in Xinjiang, despite the abuses against Muslim
minorities there. Moreover, 22 countries drafted a letter that they
submitted to the president of the HRC expressing concern about the
human rights situation in Xinjiang. In an unprecedented move, China
convinced 37 countries to write a rebuttal, praising its treatment of
its Muslim minorities. European governments involved in the situation
have expressed the urgent need for the U.S. to re-engage so this does
not happen again.
The U.N. has long provided for civil society organizations to have
official consultative status at the U.N., with the idea that this
enhances transparency and is consistent with democratic norms. Chinese
diplomats at the U.N. have intimidated NGOs and journalists on U.N.
grounds and sought to have them banned. They have tried to have Tibetan
and Uighur organizations stripped of their accreditation.\2\
I've described actions by China to avoid criticism at the U.N. But
the U.S. needs to be focused on the long game, which is playing out
across multiple U.N. agencies. This occurs through the insertion of
Chinese ideology into U.N. documents and through senior-level
appointments.
For example, a recent, successful China-sponsored resolution in the
HRC called for ``mutually beneficial cooperation'' in human rights--a
euphemism for state-requested capacity building to be the main means to
promote human rights at the U.N.\3\ It supports the principle of non-
interference and would help China and other abusive states reject U.N.
oversight over human rights. China could then escape U.N. scrutiny for
Xinjiang, Tibet, and Hong Kong. This approach easily gains the support
of other autocratic states, and China increasingly makes economic
threats against other, more democratic nations so that it benefits from
their votes.
Other U.N. bodies also matter for human rights. There is a risk,
for example, that the International Telecommunication Union (``ITU'')
will increasingly insert itself into internet governance, especially
with the advent of 5G. The ITU is led by a Chinese national, and there
are concerns that if the ITU increasingly intrudes into technology
governance, this will advance a less free and open internet and
society.
The U.S. can take a number of steps to ensure that the U.N. remains
a forum supportive of human rights and democratic governance.
-- It should rejoin the HRC. When the U.S. was part of the HRC, the
body's membership included fewer of the worst human rights abusers, the
number of resolutions targeting Israel dropped significantly, and the
HRC passed more resolutions enabling oversight for abuses in places
such as Syria.\4\ Many ascribe these positive developments to U.S.
diplomacy, including our large mission that can do the leg work to
garner needed votes on particular resolutions. It is clearly better for
the U.S. to be in than out.
-- The U.S. needs a ``whole of U.N.'' strategy. It should signal
that the U.N. does matter as an institution that sets global norms and
rules. The strategy should focus on strengthening support for human
rights, democratic norms, and rule of law through the U.N.'s many
bodies, and deploy our talented diplomats accordingly. We should do
this in close coordination with like-minded countries. We cannot go it
alone and succeed.
-- Congress should maintain or increase funding for U.N. agencies,
and the administration should cease trying to cut it.
-- Last, the U.S. needs to lead by example. Every country in the
world can improve its human rights practices. We must engage with U.N.
Special Rapporteurs that are exercising their oversight functions, or
we make it very easy for other countries to thwart oversight and then
cite the U.S. to justify their actions.
Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.
----------------
Notes
\1\ For an excellent discussion of these issues, see China's Long
Game on Human Rights at The United Nations, Ted Piccone, September
2018.
\2\ China's Long Game on Human Rights at The United Nations, Ted
Piccone, September 2018.
\3\ Is China Winning its fight against rights at the U.N.?, Sophie
Richardson, The Hill, December 2018.
\4\ Game Changer: the U.S. at the U.N. Human Rights Council, The
Jacob Blaustein Institute for the Advancement of Human Rights, May
2017.
Senator Young. Thank you, Ms. Lehr.
Mr. Merkley.
Senator Merkley. Thank you very much, all of you, for your
testimony.
Mr. Yeo, so the U.S. thought 25 percent was a reasonable
number to contribute, one-quarter of the total costs, and the
arrears you spoke of were because the U.N. continues to assess
the U.S. almost 28 percent. I believe that is the main driver
of those arrears. 25 percent I think to anyone back home in
Oregon sounds like, oh, we are contributing a quarter. Is that
not a fair amount?
Mr. Yeo. Sounds reasonable to me except that the U.S. voted
in December to support an assessment rate for the U.S. of 27.8
percent. So these rates are negotiated every 3 years. We had an
opportunity in December of last year to reduce the U.S. rate.
And so Nikki Haley was engaged in active negotiations, and they
got the rate down from roughly 28.2 to 27.8. But we negotiated
this rate. We also have the opportunity to veto any
peacekeeping mission that we view is too expensive or too
costly. And so when we vote for these missions--and we just
voted for the mission in Central African Republic last week. So
we vote for these missions. We agreed to this assessment rate,
and so it seems to me that under those circumstances----
Senator Merkley. Thank you. That is a very interesting
piece of information because I am surprised to hear that, that
we voted for those rates since we have had a longstanding cap
at 25 percent.
I think the United States feels--but I will ask you--that
often these peacekeeping missions do a pretty effective job in
very difficult places in the world. Is that a fair way to put
it?
Mr. Yeo. Absolutely. They are operating in countries in
which the U.S. and our European allies in general do not wish
to operate. So in the case of Central African Republic, the
mission there has played a vital role in ensuring the
prevention of a genocide between various religious and ethnic
groups. And as we approach elections in Central African
Republic next year, they would not happen without U.N.
peacekeepers, as well as sort of negotiations that occur to
bring all the relevant parties together. So this is just a
specific case where U.N. peacekeepers are advancing our
interests.
Senator Merkley. Do you think we are going to see a lot
more challenges as a result of climate chaos and the impact on
basic agriculture in the world? For example, in Syria, extended
drought resulted in people moving to the cities because they
were starving. That created conflict, and it was kind of the
roots of the Syrian war. I was just down in the Northern
Triangle where extended drought has driven people out of
peasant villages. They go to the cities where there is
extraordinarily gang-style extortion, and they flee north.
Are we going to see a lot more conflict driven by
fundamental challenges for food in the world?
Mr. Yeo. Absolutely. We are already seeing it. I mentioned
I was in Mali, and a lot of the conflict in northern Mali but
also in Central African Republic is due to changed migration
patterns and changed herding practices as a result of climate
change. So absolutely there is a relationship between what is
happening in terms of conflict between villagers that used to
get along, groups that used to get along, but no longer do
because of tighter resources caused by climate change.
Senator Merkley. Are we still in Cyprus?
Mr. Yeo. Yes. We have a very small mission in Cyprus. And
ultimately the resolution of the mission in Cyprus is dependent
upon some sort of broader political settlement. It is not a
costly mission. As we think about the drivers and----
Senator Merkley. I was going to say it seems like that is
not exactly one of the trouble spots in the world right now. It
has been pretty stable for a while.
Mr. Yeo. Indeed.
Senator Merkley. So, Amy, I want to turn to you. I have
heard that China has proceeded to try to block certain
activists from gaining access to the U.N. premises. Has that
happened?
Ms. Lehr. Yes. So there is one particular instance that has
gotten news time recently. There is a Uighur organization
called the World Uighur Congress, and the head of it was not
allowed to join the--there is a permanent forum for indigenous
peoples every year, which if you are an indigenous people, this
is a very important forum, and it is a very broad group. And
the head of DESA allegedly blocked him from participating,
although later, my understanding is, the U.S. and Germany
intervened and he was able to attend after all. The head of
DESA, whether or not this is relevant, happens to be Chinese.
Senator Merkley. I hope we are going to make absolutely
sure that China cannot play that role.
I had also heard they had tried to block U.N. accreditation
for certain activist groups. Is that true as well?
Ms. Lehr. That is my understanding as well.
Senator Merkley. Why the hell would be that be possible?
Why would one nation be able to block various groups from
getting accreditation be part of the conversation?
Ms. Lehr. So I have actually been looking into that. I
believe--I can follow up and confirm this--that--so again, I
believe accreditation happens through DESA.
Senator Merkley. Okay. Well, I would sure like to see us
pay a lot of attention to that because it is another example of
China's growing role. But the idea that on U.S. territory in
New York, the Chinese are controlling who gains access to the
premises seems just beyond wrong.
I did want to mention that the strategies that have been
revealed that China is using against the Uighurs--is it fair
for me to say it is almost like slavery, massive monitoring,
facial recognition, close control of communications, directed
labor, a really horrific situation if you say here is freedom
up here and here is what is going on with the Uighurs and
China's treatment of the Uighurs?
Ms. Lehr. Well, it is actually like slavery in the sense
that there is a significant problem with forced labor, and my
initiative just put out a report on that. So in addition to
widespread surveillance and social control, there are people
actually being forced to work in significant numbers.
Senator Merkley. And significant. Give me a number on that.
We are talking a lot of people.
Ms. Lehr. I mean, we are talking--it is hard to get exact
numbers there. In the area of Kashgar, which is a Uighur
dominated area, an official said the numbers that they said
they wanted to put to work of these detainees would be like--I
believe it was 20 percent of the Uighur population there. I
mean, that would be over 100,000 people. And if you look at the
whole area, this is hundreds of thousands of people.
Senator Merkley. There are sci-fi movies about
extraordinary government control of people that are less scary
than what China is doing there. So I hope we will continue to
highlight that.
I am concerned that the conversation about trade with China
and the interests, the economic conversation, has reduced our
attention and amplification of this horrific situation. And I
will just invite any of you to speak to that who would like to.
Ms. Lehr. I would just say generally there is more we can
do and should be doing and that we really need to be engaging
with Europe and other allies on this. It is not a problem we
are going to solve on our own. It is a problem that I think
does concern everyone. One thing I have heard repeatedly, going
back to this topic of the U.N., is from Europeans that they are
also concerned. They really feel like if the U.S. is there
pushing at the table, including in the Human Rights Council,
they are going to be able to do more to push. Like, China is
manipulating the Human Rights Council and mechanisms to
whitewash its record on Xinjiang. And so that would be, again,
talking about why does it matter the U.S. is not present there.
This is one of those reasons why having a lack of U.S.
leadership there actually matters.
Now, I want to recognize the State Department has pulled
together side events on Xinjiang around the General Assembly
and has made efforts. So I do not want to discount those.
Senator Merkley. Thank you.
Senator Young. Mr. Schaefer, did you have something you
wanted to add to the topic?
Mr. Schaefer. Senator Merkley, I can actually give you some
clarification on the NGO issue, if you would like.
Senator Merkley. Go ahead.
Mr. Schaefer. The Heritage Foundation is an accredited NGO
at the United Nations. The process for accreditation goes
through an NGO committee comprised of member states. That
committee operates by consensus. China is usually a member of
that committee. In that position, they frequently will
challenge applications for NGOs to be accredited by the
organization, questioning them, asking further clarification,
delaying the process indefinitely. A lot of organizations give
up at that point. That is one mechanism through which they
block organizations from being accredited at the U.N.
Also, there is a quadrennial review of organizations. China
and other countries will ask questions that delay the approval
of that quadrennial report. It is every 4 years. Sometimes that
final approval can be delayed all 4 years and then begin again
with the next report. I speak from experience.
Senator Merkley. So, Mr. Schaefer, thank you for clarifying
that. What can we do?
Mr. Schaefer. Very little. The organization defines its own
rules. A change in the rules will require the member states to
adopt those changes. The United States alone cannot force it.
As with many different issues at the U.N., the member states
are not friendly to NGOs. They are not friendly to
transparency, and they are not interested in accountability or
being challenged. They use their position as member states to
block those organizations that they think might put them in
awkward positions. You talk about China being influential. Part
of China's influence is that a lot of member states share their
perspective on these issues, and that is the key part of the
problem.
Ms. Lehr mentioned that without the United States in
Geneva, that the member states were unwilling to put a question
directly or an application directly to the President of the
Human Rights Council.
Ms. Lehr. It was a statement on the floor where someone
would have had to read the statement.
Mr. Schaefer. And that is really the problem, is it not?
Why will a single member state not step forward to assume that
responsibility? Must the United States be the only country to
do that? Is the United States the only country capable of doing
that? No, absolutely not.
Senator Merkley. Thank you.
Senator Young. I think we may have stumbled upon an answer
actually. And perhaps Ms. Lehr gave us a window into it. I
thought your recommendations were thoughtful, Ms. Lehr. But the
one you most recently listed just moments ago was deeper
engagement with Europe. I would expand that to include our G7
trading partners and allies. Maybe we go to the G20 if we want
to include a more diverse array of countries and take a
multilateral economic approach to apply pressure to the Chinese
and actually develop a teased-out--what the ranking member and
I have branded as a global economic security strategy so that
we can bring China through the only thing they seem to
understand, which is growing their economy or not growing their
economy--bringing them into a position of better behavior. And
through that mechanism, I think we could apply pressure. It
would be outside of the U.N. construct, but I bet their conduct
within the U.N. would improve.
I would welcome the thoughts of any of the witnesses about
that idea. Senator Merkley and I collaborated on that
legislation. We have been joined by Senators Coons and Rubio.
Mr. Yeo. I think that to the extent that the U.S. makes an
effort to have systematic high-level dialogue with our key
allies on human rights issues and understand how we are going
to collectively respond to the human rights challenges posed by
countries such as China, the U.N. is just one mechanism that we
can work collectively on this.
I think the other suggestion I would make is we need to
send our best diplomats to work in the multilateral context,
and they need to be trained in multilateral diplomacy. And
multilateral diplomacy is a unique bird in terms of
understanding how you assemble coalitions behind the scenes to
tackle important issues like human rights. So to the extent
that we can actually incentivize the State Department to send
our best diplomats to work in these settings and then train
them well, it can have better outcomes on human rights issues.
Senator Young. Thank you.
Ms. Lehr, do we have the economic clout and the convening
power to improve China's behavior not just in the U.N. but more
generally?
Ms. Lehr. Sir, first, I completely agree that the U.N. is
not the only body that we would want to engage with to improve
China's track record.
I do think the economic piece of it is important. It is a
piece of the puzzle. And to your point, yes, we need to work
with more than just Europe. We have other likeminded around the
world, and we should be engaging with them consistently with a
strategy.
Just one other piece I would add to that is that the letter
I mentioned that was signed by so many countries saying how
wonderful China's treatment of its Muslim minorities was signed
by a lot of Muslim countries. And I believe we do not have an
envoy right now to OIC, and that seems like a lost opportunity
to at least try to not have that kind of positive language
coming out of countries that you would think would be quite
upset about what is going on.
I think the economic leverage--I mean, if we do not have it
working with our allies, I do not know who does. So you got to
start somewhere.
Senator Young. Thank you.
Mr. Schaefer.
Mr. Schaefer. Thank you, Senator.
There are several different issues that you have raised
here. One is raising the issue of multilateral negotiations to
prominence within the State Department. In some of my papers, I
actually suggested creating an under secretary for multilateral
affairs to prominently position these issues. Currently the
responsibility for international organizations and U.S. policy
toward international organizations is spread throughout the
U.S. Government over at the Health and Human Services
Department, over at the Department of Commerce, over at the
Labor Department, in addition to the State Department.
Different parts of the government have a piece of this puzzle.
Sometimes in the interagency process an assistant secretary
does not have the clout necessary to carry the day, and some of
their negotiating partners are going to be at a higher level
than they are. The unfortunate reality is that the
international organizations bureau inside the State Department
is somewhat of a redheaded stepchild. I think that elevating
that bureau would elevate the prominence and the cohesion of
U.S. policy formulation on international organizations across
the U.S. Government. I think that is important because whether
we like it or not, increasingly issues of importance to the
United States are being addressed multilaterally rather than
bilaterally. So that is one issue.
Second, yes, the economic engagement with China is a
critical piece to this puzzle. China does not respond easily to
moral suasion. I think that you need to be a little bit more
direct in your confrontation with China to get it to change its
behavior. It is unfortunate that many countries that the United
States agrees with off the record, whether they are in Europe
or Latin America or Africa or in Asia, are reluctant to speak
publicly or take stances firmly inside the international
organizations on the record. That is something that needs to be
fixed.
And even though my fellow panelists may disagree with me, I
think the U.S. withdrawal from the Human Rights Council has
forced some of those countries to take stronger stands. For the
first time European countries voted against agenda item 7 in
the Human Rights Council, which is the anti-Israel agenda item
in the Human Rights Council, instead of just abstaining on
those resolutions. That is something they had not done before,
and it is something that is a marked change in behavior from
their past practice.
Thank you.
Senator Young. Colleagues, fellow witnesses, feel free to
disagree about the Human Rights Council. We have not had enough
disagreement this go-around.
[Laughter.]
Senator Young. Stir the pot a little bit.
Mr. Yeo. I would just say that the work of the Human Rights
Council has continued. And what has happened is you have seen
important measures related to Yemen and North Korea and Syria
being adopted in the Human Rights Council even though the U.S.
is not a member of it.
The challenge is the U.N. Human Rights Council remains the
preeminent global body in which not only countries in Europe
but around the world look towards for standard-setting and
statements related to human rights. And we are not
participating.
Senator Young. Cuba, China, Venezuela, they all had seats
on the council. Venezuela was a member in 2015, and the council
invited Maduro to speak at a special assembly and he got a
standing ``O.''
Mr. Yeo. There is absolutely no doubt about it that these
membership rules for the U.N. Human Rights Council create a
situation where there are countries on there that do not share
our values. That said, all this important work is still
happening. We should be participating in this work in the Human
Rights Council, advancing our interests as it relates to
Venezuela and to Syria and to North Korea, as opposed to taking
a walk and saying, well, we did not get everything we wanted,
we are out. I think we need to stay engaged, try to get what we
want, continue to push for reform because you are right. It
does not make sense that human rights abusers are a member of
the Human Rights Council. Let us fix it.
Senator Young. Ms. Lehr, I will ask you quite provocatively
before I allow Mr. Schaefer an opportunity to respond. Do we
really want to reenter the Human Rights Council? 62 percent of
the Human Rights Council members were not democracies,
according to my most recent reading. Do we want to be part of
that club?
Ms. Lehr. So I actually looked at the data because I do
think it is obviously an imperfect body, and I think the U.S.
has legitimate concerns about standing agenda items on Israel,
the membership, et cetera.
So there is an organization called the Jacob Blaustein
Institute that has actually sort of run the numbers on what
happens with the U.S. is out of the council and when we are in.
It is an organization founded by the American Jewish Committee.
And what they found was, for example, that country-specific
resolutions that targeted Israel dropped from 50 percent of the
resolutions to 20 percent when the U.S. was in. So there was a
significant reduction. Our membership appears to have at least
made things meaningfully better. The quality of the countries
that we are able to get into the council was better--not good,
but better.
I think the other piece is again just looking--so their
research focuses in our prior concerns about the council. I
think if you look at also the research being done on what is
China doing in this council--and so these are new concerns. And
what they are trying to do is change the nature of the human
rights machinery at the U.N. Right now it is based on this idea
that you do not get to just tell the U.N., if you are China,
Saudi Arabia, Iran, we do not want you to talk about us. You
cannot have any access. There is this idea of oversight by
other member states, this collective oversight around human
rights, especially around gross abuses.
China is trying to change that paradigm. They just started
submitting resolutions in the Human Rights Council in 2017.
This is new. And they are submitting multiple resolutions and
amendments that, first of all, use terminology taken directly
from Xi Jinping speeches like ``win-win cooperation'' and
``mutual respect.'' It is a problem.
Senator Young. All right, Ms. Lehr. So not a bad answer.
But we can give Mr. Schaefer plenty of time for a wind-up and a
response.
[Laughter.]
Senator Young. So, look, Mr. Schaefer, you heard the
counter-arguments. I mean, is there really a viable alternative
to the Human Rights Council? Is there any other multilateral
fora that we could join to address these sorts of human rights
issues?
Mr. Schaefer. There are some regional ones, as mentioned by
the earlier panel, OAS. There is also the OSCE--I am sorry--the
Organization for American States and the Organization for
Security and Co-operation and in Europe.
But there is one other one. It is called the Third
Committee of the U.N. General Assembly. It has membership of
all U.N. member states. They pass resolutions condemning
countries every single fall. There is no reason why that body
could not convene every few months, in the spring, in the
summer, and the other times--or operate continuously to discuss
human rights problems.
Senator Young. I wonder why that has not happened.
Ambassador Haley went to great efforts to try and reform the
Human Rights Council before we left, and that met with no
success, which would seem to run against the grain of what the
other witnesses----
Mr. Schaefer. Not to disparage our fine friend in Central
Europe, but having it be in the Third Committee would result in
eliminating the Human Rights Council and moving those resources
out of Geneva. That is obviously of concern to Switzerland.
Senator Young. Yes.
Mr. Schaefer. They want to maintain as many U.N.
organizations there as they possibly can.
But the advantage of having it in the Third Committee is
that every member state is present. Not every member state is
present in Geneva.
Every fall, the Third Committee of the General Assembly
receives a report from the Human Rights Council and approves
it. It reviews it and approves it. So it is already engaged in
these discussions and a lot of these issues before the Human
Rights Council. There is no reason why that body could not
assume the same responsibilities, hear the reports and hear the
testimonies of the human rights experts, have the High
Commissioner for Human Rights attend its sessions and provide
information for that office as well. There is no reason why the
Third Committee could not fulfill these responsibilities.
But I wanted to talk a little bit about the Human Rights
Council. Ms. Lehr mentioned that the percentage of resolutions
on Israel, condemnatory resolutions on Israel, went down as a
percentage. I want to just say that the number of them has not
declined. What has happened is that the U.N. Human Rights
Council has passed more resolutions on other countries. Every
year they pass the same number of resolutions on Israel over
and over and over again. It is good that more countries with
human rights problems are having Human Rights Council
resolutions passed addressing their situations. But it is worth
noting that there are a number of countries that are
deliberately ignored: China, Cuba, Russia, Saudi Arabia, and
other countries never have had a Human Rights Council
resolution passed condemning their human rights practices
despite ample evidence of them.
Senator Young. Well, thank you, Mr. Schaefer. I know we
could continue with this for a long period of time. I welcome
continued dialogue with our offices on this really important
matter.
I am going to turn it over to Mr. Merkley to ask a final
pointed question on an issue that was brought up, and then we
will stay on schedule and wrap up. Mr. Merkley?
Senator Merkley. So a few days ago, the New York Times
published an article derived from 403 pages of internal
documents from the Chinese Communist Party about how they treat
the Uighurs and Kazakhs. And they noted that based on that, in
the Xinjiang area, a million ethnic Uighurs, Kazakhs, and
others have been herded into interment camps. And they go on to
note the absolute ruthlessness of this. And of course, a lot of
this is directed to groups that are Muslims in China and are
seen to the rest of China, the Chinese Government as a threat.
So I am still kind of wrestling with what I heard about the
Organization for Islamic Cooperation. It has 57 members. 47
members are Muslim majority. And how is it that these Muslim
majority countries are saying that China has an exemplary human
rights record? I do not get that.
And you mentioned, Ms. Lehr, that we do not have an envoy.
Is that because one has not been nominated or we have not
confirmed the envoy?
I will just mention both those things because maybe that is
something we can follow up on.
Ms. Lehr. So I will be honest and say I am not sure which
reason it is. I just know that we do not have one, and I am
happy to look into that and follow up with you.
But, yes, I am also concerned about how a number of Muslim
countries could come out with a statement like that. And
clearly there is an opportunity for us to try to shift that
conversation.
Response Received From Amy K. Lehr to the Take-Back Question
Submitted by Senator Jeff Merkley
Question. Why there is no special envoy to the Organization of
Islamic Cooperation (OIC)?
Answer. Secretary Tillerson thought that it would be more efficient
to consolidate the position into the role of the Ambassador-at-Large
for International Religious Freedom. He eliminated a number of special
envoy positions. Notably, some were not eliminated because Congress had
mandated their existence.
Senator Merkley. I think it shows--I have to wrap up
because I am on the clock, and I am getting kicked under the
desk here.
I think it suggests a massive growing influence of China in
the world and why it is good we held this hearing. And thank
you, Mr. Chairman, for doing so. I think we have to keep
pondering the dynamics in this world in which I see a Chinese
kind of ruthless strategy gaining ground, and we have a lot of
work to do. Thank you.
Senator Young. Well, thank you, Mr. Merkley, for your
friendship, your comity, and your brevity.
And thank you to all of our witnesses today for their
statements and for their willingness to engage in what has been
I believe a constructive dialogue.
I will again call members' attention to the fact that the
record will remain open until the close of business on Friday,
including for members to submit questions for the record.
Thank you to the members of the subcommittee, especially to
the ranking member once again, and thank you all to our
witnesses.
So this hearing is now adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 4:33 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
----------
Additional Material Submitted for the Record
Response of Jonathan Moore to Question
Submitted by Senator Todd Young
Question.One way for the United States to ensure its priorities and
values are reflected internationally is to place American citizens in
high-level positions within the United Nations system:
What is the International Organizations Bureau doing to place
Americans in senior positions? What policies or practices are
preventing the placement of more American citizens within the U.N.?
Answer. The United States is dedicated to ensuring our values and
interests are represented throughout the United Nations system, and to
supporting reform efforts that improve transparency, efficiency and
accountability.
The Bureau of International Organization Affairs maintains an
American Citizens unit which actively encourages qualified Americans to
apply for relevant positions and advocates for the employment of
Americans in international organizations. That unit has created a
public website (iocareers.state.gov) to make the process of seeking and
applying for U.N. jobs more transparent to American citizens. We have
scored a number of recent successes, including securing senior
positions for distinguished Americans at the Pan American Health
Organization, the United Nations Office of Counter-Terrorism, and the
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.
[all]