[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 105 (Monday, June 26, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9016-S9017]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                THE 50TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE U.N. CHARTER

  Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, 50 years ago today, the victorious 
nations of World War II gathered in San Francisco to sign the charter 
that created the new United Nations. It was a time of enormous hope and 
promise, and the world's expectations ran high. No country had more 
influence in shaping that international organization than the United 
States. From the details in the charter to the name of the new 
organization itself, American leadership--then at its strongest on the 
heels of victory in the war--was everywhere in evidence. Just as 
American hesitation doomed the League of Nations a quarter-century 
earlier, so American leadership in 1945 gave the world the United 
Nations.
  I would like, Mr. President, today to express a strong belief that 
America must again lead in the significant reforms that are now 
necessary to save this valuable organization for generations to come.
  There is much criticism of the United Nations, and much of that is 
well-deserved. The Secretariat has ballooned into a collection of 
bloated, often ill-operated bureaucracies. The structure of the 
Security Council reflects a bygone era. The Trusteeship Council has 
outlived its usefulness.
  There is mismanagement, waste, and general lack of accountability. 
Too often, there is no focus and no real sense of priorities.
  But there also is much muddled thinking in America's approach to the 
United Nations. In much of the country--including Washington--there is 
much misunderstanding and confusion about the organization's purposes 
and structures. The standards by which we judge its success or failure 
have become unrealistic. And there are some who would take us again 
down the failed path of the League of Nations and sacrifice a valuable 
international organization for domestic political gain. I believe we 
must fix the United Nations, and only the United States can provide the 
leadership to get the job done. There are several reforms that I think 
we can achieve without amending the charter.
  First, we should lead those reforms that can be accomplished without 
amending the charter. I have joined with Congressman Lee Hamilton, the 
ranking member of the International Relations Committee in the House of 
Representatives, in putting forward some thoughts on reforms that can 
be accomplished without opening the Pandora's box of amending the 
charter. Let me summarize some of the suggestions:
  First, focus on the core agencies. The United Nations today has more 
than 70 agencies under its umbrella. We would finance only a handful of 
agencies that serve core purposes of the organization, for instance the 
International Atomic Energy Agency [IAEA], the World Health 
Organization, and the High Commission on Refugees. Other agencies 
should be abolished, merged, or financed at the discretion of one or 
more of the core agencies.
  Second, peacekeeping. This is a difficult one, Mr. President. In the 
heady days of the cold war, and after the cold war, expectations for 
peacekeeping grew far out of control. But the truth is that 
peacekeeping has inherent limits, and many of the failed hybrid 
operations we have undertaken--such as nation building in Somalia--
which probably ultimately turned out to be better than was assumed at 
the time that the forces were withdrawn, and peace enforcement in 
Bosnia--which has ignored those limits. Future peacekeeping should be 
limited to classic operations.

  Third, conferences. Conferences have come to dominate far too much of 
the United Nations time, resources, and attention. The United Nations 
should get out of the conference business and focus itself on more 
meaningful activities. Otherwise, we run the risk of just being a 
traveling road show from summit to summit.
  Last, accountability. Today, the United Nations is accountable to no 
one. We should significantly strengthen the Office of the Inspector 
General and give it some real teeth. The member states should also 
reform the process by which they select the Secretary-General, to 
ensure that his or her accountability and selection is primarily one of 
skills and ability to administer the Organization.
  I think this is enormously important and probably very difficult to 
achieve. It is one of the more sensitive areas to deal with, and yet it 
is the key to making much of it work as it should.
  I think we should take the lead in reforms that would require 
amending the charter. I, for one, believe membership in the Security 
Council should be reformed to better reflect the realities of 
contemporary international politics.
  Nations such as Japan and Germany, which pay large portions of the 
U.N.'s bills and are powerful international players, should have 
permanent seats on the Council; and, of course, the Charter's reference 
to them as enemy states should be struck. The number of nonpermanent 
members should be expanded to better accommodate major regional powers.
  We should also eliminate the Trusteeship Council established to 
handle

[[Page S9017]]

the problems of decolonization. It has outlived its purpose. Rather 
than search for a new purpose for this Council, we should ask whether 
it should exist at all.
  Mr. President, the other major area for reform is in our thinking 
about what the United Nations is and what its role should be in 
American foreign policy. We cannot expect the United Nations to be 
clearer in purpose than is its most powerful member state.
  At its core, the United Nations is a collection of sovereign states 
and is beholden to them for guidance, funding, and, ultimately, 
legitimacy. The political decisions that drive the Organization and 
define its proper role in international politics must be made in 
national capitals, not in New York.
  I have grown increasingly concerned about the tendency toward a fuzzy 
multilateralism that has come to mark U.N. policy toward the United 
Nations. We have shown a penchant for dumping difficult problems in the 
lap of the United Nations and then complaining when no solution is 
forthcoming. The tragedy in former Yugoslavia may be the most dramatic 
current example of this phenomena. The truth is, we cannot so easily 
wash our hands of difficult decisions.
  The United Nations is not a substitute for American leadership in 
international affairs. Rather, it is one avenue available to exercise 
that leadership.
  I believe we must own up to the truth about our role in the United 
Nations. The United Nations has many failures, but we fool ourselves if 
we merely point fingers at New York and blame the United Nations for 
its shortcomings. The United States is first among equals in the U.N. 
system. The failures of the United Nations are, in reality, our own.
  We would do well to reflect honestly on that unavoidable truth. On 
this golden anniversary, we must decide whether we will continue to 
muddle along, or whether the United States once again will assume its 
unique mantle of leadership at the United Nations. I, for one, believe 
we must lead.

                          ____________________