[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 125 (Monday, July 31, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11040-S11041]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                    IN DEFENSE OF THE UNITED NATIONS

  Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I wish to take a moment to outline some of 
the concerns I have about the provisions pertaining to the United 
Nations in the bill we have been considering, the State authorization 
bill.
  Titles II and III of the bill, in my opinion, amount collectively to 
an assault on U.S. participation in the U.N. system. I know that some 
Americans have questioned the effectiveness of the United Nations in 
certain peacekeeping operations, such as those in Somalia and Bosnia, 
and that there are lingering concerns about the ability of the United 
States to expend resources on foreign affairs in general.
  That being said, I think it is fair to say there is evidence that a 
majority of Americans support U.S. participation in the U.N. system--
particularly when it comes to U.N. peackeeping. To paraphrase former 
Secretary of State James Baker, U.N. peacekeeping is a pretty good 
bargain. For every dollar the United States spends on U.N. 
peacekeeping, we save many more by preventing conflicts in which we 
would otherwise become involved unilaterally.
  I am therefore distraught and distressed by this bill's obvious anti-
U.N. course. If adopted in its present form, this bill could well 
establish the foundation for an eventual U.S. withdrawal from the U.N. 
system. I think that would be a disastrous outcome, and one to which 
the American public would strenuously object. As Secretary of State 
Christopher noted in a recent letter to me, ``* * * turning our back on 
the U.N. would increase the economic, political, and military burden on 
the American people.''
  There are a number of troublesome sections in this bill relating to 
the United Nations. Section 201 authorizes a reduction of more than 
$157 million from the President's request for the U.S. assessed 
contributions to the United Nations and related agencies. From there, 
the fiscal year 1997-99 recommendations are straightlined--frozen, to 
be precise--at the fiscal year 1996 levels.
  That is a mistake. If we enact this provision, the Congress will 
force the United States to default on treaty obligations and fall 
further into arrears on our payments to the United Nations. I remember 
how hard I tried to work with the Bush administration to bring the 
United States back from its deadbeat status at the United Nations; what 
a shame it would be for us to fall behind once more.
  Section 203, in a misguided effort to save the United States money at 
the United Nations, calls for the U.N. General Assembly to reformulate 
the percentages of assessed contributions, and to base those 
percentages upon each nation's share of the world's total gross 
national product. If we were to follow these guidelines, however, the 
U.S. share of total assessed contributions to the United Nations would 
easily exceed our current mandated ceiling of 25 percent. In other 
words, we would achieve the exact opposite of what this section 
probably intends.
  Section 205 is probably the most problematic of all the U.N. 
provisions. This section would have the United States withhold 50 
percent of its assessed peacekeeping dues and 20 percent of its regular 
contributions, and would bar payment of all voluntary peacekeeping 
contributions, unless the President were able to certify certain 
conditions with regard to the U.N. inspector general's office.
  While U.N. reform is a good idea, this provision sets unworkable 
standards for an effective U.N. inspector general. In other words, the 
President would never be able to certify the conditions set forth in 
this legislation, nor in many cases would he want such conditions to 
arise. In my opinion, by setting such impossible certification 
requirements, this section is but a thinly veiled attempt to cut off 
enormous percentages of U.S. funding for the United Nations. It ought 
to be modified or, better yet, deleted.
  There are other sections that also should be revised. I know that 
Senator Kerry and I have had discussions with our Republican 
counterparts to express concerns about section 206, a so-called 
whistle-blower provision; section 212, which increases advance 
notification requirement for U.N. Security Council votes; section 217, 
which creates exceptions for U.S. enforcement of U.N. sanctions 
regimes; section 220, which redefines the U.S. concept of a 
peacekeeping operation; and finally, sections 313, 316, and 317, which 
would prohibit certain U.S. contributions to the ILO and other 
international organizations.
  Having returned just a short time ago from the 50th anniversary 
celebration of the foundation of the United Nations, I am convinced 
more than ever of the usefulness and necessity of U.S. participation in 
the United Nations. It is often repeated--and with good reason--that if 
the United Nations did not exist, then the world would need to invent 
it. I think it is high time that the Congress recognized the good and 
positive value we get for spending at the United Nations, and make the 
correct decision to reject the troublesome provisions in this bill.
  Mr. President, on July 26, former Deputy Secretary of State John C. 
Whitehead, who is now Chair of the U.N. Association, wrote to me to 
outline the Association's assessment of the U.S. stake in the United 
Nations. It is an important statement and offers a clear and concise 
argument for continued U.S. participation in the United Nations.
  Secretary Whitehead's letter prompted me to recall my own personal 
involvement with the United Nations having been present at its 
creation. To be precise, I was an Assistant Secretary of Committee 
III--the Enforcement Arrangements Committee--and worked specifically on 
what became articles 43, 44, and 45 of the charter. These articles are 
as relevant now as they were 50 years ago.
  To my mind, the charter has been more than mere words and paper, more 
than a blueprint of an organizational structure. To me, the charter is 
a vibrant and dynamic force, willed into being by the collective hopes 
and dreams of the participants in the San Francisco conference. 
Although experience has proven that the charter has not always lived up 
to such high expectations, the last 50 years have proven that 
collective security is a pretty sound concept for relations between 
states. It therefore pains me to see this debate in Congress over the 
future of U.S. participation in the U.N. system.
  If the United States abandons the United Nations, the United Nations 
could well meet the same fate as the League of Nations. I think our 
interest lies in remaining solidly behind the United Nations. The U.S. 
failure to support the League of Nations is precisely why the League 
failed. We should not let the same thing happen to the United Nations. 
In the coming years, I can easily foresee that the United States will 
need the United Nations to intervene in areas of conflict or to tackle 
issues such as the international environment, world hunger, and refugee 
crises.
  It is unfair and shortsighted to judge the United Nations solely on 
its success or failure in dealing with an intractable, longstanding 
ethnic conflict such as that in the former Yugoslavia. Rather, we 
should look at its 50 year's worth of experience in promoting 
collective security, humanitarian assistance and international 
cooperation in the environment and other areas.
  The record, I would argue, has been good, and with a little work, the 
future holds real promise. My hope is that 50 years from now, when the 
United Nations celebrates its 100 year anniversary, our children will 
look back and remember this time as the turning point.
  I ask unanimous consent that Secretary Whitehead's letter be printed 
in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:


[[Page S 11041]]

                                           U.N. Association of the


                                     United States of America,

                                      New York, NY, July 26, 1995.
     Hon. Claiborne Pell,
     Senate Russell Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Pell: I am writing to share with you a policy 
     statement of the United Nations Association of the United 
     States (UNA-USA) on the U.S. stake in the United Nations and 
     U.N. financing, adopted in late June by UNA-USA's national 
     convention on the occasion of the 50th anniversary of the 
     signing of the United Nations Charter.
       It is a serious yet succinct statement on an issue of 
     considerable importance, with major implications for the 
     Congress. We hope you will find it of interest. UNA-USA is 
     eager to make a constructive contribution to the policy 
     debate.
       We would be pleased to share any reactions with UNA-USA's 
     25,000 members.
           Sincerely,
                                                John C. Whitehead,
                                      Chairman of the Association.
       Enclosure.
                      Financing the United Nations

       The greatest threat today to the U.N.'s effectiveness and 
     even survival is the cancer of financial insolvency. 
     Countries slow to pay their share include many that are 
     small. But it is the massive delinquencies of the United 
     States that have plunged the Organization into chronic crisis 
     and sapped its capacity to respond to emergencies and new 
     needs.
       The services provided by international organizations are, 
     objectively, quite cheap--especially in comparison with the 
     sums we spend on other dimensions of national security, such 
     as the military, as backup in the event that diplomacy and 
     the U.N. machinery fail. The annual U.S. assessments for 
     peacekeeping worldwide are less than the police budget for 
     the nation's largest city. Total American contributions, 
     voluntary as well as obligatory, for all agencies of the U.N. 
     system amount to $7 per capita (compared to some $1,000 per 
     capita for the Defense Department)
       Some object that U.N. peacekeeping costs have exploded over 
     the past decade, from a U.S. share of $53 million in 1985 to 
     $1.08 billion projected for 1995. But the end of the Cold War 
     that sparked that increase, by freeing the U.N. to be an 
     effective agent of conflict management, also allowed for far 
     larger reductions in other U.S. security spending: Over the 
     same decade, Pentagon budgets have fallen $34 billion. 
     Increased reliance on U.N. collective security operations 
     necessarily complements our defense savings. Moreover, U.N. 
     costs are spread among all member states, and constitute a 
     truly cost-effective bargain for all.
       However, at a time of hard budget choices, many national 
     politicians see U.N. contributions as an easy target. They 
     are misguided. In asserting that national parliaments can 
     unilaterally set their nations' assessment levels, claim 
     offsets from assessed obligations for voluntary peacekeeping 
     contributions, and impose policy conditions for payment of 
     their agreed share of expenses, some Washington politicians 
     jeopardize the institutional underpinnings of the world 
     community. No multilateral organization--whether the U.N., 
     the World Bank, or NATO--can long survive if member states 
     play by such rules.
       In ratifying the U.N. Charter, every member state assented 
     in law to the financial obligations of U.N. membership. 
     Virtually all of America's allies in the industrialized world 
     fulfill those obligations to the United Nations--in full, on 
     time, and without conditions. Until relatively recently, so 
     did the United States. It must do so again.
       America's leaders must recommit this nation to full and 
     timely payment of assessed contributions to the U.N. and 
     related organizations, including prompt retirement of arrears 
     accumulated over the past decade. Financial unreliability 
     leaves our institutions of common purpose vulnerable and 
     inefficient. We must sustain--and, where needed, increase--
     our voluntary financial support of the U.N. system's many 
     vital activities in the economic and social fields as well as 
     peace and security. We should press for assessment scales 
     that fairly reflect nations' relative capacity to pay, and 
     explore other means, including minimal fees on international 
     transactions of appropriate types, to ensure that funds to 
     pay for the U.N. system budgets that member states approve 
     do, in fact, materialize.
                                                                    ____

                 America's Stake in the United Nations

       Fifty years ago we, the people of the United States, joined 
     in common purpose and shared commitment with the people of 50 
     other nations. The most catastrophic war in history had 
     convinced nations that no country could any longer be safe 
     and secure in isolation. From this realization was born the 
     United Nations--the idea of a genuine world community and a 
     framework for solving human problems that transcend national 
     boundaries. Since then, technology and economics have 
     transformed ``world community'' from a phrase to a fact, and 
     if the World War II generation had not already established 
     the U.N. system, today's would have to create it.
       The founders of the United Nations were clairvoyant in many 
     ways. The Charter anticipated decolonization; called for 
     ``respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms for all 
     without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion''; 
     and set up the institutional framework ``for the promotion of 
     the economic and social advancement of all peoples.'' In 
     meeting the Charter's challenges, we make for a more secure 
     and prosperous world.
       Through the U.N. system, many serious conflicts have been 
     contained or concluded. Diseases have been controlled or 
     eradicated, children immunized, refugees protected and fed. 
     Nations have set standards on issues of common concern--
     ranging from human rights to environmental survival to radio 
     frequencies. Collective action has also furthered particular 
     U.S. government interests, such as averting a widening war in 
     the Middle East into which Washington might otherwise be 
     drawn. After half a century, the U.N. remains a unique 
     investment yielding multiple dividends for Americans and 
     others alike.
       The U.N.'s mandate to preserve peace and security was long 
     hobbled by the Cold War, whose end has allowed the 
     institutions of global security to spring to life. The five 
     permanent members of the Security Council now meet and 
     function as a cohesive group, and what the Council has lost 
     in rhetorical drama it has more than gained in forging common 
     policies. Starting with the Reagan Administration's effort to 
     marshal the Security Council to help bring an end to the 
     Iran-Iraq war in 1988, every U.S. administration has turned 
     to the U.N. for collective action to help maintain or restore 
     peace. Common policy may not always result in success, but 
     neither does unilateral policy--and, unlike unilateral 
     intervention, it spreads costs and risks widely and may help 
     avoid policy disasters.
       Paradoxically, the end of the Cold War has also given rise 
     in the U.S. to a resurgent isolationism, along with calls for 
     unilateral, go-it-alone policies. Developments in many places 
     that once would have stirred alarm are now viewed with 
     indifference. When they do excite American political 
     interest, the impulse is often to respond unilaterally in the 
     conviction that only Washington can do the job and do it 
     right. Without a Soviet threat, some Americans imagine we can 
     renounce ``foreign entanglements.'' Growing hostility to U.N. 
     peacekeeping in some political circles reflects, in large 
     measure, the shortsighted idea that America has little at 
     stake in the maintenance of a peaceful world. In some 
     quarters, resentment smolders at any hint of reciprocal 
     obligations; but in a country founded on the rule of law, the 
     notion that law should rule among nations ought not to be 
     controversial.
       The political impulse to go it alone surges at precisely 
     the moment when nations have become deeply interconnected. 
     The need for international teamwork has never been clearer. 
     Goods, capital, news, entertainment, and ideas flow across 
     national borders with astonishing speed. So do refugees, 
     diseases, drugs, environmental degradation, terrorists, and 
     currency crashes.
       The institutions of the U.N. system are not perfect, but 
     they remain our best tools for concerted international 
     action. Just as Americans often seek to reform our own 
     government, we must press for improvement of the U.N. system. 
     Fragmented and of limited power, prone to political 
     paralysis, bureaucratic torpor, and opaque accountability, 
     the U.N. system requires reform--but not wrecking. 
     Governments and citizens must press for changes that improve 
     agencies' efficiency, enhance their responsiveness, and make 
     them accountable to the world's publics they were created to 
     serve. Our world institutions can only be strengthened with 
     the informed engagement of national leaders, press, and the 
     public at large.
       The American people have not lost their commitment to the 
     United Nations and to the rule of law. They reaffirm it 
     consistently, whether in opinion surveys or UNICEF campaigns. 
     Recognizing the public's sentiment, the foes of America's 
     U.N. commitment--unilateralists, isolationists, or whatever--
     do not call openly for rejecting the U.N. as they had earlier 
     rejected outright the League of Nations. But the systematic 
     paring back of our commitment to international law and 
     participation in institutions would have the same effect.
       In this 50th anniversary year, America's leaders should 
     rededicate the nation to the promise of a more peaceful and 
     prosperous world contained in the U.N. Charter. In that 
     spirit, the United Nations Association of the United States 
     calls on the people and government of the United States, and 
     those of all other U.N. member states, to join in 
     strengthening the United Nations system for the 21st century:
       In particular, we call for action in five areas, which will 
     be the top policy priorities of UNA-USA as we enter the 
     U.N.'s second half-century;
       Reliable financing of the United Nations system.
       Strong and effective U.N. machinery to help keep the peace.
       Promotion of broad-based and sustainable world economic 
     growth.
       Vigorous defense of human rights and protection of 
     displaced populations.
       Control, reduction, or elimination of highly destructive 
     weaponry.

  I yield the floor.

                          ____________________