[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 88 (Friday, June 14, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6275-S6276]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




             NEW LEADERSHIP IS NEEDED AT THE UNITED NATIONS

  Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, this fall, the United Nations will 
select its chief executive, the Secretary General. Under U.N. rules, 
the U.N. Security Council recommends a candidate who is subject to the 
approval of the entire General Assembly. As a member of the Security 
Council, the United States obviously has an important role in this 
process.
  It is my understanding that the current Secretary General, Mr. 
Boutros Boutros-Ghali has indicated that he may seek reelection to 
another 5-year term. With all due respect to the Secretary General, I 
do not believe it is in our Nation's interest, nor the overall 
interests of the United Nations, that Mr. Boutros-Ghali be given a 
second term. Indeed, the United States should make clear early on that 
it will not support Mr. Boutros-Ghali this fall. For the sake of the 
future credibility of the United Nations, it is in our Nation's best 
interests for the United States to actively support a candidate for 
Secretary General who is committed to a major management overhaul of 
the United Nations. Mr. Boutros-Ghali is not.
  I often speak of the need for U.N. reform, but I must confess most of 
my criticism has been of the Boutros-Ghali administration. Most would 
agree that U.S.-U.N. relations are at an all-time low. The American 
people's confidence in the United Nations has declined.
  This is unfortunate. I support the United Nations. I served twice as 
a Senate delegate to the United Nations. I want to see the United 
Nations work. The fact is, it doesn't work. The problems with the 
United Nations are many, but the first and primary solution is sound 
management reform at the United Nations. I'm speaking of clear, 
concise, honest budgeting; systems to root out waste, fraud, and abuse; 
adequate protections for whistleblowers; and more streamlined, 
efficient operations.
  Instituting these reforms will require a major change in U.N. 
philosophy. Since its founding, the United Nations has been run largely 
by career diplomats. Tough fiscal management is

[[Page S6276]]

not their style. Diplomats train for the grand world of treaties and 
receiving lines, not the grubby world of balance sheets and bottom 
lines.
  Mr. Boutros-Ghali reflects that basic philosophy. He has demonstrated 
antipathy at best, hostility at worst, toward reform proposals. One 
need only ask our former Attorney General, Richard Thornburgh, who 
served as the United Nations Undersecretary General for Administration 
and Management in 1992. Mr. Thornburgh took his mission seriously. He 
sought to institute major management reforms at the United Nations. He 
encountered no support from the Secretary General. When Mr. Thornburgh 
submitted a scathing report on U.N. mismanagement, the Secretary 
General refused to publish it and sought to have all known copies of it 
shredded.
  Mr. Boutros-Ghali certainly has tried to take credit for a number of 
reform initiatives. For the first time, the U.N. has a so-called 
inspector general--the Office of Internal Oversight Services [OIOS]--
which was established in 1994. He also may claim to have reduced 
unnecessary staff and produced the first no-growth budget in U.N. 
history. These are victories of mind, not of substance.
  Let's give credit where credit is due. The mere existence of the OIOS 
office and the attempts to achieve budget and management reforms were 
due largely to a combination of the following: increased media scrutiny 
of U.N. waste and abuse, strong congressional pressure, and tough 
reform advocates within the U.S. mission and certain other member 
nations.
  A close examination of the so-called reforms instituted at the United 
Nations show that the Secretary General is engaging more in a public 
relations embrace of reform, while keeping real reform at arm's length.
  First, I urge my colleagues to look closely at the OIOS office--the 
so-called U.N. inspector general. It has no authority to rid waste, 
fraud, and abuse, which inspectors-general in Federal departments and 
agencies have. The fact is the OIOS office is weak in terms of 
authority, and lacks the resources and the support needed from the 
Secretariat to do its job effectively. It cannot investigate all areas 
of U.N. operations. Member states do not have full access to IG reports 
and investigations. The IG can make recommendations for reform, but 
it's up to the U.N. Secretary General to act on the recommendations.

  Second, the Secretary General has stated that he has reduced the 
number of Under Secretaries General and Assistant Secretaries General. 
However, he has increased the numbers of and the budget for equivalent-
level special envoys. Chances are he's playing musical chairs with his 
senior staff. He's changing the titles on the chairs, when he should be 
removing the chairs and the people sitting in them.
  Third, the Secretary-General's claim to have cut U.N. staff by 10 
percent, or nearly 1,000 positions, also is smoke and mirrors. About 
750 of these slots currently are vacant and will go unfilled on a 
month-to-month basis. The Secretary General refuses to permanently 
eliminate these positions. The roughly 200 other positions to be cut 
are clerical positions that the U.N. already planned to eliminate when 
it passed its budget last year. What the Secretary General did not 
point out is that his budget adds 125 professional positions, which 
typically cost 40 percent more than the clerical positions to be 
eliminated.
  Fourth, the United Nations much heralded 2-year, no-growth budget is 
not living up to its billing. The goal was to cap budget spending at 
$2.608 billion over 2 years. Any new expenses not anticipated or 
budgeted would require corresponding offsets in order to stay under the 
$2.608 cap. The Secretary General already is months behind in 
submitting a proposal of budget reductions needed to stay under the 
cap. Most important, the United Nations is not even halfway through its 
budget cycle and already the Secretary General has indicated that the 
United Nations may not be able to stay under the budget cap. In fact, 
the U.S. Representative for Reform and Management appeared before the 
United Nations Fifth Committee last month and stated the U.S. 
delegation's concern with the Secretary General's latest budget report: 
it ``implies an inability to stay within the $2.608 billion budget 
level * * *''
  Finally, I must take issue with statements made by the Secretary 
General that the United Nations current financial problems are due to 
the failure of the United States to make good on its U.N. payments. 
Unfortunately, the Secretary General is confusing the disease's 
symptoms with its causes. Yes, the United Nations is in a financial 
crisis. However, it's a crisis of the United Nations own making.
  For more than a decade, beginning with the great work of the Senator 
from Kansas, Nancy Kassebaum, the U.S. Congress has made U.N. reform a 
high priority. U.N. leadership has fought this effort. That leaves 
Congress little choice but to use our leverage as the single largest 
U.N. contributor to achieve U.N. reform goals. It's a tough approach. 
It's not the one I would prefer using, but it is the only means 
currently available to us, and it has had some success.
  I want to see the United States make good on our current U.N. debts. 
That can't happen without a clear, substantive reform agenda in place 
at the United Nations. It's worth the wait. Frankly, it's far better to 
hold a portion of our taxpayer dollars here in Washington until reforms 
are achieved, rather than send them down a black hole of waste, fraud 
and abuse. Yes, we in Congress have an obligation to support the U.N., 
but our first obligation is to the American taxpayer. Our taxpayers 
deserve to know that their money is being managed prudently and 
effectively by the U.N. leadership. That is not being done.
  Mr. President, a fresh approach, a fresh perspective on U.N. 
leadership with an emphasis on responsible management practices is 
needed. Real reform at the United Nations will not occur without an 
overall fundamental change in the management philosophy at the United 
Nations. This fact was noted in the U.N. IG's first report, which noted 
that ``while the need for * * *. structural reform is widely 
acknowledged, the energy to bring it about is in short supply.''
  What that means is the United Nations needs tough, well-trained 
administrators at all levels of management. That's particularly true in 
peacekeeping missions, where waste and abuse traditionally is high. I'm 
not suggesting more U.N. bureaucracy. The United Nations either should 
train those currently within the United Nations who have the skills and 
the desire to be tough administrators, or replace the less effective 
ones with people with the experience to do the job.
  In short, what is required is a complete management overhaul at the 
United Nations. Like any organization, the tone and direction in 
management starts at the top. I hope the Clinton administration 
recognizes this. The United States needs to make clear that we seek a 
real, fundamental change in U.N. leadership. New leadership just may be 
the sparkplug the United Nations needs to restore its credibility in 
the eyes of Congress and the American people.
  Again, I support the United Nations. If managed effectively, the 
United Nations can be a sound, cost-effective investment in the 
advancement of global economic development, human rights, and world 
peace. I hope the intense criticism of management practices in recent 
years will jar the United Nations members to realize that sound 
management is vital to the United Nations long-term credibility. 
Management reform cannot by itself ensure that the United Nations will 
be both credible and successful, but without it, it does not stand a 
chance. New leadership is needed.

                          ____________________