[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 123 (Tuesday, September 10, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Page S10205]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




           CURIOUS CASE OF WHITE HOUSE VERSUS UNITED NATIONS

 Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I have already mentioned to my 
colleagues that I think we are mishandling the matter of the election 
of the U.N. Secretary General.
  Our inattention to the needs beyond our boarder--as well as to 
poverty here at home is not something Americans can be proud of.
  And our failure to pay U.N. dues, our failure to join other nations 
in peacekeeping operations too frequently, our reluctance to lead when 
leadership is essential, and our negative tone toward U.N. Secretary-
General Boutros Boutros-Ghali have all been mistakes.
  Recently Georgie Anne Geyer had a column in the Chicago Tribune 
commenting about our handling of the Boutros-Ghali matter.
  Georgie Anne Geyer is an experienced observer of the international 
scene; and when she comments on something like this, we should listen 
carefully to what she says.
  Mr. President, I ask that the article from the Chicago Tribune be 
printed in the Record.
  The article follows:

                       [From the Chicago Tribune]

              Curious Case of White House versus the U.N.

                        (By Georgie Anne Geyer)

       New York.--The international storm brewing here began May 
     13, when U.S. Secretary of State Warren Christopher received 
     UN Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali and told the 
     controversial Egyptian diplomat flatly, ``President Clinton 
     does not want to give you a second mandate.''
       According to internal reports at the United Nations here, 
     Boutros-Ghali said, only partly in jest, ``Look, you are a 
     good lawyer: Defend my case,'' To which, Christopher 
     responded, not in jest at all, ``I am the lawyer of the 
     president of the United States and not yours.''
       Not only was this curious case of the White House versus 
     the UN Plaza not ``rested,'' but all hell then broke loose on 
     a number of continents and in the corridors of myriad foreign 
     ministries, from Beijing to Budapest.
       Christopher followed up the initial shock announcement by 
     putting forward the idea of a ``compromise'' by which 
     Boutros-Ghali would stay one year and then leave. (To which 
     the Egyptian diplomat responded tartly: ``is this some sort 
     of ``tip''? If so, it's not very generous.'')
       Next, in Bonn for meeting, Boutros-Ghali received a private 
     phone call from New York warning him that an announcement 
     would come from the State Department in Washington the next 
     day that the United States no longer supported him. (And so, 
     at that point, Boutros-Ghali, who is no slouch when it comes 
     to tactics, peremptorily moved on this unique geopolitical 
     chessboard, announcing his intention to seek re-election for 
     another five-year term.)
       On July 8, the drama moved to Africa--to the Organization 
     of African Unity meeting in Yaounde, Cameroon--where 
     Washington sent an unusually large delegation of nine senior 
     diplomats to try to sidetrack any support for the secretary-
     general.
       Instead, Only three of the 54 African member states voted 
     against the Egyptian UN leader, one of those being war-torn 
     Rwanda, which opposed him because of his criticism of the 
     massacres there.
       If all of that were not enough, threats began to come out 
     of the American administration that it would use its veto in 
     the Security Council if Boutros-Ghali were backed this fall 
     by a majority in the United Nations. But this presents a 
     still further conundrum, for after the Cold War ended, 
     Security Council members agreed not to use the veto, in order 
     to free the UN from the constricting manner in which the 
     Soviet Union had used it for so many years.
       All of this is now at a classic diplomatic impasse. From a 
     day and more of interviewing in the UN, I can say that many, 
     many foreign diplomats are mad as hell at what they perceive 
     as a repetition of historical American arrogance.
       Floating around the United Nations now is the idea of a new 
     ``compromise'' by which the secretary-general would accept a 
     face-saving extension of his term. But that would not affect 
     the main problem of this UN very much at all.
       The real problem is that this administration tries to 
     assert its power on matters like the choice of a secretary-
     general but consistently refused to show any leadership on 
     the big issues facing the post-Cold War UN. If the UN has 
     been less than what it could have been in these pivotal 
     years, the primary responsibility for that failure has not 
     been Boutros-Ghali's.

                          ____________________