[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 176 (Tuesday, December 9, 2003)]
[Senate]
[Pages S16089-S16090]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  COMMENDING KOFI ANNAN, SECRETARY GENERAL OF THE UNITED NATIONS, AND 
                    STRENGTHENING THE UNITED NATIONS

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise today to bring to the attention of 
my colleagues a very thoughtful article written by Kofi Annan, 
Secretary General of the United Nations, entitled ``Search For A New 
U.N. Role.''
  I commend the Secretary for his strong leadership over these years, 
and particularly for the courage he has shown as manifested by this op-
ed piece, the courage he has shown to look to the future and to take 
such, what you might call, corrective measures or revisions as will 
further strengthen the United Nations as we, the body of nations, face 
a very perilous and uncertain world, a world filled with threats which 
really have little precedent in history and weapons that have little 
precedent in history.

[[Page S16090]]

  Fifty-two years ago, this humble soul was a second lieutenant in the 
U.S. Marine Corps and served under the United Nations banner in the 
Korean conflict in Korea. My service was--I say with deepest humility--
very modest, for I have often said on this floor that such military 
service as I had in the closing months of World War II and in Korea was 
very modest compared to others, but it did much for me. I am 
continuously trying to pay back to the current generation, the men and 
women of the Armed Forces, what was done for me.
  I simply cite that it was the U.N. banner under which the U.S. forces 
and the forces of a number of other nations, a coalition, fought those 
battles. This was the United Nations' first military mission, as I look 
back over this half century. Of course, we all recognize there has been 
no peace treaty. There has never been one signed. But also there has 
been no recourse to major military use of force on the Korea peninsula 
in this half century. So that mission of the United Nations, I would 
say, had a strong measure of success. To this day, our U.S. forces 
still serve in that theater under the U.N. banner to keep the peace on 
that peninsula.
  As Secretary Annan notes in his op-ed piece, the United Nations has 
been greatly tested in recent years. To his credit, the Secretary has 
been willing to face head on these challenges to the historic 
institution he is privileged to lead and has led with great 
distinction. Indeed, one of those tests was with the United States as 
we approached obligations which I strongly support, obligations the 
President has pointed out many times, obligations to bring a greater 
measure of freedom to the people of Iraq. But that is history. It was 
clearly a lesson learned by all who participated.
  Last week, Secretary Annan announced he has convened a panel to take 
a hard look at the mission of the U.N. and what changes the U.N. should 
make to ensure that it can be a relevant and effective institution in 
the future. The panel is expected to issue a report in the fall of 
2004.
  I commend the Secretary for his courage in looking to the future and 
tasking this panel to give their views not only to him but to the 
entire community of nations which proudly form the United Nations. 
Without a doubt, the world needs a stronger United Nations, one that 
can address with greater decisiveness and swiftness the challenges to 
freedom in the future.
  I ask unanimous consent that the op-ed piece be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

               [From the Los Angeles Times, Dec. 4, 2003]

                       Search for a New U.N. Role

                           (By Kofi A. Annan)

       We have come to a decisive moment in history. The great 
     threat of nuclear confrontation between rival superpowers is 
     now behind us. But a new and diverse constellation of threats 
     has arisen in its place. We need to look again at the 
     machinery of international relations. Is it up to these new 
     challenges? If not, how does it need to be changed?
       The events of the last year have exposed deep divisions 
     among members of the United Nations on fundamental questions 
     of policy and principle. How can we best protect ourselves 
     against international terrorism and halt the spread of 
     weapons of mass destruction? When is the use of force 
     premissible--and who should decide? Does it have to be each 
     state for itself, or will we be safer working together? Is 
     ``preventive war'' sometimes justified, or is it simply 
     aggression under another name? And, in a world that has 
     become ``unipolar,'' what role should the United Nations 
     play?
       These new debates come on top of earlier ones that arose in 
     the 1990s. Is state sovereignty an absolute and immutable 
     principle, or does our understanding of it need to evolve? To 
     what extent is it the international community's 
     responsibility to prevent or resolve conflicts within states 
     (as opposed to wars between them)--particularly when they 
     involve genocide, ``ethnic cleansing'' or other extreme 
     violations of human rights?
       These questions cannot be left unanswered. Yet they are not 
     the only questions. And for many people they may not even be 
     the most urgent.
       In fact, to many people in the world today, especially in 
     poor countries, the risk of being attacked by terrorists or 
     with weapons of mass destruction, or even of falling prey to 
     genocide, must seem relatively remote compared to the so-
     called ``soft'' threats--the ever-present dangers of extreme 
     poverty and hunger, unsafe drinking water, environmental 
     degradation and endemic or infectious disease.
       Let's not imagine that these things are unconnected with 
     peace and security, or that we can afford to ignore them 
     until the ``hard threats'' have been sorted out. We should 
     have learned by now that a world of glaring inequality--
     between countries and within them--where many millions of 
     people endure brutal oppression and extreme misery is never 
     going to be a fully safe world, even for its most privileged 
     inhabitants.
       Today, the common ground we used to stand on no longer 
     seems solid. In seeking new common ground for our collective 
     efforts, we need to consider whether the United Nations 
     itself is well suited to the challenges ahead.
       During the last year, the United Nations has been held 
     under a microscope. In an atmosphere of acrimony surrounding 
     the crisis in Iraq, the importance and, indeed, the relevance 
     of the institution have in some quarters been called into 
     question. This was especially true at the time of the United 
     States decision to go to war in Iraq without the explicit 
     approval of the Security Council.
       I know that over the years our record has been far from 
     perfect. The Security Council has been unable to prevent 
     horrendous atrocities--the rule of the Khmer Rouge in 
     Cambodia, ethnic cleansing in the former Yugoslavia, genocide 
     in Rwanda. But, to paraphrase Henry Cabot Lodge, the United 
     Nations may not have brought us to heaven but it played a 
     vital role in saving us from hell.
       Peace was brought to many lands through the U.N.--Cambodia, 
     El Salvador, Guatemala, Mozambique. We helped protect against 
     a drift toward nuclear holocaust, including during the Cuban 
     missile crisis. We served as a vehicle for action against 
     North Korea, against Iraq after the invasion of Kuwait. We've 
     brought relief to millions affected by fighting, famine and 
     floods, and we have helped reduce child mortality and 
     eradicate smallpox. We were critical in helping the 
     developing world throw off the yoke of colonialism.
       To my mind, recent events have only underlined the need for 
     the United Nations. That's why I convened a panel, chaired by 
     former Prime Minister Anand Panyarachun of Thailand, to 
     examine the future of our organization. The panel holds its 
     first meeting this weekend.
       Its role is threefold: to analyze current and future 
     threats to peace and security; to assess the contribution 
     that collective action can make in meeting these threats; and 
     to recommend the changes needed to make the United Nations a 
     legitimate and effective instrument for a collective 
     response. How, in particular, can the United Nations ``take 
     effective collective measures for the prevention and removal 
     of threats to the peace,'' which is one of its purposes, as 
     defined in Article I of its charter? I hope the panel will 
     complete its report by autumn 2004.
       If it does its work well, history may yet remember the 
     current crisis as a great opportunity that wise men and women 
     used to strengthen the mechanisms of international 
     cooperation and adapt them to the needs of the new century.

  (The remarks of Mr. Warner and Mr. DeWine pertaining to the 
introduction of S. 1993 are located in today's Record under 
``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

                          ____________________