[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 91 (Friday, July 1, 2005)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7882-S7886]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
NOMINATION OF JOHN BOLTON
Mr. VOINOVICH. This is the third time I have come to the Senate floor
to speak about the nomination of John Bolton to be the next ambassador
to the United Nations. It is particularly apropos because the Senate is
on the eve of going into the Fourth of July recess. The record before
the Senate documents the allegations related to Mr. Bolton's lack of
interpersonal skills and management style, the pattern of intimidation
with intelligence analysts, and the allegations that Mr. Bolton had a
habit of cherrypicking intelligence to suit his perception of the world
and his ideology.
The record has also documented Mr. Bolton's tendency to stray off
message in a manner that could harm U.S. interests and his need for
supervision from higher authorities to prevent him from hurting U.S.
objectives. The record documents the fact that I was given assurances
by the Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, that Mr. Bolton would be
supervised closely in his new position at the U.N. Because of these
concerns--and according to other Members of the Senate, they were given
the same assurances--the question we all have to ask is, Why would we
send someone to the United Nations who needs supervision?
I did not come to the floor today to repeat the record, although
these issues are very important to our decision to confirm Mr. Bolton
as our next ambassador to the United Nations. I came to the floor to
talk about why this nomination is particularly unique and why it is
particularly important at this time in history that we send the right
candidate to the United Nations.
The nominee that we send to the U.N. to be the face of the United
States to the world community must be able to advance our objectives
through diplomacy and improve the world's opinion of the United States
at this critical time. America's image is in trouble. World opinion is
increasingly negative when it comes to the United States. It is not
limited to Muslim countries. Polls of traditional allies and nonallies
reveal a dangerous rise in negative opinion since the beginning of the
conflict in Iraq. The Associated Press reported that the popularity of
the United States in many countries, including many in Europe, is
lagging behind even Communist China.
According to the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press,
about two-thirds of Britain, 65 percent, saw China favorably compared
with 55 percent who held a positive view of the United States. It is
easy to understand why our friend, British Prime Minister Tony Blair,
lost 30 seats in the Parliament.
The 9/11 Commission made this point in its report that negative
opinions of the United States have a serious impact on U.S. national
security objectives. The report stated that winning hearts and minds
through public diplomacy is just as critical to the war on terrorism as
other tools, such as military assets and intelligence. I know I am not
the only American who is disturbed by these numbers. The allegations
and the criticism do not reflect the facts and are in no way fair to
the United States of America. Our country is a decent, generous country
that has sacrificed a great deal for our brothers and sisters
throughout the world. Our men and women have sacrificed their lives in
many wars and peacekeeping operations so that others could be free from
oppression and free to pursue happiness.
In Iraq, the deaths of over 1,700 Americans and the injuries borne by
almost 13,000 Americans bear witness to this sacrifice. But the fact
is, we have to do a better job of getting our message out.
Our President, who made an outstanding case for our need to stay the
course in Iraq the other night, has stated on a number of occasions
that we need to improve our public diplomacy, and he has been very
successful in pushing forward that agenda in recent months. As I
mentioned before, the President has nominated Karen Hughes to head up
his public diplomacy efforts at the State Department, understanding
that it is going to take a talented individual to get the job done. He
has also been very successful in strengthening relationships with key
allies in the last several months.
The President has been very clear about the importance of diplomacy
in dealing with the world and the most pressing national security
issues. During the President's May 31 press conference at the White
House, just a month ago, he stated:
The best way to solve any difficult situation is through
diplomacy.
In response to questions about Iran, the President stated that U.S.
policy is to let diplomacy work its way and to solve the problem with
diplomacy, working with the EU-3, France, Great Britain, and Germany.
In response to questions about North Korea, the President said:
We want diplomacy to work.
Repeating:
We want diplomacy to be given a chance to work.
And that is exactly the position of the Government.
Based on these statements, there is no doubt that U.S. national
security strategy is going to rely on diplomacy for the months ahead,
and our ambassador to the United Nations must have the ability to
implement this Presidential strategy.
I recently spoke with Comptroller General David Walker who heads the
Government Accountability Office and is an expert on change in
governmental organizations and how one achieves reform in a
governmental organization. He said that in order to be successful on
reform, you need someone who respects the institution to be reformed
and who is respected by the institution.
In a March 2005 article in the Los Angeles Times, it was reported
that Mr. Bolton was asked why he opposed offering incentives to North
Korea to abandon its nuclear weapons program.
Mr. Bolton stated, ``I don't do carrots.''
Any competent diplomat knows you need both a carrot and a stick to be
successful. One would assume by that statement that Mr. Bolton's mode
of diplomacy is solely through carrying a big stick.
I will read a few quotes of many Mr. Bolton has spoken over the
years:
[[Page S7883]]
There's no such thing as the United Nations.
If the U.N. Secretary Building in New York lost 10 stories,
it wouldn't make a difference.
Not only do I not care about losing the General Assembly
vote, but actually see it as a ``make my day'' outcome.
Most recently, in answering a question from Juan Williams from
National Public Radio, Mr. Bolton said:
If I were redoing the Security Council today, I'd have one
permanent member because that's the real reflection of the
distribution of power in the world.
Mr. Williams queried:
And that one member would be, John Bolton?
Mr. Bolton responded:
The United States.
This is not a man who is perceived to respect the U.N. and who will
be respected by the institution if he goes there.
The other issue that makes this nomination particularly unique is the
great opportunity we have before us to reform the United Nations. This
is not an ordinary time in regard to the U.N. The U.N. has serious
problems that need attention now. We all know about the flaws in the
oversight system and the corruption related to the Oil for Food
Program.
There are also serious problems with the general management of the
U.N., the Commission on Human Rights, and the standards of conduct for
U.N. peacekeepers. All of these areas require reform now.
The bipartisan U.S. task force, led by Newt Gingrich and George
Mitchell, has issued a report detailing several recommendations for
reforming the U.N. and calling for action.
The report notes that without a renewed and more effective United
Nations, the challenges to international security, development, and
general well-being will be all the greater because, as the report
states, ``an effective U.N. is in American interests.''
The opportunity to finally reform the U.N. is even greater now
because we have the support of U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan. He
finally gets it, Mr. President.
In an article in Foreign Affairs Journal and in a recent article in
the Wall Street Journal, Kofi Annan stated, ``The desire for change is
widespread, not only in the U.S., but among many member-states, and
also many U.N. staff.''
I ask unanimous consent that both of these articles be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
United We Stand
(By Kofi A. Annan)
This Sunday marks the 60th anniversary of the signing of
the United Nations Charter in 1945. Debate about ``reform''
of the U.N. has been raging almost from that moment on.
This is bcause--especially but not only in the United
States--idealism and aspiration for the U.N. have always
outstripped its actual performance. For 60-years Americans--
conservative and liberal alike--have expected much from the
U.N. Too often, we have failed to meet those expectations.
In Washington, the debate now centers on two documents
which appeared last week: the report of the bipartisan Task
Force led by former Speaker Newt Gingrich and former Senator
George Mitchell, and the Henry J. Hyde United Nations Reform
Act, adopted by the House of Representatives.
There is considerable overlap between the two
prescriptions, as there is between both and the reforms that
I myself have proposed--or, where they are within my power,
am already implementing. That is not surprising. The desire
for change is widespread, not only in the U.S., but among
many other U.N. member-states, and also many U.N. staff.
All of us want to make the U.N.'s management more
transparent and accountable, and its oversight mechanisms
stronger and more independent.
All of us would like the General Assembly to streamline its
agenda and committee structure, so that time and resources
are devoted to the burning issues of the day, rather than to
implementing resolutions passed years ago in a different
political context.
All of us are eager to make the U.N.'s human rights
machinery more credible and more authoritative, notably by
replacing the present Commission on Human Rights with a Human
Rights Council, whose members would set an example by
applying the standards they are charged to uphold.
All of us would like to see a Peacebuilding Commission
created within the U.N., to coordinate and sustain the work
of helping countries make the transition from war to peace--
so that we do not repeat the dangerous relapse into anarchy
that we witnessed in Afghanistan before 2001 and more
recently in Haiti, as will as several African countries.
And all of us want to impose stricter standards of conduct
on U.N. peacekeeping missions, especially to put an end to
sexual abuse and exploitation.
Those are some examples, among many. I believe this
convergence of expectations offers us--perhaps for the first
time in 60 years--a chance to bridge the gap between
aspiration and performance.
Where there are differences--not so much between the U.N.
and the U.S., but between the Hyde Act and the other
proposals on offer--these relate essentially to two points:
the method to be used to make reform happen, and the global
context which makes U.N. reform so important.
For Mr. Hyde and his colleagues, reform can only be brought
about by threatening a draconian and unilateral cut in the
U.S. contribution to the U.N. budget.
I believe that approach is profoundly mistaken and would,
if adopted by the U.S. government as whole, prove
disastrously counterproductive. It would break the reformist
coalition between the U.S. and other member-states whose
collective pressure could otherwise make these reforms
happen.
The U.N. is an association of sovereign states, which
agreed, when they ratified the Charter, to share the expenses
of the Organization ``as apportioned by the General
Assembly.'' The scale of assessment, which determines the
share borne by each member-state, is renegotiated every six
years; and every year the General Assembly passes a
resolution--invariabaly supported by the U.S.--enjoining
all members to pay their contributions promptly, in full
and without conditions.
The way to make changes or reforms, therefore, is to
negotiate agreement with other member-states.
As the Gingrich-Mitchell task force put it, ``to be
successful, American diplomacy must build a strong coalition
including key member-states from various regions and groups .
. . many of whom share America's' strong desire to reform the
United Nations into an organization that works.'' Such a
coalition will not be built by one nation threatening to cut
its own contribution unilaterally. Other states will not
accept such a ``big stick'' approach.
Fortunately, the Hyde withholding proposal is not backed by
the administration, or indeed by the task force.
Even more important, however, is the global context The
U.N. does not exist in a vacuum, or for its own sake. It is a
forum in which all the world's peoples can come together to
find common solutions to their common problems--and, when
they so choose, also an instrument with which to pursue those
solutions.
There are surely more shared global problems and threats
today, or anyway not fewer, than when the U.N. was founded.
Among the most worrying are the proliferation of terrorist
groups and weapons of mass destruction, and the danger that
the latter will fall into the hands of the former.
Those are very serious threats to people in rich and poor
countries alike. The failure of last month's review
conference on the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty to address
them seems breathtakingly irresponsible. I hope the world's
political leaders will now take up the issue, with much
greater urgency.
To deal with such issues, we need, among other things, a
stronger and more representative Security Council.
But the threats that seem most immediate to many people in
poor countries are those of poverty, disease, environmental
degradation, bad government, civil conflict, and in some
cases--Darfur inevitably springs to mind--the use of rape,
pillage and mass murder to drive whole populations from their
homes.
We can only make progress if we address all these threats
at once. No nation can reasonably expect cooperation on the
things that matter to it most, unless it is prepared in
return to help others with their priorities. And, as the
U.N.'s own high-level reform panel pointed out, the different
kinds of threats are closely interconnected. Neglect and
misgovernment in Afghanistan allowed terrorists to find a
haven. Chaos in Haiti caused attempted mass migration to
Florida. And poor health systems in poor countries may make
it easier for a disease like avian flu to spread
spontaneously, or even to be spread deliberately, from one
continent to another.
So development and security are connected--and both in turn
are linked to human rights and the rule of law. The main
purpose of my ``In Larger Freedom'' report was to suggest
things that can and should be done, by all nations working
together, to achieve progress on all these fronts and to make
the U.N. a more effective instrument for doing so.
Decisions can be taken this September, when political
leaders from all over the world meet at U.N. Headquarters for
the 2005 world summit. Over 170 have said they will come, and
President Bush is expected to be among them.
The stakes for the U.S., and for the world, could hardly be
higher. The opportunity to forge a common response to common
threats may not soon recur. It is in that context, and for
that reason, that a reformed and strengthened U.N. is so
badly needed.
____
``In Larger Freedom'': Decision Time at the UN
(By Kofi Annan)
OUR SHARED VULNERABILITY
Ask a New York investment banker who walks past Ground Zero
every day on her
[[Page S7884]]
way to work what today's biggest threat is. Then ask an
illiterate 12-year-old orphan in Malawi who lost his parents
to AIDS. You will get two very different answers. Invite an
Indonesian fisherman mourning the loss of his entire family
and the destruction of his village from the recent,
devastating tsunami to tell you what he fears most. Then ask
a villager in Darfur, stalked by murderous militias and
fearful of bombing raids. Their answers, too, are likely to
diverge.
Different perceptions of what is a threat are often the
biggest obstacles to international cooperation. But I believe
that in the twenty-first century they should not be allowed
to lead the world's governments to pursue very different
priorities or to work at cross-purposes. Today's threats are
deeply interconnected, and they feed off of one another. The
misery of people caught in unresolved civil conflicts or of
populations mired in extreme poverty; for example, may
increase their attraction to terrorism. The mass rape of
women that occurs too often in today's conflicts makes the
spread of HIV and AIDS all the more likely.
In fact, all of us are vulnerable to what we think of as
dangers that threaten only other people. Millions more of
sub-Saharan Africa's inhabitants would plunge below the
poverty line if a nuclear terrorist attack against a
financial center in the United States caused a massive
downturn in the global economy. By the same token, millions
of Americans could quickly become infected if, naturally or
through malicious intent, a new disease were to break out in
a country with poor health care and be carried across the
world by unwitting air travelers before it was identified.
No nation can defend itself against these threats entirely
on its own. Dealing with today's challenges--from ensuring
that deadly weapons do not fall into dangerous hands to
combating global climate change, from preventing the
trafficking of sex slaves by organized criminal gangs to
holding war criminals to account before competent courts--
requires broad, deep, and sustained global cooperation.
States working together can achieve things that are beyond
what even the most powerful state can accomplish by itself.
Those who drew up the charter of the United Nations in 1945
saw these realities very clearly. In the aftermath of World
War II, which claimed the lives of 50 million people, they
established at the San Francisco conference in 1945 an
organization (in the words of the charter) to ``save
succeeding generations from the scourge of war.'' Their
purpose was not to usurp the role of sovereign states but to
enable states to serve their peoples better by working
together. The UN's founders knew that this enterprise could
not be narrowly conceived because security, development, and
human rights are- inextricably linked. Thus they endowed the
new world organization with broad ambitions: to ensure
respect for fundamental human rights, to establish conditions
under which justice and the rule of law can be maintained,
and, as the charter says, ``to promote social progress and
better standards of life in larger freedom.''
When the UN Charter speaks, of ``larger freedom,'' it
includes the basic political freedoms to which all human
beings are entitled. But it also goes beyond them,
encompassing what President Franklin Roosevelt called
``freedom from want'' and ``freedom from fear.'' Both our
security and our principles have long demanded that we push
forward all these frontiers of freedom, conscious that
progress on one depends on and reinforces progress on the
others. In the last 60 years, rapid technological advances,
increasing economic interdependence, globalization, and
dramatic geopolitical change have made this imperative only
more urgent. And since the attacks of September 11, 2001,
people everywhere have come to realize this. A new insecurity
entered every mind, regardless of wealth or status. More
clearly than ever before, we understand that our safety, our
prosperity indeed, our freedom--is indivisible.
A NEW SAN FRANCISCO MOMENT
Yet precisely when these challenges have become so stark,
and when collective action has become so plainly required, we
see deep discord among states. Such dissonance discredits our
global institutions. It allows the gap between the haves and
the have-nots, the strong and the weak, to grow. It sows the
seeds of a backlash against the very principles that the UN
was set up to advance. And by inviting states to pursue their
own solutions, it calls into question some of the fundamental
principles that have, however imperfectly, buttressed the
international order since 1945.
Future generations will not forgive us if we continue down
this path. We cannot just muddle along and make do with
incremental responses in an era when organized crime
syndicates seek to smuggle both sex slaves and nuclear
materials across borders; when whole societies are being laid
waste by AIDS; when rapid advances in biotechnology make it
all too feasible to create ``designer bugs'' immune to
current vaccines; and when terrorists, whose ambitions are
very plain, find ready recruits among young men in societies
with little hope, even less justice, and narrowly sectarian
schools. It is urgent that our world unite to master today's
threats and not allow them to divide us and thus master us.
In recent months, I have received two wide-ranging reviews
of our global challenges: one from the 16-member High-Level
Panel on Threats, Challenges, and Change, which I had asked
to make proposals to strengthen our collective security
system; the other from 250 experts who undertook the UN
Millennium Project and devised a plan to cut global poverty
in half within the next ten years. Both reports are
remarkable as much for their hardheaded realism as for their
bold vision. Having carefully studied them, and, extensively
consulted UN member states, I have just placed before the
world's governments my own blueprint for a new era of global
cooperation and collective action.
My report, entitled ``In Larger Freedom,'' calls on states
to use the summit of world leaders that will be held at UN
headquarters in September to strengthen our collective
security, lay down a truly global strategy for
development, advance the cause of human rights and
democracy in all nations, and put in place new mechanisms
to ensure that these commitments are translated into
action. Accountability--of states to their citizens, of
states to one another, of international institutions to
their members, and of this present generation to future
ones--is essential for our success. With that in mind, the
UN must undergo the most sweeping overhaul of its 60-year
history. World leaders must recapture the spirit of San
Francisco and forge a new world compact to advance the
cause of larger freedom.
FREEDOM FROM FEAR
The starting point for a new consensus should be a broad
view of today's threats. These dangers include not just
international wars but also civil violence, organized crime,
terrorism, and weapons of mass destruction. They also include
poverty, infectious disease, and environmental degradation,
since these ills can also have catastrophic consequences and
wreak tremendous damage. All of these can undermine states as
the basic units of the international system.
All states--strong and weak, rich and poor--share an
interest in having a collective security system that commits
them to act cooperatively against a broad array of threats.
The basis of such a system must be a new commitment to
preventing latent threats from becoming imminent and imminent
threats from becoming actual, as well as an agreement on when
and how force should be used if preventive strategies fail.
Action is required on many fronts, but three of them stand
out as particularly urgent. First, we must ensure that
catastrophic terrorism never becomes a reality. In that
cause, we must make use of the unique normative strength,
global reach, and convening power of the UN. To start, a
comprehensive convention against terrorism should be
developed. The UN has been central in helping states
negotiate and adopt 12 international antiterrorism
conventions, but a comprehensive convention outlawing
terrorism in all its forms has so far eluded us because of
debates on ``state terrorism'' and the right to resist
occupation. It is time to put these debates aside. The use of
force by Most lawyers recognize that the provision includes
the right to take preemptive action against an imminent
threat; it needs no reinterpretation or rewriting. Yet today
we also face dangers that are not imminent but that could
materialize with little or no warning and might culminate in
nightmare scenarios if left unaddressed. The Security Council
is fully empowered by the UN Charter to deal with such
threats, and it must be ready to do so.
We must also remember that state sovereignty carries
responsibilities as well as rights, including the
responsibility to protect citizens from genocide or other
mass atrocities. When states fail to live up to this
responsibility, it passes to the international community,
which, if necessary, should stand ready to take enforcement
action authorized by the Security Council.
The decision to use force is never easy. To help forge
consensus over when and how resort to force is appropriate,
the Security Council should consider the seriousness of the
threat, whether the proposed action addresses the threat, the
proportionality of that proposed action, whether force is
being contemplated as a last resort, and whether the benefits
of using force would outweigh the costs of not using it.
Balancing such considerations will not produce made-to-
measure answers but should help produce decisions that are
grounded in principle and therefore command broad respect.
LIVING IN DIGNITY
Accepting our solemn responsibility to protect civilians
against massive violations of human rights is part of a
larger need: to take human rights and the rule of law
seriously in the conduct of international affairs. We need
long-term, sustained engagement to integrate human rights and
the rule of law into all the work of the UN. This commitment
is as critical to conflict prevention as it is to poverty
reduction, particularly in states struggling to shed a legacy
of violence.
The UN, as the vehicle through which the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights and two international human
rights covenants have been promulgated, has made an enormous
contribution to human rights. But the international machinery
in place today is not sufficient to ensure that those rights
are upheld in practice. The Office of the UN High
Commissioner for Human Rights operates on a shoestring
budget, with insufficient capacity to monitor the field. The
high commissioner's office needs more support, both political
and financial. The Security Council--
[[Page S7885]]
and in time, I hope, the proposed Peacebuilding Commission--
should involve the high commissioner much more actively in
its deliberations.
The Commission on Human Rights has been discredited in the
eyes of many. Too often states seek membership to insulate
themselves from criticism or to criticize others, rather than
to assist in the body's true task, which is to monitor and
encourage the compliance of all states with their human
rights obligations. The time has come for real reform. The
commission should be transformed into a new Human Rights
Council. The members of this council should be elected
directly by the General Assembly and pledge to abide by the
highest human rights standards.
No human rights agenda can ignore the right of all people
to govern themselves through democratic institutions. The
principles of democracy are enshrined in the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights, which, ever since it was adopted
in 1948, has inspired constitutions in every corner of the
globe. Democracy is more widely accepted and practiced today
than ever before. By setting norms and leading efforts to end
colonialism and ensure self-determination, the UN has helped
nations freely choose their destiny. The UN has also given
concrete support for elections in more and more countries: in
the last year alone, it has done so in more than 20 areas and
countries, including Afghanistan, Palestine, Iraq, and
Burundi. Since democracy is about far more than elections,
the organization's work to improve governance throughout the
developing world and to rebuild the rule of law and state
institutions in war-torn countries is also of vital
importance. Member states of the UN should now build on this
record, as President George W. Bush suggested to the UN
General Assembly in September 2004, by supporting a fund to
help countries establish or strengthen democracy.
Of course, at the UN, democratic states sometimes have to
work with nondemocratic ones. But today's threats do not stop
neatly at the borders of democratic states, and just as no
democratic nation restricts its bilateral relations to
democracies, no multilateral organization designed to achieve
global objectives can restrict its membership to them. I look
forward to the day when every member state of the General
Assembly is democratically governed. The UN'S
universal membership is a precious asset in advancing that
goal. The very fact that nondemocratic states often sign
on to the U.N.'s agenda opens an avenue through which
other states, as well as civil society around the world,
can press them to align their behavior with their
commitments.
FREEDOM FROM WANT
Support for human rights and democracy must go hand in hand
with serious action to promote development. A world in which
every year 11 million children die before their fifth
birthday, almost all from preventable causes, and 3 million
people of all ages die of AIDS is not a world of larger
freedom. It is a world that desperately needs a practical
strategy to implement the Millennium Declaration on which all
states solemnly agreed five years ago. The eight Millennium
Development Goals that are to be achieved by 2015 include
halving the proportion of people in the world who live in
extreme poverty and hunger, ensuring that all children
receive primary education, and turning the tide against HIV/
AIDS, malaria, and other major diseases.
The urgency of taking more effective action to achieve
these goals can hardly be overstated. Although the deadline
is still a decade away, we risk missing it if we do not
drastically accelerate and scale up our action this year.
Development gains cannot be achieved overnight. It takes time
to train teachers, nurses, and engineers; to build roads,
schools, and hospitals; and to grow the small and large
businesses that create jobs and generate income for the poor.
The U.N. summit in September must be the time when all
nations sign up not just for a declaration but also for a
detailed plan of attack on deadly poverty by which all can be
judged. That summit will be a moment for deeds rather than
words--a moment to implement the commitments that have been
made to move from the realm of aspirations to that of
operations.
At the core of this plan must be the global partnership
between rich and poor countries, the terms of which were set
out three years ago at the International Conference on
Financing for Development in Monterrey, Mexico. That historic
compact was firmly grounded in the principles of mutual
responsibility and mutual accountability. It reaffirmed the
responsibility of each country for its own development and
elicited concrete commitments from wealthy nations to support
poorer ones.
In September, all developing countries should undertake to
put forward, by 2006, practical national strategies to meet
the Millennium Goals. Each country should map the key
dimensions and underlying causes of extreme poverty, use that
map to assess its needs and identify necessary public
investments, and convert that assessment into a ten-year
framework for action, elaborating three-to-five-year poverty-
reduction strategies for the meantime.
Donors must also ensure that developing countries that put
such strategies in place really do get the support they need,
in the form of market access, debt relief, and official
development assistance (ODA). For too long, ODA has been
inadequate, unpredictable, and driven by supply rather than
demand. Although such aid has been increasing since the
Monterrey summit, already with noticeable results, many
donors still give far less than the target of 0.7 percent of
gross national income. All of them should now draw up their
own ten-year strategies to meet the 0.7 percent target by
2015 and ensure that they reach 0.5 percent by 2009.
We need action on other fronts, too. On global climate
change, for example, the time has come to agree on an
international framework that draws in all major emitters of
greenhouse gases in a common effort to combat global warming
beyond the year 2012, when the Kyoto Protocol is due to
expire. We need both a commitment to a new regulatory
framework and far more innovative use of new technologies and
market mechanisms in carbon trading. We must also learn the
lesson of December's devastating tsunami, by putting in place
a worldwide capability to give early warning of all natural
hazards--not just tsunamis and storms, but floods, droughts,
landslides, heat waves, and volcanic eruptions.
A RENEWED UN
If the U.N. is to be a vehicle through which states can
meet the challenges of today and tomorrow, it needs major
reforms to strengthen its relevance, effectiveness, and
accountability. In September, decisions should be reached to
make the General Assembly and the Economic and Social Council
more strategic in their work. Just as we contemplate creating
new institutions such as a Peacebuilding Commission, we
should abolish those that are no longer needed, such as the
Trusteeship Council.
No reform of the U.N. would be complete, however, without
Security Council reform. The council's present makeup
reflects the world of 1945, not that of the twenty-first
century. It must be reformed to include states that
contribute most to the organization, financially, militarily,
and diplomatically, and to represent broadly the current
membership of the U.N. Two models for expanding the council
from 15 to 24 members are now on the table: one creates six
new permanent seats and three new nonpermanent ones; the
other creates nine new nonpermanent seats. Neither model
expands the veto power currently enjoyed by the five
permanent members. I believe the time has come to tackle this
issue head on. Member states should make up their minds and
reach a decision before the September summit.
Equally important is reform of the U.N. Secretariat and the
wider network of agencies, funds, and programs that make up
the U.N. system. Since 1997, there has been a quiet
revolution at the U.N., rendering the system more coherent
and efficient. But I am deeply conscious that more needs to
be done to make the organization more transparent and
accountable, not just to member states, but to the public on
whose confidence it relies and whose interests it ultimately
must serve. Recent failures have only underlined this
imperative.
I am already taking a series of measures to make the U.N.
Secretariat's procedures and management more open to
scrutiny. But if reform is to be truly successful, the
secretary-general, as chief administrative officer of the
organization, must be empowered to manage it with autonomy
and flexibility, so that he or she can drive through the
necessary changes. The secretary-general must be able to
align the organization's work program behind the kind of
agenda I have outlined, once it is endorsed by member states,
and not be hamstrung by old mandates and a fragmented
decision-making structure that jeopardize setting a central
strategic direction. When member states grant the post this
autonomy and flexibility, they will have both the right and
the responsibility to demand even greater transparency and
accountability.
decision time
In calling on member states to make the most far-reaching
reform in the organization's history and to come together on
a range of issues where collective action is required, I do
not claim that success through multilateral means is
guaranteed. But I can almost guarantee that unilateral
approaches will, over time, fail. I believe states have no
reasonable alternative to working together, even if
collaboration means taking the priorities of your partners
seriously to ensure that they will take seriously your own in
return--even if, as President Harry Truman said in San
Francisco 60 years ago, ``We all have to recognize, no matter
how great our strength, that we must deny ourselves the
license to do always as we please.''
The urgency of global cooperation is now more apparent than
ever. A world warned of its vulnerability cannot stand
divided while old problems continue to claim the lives of
millions and new problems threaten to do the same. A world of
interdependence cannot be safe or just unless people
everywhere are freed from want and fear and are able to live
in dignity. Today, as never before, the rights of the poor
are as fundamental as those of the rich, and a broad
understanding of them is as important to the security of the
developed world as it is to that of the developing world.
Ralph Bunche, a great American and the first U.N. official
to receive the Nobel Peace Prize, once said that the U.N.
exists ``not merely to preserve the peace but also to make
change--even radical change--possible without violent
unheaval. The U.N. has no
[[Page S7886]]
vested interest in the status quo.'' Today, these words take
on new significance. The U.N.'s mission of peace must bring
closer the day when all states exercise their sovereignty
responsibly, deal with internal dangers before these threaten
their citizens and those of other states, enable and empower
their citizens to choose the kind of lives they would like to
live, and act with other states to meet global threats and
challenges. In short, the U.N. must steer all of the world's
peoples toward ``better standards of life in larger
freedom.'' The U.N. summit in September is the chance for all
of us to set out on that path.
Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, Kofi Annan also stated there is
considerable overlap between the Mitchell-Gingrich task force report
and the reforms he himself is proposing, and that he is prepared to
implement them.
He stated:
All of us want to make the U.N.'s management more
transparent and accountable, and its oversight mechanisms
stronger and more independent.
He stated:
All of us want to make the U.N.'s human rights machinery
more credible . . . by replacing the present Commission on
Human Rights with a Human Rights Council.
He also stated:
All of us want to impose stricter standards of conduct on
U.N. peacekeeping missions, especially an end to sexual abuse
and exploitation.
These statements indicate we are in a unique position with the U.N.
and there is a sincere interest in reform. We have to seize this
opportunity now.
When you are dealing with an organization that understands the need
for reform and is echoing our objectives and is ready to cooperate, we
need to send in not the ``bad cop,'' or the guy with the ``sharp
elbows,'' or the guy who says, ``I don't do carrots.'' We need to send
the ``good cop,'' the guy who knows how to reap the benefits of the
environment for change and make it happen.
John Bolton is a bold contradiction to the efforts to improve the
image of the U.S. at this critical time, as well as a contradiction to
the President's efforts to ramp up public diplomacy.
John Bolton is a bold contradiction to efforts to reform the U.N. If
we do not send the right person to the U.N., there is substantial risk
we might lose this unprecedented and ripe opportunity to achieve
important reforms.
The person we send to the U.N. will have great influence on the
world's perception of the United States, our values, our decency, and
will be critical to the urgent reforms that must be made at the U.N.
Our success on these issues--public diplomacy and U.N. reform--will
have an enormous impact on our ability to win the war on terrorism, to
promote peace in the world and, most importantly, whether we live in an
America that is free from terror.
Mr. President, how many minutes do I have left?
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator has 3\1/2\ minutes.
____________________