[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 90 (Wednesday, July 12, 2006)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E1390-E1391]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  THE UNITED NATION'S INVALUABLE ROLE IN A POSSIBLE RESOLUTION TO IRAQ

                                 ______
                                 

                         HON. CHARLES B. RANGEL

                              of new york

                    in the house of representatives

                        Wednesday, July 12, 2006

   Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to remind my colleagues about 
the importance of the role of the much maligned United Nations. As 
Richard Holbrooke, a former U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. wrote in a 
column which appeared in the Washington Post on June 28, 2006 that the 
United Nations still serves U.S. foreign policy interests. It is 
imperative that the U.S. supports and asserts leadership on the issues 
before the U.N.
  On June 15, 2006, two days after he returned from Iraq, President 
Bush sent two personal emissaries (Philip Zelikow, the counselor of the 
State Department, and the Deputy Treasury Secretary Robert Kimmitt) to 
meet with U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan and his deputy Mark Malloch 
Brown to discuss the coming introduction of the Iraq Compact, which 
requires the Iraqi government to implement a series of economic and 
political reforms in exchange for increased international aid. This 
meeting received surprisingly little public attention. Perhaps there is 
something in Mr. Brown's allegation that U.N. achievements are 
downplayed in America.
  President Bush requested Mr. Annan's assistance in organizing 
international meetings that would lead to this agreement. On the same 
day, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki called Mr. Annan to make an 
identical request, a further confirmation that the U.S. needs the 
United Nations.
  The U.N. has been treated carelessly by the current administration. 
The U.N. is facing a major budgetary crisis due to (mainly) U.S.'s 
insistence on a six-month budget cycle, as opposed to a two-year one. 
Congress is deadlocked on the issue of allocating funds to rebuild the 
U.N. headquarters complex in New York. The U.N. signature building, the 
38-story East River office tower, is widely acknowledged to be the 
major building in New York most vulnerable to a terrorist attack. Yet 
the Department of Homeland Security has just cut New York's anti-terror 
fund nearly by half claiming that the security infrastructure in New 
York is firmly in place. If that is so, then why does the Secret 
Service close down FDR Drive that runs beneath the U.N. building every 
time there is a Presidential visit?
  Mr. Speaker, I hope that our asking for help in resolving the Iraq 
question is the first of many issues on which we will work with the 
United Nations instead of undermining its position. Mr. Brown has 
already agreed to travel to Baghdad for preliminary meetings that will 
culminate in a high-level multilateral conference in the region later 
this year.
  Our lesson is clear. We need the United Nations. Instead of weakening 
the U.N., we should strengthen it. A strong active United Nations would 
be invaluable in representing U.S. foreign policy interests aboard as 
well as resolving conflicts and leading negotiations in regions like 
Iran, Darfur, Afghanistan, Kosovo, etc.
  Ladies and Gentlemen of the Congress, I rise to enter into the 
Record, the opinion-editorial titled Turning to the U.N., Again, by 
Richard Holbrooke, published on June 28, 2006 in the Washington Post.

                       Turning to the U.N., Again

                         (By Richard Holbrooke)

       In a little-noticed announcement in President Bush's news 
     conference on June 14, the day he returned from Iraq, he said 
     that he would send two personal emissaries to New York to 
     consult with U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan on the 
     political and economic future of Iraq. The next day, still 
     with remarkably little public attention, Philip Zelikow,

[[Page E1391]]

     the counselor of the State Department, and Deputy Treasury 
     Secretary Robert Kimmitt met with Annan and his deputy, Mark 
     Malloch Brown, at the secretary general's Sutton Place 
     residence. There was no one else present.
       The two presidential envoys asked Annan to use his unique 
     ``convening powers'' to help organize international meetings 
     that would lead (by this fall, the Americans hope) to the 
     unveiling of a new ``Iraq Compact''--an agreement between the 
     Iraqi government and major international donors that would 
     commit Baghdad to a series of political and economic reforms 
     in return for substantially more international aid. (Iraqi 
     Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki called Annan the same day to 
     make an identical request.)
       This is a good idea--and quite similar to suggestions from 
     many administration critics. With the battle for Baghdad 
     raging, it remains to be seen whether an Iraq Compact will 
     work--or even get off the ground--but it is certainly an 
     important step in the right direction for Iraq and for 
     American policy.
       For Annan and the United Nations, Bush's request poses an 
     ironic and difficult challenge. On the one hand, the 
     administration is asking for help on the worst problem it 
     faces, acknowledging, however belatedly and reluctantly, that 
     once again, the United Nations is not only relevant but at 
     times indispensable to the United States. On the other hand, 
     the resentment among the majority of U.N. member states over 
     the way the institution has been treated recently, 
     especially by Washington's current U.N. ambassador, makes 
     any effort to get the United Nations to help the United 
     States far more difficult.
       How to treat the United Nations has been a particular 
     dilemma for President Bush, since opponents of the 
     organization form an important part of the administration's 
     core constituency. Internal disagreements over the past five 
     years about whether to support it or abandon it, to use it or 
     bypass it, have both weakened the organization and led to 
     reduced U.S. influence even as more and more intractable 
     issues are thrown into its hands.
       The United Nations is facing major budgetary problems 
     caused primarily by American insistence on a six-month budget 
     cycle instead of the normal two-year cycle. It must deal with 
     growing shortfalls in the U.S. contribution to peacekeeping 
     funding, despite Washington's calls for more peacekeepers in 
     Darfur and elsewhere. And it is confronted by a deadlock over 
     rebuilding the headquarters complex in New York--a deadlock 
     whose main cause is the administration's failure to push 
     Congress for proper funding. (This is particularly difficult 
     to understand, since the U.N. signature building, its 38-
     story East River office tower--built in 1950 and never 
     subject to modem safety codes--is widely acknowledged to be 
     the major building in New York most vulnerable to a terrorist 
     attack. For example, when the president visits it, the Secret 
     Service closes down FDR Drive beneath it--but what about the 
     rest of the time?)
       Still, even though Annan and the world body have been 
     diminished by Washington, he and his colleagues simply cannot 
     refuse to help on the Iraq matter; it is their responsibility 
     as international civil servants to go where the problems are 
     worst and then to do their best. And, on the basis of private 
     talks with Annan, Malloch Brown and administration officials, 
     I have no doubt that they intend to do just that. In fact, 
     Malloch Brown has already agreed to travel to Baghdad very 
     soon for preliminary meetings that the United Nations and the 
     United States hope will culminate later this year in a high-
     level conference in the region. As Annan moves into his last 
     six months as secretary general, this would be the right way 
     to end a turbulent decade in that office--with a genuine 
     contribution to the cause of peace in Iraq.
       It is, however, impossible not to note the irony and the 
     implications of what has happened in the past two weeks 
     between Washington and the United Nations. Once again, an 
     administration that has underfunded, undersupported and 
     undermined the United Nations has turned to it, almost in 
     desperation, for help.
       The lesson should be clear: Despite the enormously self-
     destructive actions of many other member states, especially 
     the group of developing nations called the G-77, the United 
     Nations still serves U.S. foreign policy interests in many 
     important ways. Not only Iraq but also Iran, Darfur, 
     Afghanistan and the difficult negotiations just started over 
     Kosovo's final status--all issues of vital importance to the 
     United States--have now ended up in the United Nations. To 
     weaken this institution further, as has happened in recent 
     years, serves no clear American national security interest. 
     To strengthen it would make it more valuable to the United 
     States and to every nation that seeks conflict resolution, 
     stability and economic progress. With the maneuvering over 
     the selection of Annan's successor underway, it is time for 
     Washington--and this must include Congress--to put behind it 
     a sorry period of confusion and offer the United Nations more 
     support, both financial and political, in return for the 
     things it needs in Iraq and elsewhere.

                          ____________________