[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 150 (2004), Part 6]
[Senate]
[Pages 8160-8162]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




             THE PROPER ROLE OF THE UNITED NATIONS IN IRAQ

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, for many months the President's critics 
have asserted the situation in Iraq would improve if only the 
administration would cede control over the reconstruction and 
democratization of Iraq to the United Nations.
  While the presumptive Democratic nominee, Senator Kerry, has yet to 
offer a detailed plan for Iraq, he has made it abundantly clear it 
involves transferring a significant measure of authority to the U.N. In 
fact, on December 3rd of last year, he noted:

       Our best option for success is to go back to the United 
     Nations and leave no doubt that we are prepared to put the 
     United Nations in charge of the reconstruction and 
     governance-building processes. I believe the prospects for 
     success on the ground will be far greater if Ambassador 
     Bremer and the Coalition Provisional Authority are replaced 
     by a U.N. Special Representative for Iraq.

  The U.N. is an immensely valuable organization, and America's 
significant contributions to the U.N. are a worthwhile investment. The 
U.N. is often the only entity that can bring international humanitarian 
relief to needy and impoverished societies across the globe, and its 
employees and volunteers deserve the highest praise for their selfless 
acts to bring comfort to the downtrodden.
  When civil authorities in dysfunctional states collapse, the U.N. has 
sometimes averted humanitarian disaster. It can bring relief to failed 
states in isolated backwaters of the world where the major powers are 
unlikely to intervene themselves.
  The U.N. in such cases plays a critical role and deserves our support 
for its important efforts. But the United Nations is not a blue-
helmeted knight here to slay the dragons of aggression and evil. When 
the stakes are high and the threat of violence is real, the United 
States is too often helpless in the face of danger.
  Before I turn my attention to the specific reason that Americans 
should be wary of abandoning Iraq to the United Nations, let me dispel 
a myth about the administration's foreign policy.
  The President's critics often refer to America's efforts in Iraq as 
unilater-
alist. This politically expedient fix is an insult to the thousands of 
men and women from the 30-plus countries who are risking their lives to 
bring peace and democracy to the people of Iraq. If the President's 
critics still believe his policy to be a go-it-alone approach, let them 
repeat that assertion to the families of the Italian, Spanish, Polish, 
British, Danish, Ukrainian, Bulgarian, Thai, Estonian, South Korean, 
Japanese, and Salvadoran soldiers and aid workers who have given their 
lives in Iraq.
  Some say United Nations oversight in Iraq would confer legitimacy to 
the coalition's occupation and reconstruction of that country. I find 
that hard to believe. Given its role in sustaining the Saddam Hussein 
regime via the alleged mismanagement of the Oil for Food Program and 
the refusal to enforce its

[[Page 8161]]

own resolutions, the United Nations is not in a position to lend 
legitimacy to a free Iraq. In fact, I think it could be argued it would 
take away legitimacy from a free Iraq. The only thing that can confer 
legitimacy in Iraq is a series of national elections. However, these 
elections must not occur too soon as democracy cannot be turned on at 
the flip of a switch. But they will come in due time. If we stay the 
course, by December of next year the Iraqis will likely elect the most 
representative government in the Arab world.
  I might say to put that in context it was 12 years between the 
Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution being 
adopted.
  So the Iraqis will have gone from liberation to election in under 
1,000 days and even though we have 24-hour television these days, that 
is still a remarkably fast evolution from dictatorship, brutal 
dictatorship to representative government.
  The Oil for Food scandal highlights another reason we should not rush 
to put the United Nations in charge of Iraq's reconstruction. Although 
we do not yet know the full story, we can draw some initial lessons.
  First, an organization that apparently so mismanaged the Oil for Food 
Program cannot be trusted to manage a $34 billion budget for Iraqi 
reconstruction.
  Second, the alleged corruption of some United Nations officials and 
member states raises a serious concern about the U.N.'s commitment to 
its stated mission. Instead of sanctioning Saddam Hussein's regime, a 
number of United Nations officials and foreign diplomats may have used 
the Oil for Food Program as a slush fund to enrich themselves while 
allowing profits and goods to be diverted away from needy Iraqis and 
toward the Saddam Hussein regime.
  Free Iraqis have ample reason to be wary of entrusting their future 
to those who allegedly had no qualms about doing illicit business with 
their oppressor.
  United Nations control will not stop the violence in Iraq. Quite 
frankly, the United Nations is not capable of managing the security 
situation in Iraq. Terrorists do not respect blue-helmeted peacekeepers 
because the U.N. has proven itself to lack either the firepower or the 
will to quell violent uprisings. In Somalia, when Aidid's thugs took to 
the streets, United Nations peacekeepers stayed in camp while American 
troops fought to restore order.
  How can we expect United Nations forces that fled from Somalia's 
untrained gangs to confront the professional fedayeen and suicidal 
radicals behind this insurgency in Iraq? Few seriously believe the U.N. 
can be trusted to provide security for the Iraqi people. Indeed, the 
United Nations has demonstrated its inability to provide security even 
for itself. The U.N.'s own scathing report on the bombing of its 
headquarters in Baghdad last summer documented the culture of 
complacency and poor planning within the U.N.'s security forces. The 
United Nations has already cut and run in Iraq in the wake of the 
August bombings of its headquarters. How can the Iraqis trust the U.N. 
not to abandon them yet again to the lawless insurgents who seek to 
derail the democratic process?
  There is a further problem subjugating American foreign policy 
authority to the United Nations Security Council. The veto-wielding 
permanent members of the security council were chosen because they were 
simply the world's major powers at the time the United Nations was 
established. It therefore does not accurately reflect the distribution 
of world power today, and its composition discriminates against the 
current major powers that share principles of democracy and of freedom.
  For example, Communist China is a permanent member, but democratic 
Japan, the world's second largest economy, is not. Newly democratic 
Russia is a member, but neither Canada nor Spain, democracies with 
twice the size of Russia's economy, is a member; nor is Italy, with an 
economy four times as large as that of Russia; nor is India, the 
world's largest democracy.
  Even France, although democratic, often has different strategic and 
political interests than the United States. As evidenced by the Oil for 
Food scandal, it is possible that France, sometimes a more zealous 
competitor than an ally, had a significant financial stake in the 
continuation of the Saddam Hussein regime.
  When the security council deliberates, there are often too many cooks 
in the kitchen and all of them have different tastes.
  If the United Nations takes a larger role in Iraq, so too will the 
general assembly. I am not convinced that will be a good thing. There 
are, to be sure, responsible nations in the general assembly but, 
frankly, they are few and very far between.
  The irony that so many authoritarian regimes are represented in such 
a democratic body is often lost on American politicians who so 
desperately seek approval of our foreign policy from this very body. 
The general assembly, in fact, provides funds for despotic member 
states to pour sand onto the clogs of international peace and 
stability. These regimes are unremittingly hostile to the United States 
and to democracy, and they will continue to exploit their authority at 
the U.N. to halt freedom's progress.
  Sudan, Syria, and Iran did not oppose the liberation of Iraq because 
they wanted to peacefully resolve the growing international crisis. 
They opposed the war because they didn't want to see a precedent 
whereby their own tyrannies could be undermined.
  The ability of rogue states to thwart the U.N.'s efforts to do the 
right thing is exemplified by the United Nations Human Rights 
Commission whose members include--listen to this, the United Nations 
Human Rights Commission whose members include Cuba, China, Pakistan, 
Saudi Arabia, and Sudan, among others.
  Joanna Weschler of Human Rights Watch has called the commission a 
rogue's gallery of human rights abusers--that is the Commission on 
Human Rights at the United Nations--and correctly noted ``an abusive 
country cannot honestly pass judgment on other abusive countries.''
  So does Senator Kerry really want to give these nations a say in 
Iraq's future? Does he expect them to share America's interest in a 
free and stable Iraq, even though a democratic Iraq would undermine 
their own authoritarian rule? Why do some American politicians want the 
fox to guard the henhouse?
  If the President's critics still believe that authority in Iraq 
should be transferred to the U.N., then we should have waited for the 
United Nations' approval before liberating Iraq. Let them explain to 
the American people why they have such trust in the UN.
  Let them explain why China, France, or Russia deserves a veto over 
U.S. foreign policy.
  Let them explain why the very countries that allegedly negotiated 
clandestine oil leases with Saddam Hussein deserve a say in the 
reconstruction of Iraq.
  Let them explain how an organization that cannot manage its own 
finances deserves to manage those of the Iraqis.
  Let them explain why an organization that cannot provide for its own 
security should be entrusted with stabilizing Iraq. There are many 
things the United Nations can do well, but I don't believe managing 
Iraq's fragile transition to democracy is one of them. I wish the 
United Nations could be helpful on issues that are critical to American 
security, but it is unsuited to that mission.
  I support the United Nations. I hope it can reform itself and prevent 
the worst abusers of human rights from sabotaging its laudable efforts 
to protect the rights and dignity of mankind. I want the United Nations 
to play a role in Iraq's reconstruction, and I hope it will send 
humanitarian teams and election monitors to assist in building 
democracy on the ruins of tyranny.
  But the United Nations is not a collective security organization, and 
it cannot replace America as a defender of liberty and democracy in 
conflicts that are important to American security because too many of 
its Members

[[Page 8162]]

share neither our principles nor our interests.
  Entrusting democracy in Iraq to the blue-helmeted bureaucrats at the 
United Nations is not a plan, it is a fantasy.
  Mr. REID. If the Senator will yield the floor for me to make a couple 
of statements.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. First of all, Mr. President, the quote the Senator from 
Kentucky gave of Abraham Lincoln is one of my favorites. I have a 
little book called ``A Book of 100 Poems.'' In that book, in addition 
to the poem, is the letter President Lincoln wrote to Mrs. Bixby. It is 
not a poem but is as beautiful as any poem written.
  I have, over the years, taken those words, ``assuage the anguish of 
your bereavement'' and I have used that phrase in letters that I write 
to many people who have suffered deaths in their families.
  I say to my friend from Kentucky, that is a beautiful letter that 
President Lincoln wrote. In my ``Book of 100 Poems,'' the letter is 
copied that he wrote in hand to Mrs. Bixby.
  I appreciate the Senator reading that most magnificent letter, the 
words of President Lincoln.
  Of course, talking about Pat Tillman makes everyone understand a 
little better the sacrifices being made in Iraq.
  In response to my friend from Kentucky, the distinguished assistant 
Republican leader, in the first war, I voted for it. I was the first 
Democrat to announce it publicly. For the first President Bush's 
excursion into Iraq, over 90 percent of the costs of that war were 
borne by other countries. The casualties were not all U.S. casualties 
in that first war.
  In this war, more than 90 percent of the costs of the war are borne 
by American taxpayers. More than 95 percent of the casualties in Iraq 
are Americans. That number is now approaching 800. Twenty-one Americans 
were killed on Saturday and Sunday in Iraq.
  My friend, the senior Senator from Kentucky, talks disparagingly--
whether he means to or not--about the United Nations. The President 
cannot have it both ways. At his press conference he was asked what his 
plan was. He said he was waiting to hear from the envoy of the United 
Nations in Iraq. He and his administration continually refers to 
Brahimi as a person who is beginning to bring some degree of stability 
to the plan.
  The reason the President answered the question that way is the United 
Nations brings some sense of legitimacy to what is going on there. More 
importantly than that, if the plan goes forward as some anticipate, 
there would be others coming to help. It would take the burden off of 
the U.S. taxpayer and especially the men and women of our armed 
services.
  We are bearing a tremendous burden, not only with our Regular Army, 
Navy, and Air Force but with our Reserve Forces, a tremendous burden on 
our Reserve and Guard. Those, including the President, obviously, who 
refer to Mr. Brahimi are thinking about the need to cut some slack 
there to the United States.
  The United Nations is an organization we helped create. We are the 
largest donor to that organization. It is an imperfect organization, I 
would be the first to recognize that. However, it must play a role. It 
is one of the only ways that I can see that we can move forward with 
more of the support of the American people, which is being lost.
  I voted for the resolution to go to Iraq the first time--you have 
already heard me say that--and the second time. We cannot cut and run 
in Iraq. We have to do what we have to do to bring stability to that 
very unstable part of the world.
  However, let's not run down the United Nations. We need them to help 
bring in others so we do not bear 95 percent of the casualties and more 
than 90 percent of the costs of what is going on there. There are other 
countries there and I appreciate them being there, but as far as 
numbers of troops, we have 135,000 troops; the British have 10,000. The 
next largest contingency of troops we have is hired security guards. We 
need to do better than what we are doing in Iraq. This is not in any 
way to take away from the valor of the men and women serving in that 
country.
  Just last night, somebody lobbed a mortar shell into a military 
compound there. The soldiers are running around thinking that is all of 
it and in comes another one and kills five or six of them. These 
soldiers, these servicemen of ours serving in Iraq, every minute of 
every day are fearing for their lives, whether they are carrying a gun 
or driving a truck. We need to have this matter resolved in a way that 
is not happening now.
  I cannot give a blueprint of what needs to be done, but I am grateful 
the President is recognizing Mr. Brahimi can do some good there. That 
may not be the only answer, but it is an answer. I hope we can move 
forward in this matter and bring peace and stability to an area that 
needs it. I recognize if we could bring peace and stability to Iraq, it 
would help the whole Middle East. If we could help establish a 
democracy in Iraq, it would add to the democracy we already have in 
that area, Israel. It could set a system where other countries would 
have to focus on how they treat their people. I am all in favor of our 
bringing about a better situation in Iraq than certainly existed under 
the regime of Saddam Hussein.
  I appreciate the comments of my colleague from Kentucky. I know his 
heart is in the right place. Hopefully, we can join in moving forward 
on this most important issue.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I had not come to the floor to debate 
my good friend from Nevada, but let me add a couple of words before we 
adjourn.
  I certainly agree with him, we need more forces in Iraq. Where they 
need to come from is from the Iraqi people. General Petraeus, the 
Commander of the famed 101st Airborne who took that unit into Iraq and 
stationed it in northern Iraq around Mosul for about a year, has now 
been given his next assignment. His next assignment is to go back to 
Iraq--and he is there now--to help the Iraqi people develop a military 
that can deal with the threat.
  In the end, the area will be secure only if the Iraqi military and 
Iraqi police have both the skill and the desire to protect their 
country from these terrorists.
  So, far from hoping we will get additional troops from around the 
world, even though we have 20,000 troops there from other countries 
now, the key to additional military in Iraq is in Iraq itself--Iraqi 
soldiers, well trained, fighting for their own country. And that 
training is well underway under the skilled leadership of General 
Petraeus.
  With regard to the U.N., I readily concede there are a few things 
they can do well. They can put on elections. They can hand out 
humanitarian aid. But they do not have an army. And they are 
discredited in Iraq because of their involvement in the oil-for-food 
scandal which robbed Iraqis, for 10 years, of the opportunity to eat 
while this deal was enriching Saddam Hussein and his henchmen.
  So the U.N. does not have a great reputation in Iraq, with good 
reason. We hope the U.N. will be able to play a useful role in moving 
Iraq from where it is today to a representative government, where it 
will be by the end of 2005.

                          ____________________