[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 11]
[Senate]
[Pages 15272-15276]
[From the U.S. 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:

       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.


[[Page 15273]]


  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 because--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 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.

[[Page 15274]]

       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 is 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 15275]]

     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.

[[Page 15276]]

       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 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.

                          ____________________