[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 152 (2006), Part 10]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages 13739-13740]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




  COMMENDING AMBASSADOR RICHARD HOLBROOKE'S ARTICLE, ``TURNING TO THE 
                             U.N., AGAIN''

                                 ______
                                 

                            HON. TOM LANTOS

                             of california

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, June 29, 2006

  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I commend to my colleagues a very important 
op-ed by a very distinguished American diplomat, the former U.S 
Permanent Representative to the United Nations, Ambassador Richard 
Holbrooke. His article, ``Turning to the U.N., Again,'' which appeared 
in the Washington Post on June 28th, provides us with a critical 
reminder that the UN, though a flawed institution, remains 
``indispensable to the United States.''
  Ambassador Holbrooke points out that, earlier this month, President 
Bush once again turned to America's great ally in New York, United 
Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan, to help the Administration secure 
its most pressing foreign policy goal, cementing a political compact 
for Iraq. Kofi Annan is a great friend of the United States and a great 
personal friend of mine. I share Ambassador Holbrooke's confidence that 
the distinguished Secretary General, will use his good offices to 
convene a series of international meetings with the purpose of 
hammering out a new ``Iraq Compact.''
  Mr. Speaker, after noting this latest instance of the United States 
turning again to the UN for help, Ambassador Holbrooke argues that it 
is critical to America's core interests to strengthen the United 
Nations. As he so eloquently states, it is time for the Administration 
to move past its internal debate about the UN, ``whether to support it 
or abandon it, to use it or bypass it.'' Ambassador Holbrooke is 
absolutely correct that this ambivalence toward the UN has undermined 
our Nation's ability to lead the effort to reform the UN.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask that the full text of Ambassador Holbrooke's 
important article be placed in the Record and I urge my colleagues to 
read it carefully and thoughtfully.

               [From the Washington Post, June 28, 2006]

                       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, 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 modern 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,

[[Page 13740]]

     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.

                          ____________________