Henry J. Hyde United Nations Reform Act of 2005

HENRY J. HYDE UNITED NATIONS REFORM ACT OF 2005 -- (House of Representatives - June 17, 2005)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) for yielding me the time.

Mr. Chairman, the question before this House today is not whether the United Nations should be reformed, but how the institution must be reformed. Virtually every Member of the House agrees with this proposition. If the U.N. is going to retain its credibility, it must implement meaningful reform in areas such as budgeting, oversight, and accountability, and certainly peacekeeping and human rights.

We, of course, are not alone in this assessment. The administration agrees. The congressionally established Task Force on the United Nations, which just issued its report on reform this week, agrees. Even top officials of the United Nations agree that reform is needed, and Secretary General Kofi Annan has issued a broad reform agenda.

It is well established, Mr. Chairman, that the U.N. suffers under poor management, low staff morale, and a lack of accountability and professional ethics. Even worse, the organization has been wracked by scandal; for example, revelations of corruption in the Food-for-Oil program in Iraq, and evidence that U.N. peacekeepers sexually abused women and children that they were sent to protect.

However, administrative incompetence and even corruption pale in comparison to the United Nations's failure to act to prevent genocide, most recently in Rwanda, Bosnia and Kosovo, and, yes, even as we speak in Darfur, Sudan.

Let no one be mistaken, Mr. Chairman, I believe the United States' national security interests are served and strengthened by our active participation in international organizations, including the United Nations, but, Mr. Chairman, we must not flinch from asking, can an organization established to promote tolerance, human rights and the peaceful resolution of disputes long survive when its members cannot summon the will to stop the slaughter of innocent men, women and children, or to enforce resolutions adopted overwhelmingly to achieve international stability and security?

The answer, I think, is self-evident. Specifically, I believe the U.N. ideal is undermined when members refuse to act against an international outlaw such as Saddam Hussein, who flagrantly flouts his obligations under countless Security Council resolutions.

Frankly, Mr. Chairman, we are mired in a war in Iraq, where the United States is bearing the overwhelming burden to act against an international lawbreaker against whom the United Nations unanimously passed 17 resolutions in 12 1/2 years saying that he was in violation of the obligations imposed upon him by the United Nations, and which they, in a united way, agreed he had not complied with. As I have stated before, the member states of the United Nations must respond to such defiance with more than mere words. They must respond with action.

Now, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the motivation of Chairman Hyde's bill; however, I disagree with its method, an enforcement mechanism that would mandate a 50 percent cut in the United States contribution to the U.N. should the legislation's 39 proposed reforms not be implemented. As Under Secretary of State Nicholas Burns of this administration told the Washington Post, this approach would undermine American credibility at the United Nations; it would undermine our, meaning the United States' effectiveness.

In contrast, the Democratic substitute offered by Mr. Lantos is far superior. It maintains, Mr. Chairman, the link between achieving U.N. reforms and withholding a portion of the United States assessed dues; however, critically importantly, it gives the Secretary discretion to make such cuts, rather than mandating them.

As an aside, let me say, Mr. Chairman, that I believe that as long as we are a member of the U.N., we have an obligation, a duty, it is in our interest, to pay our fair share. Importantly as well, the substitute provides the Secretary with a waiver to the requirement to veto all new peacekeeping missions or to expand existing missions. To do otherwise, in my opinion, would be a significant mistake.

The Republican bill provides no waiver. In effect, it would block the United States from supporting any new peacekeeping mission, including involvement in a crisis like the one in Darfur, until peacekeeping reforms are completed.

Very frankly, the victims of genocide cannot wait for a recalcitrant United Nations to accomplish those reforms until such time as we act to save lives, prevent dislocation, and maintain the safety and human rights of the inhabitants of some country.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, this substitute directs the Secretary of State to withhold 10 percent of our contributions to the U.N.'s peacekeeping budget when the U.N. fails to suspend the membership and act against a member which is engaged in or acquiescing in genocide.

Again, Mr. Chairman, none of us questions the necessity of U.N. reform. Reform is not optional, it is imperative. The underlying bill, however, is an unproductive and harmful response to real problems.

The Democratic substitute, the substitute offered by the ranking Democrat, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), gives us our best opportunity to strengthen and revitalize the U.N., and I urge my colleagues in a bipartisan way, on both sides of the aisle, liberals and conservatives, concerned about both the reform of the United Nations, but also the effective operation of an international organization, our best hope to maintain international law and order, to protect human rights and redeem the promises made when we created the organization we know as the United Nations.

And I thank my friend for yielding the time, supporting this substitute, and I urge all of my colleagues to do the same.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

http://thomas.loc.gov