Henry J. Hyde United Nations Reform Act of 2005 - 1

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the Lantos-Shays substitute and to direct Members' attention to a serious flaw in the peacekeeping section, which I respectfully submit are reasons enough to vote against the substitute.

The substitute amendment gives the U.N. until 2007 to complete even the most basic tasks. This is completely unnecessary, and I submit only encourages some states who view rape and exploitation of young women and children by U.N. peacekeepers as a mere public relations problem and thus an opportunity to dig in their heels and stall the reform process.

Prince Zeid has told some of us, I met with him last week, that sustained pressure is needed to get results. We have been here before. In 2002, we knew about the exploitation of children by U.N. personnel in the Congo. I have already chaired two hearings on it myself in my subcommittee. Yes, the U.N. is moving in the right direction, but there needs to be considerable pressure brought to bear to make this happen.

What is perhaps most troubling about the substitute is that it authorizes an up to 10 percent withholding of U.S. assessed contributions to U.N. peacekeeping. I want to be clear on this point. The Hyde bill supports full funding of all existing missions, while the substitute authorizes up to a 10 percent cutoff of our assessed contributions to U.N. peacekeeping. The withholding is linked to a certification requirement which is, plain and simple, bad policy. The intent is good. I have no doubt about that. But it is flawed.

The substitute requires the Secretary of State to certify that the U.S. permanent rep at the U.N. has made every effort to ensure the formal adoption and implementation of mechanisms to suspend the membership of a member state if genocide, ethnic cleansing or crimes against humanity are determined to be occurring in that member state regardless of whether the acts are being committed by the government or by a third party. "Third party" is the problem. There are countries like the Congo, and we have also seen it in Uganda, where there are "third-party" groups of terrorists and killers and maimers who the government would like to see done away with and are actively cooperating with the international community and the U.N. itself to try to mitigate this terrible problem.

Under this language, which is very different than the language that the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Fortenberry) offered, we would be in a strange and, I think, even bizarre situation where even where there has been an effort made by the state, there could be an explusion and a cutoff of peacekeeping money, 10 percent assessed contribution cutoff. It would be wrong for a state to lose their membership when there was no omission, no commission on their part with regards to crimes against humanity and that is where the Fortenberry amendment got it right.

I think we can all agree that genocidal governments do not deserve to have an equal voice at the U.N. with other peacekeeping and peace-loving nations. But we should not punish those governments which are fighting against those who would commit such heinous acts. I think that language is, as I said, egregiously flawed. The Hyde amendment does get it right.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

http://thomas.loc.gov