Hearing of the State, Foreign Operations and Related Programs Subcommittee of the House Committee on Appropriations-International Peacekeeping Affairs and International Organizations
Statement
Hearing of the State, Foreign Operations and Related Programs Subcommittee of the House Committee on Appropriations-International Peacekeeping Affairs and International Organizations
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
REP. BETTY MCCOLLUM (D-MN): Thank you, Madame Chair.
Secretary Silverberg, with our nation's reputation already badly bruised due to the Iraq war, Guantanamo, other scandals, choosing not to meet our commitments around the world as irresponsible and inexcusable. And I heard you talk about the cap and those things that were not capped. Has the administration, within the last several years, sent a letter to Congress asking for the caps to be removed?
MS. SILVERBERG: Yes, we have. We have supported removal of the cap both orally in testimony -- I think I testified to this even last year, although I'd have to double check -- and also in writing. And, I'm sorry, and the president's budget proposal each year asks for -- (inaudible) -- cap.
REP. MCCOLLUM: I'll check that.
I'm concerned that the administration's being less than honest with Congress and the American people because the budget requests that they put forward fully expect Congress to increase accounts in which they've cut -- (inaudible). And that's largely -- (inaudible) -- supplemental request, as the chair put out. I think there's a more simple and direct way in which the administration should be putting forward its budgets. In other words, ask what you need for.
Now, I hear that the State Department wanted more, and OMB stuck you with a lower amount. But at the end of the day there's only one administration and Congress, right?
And we're left now holding the administration accountable for doing less than what it promised to do. To date, the U.S. owes $256 million in peacekeeping debts. Now, this budget request -- (inaudible) -- as the chair pointed out, would have needed to cover the fiscal year 2009 peacekeeping obligations, guaranteeing -- this guarantees that the debt will grow larger. The budget request for $1.5 billion amounts to a shortfall of over $600 million. Shortfalls in funding undermine the success of our peacekeeping missions in some of the most sensitive areas in the world.
So I'm looking to the State Department's request, and this is what I see. I see cuts to the U.N. force in Lebanon, cuts to Kosovo, cuts to Liberia, cuts to Haiti, cuts to Darfur -- and I'm very alarmed by what I am seeing. I'm especially concerned about the cuts and the impact it would have on the peacekeeping mission in the DRC. The request is at least $58 million below what's needed. The U.S. voted to support the peacekeeping mission in the U.N. Security Council just last December, and the U.S. helped negotiate the peace.
So my questions are: How does the administration justify the proposed funding reduction to the DRC? What is the effect on America's image when we vote to support peacekeeping missions and then fail to provide our share? And what will happen to peacekeeping missions if the peacekeeping account continues to operate under the resolution of fiscal year 2008 at a level of $1.3 billion for the first six months of 2009?
MS. SILVERBERG: Well, thank you, and I agree entirely, first, on the importance of the U.S. meeting its obligations and second on the importance of full support for peacekeeping operations. This is something the administration has worked very hard to support. As you say, we've used our votes in the Security Council to support U.N. peacekeeping operations in lots of places around the world, and we think they're essential.
Our budget request is the best estimate of what's likely to be needed for peacekeeping operations. I don't know with precision what will be needed and neither does the U.N. or anyone else can tell you, because by definition we're budgeting for very volatile situations that change rapidly on the ground. The best we can do is manage within the account.
REP. MCCOLLUM: So to follow up on that, and I probably won't get all my questions answered in doing this -- so conditions are rosy and improved in Lebanon, conditions are much, much better in Kosovo than according to you, things are going swimmingly well in Liberia, Haiti is all stable, and Darfur is okay?
MS. SILVERBERG: Well, I think actually in some of those cases, yes, there are reasons to think drawdown. You know, for Kosovo, the plan we're pursuing now with Kosovo suggests a EU operation coming in and taking over from the U.N. operation. So yes, we propose to close down that operation entirely, and we've done that in close --
REP. MCCOLLUM: Even with the current situation in Kosovo today?
MS. SILVERBERG: I think we're going to have to do a phase-down approach. So the U.N. mission will phase down as the EU mission builds up. But yes, that's the plan, which we've worked on in close cooperation with the secretary-general and our European allies. And I think that general idea enjoys strong support.
In Liberia, we've seen the secretary-general propose already a drawdown of troops because of improved situation on the ground, and at the moment we have ongoing a reduction of some 2,800 troops, and then we'll reassess when we get to -- I think next September is the mandate renewal.
There are other places where we're trying to ramp up very quickly -- and Darfur is one of them, of course -- and there are other places we're just watching as they go along. With respect to MONUC, which you raised, we'll have to see what the impact of the Nairobi communique and the Goma agreement are. We hope that both will be helpful, but we really will have to watch that really on an ongoing basis to see what troop level is appropriate.
REP. MCCOLLUM: Could you give us the documentation that supports what you said about Liberia being a planned cut?
MS. SILVERBERG: Sure.
REP. MCCOLLUM: And the documentation that supports what you said about Kosovo?
MS. SILVERBERG: Sure. We would be happy to do that. Liberia is supported in the resolution itself, and also in secretary-general's. I think we have lots of material on that one. Yeah.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
REP. MCCOLLUM: Thank you.
I'd like to talk about food aid for a few minutes, the World Bank and the World Food Program and some in our own government are warning that we face a global hunger crisis stemming from soaring food prices. Adding to the challenge is our falling dollar, making it more difficult and more costly for the United States to respond with more commodities. We need a strategic response to face these challenges, and we need to increase the support for agricultural activities in the developing world.
So in the budget there's a request for $14.6 million in increase to the Food and Agricultural Organization, which, as you know, is an organization that supports sustainable agriculture programs in developing companies. But $14.6 million is really not that much money when you look at the number of lives that are impacted and will continue to be impacted with hunger in the upcoming years.
So what was the administration's idea -- (inaudible) -- for this proposed increase? What do they really hope to really gain with this amount? And how is your office coordinating with USAID and State in a multilateral and bilateral program targeted at agriculture?
MS. SILVERBERG: We have a large -- (inaudible) -- for FAO's mandate. We have serious concerns about FAO's ability to implement its mandate to use taxpayer resources in a way that can best serve food security, food safety issues and other things. In essence, you'll recall that with support from this committee we supported an independent external evaluation of FAO, basically the way that FAO operates, and it came back with about 100, over 100 specific recommendations of things that needed to happen at FAO. Before any of those things were implemented or even under way, FAO adopted a really massive budget increase last fall, and we and a number of -- (inaudible) -- of FAO voted against or abstained. I think countries that do not support the budget increase make up about half of FAO's resources. What we have said is that we need to, again, the -- (inaudible) -- report pointed to a lot of problems -- authoritarian management, basically inefficiencies. What we'd like to see is FAO undertake some efforts on that. Before we see massive budget increases, we need to make sure that that money can be spent effectively.
REP. MCCOLLUM: Well, knowing that there's a crisis out there and then knowing that you don't think the Food and Agricultural Organization is the best way to work on changing things right now, the second part of my question is what is your office doing, then, to make up for the lack of support that we're going to be giving this organization -- both USAID, State, other multilateral and bilateral organizations?
I just came back from Pakistan and Afghanistan, where they're going to have an increase of $12 million in food aid, and when I asked Secretary Rice what countries were going to be cut -- not even countries being cut by not having the food aid available that they need, this dollar's already being shifted when we know we don't have enough dollars in this budget for food aid. So what are you doing?
MS. SILVERBERG: I think -- I actually don't think that FAO is the best mechanism for addressing --
REP. MCCOLLUM: I didn't say you did. I said that there's problems there. So I said what are you doing to replace the opportunity that should be available to us but because of lack of competence is not available to us in FAO. What are you doing?
MS. SILVERBERG: I don't think FAO generally is a good opportunity on this kind of issue. This is a problem for the World Food Program. FAO was funded primarily for assessed contributions and deals with standard setting and things that can lay the basis for --
REP. MCCOLLUM: I didn't say you had to fund FAO. I said what are you doing? If you don't think you can put the dollars in there to help feed people we know will be starving, what are you doing to make up for the lack of having that organization to work through?
MS. SILVERBERG: As I was saying, I don't think even in the best circumstance that would be the organization we would work through. We would work through the World Food Program. And, as you know, we have a supplemental request of $359 (sic) before the Ag Committee. AID, in response to Ambassador Shearen's (ph) latest appeal is looking on a country-by-country basis whether there are additional funds that need to be requested, and we also have a proposal before Congress that would permit more local purchase, which I think would be very helpful in addressing the impacts of the energy crisis on the current food crisis.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source