United Nations Reforms:  Challenges and Prospects

Richard S. Williamson
Testimony
Committee on International Relations
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, D.C.
March 15, 2005

I want to thank Chairman Henry Hyde and the other members of the House International Relations Committee for holding this hearing on United Nations Reform.  The United Nations is an institution that has serious problems.  I’m sure your consideration of the United Nations and the challenges the U.N. faces can contribute to constructive reforms.  An improved, reformed United Nations will benefit the United States and the entire international community.

We live in an era of American primacy.  America has unrivaled military strength, economic might, and cultural reach.  The United States has many ways and means to project its power and wield its influence.  Our foreign policy toolbox has many implements.

Because of America’s size, its economic reach, it’s values and various threats including from terrorist networks of global reach; America also has vital interests and  concerns that span the globe.  The United States has the power and reach to deal with many of these matters.  But some issues are better addressed with others such as the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, the terrorist threat and global norm setting.  America has a web of alliances and when necessary the United States can rally a “Coalition of the Willing” to deal with global challenges.  But there are times when the United Nations, a permanent multilateral institution with universal membership and a charter that reflects the same values as the American Declaration of Independence and our United States Constitution, is the preferred instrument for America to advance its interests.  The United Nations is a useful tool in America’s foreign policy toolbox.

At the same time, we should recognize that other countries with less strength, might and reach have fewer foreign policy tools.  For them the United Nations is a more central instrument of foreign policy.  We should respect their perspective, even when we do not embrace it.

Last October I led the International Relations Institute Election Observer Mission to Afghanistan’s Presidential Election.  Before election day, our delegation met with all the leading Presidential candidates including President Hamid Karzai.  We met with civic leaders and Afghan Election Commission and other officials.  And on election day we visited many polling stations.  We saw brave people standing up to threats and intimidation.  We saw people filled with hope and empowered by their vote.  We witnessed the birth of a new democracy.  And we saw a crushing defeat for the Taliban and the forces of evil.

This victory in the forward march of freedom was due to American leadership and, in particular, the brave men and women of the Coalition of the Willing.  It was due to the help of the international community in rebuilding schools, hospitals and roads.  It was due to the Germans helping rebuild the judicial system, the British working to eradicate illicit drugs, and the French working with America to train a new Afghan army.  Most importantly, the successful election day was the result of millions of brave Afghan men and women.  It was their victory.  But also, the successful journey up to that day and for the execution of a “free and fair election” was due to the United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan.  The contribution of Ambassador Laktar Brahimi and his United Nations colleagues were instrumental to the march of freedom in Afghanistan.

UNAMA is just one of many examples of where the U.N. has helped advance United States interests and made the world a better place.  In East Timor, the Ethiopia/Eritrea border dispute, Sierra Leone, Abkhazia, Georgia, and elsewhere United Nations Peacekeepers are helping to maintain the peace and providing breathing space for fragile societies to rebuild.

The Sierra Leone Special Court, a joint venture of the United Nations and the Sierra Leone Government, is helping to provide transitional justice to a society long ravaged by a brutal, bloody civil war.

In Darfur, Sudan, the scene of unspeakable horror and the world’s greatest humanitarian crisis today, the United Nations is helping to sustain nearly two million internally displaced persons and refugees, victims of the horrific genocide perpetrated by the government in Khartoum and the marauding jangaweed militias.

Even the U.N. Commission on Human Rights, despite its structural and procedural flaws and the faint heart of too many of its member sates, does some good when it holds to account Fidel Castro’s repressive regime for failure to honor accepted international human rights standards.

In the war on terror, the United Nations has adopted new international norms that have been useful and helped freeze terrorists assets making it more difficult for them to execute their evil acts.

The U.N.’s International Atomic Energy Agency continues to be a useful vehicle to put international pressure on Iran and its renegade nuclear program.

In these ways, and many others, the United Nations helps make the world a better place and advances United States interests.

Therefore we should take the United Nations seriously.  We should be cold eyed in examining its weaknesses, disappointments and failures.  We should be realistic about its limitations.  And we should be forward leaning in working to reform it.

It is important to recognize that the United Nations is a flawed institution.  Some of its problems are those that challenge any large institution with big entrenched bureaucracies.  Some of its problems are unique.  All of its problems require examination.  And where reforms can help, they should be pursued.

Like all large bureaucracies, the United Nations has waste and abuse.  Ways and means to improve budgeting, accountability and ferret out corruption should be found.

Whether it is sexual harassment by a senior U.N. official, sexual abuse by U.N. Peacekeepers, or kick-backs, sweetheart deals, and subversion of mission as alleged in the Iraq Oil-For-Food program, there must be zero tolerance for wrong-doing.  Accountability must follow the evidence no matter how high the trail might lead.  The mission of all investigations of alleged wrong-doing must not be to protect the United Nations and its image, but relentlessly to pursue the facts and expose the truth and hold any wrong doers accountable.  For only then will the United Nations, its image, and – more importantly – its mission be well served.

And such investigations must lead to more vigorous oversight, more exacting accounting procedures and robust inspector general protocols to stop such illicit behavior.  Then, and only then, will the United nations image properly be restored.

And, I for one, believe United States Congressional investigations of alleged abuse is not only appropriate stewardship of American taxpayer dollars, but an exercise the United Nations should welcome and with which it should fully cooperate.

Archaic and harmful U.N. practices should be eliminated such as giving undue weight to geographic distribution in hiring compared to consideration given to experience and competence.  Excessive compensation should be cut.  Those who pay most of the bills should have more say in how the money is spent.  These sort of reforms are unassailable in principle though difficult to achieve.

Developing a strong functioning Democracy Caucus within the United Nations would be very helpful.  Today the geographic caucuses yield far too much power and often are counterproductive.  Their role in selecting candidates for the Security Council, ECOSOC and other U.N. bodies is often unhelpful.  The U.N. Charter and the U.N. Universal Declaration on Human Rights recognize the right to self-determination.  Today a majority of U.N. members are democracies yet the current prominence of the geographic caucuses often means democratic countries, nations that respect the values of the U.N. Charter, are underrepresented.  Furthermore, anomalous situations result that discredit the U.N. and impede its work such as Sudan and Zimbabwe sitting on the U.N. Commission on Human Rights.

One person observed that when we are children our friends are the other children in the neighborhood, but as we grow older we seek out friends who share our values and our world view.  It is time for the U.N. to stop organizing based on where a country happens to be situated geographically and to restructure to provide greater prominence to shared values.

Along the same lines, as discussed at last year’s session of the U.N. Commission on Human Rights, the U.N. should provide more technical help and institution building assistance to countries emerging from tyrannical pasts who are struggling to stand up new democratic governments.  The proposed Democracy Fund has merit.  Similarly, building on the lessons of the ICTY and ICTR, the promising performance of the Sierra Leone Special Court and various Truth and Reconciliation Commissions, the U.N. could and should develop “best practices” and greater capacity to help torn societies achieve restorative justice as they try to move from a dark past to a liberal future.

The U.N.’s Universal Declaration on Human Rights is a noble document.  I like to point out that the small committee of international diplomats that drafted the Declaration was chaired by Eleanor Roosevelt, a democrat, and on which sat John Foster Dulles, a Republican.  That is appropriate for many reasons, among them being that human rights are not a partisan matter; human rights are an American matter.  Human rights are a fundamental value of American Exceptionalism.

The U.N. Declaration of Human Rights sets forth such principles as personal freedom; freedom of thought and religion; freedom of peaceful assembly and association; freedom of speech; freedom of movement; freedom of the press; self-determination; and the rule of law.  It is in America’s interest to promote these values and to advance freedom and democracy.

As President Bush said, “The advance of freedom is the calling of our time, it is the calling of our country…  We believe that liberty is the design of nature; we believe that liberty is the direction of history…  And we believe that freedom – the freedom we prize – is not for us alone, it is the right and the capacity of all mankind.”  And respect for human rights is a crucial building block for liberty and the advance of freedom.

Unfortunately, the U.N. Commission on Human Rights often has proven to be a poor steward of these values.  For example, last year human rights abuses such as Zimbabwe and China escaped rebuke.  Even the brutal ethnic cleansing in Darfur has recognized by only the mildest resolution from the Commission.

What can be done?  The Secretary-General’s High Level Panel on Strengthening the United Nations recommends enlarging the 54 member Commission to all 191 U.N. member states.  I disagree.  That would give the UNCHR all the credibility and effectiveness of the U.N. General Assembly.  And that would be very little.  Rather than enlarge the Commission so it includes all the world’s repressive regimes, I would suggest making the requirements for membership more stringent.  It is absurd that Cuba, Zimbabwe and other repressive regimes sit as members of the Commission on Human Rights.  It is hypocritical and cynical.  Together they form an “alliance of the repressors in the commission waging common cause to protect themselves from the rebukes they richly deserve and undermine the commission’s work.  Such countries subvert the values, credibility and effectiveness of the commission.  They erode the authority and deny legitimacy to the U.N. Commission on Human Rights.

I’d suggest criteria be established for any nation to seek membership on the Commission.  First and foremost no country that is the target of a UNCHR country specific resolution should be allowed to stand for election.  While no nation has a perfect human rights record, at least the worst abusers ought not serve on the Commission entrusted to defend the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.  A country should clean up its own act before sitting in judgment of others.  As I said about one delegation last year when we tabled a resolution against them and they turned the tables to attack the United States, “That’s like being called ugly by a frog.”  The Human Rights Commission should not have frogs judging others’ beauty.

Our goal should be to eliminate all repressive regimes from serving on the Commission.  The reform I suggest would not accomplish that objective.  For some country’s such as Zimbabwe have escaped the condemnation of a country specific resolution they richly deserve.  But the reform I suggest would at least diminish their number.  It would be a start.

Second, I suggest the UNCHR eliminate “item 8” from its agenda.  That agenda item only deals with alleged human rights abuses by the State of Israel.  Israel is the only country for which a separate agenda item is designated.  It is discriminatory.  It merely provides yet another U.N. platform for the enemies of Israel to seek to delegitimize the oldest democracy in the Middle East.  Just as happens in the U.N. General Assembly and elsewhere in the U.N. system, agenda item 8 unleashes harsh and vitriolic diatribes against Israel, most often untethered to facts on the ground.  If a delegation wishes to raise concerns about a particular human rights situation in Israel, it should be considered under the general agenda item dealing with all country specific resolutions.

I recommend that Special Rapporteurs set up by the Commission be limited to the task assigned.  Currently UNCHR Special Rapporteurs are held on a very loose rein.  And often the Rapporteurs run far afield, especially on thematic issues rather than those created to examine a specified country’s conduct.  Sometimes such behavior is benign; but it can be mischievous and harmful.  Rapporteurs’ reports become official U.N. documents before the Rapporteur’s formal presentation to Commission members at their annual meeting.  It assumes a life and authority of its own.  As U.N. documents the Rapporteur’s report, whether adhering to the assignment given or not, has a standing in the United Nations System.  Some use the rapporteur’s report as precedent on other U.N. fora to push their own agenda.  Sometimes Rapporteurs reports reflect the personal musings of the author inconsistent with prior Commission positions.  Objections and concerns of member states currently only are germane at such time as the Rapporteur is assigned to give his or her supplemental oral report to the Commission.  Then damage already may have been done.

The Commission should create high guide rails to keep the rapporteurs on the road it has established.  This would require the Commission to be more specific and even clearer in outlining the assignment.  The Rapporteurs should be required to give periodic progress reports, perhaps quarterly, to the UNCHR secretariate composed of representative countries.  Then an unauthorized excursion can be reined in prior to the written report.

A last UNCHR reform I would suggest is eliminating the small member state committee empowered to determine before the Commission convenes whether a proposed resolution should be tabled.  Again repressive regimes work hard to gain membership on this elite body in an effort to protect themselves.  Since the five regional groups each select their own representative to the committee, the United States and other democracies have little or no say on which countries serve.  Among the five members this year were Cuba and Zimbabwe.  Enough said.

Finally let me address the issue of the U.N. Security Council (UNSC).  Proposals to expand the Security Council unfortunately have crowded out most discussion of other U.N. reforms.  The Security Council is the seat of the U.N.’s greatest power.  It is natural, therefore, that the Security Council is the focus of the most active and most spirited discussions about U.N. reform.  I say this development is “unfortunate because it is only one topic that warrants serious consideration.  And if none of the various proposed Security Council reforms are adopted, as they may not be, hopefully other reforms that are necessary in the areas of budgeting, accounting, oversight, the Commission on Human Rights and others can be adopted.

With “veto” power, the United States already can stop UNSC actions that are particularly harmful to its interests.  The U.S. usually can get the UNSC to act to advance U.S. interests when a matter is sufficiently important to Washington.  (Kosovo and the 18^th Iraq resolution are notable exceptions.)  Any UNSC reform might complicate the diplomatic dynamic.  “Better the devil you know than the devil you do not know.”  Also, as demonstrated during the 2002-3 UNSC deliberations on Iraq, there are UNSC members intent on using the Council to restrain U.S. actions, to tie down the superpower.

The formulas for UNSC reform that are widely discussed sidestep the radical restructuring required to have the council mirror real world power.  They leave the P-5 in place with their “veto power,” and enlarge the Council’s membership with more permanent seats (or rotating permanent seats such as the IAEA Board of Governors).  The formula most widely supported would expand the UNSC to 24 members of three tiers: the existing P-5 with “veto power”; a second tier of 7 or 8 potentially semi-permanent members elected on a regional basis for a renewable term of 4 or 5 years (Germany, Japan, India, Brazil, South Africa, etc.); and a third tier of rotating regional members elected for non-renewable two-year terms.  This option raises a number of concerns.  First, while easing current discontent over the UNSC, it doesn’t deal with the Council’s fundamental problem of not reflecting  power distribution in the real world.  That disconnect while, perhaps, ameliorated slightly would not be fixed.  It might buy some time, but the path would continue to a weaker less relevant UNSC.  Second, the UNSC already is large and debate cumbersome with deliberations painfully stilted and slow.  Enlargement would make that unwieldy situation worse.  Indeed re possible consequence of Security Council expansion ironically might be to lessen the current role of Member States elected to the Council.  In 1988, as the UNSC was deliberating how to deal with the Iran/Iraq war, then Secretary-General Perez de Cuellar suggested the P-5 begin to meet by themselves to seek agreement on how best to proceed.  In that instance and on occasion since then this mechanism has proven very productive.  Part of its success is that it does not meet often and has not replaced the normal informal and formal consultations of the entire UNSC membership.  With an expanded Council with many more countries with seats at the table and the consequent “increase of debate and unwieldy deliberations, one result may be more frequent P-5 consultations in which not only the most serious issues are discussed but far more.  The result will be less participation and less impact on issues for non-P-5 Security Council members and this in turn would hurt the UNSC.  And third, any enlargement would require geographic/regional group consideration that would result in further distortions between the UNSC and real world power.

While the Security Council’s membership and procedures warrant continued consideration, I remain skeptical that the proposals tabled so far would achieve their stated goals.  The better scenario is for the UNSC to demonstrate its relevance and value on issues of fundamental importance to the major powers (and others) so that the bigger powers and the United States become committed to reform because they need a strong, relevant and effective Security Council.

In conclusion, the United Nations is a valuable institution that the United States and other countries should actively support.  But to regain greater relevance in the world and to make a more central contribution, it must reform.  It must adjust its structure and procedures to more accurately reflect the power relationships in the real world, especially the U.N, Security Council.  Budgetary, accounting, auditing and other necessary oversight procedures must be adopted.  To fail to make such reforms may mean that the U.N. remains of great interest to those who benefit with prerogatives and power in the U.N. they do not have in the real world.  However, those disadvantaged will find the U.N. a less inviting or relevant venue.  And, inevitably, the U.N.’s authority and acceptability will diminish.