DEPARTMENT OF STATE PUBLICATION 11147 

Bureau of International Organization Affairs 

Released September 2004 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents 

U.S. Government Printing Office 

Washington, D.C. 20402 
United States 

Participation 

in the United Nations 

Report by the Secretary of State 

to the Congress 

for the year 2003 

CONTENTS 

Acronyms and Short Forms 

Prologue 

1. Political and Security Affairs 

Regional Issues 

Near East 

Iraq 

UN Iraq/Kuwait Observer Mission (UNIKOM) 

Arab-Israeli Situation 

UN Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL)

UN Truce Supervision Organization (UNTSO) 

UN Disengagement Observer Force (UNDOF) 

South Asia 

Afghanistan

India/Pakistan

Africa

Burundi 

Cote d’Ivoire 

Democratic Republic of the Congo 

Ethiopia/Eritrea 

Liberia

Libya 

Sierra Leone 

Somalia 

Sudan 

Western Sahara 

East Asia and the Pacific 

Bougainville 

Burma 

Cambodia 

East Timor 

Europe and Eurasia 

Cyprus

Georgia 

The former Yugoslavia: UN Interim Administration in Kosovo 

Western Hemisphere 

Cuba

Guatemala 

Disarmament Issues

UN Disarmament Commission (UNDC)

Conference on Disarmament (CD) 

General Assembly First Committee (UNFC) 

Specialized Issues

Terrorism 

Peacekeeping, Financing, Force Protection, and CIVPOL 

Peacekeeping and Financing 

i 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2003 

Force Protection 

Civilian Police 

 HIV/AIDS

 Sanctions

Non-Self-Governing Territories 

Security Council Thematic Debates

Effects of Atomic Radiation

2. Economic and Social Affairs 

Economic and Development Issues

Development Bodies and Programs 

UN Development Program (UNDP) 

UN Conference and Trade and Development (UNCTAD) 

Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD) 

UN Children’s Fund (UNICEF) 

UN-HABITAT 

Environment 

UN Environment Program (UNEP) 

UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 

Population 

UN Population Fund (UNFPA) 

UN Commission on Population and Development (CPD) 

Regional Economic Commissions 

Economic Commission for Europe (ECE) 

Economic Commission for Latin America and the 

Caribbean (ECLAC) 

Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the 

 Pacific (ESCAP) 

Social Issues

Commission for Social Development 

Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities 

Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice 

UN Convention Against Corruption 

International Drug Control 

International Narcotics Control Board (INCB) 

Human Rights 

Status of Women 

Human Rights 

Humanitarian Issues

Afghanistan

Iraq 

World Food Program 

UN High Commissioner for Refugees 

UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near 

 East (UNRWA) 

UN Disaster and Humanitarian Relief Activities 

 ii
Table of Contents 

NGO Committee 

3. Specialized Agencies and Other Bodies 

Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) 

International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) 

International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO)

International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) 

International Labor Organization (ILO) 

International Maritime Organization (IMO) 

International Telecommunication Union (ITU) 

International Trade Center (ITC) 

UN Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO)

Universal Postal Union (UPU) 

World Health Organization (WHO) and Other International Health 

 Organizations 

Word Health Organization (WHO) 

Pan American Health Organization (PAHO)

International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) 

Joint UN Program on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS) 

World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) 

World Meteorological Organization (WMO) 

4. Legal Developments 

Cloning 

Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) 

Host Country Relations 

International Court of Justice 

Iran v. United States of America

Libya v. United States of America

Mexico v. United States of America

International Criminal Court (ICC) 

International Law Commission (ILC) 

Strengthening the Role of the United Nations 

War Crimes Tribunals 

International Criminal Tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and 

 Rwanda 

Special Court for Sierra Leone 

5. Reform of the UN System 

UN Reform Efforts

Peacekeeping

Security Council 

General Assembly 

Democracy Caucus 

6. Administration and Budget 

UN Financial Situation 

UN Budget 

Capital Master Plan 

Scale of Assessments 

 iii
United States Participation in the United Nations—2003 

Committee for Program and Coordination (CPC) 

Audit Reports 

Joint Inspection Unit (JIU) 

Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS) 

International Civil Service Commission (ICSC) 

Human Resources Management 

Employment of Americans 

Appendices

1. Address by President George W. Bush 

2. Principal Organs of the United Nations 

General Assembly 

Security Council 

Trusteeship Council 

Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) 

International Court of Justice 

UN Secretariat 

3. U.S. Representatives 

UN General Assembly 

Subsidiary and Other Bodies 

Security Council 

Trusteeship Council 

Economic and Social Council and Related Bodies

Functional Commissions 

Regional Economic Commissions 

Standing Committees 

Related Subsidiary Bodies

Specialized Agencies and Other Bodies 

U.S. Permanent Representatives to the United Nations from 

 1946 to 2002 

4. UN and Related Websites 

UN-Specific 

UN Missions/Peacekeeping Operations

International Organizations 

Specialized U.S. Government Agency Sites 

IO Missions 

Conferences 

Conventions/Agreements 

Index 

 iv
Acronyms and Short Forms 

AAA anti-aircraft artillery 

ACABQ Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary 

 Questions

BOA Board of Auditors 

C-24 Special Committee on the Situation with Regard to the 

 Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of 

 Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples 

 (Committee of 24) 

CA Council of Administration

CBMs confidence building measures 

CCIT Comprehensive Convention on International Terrorism

CCLM Committee on Constitutional and Legal Matters 

CD Conference on Disarmament 

CFA Committee on Freedom of Association 

CICP UN Center for International Crime Prevention

CIVPOL civilian police 

CLJ Constitutional Loya Jirga 

CLOUT Case Law on UNCITRAL Texts 

CMP Capital Master Plan

CND UN Commission on Narcotic Drugs 

CNDD-FDD National Council for the Defense of Democracy/Forces 

 for the Defense of Democracy 

CoC Committee on Contributions 

COG Council Oversight Group

COP-9 Ninth Conference of the Parties 

CPC Committee for Program and Coordination 

CPD UN Commission on Population and Development 

CPPNM Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Materials 

 and Facilities

CSD Commission on Sustainable Development

CSW UN Commission on the Status of Women

CTC Counter-Terrorism Committee

CU contributory units 

DDRR disarmament, demobilization, repatriation, and reintegration 

DMZ demilitarized zone

DPI Department of Public Information 

v 
United States Participation in the United Nations – 2003 

DPKO UN Department of Peacekeeping Operations 

DPRK North Korea 

ECE Economic Commission for Europe 

ECLAC Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean 

ECOMIL Economic Community of West Africa Mission in Liberia 

ECOSOC Economic and Social Council

ECOWAS Economic Community of West African States 

ESCAP Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific 

ETOEs Extraterritorial Offices of Exchange 

EU European Union 

EXCOM Executive Committee of the UN High Commissioner for 

 Refugees 

FAO Food and Agriculture Organization 

FCCC/UNFCCC UN Framework Convention on Climate Change

FCTC Framework Convention on Tobacco Control 

FFP Food for Peace Office 

FMCT fissile material cutoff treaty 

GCOS Global Climate Observing System

GEF Global Environment Facility

GOC Government of Cambodia 

GOS Group of Specialists 

GRULAC Latin America and Caribbean Group 

GS general service

HHS U.S. Department of Health and Human Services 

IAEA International Atomic Energy Agency 

IARC International Agency for Research on Cancer 

ICAO International Civil Aviation Organization

ICC International Criminal Court 

ICJ International Court of Justice 

ICPM Interim Commission on Phytosanitary Measures 

ICRC International Committee of the Red Cross 

ICSC International Civil Service Commission

ICTR International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda

ICTY International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia 

IDF Israeli Defense Forces 

IDP internally displaced persons 

IFAD International Fund for Agricultural Development 

vi 
Acronyms and Short Forms 

IFAD-6 IFAD’s 6th Replenishment

IGC Intergovernmental Committee on Intellectual Property 

 and Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge, and 

 Folklore 

IHRs International Health Regulations

ILC International Law Commission OR International Labor 

 Conference

ILO International Labor Organization 

IMF International Monetary Fund

IMO International Maritime Organization

INL International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs 

 Bureau 

INSServ International Nuclear Security Advisory Service 

IOC International Oceanographic Commission 

IOM International Organization for Migration

IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

IPPAS International Physical Protection Advisory Service 

IPR intellectual property rights 

IRENE UN NGO Informal Regional Network 

ISAF International Security Assistance Force 

ISDR International Strategy for Disaster Reduction

ISPS International Ship and Port Facility Security Code

ITC International Trade Center 

ITU International Telecommunication Union

JIU Joint Inspection Unit 

KPS Kosovo Police Service 

KPSS Kosovo Police Service School

LURD Liberians United for Reconciliation and Democracy

MARPOL International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution by

 Ships 

MDB multilateral development bank

MDGs Millennium Development Goals 

MEPC Marine Environment Protection Committee 

MINUCI UN Mission in Cote d’Ivoire 

MINUGUA UN Verification Mission in Guatemala 

MINURSO UN Mission for the Referendum in Western Sahara 

MONUC UN Mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo

MRTD machine readable travel documents

vii 
United States Participation in the United Nations – 2003 

MTP Medium-Term Plan

MTSP Medium-Term Strategic Plan

NATO North Atlantic Treaty Organization

NEPAD New Partnership for Africa’s Development

NGO nongovernmental organization 

NPT Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty 

NSAs Negative Security Assurances

OCHA Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs 

ODS Official Document System

OE Office of Evaluation 

OFDA Office of U.S. Foreign Disaster Assistance 

OFF Oil-for-Food

OHCHR Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights 

OIOS Office of Internal Oversight Services 

OPA 90 U.S. Oil Pollution Act of 1990

PAHO Pan American Health Organization 

PAROS Prevention of an Arms Race in Outer Space 

PCB Program Coordinating Board

PCT Patent Cooperation Treaty

PISG Provisional Institutions of Self-Government 

PoA Program of Action 

POC Postal Operations Council 

POLISARIO Frente Popular para la Liberacion de Saguia el-Hamra y Rio 

 de Oro 

PRM Population, Refugees, and Migration Bureau

PSSA Particularly Sensitive Sea Area 

RBB results-based budgeting

RSP Radiological Security Partnership 

RUF Revolutionary United Front

SARS Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome

SCSL Special Court for Sierra Leone 

SCU Serious Crimes Unit 

SDS Strategic Deployment Stockpile

SOLAS International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea 

SPDC State Peace and Development Council 

SPLM Sudan People’s Liberation Movement/Army 

SRSG Special Representative of the Secretary-General 

viii 
Acronyms and Short Forms 

TAG-MRTD Technical Advisory Group on Machine Readable Travel 

 Documents 

TC Department Technical Cooperation Department

TDAG Terminal Dues Action Group

TOC UN Convention Against Transnational Organized Crime 

TRC Truth and Reconciliation Commission

UN-HABITAT UN Human Settlements Program

UNAIDS Joint UN Program on HIV/AIDS 

UNAMA UN Assistance Mission in Afghanistan 

UNAMI UN Assistance Mission for Iraq

UNAMSIL UN Mission in Sierra Leone 

UNCHR UN Commission on Human Rights 

UNCITRAL UN Commission on International Trade Law 

UNCTAD UN Conference on Trade and Development 

UNDC UN Disarmament Commission OR UN Development

 Corporation

UNDCP UN Drug Control Program

UNDOF UN Disengagement Observer Force 

UNDP UN Development Program

UNEP UN Environment Program

UNESCO UN Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization

UNFC UN First Committee 

UNFCCC/FCCC UN Framework Convention on Climate Change

UNFICYP UN Peacekeeping Force in Cyprus 

UNFPA UN Population Fund

UNHCR UN High Commissioner for Refugees 

UNICs UN Information Centers 

UNICEF UN Children’s Fund

UNIDO UN Industrial Development Organization 

UNIDROIT International Institute for the Unification of Private Law 

UNIFIL UN Interim Force in Lebanon 

UNIKOM UN Iraq-Kuwait Observation Mission 

UNMEE UN Mission in Ethiopia and Eritrea 

UNMIK UN Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo 

UNMIL UN Mission in Liberia 

UNMISET UN Mission of Support in East Timor

UNMOGIP UN Military Observer Group in India and Pakistan

ix 
United States Participation in the United Nations – 2003 

UNOB UN Office in Burundi 

UNODC UN Office on Drugs and Crime 

UNOL UN Peace-building Support Office in Liberia 

UNOMB UN Observer Mission in Bougainville 

UNOMIL UN Observer Mission in Liberia 

UNOMIG UN Observer Mission in Georgia 

UNPOB UN Political Office in Bougainville 

UNRWA UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the 

 Near East 

UNSCEAR UN Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic 

 Radiation 

UNTAET UN Transitional Administration in East Timor 

UNTSO UN Truce Supervision Organization 

UPU Universal Postal Union 

USAID U.S. Agency for International Development 

USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture 

USG Under Secretary-General 

USMOG-W U.S. Military Observer Group-Washington

VCP Voluntary Cooperation Program

WFP World Food Program

WHA World Health Assembly

WHO World Health Organization 

WIPO World Intellectual Property Organization

WMC World Meteorological Congress 

WMO World Meteorological Organization 

WRCs World Radiocommunication Conferences 

WSIS World Summit on the Information Society

WSSD World Summit on Sustainable Development

WTO World Trade Organization 

ZNG zero nominal growth

x 
Prologue 

This report is submitted pursuant to the “United Nations Participation 

Act of 1945” (Public Law 79-264). Section 4 of this law provides: 

“The President shall from time to time as occasion may 

require, but not less than once each year, make reports to the

Congress of the activities of the United Nations and of the

participation of the United States therein.” 

In July 2003, the President delegated to the Secretary of State the

authority to transmit this report to Congress. 

The United States Participation in the United Nations report is a

survey of United States government activities and policies in the United 

Nations and its agencies, as well as the activities of the UN and those agencies

themselves. More specifically, it seeks to assess UN achievements during 

2003, the effectiveness of U.S. participation in the UN, and whether U.S. goals 

were advanced or thwarted. 

The United States is committed to the founding ideals of the United

Nations. When addressing the UN General Assembly in 2003, President Bush

said, “The founding documents of the United Nations and the founding

documents of America stand in the same tradition. Both assert that human

beings should never be reduced to objects of power or commerce, because

their dignity is inherent. Both recognize a moral law that stands above men

and nations, which must be defended and enforced by men and nations. And

both point the way to peace, the peace that comes when all are free.” The

United States believes the United Nations should be a place where diverse 

countries and cultures of the world work together for freedom, democracy, 

peace, human rights and prosperity for all people. In 2003, the UN faced 

many challenges in living up to those founding principles. 

This report organizes thematically UN activities that most

significantly affected U.S. interests. It is divided into six chapters:

Part 1, on Political and Security Issues, focuses on activities

undertaken by the United Nations to maintain peace and security. Under the

UN Charter, the primary responsibility for this task lies in the Security 

Council, which can act through resolutions authorizing peacekeeping missions, 

special political missions, and other instruments. Political activities of the UN 

General Assembly and other UN bodies are also described. Finally, this

chapter covers security-related thematic issues, such as disarmament and 

international terrorism. 

The most important U.S. priority in the United Nations in 2003 was 

to achieve Security Council resolutions restoring stability, legitimacy and 

representative government to postwar Iraq. Following the coalition’s

liberation of Iraq, the United States succeeded in obtaining three UN Security 

Council resolutions that helped to consolidate Iraq’s liberation. All three of

these binding measures were adopted unanimously. Security Council

1 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2003 

Resolution 1483 ended UN economic sanctions on Iraq; defined UN

responsibilities in Iraq, including the appointment of a Special Representative

of the Secretary-General; and supported establishment of a transitional

administration run by Iraqis. Resolution 1500 welcomed the establishment of

the Iraqi Governing Council and created the UN Assistance Mission for Iraq.

Resolution 1511 underscored the Coalition Provisional Authority’s role in

security and civil administration, called upon countries to contribute to a 

multinational stabilization force, provided a framework for the transfer of 

power and for international participation in the political and economic

rebuilding of Iraq, and supported a vital and strengthened role for the United

Nations. 

Earlier in February 2003, the United States, the United Kingdom and 

Spain introduced a draft resolution that noted Iraq’s failure to comply with a 

total of 17 resolutions over the previous 12 years, including Resolution 1441. 

The Iraqi regime had defied all of these measures. Faced with Iraq’s

continued defiance, the United States pointed out that sufficient legal authority 

for use of force already existed, if needed in 1441 and other resolutions. This 

draft resolution was an opportunity for the Council to demonstrate unity and 

political will to enforce its own resolutions on Iraq. However, as a result of a 

veto threat from one permanent member, France, and reluctance on the part of 

a few other members to vote for any resolution that might deliver an

ultimatum to Iraq, the sponsors decided not to call for a vote. Nonetheless, 

this effort helped mobilize support from U.S. coalition partners for military

action in Iraq. 

U.S. leadership in the Security Council also promoted progress and 

helped realize U.S. priorities for UN involvement in Afghanistan. The 

Council adopted Resolution 1471 to extend the mandate of the UN Assistance

Mission to Afghanistan in its work to strengthen protection of human rights, 

rule of law, national reconciliation, and management of UN humanitarian 

relief, recovery, and reconstruction activities. Resolution 1510 broadened the 

role of the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force. 

Fostering international peace is a founding principle and a 

fundamental reason for U.S. participation in the United Nations. The need for

UN peacekeeping missions continued in 2003. The UN peacekeeping mission 

in Liberia was established in October 2003 with U.S. support after the 

departure of Charles Taylor from Liberia. Peacekeeping or observation 

missions were successfully closed on the Iraq-Kuwait border, in Bosnia and 

Herzegovina, and the Prevlaka peninsula; missions in Sierra Leone and East

Timor were downsized. 

Part 2, on Economic and Social Affairs, assesses the work of the

General Assembly, the Economic and Social Council, the UN Commission on

Human Rights, and various subsidiary bodies and commissions on issues that

involve economic development, the status of women, humanitarian aid, and 

crime prevention and control. 

2 
Prologue 

Among the most important U.S. achievements in the General

Assembly in 2003 were the adoption by consensus of a U.S.-sponsored

resolution to expand women’s participation in the political process and 

passage of resolutions on human rights and democracy. In other areas,

however, the General Assembly continued to be ineffective, debating many of

the same politically-motivated resolutions as in past years, including several

targeted resolutions against Israel, which were unbalanced in number and 

content. 

Important U.S. victories in the Commission on Human Rights 

included adoption of resolutions on religious intolerance and on human rights 

in Burma, Cuba, Iran, North Korea, and Turkmenistan, and defeat of a

proposal for an anti-U.S. Special Sitting on Iraq. Stronger resolutions in some

instances were blocked by the one-third of Commission members in 2003 who

were widely recognized human rights abusers, and who were more interested 

in protecting themselves from criticism than in improving human rights. 

Part 3, on Specialized Agencies, describes the work of a host of

agencies, from the Food and Agriculture Organization to the World Health

Organization, and assesses how they served U.S. interests. 

One of the most noteworthy developments in 2003 was the U.S. 

return to membership in the UN Educational, Scientific, and Cultural

Organization after a 19-year absence. The Organization agreed to dedicate 

U.S. dues in 2003 to revitalize education infrastructure in post-conflict areas, 

such as Afghanistan and Liberia, and to increase funding for preservation of

cultural artifacts. 

Part 4, on Legal Developments, highlights the work of the 

International Court of Justice and other judicial bodies, such as the War 

Crimes Tribunals in Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia, and legal issues such

as cloning. 

Part 5, on Reform of the UN System, describes progress on reform

of UN management and peacekeeping, and of the UN’s main bodies. 

In 2003, the United States achieved modest administrative and

management reforms in a resolution setting out the UN’s 2004–2005 biennium

budget. This resolution provided the Secretary-General with greater authority 

to manage UN staff on an organization-wide basis, to move professional

positions among departments in the Secretariat, and to terminate 912 obsolete 

or redundant activities. 

The United States maintains that a key factor in the successful reform

of the United Nations lies in the world’s democracies standing together in

defense of human rights, freedom, prosperity, and peace, and working more

closely to increase accountability and transparency in the United Nations. In 

2003, the United States stepped up its efforts to form a democracy caucus

within the United Nations. 

Part 6, on Administration and Budget, provides an overview of the 

UN current financial situation and resource management issues. 

3 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2003 

Information on funding of UN activities and UN bodies, as well as 

U.S. assessments or contributions, are provided throughout this report. Unless 

otherwise noted, figures provided are for calendar year 2003. 

Finally, the report’s appendices include the President’s 2003 speech

to the UN General Assembly, information about the principal organs of the 

United Nations and their membership and leadership in 2003, a list of U.S. 

representatives to the United Nations in 2003, and other reference information. 

U.S. participation in the United Nations will continue to be guided by

three principles. As one of the founders of the United Nations, the United

States wants it to realize its fundamental vision of making the world more 

secure, democratic, and prosperous. As an active member of the United 

Nations and its many committees and commissions, the United States believes

that effective multilateral diplomacy requires principled and consistent

leadership, as well as the full engagement of all UN partners. Finally, as the 

largest financial contributor to the United Nations, the United States believes 

good stewardship of UN resources is vital to its success. 

Questions about this report may be directed to the Bureau of 

International Organization Affairs, U.S. Department of State. 

4 
Prologue 

5 
Part 1 

Political and Security Affairs 

Regional Issues 

Near East 

Iraq 

On November 8, 2002, the UN Security Council unanimously 

adopted Resolution 1441, which, among other things, required Saddam 

Hussein’s regime to provide to the United Nations an accurate, full, and

complete declaration of all aspects of Iraq’s programs to develop weapons of

mass destruction, ballistic missiles, and other delivery systems and to

cooperate fully by providing unimpeded and unconditional access for UN 

inspections. Resolution 1441 also decided that Iraq had been, and remained 

in, material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions, including 

Resolution 687 (1991), and afforded Iraq a “final opportunity to comply with

its disarmament obligations.” 

On February 5, 2003, Secretary Powell addressed the Security

Council, arguing that Iraq had failed to avail itself of this final opportunity and 

continued to defy previous Council resolutions. Referring to Resolution 1441, 

Secretary Powell stated: “this Council recognized that Iraq continued to pose a 

threat to international peace and security, and that Iraq had been and remained 

in material breach of its disarmament obligations. Today, Iraq still poses a 

threat and Iraq still remains in material breach. Indeed, by its failure to seize

on its one last opportunity to come clean and disarm, Iraq has put itself in

deeper material breach and closer to the day when it will face serious 

consequences for its continued defiance of this Council.” 

The United States, the United Kingdom, and Spain subsequently

circulated a draft resolution in February reiterating Iraq’s continued defiance 

of Council resolutions and authorizing the use of force under Chapter VII of 

the UN Charter. Despite intensive U.S. diplomatic efforts, members of the 

Security Council were not able to reach an agreement on the matter. The 

United States, the United Kingdom, and Spain withdrew the draft. In March 

2003, under the authorization of force set out in Resolution 678 and in light of

Iraqi acts that the Council in Resolution 1441 had decided constituted material

breaches, a U.S.-led multinational coalition initiated military action, bringing

an end to a regime that had defied UN Security Council resolutions for more

than 12 years. 

After Iraq’s liberation, the United States and the United Kingdom 

successfully sought approval by the Security Council of five resolutions on 

Iraq: 1472, 1476, 1483, 1500, and 1511. Resolutions 1472, 1476, 1500, and

1511 were adopted unanimously; Resolution 1483 was adopted by a vote of 14

to 0, with Syria abstaining. In March and April 2003, the Security Council 

adopted Resolutions 1472 and 1476, which authorized the Secretary-General 

to assume temporary control from the Iraqi Government of the Oil-for-Food

5 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2003 

(OFF) distribution pipeline and therefore ensure the availability of

humanitarian goods to meet the basic needs of Iraqi civilians. Under 

Resolutions 1472 and 1476, UN agencies selected $1 billion worth of

humanitarian goods from the Oil-for-Food pipeline for priority shipment, and 

facilitated their subsequent distribution. 

The United States was a principal cosponsor of Resolution 1483,

which the Security Council adopted unanimously on May 22. This resolution 

lifted non-weaponry trade sanctions on Iraq; recognized the authorities of the 

United States and United Kingdom as occupying powers; mandated a vital role

for the United Nations, including the appointment of a Special Representative; 

called for international assistance in the reconstruction of Iraq, including the 

transfer of certain Iraqi assets frozen after the 1990 invasion of Kuwait to a 

Development Fund for Iraq; directed the termination of the OFF program after 

a six-month transition period; and required all states to freeze and transfer to 

the Development Fund for Iraq the assets of Iraqi state entities, former Iraqi

senior regime officials, and their agents. The United States and United 

Kingdom committed to update the Council quarterly on implementation of this

resolution. 

Resolution 1483 provided the framework and authorization for the 

Secretary-General to wind down the OFF program over a six-month period

through cooperation of the three parties most directly involved, which were 

the UN Office of the Iraq Program, the Coalition Provisional Authority, and 

the interim Iraqi authority. In accordance with Resolution 1483, 95 percent of 

Iraq’s oil-derived income was to be deposited into the new Development Fund

for Iraq rather than the Oil-for-Food program’s UN-administered escrow

account; 5 percent of the income was to be used to compensate victims of the

1990 Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. Resolution 1483 caused the transfer of an 

initial $1 billion of unencumbered funds from the Oil-for-Food escrow account 

to the Development Fund and required all surplus unencumbered funds to be

transferred as well. By December 31, transfers into the Development Fund

totaled $5.6 billion. Approximately $5 billion of the remaining funds in the 

Oil-for-Food escrow account was reserved to fund delivery of previously

approved contracts judged beneficial to the Iraqi people. 

The United States and the United Kingdom obtained full Security 

Council support for an asset freeze and transfer mechanism designed to return 

to the Iraqi people those assets removed from the country by the Saddam

regime. Resolution 1483 required member states immediately to freeze and 

transfer to the Development Fund for Iraq all such funds or other economic

resources. The UN committee tasked with identifying Iraqi individuals and

entities subject to the freeze and transfer ended with the termination of the Oilfor-Food program on November 21, but on November 24, Security Council 

members unanimously adopted a U.S./U.K. proposal (Resolution 1518)

creating a new committee (the “Committee Established Pursuant to Resolution

1518”) to continue the identification process. 

6 
Political and Security Affairs 

In August, the United States cosponsored Resolution 1500, which 

welcomed the establishment of the Governing Council of Iraq and established 

the mandate for the UN Assistance Mission for Iraq (UNAMI) for a period of

12 months. The Security Council adopted this resolution by a vote of 14 to 0,

with 1 abstention (Syria). 

On August 19, a terrorist bombing of the Canal Hotel, the UN’s 

Headquarters in Baghdad, killed 23 people, including the UN SecretaryGeneral’s Special Representative, Sergio Vieira de Mello (Brazil). The 

Coalition Provisional Authority and U.S. military forces offered extensive 

emergency assistance to the United Nations and its staff subsequent to the 

bombing, for which the United Nations expressed its deep appreciation.

Concerned about the security of its staff, the United Nations drastically

reduced its personnel in Iraq shortly after the bombing, and subsequently

withdrew all international personnel. Local Iraqi staff continued their

humanitarian and reconstruction work. In October, an independent panel, led

by former President of Finland, Mariit Ahtisaari, released its report which 

examined “all relevant facts about the security situation in Iraq before the 

attack, the UN security mechanisms, procedure and measures in place,” and

identified key lessons for future security arrangements. The report concluded 

that the UN security management system had failed in its mission to provide

adequate security to UN staff in Iraq, recommended that a thorough and 

professional security assessment be undertaken in order to determine whether

the return of international staff was possible and, if so, under what kind of

security arrangements. In December, the United Nations temporarily 

established UNAMI offices in Cyprus, Jordan, and Kuwait, where it carried

out limited humanitarian and reconstruction activities, largely via local Iraqi

staff. On December 10, 2003, the Secretary-General appointed Ross Mountain

(New Zealand) as his Acting Special Representative. The United Nations had 

not returned its international staff to Iraq by the end of 2003. 

One week after the bombing of UN Headquarters, the Security 

Council unanimously adopted Resolution 1502, which recognized the 

importance of the work of humanitarian and United Nations and associated 

personnel, and the need to protect them. This resolution specifically

condemned the attack on UN Headquarters as an attack on the entire civilized 

world and an immeasurable loss to the international community. 

The United States authored Resolution 1511, which the Security 

Council adopted unanimously on October 16. This resolution, among other 

things, invited the Iraqi Governing Council to provide a timetable and program 

for the drafting of a new constitution and the holding of democratic elections

under that constitution; resolved that the United Nations should strengthen its 

vital role in Iraq; authorized a multinational force under unified command to 

contribute to the maintenance of security and stability in Iraq; and encouraged

international financial institutions to provide significant and sustained

contributions to the reconstruction and development of Iraq’s economy. 

7 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2003 

UNAMI was paid for from the UN regular budget, at a cost of $9.6

million for 2003. The U.S. assessment was $2.1 million. 

UN Iraq/Kuwait Observer Mission (UNIKOM) 

UN Security Council Resolution 689, adopted April 9, 1991, 

established UNIKOM following the forced withdrawal of Iraqi forces from 

Kuwait. UNIKOM monitored the Iraq-Kuwait demilitarized zone (DMZ) as 

well as the Khawar ’Abd Allah waterway. UNIKOM’s presence in the DMZ 

supported U.S. interests by seeking and maintaining regional peace and

stability. 

In mid-March 2003, and preceding coalition operations against the 

regime of Saddam Hussein, the Secretary-General directed UNIKOM to 

temporarily suspend operations and to withdraw its personnel from the DMZ. 

As tensions increased, the Secretary-General called for the repatriation of the 

bulk of the peacekeepers comprising UNIKOM, but allowed a small 

headquarters element to remain in Kuwait City. 

After the liberation of Iraq by coalition forces, Resolution 1490, 

adopted July 3, directed the end of both UNIKOM’s mandate and the IraqKuwait DMZ, since there appeared no further need to maintain a buffer zone

between the two states. UNIKOM concluded its operations on October 6 

without further incident. 

In February 2003, UNIKOM had 1,111 troops and observers from 32 

countries, including 11 American military observers. In July, UNIKOM began 

to reduce its staff, and by the end of the year, there were no UNIKOM

personnel. The UN budget for the mission in 2003 was $9.6 million and the

U.S. assessment was $2.6 million. 

Arab-Israeli Situation 

Even as violence continued in the Middle East, the United States 

actively pursued in the United Nations President Bush’s vision of two states, 

Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace and security. To this end, the 

United States worked in partnership with the other members of the Quartet

(the United Nations, European Union, and Russia) to realize the Quartet’s 

Performance-Based Roadmap to a Permanent Two-State Solution to the 

Israeli-Palestinian Conflict (“Roadmap”). The UN Security Council formally

endorsed the Roadmap by unanimously adopting Resolution 1515 on

November 15. This resolution called on the parties to fulfill their obligations

under the Roadmap in cooperation with the Quartet. 

On August 19, a suicide bomber in Jerusalem detonated a bomb on a

crowded bus, killing 23 people and injuring 130. This bombing marked the 

end of seven weeks without any suicide bombings. The United States made it

clear that the Palestinian Authority must dismantle and disarm the terrorist 

capabilities or organizations that take innocent lives in order to prevent the 

peace process from going forward and called on regional and international

leaders to do their part to halt all assistance, including funding flows, to groups 

engaged in violence and terror. 

8 
Political and Security Affairs 

In September and again in October, the United States successfully 

blocked Security Council resolutions that were unbalanced in their criticism of

only one party in the dispute, Israel. On September 16, the United States 

vetoed a draft resolution sponsored by Pakistan, South Africa, Sudan, and 

Syria demanding that Israel cease any act of deportation or threat to the safety

of the elected President of the Palestinian Authority, Yasser Arafat. In 

explaining its vote, the United States noted, among other things, that the

resolution was flawed in its failure to include condemnation of all acts of

terrorism. 

Days later, the 10th General Assembly Emergency Special Session on

Illegal Israeli Actions in Occupied East Jerusalem and the Rest of the 

Occupied Palestinian Territories reconvened to consider a similarly 

unbalanced resolution. Despite intensive U.S. lobbying in capitals and UN 

missions against the resolution, the General Assembly adopted the measure by

a vote of 133 to 4, with 15 abstentions. The United States opposed this

resolution for the same reasons it opposed the nearly identical Security

Council resolution.

In October, U.S. lobbying efforts helped dissuade Syria from calling

for a vote on its draft Security Council resolution condemning Israel’s October 

5 military strike on a terrorist training camp on the outskirts of Damascus. 

The United States argued that unbalanced resolutions heightened tension in the 

Middle East. Days later, Syria introduced another draft Security Council

resolution, this time condemning Israel’s construction of a security barrier. 

The United States vetoed this proposed resolution, noting in its explanation of 

vote that the resolution failed to address both sides of the larger security

context of the Middle East, including the devastating suicide attacks on

Israelis. 

Again, the General Assembly Emergency Special Session reconvened

to discuss a similar resolution condemning the barrier. A compromise

brokered by the European Union resulted in approval, by a vote of 144 to 4, 

with 12 abstentions, of General Assembly Resolution ES-10/13, which

demanded Israel stop and reverse construction of its barrier and requested the 

UN Secretary-General to report on Israel’s compliance. The United States 

voted against this resolution as similarly unbalanced. 

As directed by this General Assembly resolution, the SecretaryGeneral issued a report on November 28. The report concluded that Israel was 

not in compliance with the resolution’s demand that it “stop and reverse the 

construction of the wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory.” In December, 

the Palestinian Authority introduced a resolution in the reconvened Emergency 

Special Session that requested an International Court of Justice (ICJ) advisory

opinion on the legal consequences of the Israeli barrier. 

The General Assembly adopted this resolution by a vote of 90 to 8 

with 74 abstentions. Because of strong U.S. lobbying against the resolution 

and abstentions by European Union countries, the Palestinian resolution failed 

to receive a resounding endorsement. The United States asserted U.S. policy 

9 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2003 

that international bodies, including the ICJ, should not offer opinions on final 

status issues, which the parties themselves had committed to resolve through

bilateral negotiations. 

In the regular General Assembly session, 20 resolutions concerning

the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and related issues were introduced. The 

General Assembly adopted all of them. The United States opposed many of 

these resolutions because they addressed final status issues that the Israelis and

Palestinians had agreed to decide through negotiations; advocated activities or

language incompatible with basic principles of the Middle East peace process;

and/or expended resources that could be used in more productive ways to

improve the lives of the Palestinian people. 

To address such concerns, the United States partnered with the

European Union to launch a diplomatic campaign to reduce the number of

Middle East resolutions introduced during this General Assembly. The 

General Assembly voted 133 to 0, with 35 abstentions, for U.S.-initiated

Resolution 58/95 on assistance to Palestinian refugees through the UN Relief 

and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees. These efforts produced a slight

reduction in the number of one-sided Middle East resolutions adopted during

this General Assembly. 

The United States also made progress in the General Assembly 

toward reducing the large majorities by which these recurring resolutions were 

usually adopted. U.S. lobbying and demarches successfully increased the

number of No votes and abstentions over the prior year. 

The Palestinian delegation deferred action on a draft resolution aimed

at modifying Israel’s UN credentials to exclude Israel’s representation of the

Occupied Territories at the United Nations. Vigorous U.S. lobbying

highlighted the potential ramifications for the credentials of the many other

countries whose territory was in some way contested. 

Throughout the year, U.S. representatives spoke out forcefully and

frequently in numerous UN bodies to ensure that Israel was not excluded from

or isolated at UN meetings and conferences, and that Israeli interests were 

given fair consideration. 

UN Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) 

UN Security Council Resolutions 425 and 426 established the UN 

Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) in March 1978. These measures 

responded to the Israeli invasion of southern Lebanon following a Palestinian

Liberation Organization attack inside Israel. UNIFIL’s mandate includes

confirming the withdrawal of Israeli forces from Lebanon, assisting the 

Government of Lebanon in restoring its effective authority, and contributing to

the restoration of international peace and security in the region. Since 1978, 

the Security Council has renewed UNIFIL’s mandate at six-month intervals. 

The Council last renewed UNIFIL on July 31 with Resolution 1496. 

With the withdrawal of Israeli forces from Lebanon in 2002, UNIFIL 

operations have mainly focused on maintaining the cease-fire along the Israel10 
Political and Security Affairs 

Lebanon border. UNIFIL’s presence along the line of separation (also known

as the Blue Line) helped advance U.S. efforts to achieve peace in the region by

working to maintain stability between Israel and Lebanon. 

During the first part of 2003, the UNIFIL area of operations was 

relatively quiet. Cross-border fire exchanges between Hizballah and the 

Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) accounted for the bulk of violations of the Blue

Line during this period. In addition, there were frequent air violations of the 

Blue Line by Israeli aircraft, as well as incidents of Hizballah’s anti-aircraft

artillery (AAA) landing across the border on Israeli civilian settlements. 

In the latter part of 2003, Hizballah increased its attacks against IDF 

posts and personnel across the Blue Line, particularly in the disputed Sheb’a

Farms area. IDF air violations of the Blue Line as well as retaliatory AAA fire 

by Hizballah continued during this period. 

As of December 31, 2003, UNIFIL included 1,991 troops from seven 

nations. No U.S. troops served in UNIFIL during 2003. UNIFIL’s budget 

was $82.8 million per year, and the U.S. assessed contribution to UNIFIL was 

$22.1 million. 

UN Truce Supervision Organization (UNTSO) 

The UN Truce Supervision Organization (UNTSO) was the first UN

peacekeeping mission. In 1948, the Security Council established UNTSO 

under Resolution 50 to supervise the truce at the end of the British mandate in

Palestine. Since then, UNTSO has supervised the implementation of general 

agreements between Israel and Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, and Syria. 

Following the 1967 Middle East War, UN Security Council

Resolution 236 (1967) directed the parties to fully cooperate with UNTSO 

observers in implementing and monitoring the cease-fire in the Israel-Syria 

sector and the Suez Canal Zone. In 1972, pursuant to the recommendation of

the UN Secretary-General (S/10611, annex), UNTSO observers deployed on

the Lebanese side of the demarcation line between Lebanon and Israel. The 

Security Council also directed unarmed UNTSO military observers to assist 

UN peacekeeping forces deployed in the Sinai (1973), on the Golan Heights

(1974), as well as in southern Lebanon (1978). 

In 2003, UNTSO continued to contribute to the maintenance of

regional stability. UNTSO observers and administrative staff provided direct 

support to the UN Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) and the UN 

Disengagement Observer Force in the Golan Heights (UNDOF). UNTSO 

observers were also present in the Sinai desert, at Egypt’s request. 

As of December 2003, UNTSO had 154 military observers from 23 

nations, including three U.S. military observers. UNTSO’s budget of $26 

million was funded from the regular budget rather than the UN peacekeeping 

account. The U.S. assessed contribution for UNTSO was $5.7 million. 

UN Disengagement Observer Force (UNDOF) 

UN Security Council Resolution 350, adopted May 31, 1974, 

established the UN Disengagement Observer Force (UNDOF) in the aftermath

11 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2003 

of the Arab-Israeli War. UNDOF observes the implementation of the IsraelSyria Disengagement Agreement. It also serves U.S. national security

interests by preventing the escalation of tensions between Israel and Syria.

The Security Council extends UNDOF’s mandate at six-month intervals. The

Security Council renewed UNDOF on December 22, 2003, by adopting 

Resolution 1520. 

UNDOF monitors the cease-fire between Israel and Syria, supervises 

the disengagement of Israeli and Syrian forces on the Golan Heights, and 

monitors the areas of separation and limitation (as established in the 

Disengagement Agreement) between the two countries. During 2003, 

UNDOF’s area of operations was relatively quiet. However, the Lebanesebased Hizballah conducted periodic attacks against Israeli military outposts 

and personnel in northern Golan. 

In 2003, UNDOF consisted of 1,032 troops from five nations. No 

U.S. personnel served in UNDOF. UNDOF’s budget was $38.8 million, and 

the U.S. assessed contribution was $10.4 million. 

South Asia 

Afghanistan 

Throughout 2003, the United States continued to work with other 

members of the international community, particularly through the United 

Nations, to fulfill a vision for a prosperous, democratic, and self-governing 

Afghanistan. To this end, the United States actively supported initiatives that

curtailed narcotics activity; led to greater peace and security in Afghanistan; 

promoted the return of refugees and internally displaced persons; and 

implemented institutional capacity-building programs. 

On March 28, the Security Council unanimously adopted Resolution 

1471 that extended the UN Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA) for 

12 months. The Security Council established UNAMA by Resolution 1401

(2002) with a mandate to foster the implementation of the Bonn Agreement, 

including the strengthening and protection of human rights, the rule of law, 

national reconciliation, and gender issues. The UNAMA mandate also

included management of all UN humanitarian relief, recovery, and 

reconstruction activities. The Secretary-General’s Special Representative, 

Lakhdar Brahimi (Algeria), continued to play a critical role in leading the 

mission. 

Concerned with the growing threat of opium production and abuse,

the Council released a Presidential Statement on June 18, 2003, stressing the 

need to promote a comprehensive international approach to fighting the illicit

cultivation and sale of opium poppy in Afghanistan. The United States joined

consensus on the statement in supporting the continuing efforts of the UN 

Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) and welcoming the proposals outlined

in both the Afghan Transitional Administration’s Drugs Strategy and the Paris 

Pact (May 2003), which was endorsed by the G-8 Summit that same month.

12 
Political and Security Affairs 

The statement also expressed its support for the Afghan Transitional

Administration’s efforts to eradicate narcotics production by the year 2013. 

The United States was greatly concerned about the resurgence of 

opium poppy cultivation and trade, as it generates the funds that corrupt 

institutions and finance terrorism and insurgency, and destabilizes the region 

by eroding the rule of law. The United Nations achieved several milestones in 

eradicating the narcotics threat in Afghanistan in 2003. On August 25, the 

UNODC and the Afghan Minister of the Interior signed an agreement to

establish a new drug interdiction department within the Afghan Interior

Ministry. The United Nations assisted the Afghan Ministry of Justice with

developing new drug control legislation and worked with the CounterNarcotics Directorate in field offices in major opium-producing regions of the 

country. Afghanistan demonstrated its commitment to the issue by passing a 

national drug law on October 20 identifying drug-related crimes and 

strengthening penalties for trafficking and related activities. The United States 

continued its commitment to supporting the U.K.-led initiative aimed at 

building the Afghan Transitional Authority’s capacity to run effective counter

narcotics programs and reduce poppy cultivation and trade through alternative 

livelihood programs. Despite these gains, the Afghanistan Opium Survey

2003, released by UNODC on October 29, reported that Afghanistan—with an

annual income for opium farmers and traffickers estimated at $2.3 billion—

remained the largest opium-producing country in the world. 

On August 11, NATO took the historic step of assuming the

leadership of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in Kabul.

NATO’s leadership of the ISAF, its first international security force outside of 

Europe, helped provide a secure environment necessary for the accelerated 

efforts of the United States and the international community in assisting 

Afghans with reconstructing their country and rebuilding its political

institutions. The Security Council’s unanimous adoption of Resolution 1510

on October 13 extended the ISAF mandate for 12 months. 

On December 5, the UN General Assembly adopted Resolution 58/27 

without a vote. The General Assembly addressed Afghanistan’s quest for 

peace and security by reiterating the General Assembly’s strong support for 

the Afghan Transitional Authority in its efforts to successfully implement the

Bonn Agreement. Members noted the fragility of peace and stability, the 

uncertainty of which had a profound effect on reconstruction activities in 

Afghanistan. The General Assembly called upon member states to support the 

Transitional Authority and provide emergency assistance for peace, normalcy,

and reconstruction, and encouraged donors to channel assistance through the 

development budget of the Transitional Authority. The United States joined 

consensus on this resolution. Its uncontested adoption was an important

indicator of the substantial international support for the establishment of peace

and security in Afghanistan. 

During an address to a UN-sponsored meeting on Afghanistan in

New York on September 24, Secretary Powell conveyed President Bush’s 

13 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2003 

pledge of an additional $1.2 billion in aid. These additional funds sent a clear 

signal of the continuing, long-term U.S. commitment to Afghanistan’s future. 

Secretary Powell emphasized in his remarks that Afghanistan’s success in its 

massive reconstruction effort could not be achieved without strong and

sustained assistance from others across the international community. 

Capping a year of effort, Afghanistan’s Constitutional Loya Jirga 

(CLJ) assembled December 14 and adopted a new constitution on January 4, 

2004. The United States supported these important developments. UN bodies 

[including UNAMA, the UN Development Program (UNDP), and the UN

High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR)] assisted the CLJ, which was

composed of citizen representatives from all Afghanistan, in creating a 

landmark constitution for that country. The new constitution provided for 

strong presidential and parliamentary structures, institutionalized the equality

and representation of women, protected the rights of all ethnic groups, and

recognized the role of Islam. UNAMA provided crucial technical and 

financial support to the constitutional process, updating donors and the 

international community on the needs of the Constitutional Commission and

the developing CLJ. UNAMA also provided critical technical and field-level

support, making issue papers available to the Constitutional Commission

Secretariat, and advising UN Regional Central Secretariat Offices. UNDP 

assisted the Secretariat of the Constitutional Commission in creating an 

operational budget for the Loya Jirga process, and facilitated the recruitment

of staff for the Loya Jirga at the Secretariat’s central and regional offices. 

UNHCR worked with the Secretariat’s offices to facilitate the participation of 

the Afghan refugees displaced in Iran and Pakistan in the upcoming election

process.

UNAMA cost $82.2 million in 2003. The U.S. contribution was

$18.1 million. In addition, the United States contributed $52.9 million to the 

UNHCR for its work to facilitate the voluntary repatriation of Afghan refugees 

and to provide protection and assistance to refugees remaining in neighboring 

countries. Three CIVPOL and 72 military observers participated in UNAMA. 

No U.S. personnel were assigned to UNAMA. 

India/Pakistan 

Under the Indian Independence Act of 1947, Kashmir was given the

choice of acceding either to India or Pakistan. Pakistan objected to Indian 

control, and in January 1948, the United Nations established the UN 

Commission for India and Pakistan to investigate and mediate the dispute over

the state of Jammu and Kashmir. In July 1949, India and Pakistan agreed to a

cease-fire line supervised by commission observers. 

The Security Council had established the UN Military Observer 

Group in India and Pakistan (UNMOGIP) to take over this role in 1949 under

Resolution 47 (1948), and in March 1951, the Council terminated the UN 

Commission under Resolution 91. UNMOGIP functions were to observe and

report, investigate complaints of cease-fire violations, and submit its findings 

to each party and to the Secretary-General. UNMOGIP reports are included in

14 
Political and Security Affairs 

UN Department of Peacekeeping Operations weekly Briefing Notes on Field 

Operations and circulated to the Security Council. UNMOGIP observers are

deployed on both sides of the “Line of Control” agreed upon by India and

Pakistan in 1972, which generally follows the 1949 cease-fire line. 

Despite UNMOGIP’s passive role in Kashmir, the United States 

believed that to end the mission without replacing it with an alternative 

mechanism could upset the delicate equilibrium, which allowed both sides to 

pass through a tense period in 2003 and meet on a range of bilateral issues. 

UNMOGIP’s budget for 2003, paid from the UN regular budget, was 

$6.2 million, and the U.S. assessment was $1.4 million. UNMOGIP had 44

observers in 2003. No U.S. personnel were assigned to UNMOGIP. 

Africa 

Burundi 

Since 1993, when President Melchior Ndadaye was assassinated, 

200,000 Burundians have died in conflicts between Hutu and Tutsi factions.

In 2003, the United States continued to work in the UN Security Council to

support international efforts to assist Burundi’s peace process and promote 

national reconciliation. The Security Council closely followed the work of the

Secretary-General’s Special Representative for Burundi, Berhanu Dinka 

(Ethiopia). Dinka served as the chair of the Monitoring Committee

responsible for ensuring the implementation of the August 2000 Arusha

Agreement on Peace and Reconstruction in Burundi. Dinka also gave the

Council regular briefings on progress in negotiating an all-inclusive cessation

of hostilities agreement with the major Burundi rebel group not party to the 

peace process, the National Council for the Defense of Democracy/Forces for 

the Defense of Democracy (CNDD-FDD), led by Pierre Nkurunziza. The

United States supported the important role in the Burundi peace process of the

African Mission in Burundi. 

Burundi’s Transitional National Assembly and Transitional Senate

opened in January and February 2002, in accordance with the Arusha 

Agreement. In a Presidential Statement on May 1, 2003, the Security Council

congratulated the parties in Burundi on a peaceful transition of power in the 

presidency of the Transitional Government. The Council characterized the 

development as a major milestone in the implementation of the 2000 Arusha 

Peace Agreement. The United States likewise issued a public statement in 

support of the peaceful transition of the presidency and encouraged further

positive movement in the peace process. Further, with U.S. support, the 

Security Council formed terms of reference for a Security Council assessment

mission to visit Burundi in 2004 to evaluate possible mechanisms to address 

the issues of impunity for human rights and accountability in Burundi. 

The October 2003 signing of the “Pretoria Protocol” by the 

Government of Burundi and the main rebel group, the CNDD-FDD,

demonstrated significant progress in the Burundi peace process. The Protocol

addressed the sharing of political, defense, and security responsibilities

15 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2003 

between the Transitional Government of Burundi and the CNDD-FDD.

Although the United Nations played a relatively small role in the actual talks, 

Special Representative Dinka had a large role negotiating with the parties in 

the efforts leading up to the talks. The United Nations supported the signing

of the Protocol. The United States commended these efforts and urged all the 

parties to continue to implement all agreements, including the December 2002 

cease-fire. The United States continued to call for the remaining armed rebel 

group, the FNL faction led by Agathon Rwasa, to join the peace process.

Cote d’Ivoire

After a military coup in 1999, Junta leader Robert Guei held 

contested elections in late 2000, after which the Supreme Court declared 

Laurent Gbagbo the winner. Gbagbo faced strong opposition, and hostilities

between northern rebels and the government broke out on September 19, 2002. 

The French government interceded, calling for a round table between the 10 

Ivoirian political groups in Paris in January 2003. On February 4, the Security 

Council unanimously adopted Resolution 1464, supporting the discussions in

Paris which had resulted in the signing of the Linas-Marcoussis Agreement on

January 24. The resolution called on all Ivoirian political forces to fully 

implement the Agreement without delay. 

The Linas-Marcoussis Agreement established a cessation of 

hostilities between the elected government and the opposition rebels, the 

Forces Nouvelles, and created the coalitional Government of National

Reconciliation to ensure peace and stability. In support of this aim, Resolution 

1464 authorized deployment of Economic Community of West African States 

(ECOWAS) forces supported by French stabilization troops, and created the

position of Special Representative, filled by Albert Tevoedjre (Benin). 

Affirming its support for the implementation of the Linas-Marcoussis

Agreement, on May 13 the Security Council adopted Resolution 1479

establishing a special political mission in Cote d’Ivoire (MINUCI). This 

resolution structured MINUCI’s mandate to assist with the full and timely

implementation of the Agreement by all Ivoirian parties, including the 

monitoring of the security situation and confidence-building measures. The 

Security Council also approved a small military advisory component to work

in concert with the efforts of established ECOWAS and French stabilization 

forces (the Licorne forces). 

The United States regarded MINUCI’s efforts, in conjunction with

those of the ECOWAS forces and the Licorne forces, as critical to bolstering

the maintenance of peace and stability in Cote d’Ivoire. In a May 30 speech to 

the Council, the United States called on all Ivoirian parties to work together to

ensure that the cease-fire held and to implement the provisions of the

Agreement. 

In a Presidential Statement issued on July 25, however, the Council

noted with concern the continued existence of regional factors of instability,

particularly the proliferation of light arms and the use of mercenaries and child 

soldiers. The United States joined consensus on August 4 to adopt Resolution 

16 
Political and Security Affairs 

1498, a six-month extension of MINUCI’s mandate, established under 

Resolution 1464. 

On November 13, the Security Council issued another Presidential

Statement noting some progress toward fulfilling the Linas-Marcoussis 

Agreement objectives, such as the appointment of ministers and reopening of

borders with Mali and Burkina Faso. It also expressed concerns over an

apparent lack of commitment to ensure full implementation of the Agreement 

and condemned human rights violations. 

On November 15, the Security Council unanimously adopted

Resolution 1514, which renewed MINUCI’s mandate for another six months, 

again noting with concern serious difficulties in the Ivoirian peace. In a 

statement to the Council, the United States again called on all parties to the

Linas-Marcoussis Agreement to fulfill their commitments. 

On December 5, the Security Council issued a Presidential Statement 

expressing concern regarding armed elements’ attempts to cross the cease-fire

line. 

MINUCI cost $13.9 million in 2003, of which the United States paid

approximately $3.1 million. MINUCI had eight military observers in 2003. 

No U.S. personnel were assigned to MINUCI. 

Democratic Republic of the Congo 

The Security Council established the UN Mission in the Democratic 

Republic of the Congo (MONUC) in August 1999 under Resolution 1258 to

assist in implementation of the Lusaka Ceasefire Agreement between the 

Congolese and the governments of Angola, Namibia, Rwanda, Uganda, and 

Zimbabwe for a cessation of hostilities among all belligerent forces. 

MONUC’s numbers and tasks grew from the 500 military observers

authorized in November 1999 by Security Council Resolution 1279, to a force

of 8,700 military personnel authorized in December 2002 by Resolution 1445, 

which added two battalions to undertake demobilization, disarmament, and 

repatriation of Rwandan Hutu rebel groups. In July 2003, the troop ceiling 

was again increased by Resolution 1493 to 10,800 to provide for a continuing

MONUC security presence in Kinshasa and a brigade-sized force in the 

northeast Ituri district. 

In 2003, Congolese factions agreed to form an inclusive transitional

national government, with elections planned for 2005. Despite the political

progress, however, violence caused by militia groups in the east, particularly

in the Ituri district, continued. MONUC dispatched a reserve Uruguayan 

guard force to Ituri and in May 2003, the Security Council adopted Resolution 

1484, which authorized deployment of an interim emergency multinational

force to Bunia, Ituri, to stabilize the city while the United Nations sought

reinforcements for its troop presence there. 

U.S. lobbying efforts to appoint former U.S. Ambassador to the 

Congo William Swing, who was serving as Special Representative of the 

Secretary-General (SRSG) in the Western Sahara, as new SRSG in the Congo,

17 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2003 

resulted in his appointment effective July 1. On July 28, the Security Council 

adopted Resolution 1493, which extended MONUC’s mandate until July 30,

2004, allowed use of all necessary means to enforce its mandate in the eastern 

Democratic Republic of the Congo, and authorized an increase of two further 

battalions to ensure stability in the Ituri district. The resolution also imposed

an arms embargo on non-state actors in the eastern Congo, specifically 

affecting North and South Kivu and Ituri. By year’s end, SRSG Swing had

deployed most MONUC troops and staff into the eastern Congo, noting that 

political agreements in 2003 had brought Lusaka Agreement signatories into a 

working governmental structure. Several companies of MONUC troops were 

authorized to be deployed temporarily under Security Council Resolution 1493

to provide a neutral security presence in Kinshasa during the transitional

government, pending training of an integrated Congolese police force.

Nongovernmental organizations and the Congolese credited MONUC with

restoring stability to Ituri’s central town, Bunia, and expanding access of 

humanitarian workers to other parts of Ituri.

A driving factor in the continued violence in the Congo was the

struggle for control of natural resources, whose exploitation provided both

funding and impetus for the conflict. In response, the Security Council in

2000 created an independent Expert Panel on the Illegal Exploitation of

Natural Resources and Other Forms of Wealth in the Democratic Republic of 

the Congo, whose mandate was twice renewed in 2003 (Resolution 1457 of

January 24 and Resolution 1499 of August 13). The panel presented its final

report on October 31, and the Security Council issued a Presidential Statement 

on November 19, urging all states to take appropriate steps to end the illegal 

exploitation of the Congo’s resources. As called for by the Security Council

upon recommendation of the Panel, the United States worked with a number

of U.S.-based companies throughout 2003 to ensure that their activities in the 

Congo were not contributing to the ongoing conflict. 

The 2003 UN budget for MONUC was $565.1 million, of which the 

U.S. share was approximately $151.1 million. At the end of the year, 

MONUC had deployed 9,981 troops, 553 military observers, and 115 civilian

police. The United States did not contribute any personnel to MONUC in

2003. 

Ethiopia/Eritrea 

The UN Security Council established the UN Mission in Ethiopia and

Eritrea (UNMEE) in July 2000 with Resolutions 1312 and 1320 after the two 

countries signed an Agreement on Cessation of Hostilities. A comprehensive 

cease-fire was then signed on December 12, 2000, ending their border war. In 

the peace agreement, both sides agreed to the creation of an independent

Boundary Commission. They also agreed to cooperate with the Commission

and its staff during the process of border delimitation and demarcation, and 

that the Commission’s determination of the border would be final and binding.

The Boundary Commission announced its findings on April 13, 2002.

Eritrea accepted the decision. Ethiopia initially accepted the decision, but in 

18 
Political and Security Affairs 

August 2003 told the UN Special Representative of the Secretary-General that 

it would not hand over Badme in the west or the central Irob region, and asked

the United Nations on September 19 to provide an alternative to the Boundary 

Commission decision, which the United Nations declined to do. Ethiopia said

it could not accept the delimitation of two key areas in the central and western 

sectors as part of Eritrea and refused to accept demarcation. Ethiopia 

disengaged from constructive contact with the Boundary Commission and

ceased paying its share of the Commission’s expenses. 

During 2003, the United States joined with other Security Council

members in unanimous approval of two six-month renewals of UNMEE’s 

mandate, Resolution 1466 on March 14 and Resolution 1507 on September 12. 

These mandate renewals included calls for lifting of administrative restrictions

imposed by both countries, though predominantly by Eritrea, for establishment

of a high altitude direct air corridor, and for cooperation with the Boundary 

Commission. The resolutions reaffirmed the importance of political dialogue

between Ethiopia and Eritrea in order to ensure the successful peace process, 

and called on them to engage in dialogue and confidence building measures in 

order to normalize relations. 

UNMEE continued to monitor the temporary security zone 

encompassing disputed border areas in 2003, and noted increasing Ethiopian

incursions. Eritrea increased administrative restrictions on the freedom of

movement of UNMEE, and no progress was made by the international

community in getting the two countries to agree on the establishment of a

direct flight route between Addis Ababa and Asmara. 

In 2003, the UN budget for UNMEE was $182.9 million, with a U.S. 

assessment of $48.9 million. At the end of the year, UNMEE had 3,795 troops 

and 209 military observers; seven of the military observers were American. 

Liberia 

Following several years of civil war in Liberia, the Economic

Community of West African States (ECOWAS) brokered a peace agreement 

in 1993. With the support of the UN Observer Mission in Liberia (UNOMIL), 

established in September 1993 after some delays in the peace process, Charles

Taylor was elected President of Liberia in 1997. UNOMIL was closed in

September 1997 and the UN Peace-building Support Office in Liberia 

(UNOL) was established in November 1997 to further support national 

reconciliation and reconstruction. However, government abuses and the 

inability of the Government of Liberia and opposition parties to reach

agreement on key issues such as security sector reform led to a resumption of

fighting. 

By mid-2003, the Liberian rebel groups Liberians United for

Reconciliation and Democracy (LURD) and Movement for Democracy in

Liberia had gained control over most of Liberia’s territory and were moving

towards Monrovia. The African Union, ECOWAS, the United Nations, and

the United States began intensive efforts to bring the Liberian parties,

including the rebel groups, to a negotiated settlement during peace talks in

19 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2003 

Ghana. On June 4, the Sierra Leone Special Court announced its indictment of

Liberian President Taylor for supplying arms and refuge to the Revolutionary

United Front rebels, who had committed numerous atrocities in Sierra Leone. 

The first elements of an Economic Community of West Africa Mission in

Liberia (ECOMIL) force, organized by ECOWAS, entered Liberia on August

4. 

International pressure mounted, and on August 11, Taylor resigned in

favor of Vice President Blah and went into exile in Nigeria. The parties 

signed a Comprehensive Peace Agreement in Accra, Ghana, on August 18. 

The Security Council issued a Presidential Statement on August 27, 2003,

welcoming the peace agreement between the Liberia parties. The United

States stationed an Amphibious Ready Group offshore and assigned a 

detachment of Marines who operated in and around Monrovia to support 

ECOMIL operations. U.S. troops departed as the United Nations took over in

October. The National Transitional Government of Liberia took office on

October 14, under the leadership of Chairman Gyude Bryant. 

During 2003, the UN Security Council expressed concern over the

events in Liberia through a series of resolutions and other actions. On January

28, the Security Council unanimously adopted Resolution 1458, extending for 

three months the tenure of the Panel of Experts charged with reviewing 

compliance by the Government of Liberia and other groups with UN sanctions

on traffic in arms and Sierra Leonean rough diamonds. 

On April 21, the Security Council President endorsed the SecretaryGeneral’s recommendations for heightening the efforts of UNOL to build

government capacity for human rights and democracy in Liberia and for 

supporting the peace process. 

Security Council Resolution 1478, unanimously adopted on May 6,

registered the Council’s concern about violations of UN sanctions by the 

Government of Liberia, as well as by LURD and other armed rebel groups,

and extended for an additional 12 months the arms embargo, restrictions on

trade in Liberian rough diamonds, and the travel ban imposed by Resolution

1343 (2001). Resolution 1478 also imposed restrictions on trade in Liberian

timber, effective in July 2003. 

In July, the Secretary-General appointed Jacques Paul Klein (United

States) as his Special Representative for Liberia, with responsibility for 

directing UN Mission in Liberia (UNMIL) operations and coordinating all UN

activities in Liberia. In addition to sending Klein, the Secretary-General also

instructed his Representative in Liberia (head of UNOL) and his 

Representative for West Africa to go to Monrovia to begin preparations for the

return of UN offices and programs to Liberia. A Security Council mission

visited West Africa June 28–July 5 to support the Liberia peace process. 

On August 1, the Security Council unanimously adopted Resolution

1497, authorizing establishment under Chapter VII of the UN Charter of a 

multinational force in Liberia to support the June 17 cease-fire, including

establishing conditions for the initial stages of disarmament, demobilization,

20 
Political and Security Affairs 

reintegration, and repatriation (DDRR) of ex-combatants. This force,

ECOMIL, was charged with helping to establish and maintain security as a

successor government took over after President Taylor’s departure and to 

prepare for the deployment of a UN peacekeeping operation by October 1.

The resolution gave the UN Mission in Sierra Leone authority to provide 

ECOMIL with logistical support and authorized the Secretary-General to preposition personnel and equipment to prepare for the UN deployment in

October. These were groundbreaking steps, allowing the United Nations to

move much more quickly than in the past towards deployment of a UN force. 

U.S.-drafted Security Council Resolution 1509, unanimously adopted 

on September 19, followed up on Resolution 1497, authorizing establishment 

of UNMIL under Chapter VII of the UN Charter for an initial period of 12

months. It authorized up to 15,000 UN military personnel, including up to 250

military observers and 160 staff officers, and up to 1,115 civilian police 

(CIVPOL) officers. Among other tasks, UNMIL was given the mandate of

monitoring implementation of the cease-fire agreement; helping to set up and

secure cantonment sites where combatants could report for disarmament and

demobilization; assisting in development of a DDRR plan; carrying out

voluntary disarmament, including collecting and destroying weapons and

ammunition; protecting civilians in imminent danger; facilitating provision of 

humanitarian assistance; helping the transitional Government of Liberia to

restructure the Liberian police and armed forces; assisting the transitional

government to reestablish government authority; and helping the transitional 

government to prepare for national elections by the end of 2005. The

functions and staff of UNOL were absorbed into the new UN mission. 

The Security Council unanimously adopted Resolution 1521 on

December 22, continuing the arms embargo and the bans on Liberian timber

and diamonds, and renewing the Council’s call for transparent accounting for 

maritime and other government revenues. The resolution revised the travel

ban, in light of President Taylor’s departure, to apply to persons posing a

threat to the Liberia peace process, including Taylor and a number of his close 

associates, rather than applying it broadly to members of the former Taylor 

government. 

The UN did not assess member states for UNMIL in 2003. At the 

end of 2003, UNMIL’s strength was 8,387 troops, 107 military observers, and

312 UN CIVPOL. The United States provided two troops, seven military

observers, and 11 CIVPOL. A U.S. citizen, Mark A. Kroeker, served as 

Civilian Police Commissioner. 

Libya 

In 1992, with Security Council Resolution 731, the United Nations

condemned the acts of international terrorism perpetrated by Libya. The 

United States, the United Kingdom, and France were all actively involved in

issues concerning Libya’s terrorist activities due to the fact that citizens from

these countries were victims of Libyan terrorist attacks. 

21 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2003 

In 1999, after Libya agreed to turn over two Libyan officials for trial

by a Scottish court (sitting in the Netherlands) on the Pan Am 103 bombing, 

the Security Council suspended, but did not end, sanctions imposed in Security 

Council Resolutions 748 (1992) and 883 (1993). In January 2001, the court 

convicted one of these Libyans, Abdel Basset al-Megrahi. A Scottish

appellate court upheld the conviction in March 2002. 

On August 15, 2003, Libya submitted a letter to the President of the 

UN Security Council, which addressed the remaining requirements of the 

Security Council resolutions, including acceptance of the responsibility for the

actions of its officials in the bombing of Pan Am 103, and payment and

appropriate compensation to the families of the victims. In this letter, Libya 

also renounced terrorism and pledged to cooperate with further requests for

information concerning the bombing. 

In response to Libya’s action, on September 12, the Security Council 

adopted Resolution 1506, which lifted the sanctions imposed by Resolutions 

748 and 883; dissolved the sanctions committee established pursuant to those 

resolutions; and removed the letter from France, the United Kingdom, and the 

United States of December 1991 from the list of matters of which the Council 

is seized. The Security Council adopted the resolution by a vote of 13 to 0,

with the United States and France abstaining. 

Sierra Leone 

Conflict in Sierra Leone began in 1991, when the Revolutionary

United Front (RUF) launched attacks from the eastern part of the country, near

the Liberia border. Following a series of efforts by the United Nations, the 

Economic Community of West African States, and the Organization of

African Unity to broker peace agreements, in 1998 the Security Council 

established the UN Observer Mission in Sierra Leone. Fighting resumed and

new peace negotiations began, culminating in the creation under Resolution 

1270 in 1999 of the UN Mission in Sierra Leone (UNAMSIL). UNAMSIL

was expanded and given additional tasks in 2000, and expanded again in 2001. 

In 2003, the United States drew the Security Council’s attention to 

the progress being made in restoring stability and government authority in

Sierra Leone, and pressed for as rapid a draw-down of troops as security

would allow. The United States supported the Sierra Leone Special Court as

one element in an overall strategy to restore stability to the region. 

In turn, the Security Council focused on beginning the draw-down of 

UNAMSIL, noting progress in extension of the Government of Sierra Leone’s 

authority throughout the country, improved control over diamond revenues,

and the increasing capabilities of the Sierra Leone armed forces and police. 

However, the neighboring Liberian conflict intensified during the first half of 

2003, threatening Sierra Leone’s hard-won stability and leading UNAMSIL 

and the Sierra Leone armed forces to increase border patrols. A Security 

Council mission visited West Africa June 28–July 5, including a stop in Sierra

Leone. The Liberian peace agreement in August, the departure of Liberian 

President Charles Taylor, and the deployment of the new UN Mission in

22 
Political and Security Affairs 

Liberia in October were important steps forward for the stability of Sierra

Leone. 

On March 28, the Security Council unanimously adopted Resolution 

1470, extending UNAMSIL’s mandate until September 30. On July 18, 

Security Council Resolution 1492, adopted unanimously, approved plans to 

draw down UNAMSIL completely by the end of 2004, assuming security

conditions permitted. On September 19, the Security Council extended 

UNAMSIL’s mandate for an additional six months, until March 30, 2004. 

The Sierra Leone Special Court in 2003 indicted 12 persons for 

crimes against humanity committed during the Sierra Leone conflict, including

Liberian President Taylor, former RUF leader Foday Sankoh, and former

Sierra Leone Interior Minister Sam Hinga Norman. 

UNAMSIL’s budget for 2003 was $548.6 million, of which the

United States was assessed $144.3 million. In addition, the United States paid

$10 million to the Sierra Leone Special Court in 2003. Throughout the year, 

the United States conducted demarches at the highest levels to generate 

increased voluntary contributions from other states for the Court. The United 

States was successful in generating some additional voluntary contributions, 

but they were not sufficient to cover the rising costs of the Court. 

At the end of 2003, UNAMSIL’s strength was 11,232 troops, 130

civilian police (CIVPOL), and 269 military observers. The United States

provided one CIVPOL officer. 

Somalia

In 1991, after the overthrow by anti-government forces of dictator 

Mohammed Siad Barre, Somalia fell into civil war and disorder. In 1992, with 

U.S. support, the Security Council called for a cease-fire and, in Resolution 

733 (1992), imposed an arms embargo on the entire territory of Somalia. 

In 2003, the UN Security Council adopted two resolutions and two 

presidential statements on Somalia. Both Resolution 1474, adopted 

unanimously on April 8, and Resolution 1519, adopted unanimously on 

December 16, re-established the UN Panel of Experts (now the Monitoring 

Group) on the Somalia arms embargo, to focus attention on ongoing violations

of the embargo and to recommend how to strengthen enforcement. The 

United States led efforts to focus the mandate of the Panel of Experts on the 

transfer of ammunition, single-use weapons (including man portable air 

defenses), and small arms. Both presidential statements, adopted on March 12

and on November 11, reiterated the firm support of the Security Council for 

the Somali National Reconciliation Process launched under the auspices of the 

Inter-governmental Authority on Development and led by Kenya. 

The chair of the Security Council Committee on Somalia sanctions

(the “751 Committee”) led a mission to Somalia and states in the region from 

November 11–21, in which the United States participated, as a step towards 

getting groups to respect the arms embargo. The UN Panel of Experts on the 

Somalia arms embargo submitted two reports to the 751 Committee in 2003, 

23 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2003 

on March 25 and again on November 4. The Panel included an expert from

the United States when it was recomposed in May. 

Sudan 

For over two decades, southern opponents of the Sudan Government, 

the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement/Army (SPLM), have fought

government forces and regional militia groups allied with the government, 

resulting in a catastrophic civil war. Hostilities between the Government of

Sudan and the SPLM resulted in massive population displacement and 

insecurity that made providing humanitarian aid difficult. In October 2002, a 

cease-fire agreement was implemented, including a provision for unimpeded

access for the delivery of humanitarian assistance. Throughout 2003, the

United States worked through the United Nations to actively encourage the 

peace process, to highlight human rights abuses in Sudan, and to deliver 

humanitarian aid. In February 2003, the international community began to

receive reports of violence in the Darfur region of Western Sudan. Since then, 

the ethnic violence perpetrated there by government-backed Arab militias, 

called Jingaweit, became a serious concern for the international community. 

On October 10, the Security Council issued a consensus Presidential

Statement welcoming the security agreement reached between the Government 

of Sudan and the SPLM during negotiations sponsored by the Intergovernmental Authority on Development. The statement also welcomed the

establishment of the Verification and Monitoring Team, Joint Monitoring 

Commission, and the Civilian Protection Monitoring Team, which were 

created by a series of agreements between the Government of Sudan and the

SPLM to monitor implementation of the cease-fire between the parties and 

their allies in Sudan. These monitoring groups were composed of experienced 

international observers, many of whom were retired military officers. The 

United States worked closely with the United Kingdom to secure passage of

the statement, which was particularly notable for being the first official 

Council action on Sudan since 2001. 

Humanitarian issues and human rights in Sudan continued to be 

important concerns of the United States. The United States supported a 

resolution on the human rights situation in Sudan at the UN Commission on 

Human Rights in April 2003. Despite U.S. lobbying efforts, the Commission 

did not adopt the resolution. The failure of this resolution ended the mandate 

for the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Sudan. The

United States was also disappointed when a similar resolution failed during the

58th General Assembly. Despite U.S. efforts, the 2003 session was the first

year since 1993 that there was no resolution adopted in either the UN 

Commission on Human Rights or the General Assembly concerning the 

situation of human rights in Sudan. 

The United Nations provided humanitarian aid in Sudan through 

Operation Lifeline Sudan, established in 1989, to which the United States 

contributed. In addition to providing this funding, the United States played a 

key role in facilitating the joint planning between the Government of Sudan 

24 
Political and Security Affairs 

and the SPLM, including an ongoing joint assessment mission that collected

information about post-peace priorities. 

The Office of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR)

was also active—with U.S. support—in preparing for major Sudanese refugee

returns in the event of peace. The UNHCR expected that approximately 

110,000 refugees would need repatriation assistance to the south in the first 18 

months following the conclusion of a comprehensive peace agreement.

Although assistance planning was still in development, it was expected that

much of the aid would be needed to rebuild general infrastructure and provide

rehabilitation and reconstruction services. UNHCR also provided 

considerable assistance to the more than 300,000, mostly Eritrean, refugees

inside Sudan. 

The United States provided $1.85 million to UNHCR/Sudan in 2003

and $600,000 to the World Food Program for refugee feeding.

Western Sahara 

On April 29, 1991, the Security Council adopted Resolution 690, 

establishing the UN Mission for the Referendum in Western Sahara 

(MINURSO) to help implement a settlement plan (the “Settlement Plan”) that

Morocco and the Frente Popular para la Liberacion de Saguia el-Hamra y Rio 

de Oro (POLISARIO) agreed to in 1988. The Settlement Plan called for a 

cessation of hostilities, the return of refugees, and a referendum under UN 

auspices to determine the future status of the territory. 

For more than a decade, the parties (Morocco, POLISARIO, and 

Algeria, which is involved because it supports the POLISARIO) failed to 

agree on who could vote in the referendum. After the completion of the voter 

identification process in 1999, MINURSO received more than 130,000 appeals

from individuals not included on the voter list. 

In 1997, former U.S. Secretary of State James A. Baker III was

appointed the Secretary-General’s Personal Envoy to the Western Sahara. Mr.

Baker revitalized efforts to implement the Settlement Plan, brokering direct

meetings between the parties in 1997, which resulted in the Houston Accords. 

However, his assessment that all attempts to adjudicate appeals to the original

UN voting list would end in failure led to his June 2001 report to the UN

Security Council that the Plan could not be implemented. In an effort to break

the impasse, Mr. Baker proposed a Framework Agreement. Under this plan, 

there would be a devolution of authority from Morocco to the inhabitants of

the Western Sahara territory for five years, followed by a referendum on final 

status, with no appeals to the UN voting list. Morocco agreed to the plan; 

however, Algeria and the POLISARIO did not accept this framework. 

In a February 19, 2002, report to the Security Council, the SecretaryGeneral presented Mr. Baker’s assessment that the parties were unlikely to

implement the Settlement Plan in its current form. The Secretary-General then 

presented four options: implementing the Settlement Plan without the parties’ 

concurrence; a revised autonomy plan; partition; or withdrawal of MINURSO. 

On July 30, 2002, the Council unanimously adopted Resolution 1429 that 

25 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2003 

asked Mr. Baker to continue his efforts to reach a political solution and that

invited him to devise a proposal that would lead to self-determination in the

Western Sahara. 

In January 2003, Mr. Baker traveled to the region to present to the 

parties a new proposal entitled “Peace Plan for Self-Determination of the 

People of Western Sahara.” This plan incorporated elements from the draft 

Framework Agreement favored by Morocco as well as elements of the 

Settlement Plan and the Houston Accords favored by the POLISARIO. It 

provided a greater degree of autonomy than the Framework Agreement but 

also allowed the residents of the territory who had resided in the Western

Sahara continuously since December 30, 1999, to participate in the referendum

on self-determination. The Security Council voted on January 30 to extend the

mandate of MINURSO until March 17, in order to give the parties time to

consider Mr. Baker’s proposal. The mandate was extended for two additional

60-day periods on March 25 and again on May 30. In July, Algeria and the

POLISARIO accepted the plan; Morocco opposed elements of it. 

On July 31, the Security Council unanimously adopted Resolution 

1495 supporting Mr. Baker’s Peace Plan, and extending the mandate of 

MINURSO until October 31, calling upon the parties to work with the United

Nations and with each other towards acceptance and implementation of the

Peace Plan. In his report to the Security Council on October 16, the SecretaryGeneral accepted the recommendation of Mr. Baker to accede to Morocco’s

request for more time to reflect and consult on the Peace Plan, which had been 

modified slightly to address one Moroccan concern about the referendum

ballot questions. The Secretary-General indicated the Voter Identification

Commission had concluded its activities and had transferred all of its files to 

Geneva for safekeeping. The Security Council accepted the SecretaryGeneral’s recommendation and unanimously adopted Resolution 1513, 

extending the mandate of MINURSO until January 31, 2004. MINURSO’s 

largest responsibility in 2003 was the refugee situation in Western Sahara. 

As of December 31, Morocco had not concluded its analysis of Mr. 

Baker’s proposal and had yet to offer a formal response. 

The POLISARIO released three groups of prisoners in 2003: 100

prisoners were repatriated to Morocco in February, 243 in September, and 300

in November. According to the International Committee of the Red Cross

figures, at the end of 2003, the POLISARIO was still holding 614 prisoners, 

most of whom had been in detention for more than 20 years.

Throughout the year, the Office of the UN High Commissioner for 

Refugees (UNHCR) and MINURSO attempted to promote a package of 

confidence-building measures. These measures included the commencement 

of limited telephone and personal mail services, and the exchange of family 

visits. However, in December 2003, unable to make headway on such

measures with the parties, UNHCR decided to remove its staff. 

The Secretary-General appointed Alvaro de Soto (Peru) as his Special 

Representative for Western Sahara to replace William Lacy Swing (United 

26 
Political and Security Affairs 

States), who was named the Special Representative for the Democratic 

Republic of the Congo in August 2003.

The United States continued to lead Friends of the Western Sahara, 

an informal group that included the United Kingdom, France, Russia, and 

Spain, which consulted on the margins of the Security Council on the next

steps in the peace process. 

The total cost of MINURSO in 2003 was $20.3 million, of which the 

U.S. share was $5.4 million. At the end of 2003, 25 countries had contributed 

a total of 27 troops and 200 military observers. No U.S. personnel were 

assigned to MINURSO. 

East Asia and the Pacific 

Bougainville 

In 2001, after 13 years of civil conflict, Bougainville and Papua New 

Guinea signed the Bougainville Peace Agreement, which granted Bougainville

autonomy and an eventual vote on independence from Papua New Guinea in

10 to 15 years. The United States continued to support the UN Political Office 

in Bougainville (UNPOB) in assisting implementation of this Peace 

Agreement, particularly supporting UNPOB’s role in certifying the collection

of arms. 

The development of a new Bougainville Constitution was a central 

part of the implementation of the Peace Agreement. In February 2003, the

Bougainville Constitutional Commission drafted a constitution and distributed 

it island-wide for consultations. Following a review by a bipartisan 

Ministerial Committee and the National Executive Council of the Government

of Papua New Guinea, the draft will be returned to the Bougainville 

Constitutional Commission for consideration. The Papua New Guinea 

National Government and the Bougainville parties signed a memorandum of

understanding in late February 2003 that established a mechanism for

consultations between both parties on all aspects of the implementation of the 

autonomy arrangements, including the transfer of powers, functions, and

resources, and the settlement of disputes. 

Also, by the end of February, nearly all of Bougainville had reached

Stage II of disarmament, whereby weapons had been collected and placed in 

secure, double-locked containers under UNPOB’s supervision, and two 

districts had fully completed the process of disarmament. In Stage III, the 

final stage, a decision will be made regarding what to do with the weapons.

The United States applauded the leadership of the main Bougainville factions

for their commitment to the peace process. In order to ensure continued UN 

oversight of weapons disposal and to encourage full disarmament, the UN 

Security Council supported Papua New Guinea’s request for a continuation of 

UNPOB’s mandate. The mandate came up for renewal in December 2003 and 

at that time was replaced with a small follow-on observer mission, the UN 

Observer Mission in Bougainville (UNOMB). UNOMB, among other things, 

reports on the security and subsequent destruction of contained weapons and 

27 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2003 

monitors the constitutional process leading up to the adoption of the 

Bougainville Constitution. The United States concurred with this 

recommendation in order to ensure international support for the completion of 

the constitutional process and finalization of the destructions of weapons. 

The UN mission in Bouganville cost $1.6 million in 2003. The U.S. 

assessment was about $350,000. 

Burma 

The United States worked actively in 2003 to maintain international 

pressure on the Burmese junta (the State Peace and Development Council) to 

improve its human rights practices, release National Leage for Democracy 

leader Aung San Suu Kyi, and to pursue a meaningful dialogue with the

democratic opposition. The United States supported the 2003 missions of the 

UN Secretary-General’s Special Envoy for Burma, Razali Ismail (Malaysia),

and the UN Special Rapporteur on the Human Rights Situation in Burma,

Paulo Sergio Pinheiro (Brazil). The United States supported resolutions

expressing international concern over human rights violations in Burma in

both the UN Commission on Human Rights and the 58th General Assembly, 

and also raised the issue of Burma in the Security Council. 

In Resolution 2003/12, the UN Commission on Human Rights stated

its concern over the ongoing systematic violation of human rights, including 

civil, political, economic, social, and cultural rights, of the people of Burma. 

The Commission was also concerned about Burmese authorities’ continued 

refusal to enter into a genuine political dialogue with Aung San Suu Kyi 

(leader of the National League for Democracy, Burma’s leading opposition 

party) and other democratic leaders, as well as their harassment and attempted

intimidation. 

U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations John Negroponte introduced 

the subject of the human rights situation in Burma in the Security Council on

July 16. He summarized a briefing that Ambassador Razali had provided to

the UN Informal Consultative Group on Burma and emphasized the U.S.

concern regarding the continued detention of Aung San Suu Kyi following an

attack perpetrated against her convoy in Depeyin on May 30. Ambassador 

Negroponte called for Aung San Suu Kyi’s immediate release and the

reopening of the National League for Democracy’s political party offices in

Burma, stressing that the Junta must implement a genuine plan for 

democratization. 

On December 23, the UN General Assembly adopted Resolution 

58/247, which expressed again its grave concern at the continued human rights 

violations in Burma. The measure strongly urged the government to end these

violations and to immediately and unconditionally release Aung San Suu Kyi.

This resolution was adopted without a vote. The representative from Burma

made a statement disassociating his government from the consensus. 

28 
Political and Security Affairs 

Cambodia 

The General Assembly adopted without a vote Resolution 58/191,

“Situation of human rights in Cambodia,” on December 22, 2003. The 

resolution detailed Cambodia’s progress and remaining challenges in the areas 

of support and cooperation with the United Nations; the role of

nongovernmental organizations; administrative, judicial, and legal reforms; 

human rights violations and violence; the Khmer Rouge tribunal; and

protection of women and children. The United States joined consensus on this

annual resolution. 

The United States is a member of the Friends of Cambodia (Friends),

an ad hoc group within the United Nations, which also includes the European

Union, Canada, Australia, Japan, and New Zealand. The Friends strongly

supported the creation of a Khmer Rouge tribunal that would bring to justice 

senior leaders of the Khmer Rouge and those who were most responsible for 

the atrocities the regime committed between April 17, 1975, and January 7,

1979. 

After much negotiation, the efforts of the Friends resulted in an

agreement on June 6 between the United Nations and the Royal Government 

of Cambodia on the establishment of an Extraordinary Chamber in Cambodia.

The Extraordinary Chamber would consist of two chambers, with Cambodia

appointing three of the five judges to the Trial Chamber and four of seven

judges to the Supreme Court Chamber. The remaining judges would be from

the international community and appointed by the United Nations. 

The UN General Assembly approved this agreement without a vote in

a resolution on May 13, 2003. The United States disassociated itself from 

adoption of the resolution. While remaining committed to the establishment of 

a credible tribunal, the United States believed it would have been better to

delay passage of this resolution until after the Cambodian National Assembly 

elections in July. The United Nations and Cambodia signed the agreement to

create the Extraordinary Chamber on June 6.

Despite the progress made in reaching and signing the tribunal

agreement, the Cambodian Government had yet to ratify the agreement by the 

close of 2003. Original UN budget estimates for the tribunal were $19 

million, to be raised through voluntary contributions from member states. 

East Timor 

The Security Council created the UN Mission of Support in East

Timor (UNMISET) on May 17, 2002, by adopting Resolution 1410, to take

over at East Timor’s independence on May 20, 2002, from the UN

Transitional Administration in East Timor (UNTAET). UNTAET had 

supported East Timor’s transition from Indonesian rule through a national

referendum and elections of a government and provisional legislature. 

On April 4, 2003, the United States joined others on the Security 

Council in unanimously adopting Resolution 1473, revising the composition 

and strength of the police component of UNMISET and adjusting the schedule

29 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2003 

for downsizing both the police and military components of the mission. On 

May 19, the Security Council unanimously adopted Resolution 1480, which

the United States co-drafted, extending UNMISET’s mandate and aiming for a 

winding down of the operation by May 20, 2004. These resolutions supported

U.S. and international efforts to assist East Timor’s transition to independence, 

and ensured that steps were taken to build East Timor’s eventual capacity to 

provide for its own security, in line with U.S. policy priorities. By the end of

2003, the United Nations had handed over policing responsibility to local

authorities in all thirteen of East Timor’s districts. 

Also by the end of 2003, the Serious Crimes Unit (SCU), a UNstaffed office of the East Timor Government, had indicted 369 Timorese and 

Indonesian persons for crimes against humanity and other serious crimes 

committed during 1999. The SCU’s Special Panel courts convicted 46 

Timorese nationals and acquitted one national by the end of the year. 

However, 281 indictees remained at large in Indonesia with little chance of

being returned to stand trial. The United States supported efforts to bring

those responsible for such crimes to justice. 

UNMISET’s budget for 2003 totalled $185.1 million, of which the 

U.S. assessment was $49.5 million. At the end of 2003, UNMISET’s strength

was 1,675 troops, 319 civilian police (CIVPOL), and 79 military observers. 

The United States provided 18 CIVPOL. 

Europe and Eurasia 

Cyprus 

During 2003, the United States continued to support UN efforts to

achieve a comprehensive settlement to the division of Cyprus. Since 1974, the 

UN Peacekeeping Force in Cyprus (UNFICYP) has served as a buffer force

between Turkish and Turkish Cypriot forces on one side and the Greek

Cypriot National Guard and Greek troops on the other. Beginning in January

2002, the Secretary-General, through his Good Offices Mission and his 

Special Advisor for Cyprus Alvaro de Soto (Peru), accelerated efforts to 

resolve the dispute through direct talks between the leaders of the two

communities on the island. 

On the basis of these talks, Secretary-General Annan proposed in

November 2002 a detailed settlement plan to reunify the island, giving

considerable authority to Greek Cypriot and Turkish Cypriot constituent states,

and enabling displaced persons to return home. The plan was also intended to

help Cyprus accede to the European Union as a reunited island. Both sides

agreed to postpone customary fall military exercises in an effort to improve the 

negotiating atmosphere. 

The Secretary-General set as his goal the signing of an agreement

between the parties before the December 2002 European Council Summit.

This goal was not met, principally because of Turkish Cypriot reservations. 

The two sides continued working toward a settlement, but efforts ended in

March 2003 in The Hague when the Turkish Cypriot side left the talks, citing 

30 
Political and Security Affairs 

disagreements with fundamental elements of the Secretary-General’s 

settlement plan. The United States strongly supported the talks in 2002 and 

maintained close contacts throughout the process with the United Nations, the 

Greek and Turkish Cypriot leaders, Greece, Turkey, and the European Union. 

The Security Council unanimously adopted Resolution 1475 on April

14, 2003, giving its full support to the Secretary-General’s “carefully balanced 

plan,” as revised on February 26, as a unique basis for further negotiations.

The resolution called on all concerned to negotiate within the framework of 

the Secretary-General’s April 1 report and asked the Secretary-General to 

continue to make available his good offices for Cyprus. The unanimous 

approval of this resolution emphasized the Council’s continued full support for

both the Secretary-General’s revised peace plan and the UN’s Good Offices in 

Cyprus. As one of the principal drafters of the resolution, along with the 

United Kingdom, the United States remained strongly committed to seeking a 

just and durable settlement to the Cyprus problem.

Through Resolution 1486, adopted in June, the Security Council 

endorsed the increase of UNFICYP’s civilian police (CIVPOL) component in 

order to meet the increased workload resulting from the partial easing of 

restrictions on island-wide freedom of movement. The Security Council noted

the limited steps taken by the Turkish Cypriot side to ease some of the

restrictions imposed in June 2000 on the operation of UNFICYP, and urged 

the Turkish Cypriot side and the Turkish forces to rescind all remaining

restrictions. The United States joined consensus in voting for this extension of 

UNFICYP’s mandate for a further six months until December 15, and in 

augmenting the UNFICYP CIVPOL. 

The Security Council extended the mandate of UNFICYP until June 

15, 2004, through Resolution 1517, unanimously adopted on November 24. 

The Security Council acted on the recommendation of the Secretary-General,

whose report of November 12 said that UNFICYP’s continued presence in

Cyprus was necessary for the maintenance of the cease-fire between the two 

sides. The United States supported this routine extension of UNFICYP’s 

mandate for a further six months. The Security Council also urged the Turkish

Cypriot side and the Turkish forces to rescind all remaining restrictions on

UNFICYP. Expressing concern at the further continuing violations by the 

Turkish Cypriot side and the Turkish forces at Strovilla, the Security Council

urged them to restore the military status quo which existed there prior to June

30, 2000. 

After voluntary contributions by Greece and Cyprus, the cost of the

mission to the United Nations was $21.9 million, and the U.S. share was $5.9

million. As of December 2003, UNFICYP had 1,214 troops and 47 CIVPOL 

from 12 nations. No U.S. personnel served in this mission. 

Georgia 

The UN Security Council established the UN Observer Mission in

Georgia (UNOMIG) on August 24, 1993, and expanded its mandate in 1994.

UNOMIG monitors the cessation of hostilities between Georgia and Abkhaz 

31 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2003 

separatists, as well as activities of the Commonwealth of Independent States’ 

peacekeeping force in the Abkhaz region. In practical terms, UNOMIG’s 

patrolling activities have helped contain the violence and prevent a major

escalation of the conflict. 

UNOMIG provides an international presence in a part of the world 

important to such U.S. interests as the stability and territorial integrity of the 

Newly Independent States and the East-West transport corridor, including both

the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan oil pipeline and the trans-Caspian gas pipeline. 

UNOMIG provides a measure of stability and international scrutiny in the 

zone of conflict.

In his January 13, 2003, report to the Security Council, the SecretaryGeneral noted the commitment of all member states to the sovereignty, 

independence, and territorial integrity of Georgia within its internationally 

recognized borders, and the need to define the status of Abkhazia within the 

state of Georgia in strict accordance with these principles. He stated that 

despite one year of strenuous efforts by Special Representative Ambassador 

Heidi Tagliavini (Switzerland) and the Group of Friends (the United States, 

France, Germany, Russia, and the United Kingdom), the two sides had not

moved much closer to the start of negotiations. The tone of the parties had

hardened, there was deep mistrust between them, and they showed little

willingness to make the substantive compromises necessary for a meaningful 

peace process. 

The Security Council unanimously adopted Resolution 1462 on

January 30, extending the mandate of UNOMIG until July 31. The resolution

also strongly supported the continuing efforts of UNOMIG to promote the 

achievement of a comprehensive political settlement, which must include a 

settlement of the political status of Abkhazia within the state of Georgia. The 

United States joined all other Security Council members in adopting this 

resolution in the hopes that the scheduled February 2003 Friends’ meeting in

Geneva would move the peace process forward and that both sides would take 

steps to renew the forward momentum in their bilateral relations. 

In the Secretary-General’s address to the Security Council on April 9, 

he reported that new proposals of the Group of Friends and bilateral

agreements between Georgia and Abkhazia had injected fresh momentum into 

efforts to reactivate the peace process despite the continued lack of progress on 

the core political issues of the future status of Abkhazia. He indicated that for

the first time in approximately four years, the Abkhaz de facto authorities had

received the Group of Friends at the ambassadorial level in Sukhumi. The 

Friends reaffirmed their commitment to the principles for a political settlement

as well as to the validity of the current negotiations mechanisms. 

On July 21, the Secretary-General reported that his Special

Representative continued to build upon the positive momentum that followed

agreements between Russian President Vladimir Putin, acting as a 

representative of the Friends Group, and Georgian President Eduard

Shevardnadze at a meeting in Sochi in March. They identified three sets of

32 
Political and Security Affairs 

issues as key to advancing the peace process: economic cooperation, return of 

internally displaced persons and refugees, and political and security matters. 

The Secretary-General stated, however, that while the parties had moved 

ahead on economic cooperation and refugee return, little progress had been

made on political and security matters, including the future status of Abkhazia. 

On July 30, the Council adopted Resolution 1494, extending the

mandate of UNOMIG until January 31, 2004. The Resolution also endorsed 

the recommendation of the Secretary-General to add a CIVPOL component of

20 officers to the mission. The resolution strongly condemned the abduction

of four UNOMIG personnel on June 5. The United States joined consensus in

adopting this resolution.

The cost of UNOMIG in 2003 was $29.8 million, with the United

States contributing $8 million. As of December 31, UNOMIG had 1 troop,

118 military observers, and 10 civilian police from 23 countries. Three U.S. 

military observers were assigned to the mission. 

The former Yugoslavia: UN Interim Administration in Kososo (UNMIK) 

After the military campaign by the United States and its NATO allies, 

the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia agreed to withdraw its forces from Kosovo 

in 1999. On June 10 of that year, the UN Security Council adopted Resolution 

1244, which authorized both an international security presence that became the

NATO-led Kosovo Force and an interim governing authority in Kosovo. 

The mandate of the UN Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo

(UNMIK) under Resolution 1244 is to provide civilian administration; develop

provisional institutions for self-government; facilitate the political process to 

determine Kosovo’s status; support economic reconstruction and humanitarian

and disaster relief; maintain law and order and protect and promote human

rights; and support the return of refugees and displaced persons. Resolution 

1244 will continue in force until the Security Council decides its provisions

have been implemented. 

In August 2003, the Secretary-General appointed Harri Holkeri

(Finland) as his Special Representative for UNMIK. In December, SRSG 

Holkeri issued the “Standards for Kosovo,” which elaborated eight standards

of democratic self-government to act as benchmarks by which the international 

community could measure Kosovo’s progress in meeting the basic

requirements of a democratic, multiethnic society. These steps included 

having functioning democratic institutions, establishment of the rule of law, 

return of refugees and internally displaced persons, reintegration of minorities, 

and development of the economy. 

The United States and the international community continued to 

stress “Standards before Status,” as the only way to prepare Kosovo for future

status negotiations. The international community (including the United States,

the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Italy, Russia, the European Union, UN

Security Council, and countries in the region) will conduct a comprehensive 

review of Kosovo’s implementation of the standards by mid-2005. If Kosovo 

passes the review, the international community will recommend that the 

33 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2003 

United Nations begin a political process to determine Kosovo’s future status. 

If Kosovo needs more time to meet the standards, the Security Council will set 

another review date. 

UNMIK played the leading role in administering police and justice

issues. While UNMIK transferred some police authority to the Kosovo Police 

Service, it retained unified operational control. The Deputy Police 

Commissioner for Operations was a U.S. police officer and the highestranking female in the UNMIK police force. The Director and Deputy Director 

of the Kosovo Police Service School (KPSS) were provided by the United 

States. The United States also contributed significant funding to KPSS as well 

as equipment and facilities for the Kosovo Police Service (KPS), both in

support of the multi-ethnic KPS. The KPS employed some 5,700 staff at the 

end of the year. Developing the KPS was one of UNMIK’s most impressive 

accomplishments. 

In 2003, the United Nations assessed its member states $266.1

million for UNMIK operations, and the U.S. share was $70.9 million. As of

December 31, 2003, UNMIK had 3,691 international civilian police

(CIVPOL) and 40 military observers. The United States provided two military

observers, 464 CIVPOL, and an FBI agent to work with the Criminal

Intelligence Unit. Americans filled several leadership positions in UNMIK. A 

former Foreign Service Officer served as Principal Deputy Special 

Representative of the Secretary-General, and a former U.S. Department of

Justice official headed UNMIK’s Department of Justice in 2003. 

Western Hemisphere 

Cuba

The United States and the United Nations continued to focus 

significant attention on Cuba and its human rights record. On April 17, the 

UN Commission on Human Rights (UNCHR) adopted Resolution 2003/13 by

a vote of 24 to 20, with 9 abstentions. The United States supported this

resolution, which urged the Government of Cuba to receive the personal

representative of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Christine 

Chanet (France), and to provide all necessary means for her to be able to fulfill 

her mission. Her mandate was to carry out an objective, impartial assessment

of the evolution of civil and political rights in Cuba. The resolution

encouraged Cuba to adhere to the International Covenant on Civil and Political 

Rights and to the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural

Rights. Through this resolution, the Commission invited the Cuban 

government to make progress in the field of human rights and civil, political,

and social rights. The UNCHR decided to consider the matter further during

its next session; the High Commissioner will submit a report on the 

implementation of Resolution 2003/13. 

On November 18, the UN General Assembly adopted Resolution 58/7

on the “Necessity of ending the economic, commercial and financial embargo 

imposed by the United States of America against Cuba” by a vote of 179 to 3,

34 
Political and Security Affairs 

with 2 abstentions. The United States, joined by Israel and the Marshall 

Islands, voted against this resolution, which reiterated its call upon all states to

refrain from promulgating and applying laws and measures such as the HelmsBurton Act, and urged states to repeal them. The Helms-Burton Act requires 

the United States to deny visas to anyone who has done business in

conjunction with property that was confiscated during the Cuban Revolution in 

1959. It also gives American citizens the right to file in domestic courts for 

financial compensation for the property they lost. The United States found the

resolution to be ill-advised and urged all delegations to oppose it. In the U.S. 

explanation of vote, Ambassador Sichan Siv noted that the U.S. embargo 

against Cuba is a bilateral issue and should not be debated in the General

Assembly. He stated that the objective of the U.S. policy towards Cuba is

aimed at fostering a rapid, peaceful transition to a democratic form of 

government where human rights are protected, civil society thrives, and

economic prosperity is extended to all Cubans. The failure of the Cuban 

government to respect the rights of its people concerns more than just Cuba. 

The focus of the international community, as manifested in the United

Nations, should be on the continuing human rights crisis in Cuba rather than

on bilateral U.S. efforts to encourage a peaceful transition to democracy. 

Ambassador Siv explained that Cuba’s miniscule level of trade with

other countries is not caused by the embargo, but rather by its poor credit 

rating stemming from unpaid bills and billions of dollars in loans in arrears. It 

is the communist regime’s failed economic policies—not the embargo—that

have impoverished Cubans and destroyed what was once one of the most

advanced economies in the region. In May 2002, the United States offered to 

make changes in the embargo if civil, human, and political rights reform were

implemented. However, instead of a political opening, in March 2003, the 

Cuban government unleashed a brutal crackdown, which was the worst act of

political repression against advocates of peaceful change, including journalists,

in the history of Cuba. 

Guatemala 

Through diplomatic engagement, the United States has strongly

supported the UN’s efforts to assist Guatemala in implementing the peace 

agreements it signed with the Unidad Revolucionaria Nacional Guatemalteca

in 1996, ending a 36-year struggle. Although the parties have made progress

in some areas, implementation of the peace agreements has fallen behind 

schedule, and the human rights situation has deteriorated over the last three 

years, mainly due to violations of human rights by the police. In December 

2003, the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights established a

field office in order to monitor the human rights situation in Guatemala. The 

Office’s field presence in Guatemala will aim for the full implementation of

civil, political, economic, social, and cultural rights of the Guatemalan people 

in general. More specifically, it will defend individuals and communities at

risk of becoming victims of human rights abuses, including vulnerable groups

such as women, children, indigenous peoples, minorities, human rights 

defenders, and journalists. 

35 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2003 

The United Nations first authorized the UN Verification Mission in 

Guatemala (MINUGUA) in 1994, acting on a recommendation by the 

Secretary-General that such a mission could overcome the pattern of human

rights abuses in Guatemala. The primary focus of UN support in Guatemala

has been in the area of verifying the Guatemala’s protection of its citizens’

human rights. 

On December 23, 2003, the General Assembly adopted by consensus 

Resolution 58/238, which noted that the United States played a key role in 

MINUGUA in promoting the consolidation of peace and the observance of 

human rights. Resolution 58/238 authorized a final renewal of its mandate

from January 1 to December 31, 2004. This extension was aimed at

supporting the Guatemala peace process. It emphasized the need for the

mission to continue to enjoy the full support of all parties concerned.

The United States strongly supported a pending agreement between

the United Nations and Guatemala establishing the UN-led Commission to

Investigate Illegal Bodies and Clandestine Security Apparatuses, which would 

investigate and prosecute human rights abuses and organized crime in

Guatemala. Full implementation awaited ratification of the agreement by the

Government of Guatemala at the end of 2003. 

MINUGUA was paid for from the UN regular budget, at a cost of 

$13.2 million in 2003. The U.S. assessment was about $2.9 million. 

Disarmament Issues 

UN Disarmament Commission (UNDC) 

The UN Disarmament Commission (UNDC) is the principal forum 

for discussion of disarmament issues at the United Nations when the General

Assembly is not in session. The UNDC focuses on a limited number of

agenda items each session, working toward consensus on its 

recommendations. The U.S. focus has been to ensure that the UNDC adopts 

reports that are consistent with, and that advance, U.S. policy. A key U.S.

interest is to maintain a balance in UNDC work between nuclear and nonnuclear issues, since the non-aligned states historically have tried to focus

UNDC discussion on nuclear issues. 

Previous meetings in 2000 and 2001 resulted in procedural reports to

the General Assembly. Non-aligned delegations used their numerical majority

to cancel the 2002 session. Two key issues at the 2003 session, chaired by

Mario Maiolini (Italy), were ways and means to achieve nuclear disarmament 

and practical confidence-building measures (CBMs) in the field of 

conventional armaments. The UNDC adjourned its 2003 session without 

reaching a consensus on proposals to advance either of these agenda items. 

On the issue of nuclear disarmament, the United States felt that the 

draft proposal was too broad to reach agreement among members. The U.S. 

representative to the UNDC expressed disappointment that the Commission

had not devoted more time to more immediate threats to international peace

36 
Political and Security Affairs 

and security, such as preventing the acquisition of weapons of mass

destruction. 

Consensus on conventional CBMs was equally elusive. The United 

States felt that CBMs could be extremely useful in reducing tensions and

preventing conflict. However, the introduction of new, contentious draft

language by one delegation during the last week of the Commission’s work

prevented agreement on this issue. 

The failure of the UNDC to issue consensus reports on the two issues

that it reviewed from 2001 to 2003 highlighted the limited contribution that

this body makes to the UN’s work, and further called into question this body’s 

ability to advance United States disarmament objectives. 

The budget of the UNDC for 2003 was approximately $1.9 million.

The United States was assessed about $410,000. 

Conference on Disarmament (CD) 

The Geneva-based Conference on Disarmament (CD) is the principal

multilateral forum for negotiating arms control and disarmament agreements. 

While the CD has produced significant treaties in the past, including the 

Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and the Chemical Weapons Convention, the 

Conference in 2003 adjourned in a stalemate for the seventh consecutive year. 

In recent years, progress has been either paralyzed by outmoded Cold War-era 

thinking or subverted by those who refuse to live up to their international

obligations. 

Although funded from the UN budget, the CD is an autonomous

body. The Conference’s 65 member states are divided into geopolitical

groups—the Western Group, the Eastern Group, and the Non-Aligned (G-21)

Group, with China as an independent member. Decisions are made by

consensus. The presidency of the CD rotates among its members on a monthly

basis. The United States and other countries succeeded in convincing the Iraq 

Government (still under Saddam Hussein) to step aside from its rotational

presidency of the CD, given its failure to comply with CD resolutions. The 

CD adopted its annual report to the UN General Assembly on September 9. 

Much of the discussion in 2003 focused on gaining consensus on a 

work proposal of the Five Ambassadors (Algeria, Belgium, Chile, Columbia,

and Sweden), which was formally presented at the beginning of the year. The 

Five Ambassadors’ proposal calls for the establishment of four ad hoc

committees, each to discuss one of the following topics: negative security

agreements (NSAs), nuclear disarmament, a fissile material cutoff treaty 

(FMCT), and prevention of an arms race in space (PAROS). 

The United States continued to oppose proposals for an NSA treaty as 

well as for an instrument on outer space. A U.S. review of the security 

implications of an FMCT that would ban the production of fissile materials for

nuclear weapons or other explosive devices continued in 2003, and the United

States did not take a position on a CD work program.

37 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2003 

The United States reiterated its commitment to multilateral solutions

to disarmament issues, but the sustained lack of a work program continued to

erode the CD’s relevance as an international negotiating forum. Discussion on

the Five Ambassadors’ proposed program of work will continue in 2004. It is 

not clear that this proposal will be more successful in gaining consensus than

any of its predecessors. 

The CD is supported through the budget of the UN Department of

Disarmament Affairs. The United States was assessed 22 percent ($880,000)

of the CD’s 2003 budget of approximately $4 million. 

UN First Committee (UNFC) 

The UN First Committee (UNFC) is the main committee of the UN

General Assembly that addresses international security and arms control. The 

presidency of the First Committee rotates on an annual basis: Jarmo Sareva 

(Finland) presided over the 2003 session, held from October 6–November 6.

During its five-week session, the UNFC typically considers 45–60 resolutions

and decisions. At each session, the United States promotes key goals and

objectives and counters proposals by others that would have negative effects

on U.S. national security and arms control interests. 

Key issues of interest to the United States were resolved favorably for 

the most part during the 2003 UNFC session. The Committee considered 47

resolutions and eight decisions; 28 resolutions were adopted by consensus.

The United States voted Yes or joined consensus on 31 resolutions, voted No

on 19 resolutions, and abstained on three resolutions. Two draft resolutions 

were withdrawn. Disarmament was the overwhelming focus of this session:

21 resolutions dealt with nuclear disarmament, with another 18 resolutions 

addressing other disarmament issues. 

In July, the United States issued its first-ever worldwide demarche for

the UN General Assembly solely focused on First Committee matters. Due to

extensive preparation and outreach, the United States generally elicited 

cooperation from a wide range of delegations, even on such contentious issues 

as nuclear proliferation and disarmament. 

As part of an initiative to improve the UNFC, the United States

sponsored a new resolution to increase the effectiveness of the working 

methods of the committee. Some of the ideas advanced during the UNFC’s

consideration of this issue included the merger of agenda items or resolutions

dealing with related topics and the setting aside of specific time during the 

UNFC for the conduct of “interactive dialogue” on issues of common interest

to UN member states. The United States secured 64 cosponsors for this

resolution, which was the first reform measure to originate in and win

approval by the UNFC in its 58 years. The adoption of this resolution by

consensus ensured that reform would remain on the UNFC’s agenda for the

coming year. 

The United States also cosponsored resolutions on transparency in 

military expenditures, transparency in armaments, European regional

38 
Political and Security Affairs 

cooperation on illicit trade in small arms and light weapons, and restrictions on

certain excessively injurious conventional weapons. Three of these resolutions

were adopted by consensus, while the fourth was adopted without opposing 

votes. 

Consistent with its initiative to streamline the UNFC’s workload, the 

United States, working in partnership with its allies, succeeded in forcing the

withdrawal of several resolutions that called for new international conferences 

and the re-activation of open-ended working groups. 

Specialized Issues 

Terrorism

In 2003, the United Nations continued to provide focus and energy to

the international community in its collective fight against terrorism. In his 

address to the UN Sixth Committee (legal issues) on October 17, former

Congressman Benjamin Gilman, a U.S. Public Delegate, urged all member

states to engage forcefully in the fight against terrorism.

Whether at the international, regional, sub-regional, or

national level, it is essential that we act with a sustained

sense of urgency. We must act as though 9/11 took place 

yesterday ... ever mindful that similar attacks could take 

place tomorrow. We must never lose sight of the fact that 

those states that do not do all they can to combat terrorism 

put all of our States at risk. The international community’s 

capacity to fight terrorism is only as strong as its weakest

link. 

This is a global war against terrorism that must be won. It 

will only be won through the unrelenting collaborative

efforts of all of the member states of this organization. 

In 2003, the United States continued its efforts to advance 

international counterterrorism initiatives throughout the UN system, including 

in the Security Council, two of the Security Council’s committees [the 1267 

Sanctions Committee and the Counter-Terrorism Committee (CTC)], and in

the General Assembly. 

The Security Council adopted four resolutions directly related to 

terrorism. Resolution 1455, sponsored by the United States, and adopted in

January, strengthened the mandate of the 1267 Sanctions Committee (the alQaida/Taliban Sanctions Committee). Resolution 1456, adopted in January, 

reaffirmed and reinforced the Council’s commitment to combating terrorism.

Resolution 1465, adopted in February, condemned the bomb attacks in

Bogota, Colombia, and reinforced the determination of the Security Council to 

combat all forms of terrorism, in accordance with its responsibilities under the

UN Charter. Resolution 1516, adopted in November, condemned the bomb

attacks in Istanbul, Turkey, and again reinforced the determination of the 

Security Council to combat all forms of terrorism.

39 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2003 

The Security Council issued a Presidential Statement (2003/13) in

August 2003, condemning the terrorist attack that took place against the UN 

headquarters in Baghdad. The statement paid tribute to all those among the 

UN personnel who lost their lives, including the Special Representative of the 

Secretary-General, Sergio Vieira de Mello (Brazil). 

The al-Qaida/Taliban Sanctions Committee maintained a list of 

individuals and entities associated with al-Qaida, the Taliban, and Usama bin 

Laden subject to international sanctions—asset freezes, travel bans, and arms

embargoes—that member states were obligated to implement. Security 

Council Resolution 1455 called on all member states to report on their 

implementation of the measures. The U.S. report, submitted to the Sanctions

Committee on April 22, 2003, became a model for other member states to 

follow. The United States also continued a very active process of referring

names of individuals and entities for inclusion on the Committee’s sanctions

list, submitting 38 names associated with al-Qaida and the Taliban. These 

names were first vetted within appropriate U.S. agencies and then circulated to

the other 14 members of the Committee, with explanatory information. The

Committee determined that all 38 names should be added to the list. The

United States also approved and supported an additional 47 names submitted

by other member states. In addition, the United States worked through

bilateral channels to urge member states to implement the sanctions and to

submit reports called for in the resolutions. 

The Counter-Terrorism Committee (CTC), established by Security

Council Resolution 1373 after September 11, 2001, made progress towards its 

ambitious goal of raising the level of performance of the governments of all

191 member states in the fight against terrorism. All states met the initial 

requirement to report to the CTC on the counterterrorism steps taken; 43

member states had become a party to all 12 counterterrorism conventions and

protocols. The United States became a party to all 12 conventions in 2002. 

The United States played an active leadership role in the CTC, 

pushing the body to be more proactive and effective. In 2003, the CTC 

established a central clearinghouse for approximately 60 international, 

regional, and sub-regional organizations for the exchange of information,

standards, and best practices related to counterterrorism. The CTC also 

developed and posted on its website a detailed matrix listing the technical

assistance needs of many states and the programs provided by donor states to

meet these needs. 

In order to more effectively fulfill its responsibilities, the CTC took

first steps to restructure and enlarge its small professional staff. The United 

States took a leading role in encouraging the reorganization of the CTC staff

and operations. The restructuring was expected to be completed in 2004. 

On December 9, the General Assembly negotiated and adopted by

consensus Resolution 58/81 on “Measures to Eliminate International 

Terrorism.” The resolution condemned all acts, methods, and practices of

terrorism as criminal and unjustifiable, wherever and by whomsoever

40 
Political and Security Affairs 

committed. It reaffirmed previous Declarations on Measures to Eliminate 

International Terrorism, and urged all states to become parties to the 12 

international terrorism conventions and protocols. The resolution stipulated

that the Ad Hoc Committee, established by General Assembly Resolution

51/210 to work on the elaboration of international legal instruments to fight

terrorism, should continue its work on the negotiation of a Comprehensive 

Convention on International Terrorism (CCIT) and on the negotiation of an

International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism. 

The sixth and seventh rounds of negotiations on the CCIT in 2003 did 

not make any progress toward ending an impasse on two issues: the scope of

the offense and the non-application of the convention to state military forces.

The U.S. position was to include within the scope of the convention the 

offensive actions undertaken in the name of national liberation movements and

to exclude state military forces, since their activities were governed by other 

provisions of international law. In view of the continued impasse, the United 

States urged shorter rounds of negotiations in 2004. 

During 2003, the United States and several other states parties to the 

U.S.-initiated 1997 International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist

Bombings (Terrorist Bombings Convention) filed a formal objection to a

Pakistani declaration submitted in August 2002, along with its instrument of 

accession to the Terrorist Bombings Convention. The Pakistani declaration 

asserted that the Convention did not apply to struggles for national liberation,

including armed struggle against foreign occupation. The United States and

others objected that the Pakistani declaration was contrary to the purpose of

the Convention and to the terms of Article 5 (acts of terrorism cannot be

justified on political, philosophical, ideological, or similar grounds). Thus, the

Pakistani declaration was not permissible under established principles of

international treaty law. 

In his September 23 address to the UN General Assembly, President

Bush cited the threat posed by rogue states and terrorists acquiring weapons of

mass destruction and their means of delivery. To combat this threat, the 

President called on the Security Council to adopt a resolution that would

require states to take three steps: criminalize the proliferation of weapons of

mass destruction; enact strict export controls on these weapons and related 

materials, equipment, and technology; and secure sensitive materials within

their borders. In the following weeks, the United States engaged with the 

other four permanent members of the Security Council to draft a resolution

that would accomplish these objectives and garner the support of other 

Council members. At year end, these discussions were continuing, with the 

objective of securing Council adoption early in 2004. 

41 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2003 

Peacekeeping Financing, Force Protection, and 

CIVPOL 

Peacekeeping and Financing 

In 2003, the United States continued to base its support for UN 

peacekeeping operations on such established criteria as national interests, clear 

objectives, a sound plan, acceptable risks and costs, and a realistic end-state 

and exit strategy. In recognition that these criteria had been met, the United 

States supported a new UN peacekeeping mission in Liberia and supported the 

termination of UN missions in Kuwait (UNIKOM) and Bosnia-Herzegovina. 

The total number of troops, military observers, and civilian police 

(CIVPOL) from all nations serving in UN missions at the end of 2003

increased by approximately 6,000 from 2002. The increase was attributed to

the deployment of troops, military observers, and CIVPOL to the mission in

Liberia and a higher ceiling for the UN Mission in the Democratic Republic of 

Congo. As of December 31, the United Nations had a total of 39,335 troops, 

1,773 military observers, and 4,624 CIVPOL participating in UN 

peacekeeping missions. These totals do not include UNIKOM, which 

concluded its operations by the end of the year, or personnel from the UN

Assistance Mission in Afghanistan or the special political mission in the Cote 

d’Ivoire, which were not peacekeeping missions. The U.S. contribution 

included two U.S. troops in Liberia; 22 U.S. military observers in Ethiopia, 

Georgia, Kosovo, Liberia, and in the Middle East; and 494 U.S. CIVPOL in

East Timor, Kosovo, Liberia, and Sierra Leone. 

The United States continued to promote practical measures to 

improve the effectiveness and efficiency of UN peacekeeping operations. It

supported proposals to improve the UN’s ability to assess conflict situations,

to plan and manage peacekeeping operations, and to respond quickly to

Security Council mandates, which proved helpful during the planning and 

execution of the mission to Liberia. The United States also continued to

encourage other member states to include peacekeeping in their national 

security strategies and to contribute forces to peacekeeping whenever 

appropriate. 

Costs of UN peacekeeping operations declined in 2003. The United

Nations assessed member states a net total of $2 billion, of which the U.S. 

share was $538 million. Costs increased for operations in the Democratic 

Republic of the Congo. Assessments had not yet been levied for the new

mission in Liberia. Increases in assessments were more than offset by the 

close-out of operations in Bosnia-Herzegovina and Kuwait, as well as the

downsizing of operations in East Timor and Sierra Leone. 

Force Protection for U.S. Peacekeepers 

During 2003, there were no fatalities among U.S. military personnel

serving in UN peacekeeping operations, and there were no injuries resulting 

from hostile action. In addition, there were no U.S. military personnel 

captured or taken hostage as a result of their service in UN peacekeeping 

42 
Political and Security Affairs 

operations. However, there were casualties among other national contingents

participating in UN operations. Peacekeeping remains an endeavor with 

tangible risks, and every deployment is scrutinized by UN planners with

respect to personnel safety and force protection.

In most instances, UN peacekeepers are covered by Status of Forces

Agreements (SOFA) or Status of Mission Agreements (SOMA) negotiated

between the United Nations and host governments. These agreements set the

terms and conditions governing the relationship between a host government

and the UN peacekeeping forces. In instances where a SOFA/SOMA has not 

yet been negotiated, the terms and conditions of the standard SOFA/SOMA 

apply, per General Assembly Resolution 52/12B. Personnel acting in support 

of a UN operation, but who are not “blue helmeted,” are generally considered 

to be “experts on mission” under the terms of the Convention on the Privileges 

and Immunities of the United Nations. 

The U.S. Military Observer Group-Washington (USMOG-W) serves 

as the executive agent for force protection assessments of U.S. military 

observers in UN operations. During 2003, USMOG-W conducted force

protection surveys of all peace operations in which U.S. military observers 

served under the operational control of the United Nations. In addition,

USMOG-W trained observers in anti-terrorist maneuvers, as well as in

increased communication during movement, and in the use of protective body

armor. 

The potential vulnerability of U.S. personnel to the International

Criminal Court (ICC) jurisdiction was again an issue in 2003. Security

Council Resolution 1487 was adopted on June 12, extending by one year the

deferral from ICC investigation or prosecution of current or former UN

peacekeepers from states not party to the Rome Statute. In addition, the 

United States continued to pursue bilateral agreements under Article 98 of the

Rome Statue to protect not only peacekeepers, but other, broader categories of

U.S. personnel and officials from ICC jurisdiction. 

CIVPOL 

International civilian police (CIVPOL) played a critical role in 

peacekeeping, while the international community struggled to meet worldwide

demand for qualified CIVPOL officers. The United States continued efforts to

enhance both domestic and international capacities for recruiting, training, and 

deploying CIVPOL to peacekeeping missions. The United States contributed 

its initial CIVPOL to Liberia within two months of the passage of Security 

Council Resolution 1497, its shortest turnaround time to date. As noted

earlier, as of December 31, the United States had deployed CIVPOL officers

to UN missions in East Timor, Kosovo, Liberia, and Sierra Leone. 

Peacekeeping mission planners increasingly recognized a need for 

“formed units,” a type of international policing involving both regular 

CIVPOL and military troops within peacekeeping operations. Specially

trained units can perform crowd control, conduct high-risk arrests, 

investigations, and other specialized law enforcement functions. For the 

43 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2003 

mission in Liberia, the UN Department of Peacekeeping Operations identified

such a need, and the UN Mission in Liberia mandate included such formed 

units of CIVPOL. 

HIV/AIDS 

In January 2003, an HIV/AIDS policy adviser, sponsored by the Joint

UN Program on HIV/AIDS, worked in the UN Department of Peacekeeping 

Operations (DPKO) to develop policy and assist with the standardization of 

awareness and prevention programs. HIV/AIDS policy advisers also served in

four major peacekeeping operations—in the Democratic Republic of the 

Congo, East Timor, Ethiopia and Eritrea, and Sierra Leone, while a fifth was 

recruited for Liberia. DPKO developed a pre-deployment training module on

HIV/AIDS, while reviewing and updating other training and awareness 

materials, and urging member states to incorporate HIV/AIDS awareness in 

their military training. 

DPKO’s policy on HIV testing for uniformed peacekeepers was being 

finalized. DPKO was expected to recommend voluntary, confidential 

counseling and testing both before and after deployment to the field. The

United Nations did not require that individuals be tested at any time for HIV in

relation to their deployment as peacekeepers. Training of mission HIV 

counselors continued, with DPKO seeking to increase their overall number in 

2004. 

Sanctions 

The United States continued to support the imposition of UN 

sanctions in response to threats to international peace and security where such

sanctions could be enforced and effective. The authority for mandatory

sanctions is Chapter VII, Article 41 of the UN Charter. The United States

believes that the use of sanctions, backed by the international community, can

restrict access to arms and funds used to undermine international security, 

while denying political support to the leadership of sanctioned regimes. 

Early in 2003, UN sanctions were in effect in eight cases. By the end 

of the year, UN Security Council Resolution 1506, adopted on September 12, 

lifted sanctions on Libya, leaving seven sanctions regimes in place. 

Comprehensive economic sanctions on Iraq were lifted with the adoption of 

Security Council Resolution 1483 on May 22; however, the arms embargo 

remained in place. Resolution 1483 determined that financial assets located 

outside Iraq belonging to the previous Government of Iraq, to Saddam

Hussein, or to other former senior Iraqi officials, were subject to immediate 

freeze and forfeiture to the Development Fund for Iraq, to be used for Iraq’s

reconstruction. Wide-ranging sanctions, including assets freezes and

arms/travel bans, targeted Usama bin Laden, members of the Taliban and alQaida, and their supporters. UN sanctions also continued against Liberia,

Somalia, and non-state groups in Rwanda and Sierra Leone. These sanctions

included arms embargoes, travel bans, and limits on the exports of conflict

diamonds. Resolution 1493, adopted on July 28, additionally imposed an arms

44 
Political and Security Affairs 

embargo on non-state groups in the eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo

to support peace efforts there, including the UN peacekeeping force.

Non–Self-Governing Territories 

The status of non–self-governing territories, defined as “territories

whose people have not yet attained a full measure of self-government,” are

considered annually by the Special Committee on the Situation with Regard to

the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to

Colonial Countries and Peoples (Committee of 24 or C-24) and by the Special

Political and Decolonization Committee (Fourth Committee) of the UN

General Assembly. 

As the administering power of three non–self-governing territories—

American Samoa, Guam, and the U.S. Virgin Islands—the United States has 

consistently partnered with the United Kingdom to ensure agreement on an 

“omnibus” resolution on the “Questions of American Samoa, Anguilla, 

Bermuda, the British Virgin Islands, the Cayman Islands, Guam, Montserrat, 

Pitcairn, Saint Helena, the Turks and Caicos Islands and the United States 

Virgin Islands.” This resolution confirms the right of self-determination and 

reiterates the call for complete decolonization. It further recognizes the work

of the “administering powers” to this end. As in prior years, the General 

Assembly adopted this resolution by consensus. The United States continued 

to fulfill all reporting requirements requested by this resolution and by Article

73(e) of the UN Charter. 

During the General Assembly, the United States voted against or

abstained on a series of resolutions that further addressed the governance and 

independence of non–self-governing territories. The United States opposed

these resolutions because of unacceptable references to land tenure, economic 

and military activities, and responsibilities of administering powers. 

Security Council Thematic Debates 

In 2003, the Security Council held 12 thematic debates, three more 

than in 2002, and the same number as in 2001. As last year, terrorism

continued to command the greatest attention. The Security Council held a 

High-Level Meeting in January and issued a Ministerial Declaration in

Resolution 1456, which called for various steps to be taken to combat

terrorism. In addition to the open meetings on terrorism described below, 

three additional meetings took place in February, August, and November to 

condemn bomb attacks in Colombia (Resolution 1465), the terrorist attack in

Baghdad on UN headquarters (S/PRST/2003/13), and bombings in Istanbul 

(Resolution 1516). 

The Security Council discussed the following themes: 

• Threats to International Peace and Security Caused by Terrorist Acts. The 

Security Council held an open meeting in January, resulting in the 

adoption of Resolution 1455, which strengthened requirements on

member states’ implementation of sanctions (asset freeze, travel ban, arms

45 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2003 

embargo) against al-Qaida and the Taliban. Additional open meetings 

were held in February, May, and July, which acknowledged the work and

accomplishments of the Counter-Terrorism Committee (CTC) and 

welcomed the work of the al-Qaida/Taliban Sanctions Committee. The

United States made remarks in the May and July meetings that also

acknowledged the accomplishments of the CTC. 

• Children and Armed Conflict. Open meetings occurred in January

followed by adoption of Resolution 1460, which called on all parties to 

armed conflict to halt the recruitment and use of children. The United 

States made a statement in the meeting that deplored the use of children as

soldiers, runners, guards, sex slaves, and spies. The United States also 

applauded the work of the Security Council and regional and sub-regional 

organizations in making children and armed conflict a priority concern in

their policies and programs. 

• Protection of Civilians in Armed Conflict. Open meetings took place in

June and December, followed by a Presidential Statement, which adopted 

as an annex the first update of the 2002 Aide Memoire to be used as an

operational tool and as a basis for improved analysis during deliberations

on peacekeeping mandates. The United States welcomed the revised Aide 

Memoire and viewed it as a vital resource for the Security Council in

applying best practices in future resolutions. 

• Africa’s Food Crisis as a Threat to Peace and Security. An open meeting 

in April included a briefing by World Food Program Executive Director

James Morris. 

• Peace and Security: HIV/AIDS and International Peacekeeping 

Operations. An open meeting in November included briefings by JeanMarie Guehenno, Under Secretary-General for Peacekeeping Operations,

and Peter Piot, Executive Director of the Joint UN Program on

HIV/AIDS. 

• Importance of Mine Action for Peacekeeping Operations. Open meetings 

in November, followed by a Presidential Statement, recognized the longterm consequences of landmines and unexploded ordnance to peace and 

security and development. The United States acknowledged the vital role

that mine clearance efforts can and should play in furthering peace and 

stability and detailed some U.S. efforts in that regard. 

• Role of the Security Council in the Pacific Settlement of Disputes. An 

open meeting in May, followed by a Presidential Statement, reiterated the 

Council’s commitment to make effective use of those procedures in the 

UN Charter relating to pacific settlement of disputes as an essential

component of its work. In its statement, the United States noted particular

instances in which the Security Council and the United Nations prevented 

disputes from escalating into war.

• Protection of UN Personnel, Associated Personnel and Humanitarian

Personnel in Conflict Zones. An open meeting in August, followed by the 

46 
Political and Security Affairs 

adoption of Resolution 1502, expressed the Council’s determination to

ensure the safety and security of humanitarian personnel. The United

States welcomed the adoption of the resolution.

• The Security Council and Regional Organizations: Facing the New 

Challenges to International Peace and Security. An open meeting in April 

included briefings by several representatives of regional organizations.

The United States declared that regional and sub-regional organizations

fulfill a vital role in the furtherance of peace and security. 

• Justice and the Rule of Law: the UN Role. Open meetings in September

discussed the centrality of justice and the rule of law in international 

affairs.

• Proliferation of Small Arms and Light Weapons and Mercenary

Activities: Threats to Peace and Security in West Africa. An open

meeting in March, followed by the adoption of Resolution 1467, 

concerned the impact of the proliferation of small arms on peace and

security in West Africa. Addressing the Council, the United States 

supported the adoption of the resolution, noting that illicit trade in small 

arms and light weapons contributed to violence and suffering around the 

world.

• Women and Peace and Security. An open meeting took place in October 

to take stock of progress since the adoption of Resolution 1325 (2000), to

advance its implementation and to provide an operational perspective. As

President of the Security Council in October, the United States convened

this meeting, stressing that no approach to peace can succeed if it does not 

view women and men as equally important components of conflict

resolution. 

Effects of Atomic Radiation 

The UN General Assembly established the UN Scientific Committee

on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) in 1955 to provide

continuous review and evaluation of the effects of ionizing radiation on

humans and their environment. Governments and international organizations

around the world rely on UNSCEAR evaluations for estimating radiological

risk, establishing protection and safety standards, and regulating radioactive 

materials, informing policy decisions, and targeting international assistance 

programs. UNSCEAR’s work is of significant interest to many U.S. agencies, 

including the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the Environmental Protection

Agency, and the Departments of State, Health and Human Services, and 

Energy. 

The 51st session met in Vienna, on January 27–31, 2003. The U.S. 

delegation, led by Dr. Fred Mettler of the University of New Mexico and the 

Veterans Administration, included eight other advisors from different

universities, medical centers, and U.S. Government agencies. The Committee 

reviewed eight scientific texts and two overview annexes. These documents 

included sources-to-effects assessment of radon in homes and workplaces; 

47 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2003 

exposures of workers and the public from various sources of radiation; the 

effects of ionizing radiation on the immune system; epidemiological

evaluation and dose response of diseases that might be related to radiation 

exposure; new epidemiological studies of radiation and cancer and health 

effects from the Chernobyl accident; radioecology; and medical radiation 

exposures. The publication of the next major report, originally due in 2005,

will be delayed as a result of a budget shortfall and a cancelled meeting in

2001. 

Although increased communication and coordination between 

UNSCEAR and the UN Environment Program (UNEP) in 2003 partially

restored UNSCEAR funding levels back towards 1994 nominal funding levels, 

funding issues remained a continuing problem for UNSCEAR. The United

States continued to urge UNEP and the UNSCEAR Secretariat to establish 

strong links of communication and coordination to work together on

UNSCEAR funding. The United States continued to monitor the relationship

and interaction between UNSCEAR and UNEP. In light of ongoing and future 

U.S. and international efforts to prevent, manage, and mitigate radiological 

incidents, it is in the U.S. interest that UNSCEAR continue to operate as an 

effective independent scientific body and that its findings are widely

disseminated. 

UNCSCEAR’s budget for 2003 was $358,000. The U.S. assessment

was approximately $79,000. 

48 
Part 2 

Economic and Social Affairs 

Economic and Development Issues 

Development Bodies and Programs 

UN Development Program (UNDP)

Headquartered in New York, the UN Development Program (UNDP)

is the leading development agency of the United Nations, with a presence in

136 countries. The United States is a member of its 36-state governing body,

the Executive Board. Mark Malloch Brown was appointed UNDP

Administrator by the UN Secretary-General in 1999. He is in his second term. 

The United States supported a 2003 Executive Board decision that

adopted the following five “core goals” for UNDP for the next four years: (1) 

reducing human poverty; (2) fostering democratic governance; (3) managing 

energy and the environment for sustainable development; (4) supporting crisis

prevention and recovery; and (5) responding to HIV/AIDS. These goals form

the key components of UNDP’s mandate and operations, and they are

consistent with U.S. foreign policy goals. 

The United States has also worked with UNDP to achieve key 

objectives in post-conflict transition and peace building in Afghanistan, Iraq, 

and Liberia. Since 2001, UNDP has cooperated with the United States in 

Afghanistan’s reconstruction. In addition to channeling donor funding through 

the Afghan government for reconstruction and development, UNDP worked

with other UN agencies to help coordinate the Afghan government’s

Emergency Loya Jirga Commission, Constitutional Commission, Civil Service 

Commission, and Human Rights Commission. UNDP has played a key role in

supporting the voter registration process. 

In 2003, UNDP played an important role in the Madrid Conference 

for Iraq reconstruction through the administration of a reconstruction trust 

fund with the World Bank through which donors can channel their assistance. 

UNDP also cooperated with the United States and other donors in dealing with

the Liberia crisis in 2003. UNDP played a key role in making preparations for 

the Liberia Donors Conference, which took place in early 2004. 

UNDP is the chair of the UN Development Group, which brings

together more than 25 UN agencies to improve the effectiveness of UN 

development activities at the country level. UNDP also manages the UN’s 

Resident Coordinator system. The Resident Coordinator is the designated 

representative of the Secretary-General in a country, who is responsible for 

coordination of activities of all UN agencies in that country. 

In late 2003, UNDP organized the UN’s Commission on the Private

Sector and Development, which was a positive step in international

recognition of the key role of the private sector in development. In 2003, the 

49 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2003 

United States raised with UNDP management several groundless accusations 

made in UNDP publications against the United States, particularly those 

attacking U.S. post-9/11 security measures and Iraq war conduct.

UNDP obtains its funding through voluntary contributions. The U.S.

was a top contributor to UNDP in 2003, giving over $140 million. 

UNDP employed about 4,655 staff in 2003, of whom approximately

3,849 served in the field. U.S. citizens occupied 113 of 974 professional

positions; 30 of them were in senior positions. 

UN Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) 

The UN Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) is a

permanent forum for discussions on trade and development issues, which

functions through a variety of intergovernmental groups. These include its

governing body, the Trade and Development Board, and Commissions on

Trade, Investment, and Enterprise. Based in Geneva, UNCTAD has 190 

member states. The current Secretary-General, Rubens Ricupero (Brazil),

began his tenure in 1995 and is scheduled to leave that post in 2004.

In 2003, UNCTAD held expert meetings on commodities, 

international standards of accounting and reporting, international commercial

law, and maritime transport. In addition, it began preparations for UNCTAD

XI, the latest in a series of ministerial meetings that UNCTAD has held every 

four years since 1964. Scheduled for 2004, UNCTAD XI’s theme will be

“coherence,” both between national development strategies and the

international economic environment and among international trade, finance,

and development policies. 

The United States has been an active participant in UNCTAD since 

its founding. The United States believes free trade is a vital avenue for 

development and has strongly encouraged UNCTAD’s work on trade and

investment facilitation. It has also worked to bring greater focus and more

modern management to UNCTAD in line with the general reform initiatives 

advocated by the UN’s Secretary-General. Following a review of UNCTAD 

programs during 2002, several were curtailed or spun off for independent

operations. These included UNCTAD’s Trade Points program, which was 

established as an independent, non-profit organization and UNCTAD’s 

technical assistance in port operations, which had been overtaken by the 

growth of private port operations in the developing world. The United States 

also worked closely with the European Union and other member states to

reduce the number and length of inter-governmental meetings and the number

of negotiated documents, while increasing the number of expert meetings on

issues of practical importance to member states. 

The United States joined other member states in urging UNCTAD to

increase its technical assistance in areas that can help ensure that developing

countries benefit from processes of globalization. These areas included

investment promotion, trade and transport facilitation, and customs reform.

UNCTAD is the source for the single most widely used automated customs 

data program in the developing world. Its Debt Information Management

50 
Economic and Social Affairs 

System has also helped many developing states keep track of commercial and 

official debt obligations. 

Also significant are UNCTAD’s investment policy reviews, which

assess the progress individual developing countries have made in adopting

market-based reforms and in establishing a legal and regulatory framework 

that is attractive to investors. Developing countries and investors alike have

found these reviews to be valuable tools.

UNCTAD’s biennial budget is funded from the UN regular budget. 

In 2003 the United States paid $9.35 million of UNCTAD’s $42.5 million

budget. UNCTAD’s technical assistance activities (approximately $25 million

in 2003) are funded separately through trust fund arrangements established by

individual donors (primarily European countries). The United States did not

contribute to any of these trust fund arrangements in 2003. 

UNCTAD had 420 staff in 2003, of whom 20 were U.S. citizens. 

Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD) 

The Economic and Social Council established the Commission on 

Sustainable Development (CSD) in 1992 as a functional commission to follow 

up implementation of the Rio Earth Summit’s goals. Based at UN 

headquarters in New York, it is composed of 53 UN or UN agency members, 

elected to three-year terms. During its first decade, the CSD met formally four 

weeks annually to consider specific sustainable development issues and

promote implementation of internationally agreed development goals. At the 

2002 World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) in Johannesburg, 

governments called for specific reforms of the CSD, including limiting

negotiations in the sessions of the commission to every two years, limiting the 

number of themes addressed at each session, and having the CSD serve as a

focal point for the discussion of partnerships that promote sustainable 

development, including sharing lessons learned, progress made and best

practices. In this manner, the CSD directly supports one of the four strategic 

objectives of the U.S. Department of State and the U.S. Agency for 

International Development, advancing sustainable development and global

interests. 

The United States has been a member since the Commission’s

inception. Following the WSSD, the United States worked actively to advance

ideas for how the CSD could implement its reforms to serve as a stronger

catalyst for action. (See http://www.state.gov/g/oes/sus/csd/2003 for a series 

of discussion papers the United States produced in early 2003 regarding the 

future of the CSD.) At the CSD’s 11th session (April–May 2003), the United 

States worked closely with other CSD members to develop a multi-year 

program of work that would address a series of “thematic clusters” and crosscutting issues in two-year “implementation cycles.” The first cycle (2004–

2005) will be focused on water, sanitation, and human settlement issues. Each 

two-year cycle includes a non-negotiating “review year” to assess the state of 

implementation and a venue to focus on sustainable development partnerships

and capacity-building activities. The second half of each cycle will be a 

51 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2003 

“policy year” to discuss policy options and possible actions to overcome

obstacles in the implementation process identified during the review year. 

In December 2003, the UN General Assembly endorsed the CSD’s

multi-year work program by adopting a resolution on the implementation of

Agenda 21, the Program for Further Implementation of Agenda 21, and the 

outcome of the WSSD (i.e., the Johannesburg Declaration on Sustainable 

Development and the Johannesburg Plan of Implementation). This resolution

called on governments, international organizations, and major groups to ensure

effective implementation and follow-up to the commitments adopted at the

WSSD. The United States joined consensus on this resolution. The General

Assembly also approved several other resolutions on sustainable development,

including resolutions on renewable energy, drought and desertification,

biological diversity, sustainable development of Small Island developing

states, natural disasters, climate change, and sustainable development in

mountain regions. 

UN Children’s Fund (UNICEF)

The UN General Assembly created the United Nations Children’s 

Fund (UNICEF) in 1946 to meet the emergency needs of children after World

War II. UNICEF continues to provide emergency assistance for children and

families affected by natural disasters and other crises in countries such as Iraq, 

Liberia, Sudan, and Afghanistan. UNICEF has also become involved in longterm assistance efforts targeting the health and development of children.

UNICEF is active in 162 countries, with programs addressing children’s

health, sanitation, nutrition, basic education, and protection needs, wherever 

possible through low-cost interventions at the family and community levels. 

In 2003, approximately one third of UNICEF’s budget went to

humanitarian assistance in 55 countries torn by natural or human-made

disasters. In humanitarian crises, UNICEF normally takes the lead in infant 

and maternal health care, supplemental nutrition, education, water and

sanitation, and protection issues. In acting as the global champion for

children, UNICEF confronts a broad variety of issues, including HIV/AIDS,

sexual exploitation amid armed conflict, gang activity, poor nutrition, and 

gender discrimination. UNICEF’s program budget is allocated to country

programs according to three criteria: under-five mortality rate, income level

(GNP per capita), and the size of the population under 18. 

Carol Bellamy, a U.S. citizen, is UNICEF’s Executive Director. She

was appointed in 1995 and is in her second term. The United States has been a 

member of UNICEF’s Executive Board, comprised of 36 members serving

three-year terms, since the Fund’s inception. In 2003, the United States began 

another term running until 2006. 

In December 2001, the Executive Board approved the Medium Term

Strategic Plan (MTSP) for 2002–2005, providing a strategic framework for

UNICEF programs. It outlined the following five organizational priorities:

“immunization plus”; integrated early childhood development; girls’

education; fighting HIV/AIDS; and protection of children from violence,

52 
Economic and Social Affairs 

exploitation, abuse, and discrimination. In 2003, the MTSP continued to guide 

country programming and reporting, and was further defined as a framework

for programming. The United States worked actively to ensure that member

states would be an integral part of a mid-term review of the MTSP that will 

occur in 2004. 

Among UNICEF’s achievements in 2003 was the successful 

execution of the largest immunization campaign held to date in sub-Saharan 

Africa, protecting 13 million Kenyan children from measles. In Iraq, UNICEF

staff vaccinated 4 million children against polio before the conflict, and was

engaged immediately after the conflict, conducting massive immunization 

campaigns, providing pre-positioned nutritional supplements, and delivering

school supplies to help normalize the lives of Iraq’s 12 million children. In 

Liberia, UNICEF provided 2,456 “school-in-a-box” kits with supplies for 

333,920 children and provided an orientation for 7,200 teachers. It also 

vaccinated more than 730,000 children against measles and helped rebuild the 

necessary health infrastructure to keep medicine cold preventing spoilage. In

Afghanistan, UNICEF expanded education programs, helping to provide

learning opportunities for 4.2 million children, including more than 1 million

girls. UNICEF trained 35,000 teachers in teaching methods and Mine Risk

Education, and constructed or renovated 150 schools. Additionally, it

immunized 6 million Afghan children against polio and measles, and provided

5 million children with Vitamin A supplements. UNICEF assisted some 61 

countries in developing action plans to assist children orphaned by HIV/AIDS, 

and partnered with the World Bank to produce guidelines for caring for small 

children afflicted with HIV/AIDS. 

UNICEF amended its funding structure in 2003. The United States 

was instrumental in crafting a resolution adopted by the UNICEF Executive 

Board in June 2003 that created a new framework for allotting costs between

“regular” non-earmarked contributions and “other” earmarked contributions. 

The system compensates for a trend among donors to increasingly provide

“earmarked” contributions rather than unrestricted core contributions. Though 

earmarked contributions are essential, it is the non-earmarked or “core” 

funding that provides UNICEF and other funds and programs with the basic

infrastructure and capability to conduct both the flexible, rapid-response 

programming and long-term work that define its success in both the 

humanitarian and development fields. The new system creates a sliding scale

of assessments based on factors such as size of the contribution, the nature of

payment, and reporting requirements. The system aims to provide a 

straightforward, transparent way to provide incentives for donations that fund 

core UNICEF activities and cost less for UNICEF to administer. 

In 2003, the United States worked on institutional improvements and 

urged UNICEF to focus on core child survival programs, to strengthen its 

monitoring and evaluation capabilities, and to promote the family. The United

States urged that, in support of child survival, traditional programs such as 

water, sanitation, health, and education be sustained and improved with new,

proven low-cost interventions. UNICEF responded by convening a group of

53 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2003 

development partners, including USAID. The resulting “Child Survival

Partnership” alliance among USAID, UNICEF, and other international

agencies will help reinvigorate international efforts to restore investments in

basic health infrastructure in the developing world and to capitalize on new

opportunities for saving children. 

The United States also urged UNICEF to examine its monitoring and 

evaluation systems in 2003, and U.S. interest in this topic contributed to

strengthening the relevant office within UNICEF. USAID engaged UNICEF

monitoring and evaluation staff directly by meeting with Washington-based

experts and providing a detailed analysis of a new UNICEF monitoring

program. Within the Executive Board, the United States gathered support for 

additional UNICEF reporting on developments in this area, resulting in 

considerable interest in the topic by both UNICEF and other member states. 

In 2003, the Department of State and Department of Health and

Human Services forcefully advocated for UNICEF to take a leadership role in 

promoting the family, and to utilize the opportunity of the Tenth Anniversary

of the International Year of the Family (2004) to advocate for family-based

programs for children. 

In 2003, the UNICEF budget totaled $1.4 billion. The United States,

which is the largest single donor, contributed $119 million to non-earmarked 

regular resources in 2003. The United States provided an additional $168

million in earmarked contributions from both HHS and USAID for programs

in areas of polio, malaria, and other child survival interventions. 

UNICEF had 8,066 employees in 2003. Of 1,813 professional posts,

228 were filled by Americans. 

UN-HABITAT

The UN General Assembly converted the 58-member UN Center on

Human Settlements to a full program of the General Assembly, the UN 

Human Settlements Program (UN-HABITAT) in December 2001. UNHABITAT’s work focuses on the development of sustainable human

settlements with access to basic services, such as water and sanitation. UNHABITAT is also the UN focal point for efforts to achieve the Millennium 

Declaration goal of improving the lives of 100 million slum dwellers by 2020. 

The creation of the UN-HABITAT program marked a significant achievement 

in the U.S. reform agenda. After the Center’s poor fiscal and personnel

management in the mid-1990s, the United States had suspended voluntary

contributions in 1996. Following the complete restructuring of the 

organization by new management, the United States supported the conferral of

program status and resumed modest voluntary contributions. 

UN-HABITAT is headquartered in Nairobi, Kenya, and is led by

Executive Director Dr. Anna Tibaijuka (Tanzania), who was elected by the 

General Assembly for a four-year term in July 2002 after having served since

September 2000 as Director of the Center on Human Settlements. UNHABITAT’s Governing Council meets every two years, most recently in May 

2003. States are elected to the Governing Council through regional groups for

54 
Economic and Social Affairs 

four-year terms. The United States was re-elected in 2002 for another term by

the UN Economic and Social Council. 

UN-HABITAT’s activities in 2003 were closely aligned with U.S. 

foreign policy objectives pertaining to economic freedom, good governance, 

democracy building (through decentralization of power to local authorities), 

gender equality, and the mobilization of domestic resources. The United

States worked to clarify UN-HABITAT’s role as a catalyst that advances work 

on human settlements through normative (research and data collection), 

capacity-building, and operational (pilot project) activities. Overall, the 

United States believes UN-HABITAT improved its focus on these activities, 

in which it has a comparative advantage. However, UN-HABITAT is still in

the process of consolidating many small programs, trust funds, and other

mechanisms into a coherent whole. 

At the May 2003 Governing Council meeting, the United States 

participated actively in the negotiation of a strategic framework that would 

define the scope of UN-HABITAT in the areas of shelter and sustainable

human settlements; monitor the Millennium Declaration goal of improving the 

lives of 100 million slum dwellers by 2020; foster regional and technical

cooperation; and finance human settlements. The United States worked

closely with the Governing Council to prevent overlap among the functions of

UN-HABITAT, the World Bank, and other multilateral institutions. 

Additionally, the United States facilitated an initiative to establish a 

Special Human Settlements Program for the Palestinian People, which

received approval from both Israel and the Palestinian Authority. The United 

States was the first contributor to the $5 million technical assistance program. 

In Iraq, UN-HABITAT had managed programs for internallydisplaced persons under the Settlement Rehabilitation Program. UNHABITAT renegotiated contracts and successfully transferred control of

programs worth $600 million to the Coalition Provisional Authority. Followon activities are underway, guided by the Iraq High-Level Advisory Panel, a 

group of senior Iraqi officials and professionals in the human settlements field.

The United States also coordinated a smooth transition of the UN’s Oil-ForFood program to the Coalition Provisional Authority. 

UN-HABITAT provides advice to local governments through policy

papers on best practices and legislative reforms and the “good urban 

governance index,” which enables cities to assess and monitor progress on 

specific indicators of good governance. UN-HABITAT developed good urban 

governance toolkits to support transparency in local government and 

participatory urban decision-making and budgeting. The campaign on urban 

governance also promotes the involvement of women in decision-making at all 

levels. 

UN-HABITAT provided capacity building/technical assistance for 

urban planning and slum upgrading in 87 countries, including post-conflict 

reconstruction programs in Afghanistan, East Timor, Kosovo, Liberia, and

Sudan, as well as Israeli-occupied territory. 

55 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2003 

Additionally, UN-HABITAT executed technical cooperation projects

(construction work) worth $118 million in Iraq and elsewhere on behalf of

other UN agencies and donor countries. 

In 2003, funding for UN-HABITAT’s work came from voluntary

contributions to its core programs ($40.5 million) and UN regular budget 

funds ($6.4 million). The United States contributed $750,000 in nonearmarked funds to the core UN-HABITAT budget and $500,000 to UNHABITAT’s Palestinian technical assistance program. 

UN-HABITAT employed 122 professional staff at its headquarters

and in nine regional and liaison offices in 2003; six were U.S. citizens.

Environment 

UN Environment Program (UNEP)

The UN Environment Program (UNEP), founded in 1972, is

headquartered in Nairobi, Kenya, and has six regional offices in Europe,

Africa, North America, Asia and the Pacific, Latin America and the

Caribbean, and West Asia. Its Governing Council consists of 58 member 

states, including the United States. The UN General Assembly elects 

members from different regional groupings for four-year terms. UNEP’s 

Executive Director Klaus Toepfer (Germany) was re-elected to a second fouryear term in 2002 after being re-nominated for that position by the UN

Secretary-General. 

UNEP addresses environmental problems that transcend borders and

potentially affect the health and prosperity of U.S. citizens. Active 

involvement in UNEP helps the United States promote sustainable 

development and protect the environment by combating global environmental

degradation. UNEP also contributes to regional stability through work in areas 

affected by conflict. 

The United States was instrumental in UNEP’s development of a 

constructive decision on marine safety and the environment in light of the 

Prestige oil spill of November 2002. The United States developed with UNEP

a facilitative, non-regulatory approach to raise awareness and provide training

on practical approaches to address mercury pollution. The Environmental

Protection Agency and the Department of Health and Human Services worked 

with UNEP in the development of the program. 

The United States successfully negotiated a compromise at the 

February 2003 Governing Council/Global Environmental Ministerial Forum 

on the implementation of UNEP’s voluntary indicative scale of contributions

that allows UNEP to continue with and publish the results of this pilot 

initiative, without having the U.S. contribution level compared to an arbitrary

figure chosen by UNEP. The United States is opposed to the concept of

suggested scales of contributions for organizations funded by voluntary

donations. 

The United States strongly supports the valuable work done in UNEP 

core programs, such as early warning and assessment of environmental threats, 

56 
Economic and Social Affairs 

the regional seas program, capacity building for domestic environmental 

governance in developing countries, and the global program of action to

combat land-based sources of marine pollution. The United States values 

UNEP’s monitoring, assessing, and publicizing of emerging environmental 

trends. The United States led successful efforts to conduct critical budgetary

and programmatic reviews in the UNEP Governing Council. 

The United States worked with UNEP and other governments to

strengthen linkages between UNEP and scientific institutions, and is assisting 

in capacity building for scientific academies in developing nations. UNEP has

joined the United States as a major partner in the “White Water to Blue Water” 

partnership focusing on integrated watershed management, which Secretary of

State Colin Powell launched in 2002 at the World Summit on Sustainable 

Development. UNEP coordinates and facilitates the participation by

Caribbean governments and provides technical and program assistance to

implement the partnership. 

In addition, the United States cooperates closely with UNEP on the 

following issues: 

• Depleted Uranium Rounds: UNEP’s Post Conflict Assessment Unit

completed analyses of the effects of depleted uranium projectiles in 

Kosovo and Bosnia-Herzegovina. An American expert participated in the 

delegations. As in the 2002 report on Serbia and Montenegro, the 2003

reports concluded that U.S. use of depleted uranium munitions did not

cause long-term environmental damage. 

• Iraq: UNEP, working closely with the United States, hosted a successful

roundtable on Iraqi environmental issues for the Iraqi Environment

Minister to interact with governments, international agencies, and

nongovernmental organizations in Geneva in November 2003. UNEP’s

Post Conflict Assessment Unit completed a Desk Study on the 

Environment in Iraq in March and a Progress Report in October. The 

findings of this report on depleted uranium also concluded that U.S. use of

depleted uranium munitions did not cause long-term environmental 

damage. 

• Afghanistan: The United States and UNEP partnered to obtain funding

from the Global Environment Facility (GEF) of the World Bank Group

for the Afghan Conservation Corps. This group helps address the many

environmental problems in that country and contributes to building 

Afghan civil society. 

• Africa: The United States has worked closely with UNEP to provide 

NASA satellite data and training to African governments, which is part of 

an overall U.S. development commitment made to African countries. In 

November, UNEP sponsored a conference in Dakar on the use of

geographic information system technologies in resource development and 

land-use decisions. In addition to providing data and expertise, the United

States sponsored a pre-meeting on the U.S. data contribution and its

availability. 

57 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2003 

The United States and UNEP jointly hosted a conference on

technical, scientific policy, and investment issues of geothermal energy in

Nairobi. The conference included presentations by Kenya’s Minister of

Energy and U.S. Ambassador to Kenya Johnnie Carson, as well as officials 

from the U.S. Geological Survey, Overseas Private Investment Corporation, 

U.S. Trade and Development Agency, and government officials from the 

region. State Department monetary contributions to the conference facilitated 

the participation and travel to Nairobi of more than 45 African government

and non-government officials from more than ten African countries. One of 

the outcomes was the development of a UNEP GEF project designed to

facilitate African Rift Valley geothermal energy development. This would 

contribute to regional development and environmental protection by providing

a substitute energy source for firewood, and at the same time provide market

access to U.S. energy equipment suppliers, who are leaders in that technology. 

The United States made a voluntary contribution of $10.5 million to

UNEP’s total budget of $116 million in 2003. Twenty-nine U.S. citizens 

worked at UNEP, out of a total of 456 employees. 

UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) 

The UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) 

entered into force in March 1994. There are currently 188 parties to the 

UNFCCC. The United States ratified the convention in 1992. The UNFCCC 

promotes stabilization of atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases at

levels that would prevent dangerous human interference with the climate

system. The Kyoto Protocol, finalized by UNFCCC members in December

1997, has not entered into force. This protocol would require developed

nations to reduce their collective greenhouse gas emissions by an average of

5.2 percent below 1990 levels during the period 2008–2012 (6 percent below 

1990 levels for the United States). However, because the Kyoto Protocol

exempts developing countries, including some of the world’s largest emitters 

of greenhouse gases, from binding emission targets, and because of the harm it 

would cause to the U.S. economy, President Bush announced in March 2001

that the United States would not ratify the treaty. This decision is consistent

with the recommendation of Senate Resolution 98, approved in July 1997 by a 

vote of 95 to 0.

The United States works closely with a number of countries both 

multilaterally and bilaterally on climate change issues. The FCCC’s Ninth 

Conference of the Parties (COP-9) held in Milan, Italy, in December, provided

an opportunity for high-level dialogue on technology, adaptation and

mitigation, and the potential linkages between climate change and sustainable

development. The United States highlighted its activities to promote

cooperation and progress on climate change, science, and technology.

Continued U.S. participation in and support for the FCCC helps advance U.S. 

approaches to climate change issues. 

The United States contributed $2.9 million to the FCCC in 2003. Of 

the UNFCCC’s 75 professional staff, six are U.S. citizens. 

58 
Economic and Social Affairs 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was created 

in 1988 as a joint effort of the World Meteorological Organization and the UN

Environment Program. The IPCC conducts periodic assessments of studies on

the science of climate change, its potential impacts, and ways countries adapt

and seek to mitigate climate change. In 2003, the IPCC engaged in organizing

its comprehensive Fourth Assessment Report, which will be developed by

several hundred experts over the next four years. 

Continued U.S. participation and support for the IPCC is designed to 

ensure that international actions to address climate change are informed by upto-date, peer-reviewed scientific and technological information. 

In 2003, the United States contributed $3 million to the IPCC. A 

U.S. citizen chairs the IPCC’s Working Group I on science.

Population 

UN Population Fund (UNFPA) 

The UN Population Fund (UNFPA) provides funding for population 

and reproductive health programs in over 140 countries. UNFPA works with

governments and nongovernmental organizations to help women, men, and 

young people plan their families, reduce mother and child mortality, avoid 

sexually transmitted infections and HIV/AIDS, and combat violence against

women. UNFPA provides assistance in the framework of three- to five-year

country plans, which are developed jointly with the recipient country and 

approved by the Executive Board. 

Thoraya Ahmed Obaid (Saudi Arabia), the Executive Director of 

UNFPA, was appointed in 2001 by the UN Secretary-General. The United 

States is a member of UNFPA’s Executive Board and participates actively in

the decision-making processes to safeguard its interests. In 2003, the 

Executive Board approved 22 country programs and one sub-regional 

program, and reviewed 11 preliminary draft country plans. 

Under current statutory requirements, the United States did not 

provide funding to UNFPA in 2003. The Foreign Operations Appropriations

Act of 2002 (Public Law 107-115) stipulates that, “none of the funds available

in this Act ... may be made available to any organization or program which ... 

supports or participates in the management of a program of coercive abortion 

or involuntary sterilization.” As required by law, Secretary Powell determined

that no U.S. funds could be provided to UNFPA in 2002. 

In 2002, the Secretary of State determined that China’s coercive birth 

limitation laws and practices amounted to a “program of coercive abortion.”

The Secretary also found that UNFPA’s “support and involvement in China’s

population-planning activities allowed the Chinese government to implement

more effectively its program of coercive abortions.” 

In 2003, the State Department determined that there was not 

sufficient change in China’s policies or the UNFPA program in China to 

warrant funding. 

59 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2003 

UN Commission on Population and Development (CPD) 

The UN Commission on Population and Development (CPD) advises 

the UN Economic and Social Council on population changes, including

migration, and their effects on economic and social conditions. It is also 

charged by the General Assembly to monitor, review, and assess 

implementation of the Program of Action of the International Conference on

Population and Development, held in Cairo in 1994. 

The CPD held its 36th session in New York March 31–April 4, 2003.

The central theme of the session was population, education, and development.

The United States emphasized the importance of achieving gender equality in

education and reported on its bilateral assistance to improve educational 

opportunity. The United States joined consensus on a resolution noting the 

importance of education for achieving population and development goals, 

urging the Secretariat to continue its research on the way education influences

health, reproductive health, population indicators, and gender equality. The 

resolution also called on the UN Population Fund to accelerate implementation 

of the Program of Action. The United States made an Explanation of Position 

emphasizing that the United States did not interpret any language in the 

resolution or any of the documents it cited as promoting abortion. 

Regional Economic Commissions 

The UN regional economic commissions include the Economic

Commission for Africa, Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the

Pacific (ESCAP), Economic Commission for Europe (ECE), Economic 

Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC), and the

Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia. These groups are

charged with “raising the level of economic activity” within their respective

regions and “maintaining and strengthening the economic relations” of the 

countries within their scopes, “both among themselves and with other 

countries of the world.” The regional commissions are funded out of the

regular UN budget, of which the United States pays 22 percent. Many of their 

activities are financed by extra-budgetary grants from bilateral and multilateral

donors. The United States is a member of ECE, ECLAC, and ESCAP. U.S.

participation in regional commissions advances and safeguards U.S. foreign

policy and commercial interests in these regions. 

Economic Commission for Europe (ECE) 

The Economic Commission for Europe (ECE) was established in

1947 to encourage economic cooperation within Europe and between Europe

and other countries with close trade and business ties. At the end of December 

2003, ECE membership consisted of 55 member nations, including the United 

States, Canada, Switzerland, Israel, and the Central Asian and Caucasian states 

of the former Soviet Union. Executive Secretary Brigita Schmognerova

(Slovak Republic) was appointed by the UN Secretary-General in 2002. 

The ECE is traditionally a standards-setting and coordination body in

many technical fields, such as energy, environment, vehicle construction, road

60 
Economic and Social Affairs 

safety, timber and agricultural produce, border crossing, and statistical 

collection. Many ECE standards are adopted around the world. Many U.S. 

government agencies, including the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, 

Energy, Homeland Security, and Transportation, regularly participate in

working groups and chair committees. 

At the ECE’s annual session on March 4–6 at its headquarters in

Geneva, delegates agreed on the need for greater transparency and oversight

within ECE, formalized partnerships with other organizations such as the 

Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, and appropriate level of

follow-up to UN international conferences, such as the World Summit on

Sustainable Development and the World Summit on the Information Society. 

The ECE is funded from the UN regular budget. In 2003 it was 

funded at approximately $23.5 million, with the U.S. assessment at about $5 

million. 

Out of a total Secretariat staff of about 200 at ECE headquarters, 

Americans held 10 positions, seven of which were at the professional level.

These levels have not changed since 2002. 

Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC) 

The Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean

(ECLAC) was established in 1948 and has 41 member states. The United

States is a full member. ECLAC also has seven associate members, including 

the U.S. territories of Puerto Rico and U.S. Virgin Islands. The Commission is 

headquartered in Santiago, Chile, with two subregional offices for Mexico and

for the Caribbean. It also has offices in Bogota, Brasilia, Buenos Aires, 

Montevideo, and Washington, D.C. Executive Secretary Jose Antonio

Ocampo (Colombia) had headed the organization since January 1998, but was 

replaced by Jose Luis Machinea (Argentina) in December 2003. 

ECLAC’s mission is to improve coordination and cooperation among 

member states and international entities in an effort to advance economic and

social development in the region. Although it previously advocated closed

markets and state-run economies, ECLAC has come to recognize some of the

benefits of trade liberalization and privatization. 

ECLAC has a high profile in Latin America, though not in the United 

States. ECLAC seminars in 2003 covered “social capital, a tool to overcome 

poverty”; “institutional requirements for market-led development”; “fiscal

policy”; “impact of gender on pension reform”; “global environmental fund”;

“managing volatility, financial globalization, and growth in emerging

economies”; “Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development

environmental performance reviews”; “financing for sustainable

development”; and “experience of the Euro: building an economic and

monetary union.” Regional preparatory meetings for UN conferences included

the World Summit on the Information Society, Landlocked Least Developed 

Countries, and Aging. 

61 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2003 

ECLAC received funding of $40.6 million through the UN regular

budget in 2003, of which $8 million came from the U.S. assessment. 

Out of 195 professional staff at the ECLAC Secretariat, six are

Americans. 

Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (ESCAP) 

The Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific

(ESCAP) was established in 1947, with its headquarters in Bangkok, Thailand. 

In September, Timor-Leste was officially welcomed as ESCAP’s newest 

member, bringing membership to a total of 53 nations (including non-regional

members France, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom) plus nine 

associate members. The United States is a full ESCAP member. 

ESCAP gives technical support to member governments on a wide

array of socio-economic development issues. Activities include direct 

advisory services, training and sharing of regional experiences, and

dissemination of knowledge and data through meetings, seminars,

publications, and inter-country networks. 

Since his appointment in July 2000, Executive Secretary Dr. Kim 

Hak-Su (Republic of Korea) has focused ESCAP on poverty alleviation, which

is a dominant concern for many countries. Dr. Kim’s institutional reforms

went into effect in January 2003, outlining a new structure with the following

three main thematic committees: Poverty Reduction, Managing Globalization,

and Emerging Social Issues. The United States continued to be a strong

supporter of these reform initiatives. 

The theme for the 59th annual session was “Integrating economic and

social concerns, especially HIV/AIDS, in meeting the needs of the region.”

The U.S. Ambassador to Thailand delivered a statement highlighting U.S.

assistance to fight the disease in the region. He outlined successful strategies 

for reducing new infections, drawing on the experiences of Uganda, Thailand, 

and Cambodia. The United States participated actively in negotiations on the 

HIV/AIDS resolution, working to ensure that language in the text was 

consistent with the trade agreement on intellectual property rights regarding 

affordable life-saving HIV/AIDS medications. 

In addition to its funding from the UN regular budget of 

approximately $32.4 million, ESCAP also receives voluntary extra-budgetary 

contributions, primarily for its workshops and other technical assistance 

programs. The U.S. contributed $7.1 million through its UN assessment, and 

provided $160,000 to an ESCAP narcotics demand-reduction initiative. 

Of 175 professional positions in the ESCAP Secretariat, 11 are held

by American citizens. 

Social Issues 

Commission for Social Development 

The Commission for Social Development is a functional body of the 

Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) that meets annually to advise

62 
Economic and Social Affairs 

ECOSOC on social policies and issues. The 46-member Commission is the 

key UN body for the implementation of the outcome of the 1995 World

Summit for Social Development. The priority theme at the 41st session of the 

Commission, held in New York February 10–21, 2003, was national and

international cooperation for social development. Included within that theme 

was a discussion of the New Partnership for Africa’s Development. 

The United States joined consensus on seven topical resolutions. The 

most contentious item on the agenda concerned the text on a possible

international convention for persons with disabilities. The result was a 

technically correct if inelegantly worded resolution for the 2004 summer

ECOSOC session that did not prejudice the negotiating strategy of the United

States. 

Another resolution that caused problems for the United States

concerned the Tenth Anniversary of the International Year of the Family in

2004, which succeeded largely because of U.S. bilateral negotiations. The

United States added a reference to the family as the basic unit of society and 

insisted that the resolution on the family include a reference to the 

responsibilities of both parents in raising their children. The United Nations

and many nations agreed to conduct events and commemorate the 

International Day of the Family on May 15, 2004. 

Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities 

The UN General Assembly decided in 2001 to establish an ad hoc

committee to determine whether there was a need for another human rights

convention, one that would focus exclusively on the situation of persons with

disabilities. The Committee on a Convention on the Rights of Persons with 

Disabilities met for the first time in 2002, but was unable to agree that there 

was a need for a new international document. One of the major topics at the

2003 annual UN Commission for Social Development concerned the work of 

this ad hoc Committee. The Commission recommended that the ad hoc

Committee continue its work for another year. The ad hoc Committee 

reconvened on June 16 for a two-week session. 

The United States, a leader in protecting the rights of persons with

disabilities, determined that the best way to promote and protect U.S. interests

was to act as an expert resource for the Committee in the process of 

considering a convention, but not acceding to a new international agreement.

The United States maintained that existing international human rights

instruments provide all the protections that persons with disabilities need and

that the real work of fighting discrimination must take place at the national 

level. 

U.S. Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights Ralph F. Boyd

delivered the U.S. statement on June 18 to the ad hoc Committee on a 

Comprehensive and Integral International Convention on Protection and 

Promotion of the Rights and Dignity of Persons with Disabilities. He stressed

the long and strong U.S. commitment to eliminating discrimination against

persons with disabilities, while increasing their access in society. Among the

63 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2003 

many U.S. accomplishments he noted were passage and implementation of

such landmark legislation as the Rehabilitation Act and the Americans with

Disabilities Act, as well as the President’s more recent New Freedom

Initiative. Launched in 2001, the New Freedom Initiative program promotes 

the full participation of people with disabilities in all areas of society by

increasing access to assistive and universally designed technologies, and by

expanding educational, employment and community life opportunities. The 

U.S. delegation consisted of experts from several government agencies.

During the June session and a second session in December, these experts

contributed to the multilateral process by providing details about the relevant

U.S. legislative and judicial precedents. Negotiations are expected to continue

into 2005. 

Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice 

The UN Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice 

(Crime Commission) is the principal UN policy-making body on criminal 

justice issues. The 40-member Commission convenes annually in the UN

Office in Vienna. Some decisions from these annual meetings are forwarded 

to the UN Economic and Social Council (or occasionally to the UN General 

Assembly) for endorsement. 

The 12th session of the Crime Commission convened May 13–22,

2003, in Vienna. The theme of the Commission was trafficking in persons,

especially of women and children. This reflected the high priority placed on 

this issue by President Bush, as highlighted in his address to the UN General 

Assembly on September 20. Three panel discussions and a workshop were

dedicated to the topic. The Commission produced 12 resolutions, including

U.S.-drafted or cosponsored resolutions on human trafficking, implementation

of the UN Convention Against Transnational Organized Crime (TOC), and

implementation of the international terrorism conventions and protocols.

These resolutions direct the work of the UN Office on Drugs and Crime 

(UNODC) towards areas where it has relevant expertise and can best

complement U.S. bilateral assistance efforts. 

The U.S. resolution on human trafficking urged member states to

ratify or accede to the TOC human trafficking protocol and to strengthen their 

capacities to prevent and combat trafficking in persons, as well as provide

assistance to victims. The resolution also encouraged states to raise public

awareness of trafficking in persons and sexual exploitation and to examine the 

role of prostitution in contributing to human trafficking. The United States 

presented a Model Law of Trafficking in Persons during a panel discussion, 

which was received with interest by states working on relevant legislation. 

The United States cosponsored a resolution with France on promoting 

international cooperation in the fight against transnational organized crime.

The resolution tasks the UNODC to assist states in implementation of the 

TOC. The resolution requires the UNODC to conduct a study on the 

effectiveness of existing legal mutual assistance mechanisms and extradition 

treaties. The United States also noted the need for increased transparency and 

64 
Economic and Social Affairs 

accountability in the UNODC’s finances and project administration and 

supported two Japanese resolutions formalizing recommendations for these

reforms. 

The United States voiced support for the Global Program against 

Terrorism and urged the Crime Office to continue coordinating its counterterrorism assistance with the UN’s Counter-Terrorism Committee (CTC) and

Office of Legal Affairs in New York. The United States also worked with

other states to sponsor a widely supported resolution encouraging the UNODC

to continue technical assistance to states ratifying or acceding to the 12 

international counter-terrorism conventions and protocols. 

UN Convention Against Corruption 

Negotiation of the UN Convention Against Corruption was concluded

in 2003. The UNODC hosted over seven weeks of formal negotiating sessions

in Vienna, which were held in January, March, July/August, and September.

In October, the UN General Assembly adopted the Convention Against 

Corruption. Two months later, U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft signed

the Convention during the High-Level Political Conference held in Merida,

Mexico. The Corruption Convention sets a new standard as the first truly

global anti-corruption instrument that commits governments to address

corruption domestically and to cooperate internationally to combat corruption.

The United States played a key role in the negotiations leading up to the 

completion of the Convention. 

International Drug Control 

Both the. UN Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) and the 

International Narcotics Control Board, based in Vienna, support U.S. drug 

control objectives. The UN drug control conventions (the 1961 Single 

Convention on Narcotic Drugs as amended by the 1972 Protocol, the 

Convention on Psychotropic Substances, and the 1988 UN Convention

Against the Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances)

provide the framework for international drug control, including prohibiting 

cultivation of opium, cocaine, and marijuana; targeting drug traffickers and

their proceeds; promoting national campaigns on drug abuse prevention and 

treatment; and regulating precursor chemicals used in the production of illicit

drugs. 

The UNODC embarked on a new course in 2003 under the leadership

of a new executive director, Antonio Maria Costa (Italy). On August 1, Costa

merged the two previously separate offices of the UN Drug Control Program

(UNDCP) and the UN Center for International Crime Prevention (CICP) into a 

consolidated bureaucratic structure, the UN Office of Drugs and Crime. The

United States supported UNODC’s objectives for enacting this merger, namely 

maximizing efficiencies and promoting greater collaboration among experts on 

crosscutting issues. However, the United States also supported the 

maintenance of separate funding mechanisms for crime and drug projects as a

means of ensuring the continued delivery of voluntary contributions to

designated programs. Due to the vast discrepancies in resources and personnel

65 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2003 

between the two previous organizations, the United States urged Costa to

ensure that the anti-crime functions formerly coordinated by CICP retain their

visibility. 

U.S. support during the year had significant impact on the operations

and expansion of UN counter-narcotics programs and policy. UNODC and the

United States pursued counter-narcotics objectives similarly by combining 

alternative crop development programs with demand and supply reduction. 

UNODC supported supply reduction objectives through its promotion of

enhanced law enforcement and regulatory capabilities to interdict drug

shipments, prevent diversion of precursor chemicals, investigate and prosecute 

traffickers, and eradicate illicit drug crops. The United States was particularly

encouraged by UNODC’s success in contributing to the reduction of the illicit

cultivation of opium poppy in certain countries, including Burma and Laos.

The UNODC used funds provided by the United States to support

global programs to prevent money laundering and terrorist financing, enhance

precursor chemical control, and provide legal advice on treaty implementation. 

Specifically, the UNODC used this contribution to fund major alternative 

development projects in Laos and the Wa territories of Burma, as well as

chemical control projects in South and Central Asia, and judicial/prosecutorial

training in Africa, Latin America, and East Asia. Capacity-building projects in 

Afghanistan and Central Asia were also high priority programs. 

The 53-member UN Commission on Narcotic Drugs (CND), of

which the United States has been a member since 1946, is the central policymaking body within the UN system for dealing with drug-related matters. The

CND held its 46th session, which included a ministerial-level segment, in

Vienna on April 8–17, 2003. During the regular CND session, delegates 

reviewed the worldwide activities and management of the UNODC. They

received briefings on various aspects of the global narcotics situation and 

follow-up to a previous Special Session on drug control, including alternative 

drug demand reduction efforts, money laundering, and administrative and

budgetary issues. U.S. Under Secretary of State Paula Dobriansky attended 

the ministerial-level segment. 

The United States achieved its goals during the CND session,

including the adoption of U.S.-sponsored resolutions on “Enhancing

International Cooperation Against Drug Trafficking by Sea” and 

“Strengthening Drug Demand Reduction and Treatment Efforts in Compliance

with International Drug Treaties.” The United States co-drafted a resolution 

on UNODC management that recognized improvement, but called for stronger

project evaluation. In other resolutions, the United States emphasized the link 

between narcotics trafficking and terrorist financing, as well as between drug 

abuse and economic/social decline. The United States also urged 

governments, UN agencies, and international organizations to “mainstream”

counter-narcotics activities into overall sustainable development. 

66 
Economic and Social Affairs 

On November 26–27, the CND reconvened in Vienna to review and 

approve the final UNODC 2002–2003 budget and the proposed 2004–2005 

UNODC biennial budget. The members also debated and approved the agenda

for the forthcoming 47th session of the CND. The United States, working 

with the Asian group, GRULAC (Latin America and Caribbean Group), and

other member states, succeeded in securing the theme for the next session of 

“Synthetic Drugs and Control of Precursor Chemicals” and, for the 48th 

session in 2005, the subject of “Drug Abuse: Prevention, Treatment, and

Rehabilitation.” 

The UNODC’s assessed budget for 2003 was approximately $15

million, of which the U.S. paid 22 percent, or $3.3 million. In addition, the 

U.S. made a voluntary contribution of $23.8 million through the State 

Department, including $17.3 million for UNODC programs in Afghanistan 

and Central Asia. 

In 2003 the UNODC had 177 professionals in Vienna and the field;

17 were American citizens. 

International Narcotics Control Board (INCB) 

The 13-member International Narcotics Control Board (INCB) is an

independent quasi-judicial control body which has a mandate to promote 

government compliance with the provisions of the international drug control

treaties and to assist governments in this effort. The Board meets periodically 

to monitor the implementation of the drug control treaties and the international 

movement of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances. Retired 

Ambassador Melvin Levitsky, former Department of State Assistant Secretary 

for International Narcotics and Law Enforcement (INL) was elected to the

Board in October 2003. Although board members serve in their individual

capacity, the presence of an American viewpoint is invaluable to promote U.S. 

policy interests. 

At its November meeting, the Board discussed the micro-level impact 

of drugs, crime, and violence and reviewed the impact of the different forms of 

crime and violence associated with drug use. This topic formed part of the

Board’s Annual Report for 2003, in which the Board analyzed the impact of 

drugs on society by reviewing the relationship between drug abuse, crime, and 

violence at the community level. The report also focused on the relationship 

between illicit drug abuse, crime, and violence with respect to individuals, 

families, neighborhoods, and communities, taking into account both

criminality and victimization.

Human Rights 

Status of Women 

The UN Commission on the Status of Women (CSW), established in

1946 as a subsidiary body of the Economic and Social Council, seeks to

improve the situation of women in the areas of political participation, 

economic opportunity, social development, health, and education. The United

67 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2003 

States has successfully used the annual CSW meetings to highlight U.S.

activities to improve conditions for women throughout the world. 

The CSW convened its 47th session in New York on March 3–14, 

2003. At each session, member states consider two main themes from the 12 

areas identified in the Beijing Platform for Action. In 2003, member states 

reached agreement on Agreed Conclusions on “Participation and access of 

women to the media, and information and communications technologies and

their impact on and use as an instrument for the advancement and 

empowerment of women.” They could not arrive at consensus on draft

Agreed Conclusions on “Women’s human rights and elimination of all forms 

of violence against women and girls as defined in the Beijing Platform for 

Action and the outcome document of the twenty-third special session of the 

General Assembly.” 

Members adopted the following resolutions by consensus: “Situation 

of women and girls in Afghanistan,” “Women, the girl child, and HIV/AIDS,”

“Mainstreaming a gender perspective into all policies and programs in the UN 

system” (U.S. cosponsored), and “Communications concerning the status of

women.” The United States called for a vote on and voted against the 

resolution “Situation of and assistance to Palestinian women.” The United 

States opposed CSW’s annual practice of approving this one-sided resolution 

that singled out Israel for criticism.

Human Rights 

In a variety of UN forums, the United States continued to call for 

respect for human rights, and made efforts to expose human rights violators

throughout 2003. During the year, the UN Commission on Human Rights 

(UNCHR) adopted 86 resolutions and 18 decisions. The Economic and Social 

Council adopted the UNCHR report and 34 draft decisions dealing with

human rights issues. The UN General Assembly adopted more than 70 human 

rights resolutions. In the 58th General Assembly, the United States worked

closely with like-minded delegations to secure adoption of resolutions 

condemning human rights violations in Burma, Cambodia, Democratic

Republic of Congo, Iran, and Turkmenistan. 

The UNCHR is the principal UN organ for achieving the UN Charter 

objective of promoting respect for human rights. It is composed of 53

members, each elected for three-year terms. Human rights violators continued 

to seek election to the Commission, with countries such as Cuba, Vietnam,

Libya, and Zimbabwe serving as members in 2003. The UNCHR held its 

annual session in Geneva, Switzerland, March 16–April 26. Ambassador 

Jeane Kirkpatrick headed the U.S. delegation. Almost immediately after the 

Commission opened, the United States was faced with a severe challenge in 

Geneva when the U.S.-led intervention in Iraq began on March 19. The

United States was able to work with allies to fend off the proposal that the 

Commission hold a Special Sitting that would have been critical of U.S. 

actions. 

68 
Economic and Social Affairs 

Other Middle East–related issues remained contentious during the 

session, with continued efforts by several members to adopt unbalanced

resolutions about Israel. The controversy over resolutions targeting only

Israeli actions magnified differences among the members of the UNCHR and 

created an environment hostile to consensus.

Members of the UNCHR also differed on the focus of the 

Commission. Many countries, especially developing countries, pressed for

continued emphasis on economic, social, and cultural rights, while the United 

States supported focusing attention and action on violations of civil and

political rights, no matter where they had occurred. The Commission did, 

however, adopt resolutions condemning human rights violations in Belarus, 

Burma, Cuba, North Korea, and Turkmenistan. 

The United States worked bilaterally and multilaterally to promote a 

democracy caucus in Washington, New York, Geneva, and through its

embassies overseas. At the 2003 Commission meeting, the United States led

intensive consultations on the topic in collaboration with Poland and South

Korea, hosts of the past two Community of Democracies (CD) Ministerial 

meetings. Based on membership in the CD, the caucus would aim to improve 

the work of the CHR, encourage the CHR’s membership to reflect its intended 

principles, and promote rule of law and democracy in UN fora. 

At the 2003 General Assembly, the United States sponsored a 

resolution on support for improving election monitoring and electoral

processes in countries throughout the UN system. The resolution was adopted 

with overwhelming support, including the participating countries in the 

Community of Democracies. 

Humanitarian Issues 

Afghanistan 

The United Nations played an instrumental role in addressing 

humanitarian concerns in Afghanistan. Working through the Program 

Secretariat structure that the United Nations established, various UN

specialized agencies were paired with respective Afghan Ministries to address 

humanitarian and reconstruction challenges. This UN model enabled Afghan

policy-makers and technocrats to successfully assume responsibility for future

program and policy decisions. 

In 2003, over a half million refugees returned to Afghanistan from

Pakistan and Iran, bringing the total number of returns to 2.7 million since the 

fall of the Taliban in 2002. This is one of the largest returns of people the 

world has ever seen. Afghanistan’s ability to sustainably integrate these 

returnees in the long term, as well as to absorb the additional 3.1 million

refugees and internally displaced persons who remain, are important variables

in achieving U.S. objectives for this country. 

Central to the return and reintegration process is the UN High

Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), which provides life-saving assistance 

and protection for refugees and returnees. The Department of State provided

69 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2003 

nearly 30 percent of UNHCR’s budget in the last three years, including $52.9

million in 2003. In total, the State Department has given over $260 million 

since September 2001 to UNHCR and other agencies for the care of refugees, 

returnees, and vulnerable Afghans. Included in this amount is nearly $80

million that the Department has provided to the International Committee of the

Red Cross (ICRC). ICRC implements programs on health, water, and

sanitation, and fosters humanitarian law and principles. It has been an

essential broker in humanitarian issues among local leaders and organizations 

on behalf of conflict victims and detainees. 

The State Department gave $2.4 million to the UN Children’s Fund

(UNICEF) to support education, sanitation, and mine awareness for Afghan

children and their families. In addition, the Department contributed $1 million

to the Afghan Conservation Corps, which is an initiative to employ and train 

vulnerable Afghans in environmental conservation activities. 

The UN’s humanitarian programs would not be successful without 

the cooperation and contributions of the many nongovernmental organizations 

(NGOs) that implement programs in Afghan communities. Supporting these

organizations, the State Department contributed $22 million for NGO 

assistance to Afghans in 2003. 

The number of internally displaced persons (IDPs) in Afghanistan 

dropped from a 2002 high of more than 1 million to 184,000 in late 2003,

although unofficial estimates of IDP numbers remain as high as 300,000. The

International Organization for Migration (IOM), working in partnership with

Afghan ministries, takes the lead on assisting IDPs return to their places of 

origin. IOM’s large-scale return program is funded partly by the U.S. Agency 

for International Development (USAID). After a medical screening, IOM

arranges transportation all the way to the end destination. Upon arrival, the 

returning IDPs receive a reintegration package that can include winter tents, a 

shelter kit, food and non-food items, and an agriculture kit with supplies to

anchor the return. Vulnerable members of the community of origin also

receive assistance packages. To help anchor returnees, IOM also implements

quick impact projects and employment programs. 

In 2003, USAID contributed $24.5 million for emergency and 

humanitarian programs in Afghanistan. Of that amount, the United Nations

received $1.5 million and NGOs received $23.1 million. USAID assistance 

benefited IDPs and other vulnerable populations in such sectors as

infrastructure rehabilitation, health and nutrition, water and sanitation, shelter,

agriculture and food security, and income generation and livelihoods. 

USAID’s UN grants went to the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian

Affairs for relief coordination, the Food and Agriculture Organization for

various education programs, and the World Food Program (WFP) for food 

assistance, with corresponding grants to the UN Development Program/UN 

Office for Project Services for winter road clearance in support of WFP’s 

winter food programs. Further grants went to UNICEF for health and nutrition 

and various winter programs, and to the UNHCR for earthquake relief. 

70 
Economic and Social Affairs 

USAID also provided significant food aid to WFP for its work to

assist refugees, IDPs, and other food-insecure groups in Afghanistan. Food for

work, for teachers, and for teacher training were also among the services 

provided, all of which contributed to strengthening the community

infrastructure. USAID provided the WFP a total of about $47 million in food

aid for work in Afghanistan in 2003. 

Iraq 

At the beginning of 2003, the highest U.S. priority in the United

Nations was working with the Security Council to urge Saddam Hussein to 

finally and fully disarm publicly or face the consequences of not doing so.

Based on his record of non-compliance with 17 previous UN Security Council

resolutions, U.S. humanitarian offices made elaborate preparations, including 

discreet contacts with UN agencies, for possible humanitarian needs ensuing 

from military intervention. The eventual intervention succeeded so quickly 

that a humanitarian crisis never materialized. Although normal deliveries of

humanitarian supplies under the UN Oil-for-Food program were temporarily

disrupted following the fall of the Saddam Hussein regime, UN relief agencies

acting under UN Security Council Resolution 1483 and in cooperation with

the U.S.-led coalition were able to ensure the functioning of the Public 

Distribution System, through which millions of Iraqis received basic food 

items at low or no cost. 

World Food Program (WFP) 

The World Food Program (WFP) is the UN’s front-line agency in the

fight against global hunger. In 2003, WFP fed 110 million people, the largest

number in its 40-year history. In Iraq, WFP carried out the largest 

humanitarian aid operation ever. At its peak, the WFP moved 1,000 tons of

food an hour, 24 hours a day, seven days a week, despite enormous obstacles. 

At the same time, WFP helped feed approximately 40 million people across 

Africa, during one of the worst food disasters to hit the continent in decades.

James T. Morris (United States) became WFP’s 10th Executive Director in 

April 2002. WFP’s governing body, the Executive Board, has 36 members,

including the United States. 

In 2003, the WFP helped the United States achieve its humanitarian 

and development goals, carrying out programs in Iraq, Ethiopia, and southern

Africa, among other locations. WFP’s 2003 expenditures in these

humanitarian efforts totaled $2.6 billion. Approximately $1 billion of this was 

for programs in Iraq ($524 million), southern Africa ($290 million), and

Ethiopia ($228 million). WFP also devoted some resources to its school

feeding programs in the developing world. 

In April 2003, WFP launched an Emergency Operation for Iraq, 

which provided assistance to the total Iraqi population of 27 million people.

From June through November, WFP transported more than 2.1 million tons of

food to Iraq. The WFP also renegotiated hundreds of Oil-for-Food contracts

authorized under UN Security Council Resolutions 1472 and 1483 (2003). By

71 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2003 

the end of October, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID)

had provided $424.6 million to WFP for the Iraq operation. 

In 2003, 13.2 million Ethiopians needed food assistance. Due to fears 

that overall food aid resources for 2003 would fall short of the needs, WFP

reduced rations for the first few months of the year. However, donor response 

to the Joint Government–UN Appeal in December 2002 and subsequent 

appeals was unprecedented. By the end of October, confirmed contributions

for 94 percent of the total food aid requirements had been received. WFP

covered approximately 40 percent of the food aid requirements. The

remaining 60 percent of the aid requirements were covered by contributions 

channeled through nongovernmental organizations or as bilateral contributions 

to the government of Ethiopia. In 2003, the United States provided $583

million to meet emergency food and other needs in Ethiopia, of which $210 

million was directed through the World Food Program. 

WFP has been carrying out emergency feeding in southern Africa

since 2001. The peak of operations was in 2002 when 10.2 million people

received WFP food aid. In July 2003, the United Nations launched a new 

Consolidated Inter-Agency Appeal for $530 million. WFP’s portion, $311

million, provided food aid to 6.5 million people in Zimbabwe, Mozambique, 

Swaziland, Malawi, Zambia, and Lesotho. Between July and December 2003, 

WFP distributed a total of 235,000 metric tons of food to a monthly average of

3.3 million beneficiaries. By the end of 2003, the food sector of the 

Consolidated Appeal was 69 percent funded. During fiscal year 2003, the

United States provided more than $238 million in emergency humanitarian

assistance in response to the complex food security crisis in southern Africa. 

Of this, $116 million was directed through the World Food Program. 

The southern Africa food crisis was complicated by the fact that this

region has the highest HIV/AIDS prevalence in the world. Sub-Saharan 

Africa is home to nearly three-fourths of the world’s HIV-infected population; 

11 million children under the age of 15 have lost at least one parent to AIDS.

On February 6, WFP and the Joint UN Program on HIV/AIDS signed an

agreement to increase their cooperation in responding to HIV/AIDS. WFP had

already begun responding to the challenges posed by the pandemic, including 

by altering the nutritional value and composition of emergency rations to 

increase protein, minerals, and vitamins. By December 2003, WFP had 

HIV/AIDS-related activities in 30 African countries, six Latin American and 

Caribbean countries, four Asian countries, and one Eastern European country. 

For nearly 40 years, WFP has been the largest organizer of school

feeding programs in the developing world. Working with national

governments, local authorities, and other aid groups, WFP uses food to attract

children to school in areas where enrollment ratios are lowest and where 

school feeding will have the greatest impact. The United States is the largest 

contributor to WFP’s global school feeding programs. U.S. funding comes 

from the McGovern-Dole International Food for Education and Child

Nutrition Program, which provides for donations of U.S. agricultural products. 

72 
Economic and Social Affairs 

The program also provides financial and technical assistance for school

feeding and maternal and child nutrition projects in low-income countries. For 

2003, the McGovern-Dole Program was funded at $100 million. USDA 

approved 21 project proposals in 21 countries, with total beneficiaries 

estimated to be 2.25 million. These were primarily school children, but also

included mothers, infants, and pre-school children. WFP is the implementing 

partner for 12 of the 21 projects, with an estimated beneficiary population of

over 1.5 million. 

WFP’s Strategic Plan for the period 2004–2007 contains the 

following five priorities: to save lives in crisis situations; to protect 

livelihoods in crisis situations and enhance resilience to shocks; to support

improved nutrition and health status of children, mothers and other vulnerable 

people; to support access to education and reduce gender disparity in access to 

education and skills training; and to help governments establish and manage

national food-assistance programs. 

In 2003, the WFP attracted new donors, including Russia and India 

and entered into partnerships with the private sector (including TPG, a Dutch 

global mail, express, and logistics company; Benetton, the Italian clothing

manufacturer; and Toyota) to increase its donor base. In addition, WFP 

teamed up with the Rugby World Cup in Australia, musicians, and actors to

create awareness of global hunger and to increase WFP’s visibility. In 2003, 

24 of the top 30 donors increased their contributions over the previous year. 

Contributions from the private sector, nongovernmental organizations, and

inter-governmental organizations totaled over $48 million.

In October 2003, Catherine Bertini, former WFP Executive Director, 

was awarded the World Food Prize. She donated the entire cash value of the 

award ($250,000) to WFP to establish an endowment to assist vulnerable 

women and children. 

At its third regular session in October 2003, WFP’s Executive Board

took note of WFP’s 2004–2005 budget and approved WFP’s Strategic Plan for

2004–2007. The 2004–2005 budget of $4.8 billion endeavors to raise funds 

for 100 percent of all approved programs and provide the technical support 

and emergency preparedness capacity so that WFP can carry out its work 

effectively. The new budget, which is based on anticipated needs rather than 

on past commitments or projected donor funding, as previous budgets had 

been, is $1.6 billion higher than the original budget estimate for 2002–2003. 

In 2003, 53 percent of WFP’s resources were directed to emergency operations

($1.38 billion). Protracted relief and recovery operations accounted for 32 

percent ($826 million); development programs 9 percent ($238 million); and

special operations 3 percent ($73 million). 

WFP operates exclusively from voluntary contributions of 

commodities and cash donated by governments and other donors. In 2003, 

contributions totaled approximately $2.6 billion, making it a record year. The

United States remained WFP’s largest donor, contributing over $1.47 billion 

(56.8 percent) in 2003. The bulk of the U.S. contributions were from USAID 

73 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2003 

(approximately $1.35 billion), followed by USDA (over $77 million), the State

Department (over $25 million), and the Emerson Trust ($22 million). 

Despite having the largest budget of any major UN agency or

program, WFP has a small headquarters staff and low overhead—averaging

out at only 9 percent. As of December 31, 8,770 WFP employees held

contracts of one year or longer. Out of this number, 655 were at headquarters;

the remainder were in the field. WFP had 979 international professional staff

in 2003, 97 of whom were U.S. citizens. 

UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) 

Established in 1950, the UN High Commissioner for Refugees

(UNHCR) is mandated to lead and coordinate international action for the 

worldwide protection of refugees and for durable solutions to their plight. In

2003, the total population of concern to UNHCR numbered 20.7 million

refugees, returnees, and other displaced persons, an increase of about 1 million

from 2002. 

The United States closely monitored UNHCR operations in the field

through its State Department–based program officers and its refugee

coordinators located around the world. A leading advocate for the protection 

of refugees, the United States was particularly active in 2003, funding an 

initiative to provide temporary staff to fill gaps or meet surges in UNHCR’s 

protection operations around the world; supporting efforts to develop a

standardized and effective refugee registration system; and encouraging

UNHCR to continue its actions to prevent sexual exploitation of refugees 

following allegations of such abuse in West Africa and Nepal. The United 

States provided additional funding to UNHCR in 2003 to augment its 

resettlement capacity. This funding enabled it to increase the identification 

and referral of refugees for admission to the U.S. resettlement program. 

In 2003, the UNHCR focused on refugee situations in Iraq, 

Afghanistan, and Africa. Refugee returns to Afghanistan continued, bringing 

the total to 2.5 million over the past two years. Rehabilitation and

reconstruction efforts continued. While UNHCR facilitated some voluntary 

refugee returns to Iraq, it did not promote returns because of security concerns. 

UNHCR international staff was withdrawn from Iraq following the August 

bombing of the UN Headquarters in Baghdad. In Angola, a successful peace 

process led to the return of some 200,000 refugees from neighboring countries. 

The challenge became their sustainable reintegration in a country devastated 

by years of war. In all these situations, officers and refugee coordinators from

the State Department worked actively with UNHCR to ensure an effective 

response. 

UNHCR’s Executive Committee (EXCOM), of which the United

States is a member, approved a global 2003 annual program budget of

approximately $809 million. In addition to the annual program budget,

UNHCR appealed for $330.6 million for supplementary programs to meet 

needs unforeseen at the beginning of the year, including refugee returns to 

Afghanistan and Angola, and contingency planning for Iraq. 

74 
Economic and Social Affairs 

In 2003, the High Commissioner initiated “Convention Plus,” a 

process designed to address areas not covered in the 1951 Refugee Convention

and 1967 Protocol. In governing board meetings and bilateral discussions, the

United States urged that this mechanism be targeted to find solutions to 

specific protracted refugee situations. Much of the effort under Convention

Plus in 2003 focused on the development of generic agreements on

resettlement, secondary movements, and targeting development assistance for 

refugees. 

UNHCR also holds three Standing Committee meetings throughout

the year. Each fall, UNHCR’s Executive Committee (EXCOM) meets to 

discuss protection, policy, management, financial, and program issues. The 

U.S. plenary statement in fall 2003 focused on planning for refugee returns to

Iraq when safe and on capacity-building of Iraqi authorities to ensure a 

seamless transfer of authority; continued attention on sustainable return of

Afghan refugees; prospects for peace and refugee return in Africa; 

commitment to a multilateral approach to refugee protection and assistance 

and strong support for UNHCR; calling for a real assessment of refugee needs;

concern about food pipeline breaks; and calling for increased physical 

protection, with special emphasis on refugee women and children. 

The United States and UNHCR negotiated a new Framework for 

Cooperation for 2003. Priorities included better protection of refugees,

especially for women and children; increased capacity-building of UNHCR to

enhance referrals for resettlement of refugees in the United States; improved 

management oversight and accountability; a strengthened refugee registration

mechanism; enhanced emergency preparedness and response; and increased 

American staffing in UNHCR. The United States and UNHCR conducted an 

end of year assessment, which showed progress on resettlement referrals, 

where UNHCR surpassed its target of 13,000, as well as on the development 

of an effective, standardized registration system. The assessment improved 

accountability through the development of a Code of Conduct. 

UNHCR’s budget in 2003 was $1.18 billion. UNHCR is funded 

almost exclusively through voluntary contributions, with only 2 percent of its 

budget coming from the UN regular budget. The United States remained the

largest contributor to UNHCR, providing $309 million (about 27 percent of 

the budget) through the Department of State. While UNHCR faced a funding 

shortfall of $94 million in 2003, it managed its budget more effectively by

reducing some programs at the beginning of the year. 

In 2003, UNHCR maintained offices in some 120 countries

worldwide, with a staff of 5,000 employees. Of 1,349 international

professional positions, 116 were filled by U.S. citizens. 

UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the 

Near East (UNRWA) 

Since 1950, the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees 

in the Near East (UNRWA) has provided education, health, and social services

75 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2003 

to Palestinian refugees and their descendants that live in the West Bank, Gaza, 

Jordan, Lebanon, and Syria. These refugees now number over 4 million. 

UNRWA, which is headed by Commissioner-General Peter Hansen

(Denmark), has 23,000 employees, most of whom are teachers. In 2003,

UNRWA spent about 55 percent of its regular budget on education, including

schools and teachers. Approximately 17 percent of its 2003 regular budget

was devoted to health services, and another 9 percent on relief and social 

services. UNRWA spent the remaining 19 percent on operational services. 

The United States believes that UNRWA has done a good job under difficult

circumstances in providing for the basic humanitarian needs of Palestinian 

refugees. 

In 2003, the United States contributed $134 million to UNRWA, 

which constituted about 34 percent of UNRWA’s total 2003 donor funding of 

$394 million. This included $88 million from the Department of State to

UNRWA’s General Fund; $41 million from the Department of State for food,

shelter repair, health needs, and short-term employment in response to

UNRWA’s emergency appeal for the West Bank and Gaza; and an additional

$5 million from the U.S. Agency for International Development to the same

emergency appeal. 

UNRWA had 126 international professional positions in 2003, of

which 17 were U.S. citizens. 

Disaster and Humanitarian Relief Activities 

In July 2003, the United States focused on mitigation of disasters in

meetings with the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs

(OCHA) and the Office of the International Strategy for Disaster Reduction

(ISDR) in Geneva. ISDR is the UN’s main organ for stimulating governments

to develop effective policies to mitigate the destructive consequences of

natural hazards such as earthquakes, fires, and hurricanes. OCHA has the lead 

in the UN system to coordinate the global response to disasters. Part of the 

OCHA meeting was devoted to preparations for the 2004 World Conference of

the Global Disaster Information Network (GDIN) in Washington, D.C., and

the 2005 World Conference on Disaster Reduction in Kobe, Japan. OCHA

will organize that conference. The United States was instrumental in 

achieving an agreement with OCHA that conference costs would be paid for 

from voluntary contributions, not the UN core budget. Maintaining budgetary 

discipline at the UN is a key U.S. priority. 

The United States took an active role in the UN General Assembly on

several disaster-related resolutions. New issues, such as concerns about 

possible links between climate change and the frequency of natural disasters,

required substantial coordination by the State Department with other U.S.

agencies to protect U.S. interests while promoting concern for the 

environment. Old resolutions such as one on Chernobyl that has endured

nearly 20 years after the event were revisited despite efforts by several 

countries last year to take such items off the agenda. The United States was 

able to work with like-minded countries to shift the Chernobyl resolution from

76 
Economic and Social Affairs 

the humanitarian segment to the development segment of the UN General

Assembly agenda. 

In addition to the new and old challenges presented at the General

Assembly, there were several disaster-related items on which the United States 

engaged to promote and to protect U.S. interests. For example, the U.S. 

delegation persuaded the drafters of the resolution that endorsed the

International Strategy for Disaster Reduction to include a requirement that

women be brought into the design phase of a nation’s disaster reduction

policies. A separate resolution on the vulnerability of developing countries to

natural disasters had the potential to become a North-South debate. The U.S.

delegation coordinated with other nations to balance the resolution with

references to the need for all countries to take appropriate measures to reduce

their risks to natural hazards. As a result, the United States was able to join 

consensus. 

At the end of 2003, the United States worked with the United Nations

once again to respond to an earthquake in Bam, Iran, on December 26. 

Several divisions of the U.S. government, including the Agency for

International Development, the Department of State, and the National Imagery 

and Mapping Agency, cooperated with UN agencies to provide information,

material, and staffing to aid the victims of the earthquake. 

NGO Committee 

The Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) Committee on

Nongovernmental Organizations (NGO Committee) is the UN body that

adjudicates requests by nongovernmental organizations for accreditation to 

participate in ECOSOC and its subsidiaries’ meetings. The 19 members of the 

Committee in 2003 were Cameroon, Chile, China, Colombia, Cote d’Ivoire,0

Cuba, France, Germany, India, Iran, Pakistan, Peru, Romania, Russia, Senegal,

Sudan, Turkey, United States, and Zimbabwe. Terms for Committee 

membership are of four years; the U.S. term will end on December 31, 2006. 

Sessions were held May 5–23 and December 15–29. 

The United States maintained close working relationships with other 

democracies, discussing the candidates as well as the procedures with them.

Despite an increase in the pace of the Committee’s work over the past two 

years, the annual output remained far below the annual number of new

applicants, causing the backlog of applications to build up. The Committee 

accredited 57 NGOs in the main session, and 53 in the resumed session. The

United States will continue to work with like-minded countries on the 

Committee and in ECOSOC to accelerate the vetting process. 

Some countries with undemocratic governments remained suspicious 

of human rights groups, and in some cases, launched politically motivated 

campaigns against organizations. Cuba succeeded in obtaining a one-year

suspension of French NGO Reporters Without Borders, Libya unsuccessfully 

requested the suspension of the Simon Wiesenthal Center, and Vietnam 

requested a suspension of the Transnational Radical Party, but consideration of

the request was deferred to 2004. Undemocratic countries also repeatedly

77 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2003 

requested additional information of NGOs which delayed accreditation. On 

occasion, geo-political disputes, such as between India and Pakistan, spilled 

over into the Committee, causing countries to block each other’s candidates. 

On the positive side, the U.S. delegation played an active supporting 

role with regard to well-known and respected NGOs from the United States 

that sought accreditation. Success included the positive decisions given by the 

Committee to the Heritage Foundation and Focus on the Family. The United 

States sought the suspension of Tupac Amaru, but consideration was deferred 

until 2004. 

In 2002, the Committee agreed to create an outreach tool, called the 

UN NGO Informal Regional Network (IRENE). In 2003, IRENE published a 

newsletter and organized workshops for NGOs in developing countries to

enable them to learn more about ECOSOC and the accreditation process.

78 
Part 3 

Specialized Agencies and Other Bodies 

Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) 

The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), established in 1945,

is a UN specialized agency that provides global data and expertise on

agriculture and nutrition, fisheries, forestry, and other food and agriculturerelated issues. FAO is the UN system’s largest autonomous agency, with 

headquarters in Rome, 78 country offices, and 15 regional, sub-regional, and

liaison offices, including one located in Washington, D.C.

Jacques Diouf (Senegal), Director-General of FAO, is serving his

second six-year term. FAO’s highest policy-making body, the biennial

General Conference, comprises all 187 FAO member countries plus the 

European Commission. The General Conference determines FAO policy and 

approves FAO’s regular program of work and budget. Each biennial

Conference elects a 49-member Council that meets at least three times 

between regular Conference sessions to make recommendations to the General

Conference on budget and policy issues. The North America region, which 

comprises the United States and Canada, is allocated two seats on the Council 

and one seat each on FAO’s Program, Finance, and Constitutional and Legal

Matters (CCLM) Committees. Through December 2005, the United States 

holds the North American seat on the Finance and Joint Staff Pension

Committees; Canada holds the North American seat on the CCLM and

Program Committees. 

The 32nd Conference, which met in November, addressed several

critical institutional questions. The Conference agreed by a vote of 105 to 0,

with 1 abstention (Botswana) to amend FAO Basic Texts to reinstate term

limits for the Director-General position, implementing a key reform priority of

the United States and other major contributors. 

It adopted by consensus a $749 million program of work and budget

for the 2004–2005 biennium. The U.S. annual assessment of 22 percent will

amount to approximately $83.3 million in 2004 and 2005. FAO had three 

successive biennia of zero nominal growth (ZNG) budgets between 1996 and

2001 and a minimal zero real growth budget increase in 2002–2003. 

However, inflation and the steep decline of the dollar combined to rule out a 

ZNG scenario. 

To help protect FAO against exchange rate fluctuations after a budget

has been approved, the 32nd Conference adopted a “split assessment” 

mechanism that will assess contributions partly in dollars and partly in euros. 

The methodology adopted by the Conference for applying split assessments to 

partial payments and to the treatment of arrears was in line with the U.S. 

request for a simple and transparent formula. 

79 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2003 

The 32nd Conference also agreed to a new methodology for equitable

geographic distribution of professional staff, modeled after the method

employed by the UN Secretariat; enlargement of the Finance Committee to 11

members, thereby ensuring a seat for the number-two donor, Japan; and

admission of four new members (East Timor, the Federated States of

Micronesia, Tuvalu, and Ukraine). 

The Conference re-elected Ambassador Aziz Mekouar (Morocco) as

Independent Chair of the FAO Council (through 2005); re-elected the United 

States and Canada as Council members for the North American region

(through 2007); and elected the U.S. Alternate Permanent Representative as

alternate member of the Staff Pension Committee (2005–2007). The 125th

Council, which immediately followed the Conference, elected the U.S. Deputy 

Permanent Representative to the Finance Committee (through 2005). 

In addition to institutional issues, the Conference addressed 

significant substantive matters. It endorsed an improved reporting mechanism

to track countries’ efforts to meet World Food Summit goals, which was a 

U.S. initiative. It approved a resolution calling for intensified efforts against 

illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing. It also approved a cooperation

agreement between the FAO and the International Organization of Epizootics. 

In 2003, the United States continued to stress more efficient use of

FAO resources and greater program effectiveness. The United States 

welcomed the 2002 report of the Joint Inspection Unit, which contained a 

number of recommendations for improvement in the areas of results-based

management, field presence, and human resource management. While

acknowledging several management improvements, the report nevertheless 

recommended, among other things, that FAO continue to link activities to 

overall strategic objectives; that regional and country representatives 

strengthen communication with each other and with senior management; and

that FAO field representatives be selected in an open and fair process.

Currently, the Director-General chooses them directly. 

FAO’s institutional knowledge is an important asset for U.S. 

agricultural, economic, and humanitarian interests. The United States draws 

upon FAO expertise in farming and natural resources, as well as in its

agricultural and livestock response capabilities in pest outbreaks, natural

disasters, and other emergencies. FAO programs to monitor and control desert

locusts and to eradicate Rinderpest, a highly infectious viral disease that can 

destroy entire populations of cattle and buffalo, are also useful to the United

States. 

In the aftermath of natural disasters and other crises, FAO serves as

the agency within the UN system that provides agricultural inputs (e.g., seeds, 

tools, fertilizers, etc.); assists in crop protection and livestock replenishment;

reactivates veterinary and other agricultural services; repairs irrigation

infrastructure; and provides technical expertise to protect and restore 

agriculture-based livelihoods and lessen dependence on food aid. In 2003,

FAO delivered $211 million in emergency assistance to several countries, 

80 
Specialized Agencies and Other Bodies

including Iraq, Afghanistan, countries in the Great Lakes and southern Africa

regions, Angola, and Sudan. FAO’s emergency programs are funded almost 

entirely from voluntary donor contributions. 

Of particular importance to the United States are internationally 

recognized standards for food safety and plant health developed by the joint

FAO/World Health Organization (WHO) Codex Alimentarius Commission

and the Interim Commission on Phytosanitary Measures (ICPM) of the 

International Plant Protection Convention. The work of these bodies aims to

facilitate trade and protect consumers in developed and developing countries. 

The United States worked with other countries in the FAO policy-making

bodies to ensure greater financial support from the overall FAO budget for

Codex and ICPM. The United States also supported a management

assessment of the FAO/WHO Codex Alimentarius Commission, with a view

to improving the work of Codex and assuring adequate financial support.

The United States participated in the Inter-Governmental Working 

Group for the “Elaboration of Voluntary Guidelines to Support Member

States’ Efforts to Achieve the Progressive Realization of the Right to 

Adequate Food in the Context of National Food Security.” The Working

Group was established as a result of the World Food Summit: Five Years

Later, which met in 2002. Although the United States had opposed creating

the Group, it participated actively in the negotiations and serves on the InterGovernmental Working Group Bureau. The United States emphasized the 

Voluntary Guidelines would be most useful if they focused on practical steps 

to achieve national food security and if they integrated government, nongovernmental organization, and private sector efforts. The mandate for this

exercise anticipates completion by September 2004. 

FAO is funded through contributions of its members, based on the

UN regular assessment scale, and from extra-budgetary activities carried out

with other international organizations, financial institutions, and bilateral

donors. In 2003, the U.S. assessment of 22 percent totaled $72.5 million.

As of the end of 2003, FAO employed 3,897 staff, with almost equal

numbers at FAO headquarters in Rome and in developing countries. FAO 

employed 1,057 staff in posts subject to geographic distribution, of which 136,

or about 12.9 percent, were American citizens. FAO’s hiring rate for 

Americans in 2003 (18.8 percent) reflected a noticeable improvement over 

previous years. Also, at the insistence of the United States, the FAO is

developing an action plan to improve recruitment from non- and underrepresented member nations and has been asked to report on the same in 2004.

In 2003, U.S. citizens held the two senior positions of Deputy DirectorGeneral and Assistant Director-General. 

International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) 

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), established in 

1957, serves core U.S. interests in national security, counter terrorism, and 

nuclear nonproliferation by implementing safeguards systems, programs for

81 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2003 

physical protection of nuclear material, and nuclear safety programs. In 2003,

IAEA membership included 137 countries. The 35-member Board of

Governors, where the United States holds a de facto permanent seat, is 

responsible for directing and overseeing the Agency’s policies and program

implementation. The Board meets in Vienna five times, in March, June, twice 

in September, and November. The General Conference, attended by all 

members in September, carries out broad oversight of the IAEA’s work by

approving the recommendations and decisions of the Board. The fourth

Director-General of the IAEA, Mohamed ElBaradei (Egypt), assumed office 

on December 1, 1997. He was elected to a second four-year term at the

General Conference in September 2001. 

Over the years, IAEA’s nuclear safeguards responsibilities have

steadily increased. Since 1985, the number of countries accepting IAEA’s

safeguards requirements has grown from 129 to 184. The IAEA’s safeguards

system was additionally strengthened in 1997 when the IAEA Board approved

an additional protocol, providing the IAEA with more information about, and 

greater access to, nations’ nuclear related activities, especially when

implemented in a non-nuclear weapons state. The new safeguards measures 

called for in the Model Protocol, which provides the basis for each country’s

Additional Protocol, give the IAEA important tools to uncover clandestine 

nuclear activities. In 2003, the United States led the way in obtaining a budget 

increase for the IAEA safeguards inspection system to cover these added 

responsibilities. 

In conjunction with U.S. leadership on safeguards development, U.S.

preparations for ratification of its own Additional Protocol advanced

significantly in 2003. A central goal of President Bush’s nuclear nonproliferation policy was to promote universal adoption of the Model Protocol.

The United States is the only nuclear weapon state to have accepted the Model

Additional Protocol, providing a level of transparency in its peaceful nuclear 

program far greater than any other nuclear weapon state. 

As the number of states acceding to IAEA safeguards has increased, 

the number and complexity of nuclear facilities subject to safeguards have also 

grown. Most states abide by their commitments to the IAEA and the Nuclear 

Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), but the IAEA safeguards system must also 

deal with those few who do not. Iraq, North Korea (DPRK), Iran, and Libya 

were named as violating their commitments and conducting clandestine 

activities to divert nuclear material. 

In 2003, the United States led a coalition of countries to enforce a 

unanimous UN Security Council resolution (1441) that gave Iraq a final

chance to come clean on its weapons of mass destruction. “Operation Iraqi

Freedom” began on March 19. In June, the IAEA undertook an inspection at

the Baghdad Yellowcake Storage Facility at the invitation of the Coalition

Provisional Authority. The media reported looting in some areas of the

Tuwaitha complex, and the IAEA acted pursuant to Iraq’s NPT safeguards 

agreement with the IAEA. The IAEA reported that virtually all material

82 
Specialized Agencies and Other Bodies

subject to safeguards had been fully accounted for; a miniscule amount of 

missing material posed no proliferation risk in light of the type and quantity of

uranium compounds in question. By the end of 2003, Iraq was in a position to

comply fully with its NPT obligations. 

North Korea escalated its nuclear brinksmanship early in 2003,

announcing its withdrawal from the NPT having expelled IAEA inspectors in

December 2002. On February 12, 2003, the IAEA Board of Governors found 

the DPRK in further violation of its IAEA safeguards agreement and reported

this noncompliance to the UN Security Council. The United States sought a

peaceful and diplomatic resolution to the situation through Six-Party Talks 

with China, Japan, North Korea, South Korea, and Russia. Meanwhile, the

IAEA continued to press for DPRK compliance with its safeguards agreement, 

and to prepare for inspections to support any diplomatic solution that might be

achieved. 

In Iran, the IAEA undertook an extensive investigation in response to 

public revelations in 2002 about clandestine Iranian nuclear activities. In 

2003, the IAEA pursued safeguards questions raised by Iran’s newly declared

nuclear facilities, activities, and materials. In a September 2003 resolution, the 

IAEA Board of Governors required Iran to take a number of essential and 

urgent steps to provide cooperation and full transparency to allow the Agency

to assure member states that Iran had not diverted nuclear material to

weapons-related purposes. The United States worked intensively with other 

members of the IAEA Board of Governors to ensure an appropriate and 

effective response, reflecting strong U.S. concerns about Iran’s past

noncompliance and the international community’s commitment to preserve

and strengthen the NPT. As a result of the firm position taken by the Board

and pressure from a number of key governments, Iran indicated a grudging

willingness to settle the outstanding IAEA issues. The IAEA Board’s 

November resolution stated that it considered it essential that Iran’s 

declarations, submitted in October, amounted to the “correct, complete, and 

final picture” of Iran’s past and present nuclear program. Since that time, 

however, Iran’s declarations were demonstrated to be incomplete. 

The November resolution also noted Iran’s decision to conclude an

Additional Protocol—which it signed on December 18—and urged Iran to 

move swiftly to ratify the Additional Protocol and to act as if the Protocol

were already in force. It welcomed Iran’s decision to suspend “all enrichment 

related and reprocessing activities.” Finally, the resolution called for Iran’s 

continued full cooperation with the IAEA and confirmed that should further 

serious Iranian failures come to light in the Director-General’s reports, the

IAEA Board would reconvene to consider “all options at its disposal,” 

including a possible report to the UN Security Council. During the year, most

of Iran’s admissions were made only after the IAEA discovered discrepancies,

and the IAEA’s verification efforts were ongoing. On December 29, Iran 

informed the IAEA Secretariat of the scope of its suspension of enrichment 

and reprocessing activities, which fell far short of its original promise, and at

the end of the year, it had made no moves to ratify the Additional Protocol. 

83 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2003 

In contrast, in the fall of 2003, Libya voluntarily disclosed an active

nuclear weapons program in violation of its nuclear nonproliferation

obligations. On December 19, after nine months of trilateral negotiations with 

the United States and the United Kingdom, Libya announced its intention to

rid itself of materials, equipment, and facilities that could lead to a nuclear 

weapons capability. It agreed to abide by the Non-Proliferation Treaty and its 

IAEA safeguards agreement, and to accept the Additional Protocol. After this 

historic announcement, IAEA Director-General ElBaradei traveled to Tripoli 

to meet with Libyan leader Qadhafi and other senior officials on December 29 

to “kickstart a process of verification” of Libya’s nuclear weapons program.

During this visit, inspectors visited a number of previously undeclared sites, 

and Libya agreed to act as if the Additional Protocol were in force. The IAEA 

determined to begin more comprehensive verification work in January 2004.

The United States believes it is important that all NPT non-nuclear 

weapon states adopt the stronger safeguards provisions included in the 

Additional Protocol. As of December 2003, 79 states had signed the

Additional Protocol, but only 38 had ratified and brought it into force. This 

number is expected to jump dramatically as the European Union nations are 

likely to bring their Protocols into force simultaneously in April 2004. 

The United States continued to work closely with the IAEA and other 

IAEA member states to support the continued evolution of a technically sound

and effective safeguards system, to improve the effectiveness of the IAEA in

ferreting out violators of safeguards commitments, and to ensure that the 

IAEA had the financial and human resources needed to accomplish these 

goals. The “Integrated Safeguards System,” which combined the new

Additional Protocol measures with those of traditional safeguards on declared 

facilities, moved from conceptual development to practical implementation.

The IAEA also moved to strengthen safeguards at uranium conversion

facilities and centrifuge plants and completed the installation of a new 

generation of highly reliable digital surveillance systems. 

The IAEA continued to provide guidance, technical support, and 

training programs in the prevention of nuclear terrorism in 2003. The United

States is a primary supporter of the IAEA training programs in physical 

protection and nuclear security, having developed the training curricula and

presented the courses and workshops on behalf of the Agency in many

countries, including Armenia, the Czech Republic, and South Africa. While 

teaching the principles and techniques of physical protection, illicit trafficking, 

and other subject areas, these courses do not reveal operational data and are 

carefully screened to ensure that they do not contain classified, exportcontrolled, or other sensitive information that could be of potential use to 

terrorists. 

Under the IAEA’s Nuclear Security Action Plan, the Agency

accelerated its activities to deter, prevent, and respond to illicit activities 

involving nuclear and other radiological materials and facilities. Activities

included the development of standards, guidelines and recommendations, and

84 
Specialized Agencies and Other Bodies

the provision of training, expertise, and advisory services to any states

requesting assistance. As of December 2003, 22 member states and one

nongovernmental organization had pledged $27.4 million to the Nuclear

Security Action Plan. The United States had pledged nearly $19 million of

this total, an increase of over $10 million from 2002, and continued to

encourage member states to recognize that all nations face the threat of nuclear 

terrorism and would benefit from the assistance provided by the Agency. 

In recent years, the IAEA implemented activities to prevent nuclear 

terrorism by increasing the number of missions undertaken by the International

Physical Protection Advisory Service (IPPAS), a multi-national team of

physical protection experts who provide an assessment of the regulatory

framework and protection of nuclear materials in a country. A strong backer 

of the IPPAS in 2003, the United States participated in IPPAS missions to

Armenia, Chile, Mexico, Norway, Peru, Turkey, and Ukraine. 

In 2003, the IAEA also created a new and more encompassing 

International Nuclear Security Advisory Service (INSServ) to help states 

evaluate and strengthen their overall nuclear security posture to include

radioactive sources and border controls. INSServ teams utilized IAEA 

guidance documents to assist states in developing plans and programs that are 

effective, efficient, and consistent with internationally recognized guidance 

and practices. The IAEA, supported by experts from member states, has 

conducted INSServ missions to Azerbaijan, the Democratic Republic of the 

Congo, the Philippines, Tanzania, Uganda, and Uzbekistan. These missions 

helped increase protection of research reactors and radiological sources and 

recommended improvement in the control of radioactive material seized by 

law enforcement authorities. 

The IAEA Board of Governors made substantial strides in the 

security of radioactive sources such as research reactors when it approved the

revised Code of Conduct on the Safety and Security of Radioactive Sources in

September. The United States supported the IAEA’s Model Project, which

promoted the development of domestic infrastructures for the long-term

management of radioactive sources and efforts through the Nuclear Security

Action Plan to consolidate and protect vulnerable and orphan sources. At the

IAEA’s International Conference on Security of Radioactive Sources in 

March, U.S. Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham unveiled a new Radiological

Security Partnership (RSP). In cooperation with the IAEA’s Office of Nuclear 

Security, the RSP will help countries accelerate national initiatives to track

high-risk radioactive sources; expand efforts to countries both inside and 

outside the former Soviet Union, with an emphasis on enhancing the security

of high-risk vulnerable sources; and improve efforts to interdict illicit

trafficking and shipping hubs. 

The United States also continued to play a key role in the effort to 

amend the Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material and 

Facilities (CPPNM). This amendment would expand the Convention’s scope 

to address the physical protection of nuclear materials in domestic use, storage 

85 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2003 

and transport, and the protection of nuclear facilities from sabotage. The 

drafting group, which included the United States, convened by the IAEA 

Director-General finished its work in March with a set of possible 

amendments to the CPPNM. States party to the Convention consulted each 

other to prepare a revision proposal from this set.

Finally, the IAEA continued its leadership role in strengthening

international nuclear safety practices and standards. The IAEA Department of

Nuclear Safety and Security formulates and implements the IAEA’s program 

on nuclear safety to fulfill statutory requirements, in cooperation with other 

departments within the IAEA, including the Department of Technical

Cooperation (TC Department). As is the case with other IAEA programs, the 

United States was an active participant in and supporter of efforts to enhance 

nuclear safety in all member states. During 2003, the United States allocated 

funds for priority nuclear safety-related projects. These projects included 

upgrading the Regulatory Authority Information System, which addresses

states’ need for a radioactive source inventory management system, and the

formation of the IAEA International Expert Group on Nuclear Liability. This 

group will promote a global civil nuclear liability regime based on conventions 

adopted in 1997 (i.e., the Convention on Supplementary Compensation for 

Nuclear Damage and the Revised Vienna Convention), which will help

member states develop and strengthen their national nuclear legal frameworks. 

The United States continued to recognize the need for a robust

international response system for radiological emergencies, including

procedures and hardware in place to address accidents and malicious uses of 

radioactive materials, providing $200,000 for this purpose. 

The IAEA remained active throughout 2003 in fostering international 

cooperation for the peaceful uses of nuclear technologies and works “to

accelerate and enlarge the contribution of atomic energy to peace, health, and 

prosperity throughout the world.” The IAEA implemented a broad program of 

technical cooperation with over 90 of its member states. This program was

designed to complement and promote the development objectives in recipient

states, with particular attention to the least developed countries. Through

projects in the areas of medical applications, agriculture, basic industry, 

hydrology, and the environment, the IAEA sought to expand the contribution

of nuclear applications to the quality of human life worldwide. 

As in previous years, the IAEA continued to face expanding

safeguards requirements, due to the increasing numbers of facilities and the 

need to effectively implement its strengthened mandate. In 2003, the United

States led a successful effort to address the shortfall between the growing 

resources required to implement safeguards program and the flat resources 

available in the regular budget. In July, the IAEA Board of Governors 

approved a significant real increase in the safeguards budget for the first time

in two decades. It approved a $25.1 million real increase in the Agency’s 

overall budget, to be phased in over four years (2004–2007). The bulk of this 

increase ($19.4 million) will go to safeguards. This increase is front-loaded—

86 
Specialized Agencies and Other Bodies

in 2004, $11.1 million will be allocated to safeguards—in order to meet the

most urgent needs, particularly for staff, in the first year. To achieve this

result, high-level U.S. officials repeatedly pressed other IAEA member states 

to support such an increase. 

The IAEA regular budget for 2003 was $249 million, of which $242

million was assessed to member states. The United States was assessed 

approximately 25.8 percent of this amount, about $62.5 million. The United 

States remained the largest single contributor of voluntary support to the 

IAEA, contributing $53 million to support the Technical Cooperation Fund, 

technical assistance to safeguards, cost-free experts, in-country technical

projects, U.S.-hosted training courses and fellowships, as well as nuclear 

safety and security projects. The IAEA is highly dependent on extrabudgetary funding for many activities, particularly research and development

and equipment. In 2003, the IAEA received over $20.9 million in extra

budgetary funds for safeguards, representing roughly 18.7 percent of

safeguards program funds. 

In recent years, the United States has been disappointed by the

decline in U.S. representation in the IAEA Secretariat. The United States

worked to inform potential candidates in the academic community, private

sector, and federal agencies about employment opportunities and benefits in

the IAEA. Some limited progress was made, as the United States gained 

seven new positions in 2003. Americans held 92 of the 746 positions that are 

subject to its geographical distribution guidelines, or 12.3 percent. The United 

States will continue to work with the IAEA to increase U.S. representation in 

the Agency to appropriate levels. 

International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) 

Established in 1944 and designated a UN specialized technical

agency in 1947, the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) fosters 

the safe and orderly growth of international civil aviation. It sets international

standards and recommended practices for civil aviation, and offers technical 

assistance to enhance aviation safety and security worldwide. The United 

States strongly supports the work of ICAO. 

ICAO has 188 members. The United States has consistently been 

elected to the ICAO Council, which increased from 33 to 36 seats in 

November 2002. The ICAO Council elected Dr. Taïeb Chérif (Algeria) as the 

new Secretary-General for a three-year term, beginning August 1, 2003. Dr. 

Assad Kotaite (Lebanon) continues as President of the Council of ICAO, a 

post he has held since 1976. 

Following the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks in the United

States, ICAO developed an “Aviation Security Plan of Action” to strengthen 

aviation security worldwide. The plan adopted various U.S. proposals to

enhance security, including hardened cockpit doors, new flight crew 

procedures, and the establishment of a program to audit states’ compliance

with ICAO security standards. To assist in implementation, ICAO developed 

87 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2003 

in 2003 seven aviation security-training packages and a global network of 10

aviation security-training centers. ICAO also established a voluntary funding 

mechanism to support the Universal Security Audit Program and to assist

countries in aviation security implementation and cooperation. In 2003, ICAO

conducted security audits in 20 countries. It plans to audit another 40 countries 

in 2004. 

Also in 2003, ICAO announced a global, harmonized blueprint for the

integration of biometric identification information into passports, visas, and

other Machine Readable Travel Documents (MRTDs). The increased use of 

biometric-enhanced MRTDs will lead to speedier passage of travelers through 

airport controls, heightened aviation security, and added protection against 

identity theft. The Technical Advisory Group on Machine Readable Travel

Documents (TAG-MRTD) selected facial recognition as the globally

interoperable biometric. This choice will make possible rapid comparison, 

either one-to-one verification with the person and document, or identification 

of a bearer against a watch list. ICAO also selected high-capacity integrated

circuit chips to store identification information in MRTDs. The ICAO

blueprint, set out in technical reports and specifications, will help all 188

member states implement a worldwide, standardized system to verify the 

identity of travelers.

The TAG-MRTD also adopted a set of recommended practices on

passport issuance security as an informative annex to the global standards.

This paper was adopted as a template for improving document security with

the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe and other individual

governments committed to comply with it by December 2004. Adhering to

the practices will make it much more difficult for persons not so entitled to 

obtain a passport. 

The Montreal Convention of 1999 came into force on November 4, 

2003, after the United States became the 30th state to deposit an instrument of

ratification on September 5. The Montreal Convention replaced the antiquated 

1929 Warsaw Convention System on compensation in cases of international

air accidents. The new Convention consolidated the 75-year-old system of

international instruments of private international law into one legal instrument. 

The Montreal Convention eliminated arbitrary limitations on airline

liability in the event of death or bodily injury of a passenger. It also expands

in most cases the basis for jurisdiction of claims, enabling lawsuits on

behalf of U.S. accident victims abroad to be filed in the United States. 

Regarding air navigation, ICAO’s 11th Air Navigation Conference in

October endorsed an operational concept for the development of a globally

harmonized and seamless air navigation system that will enhance aviation

safety, reduce airport and airspace congestion, improve passenger convenience

in terms of fewer delays and shorter flight times, and lessen the impact of

aviation on the environment. Implementation over the next 25 years and

beyond will ensure optimum efficiency of the global air traffic management

system. This development will prove essential as demand for airspace 

88 
Specialized Agencies and Other Bodies

capacity increases in the coming years, with expected continued recovery and 

growth in the air transport industry. ICAO’s 2003 forecast predicted that

world airline passenger traffic would grow by 4.4 percent in 2004 and 6.3

percent in 2005, with long-term growth at an average annual rate of around 4 

percent.

A strong global consensus framework for the economic liberalization 

of the air transportation industry emerged from ICAO’s Worldwide Air 

Transport Conference: “Challenges and Opportunities of Liberalization” held 

in March. Some 800 participants from 145 ICAO Contracting States and 29

organizations concluded the Conference by approving by acclamation a 

Declaration of Global Principles. On the central question of air carrier

ownership and control, the Conference recommended that air carrier

designation and authorization for market access be liberalized, at each 

country’s pace and discretion. (Note: Designation means that an airline is

allowed to fly on certain routes; authorization means an airline is authorized to

do business in certain markets. An airline can be authorized but may not have

a route or gate slot.) Countries may take positive approaches to accept

designated foreign carriers that might not meet either traditional national 

ownership and control criteria or the criteria of “principal place of business 

and effective regulatory control.” The Conference also agreed that states 

should consider liberalizing the regulatory treatment of international air cargo 

operations on an accelerated basis. 

ICAO developed a set of protective measures for use at international 

airports to prevent the spread of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS)

based on guidelines of the World Health Organization. These measures are

aimed at dealing effectively with other contagious diseases. The measures 

consist of specific procedures for screening passengers at departure and on

arrival and also for screening airport workers. ICAO developed guidance on

handling suspected SARS cases on board aircraft and at destination. Upon 

request, ICAO can make available a team of experts to evaluate the

implementation by airports of the recommended measures, through the 

organization’s Technical Cooperation Bureau. If such an evaluation confirms

that an airport has taken all necessary steps to protect against SARS, a

“Statement of Evaluation” will be issued, certifying that the airport fully 

complies with recommended protective measures. 

The Convention on International Interest in Mobile Equipment and its

Protocol on Aircraft, which were adopted on November 16, 2001, at a

Diplomatic Conference in Cape Town, South Africa, came into force in

December. The Convention and Protocol provide for an international

registration system for aircraft to reduce the risk associated with aircraft sales.

The system would clarify and strengthen the rights of parties who have an

interest in the equipment (such as owners of the aircraft, financiers of aircraft

construction, and lien holders), and lower the cost of financing, which should

allow for lower interest rates and more sales. The United States supported the 

Convention, but had not signed it by the end of the year. 

89 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2003 

ICAO assessments are based on both economic factors and relative 

importance in civil aviation, as measured by mileage flown, with a maximum 

rate of 25 percent. Member assessments for the 2003 ICAO budget totaled

$50.5 million. The U.S. share in 2003 was $12.6 million, or 25 percent of the

assessed budget. In 2003, the U.S. Government provided $1.7 million in

voluntary financial contributions. 

U.S. citizens were under-represented at ICAO in 2003, with 

Americans occupying only 11 of 208 (5.3 percent) professional positions. In

addition, several U.S. experts worked on detail on the ICAO staff, including

in the area of aviation security programs. At the end of 2003, ICAO employed

a total of 739 staff.

International Fund for Agricultural Development 

(IFAD) 

The International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) was 

established in 1977 as an outcome of the 1974 World Food Conference. It is a 

multilateral financial institution that promotes rural agricultural development

in poorer countries. Nearly 75 percent of the world’s 1.2 billion poorest 

people live in rural areas, largely as small-scale producers and subsistence

farmers. IFAD’s specific mandate is to increase their productivity and 

incomes, improve their nutritional levels, and help integrate them into larger 

markets by designing and funding innovative and appropriately scaled

programs. Programs include rural institution building (such as farmers’ 

cooperatives and women’s associations) and micro-financing projects. 

IFAD’s management submits proposals to the Executive Board. The Board 

has full authority to decide on its program of work, approve projects, 

programs, and grants, and to adopt or recommend action, pending the final

approval of the Governing Council. IFAD is the only multilateral 

development bank (MDB) that devotes all its resources to combating rural

poverty. 

The Fund’s highest authority is the Governing Council, on which all 

163 member countries are represented. The Executive Board, which has 18 

members (including the United States), is responsible for the conduct of

general operations of the Fund. The President, who is elected by the Council, 

is the Fund’s chief executive officer. Lennart Båge (Sweden), the current

President and the first President from a developed country, was elected in 

February 2001. His term expires in 2005. 

The United States is IFAD’s largest shareholder, with 9 percent of the

Governing Council votes, followed by Saudi Arabia with 5.27 percent, Japan

with 4.15 percent, Germany with 4 percent, and France with 3.11 percent. 

To date, IFAD has financed over 653 projects in 116 countries for

total commitments of approximately $8.1 billion. These projects usually 

address such needs as agriculture and livestock development, micro-enterprise

and rural finance, natural resource management, local capacity building, and 

gender mainstreaming. 

90 
Specialized Agencies and Other Bodies

Commitments for new projects in 2003 totaled $404 million for 25

loans averaging approximately $16.16 million each. Examples of recent loans

to governments designed to increase growth, improve productivity, and reduce 

poverty through a variety of means include: 

• A $7.3 million loan to Turkey to help increase agricultural productivity

and income levels, expand rural employment opportunities, strengthen 

institutions directly related to the rural poor, and improve living 

conditions of the poor, especially women. 

• A $21.7 million loan to Pakistan for diversifying rural household

economies that are dependent on forestry and agriculture, strengthening

community organizations, and developing a savings and credit system to

promote sustainable income-generating activities and micro enterprises. 

• A $15.5 million loan to Cambodia to reduce poverty among 120,600

households through intensified and diversified crop and livestock

production and to strengthen local community groups and other service 

providers for the rural poor. 

• A $10.7 million loan to Sierra Leone for post-conflict reconstruction in

areas hardest hit by the war. The project aimed to improve the livelihoods 

of the most vulnerable rural households, especially those headed by

women. 

• A $30 million loan to Guatemala to reduce poverty levels and address 

discrimination suffered by the poorest indigenous and non-indigenous

groups by focusing on local participation, enhancing market and rural

businesses, improving rural technical services, and strengthening the 

institutional capacity of the Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and

Nutrition.

At the request of the U.S. Agency for International Development, the

Treasury Department assumed lead agency responsibility for IFAD in

February 2000. In December 2002, the Treasury Department concluded 

negotiations on IFAD’s Sixth Replenishment (IFAD-6), which covers 2004–

2006. The target level for donor contributions to the Sixth Replenishment was

set at $560 million. With its pledge of $45 million, the United States is the 

largest contributor to IFAD-6. 

At IFAD-6, the United States achieved key policy reform objectives 

consistent with the Administration’s overall goal of improving MDB 

performance:

• Performance-Based Allocation: In 2003, the Board approved a 

performance-based allocation system framework and methodology.

Countries with sound policy frameworks for rural poverty reduction and

good governance can receive resource allocations in line with their 

demonstrated ability to use the resources effectively. Higher performing

countries will receive higher allocations than lower performers. 

• Results Measurement: In December 2003, the Board approved a

framework for measuring and quantifying the results and impacts of its

91 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2003 

projects. Guidelines identify lessons learned and aggregate results by

major categories of projects across the organization, to be reported to the

Board on an annual basis, commencing in April 2005.

• Grants: The Board approved in December a new policy paper proposing 

to raise grants to 10 percent of IFAD’s total annual work program,

beginning in 2004. Grants will be required to meet the same standards as 

loans for results measurement and evaluation. 

• Independent Evaluation Office: The Board approved a new Evaluation 

Policy in April 2003 to establish an independent evaluation office. The 

Office of Evaluation (OE) is accountable directly to the Executive Board. 

The OE head can be appointed and dismissed only with Board approval. 

The Office will provide all evaluation reports directly to the Board

without clearance by management. 

• External Evaluation of IFAD: In 2003, the Board approved the terms of 

reference for an outside firm to do an independent evaluation of IFAD’s

effectiveness in achieving its objectives. With financial support provided

by the IFAD budget and special contributions from donors, the OE

launched international competitive bidding and selected a service provider 

to do the evaluation of bids. Work will begin in early 2004. 

• Private Sector Strategy: The Board began work in 2003 on a strategy for

achieving greater involvement of the private sector in IFAD programs, 

through co-financing and other forms of partnership consistent with

IFAD’s mission. 

• MDB Coordination: The Board expanded the scope of its partnershipbuilding initiatives. In 2003, IFAD and the Inter-American Development

Bank signed a memorandum of understanding to create a Multi-Donor 

Program for the Eradication of Rural Poverty in Latin America and the 

Caribbean. The strategic objectives were to develop joint initiatives, share 

knowledge on innovations, promote the transfer of appropriate 

technology, catalyze rural investment, and monitor and assess progress. 

The U.S. contribution to IFAD in 2003 totaled $14.9 million. At the end 

of 2003, IFAD had a staff of 335, of which 21 were U.S. citizens. 

International Labor Organization (ILO) 

The International Labor Organization (ILO), founded in 1919, is the 

oldest UN specialized agency. Based in Geneva, Switzerland, the ILO has 177 

member states. Juan Somavia (Chile) was elected Director-General of the

International Labor Office in 1998 and re-elected to a second five-year term

that begins in March 2004. Representatives of workers’ and employers’

organizations participate on an equal basis with government representatives on

the Governing Body, the ILO’s executive board, and at the annual 

International Labor Conference (ILC), the ILO’s legislative body. 

As one of the 10 countries of “chief industrial importance,” the

United States has a permanent government seat on the ILO’s 56-member

92 
Specialized Agencies and Other Bodies

Governing Body. In addition, a U.S. worker representative (from the AFLCIO) and a U.S. employer representative (from the U.S. Council for

International Business) each consistently win election to seats on the 

Governing Body. They speak and vote independently of the U.S.

Government. 

The ILO’s activities and programs serve U.S. interests by aiming to 

increase global respect for democracy and human rights. The ILO has helped

advance priority issues in the areas of forced labor, post-September 11 security 

concerns, child labor, child soldiers, HIV/AIDS, and technical assistance for 

key countries and regions such as Iraq, Afghanistan, the Middle East, and

China. 

The ILO focuses international attention on serious abuses of basic 

worker rights and strives for elimination of those abuses. For example, the 

ILO continued its efforts to achieve the elimination of forced labor in Burma,

which an ILO Commission of Inquiry found to be “widespread and 

systematic.” In addition, the Governing Body’s Committee on Freedom of

Association (CFA) in 2003 cited Belarus, Burma, China, Colombia, Cuba, 

Venezuela, and Zimbabwe for violations of trade union rights and the principle

of freedom of association. 

As part of the response to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, 

the United States led efforts at the ILO to develop standards for modern, new

security features in seafarers’ identity documentation. The ILO expedited the

drafting and adopting of new standards at the June 2003 International Labor

Conference on Convention 185, revising the Seafarers’ Identity Documents

Convention adopted in 1958. 

The ILO plays a key role in combating exploitative child labor 

worldwide. At the June 2003 International Labor Conference (ILC), Secretary 

of Labor Elaine Chao highlighted the partnership between the United States 

and the ILO in addressing the problem of child labor. Since 1995, the U.S. 

Department of Labor has contributed more than $200 million to the ILO’s

International Program for the Elimination of Child Labor, including $7 million

in 2003 for the prevention and rehabilitation of child soldiers. 

Since 2000, the Department of Labor has also provided more than

$80 million to the ILO to fund technical cooperation projects and activities in 

the areas of improved economic opportunities for workers, basic labor 

protections, social safety net policies and programs, industrial relations and

workplace-based prevention and education programs on HIV/AIDs. In her 

address to the 2003 ILC, Secretary Chao noted that the Labor Department was

expanding its partnership with the ILO on HIV/AIDS in the workplace. 

The ILO had technical assistance programs in place or under

development in several areas of vital concern to the United States in 2003. 

The ILO engaged Iraqi labor officials in discussions about possible assistance 

in redrafting Iraq’s labor code, enhancing the capabilities of the reformed Iraqi

Ministry of Labor and Social Affairs, and expanding and strengthening

employment services. The ILO also spearheaded technical cooperation 

93 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2003 

programs in Afghanistan, the West Bank, and the Gaza Strip aimed at boosting 

employment, and provided assistance and advice to Gulf Cooperation Council 

states on improving the legal protection of workers. In China, the ILO 

sponsored anti-trafficking programs and began to explore with Chinese

officials cooperation in eliminating forced labor. 

In 2003, the ILO’s regular budget was about $295.3 million. The

U.S. assessment for the ILO was approximately $63 million. 

The ILO had 674 posts subject to geographic distribution in 2003, 97 

of which were held by American citizens (14.4 percent compared with 14.9

percent in 2002, a decline). 

International Maritime Organization (IMO) 

The United States strongly supports the work of the International

Maritime Organization (IMO). The IMO’s principal objectives are to

foster international cooperation on technical matters affecting international 

shipping and to achieve the highest practicable standards for maritime safety

and security. The IMO develops conventions and treaties on international 

shipping, facilitates international maritime trade, and provides technical

assistance in maritime matters to developing countries. It also develops 

standards and practices to protect against oil spills and pollution from

hazardous and noxious cargo and ship waste, ballast, and emissions.

The IMO Assembly and Council govern the IMO. The United States 

has been elected to the 40-member Council ever since the creation of the IMO 

in 1948 and was re-elected in December to an additional two-year term. In 

December, the Assembly confirmed the appointment of Efthimios 

Mitropoulos (Greece) as the new Secretary-General of the IMO for an initial

term of four years. Kiribati joined IMO in 2003, bringing its total

membership to 163 full members and three associate members (Hong Kong, 

Macao, and as of 2003, the Faroe Islands). 

At U.S. urging, maritime security moved to the top of IMO’s 

agenda following the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the United 

States. In 2002, the IMO approved amendments to the International 

Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS) to enhance maritime

security and a complementary International Ship and Port Facility Security 

(ISPS) Code. The United States proposed most of the adopted amendments, 

which parallel U.S. domestic maritime security regulations that were finalized

in 2003. Also at the urging of the United States, the IMO accelerated the 

timetable for the installation of shipboard automatic identification systems

that will aid in identifying ships bound for the United States. 

The SOLAS and ISPS amendments will require ships and port 

facilities to develop and maintain security plans and to designate security

officers to ensure that the plans are fully implemented. These amendments

will require ships to carry documents on their recent activities, ownership, and

control. Finally, they mandate a ship-to-shore system to alert authorities to

security incidents. Most significantly, the IMO standards enable port states to

94 
Specialized Agencies and Other Bodies

verify that ships comply with IMO security regulations and to take appropriate 

measures in response to any deficiencies found, including the denial of port

entry. As a port state, the United States will begin to use this authority in 2004

to enhance its maritime security. The SOLAS amendments and the ISPS Code 

will enter into force on July 1, 2004. The IMO established a trust fund to

provide technical assistance to countries on maritime security. In 2003, the 

United States contributed $100,000 to the fund. 

The sinking of the tanker Prestige off the coast of Spain in 

November 2002 continued to bring renewed calls for more IMO action on the 

issue of oil tanker safety. These concerns prompted a December 2003 IMO

Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC) decision for a revised, 

accelerated phase-out plan for single hull tankers under the International

Convention for the Prevention of Pollution by Ships (MARPOL). The

plan would take effect as early as 2005 for older tankers, along with other

measures including an extended application of the Condition Assessment

Scheme for tankers, and a new regulation banning the carriage of Heavy Grade 

Oil in single-hull tankers in certain circumstances. Members expect the

amendments to enter into force on April 5, 2005. Although the MARPOL

regime is now much more closely aligned to the U.S. phase-out 

schedule contained in the U.S. Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA 90), the 

United States reserved its position on the revisions because important 

differences remained between these MARPOL regulations and OPA 90.

Also in response to the Prestige incident, IMO in 2003 adopted new 

guidelines on places of refuge for ships in need of assistance. The guidelines 

recognize that, when a ship has experienced a problem, the best way of 

preventing damage or pollution from its progressive deterioration is to transfer

its cargo and bunkers and to repair the casualty in a place of refuge. A second 

resolution recommended that all coastal states should establish a maritime

assistance service. 

The Prestige incident had previously led the 49th session of the

MEPC in July to adopt a proposal by several key European countries to

designate in principle the waters off Western Europe as a Particularly 

Sensitive Sea Area (PSSA). To protect this PSSA, the European countries 

indicated they would propose a mandatory ship-reporting scheme for certain

vessels that transit the area. These proposals continued to generate significant 

discussion at IMO regarding the impact of PSSAs on traditional freedoms of 

navigation and consistency with the Law of the Sea Convention. 

The MEPC in July also agreed on a final draft of the proposed

International Convention for the Control and Management of Ships’ Ballast 

Water and Sediments. IMO will hold a diplomatic conference February 9–13, 

2004, to refine and consider adoption of the Convention. The problem of

harmful aquatic organisms in ballast water is largely due to expanded trade 

and traffic volume over the last few decades. The effects in many areas of the

world have been devastating. Quantitative data show the rate of bio-invasions

continues to increase at an alarming rate, in many cases exponentially, and

95 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2003 

new areas are being invaded continuously. It is estimated that about 10 billion

tons of ballast water are transferred globally each year, potentially shifting 

from one location to another species of sea life that may prove ecologically 

harmful when released into a non-native environment. The Convention will

establish global maritime standards for ballast water discharges and associated 

ballast water management practices to control the introduction of aquatic 

invasive species. Special requirements may also apply in certain areas. The

Convention will preserve the rights of Contracting Parties, including the 

United States, to take more stringent measures as a condition of port entry

when necessary. 

The Assembly met in December 2003 and adopted Guidelines on

Ship Recycling, which provide advice to all stakeholders in the recycling 

process, including the administration of shipbuilding and maritime equipmentsupplying countries. The guidelines noted that the process of recycling ships 

makes a positive contribution to the global conservation of energy and

resources and employs a large, if predominantly unskilled, workforce. 

However, the guidelines recognized that working practices and environmental

standards often leave much to be desired. The United States supports further 

development of the guidelines. 

The Assembly, strongly urged by the United States, approved the 

establishment and further development of an audit plan to assess countries’ 

effectiveness in implementing IMO global shipping standards. The proposed 

IMO Member State Audit Scheme will be designed to help promote maritime 

safety, security, and environmental protection by assessing how effectively

member states implement and enforce relevant IMO Convention standards and 

by providing them with feedback and advice on their current performance. 

The audits will initially be voluntary, but are expected ultimately to become

mandatory. 

Assessments to IMO are based chiefly on registered shipping

tonnage. Major open-registry countries (those that register vessels but do not

necessarily own them) are among the largest contributors. Panama,

Liberia, Cyprus, and the Bahamas are some of the major open registry

states that pay large IMO assessments. The United States paid about $1.3

million of IMO’s $35 million budget in 2003. 

At the end of 2003, U.S. citizens held four of the 88 professional staff

positions. 

International Telecommunication Union (ITU) 

Established in 1865 as the International Telegraph Union, the

International Telecommunication Union (ITU) serves as a forum for

governments and the private sector to facilitate the operation of international 

telecommunication networks and services. There are presently 189 member

states and 730 private-sector members. Yoshio Utsumi (Japan), in his second 

four-year term, is Secretary-General. In October 2003, the Geneva-based ITU

held an unprecedented special session to adopt a revised biennial budget

96 
Specialized Agencies and Other Bodies

(2004–2005) and to continue a yearlong review of ITU finances—specifically

its management and budget processes and the financing of the World Summit 

on the Information Society (WSIS), which began at the ITU’s 2002 

Plenipotentiary Conference. The United States supported this review. In

December, the ITU held Phase I of WSIS in Geneva. Phase II of the Summit 

is scheduled to take place in Tunis, Tunisia, in November 2005. 

The 46-member ITU Council, which includes the United States, is 

elected at plenipotentiary conferences, and is comprised of representatives 

from five regions—the Americas, Western Europe, Eastern Europe, Africa,

and Asia. The Council meets annually between plenipotentiary conferences to 

address management and other issues. The 2003 regular session of the ITU

Council had concluded on May 16 without adopting the budget for 2004–

2005. The United States and other Council members expressed serious 

concerns about the lack of clarity and detail in budget documents submitted by

the ITU Secretariat and about the sources of financing for the December

WSIS. The ITU Council subsequently created a Council Oversight Group 

(COG) to work with the Secretary-General and other elected officials to 

develop a budget that might be accepted at the October special session of the

Council. In addition, a Group of Specialists (GOS) under U.S. leadership 

continued to work to implement a series of recommendations it had made on

management of the Union. These efforts were combined in a proposal to the

October special session that the newly revised biennial budget be adopted on a

conditional basis and that an external consultant be hired to make 

recommendations regarding, among other things, the budget processes and 

staffing of the ITU.

During the October meeting, Council members raised questions about 

proposed ITU staff reductions, the apparent decline in revenue from ITU’s

Satellite Network filing cost recovery program, the effect of inflation and 

exchange rate fluctuations, the long-term impact of WSIS on the ITU budget,

and the terms of reference and cost of the proposed external consultant. In the 

end, Council members adopted the 2004–2005 budget as well as the 

recommendations for an external consultant. 

Three preparatory committee (PrepCom) meetings and the December 

WSIS itself absorbed a large amount of the ITU’s staff time and funding in

2003. Determined to complete a “Declaration of Principles” and “Plan of 

Action” agreed to by all 176 participating countries by the beginning of the

Summit, the ITU found it necessary to convene additional meetings in order to

help delegates overcome deep differences over sensitive issues such as

“Internet governance,” intellectual property rights protection, human rights, 

and freedom of expression. Delegates reached consensus on both documents 

on the eve of the Summit. 

WSIS proved to be the largest UN summit ever held, with over

11,000 participants from 176 countries and participation from the private 

sector, civil society, the media, and international organizations. 

Approximately 50 heads of state and government in attendance participated in

97 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2003 

the plenary sessions, high-level roundtables, and other events. Exhibitors 

showcased projects from around the world that showed the use of information

technology to advance economic and social development goals. Dr. John

Marburger, science advisor and Director of the Office of Science and 

Technology Policy for the President, delivered the U.S. policy address to the

third plenary session on December 11. The Summit documents generally

reflected U.S. positions on key issues such as press freedom, freedom of

expression, and the importance of intellectual property protection. However,

the Summit also left open the door to further study of “Internet governance” 

and funding assistance for information and communication technology

development in developing countries. 

The United States has interests in all areas of ITU endeavor. The 

U.S. private sector is notably engaged in the Standardization and

Radiocommunication Sectors. The standardization activities of the ITU are 

indispensable to U.S. governmental and commercial interests to ensure 

worldwide compatibility and interoperability of global networks. The 

Radiocommunication Sector’s World Radiocommunication Conferences 

(WRCs), treaty-level meetings that occur every two to three years, are central 

to U.S. national security and commercial interests. These conferences allocate 

scarce resources, such as frequency bands and orbital slots, to member states, 

which in turn make decisions with respect to their use for radio and other 

services. The 2003 WRC established the global technical, operational, and

regulatory guidelines for the use of frequency spectrum and satellite orbits to 

enable newly emerging radio services to commence efficiently, economically, 

and without disruption to existing services. 

Unlike most other UN agencies, the ITU is funded by a system of 

contributory units (CU) rather than assessed contributions. The U.S. 

contribution to the ITU in 2003 totaled $9.5 million. 

U.S. citizens occupied 17 out of 292 ITU professional posts in 2003.

Given the pre-eminence of the U.S. telecommunication industry worldwide,

this relatively low representation is of concern.

International Trade Center 

The mission of the International Trade Center (ITC) is to boost the

trading capacity of developing countries and economies in transition.

Headquartered in Geneva, it works closely with its parent organizations, the 

World Trade Organization (WTO) and the UN Conference on Trade and 

Development (UNCTAD), to provide trade-related technical assistance to

governments and private sector entities in areas that range from product and 

market development to trade support services, human resource development,

supply management, and trade promotion. It helps developing countries’ 

governments and businesses understand WTO rules and processes, and is the 

sole UN agency dedicated to helping small firms improve their export

capacity. Its main clients are small and medium-sized enterprises of 

developing and transition economies. 

98 
Specialized Agencies and Other Bodies

In 2003, ITC held a series of eight regional consultations during the

run-up to the WTO’s Cancun meeting, which took place in September.

Approximately 600 senior business executives, key government officials, and

trade negotiators from over 100 countries participated in this series. By

bringing together developing country government and business leaders, the

ITC strengthens business engagement and advocacy on trade issues. ITC also 

provided support to small-scale enterprises that seek to boost their exports. 

For example, in 2003, it helped a Bolivian entrepreneur export $1.5 million in

high-priced beans to Brazil and Japan, creating employment for 1,000 families 

of growers. It also helped form three joint ventures between Gambian fishery

companies and a Belgian trader, which resulted in exports worth more than

$200,000. 

In 2003, the United States provided a $500,000 voluntary

contribution to ITC to support its TradeMap project, which is intended to

promote realistic marketing strategies and to boost trade. The United States 

also supports other ITC programs, such as the World Tr@de Net Program and 

its Joint Integrated Technical Assistance Program, which is focused on a select 

group of low income and African states. 

In 2003, ITC’s budget totaled approximately $42 million. Half of the 

budget was paid by the WTO and half by UNCTAD. The total U.S. 

assessment was approximately $9.2 million. 

In 2003 the ITC had 176 staff, of which seven are U.S. citizens, and 

employs 620 consultants. 

UN Educational, Scientific, and Cultural 

Organization (UNESCO) 

The United States rejoined the UN Educational, Scientific, and 

Cultural Organization (UNESCO) on October 1, 2003. UNESCO was 

established in 1945 with the primary objective of contributing to peace and 

security worldwide. By promoting collaboration among nations, UNESCO

strives to further universal respect for justice, the rule of law, human rights, 

and fundamental freedoms. Priority programs foster and defend the free flow

of ideas and open access to education for all; build understanding of 

democratic principles and practice; promote scientific knowledge; and protect

the cultural and natural heritage of humankind. The organization’s total 

membership grew from 188 to 190 sovereign states in 2003, with the addition 

of East Timor and the United States. UNESCO is headquartered in Paris, and

has been led since 1999 by Director-General Koichiro Matsuura (Japan). 

A U.S. delegation attended the UNESCO Executive Board Session in 

Paris on April 6–16 as an observer state. The Board approved by consensus a 

recommendation for a one-time increase of the biennial budget from $544 

million to $610 million for 2004–2005. The Board also decided to

recommend that the General Conference continue to draw up an international

standard-setting instrument on cultural diversity; adopted significant reforms

of the organization’s working methods, in particular discontinuing subsistence

99 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2003 

allowances during the Executive Board sessions for representatives and

alternate representatives residing in Paris; established a working group of 

experts to evaluate ways of improving the functioning of UNESCO’s main

bodies; agreed to sponsor inter-governmental meetings to draft a convention

against doping in sports; and reached consensus on scales of assessment. 

Director-General Matsuura made a series of statements calling for UNESCO 

to play an appropriate role in Iraq within its specific, nonpolitical areas of 

competence. 

In July, the Executive Council of the International Oceanographic 

Commission (IOC) of UNESCO re-elected the United States. In the secret 

ballot election, however, the United States won by only one vote, despite the 

fact that even as an Observer to UNESCO, the United States was the IOC’s 

biggest financial contributor. 

The United States returned to permanent delegation status at

UNESCO on October 1. On September 29, the First Lady addressed the 

UNESCO General Conference, expressing America’s commitment to the

objectives of the organization. She stressed that UNESCO’s highest priority 

should be education, specifying four areas of focus: 1) literacy, 2) quality

education, 3) post-conflict education, and 4) HIV/AIDS education. Mrs. Bush

also presided over the U.S. flag-raising ceremony at UNESCO. According to 

the Director-General, the organization took a “decisive step towards

universality” with the return of the United States. The United States received 

a warm reception from delegates and the UNESCO secretariat staff. 

The United States, with the First Lady, and subsequently Secretary of 

Education Rod Paige as head of delegation, participated in the 32nd General 

Conference of UNESCO that met in Paris from September 29–October 17. 

More than 4,000 participants from 190 nations attended this biennial

conference, including five heads of state, and more than 300 government 

ministers. 

The General Conference approved UNESCO’s Program and Budget 

for 2004–2005, which contained five priority themes: 1) basic education for

all, 2) freshwater resources and ecosystems, 3) science and technology ethics, 

4) cultural diversity and intercultural dialogue promotion, and 5) universal

access to information. The Director-General proposed this budget, which, 

because of the U.S. return to membership, included real-growth increases from 

$544 million for the 2002–2003 biennium to $610 million. Because the 

United States rejoined UNESCO on October 1 of the year, it only owed

approximately $15 million in assessed contributions for the period October 1–

December 31, 2003. The United States succeeded in getting agreement to use 

these funds, which were not factored into UNESCO’s 2002–2003 budget and

program plans, for the following U.S. priorities: rebuilding education systems

in countries emerging from conflict and preservation of cultural artifacts and 

collections. 

At its General Conference, UNESCO achieved first-ever consensus

on resolutions regarding educational and cultural institutions in the occupied

100 
Specialized Agencies and Other Bodies

Arab territories and in Jerusalem. These resolutions achieved agreement on 

sending a technical mission to Jerusalem to make an evaluation of the state of 

conservation of the cultural heritage of the old sector of the city. With regard

to education and culture in the occupied Arab territories, the resolution invited

the Director-General to expand financial assistance for Palestinian students, 

called for a donors meeting to provide additional funds, and invited the 

Director-General to provide educational assistance to the institutions of the 

occupied Syrian Golan Heights. 

The General Conference requested UNESCO to prepare an

international convention on cultural diversity. It defined the term, after a long

debate, as “the protection of the diversity of cultural contents and artistic 

expressions.” The U.S. delegation expressed serious concerns about whether a 

convention was the best means to promote cultural diversity, and noted that 

there had not been sufficient preparation and analysis to begin immediate 

negotiations on a convention text. 

Despite U.S. concerns about treatment of “traditional knowledge,” the 

Conference adopted the International Convention on the Preservation of the 

Intangible Cultural Heritage, an international legal instrument that would 

safeguard intangible heritage, such as oral traditions and expressions,

including language as such a vehicle as well as the performing arts, social 

practices, rituals, and festive events, and knowledge and practices concerning

nature, the universe, and traditional craftsmanship. Member states adopted

this Convention by an overwhelming majority. The United States, along with 

several other industrialized countries, abstained on the final vote because of 

concerns about language governing the relationship of the convention to other 

existing international instruments. 

The General Conference also adopted by acclamation a Declaration 

Concerning the Intentional Destruction of Cultural Heritage. The Declaration 

recalled the Buddha statues destroyed by the Taliban in Afghanistan as an 

illustration of concern about the growing number of acts of intentional

destruction of cultural heritage globally. This non-binding declaration covers 

situations of peace and conflict and includes instances of occupation. The

Conference adopted, by consensus, an International Declaration on Human

Genetic Data, stating that a framework of ethical principles should govern

their collection, processing, storage, and use. The Conference also adopted by 

consensus a Recommendation on the Promotion and Use of Multilingualism 

and Universal Access to Cyberspace. 

The U.S. delegation distanced itself from some resolutions that the 

General Conference adopted. As the Plenary session members adopted

resolutions concerning the so-called Millennium Development Goals program,

the United States asked that the record affirm that it would maintain support of

the goals only if they were correctly identified as “international development

goals adopted in the Millennium Declaration.” Additionally, the United States 

formally disassociated itself from consensus on the Report of the Science 

101 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2003 

Commission owing to references to the Earth Charter, which the United States

noted was not recognized as an internationally agreed-upon document. 

Over 160 ministers took part in Ministerial Roundtables on “Quality

Education” and “Toward Knowledge Societies” at the General Conference. 

Secretary of Education Rod Paige delivered the keynote address at the

Education Roundtable. UNESCO received and supported a report from the

Government of Afghanistan entitled “The Revival and Development of

Education in Afghanistan,” regarding education challenges and

recommendations in that nation. 

During the General Conference, UNESCO member states elected the

United States, now its largest contributor, to serve on the Executive Board. As 

UNESCO’s governing body, the Board consists of 58 member states with

four-year terms of office. It examines the program of work for the

organization and corresponding budget estimates and ensures the effective and

rational execution of the program by the Director-General. The United States

was also elected by member states to the Legal Committee, Intergovernmental

Council of the International Program for the Development of Communication,

and the Intergovernmental Bioethics Committee. 

The United States participated as a member of the UNESCO

Executive Board on October 20 for the first time since its withdrawal. The 

Board elected representatives and set an agenda for future meetings and topics 

to be considered in 2004–2005. Hans-Heinrich Wrede (Germany) was elected 

Chair of the Board. The United States was elected as a Group I representative

for the Committee on Conventions and Recommendations.

Consistent with U.S. practice since 1986, the United States in 2003 

contributed $1.75 million to UNESCO from the International Contributions for 

Scientific, Educational, and Cultural Affairs account. The purpose of the

account is to support UNESCO-related international educational, scientific, 

cultural, and communications activities considered to be in the national 

interest. This grant to UNESCO was used to support the World Heritage

Committee ($450,000); the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission

($500,000); a study by UNESCO’s Internal Oversight Service to determine the 

relevance, effectiveness, sustainability, and added value of UNESCO’s action

in the field of HIV/AIDS education ($170,000); UNESCO science programs

conducted in collaboration with the National Academies of Science and 

Engineering ($500,000); a joint seminar with the U.S. National Commission 

on Libraries and Information Sciences to enhance digital literacy ($75,000); 

and activities that the U.S. Mission to UNESCO agreed will promote U.S. 

priority objectives in areas of scientific standards setting, cultural preservation,

education, and management improvement at UNESCO ($55,000). In addition, 

as mentioned above, the United States paid an assessed contribution of

approximately $15 million in 2003. 

Of 728 positions subject to geographic distribution, Americans held

20 posts, or 2.7 percent. The United States is aggressively promoting the

hiring of qualified Americans by UNESCO. 

102 
Specialized Agencies and Other Bodies

Universal Postal Union (UPU)

The Universal Postal Union (UPU), with headquarters in Bern, 

Switzerland, facilitates international communications by maximizing the 

efficient operation of universal postal services across national borders. The

United States joined the UPU at its founding in 1874. The UPU now has 190 

member states. Thomas E. Leavey (United States) is Director-General. His

term expires in December 2004. Leavey is currently the only American 

elected head of a UN system agency. 

In 2003, U.S. delegations attended the annual meeting of the 40-

member Postal Operations Council (POC), and the 41-member Council of 

Administration (CA) in October, both at UPU headquarters. In keeping with 

1998 legislation that gave the Department of State primary responsibility for 

U.S. representation in the UPU, State Department representatives headed the

U.S. delegations. Officers of the U.S. Postal Service and the U.S. Postal Rate

Commission also joined these delegations. Representatives of private-sector

mailers and express carriers participated in UPU meetings as members of the 

Advisory Group, which met twice during the year in conjunction with POC 

and CA meetings. Throughout 2003, U.S. policy goals focused on solidifying

current and future private-sector participation in the UPU; building a system of

terminal dues (payments between member state postal administrations for the

handling and delivery of inbound international mail) based as closely as 

possible on costs; and achieving recognition within the UPU that

Extraterritorial Offices of Exchange (ETOEs) be exempt from UPU Acts, as

they are commercial operations. 

The 1999 Beijing Congress had approved Abidjan, Cote d’Ivoire, as

the venue for the 2004 UPU Congress. However, civil unrest in that country 

led Cote d’Ivoire to withdraw its offer to host the Congress, leaving the 

Director-General to seek an alternative Congress site. Early in the year, the 

UPU accepted an offer by Romania to host the 2004 Congress in Bucharest. 

In October, the CA approved draft proposals for submission to the

Bucharest Congress, which would formally create the Consultative

Committee, whose members will come from private-sector associations of 

large mailers and private courier delivery firms. Under these proposals, the

private-sector members of the Consultative Committee could attend meetings

of the Congress, the POC, and the CA, including their committees. 

Consultative Committee members may also attend meetings of working

groups open to observers whose funding is paid for by the regular UPU 

budget. Adoption of these proposals was a major policy achievement for the 

United States, which has worked assiduously since 1999 to open the UPU to 

the wider community of stakeholders in international postal and package 

delivery issues. On a practical level in 2003, private-sector members of the 

Advisory Group—which the Bucharest Congress is expected to transform into 

the permanent Consultative Committee—participated in major UPU working 

groups, including a POC group dealing with customs issues. Seventeen

private-sector associations have so far joined the Advisory Group. The 

103 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2003 

Advisory Group presented a white paper to the CA in October on major UPU 

issues, including terminal dues, ETOEs, universal service, postal regulation,

customs clearance, and technical standards. 

During 2003, the UPU made considerable progress in refining a 

concept proposal on terminal dues, which will be proposed at the Bucharest 

Congress. The POC Terminal Dues Action Group (TDAG) convened several

meetings throughout the year to narrow various approaches into a single 

comprehensive proposal on terminal dues. The TDAG Chair (Canada) sought

a “convergence proposal” in an attempt to avoid last minute wrangling in 

Bucharest on this perennially contentious issue. By October, the work of the 

TDAG had generated eight proposals put forward by both postal

administrations and Restricted Unions (regional postal organizations). Intense 

deliberations during the October 2003 TDAG meeting distilled the major

elements of these proposals into three “concept” proposals. To arrive at a 

single consensus proposal, the TDAG formed a group of 10 countries,

including the United States. 

In November, the group met in Bern, where it reached informal

agreement on a single comprehensive terminal dues proposal that met the 

following key U.S. objectives: 

• Dynamic movement towards eventual end to separate terminal dues rate

structures for industrialized countries and developing countries, so that

terminal dues rates are linked as closely as possible to the actual costs in

each country; 

• Moderate and predictable increases in the cap rate for countries whose 

postal administrations apply high postage rates; and 

• Gradual increases in the floor rate for countries whose postal 

administrations apply low postage rates.

Throughout the year, the growing phenomenon of Extraterritorial

Offices of Exchange (ETOEs), in which a postal administration of one country

establishes a mail exchange office in another country in order to compete with

the host country’s postal service, absorbed considerable attention within both

Councils. In October, the CA adopted a resolution stating “the agreement of 

any UPU member country must be obtained, in accordance with its national

legislation, by any other country seeking to establish ETOEs within that

country.” This resolution will serve as a temporary solution until the 2004

Bucharest Congress reaches a broader decision on ETOEs. The U.S. 

delegation strongly supported this resolution, which Japan put forward. In the

U.S. view, ETOEs are commercial operations that should not be covered under 

the UPU Acts. 

In other substantive action, the two UPU Councils: 

• Adopted revised customs declaration forms in cooperation with the World 

Customs Organization. The new postal declarations provide additional

information on the contents of postal items, bringing the forms into better 

104 
Specialized Agencies and Other Bodies

alignment with the information required on commercial customs

declarations; 

• Continued work on determining the effects of UPU decisions on World

Trade Organization (WTO) rules, in particular the relationship between 

the UPU terminal dues system and WTO’s General Agreement on Trade

in Services; and

• Worked to strengthen the structures of extra-budgetary “cooperative” 

organizations. The work of these organizations includes management of

information technology networks used for tracking the exchange of mail

between postal administrations and a clearing system (UPU*Clearing) for 

the payment of terminal dues and other accounts between postal 

administrations. The structures of these voluntary cooperative

organizations are solidly based on weighted voting principles, under

which members that contribute more funds to the organization receive

proportionally higher voting rights. 

The UPU operates under a biennial budget. The 2002 CA approved 

the 2003–2004 UPU budget at the same level as the budget for the preceding

biennium. This “zero nominal growth” two-year budget was approximately 

$53 million over two years. During the October 2003 CA, Director-General

Leavey proudly announced that the UPU budget had remained constant for 

seven consecutive years. 

The UPU budget is divided among member countries not by a scale 

of assessment, as in most other UN system agencies, but according to 

“contribution units” that each country volunteers to pay. The United States

pays 50 contribution units, which amounts to approximately 5.7 percent of the

UPU budget. The cost to the United States in 2003 was $1.6 million. In

addition, the U.S. Postal Service made extra-budgetary contributions to UPU 

in 2003 of $370,000 including the salary of a postal security consultant

seconded to the UPU staff. 

At the end of 2003, American citizens held three of the 58

professional-level positions in the UPU, including the UPU Director-General

and the chef de cabinet. Four other Americans were employed and paid with 

extra-budgetary resources. 

World Health Organization (WHO) and Other 

International Health Organizations 

World Health Organization (WHO) 

The World Health Organization (WHO), based in Geneva, was

established in 1948 with the objective of “the attainment by all peoples of the 

highest possible level of health.” WHO worked in 2003 in close partnership

with its member states and two associate members, many intergovernmental 

agencies, more than 180 nongovernmental organizations, and nearly 1,200

leading health-related institutions around the world designated as “WHO

collaborating centers.” 

105 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2003 

During 2003, U.S. representatives participated in meetings of the 

World Health Assembly, the WHO Executive Board, regional committees for 

the Americas, the Western Pacific, Africa, and Europe, and the Governing 

Council of the International Agency for Research on Cancer. U.S. officials

also participated in meetings of the management committees of WHO’s major 

voluntarily funded programs, the intergovernmental negotiation body on a

Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC), and the Program 

Coordinating Board of the Joint UN Program on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS), which 

is cosponsored by the WHO and eight other agencies. 

The World Health Assembly (WHA) elected Dr. Jong-wook Lee 

(South Korea) to a five-year term as Director-General in May. He took office 

on July 21. Dr. Lee rose through the ranks at the WHO, where he had served

in various capacities for 19 years. Dr. Lee has emphasized WHO’s important

role in today’s unmet health challenges. He has focused on five overarching

priorities: achieving the health-related goals of the Millennium Summit;

decentralizing the WHO’s work; renewing WHO’s accountability and

effectiveness; improving global disease surveillance and data management;

and strengthening the WHO’s human resources. Dr. Lee also emphasized 

continuity with the policies of former Director-General Gro Harlem 

Brundtland (Norway), including the importance of WHO advocacy and 

authority on health issues, rooted in scientific evidence. At the close of her 

term of office, members praised Dr. Brundtland for raising the profile of 

WHO, for tackling specific health issues with innovative approaches and 

partnerships, and for focusing on health as a major international policy

concern. 

WHO member states concluded negotiations in 2003 on an FCTC,

with the final Intergovernmental Negotiating Body meeting in March. The 

United States sought to achieve a final text it could both sign and ratify. The 

outcome reflected U.S. desires in virtually all respects, with the exception of 

the size of the warning labels on tobacco packaging for which new U.S. 

legislation would be required for ratification. 

The 2003 WHA adopted the Convention by consensus. U.S.

Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) Tommy G. Thompson, head

of the U.S. delegation, lauded the WHO and member states for completing the 

task and producing a treaty to benefit global public health. The Convention 

opened for signature for one year starting in June 2003, following its adoption

at the Health Assembly. 

The 2003 Assembly focused attention on Severe Acute Respiratory 

Syndrome (SARS), and assessed its impact, the international response, and

WHO efforts in particular. The Assembly adopted a resolution by consensus 

committing states to control SARS and to report cases promptly and 

transparently. The resolution also called for the WHO to respond to all 

requests for assistance, including from Taiwan. 

The Assembly adopted a resolution that focused on the timetable for 

revising the WHO International Health Regulations (IHRs) in order to meet

106 
Specialized Agencies and Other Bodies

the goal of adoption of new IHRs in 2005. It also provided new elements to 

give the Director-General authority for the first time to take into account

reports of disease outbreaks from sources other than official government

notifications. During 2003, the United States worked with the WHO 

Secretariat to support the process of revising the IHRs, emphasizing that new

IHRs would need to carefully balance the need to provide maximum

protection against the spread of diseases with minimum interference with 

world trade. 

WHO also presented a global health sector strategy for HIV/AIDS in

partnership with UNAIDS, which included Dr. Lee’s call for 3 million HIVinfected people in developing countries to receive anti-retroviral therapy by

2005. Known as “3 by 5,” this goal would be met by WHO, UNAIDS, and

other international groups. The WHO, along with UNAIDS, continued its

support during 2003 of the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis, and 

Malaria, including work at the country level to help country partnerships 

prepare proposals for the Fund. 

The United States and Brazil offered competing resolutions at the 

WHA on intellectual property rights (IPR), innovation, and public health.

Brazil sought to demonstrate that IPR is a barrier to access to medicines and 

the treatment of neglected diseases. The U.S. text emphasized that IPR is an 

essential element in creating a climate for innovation, and called on member

states to take steps to promote research and development on new medicines for

diseases that affect developing countries. An acceptable resolution was 

adopted by consensus after protracted negotiations which, among other things, 

recognized a lack of sufficient research and development on “neglected

diseases”; urged the pharmaceutical sector to address public health needs and

not only potential market gains; and called for WHO to establish a timelimited body to examine issues of intellectual property rights, innovation, and

public health. 

On financial matters, the 2003 World Health Assembly adopted a 

regular budget for 2004–2005 that reflected 1.9 percent real growth. Member

states agreed on a compromise package involving adoption of the budget, 

adoption of a scale of assessments based on the UN scale, and an “adjustment 

mechanism” to give limited relief over two biennia (through 2007) in the form

of a credit to countries whose assessments had increased starting in 2002. A 

compromise limited mitigation plan proved necessary when certain developing 

countries sought to compel the WHO to depart from the UN scale and increase 

the maximum contribution from 22 percent up to 25 percent, which

represented the previous U.S. assessment. At the time of the budget’s 

adoption, the United States expressed regret that the budget did not devote the 

maximum possible resources to the WHO work program, owing to WHO’s

decision to give relief to some member states by offsetting their assessments. 

As in previous years since 1997, the 2003 Health Assembly took no

action on a proposal to insert in the agenda an item for discussion of the 

possibility of observer status for Taiwan, put forward by some countries that 

107 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2003 

have diplomatic relations with Taiwan. In the lead-up to the Assembly,

Taiwan increased its lobbying of WHO member states for support of its bid for

observership at the Assembly. HHS Secretary Tommy Thompson referred to

Taiwan in the context of SARS in a plenary speech, and he expressed the U.S. 

Government’s support for Taiwan’s observer bid in an address at a privatesector reception. 

Although there is no provision in the WHO Constitution or the 

Assembly’s Rules of Procedure regarding the conferring of observer status, it

is understood that observers can only be admitted if a majority of the members 

present and voting at the Assembly approve the proposal. However, the 

Assembly in 1997 overwhelmingly defeated in a vote an initiative to place an 

item on Taiwan observership on the agenda. At the Assembly in 2003, the

General Committee debated the issue, with speeches by those in favor of and 

those against adding an agenda item on the subject of observer status for

Taiwan. Under a scenario aimed at avoiding another one-sided vote as 

happened in 1997, the Assembly president allowed several speeches on each 

side of the issue, after which he said it appeared the plenary had agreed with 

the recommendation that there be no new agenda item.

The Assembly took up the long-standing agenda item on “Health 

conditions of, and assistance to, the Arab population in the occupied Arab 

territories, including Palestine,” which the United States felt was once again 

extremely unbalanced in its harsh condemnation of Israel. Greece, on behalf

of the European Union (EU) countries, sought to amend the draft to make it

more “balanced,” but the Palestinian negotiators ultimately rejected any 

changes. The United States called for a roll-call vote on the resolution and it

was adopted by a vote of 42 to 10, with 55 abstentions (including EU member

states), the narrowest margin of victory ever; a large number of countries also

chose to be absent. The United States voted against it, stating that the 

resolution followed a pattern witnessed elsewhere in UN system organizations

in its harsh blame of Israel for Palestinian health problems, while ignoring that

Israelis have also suffered as a result of Palestinian actions. 

The Health Assembly adopted a resolution entitled, “Representation 

of developing countries in the Secretariat” by a vote of 57 to 10, with 31 

abstentions. Proposed by a group of developing countries, it sought to change

the basis for setting the desirable range for hiring. The previous formula 

followed the UN formula of 55 percent for contributions, 40 percent for

membership, and 5 percent for population. The change amounted to 45

percent for contributions, 45 percent for membership, and 10 percent for 

population, thus diminishing the desirable range for American citizen hires 

from 168–228 to 142–193. With 160 American citizens working at the WHO 

subject to the geographic distribution formula, the United States moved from

“underrepresented” to “countries within their range but below midpoint.” The 

United States opposed departing from the UN formula for hiring ranges, and

called for a roll-call vote, voting against it. The United States believes the 5 

percent shift in hiring ranges laid out in this resolution would not result in any

significant changes in WHO staff appointments. 

108 
Specialized Agencies and Other Bodies

The total WHO budget for 2004–2005 was approved at a level of $2.7 

billion. This amount included the $863.1 million (1.9 percent growth) 

approved for the regular assessed budget, and $1.8 billion (25 percent growth) 

in anticipated voluntary extra-budgetary funding, and $21.6 million in

miscellaneous income. This was an overall increase of 17 percent over the

2002–2003 biennium. 

In 2003, the United States provided $93.6 million (22 percent) of the

WHO regular assessed budget of $425 million, as well as extra-budgetary

resources from the U.S. Agency for International Development, HHS, and the 

Department of State. 

Within the WHO staff, there were more American citizens in 

professional posts than citizens of any other country. However, U.S. citizens 

remained under-represented at the WHO secretariat. At year’s end, Americans

held the senior posts of Assistant Director-General for HIV/AIDS,

Tuberculosis, and Malaria, Legal Counsel, Director of Internal Audit and

Oversight, and Director of the Division of Personnel. At the end of 2003, the 

WHO had 1,369 posts subject to geographic distribution; of those, U.S.

citizens held 160 posts, or 11.7 percent. The total WHO staff on fixed-term or 

career service appointments was 3,686. In addition, there were 5,091 staff on 

short-term contracts. 

Pan American Health Organization (PAHO) 

The Pan American Health Organization (PAHO) marked its 101st

year in 2003. Formed in 1902 as the Pan American Sanitary Bureau, PAHO is

the world’s oldest intergovernmental health organization. The Directing 

Council of the Pan American Health Organization convened at PAHO

headquarters, Washington, D.C., on September 22–26. U.S. officials, 

including Secretary of Health and Human Services Tommy Thompson, were 

active in that meeting, as well as in meetings of the PAHO Executive 

Committee in June and the Subcommittee on Planning and Programming in

March.

The new Director of PAHO, Dr. Mirta Roses (Argentina), who was

elected to succeed Dr. George Alleyne at the September 2002 Pan American 

Sanitary Conference, took office on February 1. Dr. Roses outlined her 

priorities including creating greater health equity for the poor, vulnerable, and

marginalized; forging new alliances and strengthening regional solidarity;

tackling the emerging health challenges in the Americas; and advocating for 

continued improvements in the region’s health systems. Dr. Roses

reorganized PAHO’s structure and brought on board, as new PAHO Deputy 

Director, Dr. Joxel Garcia (United States), former State Commissioner of 

Public Health for Connecticut. 

The Directing Council discussed and adopted resolutions on pressing

health issues, including HIV/AIDS, violence prevention, primary health care, 

influenza, childhood illnesses, dengue fever, and other issues of importance to 

the region. The Conference reviewed the status of the HIV/AIDS epidemic in 

109 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2003 

the region and the strides being made in prevention and control.

Representatives of all 38 PAHO member states participated, mostly at the 

ministerial level. 

The Directing Council adopted a zero nominal growth (ZNG) budget

for 2004–2005 of $186.8 million. PAHO had originally proposed an increase 

of 1.38 percent in the budget, which included a 2.85 percent increase in

assessments and a projected 18 percent decrease in miscellaneous (interest) 

income. PAHO sought to offset the decreased funding for 2004–2005 

provided directly from WHO headquarters and to make adjustments for cost

increases, including mandatory UN salary increases. The United States

opposed the proposed increase and pressed for a no-growth budget, a position 

with which other countries agreed. A working group formed and reached

consensus for ZNG in the overall budget. The budget adopted thus reduced 

the assessment increase from 2.85 percent to 1.8 percent.

During 2003, Argentina, which was over six years in arrears, agreed

to a payment plan to settle its arrearages to PAHO over a 10-year period. The 

Council suspended Venezuela’s voting rights because it had not submitted a 

deferred payment plan to settle its arrears. 

The United States pays 59.4 percent of the PAHO budget. The basis 

of the scale coincides with that of the Organization of American States, with 

adjustments for membership. In 2003, this totaled approximately $57.2 

million. 

In 2003, of 444 professional posts in PAHO, U.S. citizens held 73

(16.4 percent). PAHO had a total staff of 875. 

International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) 

The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) is a leading 

cancer research institute that monitors global cancer occurrence, identifies

causes of cancer, and develops scientific strategies for cancer control. The 

Governing Council of IARC, a subsidiary of the WHO with 15 member states,

met at IARC headquarters in Lyon, France, on May 15–16, 2003. The 

Governing Council discussed IARC’s program of work in cancer prevention

and its various collaborative research efforts, and approved the budget for 

2004–2005. Dr. Paul Kleihues (Germany) completed his second five-year 

term as Director at the end of 2003. The Governing Council elected a new

IARC Director, Dr. Peter Boyle (United Kingdom), a distinguished cancer

epidemiologist and biostatistician, who will assume office in January 2004.

The United States was a member of the search committee formed under the 

Governing Council’s auspices in 2002 to identify candidates to serve as IARC

Director. 

The Governing Council approved a new IARC budget for 2004–2005

of $37.4 million, an increase of 3.4 percent from the budget established for

2002–2003. U.S. regular budget contributions (based on a 9.9 percent

assessment) will increase marginally to $1.72 million in 2004 and $1.71

million in 2005. The United States was assessed $1.7 million in 2003. 

110 
Specialized Agencies and Other Bodies

U.S. citizens held six of 56 professional posts in IARC in 2003, 

representing an increase from 8.2 percent to 10.7 percent since 2002. IARC

had a total staff of 144. 

Joint UN Program on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS) 

The Joint UN Program on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS) began formal 

operations on January 1, 1996. The World Food Program became a UNAIDS 

cosponsor in 2003, joining the WHO, the UN Development Program, the UN 

International Drug Control Program, the UN Children’s Fund, the UN 

Population Fund, the UN Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization,

the International Labor Organization, and the World Bank. UNAIDS also has

cooperation agreements with the Food and Agriculture Organization and the 

UN High Commissioner for Refugees. UNAIDS works in countries that are 

dealing with the HIV/AIDS epidemic, primarily through country-coordination

theme groups that seek to mobilize all sectors to address AIDS. 

The UNAIDS Program Coordinating Board (PCB) acts as the 

governing body on all issues concerning policy, strategy, finance, monitoring,

and evaluation of UNAIDS. The membership of the PCB comprises 22

government representatives, elected from among the member states of the 

cosponsoring organizations, according to regional distribution. The term of 

membership of these states is three years, with approximately one-third of the 

membership replaced annually. The United States was not a member of the 

PCB in 2003. Each of the nine cosponsors has full rights of participation in

the PCB, but without the right to vote. Five nongovernmental organizations

are also invited to participate in PCB meetings, but without the right to take

part in the formal decision-making process or the right to vote. 

Dr. Peter Piot (Belgium), Executive Director of UNAIDS and an 

effective advocate with governments on HIV/AIDS, announced on December 

1, 2003, that UNAIDS would spearhead a campaign with the WHO to ensure

that at least three million people with HIV would receive anti-retroviral 

therapy by 2005, WHO’s “3 by 5” initiative. 

UNAIDS also worked with the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, 

Tuberculosis, and Malaria, an independent, non-UN organization. UNAIDS

worked at the country level when requested in the preparation of proposals for 

funding by the Global Fund. 

The UNAIDS biennial budget for 2002–2003 was $190 million. The 

United States continued to be the major donor to UNAIDS, providing $17.9 

million in 2003. 

In 2003, U.S. citizens held nine of 116 professional posts in

UNAIDS, including that of Deputy Executive Director. UNAIDS had a total 

staff of 165. 

World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) 

The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) promotes the 

protection of intellectual property rights throughout the world through 

111 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2003 

cooperation among member states. Established by the WIPO Convention in

1967, it became a UN specialized agency in 1974. WIPO is headquartered in 

Geneva, and operates several offices around the world, including in New

York, Washington, D.C., and Brussels. Dr. Kamil Idris (Mali) is the DirectorGeneral. There are 180 members of the WIPO Convention. The United States 

is currently a party to 10 WIPO treaties. Fees for service generate more than 

90 percent of WIPO’s revenue, with fees paid by U.S. nationals comprising

approximately 41 percent of WIPO’s fee revenue. 

WIPO administers various treaties that deal with the legal and

administrative aspects of intellectual property, including industrial property 

and copyrights. The two principal treaties are the Paris and Bern Conventions,

with 164 and 150 members, respectively. WIPO also administers 20 

multilateral “unions,” which serve as the treaty administering organs. 

The General Assembly of WIPO Unions, of which the United States 

is a member, took place in Geneva from September 22 to October 1. The

Assembly approved WIPO’s 2004–2005 zero nominal growth budget at

approximately $491 million. While ultimately endorsing the budget, many 

developing countries regretted that there were not more resources for

development programs. 

The General Assembly also noted the four-year medium term plan set 

forth by the Secretariat for the years 2006–2009. This plan identified the 

following three objectives: (1) promoting an intellectual property (IP) culture;

(2) providing consistent and customized assistance to member states in 

developing national and regional IP systems; and (3) further streamlining

management and administrative processes in WIPO.

The Assembly debated the future mandate—if any—of the

Intergovernmental Committee (IGC) on Intellectual Property and Genetic 

Resources, Traditional Knowledge, and Folklore. A July meeting on the 

future of the IGC collapsed due to the inability of participants to agree on

whether the IGC should begin immediate negotiations on a binding 

multilateral treaty on IP as it relates to genetic resources, traditional

knowledge, and folklore. Eventually, the parties agreed to a compromise text

that continued WIPO’s mandate to work on this issue and that stated that the 

work of the IGC would “focus, in particular, on a consideration of the

international dimension of those questions, without prejudice to the work

pursued in other fora and that no outcome of this work is excluded, including

the possible development of an international instrument or instruments.” The

United States worked hard to reach this compromise and fully supported it. 

The issue of Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) fees dominated the 

meeting of the PCT Union at the 2003 General Assembly. PCT fees account

for about 80 percent of WIPO’s budget. WIPO had proposed a single fee

structure of approximately $1,117 per filing, noting that significant rule

changes reforming the PCT would go into effect in January 2004, necessitating 

changes to the fee structure. Interpreting the proposed fee as an increase over 

previous fees, the United States submitted an alternate proposal that would fix 

112 
Specialized Agencies and Other Bodies

the fee at approximately $1,040, equivalent to the maximum fee that 

applicants pay under the current PCT process. The United States and WIPO 

eventually reached a compromise that set the international filing fee at $1,078. 

WIPO will consult with member states after reviewing the actual usage of the 

new PCT procedures, and look at possible readjustments of spending and/or

fees, if necessary, in 2004. 

As a final stage in a process that had been underway for three years,

the 2003 Assembly adopted amendments to the WIPO Convention, the Paris 

Convention, and other WIPO-administered treaties. The amendments address 

three main changes, previously recommended by a Working Group on

Constitutional Reform and adopted by the Assembly in 2002. These three 

changes are the following: (1) the WIPO Conference should be abolished as a

body; (2) several changes introduced in practice in the early 1990s but not

formalized in WIPO treaties should be codified in amendments; and (3) the

periodicity of scheduled meetings of various organs of WIPO and its Unions

should be formally changed to once every year rather than once every two 

years to reflect actual practice. 

The Program and Budget Committee, to which the United States

belongs, conducts oversight of WIPO’s financial and budgetary issues.

Historically, WIPO has consistently run a revenue surplus from patent and 

trademark filing fees. The United States has advocated and obtained regular 

reductions of filing fees since 1996, making them more affordable, especially 

for small and medium-sized enterprises and individuals, consistent with the 

costs of processing applications, and less likely to lead to accumulated but 

unnecessary cash reserves. WIPO member states had required the Secretariat 

to consolidate all budgets for the 2002–2003 biennium, to provide clearer 

tracking of financial flows. 

The U.S. share of WIPO’s assessed budget in 2003 was $1.1 million.

The U.S. assessed contribution represents less than 1 percent of WIPO’s total

revenue, although, as noted above, approximately 41 percent of WIPO’s total 

revenue comes from filing fees paid by U.S. nationals, the largest group of

WIPO supporters. 

In 2003, out of 361 professional posts, Americans filled 22, or 6.1

percent.

World Meteorological Organization (WMO) 

The World Meteorological Organization (WMO) facilitates

international cooperation in making meteorological, hydrological, and other

related observations. It promotes the standardization, quality control, and

rapid exchange of meteorological observations, and uniform publication of

observations and statistics. 

The WMO membership includes 181 states, with Bhutan and Kiribati

joining in 2003, and six member territories, all of which maintain their own 

meteorological services and make meteorological observations within their 

domain. The six WMO regional groups meet every four years to coordinate

113 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2003 

operational meteorological, hydrological, and climatological activities within

their region, and to examine questions referred to them by the WMO

Executive Council. The WMO Secretariat serves as the administrative, 

documentation, and information center for the organization. WMO SecretaryGeneral G.O.P. Obassi (Nigeria) completed his final four-year term in

December 2003. Michel Jarraud (France) was elected as the next SecretaryGeneral in May 2003 and was scheduled to begin his four-year term as 

Secretary-General on January 1, 2004. 

The World Meteorological Congress (WMC), which is the supreme 

body of the WMO, meets every four years. It determines policies, approves 

the program and budget, and adopts regulations. The WMC met May 5–24 in

Geneva. It approved the program and budget of the organization for the 14th

financial period (2004–2007). The Congress approved a maximum 

expenditure of approximately $195.4 million, of which $192.3 million would 

be funded from assessed contributions and the balance of $3.1 million from

cash surpluses resulting from the 13th financial period. Although the 

maximum expenditures remained constant, total assessed contributions 

decreased by 1.2 percent from the budget ceiling of 2002–2003. The next

Congress was scheduled to meet in Geneva in May 2007. 

The WMO’s Executive Council meets annually to prepare studies and

recommendations for the WMC; supervise the implementation of WMC 

resolutions and regulations; approve implementation of the budget, and advise

members on technical matters. It is comprised of 37 members, including a

president and three vice-presidents. The Executive Council members are 

generally the heads of their national meteorological services. It receives 

budget recommendations from the WMO Financial Advisory Committee,

which is chaired by the WMO President and is made up of eight selected 

member countries that comprise the largest contributors, including the United 

States and the presidents of the six WMO regional associations. The 

Executive Council met May 26–28 in Geneva, and included private-sector 

representation. 

The WMO’s principal programs include the World Weather Watch,

World Climate Program, Atmosphere Research and Environmental Program,

Applications of Meteorology Program, education and training programs, and

technical cooperation programs. The most important activities for the United 

States include the World Weather Watch Program, the Voluntary Cooperation

Program (VCP), and the Global Climate Observing System (GCOS). 

The World Weather Watch provides real-time worldwide weather 

data through the member-operated Global Telecommunication System. 

Observation platforms include four polar-orbiting and five geostationary 

satellites, about 10,000 land-based observation sites, approximately 7,000 ship

stations, and 300 moored and drifting buoys carrying automated weather

stations. 

The VCP supports member countries’ implementation of WMO 

Scientific and Technical Programs. It provides equipment and services, 

114 
Specialized Agencies and Other Bodies

including training, or financial contributions made on a voluntary basis by

member countries. It has assisted developing countries in undertaking their

own observations and may be an important vehicle in the future to help

construct an integrated global observation system. The United States

contributed $2 million in 2003 to WMO’s VCP. 

GCOS was established to ensure that the observations and 

information needed to address climate-related issues are obtained and made 

available to all potential users. It is intended to be a long-term, user-driven

operational system capable of providing the comprehensive observations

required for monitoring the climate system and for supporting research toward

improved understanding, modeling, and prediction of the climate system. 

GCOS is particularly important to the United States in view of the President’s

commitment to enhance and expand the global climate observing systems in 

order to reduce uncertainties related to global climate change.

The WMO has eight technical commissions: (1) Aeronautical

Meteorology, (2) Agricultural Meteorology, (3) Atmospheric Sciences, (4) 

Basic Systems, (5) Climate, (6) Hydrology, (7) Instruments and Methods of

Observation, and (8) Oceanography and Marine Meteorology. The latter is a 

joint commission with UNESCO’s Intergovernmental Oceanographic 

Commission. The commissions meet quadrennially, except for Basic Systems, 

which meets biennially. 

The WMO does not prepare annual budgets, but its spending in 2003

totaled approximately $47 million. The U.S. assessment in 2003 was 21.6 

percent, or about $10.1 million. 

The Geneva-based Secretariat had 258 employees at the end of 2003. 

There were six American employees out of the 118 professional-level staff

(about 5 percent). 

115 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2003 

116 
Part 4 

Legal Developments 

Cloning 

The United Nations began discussing cloning when the 56th UN

General Assembly (2001) adopted a French/German resolution that tasked an 

ad hoc committee of the UN General Assembly’s Sixth (Legal) Committee to 

develop a framework for a convention to ban human reproductive cloning.

The United States joined consensus on the resolution only after language was 

added to indicate that the General Assembly would consider the initiative, 

while expressing substantial skepticism about the wisdom of a convention. In

2002, the ad hoc committee and the working group of the Sixth Committee 

were unable to resolve differences between countries that wanted a convention 

to ban all human cloning (including the United States) and countries that

wanted a ban limited to reproductive cloning only.

In 2003, the Sixth Committee considered two draft resolutions on

cloning. One, submitted by Costa Rica and cosponsored by the United States

and 64 other countries, called for negotiation of a convention that would ban 

all human cloning. The competing resolution, submitted by Belgium and

cosponsored by 22 other countries, called for a convention that would ban 

reproductive cloning only, allowing states to pursue experimental cloning. 

The United States supports a ban on all cloning of human embryos,

both for reproductive and so-called “therapeutic” or “experimental” purposes.

The United States does not distinguish one type from the other since both

entail the creation, through cloning, of a human embryo. The United States

believes that using “therapeutic” cloning to create human life specifically to

destroy that life for experimental purposes is no less, if not more, of an affront

to human dignity than cloning for reproductive purposes.

In the final day of discussion of human cloning at the UN Sixth 

Committee, the Organization of the Islamic Conference moved to defer debate

of the agenda item until the 60th General Assembly, a two-year postponement. 

The United States opposed this motion, which passed with a vote of 80 to 79,

with 15 abstentions. On December 9, the UN General Assembly, at U.S.

urging, decided to place the human cloning item on the agenda of the 59th 

General Assembly session (2004) instead of the 60th General Assembly

session, as the Sixth Committee had recommended. An agreement was

reached between all concerned parties to consider the item in one year. 

Neither the Costa Rican nor Belgian resolution was put to a vote. 

Commission on International Trade Law

(UNCITRAL) 

The UN Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL),

established by General Assembly Resolution 2205 (XXI) in 1966, continued to

117 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2003 

work on commercial and economic law reform, including harmonizing 

national laws to promote trade and commerce in all geographic regions. Based 

on the report of the General Assembly’s Sixth (Legal) Committee, the General

Assembly in December 2003 reaffirmed the Commission’s mandate as the 

core legal body within the UN system in the field of international trade law

(Resolution 58/75).

The Commission focuses largely on economic effects of trade laws, 

particularly potential benefits to developing and emerging states. It promotes 

economic reform through multilateral conventions, model national laws, UN 

legal guidelines, and technical assistance on trade and commercial law 

undertaken by the Secretariat on the basis of legal texts adopted by the 

Commission. The United States actively participates in the work of the 

Commission, since its work products are generally effective and are beneficial 

to the U.S. private sector as well as to governmental interests. The United

States was re-elected to a new six-year term on the Commission, which

expires in 2010. 

Located at the UN Center in Vienna, the Commission usually holds 

several weeks of working group meetings annually on each topic, as well as 

additional meetings of experts groups in which the United States is 

represented. Outcomes are then reviewed at the Commission’s annual plenary

session. Private-sector and industry nongovernmental organizations (NGOs)

with technical expertise in commercial law are invited to participate. U.S. 

private-sector associations are particularly active and the Department of State

works closely with U.S. bar and trade industry groups to assure representation

of their interests in the international process. Twenty-six member states, 32 

observer states, and 18 international organizations and NGO observers 

attended the June 2003 Plenary session. 

The growth of privately financed and managed infrastructure, in

partnership with governments, has significantly shifted since the early 1990s

away from direct government financing or bilateral aid. This shift has had a

substantial impact, especially in developing and emerging states. Following 

the Commission’s completion of its Legislative Guide on Privately Financed 

Infrastructure Projects, the Commission embarked in 2001 on preparation of

model core legislative provisions, which were completed and approved at the 

plenary session in June. A number of recommendations of the Public-Private

Infrastructure Advisory Facility, a multi-donor technical assistance 

organization focused on developing country issues, were considered along

with recommendations of the World Bank and others. The model legislation

covered the bidding and selection process, implementation, financing,

extension, and termination. The legislation was based on the earlier and 

widely used Model Law of the Commission on Procurement of Construction, 

Goods, and Services. On December 9, the General Assembly adopted 

Resolution 58/76, which endorsed the model legislative provisions. 

In July, the Commission temporarily approved the principles

embodied in a draft UNCITRAL insolvency legislative guide. In line with

118 
Legal Developments 

U.S. goals, the Commission adopted the resolution containing the guide. This

resolution and the approved principles recognized the importance of options 

for reorganization of failed enterprises. The adoption of this resolution was a 

U.S. goal. The Working Group on Insolvency Law met twice and continued to 

finalize the legislative guide. Reflecting recognition that an effective system

for recycling economic assets will be critical to financing and economic

growth, especially in developing and emerging states, and to mitigate systemic

risk, international financial institutions, including the International Monetary 

Fund (IMF) and the Asian Development Bank, supported this project. It is

expected that the final text will include U.S. proposals on expedited corporate 

rescue and refinance, in order to preserve failing businesses where feasible, 

many of which now operate on a multinational basis. UN Under Secretary for 

Legal Affairs Hans Correll stressed the importance of coordination with

concurrent work by the World Bank. UNCITRAL, the World Bank, the IMF,

and key states, including the United States, worked to consolidate standards to 

assess performance of states in economic reform. 

The Commission continued to consider a draft convention on the 

carriage of goods by sea, and agreed on application of its terms to certain

inland transportation legs. The draft Convention would replace outdated 

international transportation treaties. U.S. industry sectors and other groups

concerned with carriage of goods, ship financing, and insurance supported this

project. The Commission’s Working Group on Transport Law reviewed drafts

prepared jointly by the Secretariat and the Comite Maritime Internationale, an 

industry-based international NGO in Brussels. The Working Group 

considered a U.S. compromise package, which dealt with liability standards, 

application to inland claimants, jurisdiction, and the right to vary the

provisions by contract for certain shipping arrangements. The gaps between

U.S. views and a number of its trading partners narrowed. The Group believed

that the project might be completed in 2005. 

The Commission maintained its lead role to advance alternative 

international dispute mechanisms. In July, the U.S. National Conference of

Commissioners on Uniform State Laws adopted the UNCITRAL Model Law 

on International Commercial Conciliation and recommended it to states for 

enactment. The Commission continued its general oversight of the widely

adopted New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of

Foreign Arbitral Awards, including the review of legislative implementation 

by nations party to the Convention. In addition, the Commission’s Working 

Group IV on Arbitration continued to examine possible amendments to or

interpretations of the New York Convention on whether interim measures of 

protection could be ordered by an arbitral tribunal and under what

circumstances such orders would be entitled to enforcement by states party to 

the Convention. The United States supported this effort but no consensus had 

developed on it. It is hoped that a conclusion can be reached at the Plenary in

2006. Other initiatives, such as international rules on the form of an arbitral 

agreement, also remained unresolved. 

119 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2003 

Parallel reform of secured financing laws and insolvency law is a 

prime objective of international financial institutions and the United States to

upgrade economic performance through legal reform. Following the General 

Assembly’s adoption in 2001 of the UNCITRAL Convention on Assignment 

of Receivables in International Trade, the Commission began to prepare a

legislative guide on general laws on secured interest financing. The United 

States signed the UN Receivables Convention on December 30, at the UN 

Treaty Office in New York. 

The Commission agreed that the initial scope for the new project was 

the financing of trade and inventory receivables, which the United States

proposed as an achievable goal. Extending the scope to intellectual property

and banking instruments may be considered later. The Working Groups

initiated joint sessions on this project and on insolvency law to ensure 

coordination of the Commission’s work products and a common UN standard.

Adoption of modern secured finance law, already in place in the United States

through the Uniform Commercial Code, will enable countries to promote 

economic growth by accessing private-sector capital markets, and can 

materially reduce the financing gap that affects developing states and states in 

transition. However, notwithstanding earlier adoption of many of these 

principles in the Convention on Assignment of Receivables, some states

wished to retain older systems of financing and did not support extension of

newer methods to other states. 

The Commission’s Working Group on Electronic Commerce 

continued to work on a draft convention on the formation of contracts in ecommerce and the validity of computer messaging. The Working Group

reviewed the initial draft, which had been prepared by the Secretariat. The 

draft drew on recent U.S. national laws and laws and directives in the

European Union and other countries. The Working Group continued to

elaborate provisions that would provide a treaty overlay on electronic

messaging that states could apply to existing multilateral and bilateral

instruments. The United States believed that such an initiative was consistent

with treaty law and would expand modern e-commerce basic law to many 

countries, especially developing and emerging states so that they could close 

gaps in their access to new Internet and other e-commerce markets. However, 

the United States continued to oppose regulatory provisions. The Working 

Group was not able to achieve consensus on whether to limit its scope to

cross-border transactions or parties in different states, and if so, how to

identify locations in cases involving the Internet or other computer systems,

and whether to exclude consumer transactions, financial services transactions,

or transactions involving software or intellectual property. 

Fraudulent financial documentation was an area of growing concern

for both developing and developed states and appeared in part to be related to

wider use of computer-based documentation. UN Under Secretary Correll 

noted that the absence of an international legal regime for the Internet in part

contributed to this problem. No UN system body had this subject clearly

within its scope of work. The United States expected that UNCITRAL’s

120 
Legal Developments 

review would involve cooperation with the UN Office on Drugs and Crime 

also headquartered in Vienna. The Commission’s review was facilitated by

information provided by the U.S. Government and U.S. private-sector experts.

However, some states noted that to undertake any activity in this field would 

expand the scope of the Commission’s work. Limited resources were already

a serious concern vis-à-vis funding for the Secretariat and the existing 

Working Groups. 

The Secretariat continued its record of effective technical assistance

to implement modern commercial law, primarily for developing countries. 

The Commission’s work in modernizing commercial law has facilitated access 

to international trade markets for a number of states. Trade markets are 

theoretically available through trade agreements or other trade liberalization, 

but these are often difficult to achieve because older domestic legal standards

are incompatible with modern commerce. In addition, the Commission

continued to publish abstracts of decisions involving UNCITRAL conventions 

and its other trade law texts through its CLOUT (Case Law on UNCITRAL

Texts) system, which appears in the six official UN languages. The CLOUT

system promotes harmonization of decisions. The University of Pittsburgh 

hosted a conference to review new initiatives for the CLOUT system. These 

initiatives would expand CLOUT’s scope to include trends in national court

and arbitral decisions and other matters. 

In November the General Assembly selected 24 new states as

members, maintaining the proportions between geographic regions that existed

previously. Many member states requested more work on commercial law 

reform. Globalization and increased awareness of disparities in commercial

laws between countries employing modern commercial law and countries

using more traditional laws are often reflected by trade and financing gaps.

The Commission doubled the number of active projects, while reducing the 

average length of Working Group meetings so as to accommodate the 

workload within existing conference resources. The United States supported

the expansion of the work program. 

Based on the report of the UN’s Office of Internal Oversight

Services, the General Assembly increased the Commission’s professional

staffing level, which had remained at its original 1968 level despite work 

program increases over the last several decades. The Commission expected to 

reorganize with the additional resources along the lines of two “pillars.” The 

first pillar would be preparation of new international commercial and trade law 

instruments. The second pillar would cover adoption and implementation of

those instruments, coordination within and outside of the UN system, technical

assistance for states with an emphasis on developing countries, and other work

of the Commission. 

The Commission discussed coordination within as well as outside the

UN system. The Commission’s previous chair Joko-Smart (Sierra Leone) 

highlighted concerns about overlapping work that might emerge in the field of

electronic commerce through the UN Economic Community of Europe’s

121 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2003 

Center for Trade Facilitation. Under Secretary Correll stated that the

Commission’s role as coordinator on commercial law reform within the UN 

system gave it an obligation to more closely monitor such activities. This

increase in resources would in part be aimed at monitoring. Efforts continued 

throughout 2003 to enhance the coordination of related work on cross-border

insolvency law reform undertaken by UNCITRAL, with the assistance of the 

IMF, the World Bank, and other organizations. Completion of that work 

would require agreement on coordination between the United Nations and the

Bank. Finally, coordination on secured finance projects was achieved by

agreement among member states that UNIDROIT, a non-UN international

body headquartered in Rome, would cover investment securities in its 

proposed draft convention and UNCITRAL would cover all other aspects of 

secured finance. It was expected that the Secretariat of the UN’s Trade Law 

Branch, which covers UNCITRAL, would expand its coverage of activities of

other international bodies to more actively promote coordination and avoid

overlap. 

UNCITRAL’s budget for 2003 was $159,500. The U.S. assessment

was $35,000. 

Host Country Relations 

The General Assembly established the Committee on Relations with 

the Host Country, which is the United States, in 1971 to address issues 

concerning the presence of the United Nations and the UN diplomatic

community in the United States. These matters concerned the security of 

missions, the safety of their personnel, tax questions, legal and visa issues, and

privileges and immunities of diplomatic staff. The UN Headquarters 

Agreement and the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United 

Nations provide the legal framework for the work of the Committee. 

The topic of greatest concern to members during 2003 was the delay 

in the issuance of U.S. visas for members to attend official UN meetings and 

functions. The U.S. representative noted that the United States was mindful of 

its obligations under Article IV, section 11 of the Headquarters Agreement to

issue visas in a timely manner. The representative also noted that the United

States had to carefully balance its obligations under the treaty with national

security concerns. In light of the enhanced national security requirements 

implemented in the United States following the events of September 11, 2001, 

the U.S. representative advised the Committee on February 1, 2003, to allow at

least 20 days for the processing of visa applications. 

The Parking Program for Diplomatic Vehicles was adopted in 2002

after considerable rancor in the diplomatic community. During meetings in

2003, Committee members complained about the implementation of the 

program. The U.S. representative noted that overall, the parking situation for 

diplomats in New York City had improved significantly and that the number

of tickets issued had diminished from past years. The U.S. representative also 

indicated that the U.S. Mission would continue to work with New York City

officials to address outstanding issues, such as the tow hotline. On the

122 
Legal Developments 

occasion of the first anniversary of the implementation of the program, the 

Committee decided on October 16 to conduct a detailed review of the

implementation of the Parking Program, as recommended by the Legal

Counsel in his opinion of September 24, 2002. 

On December 9, 2003, the General Assembly adopted without a vote

Resolution 58/78, “Report of the Committee on Relations with the Host 

Country.” The resolution requested that the host country continue to solve, 

through negotiations, problems that might arise and to take all measures

necessary to prevent any interference with the functioning of the missions;

welcomed the decision to conduct a detailed review of the implementation of

the parking program; expressed its appreciation for the efforts made by the

host country; and noted that the Committee anticipated that the host country

would continue to ensure the timely issuance of visas to representatives of 

member states for the purpose of attending official UN meetings. 

International Court of Justice 

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) is the UN’s principal judicial 

organ. The Court decides cases submitted to it by states and gives advisory 

opinions on legal questions at the request of international organizations 

authorized to request such opinions. The UN General Assembly and the 

Security Council vote separately to elect the Court’s judges from a list of

persons nominated by national groups on the Permanent Court of Arbitration. 

Judges are elected for nine-year terms, with five judges elected every three

years. 

The ICJ is composed of 15 judges, no two of whom may be nationals

of the same state. As of December 31, 2003, the Court was composed as 

follows: Shi Jiuyong (China—President), Raymond Ranjeva (Madagascar—

Vice-President), Gilbert Guillaume (France), Abdul G. Koroma (Sierra 

Leone), Vladlen S. Vereshchetin (Russia), Rosalyn Higgins (United 

Kingdom), Gonzalo Parra-Aranguren (Venezuela), Pieter H. Kooijmans 

(Netherlands), Francisco Rezak (Brazil), Awn Shawkat Al-Khasawneh

(Jordan), Thomas Buergenthal (United States), Nabil Elaraby (Egypt), Hisashi

Owada (Japan), Bruno Simma (Germany), and Peter Tomka (Slovakia). 

The Court’s budget of $14.35 million was funded from the UN

regular budget. The United States paid $3.16 million of this amount. 

The United States was involved in the following matters in the Court 

in 2003. 

Iran v. United States of America 

On November 2, 1992, Iran brought a case against the United States 

that claimed U.S. military actions against Iranian oil platforms in the Persian

Gulf during the conflict between Iran and Iraq during the 1980s violated the 

1955 Treaty of Amity between the United States and Iran. The incidents cited

by Iran followed attacks by Iranian military forces against U.S. naval and

commercial vessels in the Gulf. 

123 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2003 

The United States filed a Preliminary Objection to the Court’s 

jurisdiction, which was considered at hearings in September 1996. In

December 1996, the Court decided that it did not have jurisdiction under two 

of the three treaty articles invoked by Iran, but that it had jurisdiction to 

consider a third treaty claim. The claim asserted that the actions breached a

treaty article providing for freedom of commerce and navigation between the 

territories of the two parties. 

On June 23, 1997, the United States filed its Counter-Memorial and a 

counter-claim that asserted Iran’s attacks on shipping during the same period

breached the same article. The Court held on March 10, 1998, that the

counter-claim was “admissible as such” and directed the parties to submit 

further written pleadings on the merits. Following two requests for extensions, 

Iran filed its Reply and defense to the U.S. counter-claim on March 10, 1999. 

The United States filed its Rejoinder on March 23, 2001. Iran subsequently

requested and received authorization to submit an additional written pleading 

related solely to the U.S. counter-claim. Iran filed the pleading on September

24, 2001. 

The United States and Iran participated in oral proceedings on the

merits of the case held from February 17–March 9, 2003. On November 6, 

2003, the Court delivered its judgment. The Court held that the United States 

had not breached the “freedom of commerce” provision in the 1955 Treaty by 

taking military action against Iranian offshore oil platforms since the actions

did not disrupt commerce between the territories of Iran and the United States. 

The Court thus rejected Iran’s claim. It also rejected the U.S. counter-claim on 

similar grounds. 

Despite rejecting Iran’s claim, the Court devoted a substantial portion 

of its opinion to a consideration of whether the U.S. actions against the oil 

platforms qualified as self-defense under international law. The Court’s 

discussion of these points was unnecessary to resolve the case. 

Libya v. United States of America 

On March 3, 1992, Libya brought cases against the United States and 

the United Kingdom claiming breaches of the 1971 Montreal (Air Sabotage) 

Convention. Libya claimed that the United States and the United Kingdom 

interfered with Libya’s alleged right under the Montreal Convention to try two 

persons accused by U.S. and Scottish authorities of bombing Pan Am Flight

103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, on December 21, 1988. 

On June 20, 1995, the United States filed Preliminary Objections to

the Court’s jurisdiction in the case; the United Kingdom also filed Preliminary 

Objections. The Court held hearings on both sets of Preliminary Objections

on October 13–22, 1997. On February 27, 1998, the Court denied some of the

U.S. and U.K. Preliminary Objections and held that others could only be 

decided at the merits stage of the case. The Court then ordered the United 

States to file its Counter-Memorial by December 30, 1998. 

124 
Legal Developments 

On December 8, 1998, the United States asked the Court for a threemonth extension, in order to ascertain whether Libya would respond to an 

initiative by the United States and United Kingdom proposing the creation of a 

Scottish court in the Netherlands to try the two suspects. By Orders dated 

December 17, 1998, the Court extended the filing date for the U.S. and U.K. 

Counter-Memorials until March 31, 1999. The United States and the United 

Kingdom both filed Counter-Memorials on that date. 

On April 5, 1999, the two suspects arrived in the Netherlands in the 

company of the UN Legal Counsel. They were detained by Netherlands 

authorities and were then extradited to the custody of Scottish authorities for 

trial in a Scottish court constituted in the Netherlands. 

In June 1999, the Court held a meeting with the parties to both cases

to discuss further scheduling in light of these developments. The Court 

subsequently ordered that Libya file its Replies to the U.S. and U.K. CounterMemorials by June 29, 2000. Following Libya’s filing of its Replies on that

date, the Court set the date of August 3, 2001, for the filing of the U.S. and 

U.K. Rejoinders. The U.S. and the U.K. Rejoinders were filed on August 3, 

2001, and August 1, 2001, respectively. 

On September 9, 2003, the United States and Libya jointly notified

the Court that the Libyan Arab Jamhiriya and the United States of America 

had agreed to discontinue the proceedings. On September 10, the President of

the Court placed on record the discontinuance of the case and directed that the 

case be removed from the Court’s list. 

Mexico v. United States of America 

On January 9, 2003, Mexico brought a case against the United States

that alleged breaches of Articles 5 and 36 of the Vienna Convention on 

Consular Relations with respect to the provision of consular information to 54

alleged Mexican nationals who had been sentenced to death in the United 

States. Mexico asked the Court to decide that the United States had breached 

its obligations under the Convention and that the convictions of the 54

Mexican nationals in question should be set aside. Any new trials should be

conducted without use of statements or other evidence tainted by the failure to

provide consular information. Mexico also asked the Court to order the

United States to provide guarantees of non-repetition of Article 36 breaches in 

the future. 

In addition, Mexico requested that the Court order the United States 

take all measures necessary to ensure that no Mexican national be executed 

and no execution date be set for any Mexican national. This provisional

measure would apply pending the final judgment in the case. A hearing on

Mexico’s provisional measures request was held in The Hague on January 21.

The United States argued against the provisional measures requested by

Mexico. On February 5, the Court issued a provisional measures order that

stated the United States must take all measures necessary to ensure that three

of the 54 alleged Mexican nationals whose cases were most advanced not be

executed pending a final judgment of the Court. 

125 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2003 

Mexico filed its Memorial in the case on June 20, and the United 

States filed its Counter-Memorial on November 3. The hearing on the merits

of the case was held in The Hague December 15–19. In its Counter-Memorial 

and at the hearing, the United States argued that Mexico had not established 

breaches of the Convention and that, if breaches of the Convention had

occurred, Mexico was not entitled to the relief that it had requested. The 

United States noted that, with respect to cases involving foreign nationals in

which a breach of the consular information provision [Article 36] of the 

Convention had taken place, the United States had conformed its conduct to

the Court’s Judgment in the LaGrand Case (Germany v. United States). The

Court judged that the United States should provide review and reconsideration 

of the conviction and sentence of foreign nationals, taking into account the 

breach of the provision. The United States noted that it had provided such

review and reconsideration not only with respect to German nationals but, 

consistent with the declaration of the President of the Court in that case, to all

detained foreign nationals of states party to the Convention. The United States 

urged the Court not to go beyond its decision in LaGrand. The case remained

pending as of December 31, 2003. 

International Criminal Court (ICC) 

The International Criminal Court (ICC) is not a UN body. The 

United States is not a party to the Rome Statute establishing the ICC. In

anticipation of the Rome Statute coming into force in July 2002, the United

States became concerned that U.S. peacekeepers and others involved in UNauthorized or established missions could fall under the jurisdiction of the ICC.

This concern prompted the United States to seek UN Security Council 

agreement for Resolution 1422 in 2002; Resolution 1487, adopted June 12,

2003, renewed this resolution. Both resolutions specified that the ICC shall 

not investigate or prosecute personnel and officials from states not party to the 

ICC for acts or omissions relating to UN-authorized peacekeeping for the 12 

months following adoption. Resolution 1487 expressed the Security Council’s 

intention to renew the resolution in 2004. 

On June 12, 2003, the Council adopted Resolution 1487 by a vote of

12 to 0, with 3 abstentions (France, Germany, Syria). In addition to securing 

the adoption of Resolution 1487, the United States has pursued bilateral 

agreements consistent with Article 98 of the Rome Statute to protect U.S. 

nationals from surrender to the ICC. 

The United States continued to be a forceful advocate for

accountability for war crimes and other grave violations of international law. 

U.S. policy encouraged states to pursue justice within their sovereign 

institutions and, when appropriate, through ad hoc courts and other 

mechanisms authorized by the UN Security Council. 

International Law Commission (ILC) 

The International Law Commission (ILC), which first met in 1948,

promotes the codification and progressive development of international law.

126 
Legal Developments 

Its 34 members are persons of recognized competence in international law 

who serve in their individual capacities. The General Assembly elects them

for five-year terms. Mr. Robert Rosenstock of the United States resigned from

the Commission on July 7, and was replaced by Mr. Michael Matheson, also 

an American, who will serve the remainder of Mr. Rosenstock’s term. 

The Commission studies international law topics referred to it by the

General Assembly or that it decides are suitable for codification or progressive 

development. It usually selects one of its members, designated a “special

rapporteur,” to prepare reports on each topic. After discussion in the

Commission, special rapporteurs prepare draft articles for detailed discussion

by the members of the Commission. These articles are considered and refined 

in a drafting group before formal adoption by the Commission. The 

Commission reports annually on its work to the Sixth (Legal) Committee of 

the General Assembly. 

At its 55th session in 2003, the Commission continued its work on

the topic of “Reservations to treaties” by adopting 11 draft guidelines with

three model clauses that deal with withdrawal and modification of

reservations. It also adopted three draft articles in connection with the 

“Diplomatic protection” topic. The Commission continued its work on the 

“Unilateral acts of States” topic. It also established a working group to

consider the future orientation of the topic “International liability for injurious 

consequences arising out of acts not prohibited by international law,” which is

liability in the case of hazardous activities causing harm across international

borders. The Commission also continued its work on the topics

“Responsibility of international organizations,” adopting three draft articles; 

“Fragmentation of international law: difficulties arising from the 

diversification and expansion of international law”; and “Shared natural

resources,” considering the first report of the special rapporteur. The ILC also 

organized its work on Fragmentation of International Law for the remaining 

part of the present five-year cycle. 

During the Sixth Committee’s annual consideration of the Report of

the International Law Commission in 2003, the U.S. representative made

detailed observations on procedural and substantive aspects of the 

Commission’s work. In the U.S. view, as a general matter, it was important

that the ILC proceed cautiously in the area of “Responsibility of international 

organizations.” The Commission should carefully assess the unique

considerations relevant to this topic and not simply work to develop analogous 

rules to those earlier drafted by the ILC in the context of states. 

The United States was also concerned that a number of the draft 

articles on “Diplomatic protection” adopted at that point did not reflect

customary international law and the necessity to so deviate had not been

justified. These articles concerned the continuous nationality rule (in which a 

state may exercise diplomatic protection only on behalf of a person who has

been a national of the state from the time of injury on which the claim is based

until through the date on which the claim is resolved), the protection of 

127 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2003 

shareholders (in which the state of nationality of shareholders may exercise 

diplomatic protection on their behalf when they have suffered direct losses),

and the exhaustion of local remedies (in which a state may exercise diplomatic

protection only after the injured person has exhausted all remedies available in

the injuring state). 

The United States hoped that the ILC would not ultimately take up

the special rapporteur’s recommendation that a convention on the prevention 

of transboundary harm from hazardous activities include a liability protocol. 

Regarding “Reservations to treaties,” the United States believed that

it would not be desirable to define the term “objection” in the draft guidelines, 

to extend the proposed exceptional rule for the late formulation of a 

reservation, or to treat conditional interpretive declarations more strictly than 

reservations. The United States also believed that the development of a body

of draft articles or rules respecting unilateral acts would not be appropriate or 

helpful. 

The United States believed that the Commission should limit its work 

on shared natural resources to the subject of groundwater and that 

“Fragmentation of international law” (that is, difficulties arising from

diversification and expansion of international law) is not a topic that lends

itself to the development of draft articles or guidelines. 

The Commission will take these observations into account in its work 

on these topics at its 56th session in 2004. 

ILC’s budget of $863,000 was funded from the UN regular budget. 

The United States paid $190,000. 

Strengthening the Role of the United Nations 

The Special Committee on the Charter of the United Nations and on

the Strengthening of the Role of the Organization (Charter Committee) held its

annual session April 7–16. The General Assembly Sixth Committee (legal) 

debated and adopted Resolution 58/80 without a vote on December 9, which 

adopted the report of the Committee’s work. On December 23, the General 

Assembly adopted Resolution 58/248, which concerned its chief substantive

agenda item on “Implementation of the Provisions of the Charter of the United

Nations Related to Assistance to Third States Affected by the Application of

Sanctions.” That issue concerns, principally, Article 50 of the Charter which 

provides that a state “which finds itself confronted with special economic 

problems” arising from the carrying out of preventive or enforcement

measures against another state shall have the right “to consult the Security

Council with regard to a solution of those problems.” 

The Special Committee recommended to the General Assembly that it

continue to consider the sanctions assistance issue in an appropriate 

substantive manner and framework. It should take into account all of the 

pertinent reports of the Secretary-General on the matter, in particular the report 

on the results of the June 1998 ad hoc expert group meeting, which was

originally proposed by the United States, on methodological approaches to

128 
Legal Developments 

assessing the third-country effects of sanctions. The Special Committee also 

endorsed the call of the United States and other countries that continuing study

of this issue include careful review of relevant work of the Security Council’s 

ad hoc working group on sanctions, so as to avoid duplication of efforts. The 

United States reiterated its support for procedural measures aimed at ensuring 

that United Nations and other appropriate bodies paid proper attention to this

issue. The United States continued to stress that international financial

institutions play the leading role addressing such economic problems. The

United States opposed such proposals, such as one that called for a UN trust

fund, funded by assessed contributions, for aggrieved third states. 

Other subjects the Special Committee considered and were supported

by the United States as having practical merit included ways and means to (1) 

improve the organization’s dispute prevention and settlement capabilities by

enhancing mediation and other tools available to the Secretary-General, and 

(2) improve the working methods and increase the efficiency of the Special 

Committee itself. On the former subject in 2003, several delegations 

welcomed the adoption by the General Assembly on November 19, 2002, of 

Resolution 57/26 on the prevention and peaceful settlement of disputes, a 

proposal by Sierra Leone and the United Kingdom, which the United States

had been instrumental in shaping and steering towards Committee consensus.

On the latter subject, the United States continued to support Japan’s initiative, 

subsequently joined by South Korea, to streamline the Special Committee’s 

work. The initiative included a mechanism for deleting from the Committee’s 

meeting agenda longstanding, often politically-charged, proposals that were 

duplicative of matters being considered elsewhere in the organization and/or

stood no chance of achieving consensus. In this regard, the United States once

again took a lead role in the Special Committee by opposing, as unnecessary 

and inappropriate, continued efforts by some other delegations to foster new,

generic criteria and guidelines that would establish certain controls with

respect to the imposition of sanctions, peacekeeping operations, the use of 

force, and General Assembly vs. Security Council prerogatives. 

War Crimes Tribunals 

International Criminal Tribunals for the former Yugoslavia 

and Rwanda 

The Security Council established the International Criminal Tribunal 

for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) in May 1993 and the International Criminal

Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) in November 1994. The Tribunals investigate 

and try individuals accused of having committed genocide, crimes against

humanity, and other serious violations of international humanitarian law in 

those respective countries. Theodor Meron (United States) continued as 

President of the ICTY in 2003. 

From its inception through the end of 2003, the ICTY had indicted

141 individuals. Of the 91 persons who have appeared before the tribunal, 41 

were convicted and five acquitted of all charges; the rest remained fugitives 

129 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2003 

from justice. The ICTR had detained 55 individuals for trial, 10 of whom

were convicted and are serving sentences, including the former Rwandan

Prime Minister Jean Kambanda. 

In 2003, the UN Security Council unanimously adopted seven 

resolutions that further directed the work of the ICTY and the ICTR.

Resolutions 1481 and 1503 were adopted as Presidential texts, meaning all

members, including the United States, acted as cosponsors. 

Resolution 1503, adopted on August 28, created the new post of

Prosecutor for the ICTR, splitting the position that Carla Del Ponte 

(Switzerland) held for both Tribunals. On September 4, the Security Council

adopted Resolution 1505, which appointed Hassan Bubacar Jallow (the

Gambia) as the ICTR Prosecutor for a four-year term. Ms. Del Ponte retained 

the role of Prosecutor for the ICTY as noted in Resolution 1504. 

Resolution 1512, adopted on October 27, amended the ICTR Statute 

to allow the ICTR’s Chambers to include five additional temporary judges. 

Resolution 1481 provided similar direction for the ICTY judges. These 

changes aimed to accelerate the work of both tribunals, allowing them to fulfill

the Completion Strategies outlined in Resolution 1503. These strategies called 

on the ICTY and ICTR to take all possible measures to complete

investigations by the end of 2004, all trial activities by 2008, and all work by

2010. 

On April 29, the Security Council adopted Resolution 1477 by

consensus. This resolution forwarded names to the General Assembly for

consideration for ad litem judges. Later in the year, Resolution 1482 extended 

the terms for expiring judicial appointments in the ICTR so that the judges 

could finish their current cases, thereby preserving continuity and fairness.

The Security Council adopted this resolution by consensus. 

The capture and prosecution at the ICTY and the ICTR of persons 

indicted for war crimes—especially senior leaders Radovan Karadzic, Ratko 

Mladic, and Ante Gotovina at the ICTY and Felicien Kabuga at the ICTR—

was a critical priority for the United States and the Security Council. The 

United States strongly urged all pertinent parties, particularly the Republika

Srpska in Bosnia-Herzegovina, the Republic of Serbia in Serbia and

Montenegro, Croatia, and the Government of Rwanda, to cooperate and 

support the efforts and integrity of the ICTY and ICTR by apprehending and

transferring fugitive indictees to the appropriate tribunal, and by freezing the

assets and restricting travel of fugitive indictees. 

The United States continued to closely monitor the tribunals and

ensure that they adopted and adhered to practices that improved efficiency and 

effectiveness. The United States helped make sure that all increases to the 

budgets were fully justified and in line with the tribunals’ completion

strategies. In calendar year 2003, the United States was assessed $57 million 

for both tribunals, approximately a quarter of the total costs, about $228 

million. 

130 
Legal Developments 

Special Court for Sierra Leone 

The Special Court for Sierra Leone (SCSL) was established by an

agreement between the Government of Sierra Leone and the United Nations. 

The Court would be financed by voluntary contributions. It is mandated to try

those who bear the greatest responsibility for serious violations of international

humanitarian and Sierra Leonean law committed in the territory of Sierra 

Leone since November 30, 1996. 

By the end of 2003, the Special Court had indicted 11 persons. This

included the 17-count indictment against former Liberian President Charles 

Taylor issued in March. The indictment against Taylor charged war crimes, 

crimes against humanity, and other serious violations of international

humanitarian law. Indictments against two other persons were withdrawn in

December due to the deaths of the accused. 

In resolutions concerning the UN Mission in Sierra Leone, the 

Security Council included provisions that stressed the importance of the SCSL

and a related Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC). These resolutions, 

among other things, called upon all member states to financially support the

work of these institutions. The Security Council unanimously adopted these 

measures. The United States publicly echoed the resolution’s call for donor

assistance to the SCSL. 

The TRC, which was established in 2002, also continued to collect 

testimony of victims and perpetrator. It held hearings to create an impartial

record of human rights violations, which would promote healing and national

reconciliation. Both the SCSL and the TRC have important and 

complementary roles to play in promoting reconciliation and the rule of law in 

Sierra Leone. The United States has contributed $700,000 to the TRC since its

inception.

The United States is also an active member of the Court’s

Management Committee, comprised of the largest donors (United States, the 

United Kingdom, the Netherlands, and Canada) as well as Nigeria, Lesotho, 

Sierra Leone, and UN representatives. The Committee provides policy advice

and direction on all the non-judicial aspects of the Court’s operations,

including the Court’s annual budget. In 2003, the Court revised its three-year 

budget estimate upwards, from approximately $56 million to $87 million.

The United States has been a key supporter of the SCSL, voluntarily

contributing a total of $10 million in 2003. In order to assist in securing

funding for the Court, the United States strongly urged other member states to 

contribute voluntary funding to the Court. A U.S. citizen, David Crane, was 

appointed as Prosecutor for a three-year term that began in 2002. 

131 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2003 

132 
Part 5 

Reform of the UN System 

UN Reform Efforts 

In 2003, the United Nations adopted administrative and management 

reforms on several fronts. The United States was one of the major supporters

of the Secretary-General’s Track III reforms adopted in Resolution 57/300

(2002). It actively engaged the UN Secretariat and other member states to 

maintain the momentum for reform and ensure reform measures were

implemented. The Secretary-General’s September 2003 status report on UN

reform highlighted several administrative, management, and structural reforms 

that were implemented, particularly in the areas of budget management, 

human resources management, public information, and human rights. 

Despite strong resistance from some developing countries, the United 

States and other Western countries achieved moderate reform of the UN

budget process for the first time since 1986. The new budget process outlined

in Resolution 58/269 called for a two-year Strategic Framework in place of the 

four-year Medium-Term Plan. The Strategic Framework will consist of a 

Biennial Program Plan and a Plan Outline that will also reflect program

objectives beyond two years and will be the UN’s principal policy directive for

program planning, budgeting, monitoring, and evaluation. A budget outline,

combined with the Strategic Framework, will guide the preparation of the next

biennial budget that will synchronize, for the first time, program plans with the 

availability of financial resources. In addition, the budget reform resolution

diminished the budgetary reviewing role of the Committee for Program and

Coordination. Instead, the Committee will concentrate on monitoring and 

evaluating programs. The results of its reviews will have a direct role in 

preparing the next biennium budget, enabling member states to target

resources to priority areas. 

In addition, the General Assembly adopted several modest 

administrative and management reforms in Resolution 58/270, which 

concerned the 2004–2005 biennium budget. This resolution gave the 

Secretary-General greater authority to manage UN staff on an organizationwide basis. It authorized him for the first time to move up to 50 professional

positions among departments in the Secretariat to address staffing needs for 

high priority activities. The General Assembly also agreed to terminate 912

obsolete or redundant outputs that had been funded in previous budgets. One

of the more notable targets for elimination, the cumbersome and outdated 

Repertory of Practice (a legal publication containing analytical studies of the

decisions of the UN principal organs under each Article of the UN Charter), 

would result in savings of $2 million. The General Assembly mandated the

elimination of several secretarial positions in New York and Geneva and 

called for suspending the recruitment of individuals for new general service 

vacancies. The elimination of these positions would reduce the ratio of 

133 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2003 

general service to professional positions, in keeping with the UN’s substantial 

investment in information technology. 

In accordance with the Secretary-General’s proposals, Department of 

Public Information (DPI) activities were divided among three new divisions

and engaged in closer coordination with other UN departments. The DPI also

developed an action plan that would smooth the transition from the model of 

national-level UN Information Centers to a new regional hub model, and in

December 2003, the Secretary-General consolidated nine information centers 

in Western Europe into a regional hub in Brussels. Also, the General

Assembly requested an operational and management review of all UN libraries

with a focus on the libraries’ staffing requirements. 

Concerted efforts were underway to provide an integrated and 

consistent response to member states that request support in strengthening

their national human rights protection systems. The General Assembly

supported greater cooperation among treaty bodies and clearer lines of

reporting. The Secretariat established a Special Procedures Branch in the

Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) to oversee

rapporteurs and other mechanisms mandated by Commission on Human

Rights resolutions. The UN Secretariat, the Office of Internal Oversight

Services (OIOS), and member states consulted with each other on methods to

improve the special procedure mechanisms. Additional management

improvements focused on the implementation of OIOS recommendations that 

called for, among other things, more consolidated and clearer lines of

reporting, organizational streamlining, and strengthening of internal planning

and assessment practices at OHCHR. To meet these objectives, the General

Assembly approved six new posts for OHCHR. 

To maintain momentum for UN improvements, the General

Assembly also requested a variety of studies on other subjects, including ways

to improve the UN’s development assistance programs, ways to strengthen 

priority setting, the structure and function of New York-based liaison offices

of UN funded programs, and evaluation of the potential for reducing staffing

costs through increased local recruitment. 

In a speech to the General Assembly on September 23, the SecretaryGeneral proposed to create a High-Level Panel to examine current 

international threats, provide analysis of future challenges, and recommend

changes necessary to ensure effective UN action. Anand Panyarchun 

(Thailand) was appointed to chair the 16-member panel; former U.S. National 

Security Advisor Brent Scowcroft was appointed as a panel member. The

United States supported this initiative. 

UN specialized agencies also adopted significant reforms in 2003.

The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) 32nd Conference in November 

agreed to amend the FAO Basic Texts to reinstate term limits for the DirectorGeneral position, a key reform priority for the United States and other major 

contributors. In doing so, the FAO re-joined other UN agencies in recognizing

that term limits for heads of UN agencies are a necessary part of good 

134 
Reform of the UN System 

management, and that periodic change in leadership is healthy and desirable.

The 32nd Conference also agreed to a new methodology for determining 

equitable geographic distribution, which uses the current UN system with its

weighting factors of membership, population, and contribution (but not post or

grade-weighting). The old system was based on members’ assessed 

contributions and relied on an arbitrary grade-weighting scheme that dated 

from the 1950s. 

The UN Children’s Fund (UNICEF) amended its funding structure to

compensate for a trend among donors to provide earmarked rather than

unrestricted core contributions. Though earmarked contributions are essential, 

it is the non-earmarked funding that provides UNICEF with the basic 

infrastructure and capability to conduct both the flexible, rapid-response 

programming and long-term work that define its success in both the 

humanitarian and development fields. UNICEF’s new framework creates a

sliding scale of assessments that is based on factors such as size of the

contribution, the nature of payment, and reporting requirements. The system

aims to provide a straightforward, transparent way to provide incentives for 

donations that fund core UNICEF activities and cost less for UNICEF to

administer. 

In the UN Development Program (UNDP), the United States has been

building the case for a transparent and consistent cost-recovery schedule in

Executive Board decisions, requesting UNDP to review its cost-recovery 

policy and practice. This has led to a Board review, scheduled for September 

2004, of UNDP’s report on how it can improve cost recovery with a timetable.

Peacekeeping 

On March 7, 2000, the UN Secretary-General appointed an

independent panel of experts to study UN peacekeeping operations and make

recommendations for improvement. The Brahimi Panel, named after 

Ambassador Lakhdar Brahimi (Algeria), who headed the panel, proposed 57

recommendations that addressed doctrine, headquarters staffing, rapid

deployment, and information technology. The United States supported the

Secretary-General’s initiative and many of the panel’s findings, particularly

those calling for an improved UN capacity to plan, rapidly deploy, and manage

peacekeeping operations. 

Many of the reform measures were in place by 2003. Staffing 

shortages in the Department of Peacekeeping Operations (DPKO) had been 

addressed during previous years. With recruiting largely complete, much of

the organizational restructuring suggested by the panel continued to proceed. 

Member states continued to focus attention on the problem of slow

deployment times caused by financial and logistical barriers faced by Troop 

Contributing Countries. To meet deployment goals of 30 days for traditional

missions and 90 days for complex missions, as suggested by the Brahimi Panel

and endorsed by the Secretary-General and the Special Committee on 

Peacekeeping Operations, the General Assembly adopted Resolution 56/292

135 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2003 

on July 18, 2002, authorizing $141.5 million to establish the Strategic 

Deployment Stockpile (SDS) in Brindisi, Italy. The SDS was established to

facilitate the storage and maintenance of reusable assets from missions being

closed down. In addition, the depot’s strategic location helped to lower costs 

of shipping to newly created missions and redistributing equipment. The 

United States strongly supported this concept. In 2003, the smooth

deployment of UN peacekeepers to Liberia indicated that the initiative was 

performing as expected. 

The United Nations undertook significant efforts in 2003 to address 

issues of human trafficking and sexual exploitation and abuse. The DPKO 

initiated a three-pronged approach to prevent human trafficking, involving the 

following: (1) awareness and training; (2) discipline, accountability, and 

community relations; and (3) support to anti-trafficking activities. In October, 

the Secretary-General issued a bulletin on special measures for protection from

sexual exploitation and sexual abuse, stating that UN forces conducting 

operations under UN command and control are prohibited from committing 

acts of sexual exploitation and sexual abuse. In November, the Executive

Committee on Humanitarian Affairs established a working group to design a

system for implementation of the bulletin by all parts of the UN system. The 

working group agreed that, in every country where a UN entity has a 

substantial presence, the entity must appoint a female senior-level sexual

exploitation and abuse focal point and alternate. The working group also

agreed that focal points would receive specialized training in handling 

complaints and form country-level networks, and that these networks would 

communicate with local populations about prevention of sexual exploitation

and abuse and channels of recourse for victims in the relevant languages. 

Security Council 

In a speech delivered to the UN General Assembly on October 27,

U.S. Representative to the United Nations James B. Cunningham reiterated the 

State Department’s seven principles that should guide UN reform, which the 

United States focused on applying to Security Council and General Assembly 

reform. These principles are: 

• Responsibility: Nations need to fulfill their responsibility to stop global 

dangers, such as terrorism and WMD proliferation.

• Accountability: Membership in UN institutions, especially the Security

Council, should go to those that shoulder burdens. 

• Effectiveness: The UN Secretariat and the inter-governmental process 

need to be consolidated and rationalized, and need to be held accountable

for producing results. 

• Stewardship of Financial Resources: Poorly performing agencies and 

programs should improve or be ended. 

• Modernization: Regional groups need to realign to reflect changing 

global realities, such as the enlarged European Union’s impact on the 

Western European and Others Group and the East European Group. 

136 
Reform of the UN System 

• Credibility: Members of all UN bodies should reflect the purposes of

those bodies. States subject to sanctions should not serve on the Security

Council, and human rights abusers should not serve on the UN

Commission on Human Rights. 

• Freedom: UN programs should help individuals secure their political and

civil rights, promote the Monterrey Consensus, extend the rule of law, and

provide benefits of economic freedom, good governance, and democracy. 

The United States believes that any Security Council reform must 

ensure the effectiveness of Council. The United States consistently stressed

that any Security Council reform must focus on practical, achievable reforms 

to enhance its ability to effectively implement its original mandate. The 

United States continued to oppose any reform that would encumber the 

Council’s authority, including the elimination or dilution of the veto. 

General Assembly 

On December 19, the General Assembly adopted by consensus 

Resolution 58/126, “Revitalization of the Work of the General Assembly.” In

an explanation of position, the United States welcomed efforts to reform the

work of the General Assembly, but stressed that member states had to take 

bolder steps. The United States warned that the General Assembly risked

sliding into irrelevancy. 

Concerning the General Assembly’s agenda, the United States noted 

that it was cumbersome and overloaded; redundant items should be culled

through biennialization, triennialization, clustering, and elimination. The 

United States also proposed the elimination of the entire current agenda and a

new focus on the UN’s Strategic Framework, a formal planning document

establishing UN priorities. The United States believed that the organizing

priorities of the Strategic Framework should also serve as an organizing

principle for the agenda of the General Assembly. 

The United States urged that the General Committee be empowered

to make more aggressive proposals to manage the General Assembly’s agenda

and emphasized that revitalization efforts should not incur additional costs or

additional meeting time. The United States opposed efforts to split the

General Assembly into two sessions, thus extending business of the Assembly

through the year, questioning whether that would really represent a “reform.” 

The United States strongly preferred to advance agenda reform and review its 

results before considering calendar reform. 

The United States made progress in working to reform the General

Assembly’s treatment of Israel. First, the United States led a successful move 

to consolidate seven resolutions related to the UN Relief Works Agency for 

Palestine Refugees into one, with adoption of Resolution 58/95 by a vote of

133 to 0, with 35 abstentions. Second, the United States sought to end the

mandate of the Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices Affecting the 

Human Rights of the Palestinian people and Other Arabs of the Occupied

Territories. Strong lobbying in capitals and New York produced moderate

137 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2003 

gains in increasing the number of No votes and abstentions to the extent that 

these nearly equaled the number of positive votes. Finally, U.S. 

representatives at the General Assembly continued efforts to seek abolition of

three other bodies the United States considers biased against Israel: the 

Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People,

the Division for Palestinian Rights, and the Special Information Program on 

the Question of Palestine. Thanks to U.S. efforts, support for the first two

bodies in the General Assembly diminished significantly. 

Democracy Caucus 

A relatively new area of reform in which the United States engaged in 

2003 was in encouraging the development of a democracy caucus within the 

United Nations. UN members have formed caucuses around many different

issues, including regional interests, economic similarities, religious affiliation,

and other shared positions or objectives. The United States believes that 

stronger coordination among democratic countries that share similar values 

and institutions will help strengthen the UN’s work in promoting democracy, 

fighting tyranny, and standing for the protection of human rights and 

fundamental freedoms, as outlined in the UN Charter. In turn, success in these

efforts will advance the UN’s work to promote peace and economic

development.

The democracy caucus is not a substitute for the regional bloc system,

in which countries organize themselves into five regional groups. Rather, the 

democracy caucus is a complementary effort, which would allow like-minded 

democratic states within or across regions to discuss and coordinate voting,

launch initiatives, and support UN efforts that promote democratic values. In 

addition, the caucus can be used as a tool to encourage and recruit more

democratic countries to serve on UN bodies, such as the Commission on 

Human Rights. The Community of Democracies, a network of over 100

democratic countries, has endorsed the concept and has been a driving force 

behind the formation of a democracy caucus. 

At the UN General Assembly in 2003, the foreign ministers of the 10-

nation Convening Group of the Community of Democracies met to discuss,

among other issues, the formation of a democracy caucus. The idea of a

caucus was endorsed in the Warsaw Declaration of the Community of 

Democracies in 2000 and again in 2002, when the Community adopted the 

Seoul Plan of Action, which stated that democracies would work together to 

promote and consolidate democracy at the United Nations and other 

multilateral bodies. 

Democracies within the Commission on Human Rights and the 

Economic and Social Council have met to discuss the concept of a democracy 

caucus, how democracies can work more closely together to strengthen the 

UN’s work on democracy promotion, and how to ensure that more countries 

which govern by the standards embodied in the UN Charter can be elected to

UN bodies. Though still in its early stages, the concept of a democracy caucus 

138 
Reform of the UN System 

has received broad support from democracies and nongovernmental

organizations worldwide.

139 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2003 

140 
Part 6 

Administration and Budget 

UN Financial Situation 

At the end of 2003, outstanding assessments by UN member states

totaled $1.603 billion. This represented a small decrease from the 2002 total. 

The largest portion of the outstanding assessments came from UN 

peacekeeping operations ($1.066 billion), followed by the UN regular budget

($442 million), the International War Crimes Tribunals ($88 million), and the 

design phase of the UN Capital Master Plan ($7 million). 

Seven member states comprised 87 percent of the total outstanding

assessments with the United States accounting for $762 million and Argentina,

Belarus, Brazil, China, Japan, and Ukraine accounting for $628 million. The 

majority of the total sum owed by the United States related to UN 

peacekeeping operations ($482 million) and the UN regular budget ($268 

million). The delay in the U.S. budget appropriation for fiscal year 2004

affected the U.S. payment for the UN regular budget, resulting in a payment 

shortfall of approximately $100 million. Overall, U.S. payments in 2003 for

all UN assessed activities totaled $1.012 billion of the $3.720 billion in 

payments made by all 191 UN member states. 

The UN’s Under Secretary-General for Management (currently

Catherine Bertini, a U.S. citizen) provides a semi-annual update of the UN’s 

financial situation to the Fifth (Administrative and Budgetary) Committee. In 

her presentation in October 2003, she noted that the cash balance for the UN 

regular budget was approaching zero and that cross-borrowing from

terminated peacekeeping operations would be required before the end of the 

calendar year to forestall a deficit. Such cross-borrowing had already been

initiated in July with respect to the International War Crimes Tribunals in the 

former Yugoslavia and Rwanda. Both tribunals had exhausted their available

cash due to non-payment of member assessments. Japan, the UN’s second 

largest assessed contributor, made no payment toward its 2003 dues of

approximately $41 million. The United States completed payment of its 2003 

dues to the tribunals in late autumn ($57 million total for the year). 

The UN’s cash balances for its various peacekeeping operations were

projected to be $1.198 billion by the end of 2003. However, most of the 

balance would not be available due to other financial needs, such as

peacekeeping operating costs in early 2004 and reimbursements to the 

Peacekeeping Reserve Fund. In addition, the UN’s debt obligation to troop 

contributing countries was estimated to be $565 million by the end of the 

2003. This was less than the previous year when the total debt was $703 

million. The UN’s Under Secretary-General for Management was expected to 

update the debt figures and other UN financial data at her next briefing to the

Fifth Committee in early spring 2004. 

141 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2003 

UN Budget 

The General Assembly considered two UN budgets during its regular 

session in autumn 2003. It approved the final level of the UN budget for the

biennium 2002–2003, and it approved the initial UN budget for the biennium

2004–2005. The resolutions for both budgets were adopted by consensus. 

On December 23, the UN General Assembly adopted Resolution 

58/267, which approved the final level of the UN program budget for the 

biennium 2002–2003. The approved amount of $2,967,727,800 represented

an increase of $76,659,100 over the previous level and was based on

information provided in the Secretary-General’s second budget performance 

report for the biennium, as contained in document A/58/558. The budget

increase reflected the impact of exchange rate losses due to the declining value 

of the U.S. dollar ($59.1 million), higher costs for inflation ($7.7 million), and

costs related to the maintenance of peace and security, including special 

political missions in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Cote d’Ivoire ($33.5 million). The 

above figures were offset partly (by $23.7 million) as a result of higher than 

expected staff vacancy rates in some UN posts, which helped reduce the 

overall staff costs in the budget. As noted, by far the largest component of the 

increase—approximately $59 million—related to exchange rate losses caused

by the declining value of the U.S. dollar. The biggest dollar declines occurred 

with respect to the Swiss franc and the Euro—15.9 percent and 19.2 percent,

respectively. The UN’s Board of Auditors, in consultation with the SecretaryGeneral, will review the mechanisms for dealing with currency fluctuations in 

the UN’s budget methodology and provide recommendations to the General

Assembly at its 59th session. The request for this review is contained in 

Resolution 58/270 regarding the UN budget for 2004–2005. 

On December 23, the General Assembly also adopted by consensus

Resolutions 58/270, 58/271, and 58/272 approving the 2004–2005 UN budget

at a level of $3,160,860,300. The approved budget was 6.5 percent higher

than the final budget approved for 2002–2003, but below the level proposed

by the Secretary-General and the additional proposals made by some UN 

member states during the budget deliberations in the Fifth Committee. The 

combined proposals from the Secretary-General and from member states

would have raised the overall budget level to approximately $3.2 billion. The 

higher budget level for 2004–2005 as approved reflects primarily the impact of

non-discretionary cost increases relating to inflation and rates of exchange. It

also includes funding for priority activities supported by the United States, 

such as counter-terrorism and special political missions in Afghanistan and in

Iraq. Excluding the impact of non-discretionary costs, the level of budget

growth for 2004–2005 is virtually flat in real terms. 

The negotiations leading up to the consensus adoption of the 2004–

2005 UN budget were contentious and difficult. Working in a so-called 

“extended group,” which included traditional major contributors and other

like-minded nations, the U.S. delegation in the Fifth Committee was able to 

142 
Administration and Budget 

mobilize support for several measures that reduced the overall budget proposal

and advanced management reform in the UN Secretariat. The measures will: 

• Suspend recruitment action in the UN Secretariat with respect to new 

vacancies in General Services (support) positions, excluding those 

positions relating to safety and security personnel and editorial assistants 

(text processors); 

• Provide the Secretary-General, on an experimental basis, with greater

flexibility in the re-deployment of existing staff in order to meet evolving

needs; 

• Delay approval of the year 2005 budget appropriation for the UN’s Joint 

Inspection Unit, pending review of reform proposals concerning that

body; and 

• Achieve cost reductions in UN publications, UN information centers, 

temporary assistance staff, overtime and night differential expenses, 

common services costs, and subsistence expenses relating to middle and 

higher-level UN staff. 

In efforts to further streamline UN operations, the General Assembly

in Resolution 58/270 requested the Secretary-General to undertake a 

comprehensive review of the UN’s regular program of technical cooperation

and, together with the Office of Internal Oversight Services, “proceed as

quickly as possible” to conduct a systematic evaluation of the impact,

efficiency, and cost-effectiveness of all activities of the UN’s Department of

Public Information. The resolution also requested the Secretary-General to

report to the General Assembly at its 59th session on efforts to improve the 

UN’s implementation of Regulation 5.6 and Rule 105.6(a) of the UN’s

Regulations and Rules Governing Program Planning. The two statutes relate

to the requirement of UN program managers to identify for possible 

elimination those activities that are considered obsolete and/or of marginal 

value. The United States is a strong proponent of improved priority setting in

the United Nations, including the elimination or sun-setting of 

obsolete/marginal activities. 

The increase in the UN budget levels for 2002–2003 and 2004–2005 

due to non-discretionary costs—particularly exchange rate losses resulting

from the decline in the value of the U.S. dollar—had been a major concern of

the United States and other delegations that advocated budget discipline in the 

United Nations. Language in Resolution 58/270 sought to address the issue by

calling on the UN’s Board of Auditors, in consultation with the SecretaryGeneral, to examine the UN’s current “recosting” methodology and make 

proposals with regard to the most appropriate mechanism for managing the 

currency aspect of the methodology. The findings of the Board of Auditors

will be submitted to the General Assembly at its 59th session. 

In accordance with UN budget procedure, the General Assembly will

review the initial 2004–2005 UN budget in autumn 2004 in the context of the 

Secretary-General’s first performance report for the biennium. The initial 

143 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2003 

level will be revised up or down based on the performance review as well as 

other factors that may be approved by the General Assembly in the course of

this review. 

Capital Master Plan 

The UN Capital Master Plan (CMP) is a comprehensive proposal by 

the UN Secretary-General to refurbish and renovate the UN headquarters 

complex in New York. The overall project is expected to cost over $1 billion 

and take five to six years to complete. At its 57th session in 2002, the UN

General Assembly decided in Resolution 57/292 to implement the CMP on the 

basis of the “baseline scope of the first approach,” as contained in the

Secretary-General’s August 2002 report (A/57/285). The estimated

construction budget would be $1.049 billion, with a variance of plus/minus 10

percent. The proposed starting date for construction would be October 2004. 

The same resolution also authorized the Secretary-General to proceed with the 

remaining phases of design development and construction documentation, and 

requested the Secretary-General to provide a progress report on this to the

General Assembly at its 58th session. The UN’s Office of Internal Oversight 

Services (OIOS) and Board of Auditors (BOA) were requested in the 

resolution to provide oversight of the UN’s implementation of the CMP and to

report periodically to the General Assembly. 

At its 58th regular session, the General Assembly took note of the 

following four documents relating to the Capital Master Plan: (1) the

November 2003 report of the Secretary-General on implementation of the

Capital Master Plan (A/58/599); (2) the December 2003 report of the Advisory

Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions (ACABQ) 

(A/58/7/Add.15) relating to the aforementioned report of the SecretaryGeneral; (3) a September 2003 note by the Secretary-General transmitting the 

OIOS report on the CMP to the General Assembly (A/58/342) ; and (4) an

August 2003 note by the Secretary-General transmitting the BOA progress 

report on its review of the CMP (A/58/321). The action by the General

Assembly to note the various documents appears in Part II of Resolution

58/272, Special Subjects Relating to the Proposed Budget for the Biennium

2004–2005. The overall resolution was adopted by consensus. 

The November report of the Secretary-General indicated that tangible

progress had been made in all areas of implementation of the CMP. In

February 2003, the Secretary-General had formally established the Capital 

Master Plan Office, including the appointment of an Executive Director. The

Office has responsibility for the overall design work of the CMP and the 

related procurement actions. In 2003, the Office entered into contracts with 21

vendors totaling $12.3 million with respect to design work relating to the CMP 

and to projects to strengthen the UN building structure. The Office also

oversaw the drafting of six contracts relating to major design of the UN 

premises. This design work was expected to begin in early 2004. The report 

of the Secretary-General notes the uncertainty of the status of overall CMP

financing, including a possible proposal to be made by the United States as the 

144 
Administration and Budget 

host country for UN headquarters. The United States was expected to make a

funding proposal in early 2004 in the context of the President’s budget request 

for fiscal year 2005. The report of the Secretary-General also provided a

status report on the possible construction of a new UN building to serve as 

“swing space” during renovation and, later, as a permanent facility that would 

consolidate into a single facility the other UN activities that are currently

dispersed throughout Manhattan. Construction of the new building is

dependent on resolution of the following two major issues: (1) the outcome of

negotiations by the City of New York and the local community regarding the

use of part of Robert Moses Park, a recreation facility adjacent to the United 

Nations, to construct the new building; and (2) the date by which the UN 

Development Corporation would be able to issue the bonds required to finance

the construction of the new building. The UN Secretary-General will provide 

at a later time an updated status report to the General Assembly regarding the 

resolution of these issues. 

The other documents considered by the General Assembly with

respect to the CMP were non-controversial. The observations in the OIOS 

report indicated: “the design development process has advanced satisfactorily

during the early stages of the Capital Master Plan project and there is

reasonable assurance to indicate that the process thus far has been transparent

and fair. The internal controls in place for the contract solicitation and review 

process also were found to be satisfactory.” The view of the OIOS was 

endorsed by the ACABQ in its December report. The ACABQ also noted

that, as the CMP is a time-limited project to be implemented on a phased basis, 

any request by the United Nations for additional staff should (1) be based on

actual workload requirements for each phase of the project, and (2) take

account of existing expertise in other Secretariat offices (e.g., facilities

management, procurement, human resource management) in order to avoid

replication of existing organizational structures and staff resources. The U.S. 

delegation concurred with the views of the ACABQ and OIOS. 

The BOA report indicated that the first audit of the financial 

statements would be submitted to the General Assembly at its 59th session and

covers the biennium ending December 31, 2003. The planned audit also 

would review the adequacy of the UN’s internal controls and processes 

relating to the management of the CMP. 

The Fifth Committee was expected to consider the issue of overall 

CMP funding in early 2004 at the resumed 58th session of the General

Assembly. The U.S. funding proposal, as contained in the President’s fiscal 

year 2005 budget request, was expected to be the primary topic of discussion

by the Fifth Committee. 

Scale of Assessments 

At its 58th session, the UN General Assembly adopted two

resolutions relating to the UN scale of assessments, one for the UN regular 

budget and one for UN peacekeeping operations. The resolutions prescribe 

UN member assessment rates for the three-year period, 2004–2006. The U.S. 

145 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2003 

assessment rate for the UN regular budget would remain at the ceiling level of

22 percent, in keeping with a methodology established by the General

Assembly in 2000. The resolution for the regular scale also provided

temporary exemption for 10 UN members from the loss-of-vote provision of

Article 19 of the UN Charter. 

The U.S. assessment rate for UN peacekeeping operations would vary

between 26.48 percent and 26.69 percent over the course of the scale period,

also in keeping with a system introduced in 2000, which was structured largely 

in accordance with defined economic criteria. The new peacekeeping rate is a

decline from the 2002 U.S. rate of approximately 27.1 percent, and a 

significant decline from the 2000 rate of approximately 30.3 percent. 

Resolution 58/1B, adopted by consensus on December 23, established 

the scale of assessments for the UN regular budget for the period 2004–2006. 

The new scale is consistent with the parameters of the UN methodology the

General Assembly previously endorsed for Resolution 55/5 (2000). A key

element of the scale methodology is the use of updated economic data to

determine each member’s “capacity to pay,” as measured by its Gross National 

Income and Per-Capita Income over a specified base period. The UN scale for

2004–2006 uses a base period comprising the average of the periods 1996–

2001 and 1999–2001, respectively. The methodology also takes into account

the level of external debt for developing countries and includes provision for a

minimum “floor” rate of 0.001 percent, maximum “ceiling” rate for

developing countries of 0.010 percent, and a maximum “ceiling” rate for all

UN members of 22 percent. The calculation of the 2004–2006 UN scale—

including conversion of members’ economic data into U.S. dollars—was 

reflected in the report of the UN’s expert Committee on Contributions (CoC),

as contained in document A/58/11. The report was prepared in June and 

submitted to the Fifth Committee for its consideration at the 58th session of

the UN General Assembly. During the deliberations, the United States 

supported the report of the CoC, including its recommended scale for 2004–

2006. 

The triennial debate on the next UN scale of assessments is

traditionally among the most contentious on the Fifth Committee agenda. In

2003, the focus of the debate concerned the distribution of mitigation “points” 

to other members as a result of the voluntary action taken by the Russian

Federation to increase its assessment rate in 2004–2006 from the CoCcalculated level of 0.466 percent to 1.1 percent. (Note: one “point” is equal to

0.001 percent.) Some members, including Jamaica and Lebanon, sought to

have all of the mitigation points distributed to developing countries, which

would experience higher assessment rates in 2004–2006 based on the

calculations in the report of the CoC. Other members, including Japan, sought

a pro rata distribution of the points to all members, excluding those members

that already were assessed at the floor and ceiling rates. Following difficult

negotiations, Committee members reached a compromise solution. The 

outcome provided some assessment relief to the affected developing countries, 

146 
Administration and Budget 

while preserving most elements of the pro-rata distribution sought by Japan 

and others. 

The key issue for the United States in the scale negotiations was the 

preservation of the 22 percent ceiling rate, which in 2000 had been approved 

only for a three-year period, such as the scale for 2001–2003. The previous

ceiling rate had been 25 percent. Aside from interventions by some Fifth

Committee members, the Committee as a whole did not extensively debate the 

ceiling rate. The Committee agreed to retain the 22 percent in the UN scale

for 2004–2006. Moreover, there was no explicit language in the approved 

scale resolution that would limit the 22 percent ceiling to just a three-year

period, as was the case in 2000. 

Based on the recommendation of the CoC, the General Assembly 

approved temporary exemption from the loss-of-vote provision of Article 19

of the UN Charter for the following nine UN members: Burundi, Central

African Republic, Comoros, Georgia, Guinea-Bissau, Republic of Moldova,

Sao Tome and Principe, Somalia, and Tajikistan. In addition, the General

Assembly noted and approved the request of Niger for a temporary exemption, 

even though the CoC had not considered the request previously. In all cases, 

the temporary exemption was granted through June 30, 2004. The exemption

was based on the determination by the General Assembly that the failure of the

10 members to pay the minimum assessment amount, as stipulated under

Article 19, was due to reasons beyond the control of the respective members.

The action by the General Assembly was reflected in Resolution 58/1A, as 

adopted by consensus on October 16. 

Resolution 58/256, adopted by consensus on December 23,

established the UN scale of assessments for peacekeeping operations for 

2004–2006. The scale was consistent with the overall methodology approved 

in 2000 by the General Assembly in its Resolutions 55/235 and 55/236. The 

methodology established 10 assessment categories, or “levels,” for UN 

member states, which takes account of the following: (1) the special 

responsibility for UN peacekeeping operations of the five permanent members

of the Security Council, and (2) economic factors relating to the remainder of

the UN’s membership. The five permanent members of the Security Council 

are assessed a premium for peacekeeping over their respective rates for the

regular budget in order to offset the discounts accorded to developing

countries under the various assessment levels prescribed in the scale 

methodology. The peacekeeping assessment rates for developed countries, 

which are not Security Council members, such as Japan, members of the 

European Union, and others, are identical to their respective rates for the UN 

regular budget. 

For 2004–2006, the U.S. assessment rate for peacekeeping would be 

as follows: 

• January 2004: 26.6901 percent; July 2004: 26.6752 percent 

• January 2005: 26.4987 percent; July 2005: 26.4838 percent 

147 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2003 

• January 2006: 26.6932 percent (full year)

The variance in rates reflects primarily the complexities of the scale 

methodology approved in 2000, which includes the phased movement of some

members from one assessment level to another. The permanent members of 

the Security Council would feel the impact of such movement, with either 

higher or lower assessment rates. The reduction in the U.S. rate for 2004–

2006, as compared to the previous scale period, was due in part to voluntary

action taken by Russia to increase its assessment rate and thus lower the costs 

to other member states. 

Committee for Program and Coordination 

The United States is a member of the Committee for Program and

Coordination (CPC), comprised of 34 members elected by the General 

Assembly. The CPC is the main subsidiary organ of the Economic and Social 

Council (ECOSOC) and the General Assembly for planning, programming,

and coordination. During its 43rd session June 9–July 9 in New York, the 

Committee focused primarily on the following three issues: review of several

evaluation and coordination reports; revisions to the Medium-Term Plan 

(MTP); and consideration of the proposed UN budget for 2004–2005. The 

majority of the CPC meetings were devoted to consideration of the proposed

budget. CPC members serve for periods of three years, and may serve

multiple successive terms. 

The evaluation and coordination reports dealt with UN activities 

related to global development trends, advancement of women, law of the sea,

the New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD), and the general

topic of UN efficiency. The Committee agreed with the recommendations of

the evaluation and coordination reports, with the notable exception of a Joint 

Inspection Unit (JIU) report entitled “Implementing the UN Millennium 

Declaration” (A/57/273). The CPC “took note” of the report but was highly

critical of it and declined to endorse its recommendations because all were

impractical and most were not feasible. The Committee’s consideration of the 

report drew attention to the need to reform the JIU, a process that continued in 

the Fifth Committee later in 2003. 

The CPC revised sections of the MTP to incorporate the outcomes of 

the NEPAD meeting, the 11th session of the Commission on Sustainable

Development, the World Summit on Sustainable Development, and the 

Secretary-General’s reform of the Department of Public Information (DPI).

Most of the CPC members agreed with the proposed program budget

for 2004–2005, although many took issue with items relating to the SecretaryGeneral’s reform package (A/57/300), as well as the manner in which program 

managers implemented priority-setting rules and regulations. The United 

States strongly supported the Secretary-General’s reform package in its 

entirety. The United States and other delegations noted that in many sections

of the budget, targets were often still undetermined and therefore left member

states and program managers with limited ability to measure real impact. The 

148 
Administration and Budget 

United States indicated that it hoped to see major improvement on this issue in

the future. 

During the CPC annual meeting, the United States repeatedly 

emphasized the need for program managers to fully implement UN prioritysetting rules and regulations. These include a requirement that a list of items

that can be discontinued because they are obsolete, of marginal usefulness, or 

ineffective shall be submitted within the proposed program budget of outputs. 

As submitted to the CPC, only 18 of the 33 budget sections identified activities 

to be discontinued. Of those, eight included only a few activities. The 

resources freed up by eliminating outdated programs would go toward funding 

of activities of higher priority. The United States indicated that it would like 

to see dramatic improvements in priority setting by program managers. Most

budget sections embraced results-based-budgeting (RBB); however, many 

delegations noted there was vast room for improvement and refinement of that

methodology. The United States has pressed for the adoption and full 

implementation of RBB. 

Consideration of the budgets for human rights activities and the UN 

Environment Program was deferred to the 58th General Assembly as a result

of the Secretariat’s inability to produce revised versions of their budgets for 

CPC review. DPI was also deferred since the CPC could not agree on the 

proposed regionalization of UN Information Centers (UNICs). The

Committee was clearly divided between developing countries that did not want

any regionalization and major contributors who wanted to see the UNIC

system overhauled in accordance with A/57/300. 

The CPC submitted its report to ECOSOC in July. ECOSOC 

considered it, along with the report of the Advisory Committee on 

Administrative and Budgetary Questions (ACABQ). The Fifth Committee

considered both of these reports and the proposed budget in the fall. 

The Fifth Committee also considered the agenda item “Strengthening

of the United Nations: an agenda for further change,” which included 

proposals to reform UN planning, programming, budgeting, monitoring, and 

evaluation processes which were submitted by the Secretary-General and by

member states. The Fifth Committee’s recommendations to the General

Assembly were adopted by consensus in Resolution 58/269 on December 23. 

The resolution included a proposal by the Secretary-General to combine the 

MTP and budget outline to create a two-part, two-year “Strategic Framework.” 

Part I would be a revised MTP reviewed by the CPC and the Fifth Committee.

Part II would consist of a more detailed budget outline to be reviewed by the 

ACABQ and the Fifth Committee. Another proposal from the SecretaryGeneral was to strengthen CPC’s role in monitoring and evaluation to support 

fuller implementation of RBB. Under the resolution, the CPC would consider 

the new biennial program plan for 2006–2007 in June 2004, but would no

longer review the budget outline. In budget years, it would focus only on 

program evaluations. In 2005, its review of the 2006–2007 budget would be

confined to new program activities. 

149 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2003 

Audit Reports 

The Board of Auditors (BOA), based in New York, serves as the 

external auditor of UN accounts, its funds and programs, the International War 

Crimes Tribunals for Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia, and the International

Court of Justice. The General Assembly elects members to serve six-year 

terms. Members may not serve consecutive terms. In 2003, the Board was

composed of the Auditors-General of the Philippines, South Africa, and

France. Additional information about the Board is available at

www.unsystem.org/auditors. 

Since the Board of Auditors issues most of its reports in evennumbered years (the financial periods of most of the organizations under its

oversight are biennial ending in odd-numbered years), the Fifth Committee

had just four reports to consider in 2003. These reports concerned UN

peacekeeping operations for the year ending June 30, 2002 [UN document 

A/57/5 (Vol. II)], voluntary funds administered by the UN High Commissioner 

for Refugees for the year ended December 31, 2002 (A/58/5/Add.5),

implementation of the Board’s recommendations relating to the biennium

2000–2001 (A/58/114), and the UN Capital Master Plan (A/58/321). 

The Fifth Committee annually considers the peacekeeping operations

report in the spring, along with other peacekeeping items such as the budget. 

In May 2003, the Fifth Committee considered the report on UN peacekeeping 

operations, the Secretary-General’s report on the implementation of the

recommendations of the Board of Auditors concerning UN peacekeeping 

operations for the financial period ending June 30, 2002 (A/57/416/Add.2), 

and the report of the Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary

Questions (ACABQ) on the administrative and budgetary aspects of the

financing of UN peacekeeping operations (A/57/772). The ACABQ’s report

provides comments and recommendations on specific issues in peacekeeping 

operations such as budgeting, inactive trust funds, security, training, and

several other items. The ACABQ also offered recommendations calling for 

restructuring of the Board of Auditors’ reports on peacekeeping and changes

to the follow-up methods for the Board’s recommendations. The ACABQ also 

urged more attention by the Board on the efficient use of resources in

peacekeeping missions, and for more to be done by the Secretariat and the

Office of Internal Oversight Services “to ensure that the internal audit function

and the resident audit capacity in peacekeeping missions were operating 

effectively and efficiently.” 

During Fifth Committee discussions of the Board’s report on UN

peacekeeping, the United States commended the Board for its excellent efforts,

and highlighted that the Board’s importance in making the United Nations a 

more efficient and effective organization. It also noted some areas of concern 

in peacekeeping operations, including delays in the signing of Memorandums

of Understanding between the United Nations and troop-contributing

countries, the need to address the treatment of “trust funds that have achieved 

their purpose,” the surplus in the Peacekeeping Reserve Fund that had 

150 
Administration and Budget 

exceeded its statutory maximum, delays in the closing of completed missions,

and the need for better record-keeping for property in missions. The United

States expressed its full support for the Board’s recommendation that the

Department of Peacekeeping Operations “promulgate and implement a code of 

ethics, encompassing a declaration of independence, to ensure that members of

the Procurement Division are protected from untoward pressures as they 

perform their duties.” The United States also raised the issue of safety in air 

services, as there had been a spike in 2001 in the number of accidents per hour 

of flight, potentially due in part to “deficiencies in safety.” The Board’s report 

explained that the number of accidents per hour of flight rose in 2001 (relative

to 1999 and 2000), but in 2002 was significantly lower. The Board’s report

also noted that some beneficial changes had occurred, and outlined some

safety issues that needed to be addressed. The United States called for quick

action on these issues. 

The Fifth Committee took note of the Board’s observations in its

report on peacekeeping operations and endorsed its recommendations. The 

Committee did the same with the related report of the ACABQ on

peacekeeping, and took note of the related report by the Secretary-General. 

The Fifth Committee advised the General Assembly that it was endorsing the

recommendations of the BOA and the ACABQ. On June 18, the General

Assembly agreed, by adopting Resolution 57/278B by consensus. The rate of 

implementation of recommendations from the Board’s annual report on

peacekeeping for the year ending June 30, 2001, was 38 percent. The

remaining 62 percent were still being implemented.

During its regular session in fall 2003, the Fifth Committee took up

the Board’s annual report on the voluntary funds administered by the UN High

Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) for the year ended December 31, 2002;

the Board’s report on the implementation of its recommendations relating to

the biennium 2000–2001; and a short progress report by the Board on the UN

Capital Master Plan. The Committee also considered two reports by the 

Secretary-General—a second report on the implementation of the Board’s

recommendations on UN accounts for the biennium ended December 31, 2001 

(A/58/97), and a similar report on the accounts of the UN funds and programs 

for the biennium ending December 31, 2001 (A/58/97/Add.1). The Fifth 

Committee also considered the ACABQ report on the Board’s reports 

(A/58/384), which included in its annex a special Board report on staff 

training. 

In a statement before the Fifth Committee on the Board’s report on 

the voluntary funds administered by the UNHCR, the United States noted 

some improvements the UNHCR had made to enhance management oversight, 

such as “an improved staff rotation policy and the increased insistence that 

implementing partners put adequate accounting and internal control systems in

place and provide timely reporting of audit certificates” (indicating when

audits of projects or contracts have been certified). However, the United

States also highlighted some shortcomings in financial reporting and staffing,

stating that, “We are concerned that the ACABQ reported the Board of 

151 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2003 

Auditors ‘modified’ its audit opinion, citing such practices as missing audit

certificates and financial reports for many 2001 and 2002 implementing

partners’ projects. We are deeply concerned at the Board’s report of 

continuing staffing irregularities...” The United States detailed some specific 

problems, noting it would monitor the situation “to determine if recent and 

ongoing changes in UNHCR’s human resource policies serve to bring about

significant improvement.” The United States welcomed the intention of the 

UNHCR to introduce reforms, be more transparent, and exercise stricter 

control of the staffing table. As of May 2003, the rate of implementation of 

recommendations for the Board’s previous annual report on UNHCR (for the 

year ending December 31, 2001) was 40 percent. A further 55 percent were

still being implemented and 5 percent had not yet been initiated.

During the Fifth Committee’s consideration of the Board’s report on

the implementation of its recommendations relating to the biennium 2000–

2001, and the two reports of the Secretary-General on this issue, the United 

States noted an implementation rate of only 35 percent for recommendations 

relating to the 2000–2001 biennium (as of June 2003), which was 

“disappointing.” However, the United States noted that an additional 58

percent of recommendations were being implemented. (Note: These figures 

exclude the implementation rates for UNHCR and for peacekeeping 

operations, which are addressed in separate reports.) The United States also 

acknowledged the fact, which the Board itself had pointed out, that the number 

of recommendations issued by the Board in recent years has been going up

quickly. The United States called for the implementation of outstanding

recommendations. 

The Board’s report on the Capital Master Plan was a brief update due 

to the fact that little had occurred on the plan at the time of the report. The 

Board was preparing a full report on the plan, which will address the 2002–

2003 biennium, and will issue it to the General Assembly for its fall 2004 

session. The Fifth Committee took note of the Capital Master Plan report, and 

the General Assembly took note of it without a vote in Resolution 58/272, on

December 23. 

For the Board’s report on UNHCR, the Fifth Committee endorsed its 

recommendations, as well as those in the related report of the ACABQ. The 

Committee also took note of the Board’s report on the implementation of its 

recommendations for the 2000–2001 biennium and the two related reports of

the Secretary-General. The Fifth Committee transmitted to the General

Assembly its recommendation to endorse the recommendations of the Board 

and those of the ACABQ on UNHCR. On December 23 the General

Assembly did so by adopting Resolution 58/249 by consensus. By adopting

these reports, the General Assembly requested that the Secretary-General 

implement the recommendations contained in them. In future reports, the 

Board of Auditors will review the status of these recommendations. 

152 
Administration and Budget 

Joint Inspection Unit 

In 2003, the United States continued to strongly urge reform of the 

Joint Inspection Unit (JIU), an external oversight body of the entire UN 

system. The JIU is accountable to member states through the General

Assembly and through the governing bodies of the UN specialized agencies

that are participating organizations in the JIU. The JIU is funded from the UN 

general budget and the general budget of participating UN agencies. The 

JIU’s purpose is to inspect, investigate, and evaluate UN programs and 

administrative and financial matters. It produces reports, notes, and 

confidential letters detailing its recommendations. 

The JIU is comprised of 11 inspectors as well as research and support

personnel. The General Assembly elects the inspectors who serve five-year 

terms, with a maximum of two terms. JIU’s Statute provides that its

“Inspectors shall have the broadest powers of investigation in all matters 

having a bearing on the efficiency of the services and the proper use of funds.” 

It calls for JIU inspectors to “provide an independent view through inspection 

and evaluation aimed at improving management and methods and at achieving

greater co-ordination between organizations.” Inspectors are to be “chosen

from among members of national supervision or inspection bodies, or from

among persons of a similar competence on the basis of their special experience

in national or international administrative and financial matters, including

management questions. The inspectors shall serve in their personal capacity.” 

In late 2003, Mr. Ion Gorita (Romania) was selected as JIU’s Chair, and M. 

Deborah Wynes (United States) was selected as Vice-Chair. The JIU is based 

in Geneva. 

The JIU produced its annual report and the following seven reports in

2003: 

• Review of Management and Administration in the UN Industrial

Development Organization (UNIDO) (JIU/REP/2003/1);

• Review of the UN Budgetary Process (JIU/REP/2003/2);

• From the Optical Disk System to the Official Document System (ODS):

Status of Implementation and Evaluation (JIU/REP/2003/3);

• Multilingualism and Access to Information: Case Studies for WHO

(JIU/REP/2003/4);

• Achieving the Universal Primary Education Goal of the Millennium 

Declaration—New Challenges for Development Cooperation 

(JIU/REP/2003/5);

• Management Review of the Office of the UN High Commissioner for 

Human Rights (JIU/REP/2003/6); and

• Evaluation of the UN Volunteers Program (JIU/REP/2003/7). 

During deliberations in fall 2003, the Fifth Committee discussed the 

JIU’s annual report, its work program, its preliminary listing of reports for the 

coming year, and the implementation of JIU recommendations. An additional 

153 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2003 

important topic discussed was that of reform. Some member states like the

United States have called for fundamental JIU reform for a number of years.

As in the past, the United States again criticized the JIU for producing reports 

that were too broad and that did not offer practical recommendations that

managers and governing bodies could employ. 

In the wake of these Fifth Committee criticisms, the JIU produced a 

reform plan, titled “Report of the Joint Inspection Unit on the preliminary

review of its statute and working methods.” Major donors, including the 

United States, contributed a comprehensive reform proposal. Other member

states introduced their own proposals. In addition to welcoming the JIU’s 

reform proposals, the United States suggested the following two specific 

changes: a tightening of the qualifications for future inspector candidates, and

a better process for the selection of topics for JIU reports. While a majority of

delegations desired change in the JIU, the Fifth Committee could not agree on

a reform package. Therefore, discussions were deferred to March 2004. 

Pending the conclusion of the discussions on reform, the Fifth Committee 

approved only the first year of the UN’s portion of the JIU’s biennial budget

for 2004–2005. 

Office of Internal Oversight Services 

The UN Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS) is based in

New York. The OIOS chief, Under Secretary-General Dileep Nair 

(Singapore), reports to the UN Secretary-General. According to Resolution

48/218B (1994), the “purpose of the Office of Internal Oversight Services is to

assist the Secretary-General in fulfilling his internal oversight responsibilities

in respect of the resources and staff” through monitoring, internal audits, 

inspections, evaluations, investigations, and “implementation of

recommendations and reporting procedures.” In addition to these mandated 

responsibilities, OIOS provides some management consulting services. Chief 

Nair’s five-year non-renewable term expires in 2005. 

OIOS is primarily an internal oversight body; its recommendations 

are generally used as management tools by the Secretary-General to improve

UN operations. According to its annual report covering the year ending June

30, 2003, OIOS had made 2,737 recommendations. It classified 29 percent of

these recommendations as “critical,” a descriptor utilized since January 2000 

to focus attention, as the annual report explains, on “areas with far-reaching

consequences for the Organization’s performance.” Of all the 

recommendations OIOS issued, 50.6 percent had been implemented as of June

30, 2003. OIOS identified approximately $36.9 million in potential cost

savings and recoveries. In the period covered by the latest report, the United

Nations had total actual savings and recoveries of $15.4 million. This figure

was substantially lower than the figure in 2002, due in large part to savings in 

the previous reporting period from an audit of subsistence allowance rates in

selected peacekeeping missions. 

In 2003, OIOS began using a risk-management framework to

determine its annual work program. In its annual report, OIOS explained that 

154 
Administration and Budget 

it uses this framework “to prioritize and rationalize the allocation of resources 

to oversight of programmatic and operational areas that have the greatest

exposure to fraud, waste, abuse, inefficiencies, and mismanagement.” OIOS 

outlined the criteria used to determine its annual work program as follows:

“risk to the Organization’s resources and reputation; requests from the General

Assembly, departments, and offices for oversight coverage; large budget

items; new activities with no previous oversight coverage; and priority areas

for the reform program of the Secretary-General” as well as the “need for

follow-up of critical recommendations in high-risk areas that have not been

implemented by program managers...” 

A select number of OIOS reports and an annual summary report are 

submitted to the General Assembly. OIOS submits to the General Assembly

those reports it determines are of broad interest to member states and that 

would not compromise confidentiality. Generally, OIOS reports transmitted to

the General Assembly are available at www.un.org/depts/oios. Examples of 

specific activities and investigations performed by OIOS in the period covered

by its annual report include the following:

• Issued six reports on the Iraq Oil-for-Food program. In its annual report, 

OIOS included a summary of its work on the Office of the Iraq Program

(the UN office that administered the Oil-for-Food program), noting an

audit OIOS completed on its headquarters activities and reviews of the 

activities of the UN Office of the Humanitarian Coordinator in Iraq, which

reported to the Office of the Iraq Program; 

• Worked with the European Anti-Fraud Office to secure $4.2 million in 

funds stolen by a former senior staff member of the UN Interim

Administration in Kosovo. The investigation’s findings aided in the 

conviction of the former staff member in his home country in June 2003;

and 

• Followed up on a December 2001 OIOS-led international task force 

investigation of refugee smuggling in the Nairobi office of the Office of 

the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). OIOS aided Kenya

in its trials of 10 people (four of whom were UNHCR staff) accused of 

involvement in the smuggling operation. One individual was found 

guilty; other cases were scheduled for later dates. Under a special

arrangement, OIOS is the internal auditor for UNHCR, and has an office

in Geneva devoted specifically to audit the UNHCR. OIOS issued 1,445 

recommendations for UNHCR, and found $7.5 million in potential cost

savings and recoveries; $4.4 million of this was saved or recovered as of

June 30, 2003. 

During Fifth Committee discussion of OIOS reports, the United

States called for the implementation of all OIOS recommendations. The 

United States endorsed OIOS use of a risk-management framework to 

determine its annual work program. The United States also supported an 

OIOS leading role in the UN’s new organizational integrity initiative, which 

Chief Dileep Nair described in the introduction to the OIOS annual report as 

155 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2003 

“a three-year program aimed at strengthening integrity and professional ethics 

in the organization.” Referring to the OIOS annual report, the United States

underscored a recurrent theme—the question of management accountability:

“OIOS has urged managers to take ownership of their work, which must 

include holding managers accountable for results. The United Nations must

also strengthen evaluation mechanisms and provide a tangible link between

outcomes and resource requests.” Fifth Committee delegations were not able

to reach consensus on a draft resolution on the OIOS annual report and 

deferred discussion of this item until March 2004. 

The OIOS is funded through the UN regular budget. 

International Civil Service Commission 

The International Civil Service Commission (ICSC), a 15-member

body of recognized experts, is responsible for making recommendations on

salaries, allowances, benefits, and other conditions of service (the “common

system”) for employees of the United Nations and its specialized agencies. 

Lucretia Myers, a U.S. citizen, served the second year of her current four-year

term as the U.S. member on the Commission. 

In 2003, the Commission met in Rome and New York for its 56th and

57th sessions, respectively. The Commission focused on continuing its review 

of the pay and benefits system, with a view to making the compensation

package of the common system more responsive to and supportive of member

states’ and organizations’ needs. The ICSC worked in a number of priority

areas, including linkage of pay to performance, pay banding, reform of the job

evaluation system, and establishment of a senior management service. 

The Commission supported a confluence of three factors—

performance, competency development, and client feedback—as a basis for

determining performance pay. The Commission decided to pilot broad-banded

salary systems in several UN organizations that agreed to participate in the 

study. Under these systems, current grades are divided into broad salary 

groups. There are no steps within the bands, and staff move within a band

according to their competency development and performance. A revised and 

simplified job evaluation system for professional and higher category posts

was designed to work in conjunction with broad-banding and pay-forperformance systems. Work progressed on the development of a Senior

Management Service with a view to validating core competencies and 

determining criteria for membership. The Commission also discussed 

contractual arrangements, mobility, mission subsistence allowance, and hazard 

pay for locally recruited staff. The United States supported all the ICSC’s

proposals except hazard pay.

In 2002, the ICSC had made a decision to increase hazard pay for

locally recruited staff (General Service, or GS) from 20 percent to 30 percent

of the midpoint of the local salary scale effective January 1, 2004. This

measure would reflect a 50 percent increase in the benefit. The United States

believed that the ICSC’s decision to increase hazard pay for locally recruited 

156 
Administration and Budget 

staff was inappropriate and inequitable in view of their decision to maintain 

unchanged the current level of hazard pay for international staff whose hazard 

pay amount effectively was only about 18 percent of the midpoint of their

salary scale. This increase for locally recruited staff would result in an even

wider difference between the two categories. GS staff would have to deal with

many of the hazardous conditions regardless of their employment status with 

the United Nations. Hazard pay was intended as a symbolic gesture rather

than an essential part of the compensation plan. However, because the same

dollar amount of hazard pay is granted to GS staff at all grade levels, if that

amount were increased to 30 percent of the midpoint of the entire salary scale,

at lower grade levels the amount of hazard pay could exceed the staff 

member’s base salary and could no longer be considered symbolic. The 

United States argued that increasing hazard pay was not the best approach;

putting money into the pockets of staff does nothing to improve their security. 

A better course would be to expend available resources and efforts on

improving overall security for UN personnel. 

The Commission transmitted its proposals in its annual report to the 

Fifth Committee for action. The majority of delegations to the Fifth 

Committee supported the ICSC’s reaffirmation of its earlier decision. After

the devastating August bomb attack on UN headquarters in Baghdad, member

states did not want to be seen as supporting an action to deny local staff an

increase in this benefit. Furthermore, a decision to increase hazard pay falls

under the purview of the ICSC, and most delegations were reluctant to infringe

on the Commission’s prerogative. The United States and Germany were the

only vocal opponents of this increase. As a compromise, member states

agreed to request that the ICSC reconsider its decision and decide on a smaller

increase. The ICSC’s Chair informed Fifth Committee delegates that at the 

ICSC’s 2004 spring session, he would inform the Commission members of the

views of member states. 

On December 11, the Fifth Committee formally adopted without a 

vote Resolution 58/251 on the UN Common System. With the exception of 

the hazard pay issue, member states agreed to a simple procedural resolution

that took note of the ICSC’s decisions in its annual report concerning the 

review of the pay and benefits system, contractual arrangements, mobility, and

mission subsistence allowance. These issues would be dealt with in greater

detail at the 59th General Assembly in 2004, a personnel/human resources

year in the normal biennial review cycle for such matters. 

Human Resources Management 

At its resumed session (March–April 2003), the UN General

Assembly’s Fifth Committee considered and reached consensus on a wide

range of human resources management issues, including management reform, 

delegation of authority and accountability, monitoring capacity in the Office of 

Human Resources Management, consultants and individual contractors, 

employment of retired former staff, and mandatory age of separation. 

157 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2003 

On April 15, upon the recommendation of the Fifth Committee, the 

General Assembly adopted by consensus Resolution 57/305 which, among

other things:

• Requested the Secretary-General to ensure that staff adhere fully to the 

UN’s code of conduct;

• Requested the Secretary-General to provide a comprehensive report on the

achievements made in human resources management reform when 

sufficient information becomes available on the experiences of the 

Secretariat with implemented reform measures; 

• Called for a study and a report to the General Assembly at its 59th session

by the Office of Internal Oversight Services on the impact of human 

resources management reform, especially on the improvement of

recruitment, placement, promotion, and training. This study will include 

an assessment of the role of the central review bodies and mobility within

the Secretariat; 

• Requested that future reports by the Secretary-General on implementation

of human resources management reforms focus on their results;

• Requested the Secretary-General to hold program managers accountable

in the staff selection process; 

• Endorsed the Secretary-General’s approach to improve the Office of 

Human Resources Management’s capacity for monitoring; and 

• Endorsed a Committee for Program and Coordination recommendation

that greater efforts should be made to geographically balance UN 

consultants and individual contractors. 

Throughout the discussion and the formulation of Resolution 57/205, 

the United States played an instrumental role in thwarting attempts by the G77 and China to roll back many of the initiatives contained in the landmark

reform Resolution 55/258 (2001) and in the new “Staff Selection System” 

implemented by the Office of Human Resources Management. In particular, 

the G-77 and China tried to diminish the newly enhanced role of program

managers in the staff selection process. They argued for ways to increase the

number of senior and professional posts occupied by developing countries, 

disregarding Secretariat data showing that developing counties occupy twothirds of all professional posts and an even higher percentage of senior policy 

positions. The United States, with other like-minded members, not only

successfully challenged these efforts, but also secured agreement in 

reaffirming previous resolutions on equitable geographic distribution.

Furthermore, the U.S. representative expressed concern over the number of

member states that continued to be unrepresented and under-represented, as 

well as an increase in the number of over-represented states. The United 

States and others also successfully maintained that hiring and promotion

should be based on principles of merit, demonstrated competencies, and 

performance, and not seniority and undue preference for internal candidates. 

158 
Administration and Budget 

The G-77 and China successfully argued against the complete

elimination of paper job applications (an element of human resources

management reform) on the grounds that less developed countries would be 

technologically disadvantaged by such a change. Some member states also 

attempted to have the Galaxy system (a new electronic employment

application system) made available in all six UN official languages. However,

the United States and others derailed this costly approach and reached a 

compromise to provide only the application instructions in the six languages.

The actual application process would be in the two working languages. The

Secretariat assured the Committee that these concessions would not pose

undue costs or restrain the reform process. 

The Committee resolved two other contentious issues concerning

mandatory age of separation and the employment of retired former staff. With

regard to the former, some delegations wanted to eliminate the SecretaryGeneral’s authority to grant, in exceptional cases, the temporary extension of 

employment of staff members who reached the mandatory age of separation.

The Committee agreed to allow staff in service to remain beyond the 

mandatory age of separation pursuant to the exceptions in the UN Staff 

Regulations. However, the Secretary-General must report biennially on 

exceptions made and the reasons for them. 

With regard to re-employment of former staff, some delegations 

wanted to totally ban retired former staff from serving in certain decisionmaking posts as well as from representing the Secretariat before intergovernmental bodies. The Secretariat successfully argued against both

measures and insisted that such actions would challenge the SecretaryGeneral’s authority. The U.S. delegation maintained that, since only a few

individuals fell under this category and because such employees are subject to 

the same ethical scrutiny and staff rules as regular staff, new rules constraining

their service were unwarranted. 

Overall, Resolution 57/305 did not break new ground. Instead, it

reaffirmed previously agreed language on human resources management

reform. The U.S. delegation, in the face of concerted efforts by the G-77 and 

China to roll back some of the previously agreed upon reform measures (on

the grounds that these measures proved disadvantageous to them), successfully 

argued that more time and additional information would be needed to fully and

properly assess the impact of the implemented reform measures before

modifying them. As a result, the resolution called for several comprehensive 

reports that will aid in the proper assessment and appraisal of reform efforts 

implemented so far. These reports were sought from the Secretariat, Office of

Internal Oversight Services, and the UN Joint Inspection Unit for 

consideration at the 59th General Assembly. 

Employment of Americans 

The Department of State assists qualified U.S. citizens in competing

for professional positions in the United Nations and other international

organizations. The Department’s UN Employment Information and Assistance

159 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2003 

Unit, along with numerous other federal agencies, supports this effort by

disseminating announcements of vacancies in international organizations to

Americans worldwide. In a typical year, the Department provides direct

assistance to hundreds of Americans and general information about employment 

opportunities in international organizations to thousands of others. U.S. 

missions to the United Nations and other international organizations in New 

York, Geneva, Montreal, Nairobi, Paris, Rome, and Vienna, as well as some

embassies support for this function through regular contacts with UN agency 

officials. The U.S. Government places special emphasis on recruiting and 

promoting Americans for key, senior-level positions throughout the UN system. 

Total Employment Numbers

The following chart shows the total number of Americans in

professional and senior positions as of December 31, in the United Nations, its 

specialized agencies, and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). It

does not include the international financial institutions, tribunals, the 

International Court of Justice, and the UN Industrial Development 

Organization, the latter of which the United States is not a member. 

Table 1 

U.S. Representation in the UN System 

Professional and Senior Staff 

 Total Americans Percent

UN Secretariat 6,043 659 10.9% 

UN Peacekeeping Operations 1,604 175 10.9% 

UN Subsidiary Bodies 8,262 670 8.1% 

UN Specialized Agencies and IAEA 7,963 724 9.1%

Total 23,872 2,228 9.3%

Agencies with Geographic Targets

The UN Secretariat and several of the specialized agencies have

established systems of “desirable ranges” reflecting each organization’s

targeted geographic representation for member states. Generally, these 

ranges are driven by formulas that weight variables—typically 

membership, individual member country assessment level, and population.

Each agency’s governing body establishes these formulas and the number

and type of positions subject to geographic consideration. The following 

chart includes those UN agencies that had such ranges in 2003—the Food

and Agriculture Organization (FAO), the International Civil Aviation 

Organization (ICAO), the International Labor Organization (ILO), the UN 

Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), and the World

Health Organization (WHO)—and the number and status of Americans on

board as of December 31. (Note: These figures represent only those 

160 
Administration and Budget 

professional posts “subject to geographic distribution” that were funded from

the UN agencies’ assessed budgets.) 

In 2003, the percentage of U.S. citizens in the UN, ICAO, ILO, and

WHO declined, while it increased in FAO. The United States rejoined

UNESCO in 2003. During the U.S. 19-year absence from UNESCO,

American citizens were not eligible to apply for positions there. The 

information below forms the basis of comparison for future reports. 

Table 2 

UN-Related Agencies with Geographic Ranges for 

Employment 

 

 

Agencies Seeking Geographic Balance 

Other UN specialized agencies and IAEA do not have official 

geographic ranges but are required to give due consideration to geographic

balance when making appointments. The following chart lists those UN 

agencies, the level of U.S. contribution, total professional posts filled that are 

subject to geographic consideration (i.e., not necessarily all professional posts), 

and the number of Americans in such posts as of December 31. These agencies

are the IAEA, the International Maritime Organization (IMO), the International

Telecommunication Union (ITU), the Universal Postal Union (UPU), the 

World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), and the World 

Meteorological Organization (WMO). 

UN 

Agency 

UN 

FAO 

ICAO 

ILO 

UNESCO 

WHO 

U.S. 2003 

Assessment

22% 

22% 

25% 

22% 

22% 

22% 

Percent 

12.7% 

12.9% 

5.3% 

14.4% 

2.7% 

11.7% 

Number 

315 

136 

11 

97 

20 

160 

Filled by Americans 

Desirable 

Range or 

Quota for 

 Americans

Range 

285–385 

174–233 

31 

93–125 

46–76 

142–193 

Total 

Filled

2,487 

1,057 

208 

674 

728 

1,369 

161 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2003 

Table 3 

UN-Related Agencies without Geographic Ranges for 

Employment 

 

UN U.S. 2003 

Agency Assessment Total U.S. U.S. 

 Number Percent 

IAEA 25.7% 746 92 12.3% 

IMO 3.6% 88 4 4.5% 

ITU 8.9% 292 17 5.8% 

UPU 5.7% 58 3 5.2% 

WIPO 6.6% 361 22 6.1% 

WMO 21.6% 118 6 5.1% 

 

Following is a chart of staffing levels in other major UN bodies 

funded through voluntary contributions to which official geographic ranges do

not apply. These bodies include the UN Development Program (UNDP), the

UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), the UN Children’s Fund 

(UNICEF), the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the

Near East (UNRWA), and the World Food Program (WFP).

Table 4 

UN Programs and Funds Receiving Voluntary Contributions 

with No Geographic Employment Ranges

UN

Agency 

 

Total U.S. Number U.S. Percent

UNDP 974 113 11.6% 

UNHCR 1,349 116 8.6% 

UNICEF 1,813 228 12.6% 

UNRWA 126 17 13.5% 

WFP 979 97 9.9% 

In 2003, Americans held the top position in three UN agencies:

UNICEF (Carol Bellamy, Executive Director), UPU (Thomas Leavey, Director 

General), and WFP (James Morris, Executive Director). Americans also held 

one of the second-most senior posts in the FAO (Deputy Director General),

IAEA (Deputy Director General), ILO (Executive Director, Social Dialogue

Sector), UNHCR (Deputy High Commissioner), and WIPO (Deputy Director

General). Three Americans held the rank of Under Secretary-General

(USG) at the UN Secretariat, including the USG for Management, the Special 

Representative of the Secretary General for the UN Mission in the Democratic

Republic of the Congo, and the President of the Staff-Management 

Coordination Committee. Two other Americans held UN Secretariat positions

at the Assistant Secretary-General level. 

Professional Posts Filled 

International Professional Posts 

Filled 

162 
Administration and Budget 

Representation of U.S. Women 

Throughout the year, UN agencies continued to give special attention

to recruiting qualified women. In 2003, American women represented almost 

47 percent of all Americans in professional and senior positions in the UN 

Secretariat, and nearly 46 percent of Americans in such positions in the United 

Nations, its subsidiary bodies and specialized agencies, and the IAEA. 

U.S. Government Secondments 

The United States has a long-standing policy of supporting UN 

agencies by assigning federal employees to them either on “transfer” (in which

the employee is paid by the UN agency but retains reemployment rights with 

the U.S. agency), or on “detail” (in which the employee typically remains on 

the U.S. payroll, but serves at the UN agency). These assignments may last

as long as eight years. During fiscal year 2003, a total of 120 federal

employees from 13 federal agencies were on detail or transfer to UN system

agencies, representing about 5.4 percent of the Americans who worked in

professional positions in UN agencies during that year. Of the 64 employees

on “detail” to UN agencies, the vast majority came from the Department of 

Health and Human Services—primarily from the Centers for Disease Control 

and Prevention—on assignment to the WHO. Of the 56 employees on

“transfer” to UN agencies the largest number were from the Department of

Transportation who went to work for ICAO.

Junior Professional Officers 

The United States also continued to fund a number of Junior

Professional Officer positions including some at UNHCR (16), FAO (3), and

WFP (2). 

163 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2003 

164 
Appendix 1 

Address by President George W. Bush 

Statement by President George W. Bush before the 58th regular 

session of the UN General Assembly on September 23, 2003. 

Twenty-four months ago,

and yesterday in the memory of 

America, the center of New York 

City became a battlefield, and a 

graveyard, and the symbol of an

unfinished war. Since that day, 

terrorists have struck in Bali, in

Mombassa, in Casablanca, in 

Riyadh, in Jakarta, in Jerusalem,

measuring the advance of their

cause in the chaos and innocent

suffering they leave behind. 

Last month, terrorists

brought their war to the United 

Nations itself. The United Nations

headquarters in Baghdad stood for 

order and compassion. For that

reason, the terrorists decided it 

must be destroyed. Among the 22

people who were murdered was

Sergio Vieira de Mello. Over the 

decades, that good and brave man 

from Brazil gave help to the

afflicted in Bangladesh, Cyprus,

Mozambique, Lebanon,

Cambodia, Central Africa,

Kosovo, and East Timor, and was 

aiding the people of Iraq in their 

time of need. America joins you,

his colleagues, in honoring the 

memory of Mr. Sergio Vieira de

Mello and the memory of all those 

who died with him in the service 

of the United Nations. 

By the victims they 

choose and by the means they use, 

the terrorists have clarified the

struggle we are in. Those who

target relief workers for death

have set themselves against all

humanity. Those who incite

murder and celebrate suicide 

reveal their contempt for life itself. 

They have no place in any

religious faith, they have no claim 

on the world’s sympathy, and they

should have no friend in this Hall. 

Events during the past 

two years have set before us the

clearest of divides: between those

who seek order and those who 

spread chaos; between those who 

work for peaceful change, and 

those who adopt the methods of

gangsters; between those who 

honor the rights of man, and those

who deliberately take the lives of

men, women, and children without

mercy or shame. 

Between those 

alternatives, there is no neutral 

ground. All governments that

support terror are complicit in a 

war against civilization. No 

government should ignore the

threat of terror because to look the

other way gives terrorists the 

chance to regroup, recruit, and 

prepare. All nations that fight 

terror as if the lives of their own

people depended on it will earn 

the favorable judgment of history.

The former regime of 

Afghanistan and Iraq knew those

165 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2003 

alternatives and made their 

choices. The Taliban was a

sponsor and servant of terrorism.

When confronted, that regime

chose defiance, and that regime is

no more. Afghanistan’s President, 

who is here today, now represents

a free people who are building a

decent and just society. They are 

building a nation fully joined in 

the war against terror. 

The regime of Saddam

Hussein cultivated ties to terror

while it built weapons of mass

destruction. It used those weapons 

in acts of mass murder and refused 

to account for them when 

confronted by the world. The

Security Council was right to be

alarmed. The Security Council 

was right to demand that Iraq

destroy its illegal weapons and

prove that it had done so. The 

Security Council was right to vow

serious consequences if Iraq failed 

to comply. And because there

were consequences—because a

coalition of nations acted to 

defend the peace and the

credibility of the United Nations—

Iraq is free, and today we are

joined by the representatives of a 

liberated country. 

Saddam Hussein’s

monuments have been removed,

and not only his statues. The true

monuments of his rule and his 

character—the torture chambers, 

the rape rooms, and the prison

cells for innocent children—are 

closed. And as we discover the

killing fields and mass graves of 

Iraq, the true scale of Saddam’s 

cruelty is being revealed. 

The Iraqi people are

meeting hardships and challenges, 

like every nation that has set out

on the path of democracy. Yet,

their future promises lives of

dignity and freedom, and that is a 

world away from the squalid,

vicious tyranny they have known.

Across Iraq, life is being improved

by liberty. Across the Middle 

East, people are safer because an 

unstable aggressor has been

removed from power. Across the

world, nations are more secure

because an ally of terror has fallen. 

Our actions in

Afghanistan and Iraq were

supported by many governments, 

and America is grateful to each 

one. I also recognize that some of 

the sovereign nations of the

Assembly disagreed with our 

actions. Yet, there was and there

remains unity among us on the

fundamental principles and 

objectives of the United Nations.

We are dedicated to the defense of 

our collective security and to the 

advance of human rights. Those

permanent commitments call us to 

great work in the world, work that 

we must do together. So, let us 

move forward. First, we must 

stand with the people of 

Afghanistan and Iraq as they build 

free and stable countries. The

terrorists and their allies fear and 

fight this progress above all 

because free people embrace hope

over resentment and choose peace

over violence. 

The Unite Nations has 

been a friend of the Afghan 

people, distributing food and

medicine, helping refugees return

166 
Address by President George W. Bush 

home, advising on a new

constitution, and helping to 

prepare the way for nationwide 

elections. NATO has taken over

the United Nations mandated 

security force in Kabul. American 

and coalition forces continue to 

track and defeat al-Qaida terrorists

and the remnants of the Taliban.

Our efforts to rebuild that country

go on. I have recently proposed to 

spend an additional $1.2 billion

for the Afghan reconstruction

effort, and I urge other nations to

continue contributing to that

important cause. 

In the nation of Iraq, the

United Nations is carrying out

vital and effective work every day. 

By the end of 2004, more than 90 

percent of Iraqi children under age

five will have been immunized 

against preventable diseases such

as polio, tuberculosis, and

measles, thanks to the hard work 

and high ideals of UNICEF.

Iraq’s food distribution system is

operational, delivering nearly a 

half million tons of food per

month, thanks to the skill and 

expertise of the World Food

Program. 

Our international

coalition in Iraq is meeting its 

responsibilities. We are 

conducting precision raids against

terrorists and holdouts of the 

former regime. Those killers are 

at war with the Iraqi people. They

have made Iraq the central front in

the war on terror. And they will

be defeated. Our coalition has 

made sure that Iraq’ former

dictator will never again use 

weapons of mass destruction. We

are now interviewing Iraqi citizens 

and analyzing records of the old 

regime to reveal the full extent of 

its weapons programs and its long 

campaign of deception. We are 

training Iraqi police, border 

guards, and a new army so that the 

Iraqi people can assume full

responsibility for their own

security. 

At the same time, our

coalition is helping to improve the 

daily lives of the Iraqi people. 

The old regime built palaces while 

letting schools decay, so we are

rebuilding more than a thousand

schools. The old regime starved

hospitals of resources, so we have

helped to supply and reopen 

hospitals across Iraq. The old 

regime built up armies and 

weapons while allowing the 

nation’s infrastructure to crumble,

so we are rehabilitating power 

plants, water and sanitation 

facilities, bridges, and airports. I 

have proposed to Congress that the 

United States provide additional

funding for our work in Iraq, the 

greatest financial commitment of 

its kind since the Marshall Plan. 

Having helped to liberate 

Iraq, we will honor our pledges to

Iraq, and by helping the Iraqi

people build a stable and peaceful

country, we will make our own 

countries more secure. 

The primary goal of our 

coalition in Iraq is selfgovernment for the people of Iraq,

reached by an orderly and 

democratic process. That process 

must unfold according to the needs

of the Iraqis, neither hurried nor

delayed by the wishes of other 

167 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2003 

parties. And the United Nations

can contribute greatly to the cause

of Iraqi self-government. 

America is working with 

friends and allies on a new 

Security Council resolution, which 

will expand the United Nation’s 

role in Iraq. As in the aftermath of

other conflicts, the United Nations

should assist in developing a

constitution, training civil 

servants, and conducting free and

fair elections. Iraq now has a

Governing Council, the first truly

representative institution in that

country. Iraq’s new leaders are 

showing the openness and 

tolerance that democracy requires, 

and they are also showing 

courage. Yet every young 

democracy needs the help of 

friends. Now the nation of Iraq

needs and deserves our aid, and all

nations of good will should step

forward and provide that support. 

The success of a free Iraq 

will be watched and noted 

throughout the region. Millions

will see that freedom, equality,

and material progress are possible 

at the heart of the Middle East. 

Leaders in the region will face the 

clearest evidence that free

institutions and open societies are 

the only path to long-term national

success and dignity. And a

transformed Middle East would

benefit the entire world by

undermining the ideologies that

export violence to other lands.

Iraq as a dictatorship had 

great power to destabilize the 

Middle East. Iraq as a democracy 

will have great power to inspire 

the Middle East. The advance of 

democratic institutions in Iraq is 

setting an example that others,

including the Palestinian people,

would be wise to follow. The

Palestinian cause is betrayed by

leaders who cling to power by

feeding old hatreds and destroying

the good work of others. The 

Palestinian people deserve their

own state. They will gain that

state by embracing new leaders

committed to reform, to fighting 

terror, and to building peace. 

All parties in the Middle 

East must meet their 

responsibilities and carry out the 

commitments they made at Aqaba.

Israel must work to create the

conditions that will allow a 

peaceful Palestinian state to 

emerge. Arab nations must cut off 

funding and other support for 

terrorist organizations. America 

will work with every nation in the 

region that acts boldly for the sake

of peace. 

A second challenge we

must confront together is the

proliferation of weapons of mass 

destruction. Outlaw regimes that 

possess nuclear, chemical, and 

biological weapons and the means 

to deliver them would be able to

use blackmail and create chaos in

entire regions. Those weapons

could be used by terrorists to bring

sudden disaster and suffering on a

scale we can scarcely imagine. 

The deadly combination of outlaw 

regimes, terror networks, and

weapons of mass murder is a peril

that cannot be ignored or wished 

away. If such a danger is allowed 

to fully materialize, all words, all 

protests, will come too late. 

168 
Address by President George W. Bush 

Nations of the world 

must have wisdom and the will to 

stop grave threats before they 

arrive. One crucial step is to 

secure the most dangerous

materials at their source. For more

than a decade, the United States 

has worked with Russia and other 

states of the former Soviet Union 

to dismantle, destroy, or secure 

weapons and dangerous materials 

left over from another era. 

Last year in Canada, the

G-8 nations agreed to provide up

to $20 billion, half of it from the

United States, to fight this 

proliferation risk over the next 10

years. Since then, six additional

countries have joined the effort. 

More are needed, and I urge other 

nations to help us meet this 

danger. 

We are also improving

our capability to interdict lethal 

materials in transit. Through our 

Proliferation Security Initiative, 11

nations are preparing to search 

planes, ships, trains, and trucks

carrying suspect cargo and to seize 

weapons or missile shipments that 

raise proliferation concerns. 

These nations have agreed on a set 

of interdiction principles 

consistent with current legal

authorities, and we are working to 

expand the Proliferation Security

Initiative to other countries. We

are determined to keep the world’s 

most destructive weapons away

from all our shores and out of the 

hands of our common enemies. 

Because proliferators will 

use any route or channel that is

open to them, we need the

broadest possible cooperation to

stop them. Today, I ask the 

United Nations Security Council

to adopt a new antiproliferation 

resolution. That resolution should 

call on all members of the United 

Nations to criminalize the 

proliferation of weapons of mass 

destruction, to enact strict export 

controls consistent with 

international standards, and to 

secure any and all sensitive 

materials within their own borders. 

The United States stands ready to 

help any nation draft these new

laws and to assist in their 

enforcement. 

A third challenge we 

share is a challenge to our 

conscience. We must act 

decisively to meet the 

humanitarian crises of our time. 

The United States has begun to

carry out the Emergency Plan for 

AIDS Relief, aimed at preventing

AIDS on a massive scale and 

treating millions who have the

disease already. We have pledged

$15 billion over five years to fight

AIDS around the world.

My country is acting to

save lives from famine as well. 

We are providing more than $1.4

billion in global emergency food

aid, and I have asked our United 

States Congress for $200 million

for a new famine fund so that we

can act quickly when the first 

signs of famine appear. Every

nation on every continent should

generously add their resources to

the fight against disease and 

desperate hunger.

There is another 

humanitarian crisis, spreading, yet 

hidden from view. Each year, an

169 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2003 

estimated 8 to 900,000 human

beings are bought, sold, or forced

across the world’s borders.

Among them are hundreds of

thousands of teenage girls and

others as young as five who fall

victim to the sex trade. This 

commerce in human life generates

billions of dollars each year, much

of which is used to finance

organized crime. There is a 

special evil in the abuse and 

exploitation of the most innocent

and vulnerable. The victims of the

sex trade see little of life before 

they see the very worst of life—an 

underground of brutality and 

lonely fear. Those who create 

these victims and profit from their

suffering must be severely 

punished. Those who patronize

this industry debase themselves 

and deepen the misery of others,

and governments that tolerate this 

trade are tolerating a form of 

slavery. 

This problem has 

appeared in my own country and 

we are working to stop it. The 

Protect Act, which I signed into

law this year, makes it a crime for 

any person to enter the United 

States or for any citizen to travel

abroad for the purpose of sex 

tourism involving children. The 

Department of Justice is actively 

investigating sex tour operators

and patrons, who can face up to 30 

years in prison. Under the 

Trafficking Victims Protection 

Act, the United States is using 

sanctions against governments to

discourage human trafficking. 

The victims of this 

industry also need help from 

members of the United Nations.

This begins with clear standards

and the certainty of punishment 

under the laws of every country. 

Today, some nations make it a 

crime to sexually abuse children 

abroad. Such conduct should be a 

crime in all nations. Governments 

should inform travelers of the

harm this industry does and the 

severe punishments that will fall

on its patrons. The American 

Government is committing $50

million to support the good work

of organizations that are rescuing

women and children from 

exploitation and giving them

shelter, medical treatment, and the

hope of a new life. I urge other

governments to do their part.

We must show new 

energy in fighting back an old evil.

Nearly two centuries after the

abolition of the transatlantic slave 

trade and more than a century after 

slavery was officially ended in its 

last strongholds, the trade in 

human beings for any purpose

must not be allowed to thrive in

our time. 

All the challenges I have

spoken of this morning require

urgent attention and moral clarity. 

Helping Afghanistan and Iraq to

succeed as free nations in a

transformed region; cutting off the 

avenues of proliferation;

abolishing modern forms of

slavery—these are the kinds of 

great tasks for which the United 

Nations was founded. In each 

case, careful discussion is needed 

and, also, decisive action. Our 

good intentions will be credited

only if we achieve good outcomes. 

170 
Address by President George W. Bush 

As an original signer of the United 

Nations Charter, the United States 

of America is committed to the

United Nations and we show that 

commitment by working to fulfil

the United Nations stated purposes 

and by giving meaning to its

ideals. 

The founding documents

of the United Nations and the 

founding documents of America 

stand in the same tradition. Both 

assert that human beings should

never be reduced to objects of

power or commerce, because their 

dignity is inherent. Both 

recognize a moral law that stands

above men and nations, but which

must be defended and enforced by

men and nations. And both point

the way to peace—the peace that 

comes when all are free. We

secure that peace with our courage

and we must show that courage

together. 

171 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2003 

172 
Appendix 2 

Principal UN Organs 

General Assembly 

The General Assembly is composed of all 191 members of the United 

Nations. As of December 31, 2003, they are:

Member Date of Admission

Afghanistan Nov. 19, 1946 

Albania Dec. 14, 1955 

Algeria Oct. 8, 1962 

Andorra July 28, 1993 

Angola Dec. 1, 1976 

Antigua and 

 Barbuda Nov. 11, 1981 

Argentina Oct. 24, 1945 

Armenia March 2, 1992 

Australia Nov. 1, 1945 

Austria Dec. 14, 1955 

Azerbaijan March 2, 1992 

Bahamas Sept. 18, 1973 

Bahrain Sept. 21, 1971 

Bangladesh Sept. 17, 1974 

Barbados Dec. 9, 1966 

Belarus Oct. 24, 1945 

Belgium Dec. 27, 1945 

Belize Sept. 25, 1981 

Benin Sept. 20, 1960 

Bhutan Sept. 21, 1960 

Bolivia Nov. 14, 1945 

Bosnia and 

 Herzegovina May 22, 1992 

Botswana Oct. 17, 1966 

Brazil Oct. 24, 1945 

Brunei Darussalam Sept. 21, 1984 

Bulgaria Dec. 14, 1955 

Burkina Faso Sept. 20, 1960 

Burundi Sept. 18, 1962 

Cambodia Dec. 14, 1955 

Cameroon Sept. 20, 1960 

Canada Nov. 9, 1945 

Cape Verde Sept. 16, 1975 

Central African 

 Republic Sept. 20, 1960 

Chad Sept. 20, 1960 

Chile Oct. 24, 1945 

China Oct. 24, 1945 

Member Date of Admission

Colombia Nov. 5, 1945 

Comoros Nov. 12, 1975 

Congo Sept. 20, 1960 

Congo, Democratic 

 Republic of the Sept. 20, 1960 

Costa Rica Nov. 2, 1945 

Cote d’Ivoire Sept. 20, 1960 

Croatia May 22, 1992 

Cuba Oct. 24, 1945 

Cyprus Sept. 20, 1960 

Czech Republic Jan. 19, 1993 

Denmark Oct. 24, 1945 

Djibouti Sept. 20, 1977 

Dominica Dec. 18, 1978 

Dominican 

 Republic Oct. 24, 1945 

Ecuador Dec. 21, 1945 

Egypt Oct. 24, 1945 

El Salvador Oct. 24, 1945 

Equatorial Guinea Nov. 12, 1968 

Eritrea May 28, 1993 

Estonia Sept. 17, 1991 

Ethiopia Nov. 13, 1945 

Fiji Oct. 13, 1970 

Finland Dec. 14, 1955 

France Oct. 24, 1945 

Gabon Sept. 20, 1960 

Gambia Sept. 21, 1965 

Georgia July 31, 1992 

Germany Sept. 18, 1973 

Ghana March 8, 1957 

Greece Oct. 25, 1945 

Grenada Sept. 17, 1974 

Guatemala Nov. 21, 1945 

Guinea Dec. 12, 1958 

Guinea-Bissau Sept. 17, 1974 

Guyana Sept. 20, 1966 

Haiti Oct. 24, 1945 

Honduras Dec. 17, 1945 

173 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2003 

Member Date of Admission

Hungary Dec. 14, 1955 

Iceland Nov. 19, 1946 

India Oct. 30, 1945 

Indonesia Sept. 28, 1950 

Iran Oct. 24, 1945 

Iraq Dec. 21, 1945 

Ireland Dec. 14, 1955 

Israel May 11, 1949 

Italy Dec. 14, 1955 

Jamaica Sept. 18, 1962 

Japan Dec. 18, 1956 

Jordan Dec. 14, 1955 

Kazakhstan March 2, 1992 

Kenya Dec. 16, 1963 

Kiribati, Republic Sept. 14, 1999 

Korea, Democratic People’s

 Republic Sept. 17, 1991 

Korea, Republic Sept. 17, 1991 

Kuwait May 14, 1963 

Kyrgyzstan March 2, 1992 

Laos Dec. 14, 1955 

Latvia Sept. 17, 1991 

Lebanon Oct. 24, 1945 

Lesotho Oct. 17, 1966 

Liberia Nov. 2, 1945 

Libya Dec. 14, 1955 

Liechtenstein Sept. 18, 1990 

Lithuania Sept. 17, 1991 

Luxembourg Oct. 24, 1945 

Madagascar Sept. 20, 1960 

Malawi Dec. 1, 1964 

Malaysia Sept. 17, 1957 

Maldives Sept. 21, 1965 

Mali Sept. 28, 1960 

Malta Dec. 1, 1964 

Marshall Islands Sept. 17, 1991 

Mauritania Oct. 27, 1961 

Mauritius April 24, 1968 

Mexico Nov. 7, 1945 

Micronesia Sept. 17, 1991 

Moldova March 2, 1992 

Monaco May 28, 1993 

Mongolia Oct. 27, 1961 

Morocco Nov. 12, 1956 

Mozambique Sept. 16, 1975 

Myanmar (Burma) April 19, 1948 

Namibia April 23, 1990 

Nauru, Republic Sept. 14, 1999 

Nepal Dec. 14, 1955 

Netherlands Dec. 10, 1945 

Member Date of Admission

New Zealand Oct. 24, 1945 

Nicaragua Oct. 24, 1945 

Niger Sept. 20, 1960 

Nigeria Oct. 7, 1960 

Norway Nov. 27, 1945 

Oman Oct. 7, 1971 

Pakistan Sept. 30, 1947 

Palau Dec. 15, 1994 

Panama Nov. 13, 1945 

Papua New Guinea Oct. 10, 1975 

Paraguay Oct. 24, 1945 

Peru Oct. 31, 1945 

Philippines Oct. 24, 1945 

Poland Oct. 24, 1945 

Portugal Dec. 14, 1955 

Qatar Sept. 21, 1971 

Romania Dec. 14, 1955 

Russian Federation Oct. 24, 1945 

Rwanda Sept. 18, 1962 

Saint Kitts and 

 Nevis Sept. 23, 1983 

Saint Lucia Sept. 18, 1979 

Saint Vincent and the 

 Grenadines Sept. 16, 1980 

Samoa Dec. 15, 1976 

San Marino March 2, 1992 

Sao Tome and 

 Principe Sept. 16, 1975 

Saudi Arabia Oct. 24, 1945 

Senegal Sept. 28, 1960 

Serbia/Montenegro*Nov. 1, 2000 

Seychelles Sept. 21, 1976 

Sierra Leone Sept. 27, 1961 

Singapore Sept. 21, 1965 

Slovak Republic Jan. 19, 1993 

Slovenia May 22, 1992 

Solomon Islands Sept. 19, 1978 

Somalia Sept. 20, 1960 

South Africa Nov. 7, 1945 

Spain Dec. 14, 1955 

Sri Lanka Dec. 14, 1955 

Sudan Nov. 12, 1956 

Suriname Dec. 4, 1975 

Swaziland Sept. 24, 1968 

Sweden Nov. 19, 1946 

Switzerland Sept. 10, 2002 

Syria Oct. 24, 1945 

Tajikistan March 2, 1992 

Tanzania Dec. 14, 1961 

Thailand Dec. 16, 1946 

174 
Principal UN Organs 

Member Date of Admission Member Date of Admission

The Former Yugoslav Ukraine Oct. 24, 1945 

 Republic of United Arab 

 Macedonia April 8, 1993 Emirates Dec. 9, 1971 

Timor-Leste Sept. 27, 2002 United Kingdom Oct. 24, 1945 

Togo Sept. 20, 1960 United States Oct. 24, 1945 

Tonga, Kingdom Sept. 14, 1999 Uruguay Dec. 18, 1945 

Trinidad and Uzbekistan March 2, 1992 

 Tobago Sept. 18, 1962 Vanuatu Sept. 15, 1981 

Tunisia Nov. 12, 1956 Venezuela Nov. 15, 1945 

Turkey Oct. 24, 1945 Vietnam Sept. 20, 1977 

Tuvalu Sept. 5, 2000 Yemen Sept. 30, 1947 

Turkmenistan March 2, 1992 Zambia Dec. 1, 1964 

Uganda Oct. 25, 1962 Zimbabwe Aug. 25, 1980 

*The Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia was an original 

member of the United Nations (signing the Charter on October 19, 1945), until

its dissolution following the establishment and subsequent admission as new 

members of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Slovenia, The former Yugoslav

Republic of Macedonia, and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. 

The Federal Republic of Yugoslavia was admitted as a member on

November 1, 2000. 

On February 4, 2003, the name of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia

was changed to Serbia/Montenegro. 

The 57th regular session of the General Assembly, which had been

suspended December 20, 2002, held resumed sessions during 2003. The

session was formally closed on September 15. 

The General Assembly held its 27th special session in May 2002,

devoted to “World Summit for Children.” The 10th emergency special session

met in September, October, and December to discuss illegal Israeli actions in 

Occupied East Jerusalem and the rest of the Occupied Palestinian territory. 

The 58th regular session of the General Assembly convened 

September 16, 2003, and was suspended December 23, 2003. 

The Assembly elected Julian Hunte (Saint Lucia) as President and the

Chairs of the Delegations of Cape Verde, China, Equatorial Guinea, France, 

Haiti, Honduras, Iran, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Morocco, Myanmar

(Burma), Netherlands, Russia, Senegal, Slovenia, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan,

the United Kingdom, the United States, and Yemen as the 21 Vice Presidents. 

The Chairs of the six Main Committees, on which each member may 

be represented, were:

First Committee (Disarmament and International Security)

Jarmo Sareva (Finland) 

175 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2003 

Second Committee (Economic and Financial)

Iftekhar Ahmed Chowdhury (Bangladesh)

Third Committee (Social, Humanitarian, and Cultural)

Martin Belinga-Eboutou (Cameroon) 

Fourth Committee (Special Political and Decolonization) 

Enrique Loedel (Uruguay) 

Fifth Committee (Administrative and Budgetary)

Hynek Kmonicek (Czech Republic) 

Sixth Committee (Legal) 

Lauro Baja, Jr. (Philippines) 

The General Committee (steering committee) is composed of the

President, the 21 Vice Presidents, and the Chairs of the six Main Committees 

of the General Assembly. 

Security Council 

The Security Council is composed of five members designated in the

Charter as permanent (China, France, Russian Federation, the United

Kingdom, and the United States) and 10 members elected by the General 

Assembly for 2-year terms ending December 31 of the year given in the

heading:

2003: Bulgaria, Cameroon, Guinea, Mexico, and Syria 

2004: Angola, Chile, Germany, Pakistan, and Spain

On October 23, the Assembly elected Algeria, Benin, Brazil, the 

Philippines, and Romania as members of the Security Council for 2-year terms 

of office beginning January 1, 2004. 

Trusteeship Council 

The Trusteeship Council is composed of the United States and the 

other four permanent members of the Security Council (China, France, 

Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom). 

In 1994, the Trusteeship Council adopted an amendment to its rules 

of procedure stating that it will meet in the future only on request. The 

Council did not meet in 2003. 

Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) 

ECOSOC is composed of 54 members elected by the General

Assembly for 3-year terms ending December 31 of the year given in the

heading:

2003: Andorra, Argentina, Brazil, Egypt, Ethiopia, Georgia, Iran

(Islamic Republic of), Italy, Nepal, the Netherlands, Nigeria, Pakistan, Peru, 

the Republic of Korea, Romania, South Africa, Uganda, and the United States

of America 

176 
Principal UN Organs 

2004: Australia, Bhutan, Burundi, Chile, China, El Salvador, 

Finland, Ghana, Guatemala, Hungary, India, the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, 

Qatar, the Russian Federation, Sweden, Ukraine, the United Kingdom of Great 

Britain and Northern Ireland, and Zimbabwe 

2005: Azerbaijan, Benin, Congo, Cuba, Ecuador, France, Germany,

Greece, Ireland, Jamaica, Japan, Kenya, Malaysia, Mozambique, Nicaragua, 

Portugal, Saudi Arabia, and Senegal

The General Assembly elected Armenia, Bangladesh, Belgium,

Belize, Canada, Colombia, Indonesia, Italy, Mauritius, Namibia, Nigeria, 

Panama, Poland, the Republic of Korea, Tunisia, the United Arab Emirates, 

the United Republic of Tanzania, and the United States of America for 3-year

terms beginning on January 1, 2004. All were elected on November 11. 

International Court of Justice 

The International Court of Justice consists of 15 members elected by

the General Assembly and Security Council for 9-year terms ending on

February 5 of the year shown in parentheses. The judges, as of December 31, 

2003, listed in order of precedence, are: 

Shi Jiuyong, China (2012), President 

Raymond Ranjeva, Madagascar (2009), Vice President

Gilbert Guillaume, France (2009) 

Abdul G. Koroma, Sierra Leone (2012)

Vladlen S. Vereshchetin, Russian Federation (2006) 

Rosalyn Higgins, United Kingdom (2009) 

Gonzalo Parra-Aranguren, Venezuela (2009) 

Pieter H. Kooijmans, Netherlands (2006)

Francisco Rezek, Brazil (2006)

Awn Shawkat Al-Khasawneh, Jordan (2009)

Thomas Burgenthal, United States (2006) 

Nabil Elaraby, Egypt (2006)

Hisashi Owada, Japan (2012) 

Bruno Simma, Germany (2012)

Peter Tomka, Slovakia (2012)

UN Secretariat 

The Secretariat, one of the principal organs of the United Nations, 

services the other UN bodies, administering the programs and policies laid

down by them. It is headed by the Secretary-General, who is appointed by the

General Assembly on the recommendation of the Security Council for a fiveyear renewable term. Secretary-General Kofi Annan began his first term on 

January 1, 1997, and was reappointed to a second term which began on

January 1, 2002. The Secretariat has a staff drawn from about 170 countries. 

177 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2003 

Kofi Annan, Secretary-General 

Louise Frechette, Deputy Secretary-General

Dileep Nair, Under Secretary-General 

Office of Internal Oversight Services 

Hans Corell, Under Secretary-General 

Office of Legal Affairs 

Sir Kieran Prendergast, UnderSecretary-General 

Department of Political Affairs 

Nobuyasu Abe, Under Secretary-General 

Department for Disarmament Affairs 

Jean-Marie Guehenno, Under Secretary-General 

Department of Peacekeeping Operations 

Jan Egeland, Under Secretary-General 

Office for Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs 

Jose Antonio Ocampo, Under Secretary-General

Department of Economic and Social Affairs 

Chen Jian, Under Secretary-General 

Department for General Assembly and Conference Services

Shashi Tharoor, Under Secretary-General 

Department of Public Information 

Catherine Bertini, Under Secretary-General 

Department of Management

Antonio Maria Costa, Under Secretary-General 

UN Office at Vienna 

Sergei A. Ordzhonikidze, Under Secretary-General 

UN Office at Geneva 

Klaus Toepfer, Under Secretary-General 

UN Office at Nairobi 

The Senior Management Group is a committee of senior UN 

managers that serves as the Secretary-General’s cabinet and the central policy 

planning body of the United Nations. It comprises Kofi Annan, SecretaryGeneral (Chair), Louise Frechette, Deputy Secretary-General, all of the Under 

Secretary-Generals, and the following: 

Carol Bellamy 

Executive Director, UN Children’s Fund 

178 
Principal UN Organs 

Anwarul Chowdhury 

High Representative for Least Developed Countries, 

Landlocked, and Small Island Developing States 

Ibrahim A. Gambari 

Special Advisor on Africa 

Kim Hak-Su 

Executive Secretary, Economic and Social Commission for 

Asia and the Pacific 

Ruud Lubbers 

High Commissioner for Refugees 

Mark Malloch Brown 

Administrator, UN Development Program

James T. Morris 

Executive Director, World Food Program

Thoraya Obaid 

Executive Director, UN Population Fund 

Olara Otunnu 

Children and Armed Conflict 

Rubens Ricupero 

Secretary-General, UN Conference on Trade and 

Development

Iqbal Riza 

Chef de Cabinet 

Sergio Vieira de Mello (killed August 19, 2003) 

High Commissioner for Human Rights

K.Y. Amoako 

Executive Secretary, Economic Commission for Africa 

Jose Luis Machinea 

Executive Secretary, Economic Commission for Latin

America and the Caribbean

Brigita Schmognerova 

Executive Secretary, Economic Commission for Europe 

Mervat M. Tallawy 

Executive Secretary, Economic and Social Commission for 

Western Asia 

Anna K. Tibaijuka 

Executive Director, UN-HABITAT 

179 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2003 

180 
Appendix 3 

U.S. Representatives 

Permanent Representative and Chief of Mission to the United Nations: 

John D. Negroponte 

Deputy Permanent Representative to the United Nations: 

James B. Cunningham

Deputy Permanent Representative to the Security Council: 

James B. Cunningham

Representative on the Economic and Social Council: 

Sichan Siv 

Alternative Representative for Special Political Affairs: 

Richard S. Williamson (to July 2003)

Stuart W. Holliday (from December 2003) 

Representative for UN Management and Reform: 

Patrick F. Kennedy 

U.S. Representative to the European Office of the United Nations, Geneva: 

Kevin E. Moley

U.S. Representative to International Organizations, Vienna:

Kenneth C. Brill 

UN General Assembly 

58th regular session (New York, Sept. 16-Dec. 23)

Representatives: John D. Negroponte

1

 (Chair); James B. Cunningham

Alternates: Patrick F. Kennedy; Sichan Siv 

Subsidiary and Other Bodies 

UN Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation 

51st session (Vienna, Jan. 27-31)

Representative: Fred A. Mettler, Jr., M.D. 

Alternate: Charles Meinhold

Special Committee on the Charter of the United Nations and on the 

Strengthening of the Role of the Organization

28th session (New York, April 7-17) 

Representative: John R. Arbogast 

Alternate: Eric A. Rosand 

Committee on Conferences

Substantive session (New York, Sept. 8-12) 

Representative: Patrick F. Kennedy

Alternates: Candace Ebbesen 

 

1

 The Secretary of State, Colin L. Powell, served as chair of the delegation, ex 

officio, during his presence at the session. 

181 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2003 

Disarmament Commission

24th session (New York, March 31-April 17)

Representative: J. Sherwood McGinnis 

Conference on Disarmament

First Part (Geneva, Jan. 20-March 28) 

Representative: J. Sherwood McGinnis 

Second Part (Geneva, May 12-June 27) 

Representative: J. Sherwood McGinnis 

Third Part (Geneva, July 28-Sept. 10) 

Representative: J. Sherwood McGinnis 

Committee on Information

25th session (New York, April 28-May 9) 

Representative: David Traystman 

UN Commission on International Trade Law

36th session (Vienna, June 30-July 11)

Representative: Harold S. Burman

Alternate: Stephen V. Noble 

Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space

46th session (Vienna, June 11-20) 

Representative: Kenneth Hodgkins 

Special Committee on Peacekeeping Operations

Meets intermittently in New York. 

Security Council 

Representative: John D. Negroponte 

Deputies: James B. Cunningham; Patrick F. Kennedy; Sichan Siv;

Richard S. Williamson; 

Alternate Deputies: Maura Connelly; Stuart W. Holliday; Gordon 

Olson; Josiah Rosenblatt; Nicholas Rostow; Peter Vrooman; Carolyn 

Willson

Trusteeeship Council 

Did not meet in 2003. 

Economic and Social Council and Related Bodies 

Organizational sessions: New York, Jan 15, 28-31 and April 29-30 

Substantive session (Geneva, June 30-July 25)

Representatives: John D. Negroponte 

Alternates: Kevin E. Moley; Sichan Siv 

182 
U.S. Representatives

Functional Commissions 

Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice

12th session (Vienna, May 13-22)

Representatives: Kenneth C. Brill; Elizabeth G. Verville 

Alternates: John Bargeron; Thomas Burrows; Stephen V. Noble 

Commission on Human Rights

59th session (Geneva, March 17-April 24)

Representative: Kevin E. Moley 

Alternate: Jeffrey DeLaurentis 

Commission on Narcotic Drugs

46th session (Vienna, April 8-17) 

Representative: Kenneth C. Brill 

Alternates: Stephen V. Noble; Christopher Sandrolini 

Commission on Population and Development

36th session (New York, March 31-April 4)

Representative: Sichan Siv

Alternate: John Davison 

Commission for Social Development

41st session (New York, Feb. 10-21)

Representative: Sichan Siv

Alternate: John Davison 

Statistical Commission

34th session (New York, March 4-7)

Representative: Katherine K. Wallman

Alternate: Suzann Evinger 

Commission on the Status of Women

47th session (New York, March 3-14)

Representative: Ellen Sauerbrey 

Alternates: Jackie W. Sanders; Sichan Siv 

Commission on Sustainable Development

11th session (New York, April 28-May 9) 

Representative: Paula Dobriansky

Alternates: Jonathan Margolis; Sichan Siv; John Turner 

Regional Economic Commissions 

Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific

59th session (Bangkok, Sept. 1-6)

Representative: Darryl Norman Johnson

Alternate: Joseph Yun 

183 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2003 

Economic Commission for Europe

58th session (Geneva, March 4-6) 

Representative: Kevin Moley 

Alternate: James Foley 

Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean

Did not meet in 2003. 

Standing Committees 

UN Human Settlements Program

19th session (Nairobi, May 5-9)

Representative: Seth Winnick

Alternate: Karen T. Levine 

Committee on Non-Governmental Organizations

Regular session (New York, May 5-23) 

Representative: Sichan Siv

Alternates: John Davison; Peggy Kerry; Ruth Wagoner; Richard

Williams

Committee for Program and Coordination

43rd session (New York, June 9-July 3)

Representative: Thomas Repasch 

Related Subsidiary Bodies 

UN Children’s Fund 

Executive Board, annual session (New York, June 2-6)

Representative: William O. Brisben

Alternates: Sichan Siv; Claudia Serwer

UN Development Program 

Executive Board, annual session (New York, June 6-20) 

Representative: Sichan Siv

Alternate: Jan Lenet; J. Kelly Ryan; Seth Winnick

UN Environment Program 

Governing Council, 22nd session (Nairobi, Feb. 3-7) 

Representative: John F. Turner 

Alternate: Jeffrey J. Lunstead 

Office of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees

Executive Committee, 54th session (Sept. 29-Oct. 3) 

Representative: Arthur E. Dewey 

Alternates: P. Michael McKinley; Kevin Moley 

184 
U.S. Representatives

UN Conference on Trade and Development 

Conference did not meet in 2003. 

Trade and Development Board, 50th session (Geneva, Oct. 6-17) 

Representative: Lynn L. Cassel 

Alternates: Paul B. Daley; Douglas Griffiths 

Specialized Agencies and Other Bodies

Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) 

32nd Conference (Rome, Nov. 29-Dec. 10)

Representative: J.B. Penn

Alternates: Richard Behrend; J. Michael Cleverley; Tony P. Hall; 

Ellen Terpstra 

International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) 

General Conference, 47th session (Vienna, Sept. 15-19) 

Representative: Kenneth Brill 

International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) 

34th General Assembly (Montreal, March 31-April 1)

Representative: Edward Stimpson

International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD)

Governing Council, 26th session (Rome, Feb. 19-20) 

Representative: William E. Schuerch

Alternate: Carolee Heileman 

International Labor Organization (ILO) 

Conference, 91st session (Geneva, June 3-19) 

Minister: Elaine L. Chao

Government Delegates: Robert B. Shepard; George White

Alternates: Julia E. Misner; Kevin E. Moley 

International Maritime Organization (IMO) 

Assembly, 23rd session (London, Nov. 24-Dec. 5)

Representative: Thomas Collins, Admiral 

Alternates: Thomas Gilmour, Rear Admiral; Frank Ostrander 

International Monetary Fund (IMF) 

U.S. Governor: John Snow 

Alternate: Alan Greenspan 

International Telecommunication Union (ITU)

Plenipotentiary Conference did not meet in 2003. 

Council (Geneva, May 5-16) 

Representative: Richard C. Beaird 

Alternate: Marion Gordon

185 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2003 

UN Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO)

General Conference, 32nd session (Paris, Sept. 29-Oct. 17)

Representative: Laura Welch Bush; Roderick R. Paige 

UN Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO)

The United States withdrew from UNIDO on December 31, 1996. 

Universal Postal Union (UPU) 

Congress did not meet in 2003. 

World Bank Group 

International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD)

U.S. Governor: John Snow 

Alternate: Alan Larson 

U.S. Executive Director: Carole Brookins 

Alternate: Robert B. Holland, III 

 International Development Association (IDA)

Same as IBRD 

 International Finance Corporation (IFC) 

Same as IBRD 

World Food Program (WFP) 

Annual session (Rome, May 28-June 3)

Representatives: Tony P. Hall; Lauren Landis 

World Health Organization (WHO) 

56th World Health Assembly (Geneva, May 19-28)

Representatives: Tommy Thompson; Kevin Moley; William Steiger 

Alternates: Ann Blackwood; Richard H. Carmona, M.D.; Jeffrey 

DeLaurentis; David E. Hohman; Mary Lou Valdez 

World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO)

Governing Bodies (Geneva, Sept. 22-Oct. 1)

Representative: Jonathan W. Dudas 

Alternates: Paul Aceto; Lois Boland

World Meteorological Organization (WMO) 

14th Congress, (Geneva, May 5-28)

Representatives: John E. Jones, Jr.; John J. Kelly, Jr. 

Alternate: David P. Rogers 

World Trade Organization (WTO) 

5th Ministerial Conference (Cancun, Sept. 10-14) 

Representative: Robert B. Zoellick

186 
U.S. Representatives

Alternates: Grant Aldonis; Peter F. Allgeier; Linnet F. Deily; Alan P.

Larson; Josette Sheeran Shiner; Ann M. Veneman 

U.S. Permanent Representatives to the United 

Nations from 1946 to 2003 

Edward R. Stettinius, Jr. (March 1946-June 1946) 

Herschel V. Johnson (acting) (June 1946-January 1947)

Warren R. Austin (January 1947-January 1953) 

Henry Cabot Lodge, Jr. (January 1953-September 1960)

James J. Wadsworth (September 1960-January 1961)

Adlai E. Stevenson (January 1961-July 1965)

Arthur J. Goldberg (July 1965-June 1968)

George W. Ball (June 1968-September 1968)

James Russell Wiggins (October 1968-January 1969)

Charles W. Yost (January 1969-February 1971)

George Bush (February 1971-January 1973) 

John P. Scali (February 1973-June 1975)

Daniel P. Moynihan (June 1975-February 1976)

William W. Scranton (March 1976-January 1977) 

Andrew Young (January 1977-April 1979)

Donald McHenry (April 1979-January 1981)

Jeane J. Kirkpatrick (February 1981-April 1985)

Vernon A. Walters (May 1985-January 1989) 

Thomas R. Pickering (March 1989-May 1992)

Edward J. Perkins (May 1992-January 1993) 

Madeleine K. Albright (February 1993-January 1997)

Bill Richardson (February 1997-September 1998) 

Peter Burleigh, Charge d’Affaires (September 1998-August 1999)

Richard C. Holbrooke (August 1999-January 2001)

James B. Cunningham, Charge d’Affaires (January 2001-September 

2001)

John D. Negroponte (September 2001- )

187 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2003 

188 
Appendix 4 

UN and Related Websites 

The following lists of web sites are provided as a service to the reader 

and nothing in these web sites is deemed to represent the views of the U.S. 

Government unless otherwise stated. 

UN Bodies 

United Nations (http://www.un.org) 

Board of Auditors (http://www.unsystem.org/auditors/Default.htm) 

Children’s Fund (http://www.unicef.org) 

Civilian Police [CIVPOL] (http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/dpko/civpol/civpol1.html) 

Commission for Social Development (http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/csd) 

Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice 

 (http://www.unodc.org/crime_cicp_commission.html) 

Commission on Human Rights (http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu2/2/chr.htm) 

Commission on International Trade Law (http://www.uncitral.org) 

Legislative Guide on Privately Financed Infrastructure Projects

 (http://www.uncitral.org/english/texts/procurem/pfip-index-e.htm) 

Case Law on UNCITRAL Texts [CLOUT] 

 (http://www.uncitral.org/english/clout/) 

Commission on Narcotic Drugs (http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/cnd.html) 

Commission on Population and Development 

 (http://www.un.org/esa/population/cpd/cpd.htm) 

Commission on Sustainable Development (http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/csd.htm) 

Commission on the Status of Women (http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/csw) 

Committee on Non-Governmental Organizations 

 (http://www.un.org/esa/coordination/ngo/) 

Conference on Disarmament (http://disarmament.un.org/cd/) 

Conference on Trade and Development (http://www.unctad.org) 

Counter-Terrorism Committee (http://www.un.org/Docs/sc/committees/1373/) 

Department of Peacekeeping Operations 

 (http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/dpko/home.shtml) 

Development Corporation (http://www.undc.org/) 

Development Group (http://www.undg.org) 

Development Program (http://www.undp.org) 

Disarmament Commission (http://disarmament.un.org/undiscom.htm) 

Economic Commission for Africa (http://www.uneca.org) 

Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (http://www.unescap.org) 

Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia (http://www.escwa.org.lb) 

Economic and Social Council (http://www.un.org/esa/coordination/ecosoc) 

Economic Commission for Europe (http://www.unece.org) 

189 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2003 

Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean 

 (http://www.eclac.cl/default.asp?idioma=IN) 

Environment Program (http://www.unep.org) 

Ethiopia/Eritrea Boundary Commission (http://www.un.org/NewLinks/eebcarbitration/) 

Fifth Committee (http://www.un.org/ga/58/fifth/index.html) 

First Committee (http://www.un.org/ga/58/first/index.html) 

Fourth Committee (http://www.un.org/ga/58/fourth/index.html) 

General Assembly (http://www.un.org/ga/58/) 

General Assembly Resolutions, 58th Session 

 (http://www.un.org/Depts/dhl/resguide/r58.htm) 

High Commissioner for Refugees/UN Refugee Agency (http://www.unhcr.ch) 

Human Settlements Program (http://www.unhabitat.org) 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (http://www.ipcc.ch) 

International Civil Service Commission (http://icsc.un.org/) 

International Court of Justice (http://www.icj-cij.org/) 

International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (http://www.ictr.org) 

International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia 

 (http://www.un.org/icty/index.html) 

International Law Commission (http://www.un.org/law/ilc/index.htm) 

International Narcotics Control Board (http://www.incb.org/) 

International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (http://www.unisdr.org) 

Israel-Palestinian Performance-Based Roadmap to a Permanent Two-State Solution 

 (http://www.un.int/usa/s-2003-529-me%20roadmap.pdf) 

Joint Inspection Unit (http://www.unsystem.org/jiu/) 

Joint UN Program on HIV/AIDS (http://www.unaids.org) 

Millennium Declaration (http://www.un.org/millennium/declaration/ares552e.htm) 

Millennium Development Goals (http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/) 

Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs 

 (http://www.reliefweb.int/ocha_ol/) 

Office of Internal Oversight Services (http://www.un.org/Depts/oios/) 

Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights 

 (http://www.unhchr.ch/html/hchr.htm) 

Office on Drugs and Crime (http://www.unodc.org) 

Population Fund (http://www.unfpa.org/) 

Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (http://www.unscear.org) 

Second Committee (http://www.un.org/ga/58/second/index.html) 

Secretary-General (http://www.un.org/news/ossg/sg/index.shtml) 

Security Council (http://www.un.org/Docs/sc/) 

Security Council Resolutions 2003 

 (http://www.un.org/Docs/sc/unsc_resolutions03.html) 

Security Council Sanctions Committees 

 (http://www.un.org/Docs/sc/committees/INTRO.htm) 

190 
UN and Related Websites 

Sixth Committee (http://www.un.org/law/cod/sixth/58/sixth58.htm) 

Special Committee on Peacekeeping Operations

 (http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/dpko/ctte/CTTEE.htm) 

Third Committee (http://www.un.org/ga/58/third/index.html) 

Trusteeship Council (http://www.un.org/documents/tc.htm) 

UN Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (http://www.unesco.org) 

UN Industrial Development Organization (http://www.unido.org) 

UN Office at Geneva (http://www.unog.ch) 

UN Office at Nairobi (http://www.unon.org) 

UN Office at Vienna (http://www.unvienna.org) 

UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) 

 (http://www.un.org/unrwa/) 

UN Missions/Peacekeeping Operations 

UN Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA) 

 (http://www.unama-afg.org/) 

UN Disengagement Observer Force (UNDOF) 

 (http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/missions/undof/index.html) 

UN Interim Administration in Kosovo (UNMIK) (http://www.unmikonline.org/) 

UN Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) 

 (http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/missions/unifil/index.html 

UN Iraq/Kuwait Observer Mission (UNIKOM) 

 (http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/missions/unikom/index.html) 

UN Military Observer Group in India and Pakistan (UNMOGIP)

 (http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/missions/unmogip/index.html) 

UN Mission for the Referendum in Western Sahara (MINURSO) 

 (http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/missions/minurso/index.html) 

UN Mission in Cote d’Ivoire (MINUCI) 

 (http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/missions/minuci/) 

UN Mission in Ethiopia and Eritrea (UNMEE) (http://www.unmeeonline.org/) 

 (http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/missions/unmee/index.html) 

UN Mission in Liberia (UNMIL) 

 (http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/missions/unmil/index.html) 

UN Mission in Sierra Leone (UNAMSIL) 

 (http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/missions/unamsil/index.html) 

UN Mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (MONUC)

 (http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/missions/monuc/index.html) 

UN Mission of Support in East Timor (UNMISET) 

 (http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/missions/unmiset/index.html) 

UN Observer Mission in Georgia (UNOMIG) 

 (http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/missions/unomig/index.html) 

UN Observer Mission in Liberia (UNOMIL) 

 (http://www.un.org/Depts/DPKO/Missions/unomil.htm) 

UN Office in Burundi (UNOB) (http://www.un.org/peace/africa/pdf/Burundi.pdf) 

UN Peace-building Support Office in Liberia (UNOL) 

191 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2003 

 (http://www.un.org/peace/africa/pdf/Liberia.pdf) 

UN Peacekeeping Force in Cyprus (UNFICYP) 

 (http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/missions/unficyp/index.html) 

UN Transitional Administration in East Timor (UNTAET) 

 (http://www.un.org/peace/etimor/etimor.htm) 

UN Truce Supervision Organization (UNTSO) 

 (http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/missions/untso/index.html) 

UN Verification Mission in Guatemala (MINUGUA) 

 (http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/dpko/co_mission/minugua.htm) 

International Organizations 

African Union (http://www.africa-union.org) 

Asian Development Bank (http://www.adb.org) 

Coalition Provisional Authority (http://www.cpa-iraq.org/) 

Codex Alimentarius Commission (http://www.codexalimentarius.net/) 

Comite Maritime Internationale (http://www.comitemaritime.org/) 

Economic Community of West African States (http://www.ecowas.int) 

European Commission (http://europa.eu.int/comm/index_en.htm) 

European Union (http://europa.eu.int) 

Food and Agriculture Organization (http://www.fao.org) 

Global Disaster Information Network (http://www.gdin.org) 

Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria 

 (http://www.theglobalfund.org/en/) 

Group of 77 (http://www.g77.org) 

International Agency for Research on Cancer (http://www.iarc.fr/) 

International Atomic Energy Agency (http://www.iaea.org) 

International Civil Aviation Organization (http://www.icao.org) 

International Committee of the Red Cross (http://www.icrc.org) 

International Criminal Court (http://www.un.org/law/icc/) 

International Fund for Agricultural Development (http://www.ifad.org) 

International Institute for the Unification of Private Law (UNIDROIT) 

 (http://www.unidroit.org) 

International Labor Organization (http://www.ilo.org) 

International Maritime Organization (http://www.imo.org) 

International Monetary Fund (http://www.imf.org) 

International Organization for Migration (http://www.iom.int) 

International Organization of Epizootics (http://www.oie.int/eng/en_index.htm) 

International Telecommunication Union (http://www.itu.int) 

International Trade Center (http://www.intracen.org/default.htm) 

NATO (http://www.nato.int) 

International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) 

 (http://www.afnorth.nato.int/ISAF/index.htm) 

New Partnership for Africa’s Development (http://www.nepad.org/) 

192 
UN and Related Websites 

Non-Aligned Movement (http://www.nam.gov.za) 

Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (http://www.osce.org) 

Organization of African Unity, see African Union 

Organization of American States (http://www.oas.org) 

Organization of the Islamic Conference (http://www.oicun.org) 

Pan American Health Organization (http://www.paho.org) 

Special Court for Sierra Leone (http://www.sc-sl.org/) 

Universal Postal Union (http://www.upu.int) 

World Bank (http://www.worldbank.org) 

World Food Program (http://www.wfp.org) 

World Health Organization (http://www.who.int) 

World Intellectual Property Organization (http://www.wipo.org) 

World Meteorological Organization (http://www.wmo.ch) 

World Trade Organization (http://www.wto.org) 

Specialized U.S. Government Agency Sites 

Agriculture Department (http://www.usda.gov/) 

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (http://www.cdc.gov/) 

Congress 

U.S. House of Representatives (http://www.house.gov/) 

U.S. Senate (http://www.senate.gov/) 

Education Department (http://www.ed.gov/index.jhtml) 

Energy Department (http://www.doe.gov/engine/content.do) 

Environmental Protection Agency (http://www.epa.gov) 

Federal Bureau of Investigation (http://www.fbi.gov) 

Health and Human Services Department (http://www.hhs.gov/) 

Labor Department (http://www.labor.gov/) 

NASA (http://www.nasa.gov/home/index.html) 

National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency [was the National Imagery and Mapping 

 Agency] (http://www.nima.mil/portal/site/nga01/) 

National Imagery and Mapping Agency see National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency

Nuclear Regulatory Commission (http://www.nrc.gov/) 

Overseas Private Investment Corporation (http://www.opic.gov/) 

Postal Rate Commission (http://www.prc.gov/) 

Postal Service (http://www.usps.com/) 

State Department (http://www.state.gov) 

Bureau of International Organization Affairs (http://www.state.gov/p/io/) 

 UN Participation Act 

 (http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/decade/decad031.htm) 

Amendment to the Participation Act 

 (http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/decade/decad032.htm) 

Treasury Department (http://www.treas.gov/) 

U.S. Agency for International Development (http://www.usaid.gov) 

193 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2003 

U.S. Geological Survey (http://www.usgs.gov/) 

U.S. Trade and Development Agency (http://www.ustda.gov/) 

White House (http://www.whitehouse.gov) 

IO Missions 

Geneva (http://www.us-mission.ch/index.html) 

New York (http://www.un.int/usa) 

UN Headquarters Agreement (http://www.un.int/usa/host_hqs.htm) 

Rome (http://www.usembassy.it/usunrome) 

Vienna (http://www.usun-vienna.usia.co.at) 

Conferences 

2nd UN Conference on Human Settlements [HABITAT II; Istanbul, Turkey; 

 June 1996] (http://www.un.org/Conferences/habitat) 

G-8 Summit, 2003 (http://www.g8.fr/evian/english/home.html) 

UN Conference on Environment and Development 

 (http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/documents/UNCED_Docs.htm) 

UN Fourth World Conference on Women [Beijing, China; September 1995]

 (http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/beijing/) 

UN International Conference on Population and Development (ICPD) [Cairo, 

 Egypt; September 1994] (http://www.iisd.ca/linkages/cairo.html) 

UN World Summit for Social Development [Copenhagen, Denmark; 1995]

 (http://www.iisd.ca/wssd95.html) 

UN World Summit for Sustainable Development [Johannesburg, South 

 Africa; Aug./Sept. 2002] (http://www.johannesburgsummit.org) 

World Food Summit [Rome, Italy; Nov. 1996] (http://www.fao.org/wfs/homepage.htm) 

World Food Summit: Five Years Later [Rome, Italy; June 2002]

 (http://www.fao.org/worldfoodsummit/english/index.html) 

World Summit on the Information Society [Geneva, Switzerland; Dec. 2003]

 (http://www.itu.int/wsis/) 

Conventions/Agreements 

1951 Refugee Convention see Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees 

Arusha Agreement on Peace and Reconstruction in Burundi

 (http://www.usip.org/library/pa/burundi/pa_burundi_08282000_toc.html) 

Bonn Agreement [Afghanistan] 

 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/world/texts/bonnagreement.html) 

Bougainville Peace Agreement 

 (http://rspas.anu.edu.au/melanesia/PDF/BougainvillePeaceAgreement29Aug01.pdf) 

Chemical Weapons Convention (http://disarmament.un.org/wmd/cwc/index.html) 

Convention Against Corruption 

 (http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/crime_convention_corruption.html) 

Convention Establishing the World Intellectual Property Organization 

 (http://www.wipo.int/clea/docs/en/wo/wo029en.htm) 

Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage

194 
UN and Related Websites 

 (http://portal.unesco.org/culture/en/ev.phpURL_ID=15782&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html) 

Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Civil 

 Aviation [Montreal Convention]

 (http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/terrorism_convention_civil_aviation.html) 

Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Maritime 

 Navigation 

 (http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/terrorism_convention_maritime_navigation.html) 

Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Seizure of Aircraft 

 (http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/terrorism_convention_aircraft_seizure.html) 

Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air 

 (http://www.jus.uio.no/lm/air.carriage.unification.convention.montreal.1999/doc) 

Convention on International Interest in Mobile Equipment 

 (http://www.unidroit.org/english/conventions/mobile-equipment/main.htm) 

Convention on Offences and Certain Other Acts Committed on Board Aircraft 

 (http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/terrorism_convention_aircraft.html) 

Convention on Psychotropic Substances [1971] (http://www.incb.org/e/conv/1971/) 

Convention on Supplementary Compensation for Nuclear Damage 

 (http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Infcircs/1998/infcirc567.shtml) 

Convention on the Marking of Plastic Explosives for the Purpose of Detection 

 (http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/terrorism_convention_plastic_explosives.html) 

Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material 

 (http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/terrorism_convention_nuclear_material.html) 

Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes Against Internationally

 Protected Persons, including Diplomatic Agents

 (http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/terrorism_convention_protected_persons.html) 

Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations 

 (http://www.unog.ch/archives/un_priv.htm) 

Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees (1951 Refugee Convention) 

 (http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/o_c_ref.htm) 

[Cyprus] Settlement Plan (http://www.cyprus-un-plan.org/) 

Framework Agreement [Western Sahara] (http://www.wsahara.net/framagrm.html) 

Framework Convention on Climate Change see UN Framework Convention on Climate 

 Change

Framework Convention on Tobacco Control 

 (http://www.who.int/tobacco/areas/framework/en/) 

Houston Agreement [Western Sahara] (http://www.wsahara.net/UN/sg/S1997742.pdf) 

International Convention Against the Taking of Hostages 

 (http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/terrorism_convention_hostages.html) 

International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution by Ships 

 (http://www.imo.org/Conventions/mainframe.asp?topic_id=255) 

International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea 

 (http://www.imo.org/Conventions/contents.asp?topic_id=257&doc_id=647) 

International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings 

 (http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/terrorism_convention_terrorist_bombing.html) 

195 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2003 

International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism 

 (http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/resolution_2000-02-25_1.html) 

International Convention on the Preservation of the Intangible Cultural Heritage

 (http://portal.unesco.org/culture/en/ev.phpURL_ID=15782&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html) 

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 

 (http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/a_ccpr.htm) 

International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights

 (http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/a_cescr.htm) 

Kyoto Protocol (http://unfccc.int/resource/convkp.html) 

Linas-Marcoussis Agreement [Cote d’Ivoire] 

 (http://www.usip.org/library/pa/cote_divoire/cote_divoire_01242003en.html) 

Lusaka Ceasefire Agreement [Democratic Republic of the Congo] 

 (http://www.state.gov/t/ac/csbm/rd/22634.htm) 

Montreal Convention see Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for 

 International Carriage by Air OR Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful

 Acts Against the Safety of Civil Aviation 

Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty see Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear 

 Weapons 

Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property

 (http://www.wipo.int/clea/docs/en/wo/wo020en.htm) 

Paris Pact [Afghanistan] 

 (http://www.diplomatie.gouv.fr/routesdeladrogue/textes/declparisang.pdf) 

Peace Agreement [Ethiopia/Eritrea] 

 (http://www.usip.org/library/pa/eritrea_ethiopia/eritrea_ethiopia_12122000.html) 

Peace Agreement Between the Government of Liberia, Liberians United for 

 Reconciliation and Democracy, the Movement for Democracy in Liberia, and the

 Political Parties (http://www.usip.org/library/pa/burundi/burundi_10082003.html) 

Peace Plan for Self-Determination for the People of Western Sahara 

 (http://www.wsahara.net/03/bakerplan.html) 

Pretoria Protocol on Political, Defense, and Security Power Sharing in Burundi

 (http://www.usip.org/library/pa/burundi/burundi_10082003.html) 

Protocol for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Fixed Platforms 

 Located on the Continental Shelf 

 (http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/terrorism_convention_platforms.html) 

Protocol on the Suppression of Unlawful Acts of Violence at Airports Serving 

 International Civil Aviation 

 (http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/terrorism_convention_airports.html) 

Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees 

 (http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/o_p_ref.htm) 

Protocol to the Convention on International Interests in Mobile Equipment on 

 Matters Specific to Aircraft Equipment 

 (http://www.unidroit.org/english/conventions/mobile-equipment/main.htm

Rio Declaration on Environment and Development [Agenda 21]

 (http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/documents/agenda21/) 

Rome Statute see International Criminal Court 

196 
UN and Related Websites 

Seafarers’ Identity Documents Convention 

 (http://www.ilo.org/ilolex/cgi-lex/convde.pl?C108) 

Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs [1961] (http://www.incb.org/e/conv/1961/) 

Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons 

 (http://disarmament.un.org/wmd/npt/index.html) 

UN Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances 

 [1988] (http://www.incb.org/e/conv/1988/) 

UN Convention Against Transnational Organized Crime [Firearms Protocol] and Its 

 Protocols (http://www.odccp.org/crime_cicp_signatures.html) 

UN Convention on the Law of the Sea [and other related Agreements]

(http://www.un.org/Depts/los/convention_agreements/convention_overview_conventio

n.htm) 

UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (http://unfccc.int) 

UN Headquarters Agreement (http://www.un.int/usa/host_hqs.htm) 

Universal Declaration of Human Rights (http://www.unhchr.ch/udhr/index.htm) 

Vienna Convention on Consular Relations and Optional Protocols 

 (http://www.un.org/law/ilc/texts/consul.htm) 

Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations [1961]

 (http://www.un.org/law/ilc/texts/dipfra.htm) 

Vienna Convention on Succession of States Parties in Respect of Treaties 

 (http://www.un.org/law/ilc/texts/treasucc.htm) 

Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties 

 (http://www.un.org/law/ilc/texts/treaties.htm) 

Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties Between States and International 

 Organizations or Between International Organizations [1986]

 (http://www.un.org/law/ilc/texts/trbtstat.htm) 

197 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2003 

198 
Index 

A 

Abkhazia 32–33

Abraham, Spencer 85 

Afghanistan 12–14

 Afghan Transitional

 Administration’s Drug

 Strategy 12–13

Bonn Agreement 12, 13

 Constitution 14

 counternarcotics 12–13

humanitarian aid 69–71

International Security Assistance 

 Force 13 

 Paris Pact 12 

peace process 13, 14 

reconstruction 12, 13, 69, 70–71 

refugees 14, 69–70, 74

 terrorism 13 

UN Assistance Mission in 

 Afghanistan 12, 14

UN Budget 142

UN Children’s Fund 53, 70

UN Development Program 14, 

 49 

UN Environment Program 57

Global Environment Facility 

 57 

UN Office on Drugs and 

 Crime 12, 13

Africa 

UN Environment Program

 57–58

 sub-Saharan 

UN Children’s Fund 53

World Food Program 72 

African Mission in Burundi 15

Ahtisaari, Mariit 7

Al-Khasawneh, Awn Shawkat 123 

al-Megrahi, Abdel Basset 22 

al-Qaida 40, 44 

Algeria 25

American Samoa 45 

Anand Panyarchun 134 

Angola 17, 74 

Annan, Kofi 8, 20, 25, 26, 30–31, 

 32–33, 134, 136, 142, 144, 145, 

 149

Arab-Israeli situation 8–10

educational and cultural 

 institutions 100–101

General Assembly Emergency 

 Special Session 9 

Israel’s credentials at the United

 Nations 10

Middle East peace process 8–10 

Middle East resolutions 9–10 

 Roadmap 8 

security barrier 9–10

 International Court of

 Justice 9–10

terrorism 8, 9 

 two states 8 

Arafat, Yasser 9 

Argentina 110, 141 

Atomic Radiation, UN 

 Scientific Committee on the 

 Effects of 47–48

UN Environment Program 48

Aung San Suu Kyi 28

B 

Båge, Lennart 90 

Baker, James A. III 25, 26

Belarus 69, 93, 141

Bellamy, Carol 52, 62

Bertini, Catherine 73, 141

bin Laden, Usama 40, 44

Bonn Agreement 12, 13

Bosnia-Herzegovina 57 

Bougainville 27–28

 Bougainville Peace 

 Agreement 27 

 Constitution 27–28

 disarmament 27–28

peace process 27–28 

199 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2003 

UN Observer Mission in

 Bougainville 27–28

UN Political Office in

 Bougainville 27

Boundary Commission [for

 Ethiopia and Eritrea] 18–19 

Boyd, Ralph F. 64

Boyle, Peter 110

Brahimi, Lakhdar 12, 135

Brazil 141 

Brundtland, Gro Harlem 106 

Bryant, Gyude 20

Budget, UN 142–144 

 Afghanistan mission 142 

 Cote d’Ivoire 142 

 counter-terrorism 142 

 Department of Public

 Information 143 

elimination of activities 143

 increase 142 

Iraq special mission 142 

management reform 143 

program budget for 

 2002–2003 142

program budget for 

 2004–2005 142–144

reform of budget process 

 133

scale of assessments 

 146–147

Buergenthal, Thomas 123 

Burma 28, 68, 69 

human rights 28, 68, 69

International Labor 

 Organization 93 

Burundi 15–16 

African Mission in Burundi 15

peace process 15–16 

Bush, George W. 13–14, 41, 64

Bush, Laura 100

C 

Cambodia 29

human rights 29, 68

 International Fund for 

 Agricultural Development 91

Khmer Rouge tribunal 29 

Cameroon 77 

Capital Master Plan 144–145 

 financing 144–145

oversight 144, 145 

 audit reports 152 

Carson, Johnnie 58

CBMs: confidence-building 

 measures 36, 37 

CCIT: Comprehensive 

 Convention on International

 Terrorism 41

CD: Conference on 

 Disarmament 37–38 

Chanet, Christine 34 

Chao, Elaine 93 

Chérif, Taïeb 87

Children’s Fund, UN 52–54, 70, 

 71 

 Afghanistan 70 

 immunizations 53

 Afghanistan 53 

 Iraq 53 

 Kenya 53

 Liberia 53 

 sub-Saharan Africa 53 

Joint UN Program on HIV/AIDS 

 111

 reform 53–54, 135

U.S. Agency for International 

 Development 54 

Chile 77

China 59–60, 77, 141

 International Labor 

 Organization 93 

climate change 58–59 

Climate Change, 

 Intergovernmental Panel on 59 

Climate Change, UN Framework 

 Convention on 58–59

200 
Index 

cloning 117 

convention to ban human

 reproductive cloning 117 

CMP: Capital Master Plan

 144–145

Colombia 77, 93 

CND: UN Commission on 

 Narcotic Drugs 66–67 

Codex Alimentarius Commission 

 81 

Commission on Sustainable 

 Development 51–52 

Community of Democracies 69, 

 138

Committee for Program and 

 Coordination 148–149

 evaluation and coordination 

 reports 148 

Joint Inspection Unit 148

 reform 148 

 Medium-Term Plan 148 

proposed program budget for 

 2004–2005 148

 Strategic Framework 149 

UN reform 148–149 

Comprehensive Convention on

 International Terrorism 41

Comprehensive Peace Agreement 

 [Liberia] 20 

Conference on Disarmament 

 37–38

confidence-building measures 36, 

 37 

Congo, Democratic Republic of

 the 17–18, 68 

exploitation of natural resources 

 18 

 human rights 68

peace process 17–18 

sanctions 18, 44

UN Mission in the Democratic 

 Republic of the Congo 17–18

HIV/AIDS policy advisors 44

convention for persons with

 disabilities 63–64

Convention on International 

 Interest in Mobile Equipment 

 and its Protocol 89

convention on the carriage of 

 goods by sea 119 

Convention on the Physical 

 Protection of Nuclear Material 

 and Facilities 85–86

convention to ban human 

 reproductive cloning 117 

Correll, Hans 119, 120, 122

Corruption, UN Convention

 Against 65

Costa, Antonio Maria 65 

Cote d’Ivoire 16–17

 Linas-Marcoussis Agreement 

 16–17

member NGO Committee 77

peace process 16–17 

UN Budget 142

Counter-Terrorism Committee

 40 

CPD: UN Commission on 

 Population and Development 60

Crane, David 131 

crime prevention and criminal

 justice 64–65 

 terrorism 65 

trafficking in persons 64

transnational organized crime

 64, 65

UN Commission on Crime 

 Prevention and Criminal 

 Justice 64–65 

 UN Convention Against

 Corruption 65 

crimes against humanity 30 

CSD: Commission on Sustainable 

 Development 51–52 

CSW: UN Commission on 

the Status of Women 68

201 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2003 

CTC: Counter-Terrorism

 Committee 40 

Cuba 34–35, 68, 69

civil and political rights 34, 35

 Helms-Burton Act 35

human rights 34, 35, 68

UN Commission on 

 Human Rights 34, 68, 69 

 International Labor 

 Organization 93 

member NGO Committee 77, 78 

 sanctions 34–35

Cunningham, James B. 136

Cyprus 30–31 

peace process 30–31 

 reunification 30–31

UN Peacekeeping Force in

 Cyprus 30, 31 

D 

de Mello, Sergio Vieira 7, 40

de Soto, Alvaro 26, 30 

Declaration Concerning the 

 International Destruction of 

 Cultural Heritage 101

Del Ponte, Carla 130 

democracy caucus 69, 138–139 

development 49–52, 54–56

Commission on Sustainable 

 Development 51–52 

Economic and Social 

 Commission for Asia and the

 Pacific 62 

International Fund for 

 Agricultural Development 

 90–92

UN Development Program

 49–50

 Afghanistan reconstruction 14, 

 49 

Iraq reconstruction 49 

Joint UN Program on 

 HIV/AIDS 111

 Liberia 49 

 reform 135 

UN Conference on Trade and 

 Development 50–51 

investment policy reviews 51

 technical assistance 50–51 

Development Fund for Iraq 6, 44

Dinka, Berhanu 15, 16 

Diouf, Jacques 79

Disabilities, Convention on

 the Rights of Persons with 

 63–64

 discrimination 64 

disarmament 36–39

 Bougainville 27–28

Conference on Disarmament 

 37–38

fissile material cutoff treaty 37

Negative Security Assurance 

 treaty 37

 Iraq 5 

UN Disarmament 

 Commission 36–37 

 confidence-building 

 measures 36, 37 

 nuclear disarmament 36–37 

UN First Committee 38–39 

 reform 38 

disaster and humanitarian relief 

 activities 76–77

 disaster mitigation 76

earthquake in Iran 77

International Strategy for 

 Disaster Reduction 76, 77 

UN Office for the Coordination 

of Humanitarian Affairs 76

discrimination 64 

Dobriansky, Paula 66

DPI: Department of Public

 Information 134, 143, 148

DPKO: Department of 

 Peacekeeping Operations 44, 136 

drug control 65–67

 counternarcotics 66–67

Afghanistan 12–13 

 alternative development 

202 
Index 

 projects 66

 Paris Pact 12 

 International Narcotics 

 Control Board 67 

UN Commission on 

 Narcotic Drugs 66–67 

UN Office on Drugs and 

 Crime 12, 13, 64, 65–67

E 

East Timor 29–30

crimes against humanity 30 

Serious Crimes Unit 30

UN Mission of Support in 

 East Timor 29–30

HIV/AIDS policy advisor 44

ECE: Economic 

 Commission for Europe 60–61 

ECLAC: Economic 

 Commission for Latin 

 America and the Caribbean 

 61–62

ECOMIL: Economic 

 Community of West Africa 

 Mission in Liberia 20, 21 

Economic and Social 

 Commission for Asia and the

 Pacific 62 

 development 62

 reform 62 

Economic Commission for 

 Europe 60–61 

Economic Commission for 

 Latin America and the 

 Caribbean 61–62 

 economic and social 

 development 61–62 

Economic Community of West

 Africa Mission in Liberia 20, 21 

Economic Community of West

 African States 16, 19 

ECOWAS: Economic 

 Community of West African

 States 16, 19 

Egypt 11

ElBaradei, Mohamed 82 

Elaraby, Nabil 123 

employment of Americans 

 159–163

assignment of federal 

 employees to UN agencies 163 

Food and Agriculture 

 Organization 81 

 geographic hiring ranges 

 160–161

 International Atomic Energy

 Agency 87 

International Civil Aviation

 Organization 90 

 International 

 Telecommunication Union 98

World Health Organization 109 

recruitment of women 163

environment 56–59

climate change 58–59 

 Intergovernmental Panel on

 Climate Change 59 

UN Framework Convention 

 on Climate Change 58–59

 greenhouse gases 58

Kyoto Protocol 58

UN Environment Program 48, 

 56–58

 Afghanistan 57 

 Africa 57–58

 information system

 technologies 57–58 

Atomic Radiation, UN 

 Scientific Committee on the 

 Effects of 48 

depleted uranium 57 

 Bosnia-Herzegovina 57 

 Iraq 57 

 Kosovo 57

geothermal energy conference 

 58 

 Iraq 57 

program to address 

 mercury pollution 56 

203 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2003 

voluntary indicative scale of 

 contributions 56 

Environment Program, UN 48, 

 56–58

Eritrea 18–19 

Boundary Commission 18–19 

peace process 18–19 

UN Mission in Ethiopia and 

 Eritrea 18–19 

HIV/AIDS policy advisor 44

ESCAP: Economic and Social

 Commission for Asia and the

 Pacific 62 

Ethiopia 18–19 

Boundary Commission 18–19 

peace process 18–19 

UN Mission in Ethiopia and 

 Eritrea 18–19 

HIV/AIDS policy advisor 44

World Food Program 72 

ETOEs: Extraterritorial Offices 

 of Exchange 104 

Extraterritorial Offices of 

 Exchange 104 

F 

Family, Tenth Anniversary of the 

 International Year of the 63 

FAO: Food and Agriculture 

 Organization 79–81, 134–135

FCTC: Framework Convention

 on Tobacco Control 106 

financial situation of the United

 Nations 141

 cross-borrowing 141 

outstanding assessments 141 

peacekeeping operations 141 

war crimes tribunals 141

fissile material cutoff treaty 37

FMCT: fissile material cutoff 

 treaty 37

Focus on the Family 78 

Food and Agriculture 

 Organization 79–81, 134–135

 Codex Alimentarius 

 Commission 81 

employment of Americans 81

Joint UN Program on HIV/AIDS 

 111

 reform 79–80, 134–135

Working Group for voluntary

 guidelines on right to food and

 food security 81 

Foreign Operations

Appropriations Act of 2002 59

Framework Agreement [for 

 Western Sahara] 25

Framework Convention on 

 Tobacco Control 106 

France 77 

Frente Popular para la 

 Liberacion de Saguia el-Hamra 

 y Rio de Oro 25–26 

G 

Garcia, Joxel 109 

GCOS: Global Climate 

 Observing System 115 

GEF: Global Environment

 Facility 57, 58

General Assembly reform

 137–138

Georgia 31–33 

 Abkhazia 32–33

peace process 31–33 

UN Observer Mission in

 Georgia 31–32, 33

Germany 77

Germany v. United States of

 America 126 

Gilman, Benjamin 39 

Global Climate Observing 

 System 115 

Global Environment Facility 57, 

 58 

Global Fund to Fight AIDS, 

204 
Index 

 Tuberculosis, and Malaria 

 111

Gorita, Ion 153 

Gotovina, Ante 130 

Guam 45 

Guatemala 35–36 

 human rights 35–36

International Fund for 

 Agricultural Development 91

peace process 35, 36 

UN Verification Mission in

 Guatemala 36 

Guehenno, Jean-Marie 46

Guillaume, Gilbert 123

H 

Hansen, Peter 76 

Helms-Burton Act 35

Heritage Foundation 78

Higgins, Rosalyn 123

HIV/AIDS 44, 107, 109–110 

 Department of Peacekeeping 

 Operations 44

Global Fund to Fight AIDS, 

 Tuberculosis, and Malaria 

 111

Joint UN Program on HIV/ 

 AIDS 72, 111 

3 by 5 initiative 107, 111

peacekeeping operations 44 

World Food Program 72 

Holkeri, Harri 33 

host country relations 122–123

Parking Program for Diplomatic

 Vehicles 122–123

visa issuance delay 122 

Houston Accords [for Western 

 Sahara] 25 

human resources management

 157–159

mandatory age of separation 

 159

re-employment of former 

 staff 159 

reform 158, 159

staff selection process 

 158–159

human rights 68–69

Burma 28, 68

Cambodia 29, 68 

Cuba 34, 35, 68

Democratic Republic of 

 the Congo 68

 Guatemala 35–36 

 Iran 68 

Office of the High 

 Commissioner for Human 

 Rights 35

 Sudan 24

Truth and Reconciliation

 Commission [in Sierra 

 Leone] 131 

 Turkmenistan 68 

UN Commission on Human 

 Rights 28, 34, 68–69, 138

 Belarus 69

 Burma 69 

 Community of 

 Democracies 69, 138 

Convening Group 138 

Cuba 34, 68, 69

democracy caucus 69, 

 138–139

 Economic and Social

 Council 138

 Iraq 69 

 Israel 69

 Libya 68 

North Korea 69

 Special Sitting 69

 Turkmenistan 69 

 Vietnam 68 

 Zimbabwe 68 

 women 68

UN Commission on the 

 Status of Women 68

humanitarian aid 69–77

 Afghanistan 69–71

reconstruction 69, 70–71 

205 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2003 

refugees 14, 69–70, 74

disaster and humanitarian relief 

 activities 76–77

internally displaced persons 70 

International Committee of

 the Red Cross 70

 International Organization for 

 Migration 70

 Iraq 71 

Oil-for-Food 5–6, 72

 Sudan 24–25

U.S. Agency for International 

 Development 54, 70–71, 72 

UN Children’s Fund 52–54, 70, 

 71 

 UN-HABITAT 54–56

UN High Commissioner for 

 Refugees 74–76 

UN Relief and Works Agency 

 for Palestine Refugees in the 

 Near East 76 

World Food Program 71–74 

I 

IAEA: International Atomic 

 Energy Agency 81–87 

IARC: International Agency

 for Research on Cancer 

 110–111

ICAO: International Civil 

 Aviation Organization 87–90

ICC: International Criminal 

 Court 43, 126 

ICJ: International Court of 

 Justice 123–126

ICRC: International Committee 

 of the Red Cross 70

ICSC: International Civil 

 Service Commission 156–157 

ICTR: International Criminal

Tribunal for Rwanda 129–130

ICTY: International Criminal

 Tribunal for the former 

 Yugoslavia 129–130

Idris, Kamil 112 

IFAD: International Fund for 

 Agricultural Development 

 90–92

IHRs: International Health

 Regulations 106–107

ILC: International Law 

 Commission 126–128

ILO: International Labor 

 Organization 92–94 

IMF: International Monetary 

 Fund 119, 122

IMO: International Maritime

 Organization 94–96 

INCB: International Narcotics 

 Control Board 67 

India 14–15 

Indian Independence Act 14

member NGO Committee 77

UN Military Observer Group in

 India and Pakistan 14–15

Indian Independence Act 14

Information, Department of Public

 134, 143, 148 

INSServ: International Nuclear 

 Security Advisory Service 85 

intellectual property rights 107, 

 111–113

Intergovernmental Panel on

 Climate Change 59 

International Agency for 

Research on Cancer 110–111

International Atomic Energy

 Agency 81–87

employment of Americans 87

nuclear safeguards activities 

 82–84, 86–87 

Additional Protocol 82 

 Iran 83 

Additional Protocol 83 

 Iraq 82–83 

 Libya 84 

Additional Protocol 84 

206 
Index 

 inspections 84 

 Model Protocol 82 

North Korea 83

 Nuclear Non- 

 Proliferation Treaty 83

nuclear safety 86 

 nuclear applications 86

physical protection of nuclear

 material 84–86 

Convention on the Physical 

 Protection of Nuclear 

 Material and Facilities 

 85–86

 International Nuclear 

 Security Advisory Service 85 

 terrorism 84, 85

 International Physical 

 Protection Advisory

 Service 85 

International Civil Aviation

 Organization 87–90 

 air navigation 88–89 

 aviation security 87–88

Convention on International 

 Interest in Mobile Equipment 

 and its Protocol 89

economic liberalization of 

 air transportation 89

employment of Americans 90

Machine Readable Travel 

 Documents 88 

Montreal Convention 88

registration system 92 

Severe Acute Respiratory

 Syndrome 89

International Civil Service 

 Commission 156–157

pay and benefits system 

 156–157

hazard pay 156–157 

performance pay 156 

International Committee of the 

 Red Cross 70 

International Convention for the 

 Control and Management of

 Ships’ Ballast Water and 

 Sediments 95–96 

International Convention for the 

 Prevention of Pollution by Ships 

 95 

International Convention for the 

 Safety of Life at Sea 94–95 

International Convention for the 

 Suppression of Terrorist 

 Bombings 41

international convention on 

 cultural diversity 101

International Convention on the 

 Preservation of the Intangible 

 Cultural Heritage 101

International Court of Justice 

 123–126

Iran v. United States of America 

 123–124

Iranian oil platforms 123 

jurisdiction of the Court 124

Israel security barrier 9–10

Libya v. United States of

 America 124–125

jurisdiction of the Court 124

Montreal Convention 124

Pan Am flight 103 bombing 

 124

Scottish court in the 

 Netherlands 125 

Mexico v. United States of

 America 125–126

Vienna Convention on 

 Consular Relations 125, 126

LaGrand case (Germany v. 

 United States of America) 

 126

International Criminal Court 43, 

 126

 Article 98 126 

 jurisdiction 43, 126

International Criminal Tribunal for 

 Rwanda 129–130

International Criminal Tribunal for 

207 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2003 

 the former Yugoslavia 129–130

International Drug Control 

 Program 111 

International Fund for Agricultural 

 Development 90–92 

 Cambodia 91

 Guatemala 91 

 Pakistan 91 

 reform 91–92 

Sierra Leone 91

 Turkey 91 

International Health Regulations

 106–107

International Labor Organization 

 92–94

 child labor 93

forced labor 93 

Joint UN Program on HIV/AIDS 

 111

 seafarers’ identity 

 documentation, standards 93

technical assistance programs 

 93–94

workers’ rights 93

International Law Commission

 126–128

 diplomatic protection 127–128

reservations to treaties 127, 128

responsibility of international 

 organizations 127 

International Maritime

 Organization 94–96 

global shipping standards 96

 audits 96

Guidelines on Ship Recycling 96

International Convention for the 

 Control and Management of

 Ships’ Ballast Water and

 Sediments 95–96 

maritime security 94–95

International Convention for 

 the Safety of Life at Sea 

 94–95

International Ship and Port 

 Facility Security Code 

 94–95

oil tanker safety 95 

International Convention for 

 the Prevention of Pollution by 

 Ships 95 

U.S. Oil Pollution Act of 1990

 95 

Particularly Sensitive Sea 

 Area 95

refuge for ships in need of 

 assistance 95 

International Monetary Fund 119,

 122

International Narcotics Control 

 Board 67

International Nuclear Security 

 Advisory Service 85 

International Organization for 

 Migration 70

International Physical Protection

 Advisory Service 85 

International Security Assistance 

 Force 13 

International Ship and Port 

 Facility Security Code 94–95

International Strategy for 

 Disaster Reduction 76, 77 

International Telecommunication

 Union 96–98 

 budget 96–97

employment of Americans 98

standardization activities 98

 World Radiocommunication 

 Conferences 98 

World Summit on the 

 Information Society 97–98 

International Trade Center 98–99

 technical assistance 98 

UN Conference on Trade and 

 Development 98, 99 

World Trade Organization 98, 

 99 

International Trade Law, UN 

 Commission on 117–122 

208 
Index 

 alternative international dispute 

 mechanisms 119 

commercial law reform 122

 convention on the carriage of 

 goods by sea 119 

electronic commerce 120 

 fraudulent financial

 documentation 120–121

insolvency law 118–119, 120 

modernizing commercial law 

 121

privately financed infrastructure 

 118

reform of secured financing laws 

 120

IOM: International 

 Organization for Migration 70 

IPCC: Intergovernmental Panel 

 on Climate Change 59 

IPPAS: International Physical 

 Protection Advisory Service 85 

IPR: intellectual property rights 

 107, 111–113 

Iran 68, 83 

 earthquake 77

 human rights 68

Iran v. United States of America

 123–124

member NGO Committee 77

Iraq 5–8 

depleted uranium 57 

Development Fund for Iraq 6, 44

 disarmament obligations 5

humanitarian aid 71, 72

 International Atomic 

 Energy Agency 82–83 

 material breach 5 

Oil-for-Food 5–6, 72

 refugees 74 

Resolution 1483 6

 sanctions 44 

 terrorism 7 

UN Assistance Mission for 

 Iraq 7 

UN Budget 142

UN Children’s Fund 53

UN Commission on Human 

 Rights 69

UN Development Program 49

UN Environment Program 57

UN Iraq/Kuwait Observer 

 Mission 8 

World Food Program 71, 72

IRENE: UN NGO Informal 

 Regional Network 78

ISAF: International Security 

 Assistance Force 13 

ISDR: International Strategy

 for Disaster Reduction 76, 77

ISPS: International Ship and 

 Port Facility Security Code

 94–95

Israel 8–10

 General Assembly Emergency

 Special Session 9 

Middle East peace process 

 8–10 

Middle East resolutions 9–10 

Palestinians’ health 108

 Roadmap 8 

security barrier 9–10

 International Court of

 Justice 9–10

terrorism 8, 9 

treatment in the General 

 Assembly 137–138 

 two states 8 

UN Commission on Human 

 Rights 69

UN credentials 10

UN Disengagement Observer

 Force 12 

 UN-HABITAT 55

UN Interim Force in Lebanon 

 10–11

Blue Line violations 11

 UN Truce Supervision

 Organization 11 

ITC: International Trade 

 Center 98–99 

209 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2003 

ITU: International 

 Telecommunication Union 

 96–98

J 

Jallow, Hassan Bubacar 130 

Japan 141 

Jarraud, Michel 114 

Joint Inspection Unit 148,

 153–154

Joint UN Program on HIV/AIDS 

 72, 111

Joko-Smart, Henry 121

Jordan 11 

K 

Kabuga, Felicien 130 

Kambanda, Jean 130 

Karadzic, Radovan 130 

Kashmir 14–15

Kenya 53

Khmer Rouge tribunal 29 

Kim Hak-Su 62

Kirkpatrick, Jeane 69 

Kleihues, Paul 110 

Klein, Jacques 20 

Kooijmans, Pieter H. 123 

Koroma, Abdul G. 123 

Kosovo 33–34 

depleted uranium 57 

police and justice 34 

Kosovo Police Service 34 

 reconstruction 33 

UN Interim Administration 

 Mission in Kosovo 33, 34

Kotaite, Assad 87

KPS: Kosovo Police Service 34 

Kyoto Protocol 58

L 

LaGrand case 126 

Leavey, Thomas E. 103, 105, 162 

Lebanon 10–11

Blue Line violations 11

UN Interim Force in Lebanon 

 10–11

UN Truce Supervision 

 Organization 11 

Lee Jong-wook 106 

Levitsky, Melvin 67

Liberia 19–21

 Comprehensive Peace 

 Agreement 20 

 disarmament, demobilization, 

 reintegration, and repatriation

 21 

Economic Community of West

 Africa Mission in Liberia 20, 

 21 

Liberians United for 

 Reconciliation and 

 Democracy 19, 20 

peace process 19–21 

sanctions 20, 21, 44

Sierra Leone 22

UN Children’s Fund 53

UN Development Program 49

UN Mission in Liberia 20, 21, 

 22–23, 44

UN Mission in Sierra Leone 

 21 

Libya 21–22, 68

 International Atomic Energy

 Agency 84 

 inspections 84 

Libya v. United States of

 America 124–125

NGO Committee 78

Pan Am flight 103 bombing 22, 

 124

sanctions 22, 44

 terrorism 21–22

UN Commission on Human 

 Rights 68

Linas-Marcoussis Agreement 

 16–17

LURD: Liberians United for 

210 
Index 

 Reconciliation and Democracy 

 19, 20

M 

Machine Readable Travel 

 Documents 88 

Machinea, Jose Luis 61 

Maiolini, Mario 36

Malloch Brown, Mark 49

Marburger, John 98

MARPOL: International 

 Convention for the Prevention

 of Pollution by Ships 95

Matheson, Michael 127 

Matsuura, Koichiro 99 

McGovern-Dole International

 Food for Education and Child

 Nutrition Program 73

Mekouar, Aziz 80

mercury pollution prevention 56 

Meron, Theodor 129

Mettler, Fred 47

Mexico 125–126

Middle East resolutions 9–10 

MINUGUA: UN 

 Verification Mission in

 Guatemala 36 

MINURSO: UN Mission for

 the Referendum in Western 

 Sahara 25, 26, 27

Mitropoulos, Efthimios 94 

Mladic, Ratko 130 

MONUC: UN Mission in the 

 Democratic Republic of the 

 Congo 17–18 

Montreal Convention 88, 124 

Morris, James T. 46, 71, 162 

Mountain, Ross 7

MRTDs: Machine Readable

 Travel Documents 88

Myers, Lucretia 156 

N 

Nair, Dileep 154

Namibia 17 

Negative Security Assurance 

 treaty 37

Negroponte, John 28

NGO Committee 77–78

 accreditation 77–78 

Focus on the Family 78 

Heritage Foundation 78

Reporters Without Borders 78

Simon Wiesenthal Center 78 

Transnational Radical Party 78 

UN NGO Informal Regional

 Network 78 

Nkurunziza, Pierre 15 

non-self-governing 

 territories 45

 American Samoa 45 

 Guam 45 

 independence of 45

U.S. Virgin Islands 45 

Norman, Sam Hinga 23 

North Korea 69, 83

NSA: Negative Security

 Assistance treaty 37 

O 

Obaid, Thoraya Ahmed 59 

Obassi, G.O.P. 114 

Ocampo, Jose Antonio 61 

OCHA: UN Office for the 

 Coordination of Humanitarian 

 Affairs 76 

Office of Internal Oversight 

 Services 154–156

Office of the High 

 Commissioner for Human 

 Rights 35

Oil-for-Food 5–6, 72, 155

Oil Pollution Act of 1990 95 

211 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2003 

OIOS: Office of Internal 

 Oversight Services 154–156 

OPA 90: U.S. Oil Pollution

Act of 1990 95

Operation Lifeline Sudan 24 

oversight 150–157

 audit reports 150–152

Capital Master Plan 152

human resources policies of

the UN High Commissioner 

 for Refugees 152 

implementation of the Board’s 

 recommendations 152

 peacekeeping operations 

 150–151

reforms of the office of the 

 UN High Commissioner for 

 Refugees 151–152

voluntary funds administered

 by the High Commissioner 

 for Refugees 151–152

Capital Master Plan 144, 145 

Joint Inspection Unit 153–154

reform 153, 154

Office of Internal Oversight 

 Services 154–156

 investigation of refugee 

 smuggling 155

 Oil-for-Food Program 155

risk management framework 

 154–155

Owada, Hisashi 123 

P 

PAHO: Pan American Health 

 Organization 109–110

Paige, Rod 100, 102

Pakistan 14–15, 41

Indian Independence Act 14

 International Fund for 

 Agricultural Development 91

member NGO Committee 77

UN Military Observer Group in

 India and Pakistan 14–15

Palestine 

 General Assembly Emergency

 Special Sessions 9 

 health 108 

Israel’s UN Credentials 10 

Israel’s security barrier 9–10

Middle East peace process 8–10 

Middle East resolutions 9–10 

terrorism 8, 9 

 two states 8 

UN Relief and Works Agency 

 For Palestine Refugees in the 

 Near East 76 

 UN-HABITAT 55

Pan Am flight 103 bombing 22, 

 124

Pan American Health 

 Organization 109–110

 budget 110

 HIV/AIDS 109–110

Papua New Guinea 27 

Paris Pact 12 

Parking Program for Diplomatic

 Vehicles 122–123

Parra-Aranguren, Gonzalo 123 

Particularly Sensitive Sea 

 Area 95 

Peace Plan [for Western Sahara] 

 26 

peace process 

Afghanistan 13, 14

 Bougainville 27–28

 Burundi 15–16 

Congo, Democratic Republic of

 the 17–18

 Cote d’Ivoire 16–17

 Cyprus 30–31 

 Eritrea 18–19 

 Ethiopia 18–19 

 Georgia 31–33 

 Guatemala 35, 36 

 Israel 8–10

 Liberia 19–21

 Palestine 8–10 

Sierra Leone 22

212 
Index 

 Somalia 23

 Sudan 24–25

UN Disengagement Observer

 Force 12 

UN Interim Force in Lebanon 

 10–11

Blue Line violations 11

 UN Truce Supervision

 Organization 11 

Western Sahara 25–27

peacekeeping 42–44 

civilian police 42, 43–44

 formed units 43–44

UN Mission in Liberia 

 44 

 effective operations 42 

financial situation of the 

 United Nations 141 

force protection 42–43 

International Criminal Court 

 43 

jurisdiction of the International 

 Criminal Court 43

U.S. Military Observer Group- 

 Washington 43

 HIV/AIDS 44 

 oversight of peacekeeping 

 operations 150–151

 reform 135–136

 sanctions 44–45

scale of assessments for 

 operations 146, 147–148

Status of Forces Agreements 43 

Status of Mission Agreements

 43 

Peacekeeping Operations, 

 Department of 44, 136 

Peru 77 

Pinheiro, Paulo Sergio 28

Piot, Peter 46, 111 

POLISARIO: Frente Popular 

 para la Liberacion de Saguia

 el-Hamra y Rio do Oro 25–26

population 59–60 

Joint UN Program on HIV/AIDS 

 111

UN Commission on 

 Population and Development

 60 

 education 60

UN Population Fund 59–60

 China 59–60

 reproductive health

 programs 59 

U.S. Foreign Operations

Appropriations Act of 2002

 59 

Powell, Colin 5, 13–14, 57, 59

Pretoria Protocol 15–16

PSSA: Particularly Sensitive 

 Sea Area 95 

Public Information, Department of

 134, 143, 148 

Putin, Vladimir 32–33

R 

Ranjeva, Raymond 123

Razali Ismail 28

reform 133–139

 commercial law 122

Commission on Sustainable 

 Development 51 

 Democracy Caucus 138–139

Economic and Social 

 Commission for Asia and 

 the Pacific 62 

 Food and Agriculture 

 Organization 79–80, 134–135

 General Assembly 137–138

 agenda reform 137 

calendar reform 137 

 Strategic Framework 137 

treatment of Israel 137–138 

 International Fund for 

 Agricultural Development

 91–92

Joint Inspection Unit 148,

 153, 154 

Office of the UN High 

 Commissioner for 

213 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2003 

 Refugees 151–152

human resource policies 

 152

 peacekeeping 135–136 

Brahimi Panel 135

deployment times 135–136

sexual exploitation and abuse

 136

 Strategic Deployment

 Stockpile 136 

trafficking in persons 136 

secured financing laws 

 120

Security Council 136–137

Special Committee on the 

 Charter of the United Nations 

 and on the Strengthening 

 of the Role of the Organization 

 129

UN Children’s Fund 53–54, 135

UN Development Program 135 

UN First Committee 38

United Nations 133–135, 143, 

 148–149

administrative and 

 management 133–134, 143 

staff 133–134, 158, 159

budget process 133

 Department of Public

 Information 134, 143 

national human rights

 protection systems 134 

Strategic Framework 133, 149

World Intellectual Property 

 Organization 113 

refugees 74–76 

Afghanistan 14, 69–70, 74

 Angola 74

 Iraq 74 

 smuggling investigation 155

 Sudan 25

UN High Commissioner for 

Refugees 14, 25, 26, 74–76 

 Convention Plus 75 

Framework for Cooperation 75

Joint UN Program on

 HIV/AIDS 111

 reforms 151–152 

UN Relief and Works Agency 

 for Palestine Refugees in the 

 Near East 76 

Western Sahara 26

Reporters Without Borders 78

Rezak, Francisco 123 

Ricupero, Rubens 50

Romania 77 

Roses, Mirta 109 

Russia 77 

Rwanda 44

Rwasa, Agathon 16 

S 

Sanctions 44–45

al-Qaida 40, 44 

bin Laden, Usama 40, 44

 Cuba 34–35

Democratic Republic of the 

 Congo 18, 44 

 Iraq 44 

Liberia 20, 21, 44 

Liberians United for 

 Reconciliation and

 Democracy 20 

Libya 22, 44

 Rwanda 44

 sanctions assistance 128–129 

Sanctions Committee 39, 40 

Sierra Leone 44

Somalia 23–24, 44

Taliban 40, 44 

 terrorism 40 

Sankoh, Foday 23

Sareva, Jarmo 38 

SARS: Severe Acute 

 Respiratory Syndrome 89, 106 

scale of assessments 145–148 

 Article 19 147 

 ceiling rate 147

 methodology 146 

 mitigation points 146–147

214 
Index 

peacekeeping operations 146, 

 147–148

 methodology 147–148

Russia’s voluntary increase 

 146–147

UN Budget 146–147 

 World Health Organization’s

 scale of assessments 107 

Schmognerova, Brigita 61 

school feeding programs 73 

Scowcroft, Brent 134

SCU: Serious Crimes 

 Unit 30

Security Council reform 136–137 

Senegal 77

Serious Crimes Unit 30

Settlement Plan [for Western 

 Sahara] 25 

Severe Acute Respiratory

 Syndrome 89, 106 

Shevardnadze, Eduard 32–33 

Shi Jiuyong 123

Sierra Leone 22–23

 International Fund for 

 Agricultural Development 91

 Liberia 22 

peace process 22 

 sanctions 44 

Special Court 20, 22, 23, 131

Truth and Reconciliation 

 Commission 131 

UN Mission in Liberia 22–23 

UN Mission in Sierra 

 Leone 22–23 

HIV/AIDS policy advisor 44

Simma, Bruno 123 

Simon Wiesenthal Center 78 

Siv, Sichan 35 

Social Development, UN 

 Commission for 63

convention for persons with

 disabilities 63–64

Tenth Anniversary of the 

 International Year of the 

 Family 63 

SOFA: Status of Forces 

 Agreements 43 

SOMA: Status of Mission 

 Agreements 43 

SOLAS: International 

 Convention for the Safety of 

 Life at Sea 94–95 

Somalia 23–24

Monitoring Group 23

peace process 23 

sanctions 23–24, 44

Somavia, Juan 92 

Special Court for Sierra Leone 

 20, 22, 23, 131

Special Sitting of the UN 

 Commission on Human 

 Rights 69

SPLM: Sudan People’s Liberation 

 Movement/Army 24–25 

Status of Forces Agreements 43 

Status of Mission Agreements 43 

Strategic Framework 133, 137, 

 149

strengthening the role of the 

 United Nations 128–129

 dispute prevention and 

 settlement 129

 sanctions assistance 128–129 

Special Committee on the 

 Charter of the United Nations 

 and on the Strengthening of

 the Role of the Organization 

 128–129

 reform 129 

Sudan 24–25

 human rights 24

humanitarian aid 24–25

Operation Lifeline Sudan

 24 

 refugees 25 

215 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2003 

member NGO Committee 77

peace process 24–25 

monitoring groups 24

Sudan People’s Liberation 

 Movement/Army 24–25 

Sustainable Development,

 Commission on 51–52

 reform 51 

World Summit on Sustainable

 Development 51 

Swing, William Lacy 17, 18, 26

Syria 11, 12

T 

Tagliavini, Heidi 32

Taiwan 107–108

Taliban 40, 44 

Taylor, Charles 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 

 131

Tenth Anniversary of the 

 International Year of the Family 

 63 

terrorism 39–41, 45–46

 Afghanistan 13 

 al-Qaida 40 

Arab-Israeli situation 8, 9

bin Laden, Usama 40 

 Comprehensive Convention on

 International Terrorism 41

 counter-terrorism 39, 40

 UN budget 142

 Counter-Terrorism Committee

 40 

crime prevention and criminal

 justice 65

 International Atomic Energy

 Agency 84, 85

International Convention for the 

 Suppression of Terrorist 

 Bombings 41

 Pakistani declaration 41 

 Iraq 7 

 Israel 8, 9 

 Libya 21–22

 sanctions 40 

Sanctions Committee 39 

 Taliban 40

Tevoedjre, Albert 16

Thompson, Tommy G. 106, 108,

 109

Tibaijuka, Anna 54

Toepfer, Klaus 56

Tomka, Peter 123 

Trade and Development, 

 UN Conference on 50–51, 98, 99

 technical assistance 50–51 

Trade Center, International 98–99

trafficking in persons 64, 136 

transnational organized crime 64, 

 65 

Transnational Radical Party 78 

Truth and Reconciliation

 Commission [in Sierra Leone] 

 131

Tupac Amaru 78 

Turkey 77, 91 

Turkmenistan 68, 69 

U 

U.S. Agency for International 

 Development 54, 70–71, 72, 74 

U.S. Foreign Operations 

Appropriations Act of 2002 59

U.S. Military Observer Group- 

 Washington 43

U.S. Oil Pollution Act of 1990 95

U.S. Virgin Islands 45 

Uganda 17 

Ukraine 141

UN Assistance Mission in 

 Afghanistan 12, 14

UN Assistance Mission for Iraq 7 

UN Budget 142–144 

UN Children’s Fund 52–54, 70, 71

216 
Index 

UN Commission for Social 

 Development 63 

UN Commission on Crime 

 Prevention and Criminal Justice 

 64–65

UN Commission on Human 

 Rights 28, 34, 68–69, 138

 see also human rights 

UN Commission on International

 Trade Law 117–122

UN Commission on Narcotic 

 Drugs 66–67 

UN Commission on Population

 and Development 60 

UN Commission on the Status 

 of Women 68

UN Conference on Trade and 

 Development 50–51, 98, 99 

UN Convention Against

 Corruption 65 

UN Department of Peacekeeping 

 Operations 44, 136

UN Department of Public

 Information 134, 143, 148

UN Development Program 14, 

 49–50

UN Disarmament Commission 

 36–37

UN Disengagement Observer

 Force 11–12

 Israel 12

peace process 12 

 Syria 12 

UN Educational, Scientific, and

 Cultural Organization 99–102

Declaration Concerning the 

 International Destruction of 

 Cultural Heritage 101

educational and cultural 

 institutions in the occupied

 Arab territories and in

 Jerusalem 100–101 

intangible heritage 101 

international convention on

 cultural diversity 101

International Convention on the 

 Preservation of the Intangible 

 Cultural Heritage 101

Joint UN Program on HIV/AIDS 

 111

 U.S. re-entry 100 

UN Environment Program 48, 

 56–58

 see also environment

UN First Committee 38–39 

UN Framework Convention on

 Climate Change 58–59 

UN High Commissioner for 

Refugees 14, 25, 26, 74–76,

 151–152

UN Human Settlements 

 Program 54–56

 Israel 55

 Oil-for-Food Program 55

 Palestinian people 55

UN Interim Administration 

 Mission in Kosovo 33, 34

UN Interim Force in Lebanon 

 10–11

Blue Line violations 11

 Israel 10–11

 Lebanon 10–11

peace process 10–11 

UN Iraq/Kuwait Observer

 Mission 8 

UN Military Observer Group in

 India and Pakistan 14–15

UN Mission for the Referendum

 in Western Sahara 25, 26, 27 

UN Mission in Ethiopia and 

 Eritrea 18–19 

UN Mission in Liberia 20, 21, 

 22–23, 44

UN Mission in Sierra Leone 21, 

 22–23

UN Mission in the Democratic 

217 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2003 

 Republic of the Congo 17–18

UN Mission of Support in East 

 Timor 29–30 

UN NGO Informal Regional

 Network 78 

UN Observer Mission in 

 Bougainville 27–28

UN Observer Mission in Georgia 

 31–32, 33

UN Office for the Coordination of

 Humanitarian Affairs 76

UN Office on Drugs and Crime 

 12, 13, 64, 65–67

UN Peacekeeping Force in

 Cyprus 30, 31 

UN Political Office in

 Bougainville 27

UN Population Fund 59–60

 see also population

UN Relief and Works Agency for 

 Palestine Refugees in the Near 

 East 76 

UN Scientific Committee on the 

 Effects of Atomic Radiation 

 47–48

UN Truce Supervision 

 Organization 11 

 Egypt 11

 Israel 11

 Jordan 11 

 Lebanon 11

peace process 11 

 Syria 11 

UN Disengagement Observer

 Force 11 

UN Interim Force in Lebanon 11

UN Verification Mission in

 Guatemala 36 

UN-HABITAT: UN Human

 Settlements Program 54–56 

UNAIDS: Joint UN 

 Program on HIV/AIDS 72, 

 111

UNAMA: UN Assistance 

 Mission in Afghanistan 12, 14

UNAMI: UN Assistance 

 Mission for Iraq 7

UNAMSIL: UN Mission in 

 Sierra Leone 21, 22–23 

UNCHR: UN Commission 

 on Human Rights 28, 34, 

 68–69, 138

UNCITRAL: UN Commission on

 International Trade Law 

 117–122

UNCTAD: UN Conference on 

 Trade and Development 50–51, 

 98, 99

UNDC: UN Disarmament 

 Commission 36–37 

UNDOF: UN Disengagement 

 Observer Force 11–12

UNDP: UN Development 

 Program 14, 49–50, 135

UNEP: UN Environment 

 Program 48, 56–58 

UNESCO: UN Educational,

 Scientific, and Cultural 

 Organization 99–102

UNFC: UN First Committee

 38–39

UNFCCC: UN Framework

 Convention on Climate Change

 58–59

UNFICYP: UN Peacekeeping 

 Force in Cyprus 30, 31 

UNFPA: UN Population 

 Fund 59–60

UNHCR: UN High

 Commissioner for Refugees

 14, 25, 26, 70, 74–76, 151–152

UNICEF: UN Children’s Fund

 52–54, 70, 135

UNIFIL: UN Interim Force in 

 Lebanon 10–11 

218 
Index 

UNIKOM: UN Iraq/Kuwait

 Observer Mission 8 

Universal Postal Union 103–105

 budget 105

 Extraterritorial Offices of 

 Exchange 104 

 private-sector participation 

 103–104

 terminal dues 104 

UNMEE: UN Mission in 

 Ethiopia and Eritrea 18–19 

UNMIK: UN Interim

 Administration Mission in

 Kosovo 33, 34

UNMIL: UN Mission in

 Liberia 20, 21, 22–23, 44

UNMISET: UN Mission of 

 Support in East Timor 29–30

UNMOGIP: UN Military 

 Observer Group 14–15

UNODC: UN Office on Drugs 

 and Crime 12, 13, 64, 65–67 

UNOMB: UN Observer

 Mission in Bougainville 27–28

UNOMIG: UN Observer 

 Mission in Georgia 31–32, 33 

UNPOB: UN Political 

 Office in Bougainville 27

UNRWA: UN Relief and

 Works Agency for Palestine

 Refugees in the Near East 76 

UNSCEAR: UN Scientific 

 Committee on the Effects of 

 Atomic Radiation 47–48 

UNTSO: UN Truce 

 Supervision Organization 11

UPU: Universal Postal Union 

 103–105

uranium rounds, depleted 57

USAID: U.S. Agency for 

 International Development 54, 

 70–71, 72, 74 

USOMG-W: U.S. Military 

 Observer Group-Washington 43

Utsumi, Yoshio 96 

V 

VCP: Voluntary Cooperation

 Program 114–115

Venezuela 93, 110 

Vereshchetin, Vladlen S. 123 

Vienna Convention on Consular

 Relations 125, 126

Vietnam 68, 78

Voluntary Cooperation Program

 114–115

W 

war crimes tribunals 29, 129–131

completion strategies 130

financial situation of the 

 United Nations 141 

International Criminal Tribunal 

 for Rwanda 129–130

International Criminal Tribunal 

 for the former Yugoslavia 

 129–130

Khmer Rouge tribunal 29 

prosecutor for the Rwanda 

 tribunal 130

Special Court for Sierra Leone 

 20, 22, 23, 131

Truth and Reconciliation 

 Commission [in Sierra Leone]

 131 

human rights violations 131 

Western Sahara 25–27

Frente Popular para la 

 Liberacion de Saguia el-Hamra 

 y Rio de Oro 25–26 

peace process 25–27 

 Framework Agreement 25 

Houston Accords 25 

Peace Plan 26 

 Settlement Plan 25

prisoners of war 26 

 refugees 26 

219 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2003 

UN Mission for the 

 Referendum in Western 

 Sahara 25, 26, 27

WFP: World Food 

 Program 71–74

WHO: World Health 

 Organization 105–109

WIPO: World Intellectual 

 Property Organization 111–113

WMO: World Meteorological

 Organization 113–115

women 68

recruitment of women in UN

 agencies 163 

UN Commission on the 

 Status of Women 68

World Bank 111, 119, 122

World Food Program 71–74 

 Ethiopia 72

 global hunger 71–72 

 HIV/AIDS 72 

Iraq 71, 72 

 Oil-for-Food 72

Joint UN Program on HIV/AIDS 

 72, 111

school feeding programs 73 

 McGovern-Dole International

 Food for Education and Child

 Nutrition Program 73

 southern Africa 72

World Health Organization 

 105–109

 Codex Alimentarius 

 Commission 81 

employment of Americans 109

 Framework Convention on 

 Tobacco Control 106 

 hiring ranges 108

 HIV/AIDS 107

3 by 5 initiative 107

intellectual property rights 107

 International Health

 Regulations 106–107

Joint UN Program on HIV/AIDS 

 111

Palestinian health problems 108 

scale of assessments 107 

Severe Acute Respiratory

 Syndrome 106 

 Taiwan 107–108

World Intellectual Property 

 Organization 111–113

intellectual property and

 genetic resources, traditional

 knowledge, and folklore 

 112

Patent Cooperation Treaty 

 fees 112–113 

 reform 113 

Paris Convention amendments 

 113 

WIPO Convention 

 amendments 113 

World Meteorological 

 Organization 113–115

Global Climate Observing 

 System 115 

 Voluntary Cooperation

 Program 114–115

World Weather Watch 114 

World Radiocommunication 

 Conferences 98 

World Summit on Sustainable

 Development 51 

World Summit on the 

 Information Society 97–98 

World Trade Organization 98, 99

World Weather Watch 114 

Wrede, Hans-Heinrich 102 

WRC: World 

 Radiocommunication 

 Conferences 98 

WSIS: World Summit on the

 Information Society 97–98 

WSSD: World Summit on 

 Sustainable Development 51

WTO: World Trade Organization 

220 
Index 

 98, 99

Wynes, M. Deborah 153 

Z 

Zimbabwe 17, 68, 69, 77, 93

221 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2003 

222