DEPARTMENT OF STATE PUBLICATION 11334 

Bureau of International Organization Affairs 

Released September 2006 

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 2006 
i 

CONTENTS 

Acronyms and Short Forms ..................................................................................v 

Prologue................................................................................................................1 

1. Political and Security Affairs 

Regional Issues...............................................................................................5 

Near East..................................................................................................5 

Iraq ....................................................................................................5 

Arab-Israeli Situation.........................................................................7 

UN Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) ...........................................9 

UN Truce Supervision Organization (UNTSO).................................10 

UN Disengagement Observer Force (UNDOF).................................10 

Lebanon/Syria....................................................................................11 

South Asia................................................................................................12 

Afghanistan........................................................................................12 

India/Pakistan ....................................................................................14 

Africa .......................................................................................................15 

Burundi..............................................................................................15 

Central African Republic...................................................................16 

Côte d’Ivoire......................................................................................17 

Democratic Republic of the Congo....................................................19 

Ethiopia/Eritrea..................................................................................21 

Guinea-Bissau....................................................................................23 

Liberia ...............................................................................................24 

Sierra Leone.......................................................................................28 

Somalia..............................................................................................29 

Sudan.................................................................................................30 

Western Sahara..................................................................................32 

East Asia and the Pacific..........................................................................32 

Bougainville ......................................................................................32 

Burma ................................................................................................33 

East Timor .........................................................................................33 

Europe and Eurasia ..................................................................................35 

Bosnia and Herzegovina....................................................................35 

Cyprus ...............................................................................................35 

Georgia ..............................................................................................35 

The former Yugoslavia: UN Interim Administration Mission in 

 Kosovo.............................................................................................36 

Western Hemisphere................................................................................37 

Haiti...................................................................................................37 

Disarmament Issues........................................................................................38 

UN Disarmament Commission (UNDC) .................................................38 

Conference on Disarmament (CD)...........................................................39 

NPT Conference.......................................................................................40 

Peacekeeping Issues .......................................................................................41 

Peacekeeping Financing...........................................................................41 

Force Protection for U.S. Peacekeepers ...................................................42 

UN Police.................................................................................................42 

Sexual Abuse ...........................................................................................43 

Special Issues .................................................................................................44 

Terrorism .................................................................................................44 

Sanctions..................................................................................................46 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2005 

 ii 

Oil-for-Food.............................................................................................48 

Non-Self-Governing Territories...............................................................48 

Security Council Thematic Debates.........................................................49 

2. Economic and Social Affairs 

Economic and Development Issues................................................................55 

Development Bodies and Programs .........................................................55 

UN Development Program (UNDP)..................................................55 

UN Conference and Trade and Development (UNCTAD) ................55 

Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD) .............................57 

UN Children’s Fund (UNICEF).........................................................58 

UN-HABITAT ..................................................................................60 

Environment.............................................................................................61 

UN Environment Program (UNEP) ...................................................61 

UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)............63 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) ........................64 

Population................................................................................................64 

UN Population Fund (UNFPA) .........................................................64 

UN Commission on Population and Development (CPD).................65 

Regional Economic Commissions ...........................................................65 

Economic Commission for Europe (ECE).........................................65 

Economic Commission for Latin America and the 

Caribbean (ECLAC) ..........................................................................66 

Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the 

 Pacific (ESCAP) ..............................................................................67 

Social Issues...................................................................................................68 

Commission for Social Development ......................................................68 

Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities ............................68 

UN Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice/UN 

 Office on Drugs and Crime....................................................................69 

Commission on Narcotic Drugs/UN Office on Drugs and Crime ............71 

International Narcotics Control Board (INCB)..................................72 

Human Rights.................................................................................................73 

Status of Women......................................................................................73 

Commission on Human Rights ................................................................74 

Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights...............................76 

UN Democracy Fund ...............................................................................77 

Democracy Caucus ..................................................................................78 

NGO Committee ......................................................................................79 

Humanitarian Affairs......................................................................................81 

World Food Program (WFP)....................................................................81 

UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR)....................................82 

UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near 

 East (UNRWA)......................................................................................85 

Disaster and Humanitarian Relief Activities............................................86 

3. Specialized Agencies and Other Bodies 

Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) ....................................................89 

International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)................................................92 

International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO).........................................99 

International Health Organizations.................................................................102 

World Health Organization (WHO).........................................................102 

International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC).............................104 

Pan American Health Organization (PAHO) ...........................................105 
Table of Contents 

 iii

Joint UN Program on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS) ..........................................105 

International Labor Organization (ILO).........................................................107 

International Maritime Organization (IMO)...................................................109 

International Telecommunication Union (ITU)..............................................111 

UN Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) ..............113 

UN Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation 

 (UNSCEAR) ................................................................................................115 

Universal Postal Union (UPU).......................................................................116 

World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO).........................................117 

World Meteorological Organization (WMO).................................................119 

4. Legal Developments 

Cloning...........................................................................................................123 

Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL)................................124 

Host Country Relations ..................................................................................128 

International Court of Justice .........................................................................128 

International Criminal Court (ICC)................................................................129 

International Law Commission (ILC) ............................................................130 

Special Committee on the Charter of the United Nations...............................132 

War Crimes Tribunals ....................................................................................133 

International Criminal Tribunal Rwanda .................................................133 

International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia .....................134 

Special Court for Sierra Leone.................................................................135 

Cambodia Khmer Rouge Tribunal ...........................................................136 

5. Reform of the UN System 

Secretary-General Report: In Larger Freedom ..............................................137 

World Summit/Outcome Document...............................................................138 

Management Reform......................................................................................140 

Peacebuilding Commission ............................................................................142 

Security Council Reform................................................................................143 

6. Administration and Budget 

UN Financial Situation...................................................................................145 

UN Budget .....................................................................................................146 

Scale of Assessments .....................................................................................147 

Committee for Program and Coordination (CPC)..........................................148 

Audit Reports .................................................................................................150 

Joint Inspection Unit (JIU).............................................................................151 

Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS) ................................................153 

Human Resources Management .....................................................................155 

International Civil Service Commission (ICSC) ............................................156 

Employment of Americans.............................................................................157 

Capital Master Plan ........................................................................................161 

Appendices 

1. Address by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice ......................................163 

2. Principal UN Organs .................................................................................169 

General Assembly....................................................................................169 

Security Council.......................................................................................172 

Trusteeship Council .................................................................................172 

Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC)...............................................172 

International Court of Justice...................................................................173 

UN Secretariat..........................................................................................173 

3. U.S. Representatives..................................................................................177 

UN General Assembly .............................................................................177 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2005 

 iv 

Subsidiary and Other Bodies .............................................................177 

Security Council.......................................................................................178 

Trusteeship Council .................................................................................178 

Economic and Social Council and Related Bodies ..................................178 

Functional Commissions ...................................................................179 

Regional Economic Commissions .....................................................179 

Standing Committees.........................................................................180 

Related Subsidiary Bodies.................................................................180 

Specialized Agencies and Other Bodies...................................................181 

U.S. Permanent Representatives to the United Nations from 

 1946 to 2005 ..........................................................................................182 

4. UN and Related Websites..........................................................................185 

UN Bodies ...............................................................................................185 

UN Missions/Peacekeeping Operations.............................................188 

Nongovernmental and International Organizations..................................189 

Specialized U.S. Government Agency Sites ............................................191 

IO Missions..............................................................................................191 

Conferences .............................................................................................192 

Conventions/Agreements/Basic Documents ............................................192 

5. 2005 World Summit Outcome Summary ..................................................199 

Index ....................................................................................................................203 
v 

Acronyms and Short Forms 

ACABQ Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary 

 Questions 

AR4 Fourth Assessment Report 

ASOPAZCO International Council of the Associations for Peace in the 

 Continents 

Assignments Convention: UNCITRAL Convention on the Assignment of 

 Receivables in International Trade 

AU African Union 

AVLIS atomic vapor laser isotope separation 

AWVI A Woman’s Voice International 

BONUCA UN Peace-Building Office in the Central African 

 Republic 

CAC UN Convention Against Corruption 

CAEP Committee on Aviation Environmental Protection 

CAR Central African Republic 

CAR/RCU UNEP’s Caribbean Regional Coordinating Unit 

CCIT Comprehensive Convention on International Terrorism 

CD Conference on Disarmament 

CEB Chief Executives Board 

CHR UN Commission on Human Rights 

CIS Commonwealth of Independent States 

CIVPOL civilian police 

CMP Capital Master Plan 

CND UN Commission on Narcotic Drugs 

COE Commission of Experts 

COP Conference of the Parties 

COSP Conference of the State Parties 

CPA Comprehensive Peace Agreement 

CPC Committee for Program and Coordination 

CPD UN Commission on Population and Development 

CSD UN Commission on Sustainable Development 

CSW UN Commission on the Status of Women 

CTC Counter-Terrorism Committee 

DFI Development Fund for Iraq 

DPKO UN Department of Peacekeeping Operations 

DPRK Democratic People’s Republic of Korea 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2005 

vi 

DRC Democratic Republic of the Congo 

ECE Economic Commission for Europe 

ECLAC Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean 

ECOSOC Economic and Social Council 

ENR enrichment and reprocessing 

ESCAP Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific 

EU European Union 

EU3 France, Germany, and the United Kingdom 

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 

FMCT Fissile Material Cutoff Treaty 

FNL Palipehutu-Forces Nationales de Libération 

G-77 Group of 77 (developing countries) 

G-8 Group of 8 (Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, 

 Russia, United Kingdom, United States) 

GTRI Global Threat Reduction Initiative 

HLP High-Level Panel 

HRC Human Rights Council 

HUD U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development 

IAEA International Atomic Energy Agency 

IAMB International Advisory and Monitoring Board 

IARC International Agency for Research on Cancer 

IASC Inter-Agency Standing Committee 

ICAO International Civil Aviation Organization 

ICC International Criminal Court 

ICJ International Court of Justice 

ICPD International Conference on Population and Development 

ICSC International Civil Service Commission 

ICTR International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda 

ICTY International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia 

IDP internally displaced persons 

IEC Incident and Emergency Center 

IEE independent external evaluation 
Acronyms and Short Forms 

vii 

IGC Intergovernmental Committee on Intellectual Property 

 and Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge, and 

 Folklore 

IGWG Intergovernmental Working Group 

IHRs International Health Regulations 

IIC Independent Inquiry Committee 

ILC International Law Commission 

ILO International Labor Organization 

IMO International Maritime Organization 

INCB International Narcotics Control Board 

INSServ International Nuclear Security Advisory Service 

IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 

IPEC International Program on the Elimination of Child Labor 

IPPC International Plant Protection Convention 

ISAF International Security Assistance Force 

ISDR International Strategy for Disaster Reduction 

ISF Iraqi Security Forces 

ISPS International Ship and Port Facility Security 

ITU International Telecommunication Union 

IWG International Working Group 

JIU Joint Inspection Unit 

KRT Khmer Rouge Tribunal 

MINURSO UN Mission for the Referendum in Western Sahara 

MINUSTAH UN Stabilization Mission in Haiti 

MNF Multinational Force 

MONUC UN Organization Mission in the Democratic Republic of the 

 Congo 

NATO North Atlantic Treaty Organization 

NEPAD New Partnership for Africa’s Development 

NGO nongovernmental organization 

NGO Committee Committee on Nongovernmental Organizations 

NPT Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty 

NSAs negative security assurances 

OAS Organization of American States 

OD Outcome Document 

ODA official development assistance 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2005 

viii 

OHCHR Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights 

OIE World Organization for Animal Health 

OIOS Office of Internal Oversight Services 

ONUB UN Operation in Burundi 

P-3 Permanent 3 (France, United Kingdom, United States) 

PACT Program of Action on Cancer Therapy 

PAHO Pan American Health Organization 

PAROS prevention of an arms race in outer space 

PBC Peacebuilding Commission 

PCB Program Coordinating Board 

PCDA Provisional Committee on Proposals Related to a WIPO 

 Development Agenda 

PLO Palestine Liberation Organization 

POC Postal Operations Council 

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

 Front de Oro 

PoW Program of Work 

PRT Provincial Reconstruction Team 

PSC Peace and Security Council 

RaSSIA Radiation Safety and Security of Radioactive Sources 

 Infrastructure Appraisal 

RBM results-based management 

RevCon NPT Review Conference 

RGC Royal Government of Cambodia 

SCP Standing Committee on the Law of Patents 

SCU Serious Crimes Unit 

SOLAS International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea 

Special Committee: Special Committee on the Charter of the United 

 Nations 

SPLM/A Sudan People’s Liberation Movement/Army 

SRSG Special Representative of the Secretary-General 

SUA Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts 

 Against the Safety of Maritime Navigation 

TCC troop-contributing countries 

TFC Truth and Friendship Commission 

TFI Transitional Federal Institutions 

TOC UN Convention Against Transnational Organized Crime 
Acronyms and Short Forms 

ix 

TSZ temporary security zone 

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 

UNCITRAL UN Commission on International Trade Law 

UNCTAD UN Conference on Trade and Development 

UNDC UN Disarmament Commission 

UNDEF UN Democracy Fund 

UNDOF UN Disengagement Observer Force 

UNDP UN Development Program 

UNEP UN Environment Program 

UNESCO UN Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization 

UNFCCC/FCCC UN Framework Convention on Climate Change 

UNFICYP UN Peacekeeping Force in Cyprus 

UNFPA UN Population Fund 

UNHCR UN High Commissioner for Refugees 

UNICEF UN Children’s Fund 

UNIFIL UN Interim Force in Lebanon 

UNIIIC UN International Independent Investigation Commission 

UNIOSIL UN Integrated Office in Sierra Leone 

UNMEE UN Mission in Ethiopia and Eritrea 

UNMIK UN Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo 

UNMIL UN Mission in Liberia 

UNMIS UN Mission in Sudan 

UNMISET UN Mission of Support in East Timor 

UNMOGIP UN Military Observer Group in India and Pakistan 

UNOCI UN Operation in Côte d’Ivoire 

UNODC UN Office on Drugs and Crime 

UNOGBIS UN Peace-Building Support Office in Guinea-Bissau 

UNOMB UN Observer Mission in Bougainville 

UNOMIG UN Observer Mission in Georgia 

UNOTIL UN Office in Timor-Leste 

UNPOL UN Police 

UNPOS UN Political Office in Somalia 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2005 

x 

UNRWA UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the 

 Near East 

UNSCEAR UN Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic 

 Radiation 

UNTSO UN Truce Supervision Organization 

UPU Universal Postal Union 

USAID U.S. Agency for International Development 

USAP Universal Security Audit Program 

USG Under Secretary-General 

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

USOAP Universal Safety Oversight Audit Program 

VCP Voluntary Cooperation Program 

WFP World Food Program 

WHA World Health Assembly 

WHO World Health Organization 

WIPO World Intellectual Property Organization 

WMO World Meteorological Organization 

WSIS World Summit on the Information Society 

WSSD World Summit on Sustainable Development 

WTO World Trade Organization 
1 

Prologue 

This report is submitted pursuant to the “United Nations Participation 

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

that: 

“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 the activities of the U.S. Government in the United Nations and its 

agencies, as well as the activities of the United Nations and those agencies 

themselves. More specifically, this report seeks to assess UN achievements 

during 2005, the effectiveness of U.S. participation in the United Nations, and 

whether U.S. goals were advanced or thwarted. 

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

Nations. 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 that 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 2005, the 

United Nations continued to face many challenges in living up to those 

founding principles. 

This report treats thematically UN activities that most significantly 

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

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

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

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

Security Council, which is empowered to take various actions to maintain 

international peace and security through the adoption of resolutions 

authorizing peacekeeping and special political missions. The activities of the 

UN General Assembly and other UN bodies are also described. This chapter 

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

international terrorism. 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2005 

2 

The United States worked throughout the year for strong action by the 

Security Council in Sudan. A series of three Security Council resolutions in 

March 2005 underscored international concerns regarding Sudan’s continuing 

conflicts, establishing the UN Mission in Sudan, calling for resumption of 

peace talks, strengthening sanctions on the Sudanese Government imposed in 

2004, and referring the situation in Darfur to the International Criminal Court 

(the United States abstained on the last resolution). 

The Security Council also closely followed progress on 

implementation of Resolution 1559 (2004). In April 2005, Syrian military 

forces withdrew from Lebanon, but no progress was made regarding the 

disbanding and disarmament of the militias or the extension of Lebanese 

Government control over its entire territory. 

After the February terrorist bombing in Beirut that killed former 

Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri and 22 others, the Security Council created the 

UN International Independent Investigation Commission to assist the 

Lebanese Government in investigating the attack. The Security Council 

demanded Syrian cooperation with the Commission and requested the 

Commission report on cooperation by Syrian authorities so that the Council, if 

necessary, could consider further action. The Security Council extended the 

Commission’s mandate into 2006. 

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

General Assembly, the Economic and Social Council, and various subsidiary 

bodies and commissions on issues that involve economic development, the 

status of women, humanitarian aid, and crime prevention and control. 

Meeting in its final, full substantive session, the Commission on 

Human Rights adopted resolutions condemning the situation of human rights 

in Cuba, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, and Sudan. The General 

Assembly’s Third Committee adopted a resolution condemning the human 

rights situation in Iran, but blocked a resolution on Sudan through a no-action 

motion. 

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

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

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

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) played a crucial 

role in 2005 in focusing the world’s attention on Iran’s nuclear program and its 

failure to comply with its safeguards obligations and other nonproliferation 

commitments. The IAEA Board of Governors called on Iran to suspend all of 

its enrichment-related and reprocessing activities and to cooperate fully with 

the IAEA in resolving outstanding questions about Iran’s nuclear program. In 

August, Iran rejected a proposal by France, Germany, and the United 

Kingdom; unilaterally broke its commitments under the Paris Agreement; and 

resumed uranium conversion activities. In September, the IAEA Board of 

Governors found Iran to be in noncompliance with its safeguards obligations 

and referred the Iran dossier to the Security Council. 
Prologue 

3 

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

bodies, such as the War Crimes Tribunals in Rwanda and the former 

Yugoslavia, and developments on issues such as cloning. 

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

of the United Nations, and of the UN’s main bodies. 

In March 2005 the Secretary-General introduced “In Larger Freedom: 

Towards Development, Security and Human Rights For All.” The report 

focused on organizational reforms and reforms of UN work on development, 

security, and democracy. Negotiations were held during the spring and 

summer on a package of reforms to be included in an Outcome Document, 

which was agreed to by more than 170 heads of state and government during 

the September UN Summit. 

Secretary Rice noted in her statement to the 60th General Assembly 

that the Outcome Document “expresses a global consensus that UN reform is 

imperative.” The United States was pleased that member states agreed in the 

Outcome Document to reform the management of the United Nations, create a 

Human Rights Council, denounce terrorism in all its forms, advance the cause 

of development, and establish a Peacebuilding Commission. However, the 

United States was disappointed that provisions on a Human Rights Council did 

not ensure an effective human rights body, and that the Outcome Document 

did not address nonproliferation. 

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

current UN financial situation and resource management issues. The General 

Assembly adopted a 2006–2007 biennial budget of $3.8 billion at the end of 

2005. At the urging of the United States and other donors, it included a $950 

million spending cap (equal to approximately six months of expenses) 

intended to maintain momentum behind management reforms and review of 

program mandates. 

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 2005. 

Finally, the report’s appendices include the Secretary of State’s 2005 

speech to the UN General Assembly. Appendices also include information 

about the principal organs of the United Nations and their membership and 

leadership in 2005, a list of U.S. representatives to the United Nations in 2005, 

and other reference information. 

Questions about this report may be directed to the Bureau of 

International Organization Affairs, U.S. Department of State. 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2005 

4 
5 

Part 1 

Political and Security Affairs 

Regional Issues 

Near East 

Iraq 

Iraq’s Transitional Administrative Law required elections for the 

Transitional National Assembly, Governorate Councils, and the Kurdistan 

Assembly to be held at the same time and no later than January 31, 2005. In 

accordance with this requirement, Iraq held elections for these bodies on 

January 30. UN Special Representative of the Secretary-General (SRSG) for 

Iraq Ashraf Qazi (Pakistan), the UN Assistance Mission for Iraq (UNAMI), 

and the UN Electoral Assistance Division provided support and assistance to 

the Independent Electoral Commission of Iraq, which organized the elections. 

Millions of Iraqis exercised their right to vote, despite insurgent attacks aimed 

at disrupting the democratic transition. The United Iraqi Alliance received 140 

seats in the Transitional National Assembly. Despite this majority, no single 

party had the two-thirds majority needed to name the three-member 

Presidency Council, which was the Assembly’s first order of business. 

On February 16, the President of the UN Security Council made a 

statement on behalf of the Council congratulating the people of Iraq on the 

successful elections, and declaring that the elections represented a historic 

moment for Iraq and a positive step in its political transition. The statement 

noted that by going to the polls, the Iraqis had demonstrated their respect for 

the rule of law and nonviolence, and the Council commended the Iraqi people 

for having taken the step to determine freely their own political future and 

encouraged the continuation of Iraq’s political transition. 

On April 11, SRSG Qazi briefed the Security Council on the 

Secretary-General’s most recent quarterly report on Iraq. Qazi focused on 

positive developments in Iraq’s political situation since the January elections, 

including the convening of the Transitional National Assembly on March 16. 

He stressed the importance of inclusiveness in the upcoming Iraqi 

constitutional process and urged the rapid formation of a new government to 

allow Iraq to move on to the next political phase. The Council issued a 

statement to the press welcoming the political developments in Iraq; urging the 

Transitional National Government to proceed without delay on the 

constitutional process; and stressing the need for the process to be as inclusive, 

participatory, and transparent as possible. The statement also encouraged the 

Transitional National Assembly to promote genuine political dialogue and 

national reconciliation, and to ensure that all Iraqis had a voice in the drafting 

of the permanent constitution. 

On April 28, the Transitional National Assembly overwhelmingly 

approved Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jafari’s slate of cabinet officers. In 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2005 

6 

response to the formation of the new Iraqi Government, the Security Council 

issued a press statement on April 29 welcoming the Iraqi government 

formation as envisaged in UN Security Council Resolution 1546. The Council 

also deplored the continuing violence in Iraq and encouraged all of Iraq’s 

political forces to continue the inclusive political process and dialogue for the 

best interest of the Iraqi people. 

On May 31, Security Council members reviewed the mandate of the 

Multinational Force (MNF) and certain arrangements for the Development 

Fund for Iraq (DFI) and the International Advisory and Monitoring Board 

(IAMB), consistent with Resolution 1546. During the Council session, Iraqi 

Minister for Foreign Affairs Hoshyar Zebari addressed the Security Council, 

stressing the Iraqi Transitional Government’s strong support for the MNF and 

the DFI/IAMB arrangements. Zebari said that Iraqi Security Forces (ISF) 

were incrementally assuming security responsibilities and he looked forward 

to the ISF taking full responsibility. He reiterated in person the Transitional 

National Government’s formal request for continuation of the MNF mandate, 

which had been conveyed in writing to the President of the Council and 

circulated to all Council members. 

On August 11, the United States and other Council members 

unanimously adopted Resolution 1619, which extended UNAMI’s mandate for 

an additional 12 months, and stated the Council’s intention to review the 

mandate in one year, or earlier, if requested by the Iraqi Government. The 

Council also reaffirmed that the United Nations should play a leading role in 

assisting the Iraqi people and government in the formation of institutions for 

representative government and in promotion of national dialogue and unity. 

On September 21, SRSG Qazi again briefed the Security Council. He 

praised the just-concluded constitution as a key benchmark in the political 

process laid out by Resolution 1546. Iraqi Foreign Minister Zebari also 

addressed the Council and described the draft constitution as the “best deal” 

possible on a consensus basis. He welcomed the efforts of UNAMI and urged 

that it broaden its outreach, increase personnel, and lead more rapid 

disbursement of international donor funds. 

On October 15, following the Transitional National Assembly’s 

October 13 endorsement of the draft text, a referendum on the constitution was 

held, in accordance with the Transitional Administrative Law. The 

Independent Electoral Commission of Iraq, with the assistance of UNAMI, 

organized the referendum. The Security Council issued a press statement on 

October 17 welcoming the referendum and commending the support provided 

by UNAMI and other international electoral and constitutional experts. 

On November 11, the Security Council adopted Resolution 1637, 

extending until December 31, 2006, the mandate of the MNF and certain 

arrangements for the DFI/IAMB. 

The December 15, 2005, election for a new Parliament marked the 

last phase of the political transition process set forth in the Transitional 

Administrative Law and endorsed by the Security Council in Resolution 1546. 
Political and Security Affairs 

7 

This election was the third major national electoral event in Iraq in 2005. 

Despite security concerns, turnout was high throughout the country. On 

December 16, the Security Council issued a press statement commending the 

courage of the Iraqi people who again demonstrated their commitment to a 

peaceful, democratic political process. Members of the Council also said they 

were encouraged that political parties representing all of Iraq’s various 

communities participated in the election. 

During 2005, the United States presented four reports to the Security 

Council regarding MNF activities in Iraq on behalf of the MNF, consistent 

with Resolutions 1546 and 1637. 

UNAMI is funded through the UN regular budget. In 2005, 

UNAMI’s budget was $88.3 million; the U.S. contribution was $19.4 million.

Arab-Israeli Situation 

The United States actively pursued in the United Nations President 

Bush’s vision of two democratic states, Israel and Palestine, living side by side 

in peace and security. To this end, the United States continued to work in 

partnership with the other members of the Quartet (the United Nations, 

European Union (EU), and Russia) to realize the Quartet’s Performance-Based 

Roadmap to a Permanent Two-State Solution to the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict 

(“Roadmap”). 

On January 13, 2005, the Security Council adopted a presidential 

statement welcoming the January 9 Palestinian Presidential election, which 

was won by Mahmoud Abbas. The statement commended the credible and 

fair character of the vote and congratulated the Palestinian people’s 

commitment to democracy as demonstrated by their participation in the 

election. 

On January 25, in response to the December 10, 2004, request of the 

United States, all EU members, Australia, Canada, Israel, New Zealand, and 

the Russian Federation, the Secretary-General convened a special session of 

the General Assembly to commemorate the 60th anniversary of the liberation 

of the Nazi concentration camps. The broad support for this special session 

represented a significant achievement in Israel’s efforts to focus UN attention 

on issues of importance to Israel. 

In July 2005, the Security Council held an open debate on the 

situation in the Middle East in response to requests by the Palestinians and 

their supporters for an opportunity to air views on the Israeli-constructed 

security barrier. During the session, the Palestinian observer mission 

representative argued that that the July 9, 2004, International Court of Justice 

advisory opinion had declared the barrier illegal. The Israeli representative 

noted that Israel was sensitive to the impact of its defensive measures on 

Palestinians and was working with the Palestinian Authority, the United 

Nations, and the Israeli High Court to mitigate the impact. No Security 

Council resolution, presidential statement, or press statement resulted from the 

session. 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2005 

8 

On August 24, 2005, a Security Council press statement noted that 

the members of the Security Council welcomed the beginning of Israeli 

withdrawal from Gaza and parts of the northern West Bank and commended 

the ongoing implementation of the process. 

Following the September 20 meeting of the Quartet, the Security 

Council adopted a presidential statement renewing its call for action in parallel 

by Israel and the Palestinian Authority on their obligations in accordance with 

the Roadmap. 

On November 30, the Security Council adopted a presidential 

statement welcoming the Agreement on Movement and Access and the Agreed 

Principles for the Rafah Crossing reached on November 15 between Israel and 

the Palestinian Authority. The Security Council also again renewed its call for 

action in parallel by Israel and the Palestinian Authority on their obligations in 

accordance with the Roadmap. 

During the 60th session of the General Assembly, the United States 

lobbied heavily in support of the first UN General Assembly resolution ever 

introduced by Israel, which sought to establish January 27 as an annual day of 

commemoration in memory of victims of the Holocaust. On November 1, the 

General Assembly adopted the resolution by consensus, with 104 member 

states cosponsoring. Building on the momentum of Israel’s drive to convene 

the January Special Session commemorating the 60th anniversary of the 

liberation of the concentration camps, this resolution represented another 

success in focusing UN attention on issues of importance to Israel. 

The 60th General Assembly regular session adopted 18 resolutions 

concerning the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and related issues. The United 

States opposed many of these resolutions for the following reasons: they 

addressed final status issues that the Israelis and Palestinians have 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 these concerns, the United States continued 

its efforts to reduce the number of Middle East resolutions introduced during 

the 60th General Assembly. Negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians, 

brokered by the United Kingdom with the strong support of the United States, 

resulted in the withdrawal of one resolution dealing with Palestinian children. 

This reduced the total number of Middle East resolutions by one from the 

2004 total of 19. 

The United States also made progress in the 60th General Assembly 

toward its goal of cutting into the large, automatic majorities by which these 

recurring resolutions have usually passed. U. S. lobbying and demarches 

marginally increased the number of “no” votes and abstentions over last year. 

Also during the Assembly, the United States mounted a major effort 

to target three resolutions that renewed the mandates of UN entities that 

perpetuate institutional discrimination against Israel. These are the Division 

for Palestinian Rights, the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights 
Political and Security Affairs 

9 

of the Palestinian People, and the Special Committee to Investigate Israeli 

Practices Affecting the Human Rights of the Palestinian People and Other 

Arabs of the Occupied Territories. Despite strong lobbying in capitals and in 

New York, there was little change in voting patterns on these resolutions, and 

the General Assembly again adopted all three of the resolutions. The 

resolutions were adopted by votes of 105 to 8 (U.S.), with 59 abstentions; 106 

to 8 (U.S.), with 59 abstentions; and 86 to 10 (U.S.), with 74 abstentions, 

respectively. 

The United States supported a resolution that addressed humanitarian 

assistance to Palestinian people. In 2005, the United States provided $108 

million to the UN Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA), the UN agency 

charged with providing humanitarian aid to Palestinian refugees, and remained 

the largest single donor to that agency. The United States also supported the 

adoption of a General Assembly decision that expanded the membership of 

UNRWA’s Advisory Commission. As a result, 11 additional donor countries 

were made members, while the Palestinian Liberation Organization, the 

League of Arab States, and the European Commission obtained observer 

status. 

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) 

The UN Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) was established by UN 

Security Council Resolutions 425 and 426 in March 1978. These measures 

responded to the Israeli invasion of southern Lebanon following a Palestinian 

Liberation Organization attack inside Israel. UNIFIL’s mandate included 

confirming the withdrawal of Israeli forces from Lebanon, restoring 

international peace and security and assisting the Government of Lebanon in 

restoring its effective authority in the area. In a report to the Security Council 

in 2000, the Secretary-General asserted that UNIFIL’s remaining task was 

restoring international peace and security to the area. In January and July 

2005, the Security Council extended UNIFIL’s mandate for another six 

months, and acknowledged that the occasional exchange of fire in the Shaba’a 

farms area in Lebanon showed that the situation remained tenuous and fragile 

and could fall back into chaos at any time. 

In 2005, UNIFIL reported numerous armed encounters in violation of 

the Line of Withdrawal, or “Blue Line,” by Israeli Defense Forces, Hizballah, 

and armed Palestinian elements. Violence along the Blue Line resulted in 

civilian casualties on both sides. Incidents on January 9 and 17 resulted in the 

loss of life on both sides of the Blue Line, including one UN military observer. 

On November 21, Hizballah initiated an attack and several Hizballah 

fighters infiltrated al-Ghajjar in an attempt to kidnap Israeli soldiers. Four 

Hizballah fighters were killed. Hizballah continued to direct sporadic antiaircraft and small arms fire into Israeli territory. Israel responded to these 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2005 

10 

attacks with aerial bombs, mortars, and helicopter gunship fire. Armed 

Palestinian groups also fired rockets toward Israel, prompting an Israeli 

response. UNIFIL recorded numerous airspace violations by Israeli military 

aircraft and rocket launches into Israeli territory by Hizballah. 

UN-assessed costs for UNIFIL totaled $99.1 million in 2005. The 

U.S. net contribution totaled $14.7 million after credits were applied. As of 

December 31, 2005, UNIFIL had 2,009 troops from seven nations. No U.S. 

troops served in UNIFIL. 

UN Truce Supervision Organization (UNTSO) 

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

peacekeeping mission. In 1948, the Security Council established the UNTSO 

under Resolution 50 to supervise the truce called for by the Council at the end 

of the British mandate in Palestine. Since then, the UNTSO has supervised the 

implementation and observance of the general agreements between Israel and 

Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, and Syria. 

Following the 1967 Middle East War, UNTSO took on cease-fire 

monitoring responsibilities in the Israel-Syria sector and the Suez Canal Zone. 

In 1972, the Council established a similar operation in southern Lebanon. The 

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 2005, UNTSO maintained a stabilizing presence in the region, 

including providing military observers and administrative staff to support the 

UN Interim Force in Lebanon and the UN Disengagement Observer Force in 

the Golan Heights. At Egypt’s request, the mission also provided a small 

monitoring team to patrol the Sinai. 

As of December 31, 2005, UNTSO had 150 military observers from 

23 nations. Three U.S. military observers were assigned to UNTSO. UNTSO 

is funded through the UN regular budget, and its assessed costs totaled $28 

million in 2005. The U.S. contribution totaled $6.2 million. 

UN Disengagement Observer Force (UNDOF) 

The UN Disengagement Observer Force (UNDOF) was established 

by Security Council Resolution 350 (1974) in the aftermath of the 1973 ArabIsraeli War. UNDOF plays a positive role in observing the implementation of 

the Israel-Syria Disengagement Agreement and serves U.S. national security 

interests by maintaining confidence levels and 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 21, 2005, by adopting Resolution 1648. 

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 between the two countries. In 

2005, the security situation in UNDOF’s area of operations remained generally 

calm, though the Secretary-General reported to the Council in December that 
Political and Security Affairs 

11 

the situation in the Middle East remains very tense barring a comprehensive 

peace agreement. 

As of December 31, 2005, UNDOF had 1,047 troops from six 

nations. No U.S. personnel served in UNDOF. In 2005, UN-assessed costs 

for UNDOF totaled $40.98 million; the U.S. share was $11.1 million. 

Lebanon/Syria 

The February 14, 2005, terrorist bombing in Beirut that killed former 

Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri and 22 others prompted the Security Council to 

issue a presidential statement condemning the attack and reiterating its support 

for Security Council Resolution 1559 (2004), which called for the withdrawal 

of all foreign forces from Lebanon, the disbanding and disarmament of all 

Lebanese and non-Lebanese militias, and the extension of Lebanese 

Government control over the entire country. 

In response to the Hariri assassination, the United States and France 

also drafted a resolution, unanimously adopted on April 7, 2005, as Resolution 

1595, creating the UN International Independent Investigation Commission 

(UNIIIC) to assist the Lebanese Government in investigating all aspects of the 

attack, including helping to identify its perpetrators, sponsors, organizers, and 

accomplices. On October 19, the UNIIIC, headed by German prosecutor 

Detlev Mehlis, delivered its first report on its activities to the SecretaryGeneral. The report concluded, among other things, that converging evidence 

pointed to both Lebanese and Syrian official involvement in the murder, and 

that it was incumbent upon Syrian authorities to clarify unresolved questions. 

In response to the UNIIIC report, the United States, France, and the United 

Kingdom (the P-3) drafted a resolution which required Syria, under Chapter 

VII, to cooperate fully and unconditionally with the UNIIIC. The Security 

Council unanimously adopted this resolution, Resolution 1636, on October 31. 

On December 10, the UNIIIC delivered its second report which indicated that 

although some Syrian officials had been made available for questioning, Syria 

had not yet provided full and unconditional cooperation to the UNIIIC. In 

response to the Government of Lebanon’s request, the P-3 drafted, and the 

Security Council unanimously adopted on December 15, Resolution 1644, 

extending the UNIIIC mandate until June 15, 2006. 

On April 26, 2005, Secretary-General Annan reported to the Security 

Council that noticeable and significant progress had been made toward 

implementing some of the provisions of Resolution 1559, though many 

provisions remained outstanding, including presidential elections and 

disarmament of militias. He noted that on April 26, the Syrian Government 

stated in a letter to the Secretary-General that it had completed its full 

withdrawal of Syrian troops, military assets, and intelligence apparatus from 

Lebanon. The Secretary-General also reported on Lebanese Government 

progress in implementing Resolution 1559, specifically the deployment of 

Lebanese armed forces to those areas vacated by Syrian forces and the 

decision to hold parliamentary elections beginning on May 29. In response, 

the United States and France drafted a statement, which was adopted by the 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2005 

12 

Council and issued by its President on May 4, welcoming the SecretaryGeneral’s report and the progress made, and reiterating its call for the full 

implementation of Resolution 1559. 

On June 7, the United States and France drafted a statement, which 

was adopted by the Council and issued by its President, condemning in the 

strongest possible terms the June 2 terrorist bombing in Beirut that killed 

Lebanese journalist Samir Qassir. 

On June 22, in response to completion of May 29–June 19 elections 

in Lebanon, the United States and France drafted a statement, which was 

adopted by the Council and issued by its President, commending the Lebanese 

Government for its successful conduct of the elections, reaffirming that the 

Lebanese people must be allowed to decided their country’s future free of 

violence and intimidation, and reiterating its call for the full implementation of 

Resolutions 1559 and 1595. 

On September 28, the Security Council President issued a press 

statement on behalf of the Security Council condemning the attempted 

assassination of Lebanese journalist May Chidiac. 

On October 25, the Secretary-General reported to the Security 

Council that Lebanon and Syria had made considerable further progress 

toward implementation of Resolution 1559, including confirmation of the 

withdrawal of Syrian military forces from Lebanon and the conduct of free and 

fair legislative elections in Lebanon. Other aspects of the resolution remained 

to be implemented, particularly the disbanding and disarming of Lebanese and 

non-Lebanese militias; free and fair presidential elections; the extension of 

government control throughout all of Lebanon; and the full restoration and 

strict respect for the sovereignty, unity, territorial integrity, and political 

independence of Lebanon, most notably through the establishment of normal 

diplomatic relations and the demarcation of borders between Syria and 

Lebanon. 

On December 12, in response to the terrorist bombing in Beirut 

earlier that day that killed Lebanese member of Parliament and journalist 

Gebran Tueni, the United States and France drafted a statement, which was 

adopted by the Council and issued by its President, condemning the attack, 

reiterating its concern about the impact of such attacks on stability of Lebanon, 

and welcoming the commitment of the Government of Lebanon to bring to 

justice those responsible for this attack as well as previous ones. 

South Asia 

Afghanistan 

During 2005, the United States continued to work through the United 

Nations and with the international community in pursuit of a prosperous, 

democratic, and self-governing Afghanistan. To this end, the United States 

continued initiatives to ensure that Afghanistan is never again a haven for 

terrorists, a source of instability to its neighbors, or oppression towards its 

citizens. At the heart of this mission was the demanding and costly work of 
Political and Security Affairs 

13 

assisting Afghans as they rebuilt their country under the terms of the Bonn 

Agreement. The United States worked with Afghan leaders and partners in the 

international community to establish a government that was moderate, 

democratic, and representative, and capable of governing its territory and 

implementing policies to stimulate economic and social development. 

In September, following the successful presidential election in 2004, 

under UN supervision, Afghanistan held its first parliamentary and provincial 

elections in more than 30 years. The new parliament held its first session 

December 19, 2005. The September elections were critical to Afghanistan’s 

success in implementing the political process outlined in the Bonn Agreement, 

which included establishment of a constitutional, representative, and effective 

government that embodied the aspirations of all Afghans. More than 6.84 

million ballots were cast, representing 52 percent of registered voters. An 

estimated 43 percent of voters were women. The United States worked 

closely with the Afghan Government and the UN Assistance Mission in 

Afghanistan (UNAMA) to assist Afghanistan’s Joint Electoral Management 

Body in conducting what was generally judged to be a credible electoral 

process. The United States contributed $85 million of the $198 million 

provided to the United Nations by the international community to pay for voter 

registration, political party development, polling, logistics, and civic education. 

On December 20, the Security Council released a press statement 

congratulating the Afghan people on the inauguration of the new parliament. 

Jean Arnault (France) continued to serve as the Secretary-General’s 

Special Representative for Afghanistan throughout the year. 

The Security Council had established UNAMA by Resolution 1401 

(2002) with a mandate to facilitate 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. On March 18, 2005, the Secretary-General reported 

to the Security Council and the General Assembly on the situation in 

Afghanistan and its implications for international peace and security. The 

report described the remaining key challenges to the successful completion of 

the Bonn Agreement, including security; progress in the disarmament, 

demobilization, and reintegration process; attacking the corrupt culture of the 

drug economy; and human rights. The report also noted progress made, 

including the election of President Karzai in 2004. On March 24, 2005, the 

Security Council unanimously adopted Resolution 1589, extending the 

mandate of UNAMA for a further 12 months. 

With strong U.S. support, UNAMA’s principal focus in 2005 was to 

support the development of Afghan institutions. UNAMA and several UN 

agencies and programs cooperated with Afghan authorities to develop 

responses to humanitarian issues affecting almost 6 million Afghans. Though 

many children still did not attend school, 5 million enrolled in 2005—the 

largest number in the country’s history. About 750,000 refugees returned to 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2005 

14 

Afghanistan in 2005, 70 percent of them with the assistance of the office of the 

UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), bringing the total number of 

returnees assisted by UNHCR since 2002 to well over 3.5 million. As a direct 

result of the UN Mine Action program, the number of mine victims continued 

to decline in 2005. 

The Provincial Reconstruction Team (PRT) program continued to be 

an integral part of the international program to help Afghanistan rebuild. The 

United States and other NATO nations established four new PRTs in 2005. 

The United States strongly supported NATO’s leadership of International 

Security Assistance Force (ISAF), and its expansion into northern and western 

Afghanistan. On September 13, the Security Council extended the mandate of 

the ISAF in Afghanistan for a further year by Resolution 1623. 

 Narcotics production in Afghanistan continued to be an area of 

primary concern for the United States in 2005. The UN Office on Drugs and 

Crime 2005 Annual Report estimated that opium poppy cultivation decreased 

by 20 percent during 2005, to 103,000 hectares. Despite the decrease in 

cultivation, favorable weather led to higher yields per hectare, with a final 

estimated production of 4,100 tons of opium, only slightly down from the 

2004 estimate of 4,200 tons. Afghanistan remained the world’s largest 

producer of opium in 2005, accounting for over 85 percent of global 

production. 

On November 30, 2005, the UN General Assembly adopted 

Resolution 60/32, which addressed Afghanistan’s continuing quest for peace 

and security. The resolution applauded the parliamentary elections that led to 

completion of the Bonn Agreement and emphasized the importance of the new 

Afghan Government as the representative of the ethnic, cultural, and 

geographic diversity of the country. While the resolution commended the 

Afghan National Army, the ISAF, and Operation Enduring Freedom, it also 

acknowledged the continuing fragility of the security sector, which had a 

profound effect on reconstruction activities in Afghanistan. The General 

Assembly called upon member states to continue providing humanitarian, 

recovery, financial, reconstruction, technical, and material assistance for 

Afghanistan. The uncontested adoption of this resolution was an important 

indicator of the substantial international support for the establishment of peace 

and security in Afghanistan. 

UNAMA is funded through the UN regular budget. Its budget in 

2005 was $60.8 million, and the U.S. contribution was $13.4 million. In 

addition, the United States contributed $26.6 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. At 

the end of 2005, some 1,171 international and local staff were assigned to 

UNAMA. No U.S. personnel were assigned to UNAMA. 

India/Pakistan 

The UN Military Observer Group in India and Pakistan (UNMOGIP) 

was deployed in January 1949 under UN Security Council Resolution 47 
Political and Security Affairs 

15 

(1948) to supervise the cease-fire agreed between India and Pakistan in the 

state of Jammu and Kashmir. In July 1949, India and Pakistan signed the 

Karachi Agreement establishing a ceasefire line to be supervised by UN 

observers. 

At the end of 1971, hostilities again broke out between India and 

Pakistan. Following a ceasefire, India and Pakistan agreed in 1972 on a Line 

of Control which UNMOGIP monitors. UNMOGIP’s functions are to observe 

and report, investigate complaints of ceasefire violations, and submit findings 

to the parties and to the UN Secretary-General. 

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

believes that to de-establish the mission without replacing it with an 

alternative mechanism could upset the delicate equilibrium, which allowed 

both sides to meet on a range of bilateral issues, including the status of 

Kashmir. 

UNMOGIP’s budget for 2005 was $8.4 million. The United States 

contribution was $1.8 million. As of late 2005, 42 military observers served in 

UNMOGIP. No U.S. military personnel were assigned to the mission in 2005. 

Africa 

Burundi 

In 2005, 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. Despite two postponements, the referendum 

on the post-transition Constitution was successfully conducted without major 

incident on February 28. The UN Security Council issued a presidential 

statement on March 14, welcoming approval of Burundi’s post-transitional 

constitution and calling on Burundians to remain committed to reconciliation. 

On May 23, the Council issued a presidential statement urging all 

Burundian parties to ensure long-term stability following a cessation of 

hostilities agreement between the government and the Palipehutu-Forces 

Nationales de Libération (FNL). This was followed on May 31 by the 

Council’s unanimous adoption of Resolution 1602, renewing the UN 

Operation in Burundi (ONUB) mandate for six months. 

Communal elections then took place in Burundi June 3 and 7. 

National Assembly elections took place July 4 without significant disruption. 

An August 19 parliamentary vote elected Pierre Nkurunziza President; he was 

inaugurated August 26. This election process marked the welcome final step 

of the transitional process in Burundi. The conclusion of this process 

represented an important milestone for the future of Burundi as well as the 

Great Lakes region as a whole. On August 30, the Security Council adopted a 

presidential statement that commended Burundi, ONUB, and the African 

Union for the elections, and encouraged the Burundian leadership to continue 

the process of national reconciliation 

The new government took further steps to consolidate its authority. 

All key executive appointments were made and key legislation was adopted. 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2005 

16 

Disarmament and demobilization proceeded broadly on schedule, and progress 

was made in disbanding militias. The government also took steps towards 

addressing the daunting socio-economic problems faced. 

Nevertheless, significant challenges remained and the situation was 

fragile. No progress was achieved towards a negotiated resolution between the 

government and the FNL. Also, an intensified confrontation with FNL 

contributed to a deterioration of the human rights and humanitarian situation in 

the west of the country. 

On September 13, the Secretary-General co-chaired a Summit on 

Burundi, on the margins of the UN General Assembly meeting in New York, 

to support establishment of a Burundi partners’ forum to consolidate peace and 

support reform. As a follow up, the Security Council issued a presidential 

statement on September 22 noting the summit and welcoming establishment of 

the partners’ forum. As part of a mission to Central Africa, representatives of 

the Security Council met with the Burundian president and senior officials in 

Bujumbura on November 8. 

On November 30, the Security Council unanimously adopted 

Resolution 1641, which extended ONUB’s mandate until January 15, 2006. 

The mandate was renewed with the intent to review subsequently, taking into 

account the views of the government and recommendations of the SecretaryGeneral on an ONUB drawdown in 2006. At the request of the government, 

ONUB did begin the drawdown of 40 percent of its military force in 

December 2005, at which point the ONUB troop strength deployed in Burundi 

stood at some 3,500. The United States did not contribute any personnel to 

ONUB. On December 21, the Security Council adopted Resolution 1650, 

again renewing ONUB’s mandate until July 1, 2006. 

During 2005, ONUB and the UN Organization Mission in the 

Democratic Republic of the Congo (MONUC) coordinated operations to deter 

illicit movement of combatants and weapons along the Burundi-Democratic 

Republic of the Congo border. Additionally, through Resolution 1650, the 

Security Council unanimously authorized the temporary redeployment of 

military and civilian police personnel between ONUB and MONUC. 

ONUB’s budget was $307.7 million; the U.S. assessed share of this 

was approximately $82.1 million. 

Central African Republic 

Events in 2005 in the Central African Republic (CAR) centered 

around the elections held in March and May, which resulted in the investiture 

of General François Bozizé as President and Head of State on June 11. The 

United States, along with other international partners, provided electoral 

assistance to the CAR, which contributed to a peaceful election with a high 

voter turnout. Regional observers regarded the elections as free, reliable, fair, 

and transparent. All major parties and ethnic groups accepted the results of the 

election. The election of National Assembly members was also successful, 

and resulted in the election of representatives from all major parties including 

several women. 
Political and Security Affairs 

17 

The UN Security Council adopted a presidential statement on July 22, 

which acknowledged the progress made in the Central African Republic and 

called on international donors to remain engaged. The statement also 

expressed concern at the security situation in the north and west of the country 

and at the deterioration of the humanitarian situation, particularly in the north. 

To support CAR’s efforts to consolidate peace and national 

reconciliation, the Secretary-General established the UN Peace-Building 

Support Office in the Central African Republic (BONUCA) in February 2000. 

Throughout 2005, BONUCA remained actively engaged in support of the 

government’s efforts to consolidate peace and national reconciliation, 

strengthen democratic institutions, and facilitate mobilization of international 

political support and resources for reconstruction and economic recovery. In 

addition, the Office worked to promote domestic public awareness of human 

rights issues and monitored developments in this field. 

BONUCA participated in regional cooperation activities on border 

security; coordinated with the CAR Government to create a list of national 

policy priorities; and provided significant support to the electoral process, 

including organizing workshops and activities to empower women candidates 

and canvassing women to vote. 

The Secretariat briefed the Security Council on progress in the CAR 

on June 27 and December 29. The Secretary-General also submitted a report 

October 27 responding to the July 22 statement by the President of the 

Security Council that addressed the possibility of setting up a new committee 

or enlarging the existing Committee of Foreign Partners to Follow Up on the 

Electoral Process in order to support the Central African reconstruction efforts. 

In 2005, the UN regular budget provided $5 million for BONUCA; 

the U.S. contribution was $1.1 million. 

Côte d’Ivoire 

In 2004, the Security Council established the UN Operation in Côte 

d’Ivoire (UNOCI) by Resolution 1528. Among other things, its mandate was 

to support the process of disarmament, demobilization, and reintegration; and 

support the 2005 presidential elections. 

On February 1, the Security Council unanimously adopted Resolution 

1584, authorizing UNOCI and the French forces in Côte d’Ivoire to monitor 

implementation of the arms embargo imposed by Resolution 1572 (2004). 

Following the UN Secretary-General’s recommendation for a substantial 

increase in UNOCI’s strength, the Security Council adopted Resolution 1594 

on April 4 to extend the mission’s mandate for a single month to allow time 

for discussion. Resolution 1600, adopted on May 4, extended the mandate for 

another month, until June 4. On June 3, the Security Council adopted 

Resolution 1603, which again briefly extended the mandate, until June 24. 

Resolution 1603 reiterated the Security Council’s repeated calls on the Ivorian 

parties to fulfill their commitments under various peace agreements and 

accords, specifically to take steps towards establishing eligibility for the 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2005 

18 

presidency, identify who was an Ivorian citizen and therefore eligible to vote, 

and to begin disarming. 

On June 24, the Security Council adopted Resolution 1609, which 

renewed UNOCI’s mandate until January 24, 2006, and authorized an increase 

of up to an 850-member infantry unit and 375 civilian police to UNOCI’s 

strength on a temporary basis for the duration of the mandate. The resolution 

also authorized the Secretary-General to transfer personnel and other assets 

among the three UN peacekeeping operations in West Africa (UNOCI, the UN 

Mission in Liberia, and the UN Mission in Sierra Leone), subject to the 

Security Council’s approval. 

In April 2005, after repeated delays, the Ivorian parties began 

withdrawing heavy weapons from the Zone of Confidence (the nominally 

demilitarized zone separating government and rebel forces). Despite 

continuing dialogue between the parties, outbreaks of small-scale violence 

persisted in various locations in Côte d’Ivoire throughout the year. In July, 

when called upon to do so by the African Union’s mediator, South African 

President Mbeki, President Gbagbo issued a presidential decree revising and 

implementing all the remaining laws mandated by the peace agreements. 

While this was a positive step forward, the details were unclear or 

controversial in a number of instances. In particular, giving the National 

Statistical Institute, a government agency, responsibility for voter registration, 

led to charges of bias by the opposition. The rebels and government forces 

agreed on a disarmament plan but never reported to cantonment sites. 

The Secretary-General in July named former Portuguese Foreign 

Minister Antonio Monteiro as his High Representative for Elections. It 

became clear in October that it would be impossible to hold elections as 

scheduled. The African Union’s Peace and Security Council (PSC) and the 

Economic Community of West African States held emergency sessions. The 

PSC endorsed extension of the peace process for an additional 12 months, 

until October 31, 2006, and extended President Gbagbo’s term by the same 

period. It also established an International Working Group (IWG) to oversee 

the peace process. On October 14, 2005, the Security Council issued a 

presidential statement endorsing the PSC’s plan of action. The Security 

Council adopted Resolution 1633 on October 21, which reiterated the 

Council’s support for the plan and called on the IWG to draw up a road map 

for the peace process. 

The Ivorian parties were unable to agree on selecting a Prime 

Minister. On December 4, the Presidents of Nigeria, South Africa, and Niger 

selected Charles Konan Banny, who was acceptable to all parties, as Côte 

d’Ivoire’s new Prime Minister. The Security Council welcomed the 

appointment in a presidential statement on December 9. 

Security Council Resolution 1643, adopted on December 15, renewed 

the targeted sanctions (consisting of a travel ban and assets freeze) imposed by 

Resolution 1572 (2004) for an additional 12 months. The resolution added a 

restriction on rough diamonds exported from Côte d’Ivoire, and specified that 
Political and Security Affairs 

19 

any serious obstacle to the freedom of movement of or attacks on UNOCI or 

French forces would constitute a threat to the peace process for the purposes of 

the sanctions regime. The Security Council again postponed action to 

implement the sanctions against specific individuals, in deference to efforts by 

the African Union to move the Ivorian peace process forward. 

At year’s end UNOCI’s strength stood at 6,698 troops, 696 UN 

police, and 195 military observers. No U.S. personnel were assigned to 

UNOCI. UNOCI’s budget for 2005 was $385.2 million, of which the United 

States was assessed $101.5 million. 

Democratic Republic of the Congo 

The UN Organization Mission in the Democratic Republic of the 

Congo (MONUC) was established by UN Security Council Resolution 1258 to 

assist in the implementation of the Lusaka Ceasefire Agreement between the 

Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) and the Governments of Angola, 

Namibia, Rwanda, Uganda, and Zimbabwe for a cessation of hostilities. 

In January, the situation in Ituri deteriorated significantly. Fighting in 

early January had resulted in the displacement of thousands of refugees from 

the DRC into Uganda. In the week of January 24, MONUC and the armed 

forces of the DRC demolished camps used by the Union of Congolese Patriots 

and other armed rebel groups in Ituri. 

On February 9, the United Nations announced a non-fraternization 

policy for MONUC peacekeepers, a curfew for military contingents, and 

specialized training on prevention of sexual exploitation and abuse. On 

February 12, Morocco announced that six Moroccan soldiers serving with 

MONUC had been arrested for sexual assault while serving in the DRC. The 

commander and deputy commander of MONUC’s Moroccan contingent were 

relieved of their duties. 

On February 1, MONUC inaugurated a new eastern division 

command headquarters at Kisangani. On February 25, nine MONUC 

peacekeepers from the Bangladeshi contingent were murdered in an ambush 

perpetrated by armed militia north of Bunia, in Ituri. This was the worst 

strike against MONUC since it was established in 1999. On March 1, 2005, a 

MONUC contingent of Pakistani peacekeepers conducted operations against 

the armed militia in Ituri. Two Pakistani peacekeepers were injured. Later, 

MONUC peacekeepers intervened in Ituri to resolve a standoff between armed 

militia and the local civilian population. On March 11 and 17, about 600 

MONUC forces conducted cordon and search operations in Ituri and seized 

weapons belonging to armed militia. MONUC called on armed militia in Ituri 

to disarm voluntarily. By April, MONUC reported that over 10,000 of an 

estimated 13,000 militia had disarmed and registered at transit camps in Ituri. 

Sporadic clashes involving armed militia also took place in Katanga and in 

North and South Kivu. Guatemala sent special forces to MONUC’s eastern 

division in March. 

The UN Secretary-General met on March 4 with his Special 

Representative, William Lacey Swing (United States), in New York. On 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2005 

20 

March 30, the Security Council unanimously adopted Resolution 1592 

extending MONUC’s mandate until October 1. On April 12, MONUC 

peacekeepers, backed by attack helicopters, conducted cordon and search 

operations southwest of Bunia and seized light arms. On April 13, several 

hundred armed militia surrendered to MONUC forces near Aru, in northern 

Ituri. In April and May, MONUC was able to enter previously inaccessible 

areas in Ituri and the Kivus to build roads, distribute medicines, and support 

humanitarian efforts. On May 12, one MONUC peacekeeper from the 

Bangladeshi contingent was shot, and later died, when armed militia ambushed 

a MONUC convoy in Ituri. 

On May 26, in a special report to the Security Council, the SecretaryGeneral recommended a temporary increase in the mandate and force strength 

of MONUC to support elections in the DRC. On June 2, armed militia 

attacked UN human rights investigators and MONUC peacekeepers in Ituri. 

Four peacekeepers from the Nepali contingent were wounded, and one later 

died. On June 13, unidentified armed militia shot and killed a member of the 

Indian contingent of MONUC, and wounded two others, during an exchange 

of fire in North Kivu. On June 16 and June 27, MONUC conducted cordon 

and search operations in Ituri aimed at disrupting armed militia harassment of 

civilians. On June 20, voter registration began in Kinshasa. 

Beginning July 4, MONUC and the armed forces of the DRC 

undertook a series of area-domination missions and cordon and search 

operations in South Kivu to dislodge armed militia. Later, following an armed 

militia massacre in a village in South Kivu, MONUC dispatched a quick 

reaction force and follow-up teams. MONUC cleared out 13 militia camps 

and dislodged about 1,000 combatants from South Kivu, although the situation 

in South Kivu remained tense into August. On August 24, MONUC launched 

a large-scale operation in North and South Kivu to continue pressuring militia 

to disarm and to improve security in eastern DRC. 

On September 6, the Security Council unanimously adopted 

Resolution 1621 to increase MONUC’s police force strength temporarily to 

assist in providing security during elections. On September 11, Nigeria 

announced withdrawal of its formed police unit due to allegations of sexual 

exploitation and abuse in the DRC. In September, MONUC reported that 

Ugandan armed militia had crossed from southern Sudan to remote northern 

areas of the DRC. The MONUC Force Commander held consultations in 

Kampala with senior Ugandan officials about this incursion. On October 22, a 

member of MONUC’s Nepali contingent was shot and seriously wounded 

while searching for weapons in Ituri. The Nepalese patrol came under fire 

from armed militia. 

On October 26, the UN Security Council unanimously adopted 

Resolution 1635, which extended MONUC’s mandate until September 30, 

2006, and increased its force strength temporarily from 16,700 to 17,000. A 

Security Council mission to Central Africa met with DRC officials in 

Kinshasa November 7 to discuss the importance of sustainable peace, and the 
Political and Security Affairs 

21 

UN’s exceptionally important investment in the DRC. MONUC undertook a 

joint operation with DRC armed forces on November 10 in Orientale Province 

in an effort to identify and capture Ugandan militia within the DRC. 

Beginning November 19, MONUC supported DRC armed forces operations to 

dislodge armed militia from Ituri. On December 2, DRC military authorities 

arrested a militia leader suspected in the killing of nine MONUC peacekeepers 

in March. The DRC, with MONUC’s support, conducted a successful 

constitutional referendum December 18–19. MONUC also launched more 

joint operations with DRC armed forces against armed militia in Ituri. On 

December 25, an Indian peacekeeper serving with MONUC in North Kivu was 

killed, and four were injured, during operations against Ugandan militia. 

MONUC’s budget for 2005 was $1.2 billion, of which the United 

States paid $311.3 million. At the end of 2005, MONUC’s strength was 

15,046 troops; 1,038 police; and 707 military observers. No U.S. military 

personnel were assigned to MONUC in 2005. 

Ethiopia/Eritrea 

The UN Mission in Ethiopia and Eritrea (UNMEE) was established 

under UN Security Council Resolutions 1312 and 1320 in 2000, after the two 

countries signed cease-fire and peace agreements in Algiers, ending the border 

war which had broken out in May 1998. UNMEE’s mandate includes 

monitoring the ceasefire and security commitments agreed to by both parties, 

verifying redeployment of forces to positions outside a 25-kilometer 

temporary security zone (TSZ) that separates Ethiopian and Eritrean forces, 

technical assistance for humanitarian mine-action activity, and coordination of 

activities with humanitarian and human rights activities of the UN and other 

organizations. The Security Council renewed UNMEE’s mandate for sixmonth intervals on March 14, 2005 (Resolution 1586), and on September 13

(Resolution 1622). 

Eritrea and Ethiopia had agreed to the following provisions in the 

Algiers Agreement: to establish the neutral Eritrea-Ethiopia Boundary 

Commission to delimit and demarcate the border, with expenses to be borne 

equally by Eritrea and Ethiopia; to cooperate with the Boundary Commission 

and its staff in all respects during the process of delimitation and demarcation; 

and to agree that the delimitation decision of the Boundary Commission would 

be final and binding, and that each party would respect the border so 

determined, as well as the territorial integrity and sovereignty of the other 

party. The Boundary Commission announced its delimitation decision in 

April 2002. At that time, UNMEE’s mandate was expanded to include 

demining in key areas to support demarcation as well as administrative and 

logistical support for the field offices of the Boundary Commission. The 

Eritrea-Ethiopia Boundary Commission closed its field offices in early 2005. 

The military situation remained stable but tense during most of 2005 

in the TSZ. Eritrean forces generally maintained defensive postures, and 

Ethiopian troops conducted exercises south of the border. In a statement on 

February 18, UNMEE appealed to both parties to remain calm and show 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2005 

22 

restraint following a skirmish in the TSZ between armed Eritrean personnel 

and Ethiopian soldiers. In April, UNMEE investigated several shooting 

incidents in the TSZ that appeared to be related to cattle rustling and resulted 

in several civilian deaths. There was no evidence of armed forces 

involvement. 

On May 25, the UN Secretary-General announced the appointment of 

Joël W. Adechi (Benin), a new UNMEE deputy Special Representative of the 

Secretary-General. In a report to the UN Security Council issued June 20, the 

Secretary-General appealed to Eritrea to reopen the Asmara-Keren-Barentu 

road to UNMEE traffic and called for permission for direct UNMEE flights 

between Asmara and Addis Ababa. To help break the border demarcation 

stalemate and overcome the lack of dialogue between the countries, the 

Secretary-General called on the Security Council to consider a mission to 

Eritrea and Ethiopia to reassure the two countries of the Council’s 

commitment to the peace process and asked for re-engagement of the 

Witnesses to the Algiers Agreements. On July 11, the Security Council issued 

a press statement urging Ethiopia to accept fully, and both sides to implement, 

the binding delimitation decision of the Eritrea-Ethiopia Boundary 

Commission. 

On October 3, Eritrea announced that it would ban UNMEE 

helicopter flights and air operations in its territory, as well as UNMEE night 

patrols in the TSZ, as of October 5. The Security Council issued a presidential 

statement on October 4 expressing concern about the Eritrean decision and 

calling on Ethiopia and Eritrea to cooperate with UNMEE. UNMEE’s force 

commander decided to suspend de-mining operations and to vacate several 

observation posts within the TSZ. On October 17, the Secretary-General 

wrote to the Eritrean president calling on Eritrea to lift the restrictions on 

UNMEE. 

On November 2, the Secretary-General expressed concern about 

UNMEE reports that Ethiopia and Eritrea had moved tanks and troops up to 

the border. He called on the Security Council and member states to take steps 

to defuse tensions. The Security Council authorized the Chair of the Working 

Group on Peacekeeping Operations to visit Ethiopia and Eritrea for 

consultations November 6–9. On November 23, the Security Council adopted 

Resolution 1640, which expressed concern with the concentration of troops on 

the border, Eritrea’s restriction on UNMEE, and Ethiopia’s refusal to accept 

unconditionally the Boundary Commission’s border delimitation decision. 

In early December, Eritrean officials notified UNMEE that Eritrea 

had decided to expel UNMEE personnel of U.S., Canadian, and European 

(including Russian) nationalities. The Security Council issued a presidential 

statement singling out Eritrea for condemnation and demanding that Eritrea 

reverse its decision to restrict UNMEE personnel and operations. Following 

December 14 Security Council consultations, the United Nations redeployed 

170 UNMEE personnel to Ethiopia as a precautionary move. Later in 

December, in consultations with the Security Council, the Secretary-General 
Political and Security Affairs 

23 

outlined a range of options for UNMEE’s future. The United Nations stressed 

the importance of full cooperation of the parties, including freedom of 

operations for UNMEE, compliance with the Algiers Agreements, 

demarcation according to the delimitation decision of the Boundary 

Commission, and communication between the parties. 

UNMEE’s budget for 2005 was $186 million. The U.S. share was 

$50 million. UNMEE’s military force strength consisted of 3,130 troops and 

202 military observers. The United States provided seven military observers 

to UNMEE. 

Guinea-Bissau 

The UN Peace-Building Support Office in Guinea-Bissau 

(UNOGBIS) was established by the Secretary-General on March 3, 1999, after 

a military coup attempt and civil war led to the ouster of Joao Vieira, GuineaBissau’s first freely-elected president. In February 2000, following two 

rounds of transparent presidential elections, the interim government 

transferred power to Kumba Yala. The military staged a coup in 2003, 

replacing Yala. Throughout 2005, UNOGBIS continued its efforts to help 

restore constitutional rule in Guinea-Bissau. 

The first half of the year was consumed with election preparations. 

The need for an entirely new voter registration list delayed the first round of 

presidential elections from May to June. Second-round presidential elections 

were held on July 24. Observers and the international community regarded the 

election process in Guinea-Bissau as free, fair, and transparent, despite 

attempts by presidential candidate Yala to seize power and delay elections. 

Former President Joao Bernardo Vieira was re-elected and sworn in on 

October 1; following his election, he pledged to pursue economic development 

and national reconciliation. One of his main political opponents, Malam Bacai 

Sanhá, rejected the results of the election and filed an official appeal with the 

Supreme Court, but the Court ruled in favor of Vieira. 

In February, the National Popular Assembly convened for the first 

time and debated issues including a bill that would grant amnesty for all 

involved in military actions from 1980–2004. The amnesty proposal raised 

concerns among members of civil society and the Secretary-General, who 

identified the proposal’s possible ramifications for peace, security, justice, and 

the rule of law in Guinea-Bissau. The Special Representative of the SecretaryGeneral worked with appropriate authorities to address these concerns. 

In March 2005, the Security Council President issued a statement, 

which the United States supported, recognizing the progress made in GuineaBissau while expressing concern at recent political developments and a lack of 

social or economic benefits for the population generated by the peace process. 

Subsequent visits by officials from the World Bank resulted in a proposed $40 

million credit, while a visit by International Monetary Fund officials focused 

on the possibility of collaboration with the Government of Guinea-Bissau on 

development assistance. 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2005 

24 

The Secretary-General sent a fact-finding mission to the region in 

March, which resulted in moves to address needs for national implementation 

of the UN Program of Action to Prevent, Combat, and Eradicate the Illicit 

Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons. UNOGBIS worked with the 

Economic Community of West African States to promote national political 

dialogue and to establish stable civil-military relations through reform of the 

armed forces. The International Organization for Migration provided 

administrative and financial management to support demobilization, 

reinsertion, and reintegration of former combatants, which was in its final 

phase. The National Mine Action Coordination Authority made progress 

toward the elimination of mine-related risk. 

The United States supported an August statement by the Security 

Council President acknowledging the success of the presidential elections as 

an important step towards the restoration of constitutional order. The 

statement also urged the relevant national and international partners to reaffirm 

their commitments to peace and democracy and called upon development 

partners and international financial institutions to increase their support for 

economic and social development and the consolidation of national 

institutions. 

Following the elections, UNOGBIS assisted in managing the political 

transition and building trust among national stakeholders and international 

partners in the post-transition phase. The successful completion of the 

electoral process marked the end of Guinea-Bissau’s transitional period and 

the completed restoration of constitutional order. The political situation 

remained stable but strained, with the election results disputed through the end 

of 2005. With the majority of UNOGBIS’s mandate fulfilled, the United 

States requested recommendations from the Secretary-General on an exit 

strategy. However, the Secretary-General, in a December 16 letter to the 

Security Council President, expressed his intention to extend the mandate of 

UNOGBIS until December 31, 2006. 

In 2005, the UNOGBIS budget was $2.8 million; the United States 

contributed $600,000. 

Liberia 

The Security Council established the UN Mission in Liberia 

(UNMIL) in 2003 to support implementation of the ceasefire agreement, assist 

the transitional government to restore state authority throughout Liberia and to 

prepare for national elections by the end of 2005, and assist in disarming and 

demobilizing ex-combatants. In 2005, UNMIL mainly assisted the 

Government of Liberia with preparations for elections, including voter 

registration, logistics, and security. 

In January 2005, General Joseph Owonibi (Nigeria) took over as 

force commander of UNMIL, replacing General Daniel Opande (Kenya). 

Police Commissioner Mark Kroeker (United States) left in January to take the 

position of Police Advisor in the UN Department of Peacekeeping Operations 

in New York. Deputy Police Commissioner Mohammad Alhassan (Ghana) 
Political and Security Affairs 

25 

was Acting Police Commissioner until March, when he became the new Police 

Commissioner. Special Representative of the Secretary-General Jacques Paul 

Klein (United States) left on May 1. Alan Doss (United Kingdom), formerly 

Principal Deputy Special Representative of the Secretary-General in Côte 

d’Ivoire, was named as the new Special Representative; he arrived in 

Monrovia in mid-August. 

The Security Council adopted Resolution 1626 on September 19, 

2005, which extended UNMIL’s mandate until March 31, 2006, and 

authorized the mission to assign a unit of up to 250 military personnel to 

Freetown, Sierra Leone, to protect the Special Court for Sierra Leone (the UN 

Mission in Sierra Leone closed in December 2005). The resolution 

temporarily raised UNMIL’s troop ceiling from 15,000 to 15,250 from 

November 15, 2005, to March 31, 2006, to ensure that UNMIL would have 

sufficient personnel until a reasonable period after the new government was 

installed in January 2006. The Security Council asked the Secretary-General 

to make recommendations on a drawdown plan to be considered at the time of 

the March 2006 mandate renewal. 

Voter registration took place at more than 1,500 registration centers 

from April 25, 2005, to May 21, 2005; almost 1.4 million Liberians registered 

to vote, from a pool of about 1.5 million eligible voters. UNMIL assisted in a 

broad range of elections preparations, including providing security throughout 

the country and transporting elections materials and officials. A car belonging 

to the co-chairman of the National Elections Commission was set on fire 

outside his house; UNMIL stepped up UN police patrols near the residences of 

Commission members. 

In mid-May, the National Assembly voted without warning to delay 

elections until December. Chairman Bryant, head of the Transitional 

Government, overturned the legislation. Campaigning for presidential and 

parliamentary elections began on August 15, with 22 presidential candidates, 

22 vice-presidential candidates, 206 Senate candidates, and 512 House of 

Representatives candidates registered. 

Nationwide elections were held on October 11, and nearly 200 

international observers (including two groups from the United States) declared 

them to be free, fair, and transparent. The United States also sent an official 

delegation, including several Members of Congress. There was an estimated 

75 percent voter turnout. The Liberian National Police, supported by 

UNMIL, provided security; no serious incidents of violence were reported. 

Front-runners Ellen Johnson Sirleaf and George Weah faced off in a 

second election on November 8, with Johnson Sirleaf the winner. Weah’s 

supporters demonstrated for almost a week in Monrovia, alleging fraud. 

UNMIL on at least one occasion used tear gas. The National Elections 

Commission investigated the allegations but found them to be baseless. In a 

riot on December 11, about 40 Weah supporters were arrested, several 

Liberian police officers were wounded, one seriously, and three UN police 

officers received minor injuries. On December 19, the National Elections 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2005 

26 

Commission certified President-elect Johnson Sirleaf, 30 Senators-elect, and 

63 Representatives-elect. George Weah conceded the election on December 

21, and his party dropped the fraud charges. 

In January, more than 500 ex-combatants had to leave school because 

the demand for education was much higher than anticipated, and there were 

insufficient funds in the current account. The United Nations acted promptly 

to transfer funds to rectify the situation. During the voter registration drive in 

April and May, ex-combatants in several locations shut down registration sites 

to protest slow payment of benefits. The UN-administered Trust Fund for this 

purpose was chronically short all year. By year’s end, the United Nations had 

established a formal education program for more than 20,000 disarmed excombatants for the academic year 2005/2006, to be jointly administered by the 

UN Development Program and the National Commission on Disarmament, 

Demobilization, Rehabilitation, and Reintegration. 

The U.S. contractor selected to manage the recruitment and training 

program for the new Liberian armed forces arrived in Monrovia in January 

2005 to begin setting up the operation. In May, Chairman Bryant signed an 

Executive Order setting up procedures for demobilization and retirement of 

many long-standing members of the Liberian armed forces, clearing the way 

for reform of the Liberian security sector. Demobilization began on June 29. 

The final group from the old Armed Forces of Liberia were demobilized or 

retired on December 20. Approximately 9,000 were demobilized during the 

year; another 4,200 were retired with pensions. 

In April, the U.S. Government imposed an assets freeze on 30 

companies and four individuals affiliated with arms trafficker Victor Bout. 

This action supplemented those named under the July 2004 U.S. Executive 

Order, which implemented in the United States the Security Council sanctions 

on former President Taylor and his family and associates. Also in April 2005, 

the Security Council’s Liberia Sanctions Committee added five individuals to 

the travel ban list. Security Council Resolution 1607, adopted on June 21, 

renewed the mandate of the Liberia Panel of Experts as well as continuing 

restrictive measures on the export of Liberian diamonds for an additional six 

months. The resolution also continued the arms embargo, travel ban, and 

measures on timber for the same time period. It called on UNMIL to monitor 

these sanctions and to support the Liberian Government in its efforts to 

prevent violations, including by collecting illicit weapons and monitoring any 

recruitment or movement of ex-combatants. On December 20, the Security 

Council unanimously adopted Resolution 1647, renewing the diamond and 

timber bans for six months and the travel ban and arms embargo for 12 

months. The resolution also renewed the Panel of Experts’ mandate for six 

months, and reaffirmed the assets freeze, which has no time limit. The 

resolution included a provision allowing the Liberian Government to request a 

review of sanctions at any time. 

The U.S.-drafted Security Council Resolution 1638, adopted on 

November 11, 2005, authorized UNMIL to apprehend and detain former 
Political and Security Affairs 

27 

President Charles Taylor if he were to return to Liberia and transfer him to 

Sierra Leone for prosecution before the Special Court for Sierra Leone. 

Taylor left Liberia in 2003 as a condition of the Comprehensive Peace 

Agreement; Nigeria gave him refuge. 

UNMIL intervened when riots broke out in the southeastern port 

town of Harper in January over an issue involving allegations of ritual killings. 

In April, UNMIL took control of the port Monrovia, in response to rampant 

corruption and theft. UNMIL evicted unauthorized persons, issued new 

identification cards to port personnel, and set up a vetting procedure. Some 

port officers were sent for retraining, others were given pensions and early 

retirement. UNMIL also took steps to make the port compliant with 

international security standards in response to a February port security 

advisory issued by the U.S. Coast Guard. The U.S. Coast Guard issued a 

report in late May noting substantial improvements in port operations and 

security, making it possible for the port to resume normal operations. 

UNMIL also assisted the Government of Liberia in building the 

foundation of a new police force, with support to the police academy and 

training. In late March, over 100 newly-graduated police recruits completed 

training and were deployed in Monrovia; a second class graduated in April. 

National Assembly Speaker George Dweh and several other 

prominent Assembly members were suspended in mid-March on charges of 

corruption and malfeasance. The regional organization, the Economic 

Community of West African States, sent a team to audit the Liberian 

Government’s finances and Chairman Bryant, head of the Transitional 

Government, suspended the leaders of the National Social Security and 

Welfare Corporation on corruptions charges. On May 12, the National 

Assembly passed legislation establishing a Truth and Reconciliation 

Commission to hear testimony on events that occurred during Liberia’s civil 

war. In August, the Liberian Supreme Court found that the Assembly had 

acted within its rules in suspending Dweh and the other legislators. 

In late June, the Liberian Government commissioned 17 new judges, 

11 of whom were appointed to serve on circuit courts throughout the country. 

Also in June, the Civil Service Association rejected a government proposal to 

pay striking civil servants only two of 17 months of salary arrears. 

In late April, the United Nations announced that its investigators were 

looking into 30 to 40 allegations of sexual abuse against UNMIL personnel; at 

least three substantiated cases involved minors. Ten of these cases were later 

referred to the UN’s Office of Internal Oversight Services. The Liberian 

Government passed anti-trafficking in persons legislation in June, and the 

Liberian Government, UNMIL, the U.S. Embassy, and local organizations 

established a trafficking in persons coordination team to meet twice a month. 

In June and July, UNMIL began investigating an additional 16 allegations of 

sexual abuse against UN personnel. 

At year’s end UNMIL’s strength stood at 14,824 troops, 1,091 police 

officers, and 197 military observers. The United States provided six troops, 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2005 

28 

35 police officers, and seven military observers. UNMIL’s budget for 2005 

was $887.9 million, of which the United States was assessed $235.4 million. 

Sierra Leone 

The Security Council established the UN Mission in Sierra Leone 

(UNAMSIL) in 1999 to help the government and other parties to implement 

the Lome Peace Agreement and to assist with disarmament, demobilization, 

and reintegration. On June 30, 2005, the Security Council adopted Resolution 

1610, which extended UNAMSIL’s mandate for a final six months, until 

December 31. The resolution requested the Secretary-General to begin 

planning for the UN’s post-UNAMSIL presence in Sierra Leone, including 

continuing security for the Special Court for Sierra Leone. UNAMSIL began 

the final phase of drawdown in mid-August, beginning with the 10 teams of 

military observers assigned throughout the country. Troop sites began closing 

on September 1. The mission had closed down completely by the end of 

December. 

Security Council Resolution 1620, adopted on August 31, approved 

creation of the UN Integrated Office in Sierra Leone (UNIOSIL), effective 

January 1, 2006. UNIOSIL was a political mission authorized to monitor and 

address the root causes of the Sierra Leone conflict, including corruption, 

problems of governance, and human rights; and to assist the Government of 

Sierra Leone in preparing for nationwide elections in 2007. The mission was 

also responsible for liaison with the Sierra Leonean security services and 

judicial sector, as well as with key partners (such as the United Kingdom’s 

military assistance team). 

In July 2005, the Prosecutor of the Special Court for Sierra Leone, 

David Crane (United States), resigned. His deputy, Desmond de Silva (United 

Kingdom), was named as his replacement. On September 19, the Security 

Council adopted Resolution 1626, which authorized the UN Mission in Liberia 

(UNMIL) to deploy up to 250 troops to Freetown to provide security for the 

Special Court on UNAMSIL’s departure. UNMIL assumed responsibility for 

Special Court security on December 1. The Nigerian unit of UNAMSIL that 

had been guarding the Special Court remained until January 2006, under 

UNMIL command, until a unit of Mongolian troops could be deployed. The 

joint Swedish/Irish Quick Reaction Force of UNMIL in December 2005 

conducted a reconnaissance mission to prepare for any cross-border operations 

that might be needed in support of the UNMIL forces guarding the Special 

Court. During 2005, UNAMSIL completed training of the Sierra Leone police 

force’s corps of sergeants. More than 800 police recruits began training. 

The provisional results of the 2004 census, the first held since 1985, 

were released in February 2005 showing a population of just under 5 million. 

The census count was used to determine the number of parliamentary seats 

needed and as a basis for redrawing electoral district lines. 

UNAMSIL was closed down in December 2005. UNAMSIL’s 

budget for 2005 was $205.8 million, of which the United States was assessed 
Political and Security Affairs 

29 

$54.6 million. In 2005, the UN regular budget provided $32.1 million for the 

Sierra Leone Special Court. The U.S. share was $7.1 million. 

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. 

Throughout 2005, the Council repeatedly expressed its growing concern about 

enforcement of the arms embargo and the tensions among Somali leaders, both 

of which posed threats to the viability of the Transitional Federal Institutions 

(TFIs) and undermined Somalia’s efforts towards stability. In a July 2005 

presidential statement, the Security Council urged the TFIs to conclude a 

national security and stabilization plan, including a comprehensive and 

verifiable ceasefire agreement leading to disarmament. 

In Resolutions 1587 (2005) and 1630 (2005), the Security Council 

reiterated its call for member states to refrain from actions in contravention of 

the arms embargo, bearing in mind that strict enforcement of the embargo will 

improve the overall security situation in Somalia. The resolutions also 

extended the mandate of the Somalia Monitoring Group charged with 

investigating and reporting on violations of the arms embargo. 

The Transitional Federal Parliament in October 2004 elected Colonel 

Abdullahi Yusuf Ahmed as the Transitional Federal President of Somalia. In 

late 2004, Yusuf appointed Ali Mohammed Gedi as Prime Minister. By the 

end of December, 92 ministers, deputy ministers, and ministers of state had 

been appointed by Gedi and approved by the parliament. 

Four years of drought severely impeded Somali livelihoods and 

coping mechanisms. Chronic food insecurity and flooding exacerbated the 

growing humanitarian tragedy in Somalia. The humanitarian assistance 

community had only intermittent access to vulnerable communities, 

particularly in the south and central parts of the country. In the aftermath of 

the December 2004 tsunami, the UN Office for the Coordination of 

Humanitarian Affairs requested $162.3 million for Somalia in 2005 to address 

needs concerning agriculture, economic recovery and infrastructure, education, 

food, health, mine action, human rights/rule of law, security, and water and 

sanitation. The United States contributed $24.7 million to the UN 

humanitarian organizations’ Consolidated Appeals Process for Somalia in 

response to this request. 

In 1995, to monitor developments in and around Somalia, the 

Secretary-General established the UN Political Office in Somalia (UNPOS) 

after the departure of the UN Operation in Somalia II. In 2005, while internal 

political disagreements prevented extensive donor engagement with the 

Somalia TFIs, UNPOS worked to coordinate international engagement in 

Somalia. The UN Special Representative of the Secretary-General served as 

co-chair with the Somali Prime Minister of the Coordination and Monitoring 

Committee, which serves as a coordination framework for donor assistance to 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2005 

30 

Somalia, and actively urged all Somali leaders to resolve their disagreements 

peacefully within the framework of the TFIs. 

The UN regular budget provided $7.1 million for UNPOS in 2005. 

The United States paid $1.6 million. 

Sudan 

The United States joined other UN Security Council members in 

welcoming the signature on January 9, 2005, in Nairobi, Kenya, of the 

Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) for the North-South peace process in 

the Sudan. The United Nations deployed a mission to support the agreement 

that was concluded between the Government of Sudan and the Sudan People’s 

Liberation Movement/Army (SPLM/A). 

On March 24, the UN Security Council unanimously adopted 

Resolution 1590 which established the UN Mission in Sudan (UNMIS). 

UNMIS replaced the UN Advance Mission in the Sudan established in 2004, 

whose mandate was renewed twice in 2005 (by Resolutions 1585 and 1588) to 

give the Security Council time to discuss preparations for a full-fledged 

peacekeeping mission. Resolution 1590 authorized UNMIS to have a force 

strength of up to 10,000 military personnel and 715 civilian police. UNMIS 

personnel are deployed at a headquarters in Khartoum, and in six sectors in 

southern Sudan, with sector headquarters at Juba, Wau, Malakal, Kadugli, AdDamazin, and Abyei. Among other things, UNMIS was mandated to monitor 

and verify the ceasefire agreement and the movements of armed groups; assist 

in disarmament, demobilization, and reintegration of combatants; develop a 

police-training program; and facilitate the return of refugees and internally 

displaced persons. The resolution also called for close liaison between the 

United Nations and the African Union (AU) Mission in Sudan. A subsequent 

report by the UN Secretary-General identified the following possible areas for 

UN assistance to the African Union Mission in Darfur: identifying qualified 

police personnel, assisting the AU Mission with an operational plan for 

expansion, technical advice on logistics and planning, support for AU training, 

and support for convening troop contributors and pledging conferences. On 

September 23, the UN Security Council unanimously adopted Resolution 

1627, which extended the mandate of UNMIS until March 24, 2006. 

Determined to work toward ending the deaths and displacement of 

innocent civilians in the Darfur region of Sudan, the United States drafted 

Resolution 1591, which was adopted by the Security Council on March 29, 

2005. The resolution condemned the continued violations of the N’djamena 

Ceasefire Agreement (signed on April 8, 2004) and the Abuja Protocols 

(signed November 9, 2004) by the Government of Sudan and militias and 

called on the parties to return to peace talks in Abuja, Nigeria. Resolution 

1591 also established a committee of the Council to monitor implementation 

of travel ban and assets freeze sanctions against those who impede the peace 

process, constitute a threat to stability in Darfur and the region, commit 

violations of international humanitarian or human rights law or other 

atrocities, violate the arms embargo as implemented by member states, or are 
Political and Security Affairs 

31 

responsible for offensive over-flights in the Darfur region. The resolution also 

established a four-member Panel of Experts charged with monitoring the 

situation in Sudan and providing recommendations to the Committee. The 

Panel wrote reports and briefed the Council through the Committee during the 

period of its mandate. U.S.-drafted Resolution 1651, adopted on December 

21, 2005, extended the mandate of the Panel until March 29, 2006, because the 

Council, based on recommendations by the Panel and the Committee, 

determined that the situation in Sudan continued to constitute a threat to 

international peace and security. 

On March 31, 2005, the Council adopted Resolution 1593, which 

referred the situation in Darfur to the International Criminal Court (ICC). The 

United States abstained on that resolution in light of U.S. concerns about the 

ICC, but decided not to oppose the resolution because of the need for the 

international community to work together in order to end the climate of 

impunity in Sudan and because the resolution contained certain protections for 

U.S. nationals and members of the armed forces against assertions of 

jurisdiction by the ICC. In connection with this referral, the Prosecutor of the 

International Criminal Court began investigating instances of genocide, war 

crimes, and crimes against humanity alleged to have been committed in 

Darfur. 

The first group of UNMIS soldiers, from Nepal, arrived in Sudan on 

April 27. UNMIS’s military and police components continued to deploy 

throughout 2005 under a revised timetable to account for delays due to the 

onset of the rainy season, contracting issues, status of mission negotiations 

with the Government of Sudan, and problems with access to SPLM/A 

territories in the south. The first meeting of the Ceasefire Joint Military 

Committee, sponsored by UNMIS, took place on May 8 in Juba. On June 20, 

the Joint Military Commission handed over its duties in the Nuba Mountains 

to UNMIS, in accordance with the CPA. 

At the end of July, Sudanese First Vice President John Garang died in 

a helicopter crash near the Ugandan border. Salva Kiir Mayardit assumed 

leadership of the SPLM/A and was sworn in as First Vice President on August 

11. 

On October 31, Special Representative of the Secretary-General 

(SRSG) Jan Pronk (the Netherlands) condemned the killing of two employees 

of a nongovernmental organization, Swiss Foundation for Mine Action, in an 

ambush in southern Sudan and called on the Governments of Sudan and 

southern Sudan to ensure the safety of humanitarian workers. SRSG Pronk 

also consulted with southern Sudanese officials on November 13–16 on 

implementation of the CPA. 

In mid-November, UNMIS relocated staff members of UN agencies 

and nongovernmental organizations from the area of Yambio due to interethnic fighting. UNMIS reported that the security situation in its area of 

responsibility was tense in December. UNMIS provided logistical support to 

participants at the inter-Sudanese talks led by the AU in Abuja and liaised with 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2005 

32 

the AU in Darfur and at AU headquarters in Addis Ababa. UNMIS 

participated in an AU-led joint assessment mission of the AU Mission in 

Darfur on December 10–20. 

The UNMIS budget in 2005 was $969 million, of which the United 

States paid $261.6 million. At the end of 2005, UNMIS had a total strength of 

4,765 military and police personnel. The United States contributed one police 

officer. 

Western Sahara 

The UN Mission for the Referendum in Western Sahara (MINURSO) 

was established by Security Council Resolution 690 (1991) to assist in the 

implementation of the settlement proposals agreed to by Morocco and the 

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

(POLISARIO Front), supported by Algeria, on August 30, 1988. 

In May 2005, the UN Secretary-General appointed Francesco 

Bastagli (Italy) as Special Representative of the Secretary-General for Western 

Sahara. In July, the Secretary-General named Peter van Walsum (the 

Netherlands) as his Personal Envoy for Western Sahara. 

In August, Senator Richard Lugar, accompanied by Supreme Allied 

Commander Europe, General James Jones, led a Presidential mission that 

oversaw the release of 404 Moroccan prisoners of war. The prisoners had 

been held by the POLISARIO in Algeria, many for 15–20 years. 

UN assessments for MINURSO in 2005 totaled $41.5 million. The 

U.S. share totaled $11 million. As of December 31, 2005, MINURSO had 232 

troops, military observers, and police from 26 countries. No U.S. personnel 

served in 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 the island of 

Bougainville autonomy and an eventual vote on independence from Papua 

New Guinea in 10 to 15 years. The UN Security Council established the UN 

Political Office for Bougainville in 1998. In 2003, the Security Council voted 

to replace the Political Office with the smaller UN Observer Mission in 

Bougainville (UNOMB). UNOMB’s mandate was to facilitate the smooth 

transition to elections of an autonomous Bougainville Government and to 

certify the collection and disposal of weapons. The United States supported 

the completion of the constitutional process and finalization of the destruction 

of weapons. 

In December 2004, the Secretary-General reported to the Security 

Council that 94 percent of the weapons in Bougainville had been destroyed. 

On June 15, 2005, the Permanent Mission of Papua New Guinea submitted a 

letter to the Security Council reporting that the First General Elections for the 

President and Members of the House of Representatives of the Autonomous 

Region of Bougainville were held from May 20 through June 9, and took place 
Political and Security Affairs 

33 

in a competent, transparent, and fully successful fashion. On July 6, Assistant 

Secretary-General for Political Affairs Danilo Turk delivered a statement to 

the Security Council on the success of the elections and the installation of the 

Autonomous Government, which was praised by all members of the Council. 

The UNOMB mandate expired on June 30, and was not renewed. At 

the request of the Government of Papua New Guinea, however, two UN 

personnel remained at an office in Kieta, the island’s capital, for the purpose 

of preserving archives, completing the weapons collection and destruction 

process, and maintaining a UN presence until a referendum could be held on 

whether the island should remain an autonomous part of Papua New Guinea or 

become independent, which is to be held at a date agreed on by the 

Government of Papua New Guinea and the Bougainville Autonomous 

Government. These two UN personnel report through the UN Development 

Program in Papua New Guinea. 

In 2005, the UN regular budget provided $701,400 for UNOMB; the 

U.S. contribution was $154,308. 

Burma 

Razali Ismail (Malaysia), the Special Envoy of the Secretary-General 

for Myanmar (Burma), was mandated to engage in discussions with the 

government and political leaders, including Aung San Suu Kyi and 

representatives of some ethnic minority groups, and call upon the Government 

of Myanmar to enter into a constructive dialogue with the Secretary-General to 

make better use of his good offices to continue the Secretary General’s 

discussions on the situation of human rights and the restoration of democracy 

with the Government of Burma. 

In 2005, the United States actively sought action on Burma in UN 

agencies. In November–December, the United States engaged in high-level 

lobbying that resulted in getting the necessary nine votes for a Security 

Council briefing on the situation in Burma. Eventually, the Council reached a 

consensus to hold an informal briefing. Under Secretary-General Gambari 

delivered it on December 18; it drew very favorable press coverage. In order 

to gain the consensus, the United States indicated that it would not seek a 

resolution or other Council option at that time, but did not rule it out in the 

future. 

East Timor 

The UN Mission of Support in East Timor (UNMISET) was 

terminated on May 20, 2005, and replaced by a political mission, the UN 

Office in Timor-Leste (UNOTIL), with a one-year mandate. UNOTIL was 

created by Security Council Resolution 1599, adopted on April 28. The 

mission was intended to provide expert advice to key ministries, as well as 

police and military liaison support, particularly to the Border Patrol Unit. 

UNOTIL was also charged with advising the Government of Timor-Leste on 

human rights. 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2005 

34 

On February 18, the Secretary-General announced the formation of 

an independent Commission of Experts (COE) to review the prosecution of 

serious human rights violations committed in East Timor in 1999. Resolution 

1599 underlined the need to preserve a copy of the records of the Serious 

Crimes Unit (SCU), which was closed when UNMISET terminated operations, 

and called on all parties to cooperate with the COE. On March 9, 2005, the 

Timorese and Indonesian presidents announced terms of reference for a 

bilateral Truth and Friendship Commission (TFC) to address the 1999 human 

rights violations; the TFC was not intended to prosecute or name individuals. 

In April 2005, the Indonesian Government refused to issue visas to the COE, 

arguing that their visit should be postponed until after the TFC was operational 

(scheduled for August). In effect, this gave the TFC and COE equal weight. 

Following protests from the United States, the United Nations, and other 

concerned countries, the COE visited Jakarta in May. In June, the court files 

of the SCU and related panels were handed over to the Dili district court. The 

SCU’s records were transferred to the Office of the Prosecutor-General of 

Timor-Leste; UNOTIL provided security. In August, the TFC met for the first 

time. 

During the first five months of 2005, there were several small 

incidents at the border, some possibly involving former members of the proIndonesian militia groups. Peaceful protests orchestrated by the Roman 

Catholic Church against government efforts to make religious education 

optional in schools brought several hundred people into the streets in Dili in 

April. Timorese police set up roadblocks and prevented at least 1000 more 

from joining the protest. The United Nations and international partners 

prevailed upon Timorese authorities to lift the roadblocks. By the time the 

demonstration was concluded, by the signing on May 7 of a declaration on 

church/state dialogue by Prime Minister Alkatiri and Timor-Leste’s two 

Roman Catholic bishops, up to 25,000 demonstrators had engaged in a largely 

peaceful series of marches and sit-ins. 

Following UNMISET’s departure, there were a number of isolated, 

minor incidents over the remainder of the year involving martial arts groups or 

political opposition groups. Local elections were conducted peacefully in 

several locations. Progress was made on strengthening government structure 

and administrative law. Relations with Indonesia stayed calm, and some 

progress was made on discussions of delineating the border. 

UNMISET was closed in May 2005. UNMISET’s budget for 2005 

was $40.1 million, of which the United States was assessed $10.6 million. 

The United States contributed several police; the number was reduced from 

nine in January to seven by April, and reduced further to zero by May. 

UNOTIL is funded through the UN regular budget. UNOTIL’s budget for 

2005 was $21.9 million; the U.S. contribution was $4.8 million. UNOTIL was 

staffed with up to 45 civilian advisors in key ministries; up to 40 police 

advisors for police development; up to 35 additional advisors for development 

of the Border Patrol Unit (15 of whom may be military); and up to 10 human 

rights officers. No U.S. personnel were assigned to UNOTIL. 
Political and Security Affairs 

35 

Europe and Eurasia 

Bosnia/Herzegovina 

The UN Mission in Bosnia and Herzegovina closed on December 31, 

2002, but in 2005 the United Nations continued to endorse the ongoing 

operations of NATO and the European Union (EU) in support of the 1995 

Dayton Peace Agreement via a Security Council resolution. On November 21, 

the Security Council unanimously adopted Resolution 1639 authorizing the 

continuation for 12 months of the EU multinational stabilization force in 

cooperation with NATO. Resolution 1639 also emphasized the role of the 

Dayton Agreement High Representative in monitoring the implementation of 

the Peace Agreement. 

Cyprus 

The United States continued during 2005 to support UN efforts to 

achieve a comprehensive settlement to the division of Cyprus. The UN 

Peacekeeping Force in Cyprus (UNFICYP) was created in March 1964 by UN 

Security Council Resolution 186 to help end the violence between Greek 

Cypriot and Turkish Cypriot communities. Since the de facto division of the 

island in 1974 as a result of Turkish military intervention (following a coup 

d’état directed by Greece), UNFICYP has served as a buffer force between the 

opposing military forces on the island. 

In November 2002, Secretary-General Annan proposed a detailed 

settlement plan to reunify the island, give considerable authority to Greek 

Cypriot and Turkish Cypriot constituent entities, and enable displaced persons 

to return home. A referendum on the Secretary-General’s Settlement Plan 

took place April 24, 2004, with the Turkish Cypriot community voting in favor 

of the Plan, and the Greek Cypriot community rejecting it. Following this 

setback, the Secretary-General announced a review of the mandate, size, and 

concept of operations of UNFICYP. In a September 2004 report, the 

Secretary-General recommended maintaining the original mandate while 

cutting troop numbers by 30 percent by concentrating forces and increasing 

their mobility. The Security Council did not act on this report, and on 

December 14, 2005, the Council adopted Resolution 1642, renewing 

UNFICYP’s mandate until June 15, 2006. 

As of December 2005, UNFICYP forces numbered 842 troops and 69 

civilian police. No U.S. personnel served in this mission. The cost of the 

mission to the United Nations was $25.7 million, with the United States’ share 

at $6.8 million. The approved budget for UNFICYP was $46.5 million, 

including voluntary contributions of a one-third share from Cyprus and $6.5 

million from Greece. 

Georgia 

The UN Observer Mission in Georgia (UNOMIG) was established on 

August 24, 1993, by UN Security Council Resolution 858. The mission 

monitors compliance with a cease-fire agreement reached between the 

Georgian government and Abkhaz separatists. On July 21, 1994, Resolution 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2005 

36 

937 increased the authorized number of military observers in UNOMIG (all 

unarmed) from 55 to 136. A small civilian police component was endorsed by 

the Security Council in Resolution 1494 (2003). The United States continued 

to work with the “Friends of the Secretary-General for Georgia” (consisting of 

France, Germany, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States) to 

achieve a comprehensive political settlement to the conflict. 

Under the May 1994 Moscow Agreement, a peacekeeping force of 

the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) monitors compliance with the 

terms of the cease-fire. The CIS force consists of approximately 1,700-armed 

Russian Federation troops. CIS peacekeepers maintain checkpoints along both 

sides of the cease-fire line. UNOMIG military observers maintain a close 

working relationship with the CIS force, which is responsible for UNOMIG’s 

security. 

In Resolution 1615, the Security Council renewed UNOMIG’s 

mandate on July 29, 2005, for an additional six months. UNOMIG continued 

to carry out its mandate throughout 2005; the UN police made some progress 

on the Georgian-controlled side of the cease-fire line by providing training on 

law enforcement and human rights issues to the local authorities. The UN 

police also assisted in the establishment of crime-prevention committees in 

conjunction with local and regional police commanders. Abkhaz authorities 

continued to refuse a UN police presence, as well as a UN human rights suboffice, in the region’s Gali District. 

UN-assessed costs for UNOMIG in 2005 totaled $34.1 million, of 

which the U.S. share was $9 million. As of December 31, 2005, UNOMIG 

had 134 military observers and police from 27 countries. Two U.S. military 

observers (posted to Tbilisi) were assigned to the mission. 

The former Yugoslavia: UN Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo 

(UNMIK) 

The Federal Republic of Yugoslavia agreed to withdraw its forces 

from Kosovo following the NATO 1999 air campaign against Serbian forces. 

UN Security Council Resolution 1244 (1999) authorized an international 

security presence that became the NATO-led Kosovo Force and an 

international civilian presence to establish an interim governing authority in 

Kosovo. 

Resolution 1244 mandated the UN Interim Administration Mission in 

Kosovo (UNMIK) to provide civilian administration of Kosovo; develop 

provisional institutions for a democratic and autonomous self-government; 

facilitate a process to determine Kosovo’s future status; support economic 

reconstruction and humanitarian and disaster relief; maintain law and order; 

protect and promote human rights; and support refugees and internally 

displaced person returns. UNMIK is a collaborative effort of the international 

community and is supported by organizations such as the Organization for 

Security and Cooperation in Europe and the European Union. 

In 2003, the UN Secretary-General’s Special Representative in 

Kosovo laid out eight Standards for Kosovo, which included the creation of 
Political and Security Affairs 

37 

functioning democratic institutions; rule of law; freedom of movement; returns 

and reintegration; economy; property rights; dialogue with Belgrade; and 

development of the Kosovo Protections Corps. In October 2005, UN Envoy 

Kai Eide (Norway) noted in his report on the Standards and overall political 

progress in Kosovo that while much remained to be done, particularly on 

protecting minority rights and solidifying the rule of law, a political process to 

determine Kosovo’s future status should begin. On October 24, the Security 

Council President issued a statement endorsing the Secretary-General’s 

intention to begin a political process to determine Kosovo’s future status, in 

accordance to Resolution 1244. In November, the Secretary-General 

appointed Martti Ahtisaari (Finland) as the UN Special Envoy charged with 

leading the status talks. 

The transfer of police station management to the Kosovo Police 

Service was completed to include 33 police stations and five of the six 

regional police headquarters being operated by Kosovo officials. UNMIK 

remained as the overseer of the functioning of police stations and took the lead 

on sensitive cases such as organized crime and war crimes investigations. 

As of December 31, UNMIK’s force strength stood at 40 military 

observers and 2,150 civilian police, to which the United States contributed 272 

personnel. UN-assessed costs for UNMIK totaled $278 million in 2005. The 

United States paid $79 million. 

Western Hemisphere 

Haiti 

In 2004, the Security Council adopted Resolution 1542, establishing 

the UN Stabilization Mission in Haiti (MINUSTAH). MINUSTAH’s mandate 

included providing support to the Transitional Government of Haiti to ensure a 

secure and stable environment in which the constitutional and political process 

in Haiti could take place. The mandate also envisioned assistance to the 

Transitional Government for the reform of the Haitian National Police; 

development of a comprehensive disarmament, demobilization, and 

reintegration program; and facilitation of the national dialogue and 

reconciliation process. Additionally, a key element of MINUSTAH’s mandate 

related to the assistance to the Transitional Government in its efforts to 

organize, monitor, and carry out free and fair municipal, parliamentary, and 

presidential elections at the earliest possible date. On May 31, 2005, the 

Security Council extended MINUSTAH’s mandate until June 24. On June 22, 

the Security Council further extended the mission’s mandate until February 

15, 2006. 

Despite MINUSTAH’s improvements in security, gang violence and 

security challenges continued in Port-au-Prince. Slums like Cite Soleil 

remained a source of destabilization, as gang violence and frequent 

kidnappings continued. There was no evidence that the kidnappings were 

politically motivated; kidnappings were the gangs’ primary income source. 

Despite an augmentation in force strength from 6,700 up to 7,500 troops, 

MINUSTAH was unable to quell violence in some areas. 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2005 

38 

In 2005, MINUSTAH, the Organization of American States (OAS), 

and the Interim Government of Haiti made progress in elections preparations, 

which were originally envisaged for 2005 but postponed until 2006. The 

successive postponements were due to problems forming the Provisional 

Electoral Council, the OAS’ voter registration process took much longer than 

anticipated, and identifying voting sites and hiring poll workers was more time 

consuming than anticipated. Local elections were to start the electoral 

process, but over the course of postponements, they changed to national level 

elections. Despite these setbacks, 35 presidential candidates and 42 political 

parties registered, reflecting the wide spectrum of political ideas; almost 80 

percent of the estimated number of eligible voters registered in five months; 

and 804 voting centers were established nationwide, including around the 

dangerous slum of Cite Soleil. The European Union, the International 

Foundation for Election Systems, and the International Mission for Monitoring 

Haitian Elections monitored the process. 

Donors disbursed $964 million under the interim Cooperation 

Framework. In fiscal year 2005, the United States provided over $200 million 

to improve governance, security, rule of law, economic recovery, and critical 

humanitarian needs. MINUSTAH’s budget was $493 million; the United 

States contributed $133 million. As of December 31, 2005, MINUSTAH had 

7,286 troops and 1,748 civilian police from 44 nations. The United States 

contributed 50 civilian police and four personnel assigned to MINUSTAH 

headquarters. 

Disarmament Issues 

UN Disarmament Commission (UNDC) 

The UN Disarmament Commission (UNDC), a subsidiary body of the 

General Assembly, is a deliberative body intended to consider in depth, and 

make recommendations on, issues in the field of disarmament. The UNDC 

normally meets for three weeks each year to consider a limited number of 

agenda items. The Commission’s recommendations must be approved by 

consensus. The UNDC reports annually to the General Assembly. All UN 

member states are eligible to participate, but barely one-third have attended the 

UNDC in recent years. 

The focus of the United States has been to ensure that the UNDC 

adopts reports that are consistent with, and advance, U.S. policy. The NonAligned states historically have tried to focus UNDC discussion almost 

exclusively on nuclear disarmament issues. A key U.S. interest, however, is to 

maintain a balance in UNDC work between nuclear disarmament and nuclear 

non-proliferation on the one hand, and other disarmament issues, such as 

conventional arms control matters, on the other. The UNDC last issued 

consensus recommendations in 2000. 

The 2001–2003 issue cycle failed to produce substantive 

recommendations for consideration by the General Assembly. Indeed, the 

Non-Aligned delegations actually used their numerical majority to cancel the 

2002 session. The 2003 session resumed those delayed discussions on “ways 
Political and Security Affairs 

39 

and means to achieve nuclear disarmament,” and “practical confidencebuilding measures in the field of conventional armaments,” but Non-Aligned 

states (principally India on the former and Pakistan on the latter) blocked 

agreement in both areas. 

In 2004, the UNDC was unable to agree on what issues to consider. 

The United States and the European Union tabled a number of compromise 

proposals on the UNDC agenda, but Non-Aligned countries refused to drop 

their demand that nuclear disarmament remain the Commission’s focus. As a 

result, at the 2004 session of the UN General Assembly First (Disarmament) 

Committee, the United States declined to participate in the adoption of the 

annual UNDC resolution. As in previous years, the resolution failed to set an 

agenda for the 2005 session. 

The UNDC struggled to reach agreement on an agenda throughout 

2005. In November, the United States again declined to participate in the 

adoption of the annual UNDC resolution by the First Committee. In 

December, the UNDC Preparatory Committee reached agreement on an 

agenda for 2006 that, for the first time, placed nuclear nonproliferation on an 

equal footing with nuclear disarmament, the Commission’s historic 

preoccupation. The UNDC also agreed to conduct an internal review of its 

work practices to consider necessary reforms, in line with broader U.S. efforts 

to modernize the United Nations. Both of these agenda elements were U.S. 

initiatives. A third agenda item would focus on completing the UNDC’s work 

from 2003 on conventional confidence-building measures. 

Conference on Disarmament (CD) 

The Geneva-based Conference on Disarmament (CD) is the principal 

multilateral forum for negotiating arms control and disarmament agreements. 

The CD has produced significant treaties in the past, including the Nuclear 

Non-Proliferation Treaty and the Chemical Weapons Convention. However, 

the Conference in 2005 adjourned in a stalemate for the ninth consecutive year 

because it was unable to agree on a Program of Work (PoW). Progress was 

stymied because some CD members continued to focus on outmoded Cold 

War-era issues, and sought to establish links between elements of the proposed 

PoW. 

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 Group, 

with China as an independent member. Thirty-four non-members also 

participated in 2005 as observers. All CD decisions are made by consensus. 

The presidency of the CD rotates among its members on a monthly basis. The 

CD adopted its annual report to the UN General Assembly on September 22. 

In 2005, the CD’s agenda included nuclear disarmament and the 

prevention of nuclear war, weapons of mass destruction, conventional 

armaments, negative security assurances (NSAs), the prevention of an arms 

race in outer space (PAROS), and transparency in armaments. Much of the 

CD’s 2005 discussion continued to focus on a PoW proposal offered by 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2005 

40 

Algeria, Belgium, Chile, Colombia, and Sweden. The proposal called for the 

establishment of four ad hoc committees. Two of those would have 

negotiating mandates, one for an “effectively verifiable” Fissile Material 

Cutoff Treaty (FMCT), and the other on NSAs. The other two committees 

would have mandates to discuss nuclear disarmament and PAROS. The 

proposal included elements on which the CD had been unable to reach 

consensus for several years, so the 2005 session once again ended without any 

agreement on a PoW. Informally, the CD also discussed, among other things, 

the CD’s agenda, work program, and organization and procedures, as well as 

landmines and organizational reform. 

Unfortunately, the CD failed to act on FMCT or on banning the sale 

or export of persistent landmines, the two initiatives the United States 

proposed to the CD Plenary on July 29, 2004. 

The United States reiterated its commitment to effective multilateral 

solutions to disarmament issues, and made clear that the CD will be unable to 

adopt a PoW while some CD members insist on making links between agreed 

subjects and unrelated issues about which there is no agreement. The 

sustained lack of an agreed PoW, however, increased concern among members 

that the CD’s relevance as an international negotiating forum was eroding. 

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 2005 budget of approximately $4 million. 

NPT Conference 

The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) entered into force in 

1970. Its objective is to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons and weapons 

technology, to promote cooperation in the peaceful uses of nuclear energy, and 

to further the goal of achieving nuclear disarmament and general and complete 

disarmament. The Treaty envisaged a review of the operation of the treaty 

every five years. 

The NPT Review Conference (RevCon) was held in New York on 

May 2–27, 2005. The RevCon failed to produce a consensus final document, 

mainly because Iran, Egypt, and others engaged in procedural maneuvers that 

left little time to work on substantive issues. However, the RevCon still 

presented an opportunity to build support for U.S. efforts aimed at preventing 

the further spread of nuclear weapons and of sensitive nuclear technologies 

and materials. 

Throughout the Conference, the United States demonstrated 

maximum flexibility in an effort to move past the procedural roadblocks set by 

the Non-Aligned Movement, in particular by Iran and Egypt. Despite the 

delay in the start of main committee and subsidiary body discussions, the 

parties held productive discussions on substantive matters, including on Iran’s 

noncompliance with the Treaty and the withdrawal of the Democratic People’s 

Republic of Korea (DPRK) from the Treaty. The U.S. delegation used many 

vehicles to promote its views, including the general debate, formal and 
Political and Security Affairs 

41 

informal meetings of the main committees and their subsidiary bodies, and 

bilateral discussions with dozens of delegations. 

The Conference addressed other topics, including the risk that 

peaceful nuclear programs could be used as a cover for nuclear proliferation, 

the need to prevent the spread of enrichment and reprocessing (ENR), the 

importance of compliance with UN Security Council Resolution 1540, and the 

steps that parties should take in the event that a violator withdraws from the 

NPT, as occurred with the DPRK. There was general, though incomplete, 

consensus that steps should be considered to address these issues. 

From the U.S. perspective, success at the Conference did not depend 

upon getting a consensus final document, and the U.S. delegation made clear 

that having no such document would be preferable to agreement on a 

document that failed to address adequately the nonproliferation and 

noncompliance challenges facing the NPT regime. From the outset, the U.S. 

criterion for success was whether RevCon participants would begin to change 

their focus from a Cold War-era agenda to one that addresses today’s NPT 

challenges. Despite some countries’ attempts at obstruction, the United States 

was pleased to see more—and more forthright—discussion of these issues than 

ever before. 

The United States pursued the various issues discussed during the 

RevCon within the Group of Eight industrialized nations and in the Nuclear 

Suppliers Group, which are the primary venues for seeking action on 

preventing the proliferation of ENR technology, as well as in other venues on 

other nonproliferation matters. The United States continued to press its 

nonproliferation proposals, in close coordination with key friends and allies, 

through bilateral discussions and in other multilateral venues, such as the 

International Atomic Energy Agency. 

Peacekeeping Issues 

Peacekeeping Financing 

In 2005, the United States supported an expansion in the overall level 

of UN peacekeeping operations around the world 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 the 

Sudan. 

The United States supports UN peacekeeping operations when they 

can be an effective means of containing conflict and resolving disputes in 

support of U.S. national interests. It has 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. 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. The total number of troops, military 

observers, and UN police from all nations serving in UN missions at the end of 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2005 

42 

2005 increased by approximately 5,137 from 2004. The increase was mainly 

attributable to the new mission in Sudan and the expansion of the missions in 

the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Haiti, and Côte d’Ivoire. As of 

December 31, 2005, the United Nations had a total of 60,070 troops; 2,527 

military observers; and 7,241 UN police participating in UN peacekeeping 

missions. The U.S. contribution for UN peacekeeping missions included 10 

U.S. troops, 18 U.S. military observers, and 359 U.S. police. 

The costs of UN peacekeeping operations increased in 2005. The 

United Nations assessed member states a total of $4.7 billion, of which the 

United States was assessed $1.3 billion. Assessments increased for operations 

in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Burundi, Côte d’Ivoire, Haiti, and 

the new mission in the Sudan. These increases were only partially offset by 

decreased assessments for operations in Sierra Leone and Liberia. 

Force Protection for U.S. Peacekeepers 

During 2005, there were no fatalities among U.S. military or civilian 

police personnel serving in UN peacekeeping operations, and there were no 

injuries resulting from hostile action. In addition, there were no U.S. military 

or police personnel captured or taken hostage while in service in UN 

peacekeeping operations. Peacekeeping remains an endeavor with tangible 

risks, and UN planners scrutinize every deployment with respect to personnel 

safety and force protection. 

UN Police 

Since the 1960s, UN police officers have been a part of peacekeeping 

missions. A civilian police division was established in the Department of 

Peacekeeping Operations, called CIVPOL. In 2005, the UN Police 

Commissioner changed the name of this division from CIVPOL to UNPOL 

(UN Police) out of concern that the term CIVPOL was misleading because it 

implied that the personnel consisted of only civilian members when in fact 

there are military police personnel as well. UNPOL continued to play a 

critical role in peacekeeping while the international community struggled to 

meet worldwide demand for qualified officers. The United States continued 

efforts to recruit top-quality officers for participation in UNPOL missions, and 

continually revised and updated procedures for recruiting, training, and 

deploying U.S. officers for UNPOL. In 2005, the United States doubled its 

contribution to the peacekeeping operation in Haiti, from 25 to 50. For the 

first time, the United States also contributed one officer to the UN Mission in 

Sudan. At the same time, the United States continued the drawdown of 

officers in the Kosovo, Liberia, and East Timor missions. 

There was an increasing recognition by peacekeeping mission 

planners that there was a need for “formed units,” a type of international 

policing that falls between functions performed by regular civilian police and 

those performed by the military within peacekeeping operations. Specially 

trained formed units can perform crowd control and conduct high-risk arrests, 

investigations, and other specialized law enforcement functions. In 2005, the 
Political and Security Affairs 

43 

United Nations formally certified the training performed at the U.S.-supported 

Center of Excellence for Special Police Units in Vincenza, Italy, to train these 

units for peacekeeping tasks. 

Sexual Abuse 

Serious allegations of sexual exploitation, abuse, and misconduct by 

UN peacekeeping personnel in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) 

came to light in 2004. In 2005, the UN Department of Peacekeeping 

Operations (DPKO) reported a total of 264 investigations of sexual 

exploitation and abuse against military, UN staff, volunteers, and contractors 

in all UN peacekeeping missions. Of these, 16 civilians were dismissed and 

116 military personnel were repatriated. Close to two-thirds of the allegations 

involved rape or sexual assault. The range of alleged abuse also included child 

pornography, child molestation, and prostitution. 

Since November 2004, the DPKO addressed sexual abuse with an 

approach that focused on both enforcement and prevention. Enforcement 

measures included designation of sexual abuse focal points to facilitate receipt 

of complaints from the local population. DPKO implemented curfews and ‘off 

limits’ areas. It strove to promptly review and refer all cases of serious 

misconduct, especially sexual abuse. DPKO also regularly followed up with 

member states to ascertain what disciplinary or criminal action was taken in 

substantiated cases. The preventive measures of this approach included 

increased awareness of and training on UN standards of conduct for all 

peacekeeping personnel. DPKO also established in-country networks linking 

mission focal points on sexual abuse with other UN agencies and programs 

and international nongovernmental organizations to develop common 

approaches to prevention and to providing support to victims. 

In February 2005, the United Nations established a Conduct and 

Discipline Unit in the DRC to respond to cases and handle victim’s assistance 

and witness protection. An Inspector General was designated and sent to the 

DRC to investigate sexual abuse cases in March. The UN Secretary-General 

requested 100 more military police for the DRC, and announced a general 

non-fraternization policy, curfew for the UN Organization Mission in the DRC 

military contingents, and mandatory specialized training on the UN’s zerotolerance policy. 

In April 2005, Prince Zeid Ra’ad Al-Hussein (Jordan), the SecretaryGeneral’s Special Adviser on Sexual Exploitation and Abuse, compiled a 

comprehensive strategy on the sexual abuse problem. The General Assembly 

adopted the strategy in June. Some of the major themes in the report included 

a uniform binding standard of conduct; professional investigations; a trust fund 

for victims of sexual abuse; accountability of troop contributing countries 

(TCCs) for their soldiers’ actions; and disciplinary action, including courts 

martial. 

Discussion of a protocol for national investigative officers from TCCs 

began in 2005. Working groups met to consult on a comprehensive victim 

assistance policy. The United Nations also started listing some areas in its 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2005 

44 

mission host countries as “no-go zones” in an attempt to deter misconduct. All 

peacekeeping mission mandate renewals started including language regarding 

sexual abuse prevention. The United Nations also began establishing in its 

missions focal points or regional offices where locals could report sexual 

abuse violations. The DPKO began review of its HIV/AIDS training 

prevention efforts for peacekeepers to ensure that it addressed sexual abuse. 

The United Nations announced that the Office of Internal Oversight Services 

would assume from DPKO responsibility for sexual exploitation and abuse 

investigations beginning in fall 2005. 

In 2005, the United States continued to endorse the UN policy of zero 

tolerance, UN investigations into allegations of sexual exploitation and abuse, 

and enhanced training for all new UN peacekeeping personnel. The United 

States also called on troop-contributing countries to take disciplinary actions to 

deter and prosecute abuse. The United States encouraged the United Nations 

to adopt effective preventive measures and procedures to ensure that violators 

of UN policy were disciplined, and, where crimes are involved, prosecuted. 

The United States commended UN decisions to repatriate civilian perpetrators 

from its missions and stood ready to work with the United Nations and troop 

contributors to put in place a system to end sexual exploitation and abuse by 

UN peacekeepers. The United States will continue to actively engage the 

United Nations and troop contributing countries to ensure full implementation 

of reforms to address sexual exploitation and abuse. 

Special Issues 

Terrorism 

In 2005, the United Nations continued to provide focus and energy to 

the international community in its collective fight against terrorism. U.S. 

participation was a key factor in advancing international counterterrorism 

initiatives in the Security Council, its committees addressing terrorism-related 

issues (the 1267 Sanctions Committee, the Counter-Terrorism Committee, and 

the 1540 (non-proliferation) Committee), and the General Assembly. 

The Security Council adopted four resolutions directly related to 

terrorism. Resolution 1611 condemned the terrorist bombings that took place 

in London on July 7, 2005; Resolution 1617 continued sanctions including an 

asset freeze, travel restrictions, and an arms embargo on the Taliban, al-Qaida, 

and Usama bin Laden, as well as individuals and entities associated with them; 

and Resolution 1618 condemned terrorist acts in Iraq. Resolution 1624 called 

upon states to take necessary and appropriate steps in accordance with their 

obligations under international law to prohibit by law incitement to commit 

terrorist acts, to prevent such incitement, and to deny safe haven to persons 

against whom there is serious and credible evidence that they have engaged in 

such conduct. Resolution 1624 also called upon states to strengthen border 

security to prevent travel of those engaged in incitement to commit terrorist 

acts. 

The 1267 Sanctions Committee continued to develop and maintain its 

list of individuals and entities associated with al-Qaida, the Taliban, and 
Political and Security Affairs 

45 

Usama bin Laden subject to international sanctions—including the asset 

freezes, travel restrictions, and arms embargo imposed under Security Council 

Resolution 1267 and successor resolutions—that member states are obligated 

to implement. The United States continued referring names of individuals and 

entities for inclusion on the Committee’s sanctions list. The names or entities 

are first vetted within the appropriate U.S. Government agencies and then 

circulated to the other 14 members of the Committee with sufficient 

explanatory information for the Committee to determine whether they should 

be added. 

The Counter-Terrorism Committee (CTC), established by Security 

Council Resolution 1373 after September 11, 2001, continued progress toward 

its goal of raising the level of performance of the governments of all member 

states in the fight against terrorism. The United States played an active 

leadership role in the CTC, urging the Committee to become more focused on 

facilitating technical assistance to member states to help them close gaps in 

their implementation of Resolution 1373, and promoting closer cooperation 

and coordination between the CTC and other international organizations, 

including regional and sub-regional organizations. In December 2005, the 

Counter-Terrorism Committee Executive Directorate, the CTC’s group of 

experts, was declared fully operational, allowing the CTC to enhance its 

monitoring of member states’ implementation of the requirements of 

Resolution 1373. 

The General Assembly adopted a number of terrorism-related 

resolutions in its 60th session in 2005. On December 8, the General Assembly 

adopted Resolution 60/43 on “Measures to Eliminate International Terrorism,” 

which condemned all acts, methods, and practices of terrorism as criminal and 

unjustifiable, wherever and by whomsoever committed. It reaffirmed previous 

resolutions and Declarations on Measures to Eliminate International 

Terrorism, and urged states to become parties to all international terrorism 

conventions and protocols. The resolution stipulated that the Ad Hoc 

Committee, established by General Assembly Resolution 51/210, should 

continue its work on the negotiation of the Comprehensive Convention on 

International Terrorism (CCIT). The General Assembly adopted the following 

three additional terrorism-related resolutions on December 8: Resolution 

60/73 on “Preventing the risk of radiological terrorism,” Resolution 60/77 on 

“Prevention of the illicit transfer and unauthorized access to and use of manportable air defense systems,” and Resolution 60/78 on “Measures to prevent 

terrorists from acquiring weapons of mass destruction.” On December 16, 

2005, the General Assembly adopted Resolution 60/158 on “Protection of 

human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism.” All of 

these resolutions were adopted by consensus. 

UN members met in September 2005 for a world summit to 

reinvigorate the United Nations. The World Summit outcome document 

contained a strong condemnation of all forms of terrorism as a threat to 

international peace and security, and called upon states to refrain from any 

support to terrorism or terrorist activities. The outcome document encouraged 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2005 

46 

states to conclude negotiation of the CCIT, and endorsed a strong UN role in 

combating terrorism. The document welcomed the Secretary-General’s 

proposals for a UN counterterrorism strategy. In response, the SecretaryGeneral submitted a report offering a draft text that became the basis for 

negotiations on a UN strategy. 

Despite the encouragement from the World Summit, negotiations on 

the CCIT in 2005 remained at an impasse over debates concerning the scope 

of the exception for the activities of state military forces (in which the United 

States opposed suggestions that would narrow the scope of the exception) and 

concerning proposed language that might be used to argue for exempting the 

activities of persons who act in the name of national liberation movements (in 

which the United States opposed the inclusion of such language on the basis 

that it would undermine the credibility of UN and member-state 

counterterrorism efforts. 

While negotiations on the CCIT remained stalled, in April the 

General Assembly adopted the Russian draft of the International Convention 

for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism. This convention, fully 

supported by the United States but not yet in force, would be the first 

counterterrorism convention adopted by the United Nations since September 

11, 2001. The convention opened for signature on September 14, 2005, at the 

World Summit. The United States, Russia, and France were the first countries 

to sign it. 

Sanctions 

The United States continued to support the imposition of UN 

sanctions in response to threats to international peace and security. Chapter 

VII, Article 41, of the UN Charter authorizes the Security Council to mandate 

member states to implement measures not involving the use of armed force to 

enforce its decisions. Under this authority, the Council has resorted to the use 

of multilateral sanctions as an enforcement tool when international peace and 

security have been threatened and diplomatic efforts have failed. 

The United States believes that sanctions, appropriately structured 

and targeted and supported by the international community, can serve as a key 

political tool to prompt a change in policy or behavior of regimes that threaten 

international peace and security. Sanctions have restricted access to arms, 

funds, and commodities used to undermine security, while denying political 

support to the leadership of sanctioned regimes. The United States recognizes 

that sanctions alone are often insufficient, and are most effective when used in 

conjunction with effective diplomacy. The effectiveness of UN-imposed 

sanctions is directly linked to the willingness and ability of member states, 

particularly neighbors of the targeted regime, to implement and enforce the 

measures. 

The UN Security Council imposed numerous multilateral sanctions 

regimes, primarily in response to civil wars in Africa and international 

terrorism. During 2005, UN sanctions remained in place against Saddam 

Hussein and other senior officials of the former Iraqi regime, their immediate 
Political and Security Affairs 

47 

family members, and individuals and entities associated with Usama bin 

Laden, the Taliban, and al-Qaida. UN sanctions remained in effect in the 

Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), Liberia, Somalia, Sudan, and Côte 

d’Ivoire. UN restrictions on nongovernmental groups in Rwanda and Sierra 

Leone also remained in effect. 

On July 29, the Security Council adopted Resolution 1617 to improve 

implementation of the arms embargo, travel restrictions, and assets freeze 

imposed by Resolution 1267 (1999) and succeeding resolutions on Usama bin 

Laden, the Taliban, al-Qaida, and their associates. 

On April 18, the Security Council adopted Resolution 1596, which 

amended and expanded the arms embargo in the DRC imposed under 

Resolution 1493 (2003) and imposed targeted travel and financial measures on 

individuals designated by the DRC sanctions committee. On July 29, the 

Council adopted Resolution 1616, which re-established the DRC sanctions 

Group of Experts. On December 21, the Council adopted Resolution 1649 

which renewed and expanded the travel and financial restrictions until July 31, 

2006, to political and military leaders, as designated by the committee, of 

foreign and Congolese armed groups impeding the disarmament and 

reintegration of combatants. 

An arms embargo, assets freeze, travel restrictions, and restrictions on 

the export of conflict diamonds and timber remained in effect in Liberia. 

Resolution 1607, adopted June 21, 2005, renewed the diamond export ban and 

re-established the panel of experts for a period of six months. Resolution 

1647, adopted on December 20, re-established the panel of experts for six 

months, renewed the arms embargo and travel restrictions for a period of one 

year, and extended the timber and the diamond ban for a period of six months. 

The arms embargo on Somalia, dating back to 1992, remained in 

place as the oldest sanctions regime currently in effect. By Resolution 1587, 

adopted on March 15, the Council re-established for six months a monitoring 

group, established by Resolution 1519 (2003), to continue monitoring 

implementation of the arms embargo on Somalia. Resolution 1630, adopted 

on October 14, 2005, further extended the monitoring group’s mandate. 

On March 29, the Council sanctioned individuals to help end the 

genocide in Darfur. Resolution 1591 expanded the existing arms embargo to 

include all the parties to the N’djamena Ceasefire Agreement and other 

belligerents in the states of North Darfur, South Darfur, and West Darfur. It 

authorized imposition of a travel ban and asset freeze on individuals 

designated by the sanctions committee who impede the peace process, 

constitute a threat to stability in Darfur and the region, commit violations of 

international humanitarian or human rights law, violate the arms embargo, or 

are responsible for offensive military overflights. The resolution established a 

sanctions committee to monitor the implementation of the measures, and 

authorized the creation of a Panel of Experts to assist the committee. In 

Resolution 1651, adopted on December 21, the Council extended the mandate 

of the Panel for three months. 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2005 

48 

On November 15, 2004, the Council imposed an arms embargo on 

Côte d’Ivoire by Resolution 1572. It also authorized imposition of travel 

restrictions and an assets freeze on designated individuals who constitute a 

threat to the peace and national reconciliation process, are determined to be 

responsible for serious violations of human rights and international 

humanitarian law in Côte d’Ivoire, publicly incite hatred and violence, or 

violate the arms embargo. Resolution 1584, adopted on February 1, 2005, 

authorized the UN Operation in Côte d’Ivoire and the French forces 

supporting it to monitor the arms embargo, and established a panel of experts. 

The measures imposed by Resolution 1572 were renewed until December 15, 

2006, by Resolution 1643, adopted on December 15, 2005. 

Oil-For-Food 

The UN Oil-for-Food Program ended in November 2003, as 

mandated by Security Council Resolution 1483 (2003). First-hand Iraqi 

accounts and documentary evidence of abuses of the Program surfaced in 

2003, when the Coalition Provisional Authority obtained access to official 

Iraqi documents that revealed systemic abuses of the Program by the former 

Iraqi regime. As early as 2000, the United States brought reports of these 

abuses to the attention of the UN Security Council and its Iraq Sanctions 

Committee. 

In response to allegations of wrongdoing by UN officials, in April 

2004, the UN Secretary-General appointed an independent, high-level inquiry 

to investigate the administration and management of the Oil-for-Food Program 

in Iraq. The Independent Inquiry Committee (IIC) collected and examined 

information relating to the administration and management of the Oil-for-Food 

Program, including allegations of fraud and corruption on the part of UN 

officials, personnel, and agents, as well as contractors. The IIC issued its final 

report on October 27, 2005, but continued to maintain a small staff to respond 

to inquiries, including inquiries from law enforcement and national 

committees of inquiry. In a number of countries, including the United States, 

formal legal action was undertaken against those named in the report. IIC 

findings were frequently cited in discussions of the need for wide-ranging 

reform at the United Nations. 

Throughout 2005, the State Department responded to numerous 

requests for information and briefings from the IIC, from other federal 

agencies, and from members of Congress. It devoted considerable time and 

resources to retrieving relevant archived documents covering the span of the 

Program. 

Non–Self-Governing Territories 

The Special Committee on the Situation with Regard to the 

Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to 

Colonial Countries and Peoples and the Special Political and Decolonization 

Committee (Fourth Committee) of the UN General Assembly annually 
Political and Security Affairs 

49 

consider the status of non-self-governing territories, defined as “territories 

whose people have not yet attained a full measure of self-government.” 

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, this resolution was 

adopted by consensus. The United States continued to fulfill all reporting 

requirements as requested by this resolution and Article 73(e) of the UN 

Charter. 

During the General Assembly, the United States voted against or 

abstained on a series of resolutions further addressing 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 the responsibilities of administering powers. 

Security Council Thematic Debates 

In 2005, the Security Council held debates on 12 thematic items, 

three fewer than in 2004, and the same as in 2003. For the fourth year in a 

row, terrorism continued to command the greatest attention. In January, the 

Security Council took note of the 14th work program of the Counter-Terrorism 

Committee (S/PRST/2005/3), while in December, the Council reviewed the 

mandate and work of the Counter-Terrorism Executive Directorate 

(S/PRST/2005/64). In July, the Security Council adopted a resolution, 

cosponsored by the United States, which strengthened sanctions against alQaida, Usama bin Laden, and the Taliban, and elaborated procedures for 

listing associated individuals and entities (Resolution 1617). The Security 

Council also strengthened counter-terrorism measures at a summit of Heads of 

State and Government held in September, as described below. The Security 

Council held meetings in April, July, and October to be briefed by the Chairs 

of its counter-terrorism subsidiary bodies. In presidential statements issued in 

April and July, the Council emphasized the importance of coordination and 

cooperation among its anti-terrorism committees (S/PRST/2005/16 and 34). 

In its statements during these meetings, the United States declared that 

collective counter-terrorism efforts will not succeed unless states make 

implementation of the resolutions a high priority and underlined the need for a 

standard of accountability and compliance against which the efforts of 

individual states can be measured. The Council also met on eight occasions, 

as described below under “Threats to International Peace and Security Caused 

by Terrorist Acts,” to take action on specific terrorist incidents. 

The Security Council discussed the following themes: 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2005 

50 

• Threats to International Peace and Security Caused by Terrorist Acts. In 

July, the Security Council condemned the terrorist attacks on the London 

transit system (Resolution 1611), the assassination of the Egyptian 

ambassador in Iraq (S/PRST/2005/29), the terror attacks in Sharm elSheikh, Egypt (S/PRST/2005/36), and the assassination of Algerian 

diplomats in Iraq (S/PRST/2005/37). In August, the Council condemned 

the terrorist acts in Iraq that killed over 100, including employees of the 

Independent Electoral Commission (Resolution 1618). Upon adoption of 

this resolution, which it cosponsored, the United States said Council 

action demonstrated broad international support for the Iraqi government 

as it moved forward in its political, security, and economic transition. In 

October, the Council also condemned terrorist bombings in Bali, 

Indonesia (S/PRST/2005/45), and New Delhi, India (S/PRST/2005/53). 

Finally, in November, the Council condemned in the strongest terms the 

terrorist bombings in Amman, Jordan (S/PRST/2005/55). 

• Threats to International Peace and Security. Meeting at a summit of 

Heads of State and Government in September, the Security Council 

adopted two resolutions. The first resolution strengthened steps to combat 

terrorism, especially the incitement of terrorist acts (Resolution 1624), 

while the second resolution adopted a declaration on strengthening the 

Council’s role in conflict prevention, particularly in Africa (Resolution 

1625). During the summit, President Bush stated there is a solemn 

obligation to stop terrorism at its early stages, to defend citizens against 

terrorism, to attack terrorist networks and deprive them of any safe haven, 

and to promote an ideology of freedom and tolerance. Furthermore, the 

President reaffirmed the U.S. commitment to support the prevention of 

unjust armed conflict, particularly in Africa, and expressed support to 

improve the ability of the African Union and subregional organizations to 

deploy both civilian and military assets to prevent such conflicts. The 

President declared that terrorism and armed conflict are not only threats to 

security, but also enemies of development and freedom for millions. 

• Children and Armed Conflict. The Security Council held an open 

meeting in February at which it took note of the Secretary-General’s 

proposal to establish a monitoring, reporting, and compliance mechanism 

(S/PRST/2005/8). The United States recognized the tragic consequences 

suffered by children affected by armed conflict and welcomed effective 

monitoring and reporting of such violations. However, the United States 

expressed concern over some aspects of the proposed plan of action, 

including unanticipated policy and resource implications. In July, the 

Security Council requested the Secretary-General to implement a 

monitoring and reporting mechanism, within existing resources, and 

decided to establish a working group of the Council to review reports of 

this mechanism (Resolution 1612). 

• Role of Civil Society in Conflict Prevention and the Pacific Settlement of 

Disputes. Representatives from the European Center for Conflict 
Political and Security Affairs 

51 

Prevention, Columbia University Conflict Resolution Network, and the 

African Center for the Constructive Resolution of Disputes participated at 

an open meeting in September. At the end of the meeting, the Security 

Council underlined the need for a broad strategy for conflict prevention 

and pacific settlement of disputes in line with Chapter VI of the UN 

Charter, recognized the important supporting role of civil society, and 

expressed its intent to strengthen the Council’s relationship with civil 

society (S/PRST/2005/42). In its statement, the United States asserted 

that in order to be effective in preventing conflict, civil society must be as 

inclusive as possible, allowing the views of a wide range of actors to be 

considered. Furthermore, the United States declared that building 

institutions which promote and sustain freedom and democratic ideals 

create the necessary foundations for preventing conflict. 

• Protection of Civilians in Armed Conflict. The Security Council held two 

open meetings to consider this issue, one in June and another in 

December. At the end of the meeting in June, the Council reaffirmed its 

condemnation of the deliberate targeting of civilian and other protected 

persons and stressed the urgent need to ensure effective physical 

protection, especially for displaced populations, women, and children 

(S/PRST/2005/25). At both meetings the United States stressed that the 

primary responsibility for protecting civilians lies with states and their 

governments and that international efforts can only complement 

government efforts rather than assume responsibility for them. 

• HIV/AIDS and International Peacekeeping Operations. The Security 

Council held a meeting in July at which it welcomed collaboration 

between the UN Department of Peacekeeping Operations and the Joint 

UN Program on HIV/AIDS and recognized that UN peacekeeping 

personnel can contribute to the response to HIV/AIDS, particularly for 

vulnerable communities in post-conflict environments (S/PRST/2005/33). 

The United States highlighted its commitment to combating HIV/AIDS, 

including technical assistance provided by the U.S. Department of 

Defense and the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief to 

implement long-term strategies for education, prevention, counseling, 

testing, and treatment. 

• Role of the Security Council in Humanitarian Crises. In July, the Security 

Council recognized the role the Council could play in bridging the gap 

between maintenance of international peace and security and the work of 

humanitarian and economic development assistance, while also noting the 

Secretary-General’s proposal to establish a Peacebuilding Commission 

(S/PRST/2005/30). The United States asserted that a stable society with a 

successful economy is necessarily rooted in the rule of law and has 

representative institutions that operate predictably according to law. 

Furthermore, the United States stated that better coordination among UN 

entities and with donors, international financial institutions, and regional 

partners would improve the success of conflict prevention and called on 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2005 

52 

the Council to promptly act on the recommendation to establish a 

Peacebuilding Commission. The Council also discussed its role in 

humanitarian situations at meetings in June when the Executive Director 

of the World Food Program briefed the Council on Africa’s food crisis, in 

July at a closed session during which the Secretary-General’s Special 

Envoy for Human Settlements discussed the situation in Zimbabwe, and 

in December when UN Emergency Relief Coordinator reported on the 

situation in Africa. At these meetings, the United States underscored its 

concern for the grave humanitarian problems affecting Africa, particularly 

in northern Uganda, Zimbabwe, and Sudan. 

• UN Peacekeeping Operations. Meeting in May, the Security Council 

condemned all acts of sexual abuse and exploitation committed by UN 

peacekeeping personnel and recognized the shared responsibility of the 

Secretary-General and all member states, especially troop-contributing 

countries, to prevent such abuse and enforce UN standards of conduct in 

this regard (S/PRST/2005/21). 

• Post-Conflict Peacebuilding. In May, the Council acknowledged the role 

played by UN entities, international financial institutions, regional and 

subregional organizations, and civil society in the multidimensional, longterm process of peacebuilding. The Council also underscored the 

importance of ensuring that UN humanitarian, peacekeeping, political, 

and developmental activities are well coordinated system-wide and took 

note of the Secretary-General’s proposal to establish a Peacebuilding 

Commission (PBC) (S/PRST/2005/20). The United States noted the new 

Department of State office charged with coordinating the U.S. 

Government’s civilian capacity to prevent and respond to conflict, and 

expressed the view that the PBC should serve as an advisory body, 

operating by consensus, to provide expertise and coordination to principal 

UN bodies. The United States cautioned that it did not accept the overly 

simplistic solution of merely increasing assessed contributions to the 

United Nations to fund peacebuilding and reconstruction efforts and 

highlighted the fact that the United States is the largest contributor to the 

UN assessed budget, the largest donor of development assistance, and had 

the most generous private donors in the world. In December, the Council 

adopted two resolutions, one unanimously, which established the 

Peacebuilding Commission (Resolution 1645), and one by a vote of 

13(US) to 0, with 2 abstentions, which set forth election procedures for 

the Council’s representatives to the PBC’s Organizational Committee 

(Resolution 1646).

• The Role of Civil Society in Conflict Prevention and the Pacific 

Settlement of Disputes. The Council adopted a resolution in October 

which expressed its determination to further develop cooperation between 

the United Nations and regional and subregional organizations, consistent 

with Chapter VIII of the UN Charter, and stressed the importance of 

developing the capacity of regional and subregional organizations to 
Political and Security Affairs 

53 

deploy peacekeeping forces in support of UN peacekeeping operations 

(Resolution 1631). Noting that when properly planned, activities of 

regional and subregional organizations can strengthen and reinforce a 

variety of critically important UN objectives, the United States 

highlighted the Global Peace Operations Initiative and the African 

Contingency Operations Training and Assistance program as two U.S. 

initiatives in this regard. 

• Small Arms. In February, the Security Council encouraged armsexporting countries to exercise the highest degree of responsibility in 

small arms and light weapons transactions and encouraged international 

and regional cooperation to prevent their diversion to terrorist groups 

(S/PRST/2005/7). The United States stressed the destabilizing effect 

illicit small arms and light weapons as a major obstacle to peace, 

expressed the position that any international instrument aimed at tracing 

illicit small arms should be practical and effective, and noted expanded 

U.S. assistance programs to safeguard and eliminate these dangerous 

weapons.

• Women and Peace and Security. In October, the Security Council 

strongly welcomed the UN System-wide Action Plan to monitor strategies 

and programs aimed at advancing the role of women in peace and security 

areas (S/PRST/2005/52). The United States expressed the belief that, 

while historically under-represented in most peace negotiations, women 

bring certain unique qualities and perspectives to such endeavors and that 

society not only dictates but demands the need for women to be involved 

in peace processes. 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2005 

54 
55 

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 

over 130 countries and territories. The United States is a member of its 36-

state governing body, the Executive Board. The Secretary-General appointed 

Kemal Dervis, former Finance Minister of Turkey and former World Bank 

Vice President, to the Administrator's post in 2005. 

Promoting democracy and prosperity around the world is a U.S. 

foreign policy priority. Through participation in the UNDP, the United States 

ensures that the organization’s policies and activities reflect this priority. The 

UNDP’s strategic framework for 2004–2007 included the following five goals: 

(1) reducing human poverty; (2) fostering democratic governance; (3) 

managing energy and environment for sustainable development; (4) supporting 

crisis prevention and recovery; and (5) responding to HIV/AIDS. The United 

States played a key role in adopting these goals to guide UNDP operations. 

Democratic governance was a key UNDP activity. For example, in 

2005, UNDP, in a partnership with the Organization for Economic 

Cooperation and Development, engaged in a “Good Governance for 

Development Initiative” in the Middle East to promote reforms in 

administrative, financial, and judicial sectors. The United States supported 

this UNDP initiative. 

The United States continued to encourage UNDP to improve its 

management and results-oriented programming. The U.S. delegation to the 

Executive Board meetings urged UNDP to report performance data of its 

country programs, clearly define key poverty alleviation programs, and 

improve the reporting of results in the implementation of the 2004–2007 

strategic plan. 

The Executive Board adopted decisions in 2005 directing UNDP to 

improve its work in the following key areas: compliance with audit findings, 

reporting results in the implementation of the strategic plan, and reviewing and 

approving country programs. 

UNDP receives its funding through voluntary contributions. In 2005, 

the United States gave over $108 million to the regular budget, which was 

over $900 million. 

UN Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) 

The UN Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), a 

permanent forum for discussions on trade and development issues, functions 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2005 

56 

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 192 member 

states. Supachai Panitchpakdi (Thailand) assumed his position as SecretaryGeneral on September 1, 2005. 

In October, UNCTAD held its 52nd annual session of the Trade and 

Development Board, at which the findings of its 2005 report were discussed. 

One of the findings was that market access preferences have had major 

positive effects for several least developed countries, which should be taken 

into account when negotiating accession to the World Trade Organization 

(WTO). Also during 2005, the Commission on Trade in Goods and Services 

and Commodities held six meetings including its annual session; the 

Commission on Enterprise, Business Facilitation, and Development held four 

meetings, including its annual session; and the Commission on Science and 

Technology for Development, serviced by UNCTAD, held its eighth session. 

At each of the meetings, delegates discussed the activities of the relevant 

Commission, including advisory and technical missions to developing 

countries (120 missions by the Commission on Trade in Goods and Services 

and Commodities); work on databases to provide information on tariffs, export 

markets, rules of origin, and other regulations; assistance in the creation of 

commodity exchanges; research and technical assistance in the areas of 

transport/trade facilitation; and joint work with the WTO on the Integrated 

Framework for Trade-related Technical Assistance for the least developed 

countries. 

The United States has been an active participant in UNCTAD since 

its founding in 1964. The United States believes free trade is a vital avenue 

for development and has strongly encouraged UNCTAD’s work on trade and 

investment facilitation. In 2005, 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. The 

United States also supports UNCTAD’s work in investment policy reviews 

and in development of databases that enable countries to find markets for their 

products and to search investment agreements and tariff data. For example, in 

2004, in partnership with the International Trade Center, UNCTAD developed 

the Investment Map, an Internet tool to assist countries in identifying sectors 

or commodities for potential investment. The United States partially funded 

this tool in 2005 so that it could be expanded and widely disseminated to 

developed, as well as developing, countries. 

UNCTAD’s budget is funded through the UN regular biennial 

budget. In 2005, UNCTAD’s budget was $58 million and the U.S. 

contribution was $12.8 million. UNCTAD’s technical assistance activities, 

costing approximately $31 million in 2005, were funded separately through 

trust fund arrangements established by individual donors. The United States 

contributed $100,000 for the Investment Map in 2005. UNCTAD had 431 

staff in 2005, of whom 22 were U.S. citizens. 
Economic and Social Affairs 

57 

Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD) 

In December 1992, the Economic and Social Council established the 

Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD) 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 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 advancing sustainable development, one of 

the four strategic objectives of the U.S. Department of State and the U.S. 

Agency for International Development (USAID). 

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 (“CSD 11” held April–May 

2003), the United States worked closely with other CSD members to develop a 

multi-year program of work that addresses a series of “thematic clusters” and 

cross-cutting issues in two-year “implementation cycles.” The first cycle 

(2003–2005) 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 

“policy year” to discuss policy options and possible actions to address the 

constraints and obstacles in the process of implementation identified during 

the review year. 

The CSD produced some key results during its 2003–2005 water 

cycle. For example, over 70 new sustainable development partnerships were 

registered with the CSD Secretariat during the CSD water cycle. Examples 

included the UN Development Program’s Shared River Basin Initiative, which 

supported dialogue among developing country decision-makers on shared 

rivers; the Partnership to Health through Water launched by the World Health 

Organization, the UN Children’s Fund, and others, to reduce water-related 

diseases worldwide; and work through the Global Water Partnership to support 

the development of integrated water resource management strategies in 18 

countries in 2005. In addition, Italy and Morocco hosted the first and second 

International Forums on Partnerships for Sustainable Development in 2004 

and 2005, respectively. 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2005 

58 

The CSD water cycle produced a non-negotiated Matrix of Policy 

Options and Practical Measures in 2005, a useful toolkit for all implementation 

actors. In addition, these policy options were supported by a series of concrete 

case studies. The matrix, case studies, and information on partnerships were 

all available on the CSD website and remained a useful tool for continuing 

efforts on water. 

Through the CSD Learning Center, 34 courses for over 1,000 CSD 

participants in 2004 and 2005 covered topics such as innovative financing and 

national planning, a training model since exported to the Commission on the 

Status of Women and the Convention on Biological Diversity. Course topics 

included Strengthening Governance to Protect Water Resources and 

Financing—Mobilizing Private Resources for Water and Sanitation. 

Under Secretary of State for Democracy and Global Affairs Paula 

Dobriansky led the U.S. delegation to CSD 12 (2004) and CSD 13 (2005). 

The delegation included representatives from a wide range of U.S. 

Government agencies, including the State Department, USAID, Environmental 

Protection Agency, and the Departments of Energy, Housing and Urban 

Development, and Agriculture. 

In May 2005, the CSD started its 2005–2007 Energy Cycle, focusing 

on the thematic cluster of energy for sustainable development, industrial 

development, air pollution/atmosphere, and climate change. 

UN Children’s Fund (UNICEF) 

The UN General Assembly created the UN Children’s Fund 

(UNICEF) in 1946 to meet the emergency needs of children after World War 

II. UNICEF has broadened its efforts to help children by providing both 

humanitarian assistance and long-term development aid targeted at children 

and families. UNICEF is active in 157 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 2005, 89 percent of UNICEF’s budget went to program assistance. 

In humanitarian crises, UNICEF normally takes the lead in water and 

sanitation, data communications, supplemental nutrition, education, and 

protection issues. 

As a respected authority on children and their well-being, UNICEF 

typically works through broad partnerships with developing countries, bilateral 

donors, and nongovernmental organizations. UNICEF programs target 

vulnerable and marginalized children and their families, and are intended to 

improve the capacity of national governments to respond to their needs. 

Although the United States in 2005 worked to ensure that UNICEF maintained 

strong operational capabilities to supply humanitarian assistance, a significant 

proportion of its work was tied to capacity building, piloting and disseminating 

best practices, and conducting research on the problems affecting children. 

On May 1, 2005, the UN Secretary-General appointed former U.S. 

Secretary of Agriculture Ann Veneman as UNICEF Executive Director. The 

United States supported this appointment. The United States has been a 
Economic and Social Affairs 

59 

member of UNICEF’s Executive Board, now comprised of 36 members 

serving three-year terms, since the Fund’s inception. The current U.S. term 

that began in 2003 runs until 2006. 

UNICEF has capabilities to provide rapid and cost-effective delivery 

of medicines and materials in support of national and international efforts. 

UNICEF works to ensure not only the distribution, but also the development 

and availability of life-saving vaccines and drugs for children. For example, in 

close partnership with Rotary International, the World Health Organization, 

and the Centers for Disease Control, UNICEF achieved more than 99 percent 

reduction in the incidence of polio from an estimated 350,000 cases per year in 

1988 to 1,906 cases in 2005; UNICEF and WHO have declared the Americas, 

Europe, and Western Pacific polio-free. 

The primary mechanism for inter-agency coordination of 

humanitarian assistance is the Inter-Agency Standing Committee (IASC). 

Established in June 1992, the IASC involves key UN and non-UN 

humanitarian partners. In 2005, IASC established a “cluster lead” approach to 

improve the UN’s response to humanitarian disasters. Under this approach, 

UNICEF was responsible for the water and sanitation, nutrition and feeding, 

and protection sectors. UNICEF was also an active participant of the UN 

Consolidated Appeal process, a mechanism through which humanitarian 

organizations planned, implemented, and monitored their activities as well as 

appealed for donor support of humanitarian assistance programs. UNICEF 

was strengthening its emergency response capacity including by reinforcing its 

Core Commitments for Children in Emergencies. The United States supported 

UNICEF’s role in emergencies, particularly following the 2004 tsunami and 

the October 2005 South Asian earthquake emergencies. 

In line with United States concerns, in 2005, UNICEF increased 

malaria prevention efforts and procured 17 million insecticide-treated bednets 

(up more than 100 percent from 2004). Educational supplies worth $86 

million supported UNICEF programs that reached 4.6 million students in Iraq 

alone. Re-establishing a learning environment using “school-in-a-box” kits is 

a central element of UNICEF’s humanitarian response since gathering children 

in a fixed location facilitates complementary efforts in basic health and child 

protection, and contributes to a restoration of normalcy. 

In 2005, the United States actively shaped the development of a new 

strategic plan for 2006–2009 by raising the issues of investments in basic 

health programs, the central role of the family in child well-being, and 

utilization of a results-based approach to programming. The draft plan showed 

marked improvement in these areas, and focused UNICEF on the areas of 

child survival, education, HIV/AIDS, child protection, and policy support. 

The United States continued to push UNICEF to play a leadership 

role in efforts to harmonize and simplify UN development activities, 

particularly at the country level. In dealing with joint programming between 

UNICEF and other UN agencies, the United States succeeded in amending 

efforts by other members to encourage UN agencies to pool funds and 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2005 

60 

collaborate as an end in itself. Instead, UNICEF will take a more strategic 

approach toward working with its partners. Collaboration will be based on 

evidence of efficiency-gains in programming, will take account of the need to 

maintain distinct lines of financial accountability to donors, and will recognize 

the separate identities and roles of UN agencies. 

In 2005, UNICEF’s income totaled roughly $2.8 billion, provided 

entirely through voluntary contributions. Of this amount, governments 

contributed $1.5 billion. An additional $1.2 billion came from private sources. 

The United States, the largest single donor, contributed $124 million to nonearmarked resources in 2005 and an additional $110 million in earmarked 

contributions. UNICEF employed 3,684 professional staff, 260 of whom were 

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 2001. UN-HABITAT’s 

work focuses on the development of sustainable human settlements with 

access to basic services, such as water and sanitation. UN-HABITAT is also 

the UN focal point for efforts to achieve the Millennium Declaration goal of 

significantly improving the lives of at least 100 million slum dwellers by 2020. 

In 2005, the program had projects in over 50 countries. 

UN-HABITAT is headquartered in Nairobi, Kenya, and is led by 

Executive Director 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 April 

2005. States are elected to the Governing Council through regional groups for 

four-year terms. The United States was re-elected in 2002 for another term by 

the Western Europe and Other Group. 

UN-HABITAT’s activities in 2005 were 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 research and data-collection, and capacitybuilding work, supplemented by operational activities including pilot projects. 

Overall, UN-HABITAT performed its roll as a catalyst well, but it needed to 

focus more on consolidating many small programs, trust funds, and other 

mechanisms into a coherent whole. 

At the April 2005 Governing Council meeting, the United States 

participated actively in negotiations which did the following: 

• rejected calling for a voluntary indicative scale of contributions to guide 

member states’ contributions; 
Economic and Social Affairs 

61 

• defeated a move to reopen the goals of the Millennium Declaration agreed 

by heads of state in 2000; 

• instituted curbs on the Executive Director’s authority to reallocate budget 

funds; 

• called for development of a strategic and institutional plan; and 

• requested a review of the organization’s administrative arrangements, in 

order “to enable it to function more effectively and efficiently.” 

In order to assist developing countries in managing urbanization, UNHABITAT gathers data on cities and promotes best practices in fields related 

to human settlements and the role of local authorities. Its technical arm works 

with local authorities and national governments to develop and decentralize 

services. For example, in 2005, UN-HABITAT, the United States and the 

Government of Uganda collaborated on a peer exchange on housing financing. 

This event was technical in nature with participants from Uganda, Kenya, and 

Tanzania. This highly successful peer exchange covered analysis of the 

current housing financing situation in East Africa, emerging trends, viable 

tools, policy options, and future steps. UN-HABITAT and the U.S. 

Department of Housing and Urban Development planned to replicate this peer 

exchange in West Africa in 2006. 

UN-HABITAT also conducted global campaigns to promote 

improved urban governance, and to promote secure tenure of housing and 

land. These aimed to facilitate access to credit, and include advocating the 

rights of women to equal treatment, including property inheritance. These 

campaigns were conducted through advocacy, research publications, and 

technical cooperation on legislative and policy reform. 

In 2005, funding for UN-HABITAT’s work came from voluntary 

contributions to UN-HABITAT’s programs ($36.5 million), which was 

supplemented by UN regular budget funds ($8.8 million). Additionally, UNHABITAT executed technical cooperation construction projects worth $64.4 

million on behalf of other UN agencies and donor countries. In 2005, the 

United States contributed $150,000 to UN-HABITAT’s core program. UNHABITAT employed 191 staff in 2005, six of whom were American. 

Environment 

UN Environment Program (UNEP) 

The UN Environment Program (UNEP), founded in 1972, is 

headquartered in Nairobi, Kenya, and has six regional offices (Europe, Africa, 

North America, Asia and the Pacific, Latin America and the Caribbean, and 

West Asia). Its Governing Council consists of 58 member states, one of which 

is the United States. The UN General Assembly elects members from the 

different regional groupings for four-year terms. Klaus Töpfer (Germany) was 

UNEP’s Executive Director in 2005. 

UNEP addresses environmental problems that transcend borders and 

potentially affect the health and prosperity of the world’s citizens, including 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2005 

62 

U.S. citizens. UNEP also contributes to regional stability through work in 

areas affected by conflict. Active involvement in UNEP helps the United 

States promote sustainable development and protect the environment by 

combating global environmental degradation. Through UNEP, the United 

States also promotes the interests of U.S. industry, which is directly affected 

by evolving international environmental standards. Chemicals are an area of 

particular international interest. In 2005, the United States provided funding 

to support operation of the Secretariats of the Stockholm Convention on 

Persistent Organic Pollutants, the Montreal Protocol on Substances that 

Deplete the Ozone Layer, and the Rotterdam Convention on Prior Informed 

Consent. In addition, the United States has been the main financial supporter 

of the UNEP Mercury Program, which is aimed at helping countries reduce 

global mercury. 

The United States strongly supports work done in UNEP core 

programs, such as early warning and assessment of environmental threats, 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, especially in regional fora where national responsibilities do not take 

precedence. 

In 2004, the United States was instrumental in the negotiations 

culminating in the Bali Strategic Plan for Technology Support and Capacity 

Building, which includes U.S. priorities such as mainstreaming capacity 

building within the regular programs of UNEP. As a part of an effort to focus 

UNEP’s programs on implementation, the United States encouraged UNEP to 

strengthen its linkages with scientific institutions and assisted developing 

nations improve their ability to monitor and assess environmental change. 

Paragraph 169 of the World Summit Outcome Document, developed and 

released in September 2005, set forth a plan for the United Nations to initiate a 

two-track review in 2006 to improve coordination and efficiency of its 

environmental activities. 

In addition, the United States cooperated closely with UNEP on the 

following issues in 2005: 

• Iraq: UNEP’s Post Conflict Assessment Unit has been working closely 

with U.S. Embassy Baghdad on a variety of activities, most notably on 

efforts to help the Iraqi Ministry of the Environment develop 

environmental legislation. The United States participated in several 

UNEP Division of Technology, Industry, and Economics technical 

meetings on the Mesopotamian marshlands. 

• Caribbean: UNEP’s Caribbean Regional Coordinating Unit (UNEPCAR/RCU) located in Kingston, Jamaica, coordinated the Cartagena 

Convention for the Protection and Development of the Marine 

Environment of the Wider Caribbean Region, working closely with the 

private sector, signatories to the convention and other governments, and 
Economic and Social Affairs 

63 

nongovernmental organizations. The UNEP-CAR/RCU program also 

facilitated the U.S.-initiated White Water to Blue Water partnership, 

which focused on the following four areas: sound marine transportation, 

sustainable tourism, integrated watershed management, and marine 

ecosystem-based management.

• Indian Ocean Tsunami: UNEP played an important role in the long term 

response to this disaster by providing expertise on coastal zone 

management and advising governments of the value of coral reef and 

mangrove ecosystems in mitigating loss to life and property threatened by 

natural disasters.

• Clean Energy: UNEP facilitated the U.S. Clean Energy Initiative by 

hosting the Solar and Wind Energy Resource Assessment database and by 

implementing initiatives submitted by the Partnership for Clean Fuels and 

Vehicles, a broad coalition of international organizations, industry groups, 

and governments, to foster the widespread use of clean fuels and 

environmentally sound vehicle technologies. Due to its work, 100 percent 

of the gasoline in Africa is now lead-free.

The United States made a voluntary contribution of $10.9 million to 

UNEP and UNEP-related activities in 2005. UNEP’s 2005 budget was 

approximately $66 million. Twenty-seven U.S. citizens worked at UNEP at 

the end of 2005, out of a total of 762 employees. 

Climate : UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) 

and Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 

UN Framework Convention on Climate Change 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 UNFCCC parties 

adopted the Kyoto Protocol in December 1997; the Protocol entered into force 

in February 2005. This Protocol requires developed nations to reduce their 

collective greenhouse gas emissions by an average of 5.2 percent below 1990 

levels during the period 2008–2012 (7 percent below 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 Protocol. This decision was consistent with the recommendation of 

Senate Resolution 98, approved in July 1997 by a vote of 95 to 0. 

The United States engaged in extensive international efforts on 

climate change, both through bilateral and multilateral activities. The 

UNFCCC’s 11th Conference of the Parties was held in Montreal, Canada, in 

November–December 2005. Framework Parties agreed to a series of up to 

four workshops to informally exchange views on the effectiveness of current 

actions as well as on future action. The UNFCCC continued work under the 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2005 

64 

Buenos Aires Program of Work on Adaptation and Response Measures, a 

program for advancing adaptation concerns under the UNFCCC. Continued 

U.S. participation in and support for the UNFCCC helped advance U.S. 

approaches to climate change issues. 

The United States contributed $3.9 million to the UNFCCC in 2005. 

Seven of the UNFCCC’s 156 staff were U.S. citizens. 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 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 2005, IPCC accepted and approved 

two special reports, one in April titled, “Safeguarding the Ozone Layer and the 

Global Climate System,” and the second in September on “Carbon Dioxide 

Capture and Storage.” In addition, drafts of the IPCC Fourth Assessment 

Report (AR4), involving contributions from several hundred experts, 

underwent expert review. The AR4 should be completed in 2007. 

Continued U.S. participation and support for the IPCC helped ensure 

that international actions to address climate change were informed by up-todate, peer-reviewed scientific and technological information. 

In 2005, the United States contributed $2.1 million to the IPCC. A 

U.S. citizen chaired 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 care programs in over 140 countries. UNFPA 

supports maternal, child, and reproductive health care and family planning 

programs worldwide and works on the issues of gender empowerment, child 

marriage, and 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 SecretaryGeneral extended her tenure for another term, which will end in December 

2008. The United States is a member of UNFPA’s Executive Board and 

participates actively in the decision-making processes to safeguard U.S. 

interests. 

In recent years, the United States has determined that UNFPA’s 

support of and involvement in China’s birth-planning activities has facilitated 

the practice of coercive abortions, and that, therefore, the Kemp-Kasten 

Amendment precluded U.S. funding for UNFPA. 
Economic and Social Affairs 

65 

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 (ICPD), held in Cairo in 1994. 

The CPD held its 38th session in New York April 4–8 and 14, 2005. 

The theme of the session was population, development, and HIV/AIDS, with 

particular emphasis on poverty. The United States emphasized the importance 

of assuring that international assistance efforts, including in basic health, 

family planning, and education, reach the most disadvantaged. The United 

States joined consensus on a resolution on the theme, but 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. The 

Commission also adopted a resolution on the contribution of the ICPD to the 

achievement of the internationally agreed development goals, including those 

contained in the UN Millennium Declaration. 

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 bodies 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 through 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 addresses and safeguards U.S. foreign 

policy and commercial interests in these regions. While the United States 

engages to protect its interests, the U.S. Government has openly questioned the 

added-value to the UN system affected by these commissions. 

Economic Commission for Europe (ECE) 

The Economic Commission for Europe (ECE), headquartered in 

Geneva, 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 2005, ECE membership consisted of 55 

European nations, as well as the United States, Canada, Switzerland, Israel, 

and the Central Asian and Caucasian states of the former Soviet Union. 

Executive Secretary Marek Belka (Poland) was appointed by the UN 

Secretary-General in December 2005, replacing Brigita Schmognerova, who 

left in September. 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2005 

66 

The ECE is traditionally a standards setting and coordination body in 

many technical fields, such as in e-commerce, energy, environment, vehicle 

construction, road 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 Environmental Protection 

Agency and Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Energy, Homeland 

Security, Housing and Urban Development, and Transportation, regularly 

participate in working groups and chair committees. The U.S. Chief 

Statistician is the chair of the Conference of European Statisticians, a group 

that coordinates statistical methodology across the region and serves as a 

forum for international harmonization in statistics. 

At its 60th plenary, on February 22–25, 2005, the ECE agreed to 

terms of reference for an external evaluation report. A small team of 

representatives to the ECE conducted a survey of member states and issued 

their report on June 30. The report recommended convening a plenary session 

biannually instead of annually, starting in 2007, and simplifying the 

governance structure by merging two governing bodies into one, the Executive 

Committee. It also recommended changes to all of the ECE sub-programs. 

During the remainder of 2005, ECE delegates negotiated practical details for 

the implementation of the recommendations. The resulting Work Plan on 

Reform reviewed the mandates of sub-programs and presented the decision to 

eliminate two sub-programs (Economic Analysis and Industrial Restructuring) 

and to create a new one, Economic Cooperation and Integration. Members 

negotiated the re-allocation of staff and how to realign the sub-programs with 

their corresponding intergovernmental sectoral committees. These decisions 

were to be presented at the 61st plenary scheduled for February 2006. 

In 2005, the ECE’s budget was $28 million; the United States 

contributed $6.2 million. Out of the total Secretariat staff of about 200 at ECE 

headquarters, Americans held 14 positions. 

Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC) 

The Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean 

(ECLAC) was established in 1948 and had 41 member states as of December 

2005. The United States is a full member with voting privileges. 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 sub-regional offices for Mexico and for the Caribbean (Trinidad and 

Tobago). It also has offices in Bogota, Brasilia, Buenos Aires, Montevideo, 

and Washington, D.C. Executive Secretary José Luis Machinea (Argentina) 

has headed the organization since December 2003. 

ECLAC’s mission is to improve cooperation among member states 

and international entities 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. In 2005, ECLAC produced a well-respected 

manual for post-disaster needs assessment that was useful in its coordinating 
Economic and Social Affairs 

67 

role in assistance to Guatemala after the deadly mudslides caused by Tropical 

Storm Stan in October. 

Since ECLAC’s plenary sessions are biennial, there was no plenary in 

2005. ECLAC held a Regional Conference on Women in Latin America and 

the Caribbean in Mar del Plata on September 7–8; the United States did not 

attend. The United States sent technical experts to two meetings of the 

ECLAC Statistical Conference in 2005. 

ECLAC’s budget in 2005 was $40 million, of which $7 million came 

from the U.S. assessment. Out of 208 professional staff at ECLAC, five were 

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, and is headquartered in Bangkok, Thailand. 

Fifty-three nations are members of ESCAP and nine non-self-governing 

territories hold associate member status, three of which are U.S. territories in 

the Asia and Pacific region, American Samoa, Guam, and the Northern 

Mariana Islands. The United States is a full ESCAP member. 

ESCAP provides technical support to member governments on a wide 

array of socio-economic development issues. ESCAP’s activities include 

providing direct advisory services; training and sharing of regional 

experiences; and disseminating 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) focused ESCAP on poverty alleviation, which 

was 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. 

ESCAP met for its annual session in Bangkok May 12–18, 2005. The 

aftermath of the tsunami in late 2004 was a key part of the agenda. ESCAP 

and the UN Development Program co-chaired the taskforce set up to 

coordinate rehabilitation and reconstruction, and ESCAP was instrumental in 

setting up a trust fund to aid tsunami victims. 

In addition to its $33 million budget for 2005, ESCAP also received 

$13 million in voluntary extra-budgetary contributions, primarily for its 

workshops and other technical assistance programs. The U.S. contribution for 

ESCAP’s 2005 budget was approximately $7.3 million. The United States 

also made a voluntary contribution of $150,000 to an ESCAP narcotics 

demand-reduction initiative. Of the 155 professional positions in the ESCAP 

Secretariat, 14 were held by U.S. citizens. 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2005 

68 

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 

ECOSOC on social policies and issues. The 46-member Commission is the 

key UN body responsible for review of the implementation of the outcome of 

the 1995 World Summit for Social Development in Copenhagen. 

The priority theme for the 43rd session of the Commission, held in 

New York February 20, 2004, and February 9–18, 2005, was the “Review of 

further implementation of the World Summit for Social Development and the 

outcome of the twenty-fourth special session of the General Assembly.” The 

Commission held a two-day high-level segment February 10–11 devoted to the 

10-year review of the World Summit for Social Development and it adopted 

the Declaration on the Tenth Anniversary of the World Summit for Social 

Development. 

The U.S. delegation was active in discussions on the topics of poverty 

alleviation, social integration, and full employment. The United States joined 

consensus to recommend that ECOSOC adopt a resolution on 

“Implementation of the social objectives of the New Partnership for Africa’s 

Development (NEPAD),” which stated that the Commission should continue 

to give prominence to the social dimensions of NEPAD in discussing future 

priority themes. 

Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities 

Since the beginning of the negotiations in 2003 on the draft 

Comprehensive and Integral International Convention on the Protection and 

Promotion of the Rights and Dignity of Persons with Disabilities (Disabilities 

Convention), the United States has maintained that disability issues are within 

the purview of domestic policy and law; therefore, the United States had no 

intention of becoming a party to the treaty. Ralph Boyd, Assistant Attorney 

General, stated during negotiations: “Given the complex set of regulations 

needed to canvass this broad area, and the enforcement mechanisms necessary 

to ensure equal opportunity for those with disabilities, the most constructive 

way to proceed is for each member state, through action and leadership at 

home, to pursue within its borders the mission of ensuring that real change and 

real improvement is brought to their citizens with disabilities.” 

In 2003, the U.S. delegation intervened during negotiations only to 

give technical advice on U.S. disability law and practice. In 2004, the 

delegation expanded its engagement to intervene on issues or articles in the 

draft text involving international law or practice. In the January–February and 

August 2005 negotiations, the U.S. delegation engaged other delegates on the 

following issues: 

• Treaty issues such as establishment and functions of a treaty monitoring 

body, language on international cooperation among states, clauses on 
Economic and Social Affairs 

69 

treaty reservations, and proper language for affirming human rights treaty 

commitments; 

• Support for the over-arching international principle of non-discrimination, 

including support for treaty provisions that embody an approach of nondiscrimination and equality of treatment, rather than an approach of 

entitlements or the creation of new rights; and 

• Providing technical assistance under U.S. law, including the provision of 

several written handouts on the American Disabilities Act and other U.S. 

disability laws and the sponsoring of an experts panel on domestic 

disability law. 

During the fall of 2005, the U.S. delegation expanded the scope of its 

interventions by engaging on a broader set of issues. This engagement 

included supporting language on non-discrimination and equality of access to 

courts and to political and public life; supporting language on inclusion of 

parents in decision-making in all areas of their children’s lives, including 

health-related decisions; advocating the necessity of informed consent for 

genetic testing, medical research and/or scientific experimentation; and 

supporting U.S. views on end-of-life issues. 

The active U.S. role in the disabilities negotiations was aimed at 

advancing U.S. policy interests, including advancing democracy; promoting 

democratic values such as non-discrimination and equal treatment; 

condemning torture; and promoting health and U.S. values on social issues. 

Member states and the disabilities community welcomed the increased 

involvement of the United States. 

During the fall 2005 General Assembly, member states adopted a 

resolution by consensus authorizing five weeks of negotiations on the draft 

Disabilities Convention, to be held in January–February and August 2006. 

UN Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal 

Justice/UN Office on Drugs and Crime 

The UN Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice (the 

Crime Commission) is the principal UN policy-making body on criminal 

justice issues. The 40-member Commission convenes annually at the UN 

Office at Vienna. Many decisions from these annual sessions are forwarded to 

the UN Economic and Social Council (or occasionally to the UN General 

Assembly) for endorsement. The United States is an active member of the 

Crime Commission and is highly engaged in the plenary. 

The 11th UN Congress on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice 

(Crime Congress) convened April 18–25, 2005 in Bangkok. Held once every 

five years, the Crime Congress provides recommendations which serve as the 

basis for resolutions and other initiatives introduced at the UN Crime 

Commission. At the Crime Congress, the U.S. delegation achieved all of its 

major objectives. In particular, the United States successfully blocked 

attempts to insert language supporting the International Criminal Court as well 

as language exempting “national liberation” movements from the definition of 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2005 

70 

terrorism. The United States emphasized the need to implement fully the 

existing international anti-crime and terrorism agreements and worked to focus 

the Crime Congress’ efforts towards this end. 

The 14th session of the UN Crime Commission convened from May 

23–27, 2005, in Vienna. The Commission adopted 10 resolutions, including a 

U.S.-sponsored resolution that encouraged member states to enter into bilateral 

agreements on asset sharing. The United States cosponsored three other 

resolutions supporting the work of the UN Office on Drugs and Crime 

(UNODC) against terrorism, combating organized crime, and preventing 

corruption. These resolutions directed the work of the UNODC towards areas 

where it has relevant expertise and that best complement U.S. bilateral 

assistance efforts. 

During the Crime Commission session, the United States encouraged 

the UNODC to stay within its core areas of expertise. The United States 

voiced its strong support for the implementation and ratification of the UN 

Convention against Transnational Organized Crime (TOC) and the UN 

Convention against Corruption (CAC) as well as of the counter-terrorism 

instruments, and urged other states to join in contributing resources for this 

work. The United States also welcomed the introduction of results-based 

management and strategic planning to further improve the efficiency of 

UNODC. 

Throughout the remainder of 2005, the United States worked closely 

with the Executive Director of UNODC, Mr. Antonio Maria Costa (Italy), to 

ensure that the resolutions passed at the Crime Commission were followed, 

and that the UNODC stayed within its mandate. Mr. Costa has been 

UNODC’s Executive Director since his appointment in May 2002, which the 

United States supported. 

During 2005, U.S. support of UNODC crime projects strengthened 

the legal frameworks of countries working to implement the TOC and CAC, 

and provided technical assistance to countries seeking to implement the 

counter-terrorism instruments. 

Conference of Parties to the UN Conventions against 

Transnational Organized Crime and Corruption 

The UN Convention against Transnational Organized Crime (TOC) 

entered into force on September 29, 2003. Pursuant to article 32 of the 

Convention, a Conference of the Parties (COP) to the convention was 

established to improve the capacity of participating states to combat 

transnational organized crime and to promote and review the implementation 

of this convention. Rules of procedure established that the COP would meet 

on an annual basis for the first three years after the TOC’s entry into force and 

then biennially thereafter. The United States participated in the second COP 

in October 2005. On December 3, 2005, the United States became a full party 

to the TOC and its protocols on trafficking in persons and migrant smuggling. 

In 2005, the United States helped create an interim working group on technical 

assistance, which will facilitate increased dialogue between donors and 
Economic and Social Affairs 

71 

recipient countries. The United States lent strong support to the COP decision 

that the 2006 session should focus on bringing experts together in a workshop 

setting to discuss matters relating to the implementation of the TOC and its 

protocols. Such a setting, which is less formal by design, should be more 

conducive to addressing the issues at hand. 

The UN Convention against Corruption (CAC), adopted in 2003, was 

the first anti-corruption treaty negotiated on a truly global scale, as well as the 

most comprehensive anti-corruption instrument in existence. The CAC 

entered into force on December 14, 2005, and its first Conference of the State 

Parties (COSP) was scheduled to convene within one year after that date. The 

COSP will likely have a similar role to the COP in monitoring CAC 

implementation and facilitating technical assistance. Although the United 

States had not ratified the Convention by the end of 2005, it played an integral 

role in negotiating the CAC and signed the Convention on December 9, 2003. 

Commission on Narcotic Drugs/UN Office on Drugs and 

Crime 

The UN Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) and the International 

Narcotics Control Board, both 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 1971 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. This framework includes initiatives 

prohibiting the 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 many illicit drugs. 

Support given to UNODC by the United States during 2005 

significantly impacted the operations and expansion of UN counter-narcotics 

programs and policy. UNODC used funds provided by the United States in its 

global programs to prevent money laundering and terrorist financing, enhance 

precursor chemical control, provide legal advice on treaty implementation of 

the UN drug conventions, support an international network of treatment and 

rehabilitation centers, and sustain UNODC’s independent evaluation unit. 

Contributions from the United States also supported numerous regional 

projects, including strengthening precursor control in South, Central, and East 

Asia; increasing border control in Central Asia; monitoring illicit crops in 

Asia; and upgrading a law enforcement training academy in West Africa. In 

addition, the United States supported country-specific programs in India to 

enhance law enforcement response to trafficking in persons, in South Africa to 

increase awareness of HIV/AIDS, and in Tajikistan and the Kyrgyz Republic 

to strengthen each country’s respective drug control agencies. 

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 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2005 

72 

matters. The CND held its 48th session in Vienna, March 7–11, 2005. During 

the regular CND session, delegates reviewed the worldwide activities and 

management of the UNODC and were briefed on various aspects of the global 

narcotics situation by UNODC and member states. The thematic debate on 

“HIV/AIDS within in the Context of Drug Abuse” proved controversial, with 

many countries voicing their support for policies such as needle exchange, as 

well as other harm reduction policies that enable drug use. The United States 

emphasized its support for drug prevention and treatment programs as opposed 

to policies that do not seek to discourage drug use. 

Delegates considered 25 resolutions, of which the United States 

ultimately co-sponsored seven, including resolutions on precursor chemical 

control, Afghanistan’s counter-narcotics plan, demand for and supply of 

opiates for medical and scientific needs, and women and substance abuse. The 

U.S. delegation supported efforts to merge related resolutions and urged 

several countries to withdraw resolutions that fell outside the scope of 

UNODC’s mandate. 

The UNODC is funded through the UN regular budget. The 2005 

regular budget for UNODC was approximately $14.8 million, of which the 

United States paid $3.2 million. In addition, the United States made a 

voluntary contribution of $23.8 million for various counter-narcotic and crime 

prevention programs. In 2005, UNODC employed a total of 462 persons, of 

which 24 are U.S. citizens, or five percent. 

International Narcotics Control Board (INCB) 

The 13-member International Narcotics Control Board (INCB) is an 

independent quasi-judicial control body that has a mandate to promote and 

assist government compliance with the provisions of the international drug 

control treaties. 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 

Assistant Secretary of State for International Narcotics and Law Enforcement, 

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. 

The INCB presented its annual report to the Commission on Narcotic 

Drugs in March 2005. The report highlighted the link between supply and 

demand, stressing that strategies addressing only one of the two components 

produce limited results. The United States praised the INCB report, 

mentioning in particular the problem posed by the extraction of 

psuedoephedrine from pharmaceutical preparations for use in 

methamphetamine production. The United States urged that countries 

exporting these pharmaceutical preparations use “rule of reason” in approving 

exports in order to ensure that the quantities approved are appropriate to the 

legitimate needs of the importing country. 
Economic and Social Affairs 

73 

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 

States uses the annual CSW meetings to highlight U.S. Government activities 

to improve conditions for women throughout the world. 

The CSW convened its 49th session in New York February 28–

March 11, 2005, with a brief resumed session to wrap up business on March 

22. This meeting coincided with the 10th anniversary of the Beijing Women’s 

Conference (Beijing+10). To commemorate the occasion, member states 

adopted a Declaration reiterating their commitment to advancing gender 

equality and the empowerment of women, on which the United States joined 

consensus with an Explanation of Position. 

Members adopted the following resolutions by consensus: “Situation 

of Women and Girls in Afghanistan,” “Women, the Girl Child, and 

HIV/AIDS,” “Eliminating Demand for Trafficked Women and Girls for All 

Forms of Exploitation” (introduced by the United States), “Advisability of the 

Appointment of a Special Rapporteur on Laws that Discriminate Against 

Women,” “Mainstreaming a Gender Perspective into all National Policies and 

Programmes,” “Integrating a Gender Perspective in Post-Disaster Relief, 

Recovery, Rehabilitation and Reconstruction Efforts, including in the 

Aftermath of the Indian Ocean Tsunami Disaster,” “Strengthening of the 

International Research and Training Institute for the Advancement of 

Women,” “Indigenous Women: Beyond the Ten-Year Review of the Beijing 

Declaration and Platform for Action,” and “Economic Advancement of 

Women” (introduced by the United States). The U.S. delegation, led by 

Ambassador Ellen Sauerbrey, introduced two resolutions at CSW 2005. 

“Eliminating Demand for Trafficked Women and Girls for All Forms of 

Exploitation” was the first UN resolution to deal with the demand side of 

human trafficking. It acknowledged the link between commercial sexual 

exploitation and trafficking in women and girls. Over 50 nations joined as 

cosponsors and the Commission adopted the resolution by consensus. 

“Economic Advancement of Women” urged member states to undertake 

legislative, administrative, and financial measures to create an enabling 

environment for women entrepreneurs and workers. 

The United States called for a vote on a resolution on “Situation of 

and assistance to Palestinian women” and voted against the resolution. The 

United States opposed the CSW practice of annually approving this one-sided 

resolution that singled out Israel for criticism while ignoring the role 

Palestinians and Arab states play in prolonging the crisis. The resolution 

addressed a number of issues, including territory and refugees, which must be 

resolved by negotiations between the two sides. 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2005 

74 

The United States sponsored the participation of Afghan and Iraqi 

women’s delegations in the 2005 session. Iraq’s Minister Narmin Othman and 

Afghanistan’s Minister Massouda Jalal participated in the women’s political 

participation panel. The United States sponsored these officials and their 

delegations to travel first to New York to attend the CSW and meet with 

academics, and then to Washington to meet with Administration and 

Congressional officials and representatives from nongovernmental 

organizations. 

The United States held two side events during the annual meeting. A 

panel on “Women and Political Participation” highlighted concrete ways in 

which the United States followed up on the fall 2003 General Assembly 

resolution on that subject. A second panel was held on “Women and 

Information and Communications Technologies.” The United States also 

produced a publication on U.S. accomplishments for the Beijing+10 session, 

“Working for Women Worldwide,” which highlighted U.S. programs for 

women around the world and success stories. 

Commission on Human Rights 

In 2005, the UN Commission on Human Rights (CHR) was the 

principal UN organ for achieving the UN Charter objective of promoting 

respect for human rights. It was composed of 53 members, each elected for a 

three-year term. The CHR held its 61st session in Geneva, Switzerland, from 

March 14 to April 22. Former Senator Rudy Boschwitz headed the U.S. 

delegation to the CHR. The Commission adopted 85 resolutions and 18 

decisions. The Economic and Social Council adopted the CHR report and 

more than 40 resolutions and decisions dealing with human rights issues. The 

UN General Assembly adopted more than 70 resolutions on women’s and 

human rights and social issues that were considered by the General 

Assembly’s Third (Social, Humanitarian, and Cultural Affairs) Committee. In 

addition, in a variety of other UN fora in 2005, the United States continued to 

call attention to specific situations of human rights abuses in various countries. 

During the latter part of 2005, the United States supported the 

Secretary-General’s initiative to replace the Commission on Human Rights 

with an action-oriented Human Rights Council. The United States asserted 

that the Council’s mandate should be to address human rights emergencies and 

the most egregious human rights abuses, and that mechanisms must be 

established to ensure a credible membership. 

At the 61st session of the CHR, the United States placed a high 

priority on obtaining adoption of a resolution on the human rights situation in 

Cuba. Ambassador Boschwitz made a statement urging members to support 

this resolution, introduced to highlight Cuba’s failure to take steps 

guaranteeing even basic human rights for its citizens. He noted that Cuba had 

neither cooperated with Special Procedures, nor allowed a visit by the personal 

representative of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. The resolution 

was adopted by a vote of 21 (U.S.) to 17, with 15 abstentions. The margin of 

yes votes over no votes was the largest since 1997. The United States also 
Economic and Social Affairs 

75 

introduced a resolution condemning serious human rights abuses in Belarus. 

The resolution was adopted by a vote of 23 (U.S.) to 16, with 14 abstentions. 

Similarly, the U.S. delegation cosponsored a European Union 

resolution, adopted by a vote of 30 (U.S) to nine, with 14 abstentions, that 

expressed concern about the situation of human rights in the Democratic 

People’s Republic of Korea. The United States supported another resolution 

that was adopted by consensus condemning the violations of human rights 

occurring in the Sudan, calling upon the Government of Sudan to end 

impunity for human rights violators, and welcoming the involvement of the 

African Union in facilitating a peaceful conclusion to the conflict. In a 

statement delivered by Ambassador Boschwitz, the United States noted the 

need for improved security in Darfur, particularly for women and girls, and the 

strengthening of civil society institutions in Sudan as priorities for addressing 

the human rights situation in the country. 

Cuba introduced a resolution, sponsored by Belarus, Syria, the 

Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Libya, and Venezuela, requesting the 

United States to provide access to its naval base in Guantanamo Bay to human 

rights Special Procedures. Specifically, the resolution called upon the United 

States to authorize an impartial and independent fact-finding mission to its 

naval base and provide special rapporteurs (on torture, physical and mental 

health, and independence of judges) access to the detention centers on the 

base. The resolution was ultimately rejected by a vote of 8 to 22 (U.S.), with 

23 abstentions. 

The United States continued to oppose, publicly and in diplomatic 

efforts, multiple unbalanced resolutions about Israel. Nonetheless, such 

resolutions passed by large majorities. Ambassador Boschwitz, in an 

explanation of the U.S. vote against these Israel-specific resolutions, criticized 

the unfairness of resolutions not accounting for Palestinian responsibilities and 

the criticism of Israel under multiple agenda items. 

In an important vote, the United States voted against a resolution 

addressing the defamation of religion. In an explanation of vote, the United 

States noted that the resolution failed to address the situation of all religions 

and thus failed to promote religious freedom overall. Specifically, the U.S. 

statement underscored the need to include mention of the need to change 

educational systems that promote hatred of other religions, as well as the 

problem of state-sponsored media that negatively targets any one religion or 

person of a certain faith. In general, the resolution concentrated excessively 

on Islam and Muslims, while it failed to mention any other religions or their 

practitioners by name. 

Another key issue discussed during the CHR session involved the 

question of UN reform. During this session, the United States welcomed the 

Secretary-General’s report entitled, “In Larger Freedom: Towards 

Development, Security and Human Rights for All.” The United States 

specifically endorsed the Secretary-General’s emphasis on replacing the 

Commission on Human Rights with a smaller, more effective and action-
United States Participation in the United Nations—2005 

76 

oriented Human Rights Council. While the United States contended this was 

properly the work of the General Assembly rather than the discredited and 

dysfunctional CHR, the Commission decided to convene a working group to 

“reflect coherently on the recommendations on human rights contained in the 

report of the Secretary-General with a view to contributing to the 

intergovernmental deliberations on the proposed reform of the United Nations 

in the General Assembly.” The CHR met for one day in June to confer on the 

subject, but produced no recommendations. 

Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights 

The High Commissioner for Human Rights is the principal UN 

official responsible for advancing UN human rights activities and is 

responsible to the Secretary-General. Louise Arbour (Canada), the High 

Commissioner for Human Rights, was appointed by the UN Secretary-General 

in 2004. Under the High Commissioner’s leadership, the Office of the High 

Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) works to ensure the practical 

implementation of universally recognized human rights norms, including 

carrying out the tasks assigned by UN human rights bodies. The United 

States, through its mission to the United Nations in Geneva, has worked with 

the new High Commissioner to build a strong cooperative relationship. 

OHCHR is responsible for staffing and supporting 42 field 

operations, including technical cooperation programs, and other field 

presences. It also must provide technical and professional support for 44 

special procedures mandates, the six Geneva-based treaty bodies, the SubCommission for the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights, and the 

Commission on Human Rights. The number of states party to treaties tripled 

in the past decade and the number of individual human rights complaints more 

than tripled in the past five years. 

OHCHR’s field operations in 2005 included activities such as the 

establishment of an office in Nepal to monitor the situation of human rights 

and observance of international humanitarian law. OHCHR also deployed a 

Human Rights Adviser to Togo to assist with human rights and protection 

issues related to the country’s elections. In Uganda, OHCHR set up a country 

office to undertake human rights monitoring, training, capacity-building of 

local actors, and protection. In the Democratic Republic of Congo, the 

OHCHR field office determined and administered grant funding and assessed 

national strengths and weakness in the promotion and protection of human 

rights. The United States worked to facilitate the faster deployment and 

greater efficacy of OHCHR human rights monitors in Darfur in 2005. 

A key priority for the United States in 2005 was to improve on the 

credibility and utility of the UN human rights mechanisms; to do so, the 

United States advocated for the establishment of a smaller and more actionoriented Human Rights Council under the OHCHR to replace the Commission 

on Human Rights. The United States similarly argued that the OHCHR 

continued to be under-funded and pledged to fully support the High 

Commissioner’s plan for doubling its regular budget funding over five years 
Economic and Social Affairs 

77 

providing that the focus of the expansion was technical assistance in field 

operations. In the overall shift of emphasis from standard-setting to 

implementation of human rights, the United States views the OHCHR as the 

primary vehicle for achieving the gains from this re-direction to more 

technical assistance. 

One of the most important mechanisms of the OHCHR is the use of 

“Special Procedures,” mechanisms to address either specific country situations 

or thematic issues. Examples of thematic procedures are special rapporteurs 

on freedom of opinion and expression and freedom of religion or belief. There 

are also country mandates, including, for example, rapporteurs, 

representatives, or independent experts dealing with Belarus, the Democratic 

People’s Republic of Korea, Sudan, and Uzbekistan, among others. The 

special rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Belarus, Adrian Severin 

(Romania), expressed his deep concern for the Belarusian political prisoners 

and appealed to the government to take all necessary steps to secure their right 

to freedom of opinion and expression in accordance with fundamental 

principles as set forth in Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human 

Rights. The special rapporteur on Myanmar, Sergio Pinheiro (Brazil), 

expressed his deep regret over the prolonged house arrest of Nobel Peace Prize 

Laureate Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, who has been held hostage without charge 

or trial for over 10 years by the Government of Burma. The special rapporteur 

on the right to education, Vernor Munoz (Costa Rica), made a mission to 

Botswana September 26–October 4 to consider how Botswana was addressing 

the constraints to providing an education to all members of society. 

From October 23 to November 8, the United States hosted the UN 

Independent Expert on the Question of Human Rights and Extreme Poverty, 

Mr. Arjun Sengupta (India). The purpose of the visit was to consider and learn 

from the experience of the United States in addressing the different aspects of 

extreme poverty, including issues of income poverty, human development 

poverty, and social exclusion. The Independent Expert will report on his 

mission to the Human Rights Council. 

In addition, the United States cooperated with the OHCHR’s team of 

investigators studying the human rights situation of enemy combatants 

detained on the U.S. Naval Base in Guantanamo Bay. In October, the United 

States extended an invitation to three of the five independent experts 

conducting the investigation for a fact-finding mission. However, the 

investigators decided in November not to accept this invitation. 

UN Democracy Fund 

The UN Secretary-General officially launched the UN Democracy 

Fund (UNDEF) on July 4, 2005. The UN Democracy Fund is a U.S. priority 

that furthers U.S. interest by supporting the pluralism and openness that 

bolsters a vital democracy. 

In conjunction with the September 2005 World Summit, President 

Bush and Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh hosted a meeting of the 

heads of state of 30 democracies that were donors, potential donors, or 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2005 

78 

potential beneficiaries of the UN Democracy Fund. In an outpouring of 

support, the Democracy Fund received pledges or contributions totaling $44 

million from 19 member states in 2005. The United States and India each 

pledged to contribute $10 million to the Fund during its first year of activity. 

The United States worked closely with UNDEF’s nascent staff in 

order to ensure that the focus of the Fund was to support the pro-democracy 

activities of civil society; one way in which UNDEF provided support was by 

helping to fill gaps in UN work to promote elections and good governance. 

This focus was reflected in UNDEF program concept papers that were 

developed with U.S. input and finalized by UNDEF staff in December 2005. 

UNDEF’s structure allowed for broad participation. The Board 

consisted of 17 members: six top donor nations (including the United States), 

five additional democratic states to ensure regional diversity, two 

nongovernmental organizations, three individuals selected by the UN 

Secretary-General for their expertise, and the head of the UN Fund for 

International Partnerships. A Program Consultative Group was established to 

provide advice and recommendations on all aspects of grant making. It is 

made up of seven representatives from UN elements most closely associated 

with democracy work (including the UN Development Program and the Office 

of the High Commissioner for Human Rights). Additionally, the Donor Group 

was established as a regular mechanism to consult on programming with all 

donor nations. 

Throughout 2005, the United States urged other democracies to 

support the Fund both financially and politically. The United States promoted 

the Fund with Secretariat officials, and with other countries in both seniorlevel and working-level meetings in Washington, New York, and the capitals 

of participants in the Community of Democracies. 

Democracy Caucus 

The United States believed that democratic nations must work more 

closely together in order to help the United Nations live up to its founding 

principles. Democratic nations share a common commitment to protect human 

rights and fundamental freedoms. The UN Democracy Caucus, a network of 

democratic nations working together, helped facilitate the advancement of the 

work of the United Nations in such areas as human rights, good governance, 

and the rule of law. The UN Democracy Caucus was composed of the 

approximately 124 countries that participated in the Community of 

Democracies. The Democracy Caucus was not intended to supplant longstanding regional or other groupings, but rather to provide an added 

mechanism for like-minded democratic nations to cooperate with one another. 

It served as a supplementary network that countries used to cooperate on 

resolutions and alternatives. 

At the 2005 Commission on Human Rights (CHR) session, the 

United States increased the profile of the Democracy Caucus by holding a 

meeting of permanent representatives hosted by Under Secretary for 

Democracy and Global Affairs Paula Dobriansky for the express purpose of 
Economic and Social Affairs 

79 

discussing the caucus. During the CHR session, the United States co-tabled a 

resolution on democracy and the rule of law along with Romania, Peru, and 

Timor-Leste, which was cosponsored by a number of members of the 

Democracy Caucus. The United States also co-tabled, with the European 

Union, a resolution on the situation of human rights in Belarus. Chile, the 

chair of the Community of Democracies Convening Group, hosted meetings at 

the Ambassadorial level and issued positive statements on the Community’s 

behalf during the session. 

At the 2005 CHR, U.S. Head of Delegation Senator Rudy Boschwitz 

spoke at a meeting convened by Freedom House, the Democracy Coalition, 

and the Transnational Radical Party entitled “The UN Democracy Caucus: Its 

Role in Promoting and Protecting Human Rights.” For additional information 

regarding support of nongovernmental organizations, see 

www.democracycaucus.net.

During the 2005 session of the General Assembly’s Third Committee, 

Mali, the new Chair of the Convening Group of the Community of 

Democracies, convened a meeting of the Democracy Caucus. The United 

States sponsored a resolution, cosponsored by a number of members of the 

Democracy Caucus, on the role of the United Nations in supporting elections 

around the world. On November 15, 2005, the Community of Democracies, 

with the support of the United States, issued a statement encouraging the UN 

General Assembly to complete negotiations to determine the mandate, 

functions, size, composition, membership, working methods, and procedures 

of the new Human Rights Council. The statement welcomed the Outcome 

Document of the September 2005 UN World Summit and reaffirmed the 

commitment by the Community of Democracies to make the Human Rights 

Council a strong and credible body. 

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 2005 were Cameroon, Chile, China, Colombia, Côte d’Ivoire, 

Cuba, France, Germany, India, Iran, Pakistan, Peru, Romania, Russia, Senegal, 

Sudan, Turkey, the United States, and Zimbabwe. The terms of Committee 

members are four years; the U.S. term will end on December 31, 2006. 

At its regular session, which met January 5–14, 2005, the Committee 

had before it 144 applications for consultative status, including applications 

deferred from earlier sessions dating back to 1998. The Committee 

recommended 87 NGOs for consultative status with ECOSOC; 22 were U.S.-

based NGOs. The Committee deferred 47 NGOs for further consideration, 

closed consideration of two NGOs, and reviewed 84 quadrennial reports. 

U.S. delegates participated in discussions on both accreditation and 

deferral of applications to future sessions. In the case of the International 

Council of the Associations for Peace in the Continents (ASOPAZCO), Cuba 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2005 

80 

alleged the NGO had a “politicized profile” that was contrary to the UN 

Charter and to ECOSOC Resolution 1996/31, and requested that it submit a 

new application. ASOPAZCO is a Spanish NGO that was actively engaged in 

highlighting human rights abuses, particularly human rights abuses, that were 

committed by the Cuban government. Disagreeing with the Cuban description 

of the NGO, the United States engaged in efforts that resulted in 

ASOPAZCO’s not having to submit a new application, but rather submitting 

an updated application to be recognized as a consultative entity. The updated 

application will be reviewed at a future session. 

The Committee also considered applications for consultative status 

from NGOs and other groups accredited to the World Summit on Sustainable 

Development (2002). The NGO Committee, in accordance with ECOSOC 

Decision 2004/212, decided that NGOs that had participated in the Summit 

that wished to participate in future sessions of the Commission on Sustainable 

Development beyond the first two-year implementation cycle would be 

considered by the Committee following the rules and provisions stipulated in 

ECOSOC resolution 1996/31. The Committee recommended that seven 

NGOs be granted consultative status. 

The NGO Committee held its resumed session May 5–20, 2005, in 

New York. The Committee reviewed 148 applications for consultative status 

including applications deferred from earlier sessions dating back to 1999. 

The Committee recommended 105 NGOs for status; 26 of these were U.S.-

based NGOs. The Committee deferred 40 NGOs for further consideration, 

took note of 44 quadrennial reports, and upgraded the status of two NGOs. 

The Committee also considered three complaints filed by member 

states. One of the complaints involved an NGO of particular interest to the 

United States, A Woman’s Voice International (AWVI). U.S. delegates 

fought vigorously to postpone action on a Chinese complaint against AWVI, 

which has cosponsored several parallel events at the Commission on Human 

Rights (CHR) to highlight the plight of North Korean women refugees in 

China and the Chinese government’s maltreatment of house church leaders. 

The Chinese complaint against AWVI stated that its delegate, the Reverend 

Bob Fu, activated a taser gun while giving a speech at the 61st CHR. The 

delegate did so to highlight his assertion of the kind of intimidating devices 

used by Chinese authorities against jailed advocates of religious freedom. 

China requested that AWVI be suspended for one year due to an illegal act, 

suggesting the use of the taser violated Swiss law and violation of UN 

regulations and procedures. U.S. delegates were unsuccessful in their efforts 

to convince fellow Committee members to allow AWVI more time to obtain 

the documentary evidence it needed to respond to the complaint, and AWVI 

was suspended for one year. 
Economic and Social Affairs 

81 

Humanitarian Affairs 

World Food Program (WFP) 

The World Food Program (WFP) is the UN’s front-line agency in the 

fight against global hunger. In 2005, WFP distributed 4.2 million metric tons 

of food aid to 96.7 million people in 82 countries. 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. 

WFP’s Strategic Plan for 2004–2007 contains the following five 

strategic 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 2005, WFP helped the United States achieve its humanitarian and 

development goals, carrying out programs in Sudan, Niger, Guatemala, El 

Salvador, and several countries in South Asia, among other locations. Sudan 

was the largest single-country operation in 2005. In Darfur alone, WFP 

reached about 3.4 million people, despite enormous security constraints, with 

an operation totaling $398.7 million. In Niger, WFP reached over 400,000 

children, many acutely malnourished, and fed about 2.4 million people. WFP 

reached more than 1 million earthquake victims in South Asia, despite great 

logistical challenges, and simultaneously responded to the hurricanes in 

Guatemala and El Salvador. 

In 2005, WFP had school feeding operations in 72 countries. 

Working with national governments, local authorities, and other aid groups, 

WFP used food to attract children to school in areas where enrollment ratios 

were lowest and where school feeding would have the greatest impact. WFP 

served as the implementing partner for projects funded through the McGovernDole International Food for Education and Child Nutrition Program, which 

provides for donations of U.S. agricultural products, as well as financial and 

technical assistance for school feeding and maternal and child nutrition 

projects in low-income, food-deficit countries that are committed to universal 

education. For 2005, the McGovern-Dole Program made approximately $91 

million available to provide 118,000 tons of food to 3.4 million children in 15 

developing countries in Africa, Asia, Latin America, and Eastern Europe. 

WFP is the implementing partner for McGovern-Dole programs in 

Bangladesh, Chad, Kenya, and Pakistan, which will reach over 1.7 million 

beneficiaries. 

Throughout 2005, WFP continued to focus on ways to become more 

effective, efficient, and responsive. WFP continued to improve its internal 

business process review so that it can feed more people in crisis on time, 

strengthen its ability to assess vulnerability and emergency needs, and expand 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2005 

82 

its donor base by attracting new donors, including from the private sector. In 

2005, contributions from 27 corporate and private donors totaled $119.5 

million in cash and in-kind gifts. 

WFP increased its work with other UN organizations. In 2005, the 

UN Children’s Fund remained WFP’s major partner, collaborating on 140 

projects in 68 countries, primarily in health, nutrition, and school feeding. The 

Food and Agriculture Organization was WFP’s second most frequent partner, 

cooperating on 87 projects in 53 countries, primarily in agriculture and needs 

assessments. WFP also developed close working relations with the World 

Health Organization (on health, nutrition, and HIV/AIDS), and with the UN 

High Commissioner for Refugees (to ensure the distribution of complete food 

rations for 2.1 million refugees, 8.3 million internally displaced persons, and 

1.3 million returnees in 43 countries). 

WFP’s operational expenditures for 2005 were allocated among 

geographic regions as follows: Sub-Saharan Africa—75.1 percent; Asia—

17.7 percent; Latin America and the Caribbean—2.9 percent; North Africa and 

the Middle East—2.8 percent; Europe and the Commonwealth of Independent 

States region—1.4 percent. 

WFP endeavored to raise funds for all approved programs in the 

2004–2005 budget of $4.8 billion. The budget, which was based on 

anticipated needs rather than on past commitments or projected donor funding, 

as previous budgets had been, was $1.6 billion higher than the original budget 

estimate for 2002–2003. Because contributions to WFP are entirely voluntary, 

this increase did not affect the United States. 

WFP operates exclusively from voluntary contributions of 

commodities and cash donated by governments and other donors. In 2005, 79 

percent of its resources went to meet emergency and protracted relief 

humanitarian needs; nine percent went to development programs, and seven 

percent went to special operations. In 2005, WFP received $2.8 billion in 

confirmed contributions. The United States remained WFP’s largest donor, 

contributing over $1.2 billion (44 percent). At the end of 2005, WFP had 

10,523 employees with contracts of one year or longer, including 1,193 

international professional staff, 116 of whom were U.S. citizens. 

UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) 

Established by the General Assembly in 1950, the office of the UN 

High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), based in Geneva, Switzerland, is 

mandated to coordinate international efforts to protect and provide durable 

solutions for the world’s refugees. It also plays a key role in providing for 

refugees’ basic needs, such as food, shelter, health care, and education. High 

Commissioner Ruud Lubbers (the Netherlands) resigned in February 2005. 

The UN General Assembly elected Antonio Guterres (Portugal) to replace Mr. 

Lubbers. Mr. Guterres took over on June 15. 

By the end of 2005, the number of refugees of concern to UNHCR 

fell from the January 2004 level of nearly 9.2 million to 8.4 million, the lowest 
Economic and Social Affairs 

83 

total in almost a quarter of a century. However, the total number of “persons 

of concern” to UNHCR, which includes refugee returnees, asylum-seekers, 

stateless persons, and a portion of the world’s internally displaced persons 

(IDPs) increased from 19.5 million to 20.8 million persons, an increase of 13 

percent. The increase was primarily a result of UNHCR caring for an 

increased number of IDPs, stateless persons, and others in a similar situation. 

UNHCR operated in 116 countries, with some 6,885 international and national 

employees carrying out these operations. 

Afghan refugees and returnees remained a primary concern of 

UNHCR in 2005. In August 2005, Afghanistan acceded to the 1951 Refugee 

Convention and its 1967 Protocol, paving the way for the establishment of a 

national legal framework for the protection of refugees and persons of concern 

in Afghanistan. By September 2005, nearly half a million Afghans had 

returned home, bringing the total to over 4 million since 2002. Due to 

continued repatriation, the number of Afghan refugees dropped by 21 percent 

during the year. UNHCR also continued to assist the over 1.7 million Afghan 

refugees remaining in neighboring India, Iran, and Pakistan. 

UNHCR provided services to the more than 200,000 Sudanese 

refugees from Darfur who remained in Eastern Chad since 2003. In addition, 

UNHCR continued to assist another 380,000 Sudanese refugees in other 

countries who had fled their homes in earlier years. In Central Africa and the 

Great Lakes region, UNHCR facilitated the return of more than 106,000 

refugees to their homes, primarily to Burundi, Angola, and the Democratic 

Republic of Congo. UNHCR was also actively involved in the return of 

refugees to Liberia; it assisted more than 38,000 Liberian refugees in 2005. 

In the Balkans, UNHCR continued to promote solutions for the 

remaining displaced persons. In South Asia, over 100,000 Bhutanese refugees 

spent another year in Nepal as negotiations continued between Nepalese and 

Bhutanese officials. In Iraq, protection and safety issues continued to delay 

repatriation efforts, while in Colombia, UNHCR provided protection or a 

minimal level of assistance to some 2,000,000 IDPs. 

The UNHCR Executive Committee (EXCOM), of which the United 

States is a member, approves UNHCR’s budget and provides policy guidance 

to the UNHCR. In October 2005, the EXCOM met to discuss protection and 

program and policy, management and oversight, finance, and human resource 

issues. The UNHCR made a strong plea for continued protection of refugees, 

and the approval for the creation of a post of Assistant High Commissioner for 

Protection to focus on advocacy with states on protection and durable 

solutions. 

The U.S. delegation worked to advance a number of U.S. interests, 

including strengthening efforts by the international community to address 

protection and the pursuit of durable solutions for refugees; maximizing 

UNHCR’s operational performance; increasing coordination among UNHCR, 

its donors, refugee hosting countries, and UNHCR’s implementing and 

operational partners; and improving emergency preparedness and response 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2005 

84 

capacity. The United States also focused on security issues, the protection of 

refugee women and children, improving UNHCR’s approach to durable 

solutions, management reform, emergency response and camp management, 

and clarifying UNHCR’s role with IDPs. 

In addition to the annual Executive Committee meeting, UNHCR 

holds three Standing Committee meetings each year. At all meetings and in 

bilateral negotiations with relevant governments, the United States reiterated 

the need for greater information sharing and transparency in areas of human 

resources, management, and operations. The United States requested greater 

efforts to integrate security considerations into all program operations, and 

called for increased donor support for the work of UNHCR. 

The United Nations and its humanitarian partners in the Inter-Agency 

Standing Committee (IASC) agreed in 2005 to a cluster lead approach to 

sectoral responsibilities in order to improve international response to 

humanitarian disasters, particularly for IDPs. Given its expertise with mass 

movements of people in crisis situations and the fact that the internally 

displaced are often in a “refugee-like situation,” UNHCR has often provided 

protection and assistance, including return and reintegration when possible, to 

certain groups of IDPs. Following a review of the UN humanitarian response 

in 2005 and the introduction of the new cluster lead approach, UNHCR 

assumed responsibility for protection (including return), camp coordination, 

and emergency shelter under the UN system-wide response mechanism led by 

the Emergency Relief Coordinator. These new responsibilities will have 

serious financial implications for all UN agencies involved, including 

UNHCR. The U.S. Government has long advocated for improved 

predictability and accountability in the international humanitarian response to 

IDP situations. The United States fully endorsed and urged UN agencies to 

adhere to the principle that increasing responsibility for IDP needs will require 

additional funding in some key areas. While resources are one factor in 

improving IASC roles, it is vital that these attempts to fill gaps not divert 

attention or detract resources from agencies’ core mandates and programs. 

The United States supports voluntary addressing of gaps and needs that had 

not been previously dealt with. 

Since 2001, the relationship between the United States and UNHCR 

has been governed by a Framework of Cooperation, in which priorities and 

shared goals are laid out. In 2005, the Framework priorities included better 

protection of refugees, with special focus on women and children; the need to 

establish comprehensive management and oversight responsibilities that 

included strong accountability; development of a standardized registration 

system as a key protection and assistance tool; improved preparedness and 

emergency response capacity; and continued reliance on refugee resettlement 

as a key protection tool and durable solution. Other issues set forth by the 

United States included consistent use of internationally-accepted standards as 

the baseline for refugee care, reduction of morbidity and mortality rates among 

refugees, and improved standards of care in Africa. 
Economic and Social Affairs 

85 

U.S. personnel worked in concert with UNHCR field and 

headquarters staff to ensure UNHCR’s effective and comprehensive execution 

of its mandate. The importance the United States places on refugee protection 

was reflected in its funding of UNHCR through its targeted support for the 

special needs of refugee women and refugee children, a Surge Protection 

project, and additional protection staffing. 

In 2005, the UN regular budget paid for approximately 4 percent of 

the UNHCR annual budget of $981 million; the remaining 96 percent came 

from voluntary sources. In addition, UNHCR issued supplemental appeals 

totaling some $429 million for emergency assistance to Sudanese refugees in 

eastern Chad and some IDPs in Darfur; the return and reintegration of 

Sudanese refugees to Southern Sudan as well as Congolese refugees in the 

Democratic Republic of Congo; the Tsunami emergency; repatriation and 

reintegration of Burundian refugees; Western Sahara; the South Asia 

earthquake; and activities in Iraq. The United States donated some $323 

million, which constituted 22 percent of UNHCR’s annual budget. Total 

income received by the agency in 2005 amounted to $1.1 billion, a funding 

shortfall of $290.3 million. As a result, some operations fell below accepted 

standards of care. 

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 been providing education, health, and social 

services to Palestinian refugees and their descendants who reside in the West 

Bank, Gaza, Jordan, Syria, and Lebanon. These refugees now number over 4 

million. UNRWA, which has improved its relations with Israel since former 

Deputy Commissioner-General Karen AbuZayd (United States) replaced Peter 

Hansen (Denmark) as Commissioner-General in late June 2005, has 27,069 

employees, most of whom are teachers. 

In 2005, UNRWA spent about 54 percent of its regular budget on 

education, including schools and teachers. Approximately 18.5 percent of its 

2005 regular budget was devoted to health services, and another 9 percent on 

relief and social services. UNRWA spent nearly 31 percent of its budget in 

Gaza and 17.5 percent in the West Bank. The United States believes that 

UNRWA has done a good job under very difficult circumstances in providing 

for the basic human needs of Palestinian refugees. 

In 2005, the United States continued to fund UNRWA’s corps of 

independent inspectors, known as Operation Support Officers, established in 

2002 at U.S. urging, to prevent the misuse of UNRWA facilities and report on 

violations of UNRWA’s privileges and immunities. Also in 2005, UNRWA 

expanded its highly regarded tolerance education program from the West Bank 

and Gaza into Jordan, Syria, and Lebanon. As a result, all 647 UNRWA 

schools participated in the agency’s tolerance education, conflict resolution, 

and democracy training programs. Since Israel’s disengagement from Gaza in 

mid-September 2005, UNRWA also played a leading role in reconstructing 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2005 

86 

shelters for displaced refugees whose homes were demolished during the 

second intifada. Following Hamas’ unexpected victory in the January 25 

Palestinian Legislative Council elections and the subsequent cutoff of 

international funding for the Palestinian Authority, Israel and the international 

community increasingly judged UNRWA as one of the most appropriate 

agencies for the delivery of humanitarian assistance to the Palestinian people. 

There was even discussion of expanding its mandate to cover the humanitarian 

needs of non-refugees. 

On December 8, 2005, the General Assembly adopted a decision 

which expanded by 11 the membership of UNRWA’s Advisory Commission 

and gave observer status to the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), the 

European Community, and the League of Arab States. The United States 

supported this outcome, arguing that it made sense for the PLO to participate 

on this Commission in the same manner that it does in the UN General 

Assembly. The expanded Advisory Commission resolved to adopt a work 

plan, tied to UNRWA’s budgetary cycle, which would involve closer oversight 

of UNRWA’s solicitations, expenditures, and operations. 

The UN’s Board of Auditors, Board of Examiners, and the Office of 

Internal Oversight Services scrutinize UNRWA’s operations and fiscal 

practices to ensure accountability, and the most recent Board of Auditors audit 

(for 2005) revealed no major shortcomings in the integrity of UNRWA’s 

operations. In 2005, in order to strengthen oversight, transparency, and the 

effectiveness of UNRWA’s operations, the United States supported and 

contributed to UNRWA’s Organizational Development initiative, aimed at 

improving strategic planning, resource management, and accountability. 

In 2005, the United States contributed approximately $108 million of 

UNRWA’s total general and emergency budgets of $547 million. This 

contribution included $88 million to UNRWA’s General Fund of $361 million 

to provide relief and social services, health care, and education to Palestinian 

refugees. It also included $20 million for food, shelter repair, health needs, 

and short-term employment in response to UNRWA’s emergency appeal of 

$186 million for the West Bank and Gaza. Finally, the contribution included a 

$589,000 earmark for UNRWA’s tolerance education program. Of the 132 

professional UNRWA employees, 21 are American citizens. 

Disaster and Humanitarian Relief Activities 

In 2005, the United States and the United Nations cooperated 

extensively on disaster response and humanitarian relief activities. The United 

States provided leadership as a member of various UN agency governing 

bodies and support groups, including chairing the Donor Support Group for 

the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, and advocating 

initiatives to reform the UN humanitarian system. The United States also 

provided substantial support to UN humanitarian operations throughout the 

world, including relief efforts in Sudan and the Horn of Africa. 

Following the October 8 earthquake in South Asia, the United States 

provided substantial support to address the needs of those displaced by the 
Economic and Social Affairs 

87 

crisis, some of which was channeled through the United Nations. The United 

States responded to the UN World Food Program emergency and follow-on 

recovery operation with 7,270 metric tons of emergency food assistance, 

comprised of 6,790 metric tons of vegetable oil and 480 metric tons of wheat 

soy blend—with a total value of almost $9 million. The United States also 

donated $4 million to the UN High Commissioner for Refugees to provide a 

secure camp environment for those displaced by the earthquake. 

In January 2005, the United States attended the World Conference on 

Disaster Reduction in Kobe, Japan. The conference provided an opportunity 

for the international community to start discussions on new approaches to 

address disaster prevention, including the use of tsunami early warning 

systems on a global scale. The outcome document from the Kobe meeting, the 

Hyogo Framework for Action 2005–2015, was developed to strengthen 

capacity and incorporate disaster risk reduction into sustainable development 

policies and planning, as well as into the implementation of emergency 

preparedness, response, and recovery programs. The United States and the 

United Nations collaborated closely to develop ideas designed to enhance the 

efficiency of the International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (ISDR), housed 

within the office of the Under Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs. 

With the ISDR, the United States and the United Nations worked to persuade 

nations to develop their domestic coordination and engagement of civil society 

on disaster preparedness. 

The United States actively engaged the United Nations and its 

member states on a wide range of humanitarian and disaster related resolutions 

in the General Assembly and the Economic and Social Council. The United 

States supported resolutions on improving the ISDR; strengthening UN 

coordination of emergency humanitarian assistance; improving the safety and 

security of humanitarian personnel and protection of UN personnel; and 

several country-specific resolutions pertaining to humanitarian situations. 

 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2005 

88 
89 

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, technical expertise, and a 

venue for policy coordination and setting of international standards in 

agriculture and nutrition, fisheries, forestry, and other issues related to food 

and agriculture. FAO is the UN system’s largest technical agency, with 

headquarters in Rome, and 74 country offices and five regional, five subregional, and five liaison offices, including one located in Washington, D.C. 

Dr. Jacques Diouf (Senegal) has been Director-General of FAO since 

1994. FAO’s highest policy-making body, the biennial Conference, comprises 

all 188 FAO member countries plus the European Community. Belarus joined 

the FAO in 2005. The 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 four times between regular 

Conference sessions to make recommendations to the Conference on budget 

and policy issues. The United States has a guaranteed seat on the Council, sits 

on the crucial Finance Committee, and participates actively in other major 

governing bodies and technical committees. 

At its session in November 2004, the FAO Council agreed by 

consensus to launch an independent external evaluation (IEE) of FAO aimed 

at strengthening and improving the organization, a key U.S. priority. At its 

November 2005 session, the Council agreed on the terms of reference and 

oversight mechanisms for the evaluation. It decided that the IEE be initiated 

as soon as possible, subject to available voluntary funding, so that the 

evaluation report could be completed in time for the November 2007 Council 

and Conference. 

In 2005, the United States continued to stress more efficient use of 

scarce resources and greater program effectiveness, support for FAO’s 

standard-setting, and other normative work. The United States also worked to 

improve emergency needs assessments and FAO’s capabilities to respond to 

large-scale agricultural emergencies, through sponsorship of capacity building 

efforts at headquarters and the spearheading of an independent multi-donor 

evaluation of the 2003–2005 Desert Locust campaign. The United States also 

worked actively to promote American candidates for key posts. 

Of particular importance to the United States were the internationally 

recognized standards for food safety and plant health developed by the joint 

FAO/World Health Organization Codex Alimentarius Commission and the 

Interim Commission on Phytosanitary Measures of the International Plant 

Protection Convention (IPPC). The work of these bodies facilitates trade and 

protects consumers in developed and developing countries. In 2005, the 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2005 

90 

United States continued to work with other countries in FAO policy-making 

bodies to ensure greater financial support from the overall FAO budget for 

Codex and IPPC. 

The United States also valued FAO’s expertise in agricultural 

commodity and trade issues, and in 2005 pressed for more active roles by the 

FAO Committee on Commodity Problems and the Consultative Committee on 

Surplus Disposal. The FAO State of Food and Agriculture Report for 2005 on 

Agricultural Trade and Poverty, released prior to the World Trade 

Organization Hong Kong Ministerial Meeting, made a valuable contribution to 

the ongoing global debate on agricultural trade liberalization. 

FAO continued its work on plant genetic resources. In preparation 

for the 2006 opening meeting of the International Treaty on Plant Genetic 

Resources for Food and Agriculture, the United States funded a meeting in 

July 2005 of a contact group for the drafting of the Standard Material Transfer 

Agreement, which is the principal operational component of the Treaty’s 

Multilateral System of Access and Benefit Sharing.

FAO has a mandate, in collaboration with World Organization for 

Animal Health (OIE), to coordinate the international effort to control avian 

influenza at the global and regional levels. In 2005, FAO and OIE prepared a 

global strategy for the prevention and control of avian influenza that addressed 

country level activities as well as regional and international coordination. 

FAO provided support for disease control efforts in affected countries and 

began implementation of preparedness planning for countries considered to be 

at risk. FAO’s multi-faceted approach included strengthening veterinary 

networks, providing technical assistance, conducting diagnostic and 

surveillance activities, issuing guidelines, and increasing public awareness. 

Throughout 2005, the U.S. Agency for International Development worked 

with FAO to develop and implement improved surveillance and response to 

avian influenza outbreaks in endemic countries in Southeast Asia. Lastly, in 

fall 2005, FAO joined the U.S.-led International Partnership on Avian and 

Pandemic Influenza and worked with the U.S. Department of Agriculture to 

improve collaboration on avian influenza, particularly on a systematic 

approach to needs assessments in affected and at-risk countries and to create a 

Crisis Management Center to respond to outbreaks of avian influenza. 

In 2005, FAO convened a Ministerial Meeting on Forests 

immediately preceding the biennial meeting of the Committee on Forestry. 

FAO members agreed on the need for increased international cooperation on 

fire preparedness and wildland fire management, and supported FAO’s 

continuation of enhanced roles for the Regional Forestry Commissions (goals 

supported by the United States). 

In 2005, FAO convened its biennial Committee on Fisheries, 

followed by a one-day Ministerial Meeting on Fisheries. These meetings 

advanced several significant U.S. objectives, particularly in addressing the 
Specialized Agencies and Other Bodies 

91 

effects of fishing on the marine environment, cracking down further on illegal 

fishing, and making international organizations in this field more accountable. 

The United States continued to look to FAO as the international organization 

with the membership, the mandate, and the expertise to tackle global 

sustainable fisheries and aquaculture problems. 

The 33rd Conference, which met in November 2005, addressed 

international anti-hunger, food policy, and agricultural trade issues, and key 

institutional questions of the organization’s budget, leadership, and reform. It 

re-elected Jacques Diouf, the only candidate, for a third term. (A two-term 

limit for the position of Director-General takes effect in January 2006.) 

Beginning in September 2005, the Director-General released a series 

of reform proposals. Many members welcomed the spirit of these proposals 

and some of the efficiency and streamlining measures they contained. The 

United States and other major contributors were concerned, however, that the 

proposals had not been adequately discussed, and focused primarily on FAO’s 

field work rather than on its normative work, where FAO has a unique role 

and distinct comparative advantage. In the end, the Conference accepted the 

rationale and general principles of the Director-General’s reform proposals, 

with phased and conditional implementation of the restructuring of FAO 

headquarters and field offices. 

At the end of 2005, FAO employed 1,100 staff in professional posts 

subject to geographic distribution, of which 141, or 12.8 percent, were 

American citizens. While the United States remained “equitably represented” 

under FAO’s geographic distribution system, the U.S. Government continued 

its efforts to increase hiring and retention of Americans, despite the constraints 

of budget-driven staff cuts and hiring freezes at FAO. In 2005, U.S. citizens 

held the two senior positions of Deputy Director-General and Assistant 

Director-General. 

The Conference approved a budget appropriation of $765.7 million 

for the 2006–2007 biennium by a vote of 117 to two (United States and 

Japan), with one abstention (Argentina). The United States had pressed for a 

zero nominal growth budget; the approved budget was a 2.2 percent nominal 

increase over the previous biennium. The U.S. annual assessment of 22 

percent for calendar year 2005 amounted to approximately $85 million 

(contributions are assessed partly in dollars and partly in euros). In 2005, the 

United States also contributed over $26 million in voluntary contributions, of 

which nearly $20 million were directed to FAO emergency relief and 

rehabilitation projects in 27 countries and regions. The United States 

contributed $180,000 to FAO’s National Forest Program Facility; $70,000 to 

response management system capacity building relating to wildfires and other 

emergencies; and $250,000 to the FAO trust fund established for the IEE. 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2005 

92 

International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) 

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), established in 

1957, serves critical U.S. interests in nuclear non-proliferation, safety, 

counterterrorism, and national security by implementing international nuclear 

safeguards, promoting physical protection of nuclear and radiological material, 

and promoting nuclear safety. In 2005, IAEA membership rose to 139 

countries with the addition of Chad. 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 a year—March, June, twice in 

September, and in November, with additional meetings as needed. The 

General Conference in September is open to all member states and conducts 

broad oversight of the IAEA’s work by deciding on matters presented to it by 

the Board. The fourth Director-General of the IAEA, Mohamed ElBaradei 

(Egypt), assumed office on December 1, 1997, and was appointed to a third 

term in June 2005. 

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 member 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 

There are several IAEA successes to report concerning international 

cooperation on radioactive source, nuclear material (yellowcake), and 

radioactive waste issues in Iraq. In the early stages of Operation Iraqi 

Freedom, the United States determined that it would coordinate a long-term 

program to assist the Iraqis in finding and securing orphaned radioactive 

sources and establishing an independent Iraqi Radioactive Source Regulatory 

Authority to operate in accordance with the IAEA Code of Conduct for Safety 

and Security of Radioactive Sources. Each of the successive Iraqi 

governments provided support to the fledgling organization. 

The United States sponsored the first IAEA radioactive sourcecontrol training course for 20 Iraqis in December 2004, which led to the 

drafting of a comprehensive IAEA Action Plan for Iraq Radioactive Sources in 

2005. After the course, Congress approved, through the Nonproliferation and 

Disarmament Fund, $1.25 million to support the radioactive source regulatory 

development efforts, including funding much of the work done by the IAEA. 

Since that time there have been regular IAEA training courses organized for 

Iraqis. In 2005, the United States provided the Iraqis with both basic radiation 

detection equipment and specialized equipment and training to support field 

searches for orphaned radioactive sources. An effort was underway to 

coordinate the Iraq interministerial effort to identify border control specialists 
Specialized Agencies and Other Bodies 

93 

from appropriate ministries who will soon be trained by the IAEA to conduct 

searches. 

In conjunction with the 2005 NPT safeguards inspection of nuclear 

material (mostly yellowcake) stored at Tuwaitha, the IAEA returned the 

responsibility for safeguards to Iraq. Iraq has not had access to this material 

for many years and therefore has not been making annual reports. The IAEA, 

with Australia’s cooperation, conducted training for the Iraqis to enable them 

to meet their NPT reporting obligations. 

The United States is working to facilitate the sale by Iraq of the 

commercially viable nuclear material stored in Tuwaitha. The United States 

believes that removing the yellowcake from the region is an important 

nonproliferation goal. The IAEA, Iraq, and the United States have met to 

identify Iraq’s obligations in respect to such a sale under UN Security Council 

resolutions. IAEA determined that Iraq should make a courtesy notification 

of the sale to the Agency. There were about 3,500 barrels of nuclear material 

stored at Tuwaitha. Many barrels were rusted and contaminated to an extent 

that they were not suitable for transport. The Department of State arranged for 

Department of Energy lab experts to assist the Iraqis in developing a detailed 

plan of action required to prepare the nuclear material for sale. 

Iraq requested the IAEA to coordinate an international program to 

assist Iraq with dismantling and disposing their former nuclear facilities. The 

IAEA agreed and invited member states to a kick-off meeting in February 

2006. 

North Korea 

Since North Korea expelled IAEA inspectors in December 2002 and 

announced its withdrawal from the NPT in January 2003, the United States has 

sought a peaceful and diplomatic resolution to the situation through Six-Party 

Talks with China, Japan, North Korea, South Korea, and Russia. In 

September 2005, at the conclusion of the Fourth Round of the Six-Party talks, 

the Six Parties issued a Joint Statement. In the Statement, the Six Parties 

unanimously reaffirmed that the goal of the Talks is the verifiable 

denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula in a peaceful manner. North Korea 

committed to abandon all nuclear weapons and existing programs and to 

return, at an early date, to the NPT and to IAEA safeguards, and that in that 

context, subject to bilateral concerns, the Six Parties would explore security 

cooperation in Northeast Asia as well as economic cooperation in the fields of 

energy, trade, and investment. The other five parties also stated their 

willingness to provide North Korea with energy assistance. Subsequently, 

North Korea said it would not rejoin the Six Party talks so long as the United 

States pursues what North Korea calls a “hostile policy.” Despite continuing 

efforts to bring all parties back to the table, North Korea has not agreed to 

participate. Meanwhile, the IAEA continued to prepare for inspections to 

support any diplomatic solution that might be achieved. 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2005 

94 

Iran 

Iran admitted to the IAEA in 2003 that it had engaged in previously 

covert efforts to conduct undeclared research in several enrichment 

technologies, including gas centrifuge and atomic vapor laser isotope separation 

(AVLIS), as well as undeclared uranium conversion activities, and that it had 

enriched uranium using both AVLIS (up to 10 percent U-235 enrichment) and gas 

centrifuges (less than 10 percent). The IAEA also discovered in 2004 that Iran 

had failed to declare a centrifuge design—the P-2 design—that was more 

advanced than the P-1 design Iran had admitted to earlier. 

IAEA Director-General ElBaradei’s reports throughout 2005 

confirmed that the IAEA continued to investigate these two issues, as well as a 

number of other unresolved safeguards concerns, including the timing of Iran’s 

previous plutonium separation experiments, the purpose of hot cells sought by Iran 

of a design that would allow for plutonium separation, the purpose for Iran’s 

experiments with polonium-2-10, and the involvement of the Iranian military in 

Iran’s centrifuge program and in Iran’s attempts to procure dual-use nuclear 

items that could have military applications. The IAEA also expressed concern 

that Iran continued not to allow the Agency to investigate at least two undeclared 

facilities where the IAEA believed undeclared nuclear activities may have been 

conducted. 

On November 14, 2004, Iran and the EU3 (France, Germany, and the 

United Kingdom) signed an agreement in Paris in which Iran committed to suspend 

fully all enrichment-related and reprocessing activities. The EU3 and Iran also 

agreed to begin negotiations on a long-term arrangement in which Iran would 

provide objective guarantees that its nuclear program is exclusively for peaceful 

purposes, in exchange for firm guarantees of EU3 cooperation and incentives in 

a range of areas. The EU3 made clear that given Iran’s history of concealment 

and safeguards violations in its nuclear program, objective guarantees must include 

verified Iranian agreement to end its pursuit of an indigenous nuclear fuel cycle. 

Following that agreement, the EU3 and Iran met in a number of working group 

meetings until June 2005. 

Concurrently, the United States decided in March 2005 to lend full 

support to the EU3 process. To demonstrate that support, the Secretary of 

State made a statement indicating that the United States would agree to lift its 

objection to Iran’s application to the World Trade Organization, and would 

consider the licensing of spare parts for Iranian civil aircraft on a case-by-case 

basis. However, Iran refused to agree to the EU3’s requirements for objective 

guarantees, ending the working group meetings in July 2005. 

Following several rounds of negotiations with Iran, in August 2005, 

the EU3 offered Iran a generous proposal of future economic, energy, political, 

and security incentives if it verifiably gave up its fuel cycle pursuits. On August 

8, Iran rejected the EU3 proposal, unilaterally broke its commitments under the 

Paris Agreement, and resumed uranium conversion activities. Iran’s actions 
Specialized Agencies and Other Bodies 

95 

caused the EU3 to suspend its diplomatic process with Iran, and led to the 

convening of a special IAEA Board of Governors meeting on August 10–11. At 

that meeting, the IAEA Board called on Iran to re-suspend its uranium 

conversion activities and requested the IAEA Director-General to report to the 

Board by September 3 whether Iran had done so. 

On September 2, the Director-General provided the IAEA Board with 

a written report on Iran’s nuclear activities. That report reconfirmed Iran’s past 

safeguards failures and breaches, and confirmed that Iran was not providing full 

information on key unresolved issues, such as the scope and history of Iran’s P-2 

centrifuge program, Iran’s plutonium separation efforts, and the formerly secret 

G’chine uranium mine. That report also confirmed that Iran was not providing 

access for the IAEA to visit suspect sites and interview suspect officials. As a 

result, the report requested transparency measures from Iran that “extend beyond 

the formal requirements of the Safeguards Agreement and Additional Protocol.” 

However, the report also suggested that no new safeguards failures had been 

found and credited Iran with taking corrective action on past safeguards failures. 

On September 24, the IAEA Board adopted by vote (22 (U.S.) to 1 

(Venezuela), with 12 abstentions) a resolution formally finding Iran in 

noncompliance with its safeguards obligations in the context of Article 

XII.C of the IAEA Statute. The same resolution also found that Iran’s pattern 

of deception and denial, continued lack of cooperation with the IAEA, and 

continued pursuit of the nuclear fuel cycle capabilities in defiance of the 

international community had given rise to questions that fell within the 

competence of the UN Security Council. The resolution also confirmed that the 

Board would decide on the timing and content of the report and notification to 

the Council as required under Articles XII.C and XIII.B.4 of the IAEA statute. 

Finally, the resolution urged Iran to “implement transparency measures ... which 

extend beyond the formal requirements of the Safeguards Agreement and 

Additional Protocol”; re-establish a full and sustained suspension of all enrichmentrelated and reprocessing activities; reconsider construction of a heavy water 

research reactor; to promptly ratify and implement an Additional Protocol; 

continue to act as if the Additional Protocol were already in force; and called on 

Iran to observe fully its commitments and return to the negotiating process. 

Following the adoption of that resolution, the United States 

continued its dialogue with the EU3, Russia, and China, and coordinated 

further efforts aimed at addressing the proliferation threat posed by Iran’s 

nuclear activities. In November, the IAEA Board deferred action in order to 

give diplomatic efforts by the EU3 and Russia a chance to succeed. Between 

September and December, Iran made little progress toward meeting the steps 

called for in the September 24 resolution. For the remainder of 2005, IAEA 

investigations continued in Iran despite Iran’s refusal to fully cooperate, and the 

international community continued to call on Iran to comply fully with IAEA 

Board of Governors resolutions and recommit to the Paris Agreement. 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2005 

96 

Libya 

In contrast to Iran’s behavior, Libya notified IAEA in 2003 of its 

noncompliance and has since actively and openly cooperated with IAEA in its 

verification activities. In a March 2004 resolution, the Board of Governors 

found that Libya’s past failures to meet the requirements of its Safeguards 

Agreement constituted non-compliance and requested the Director-General to 

report the matter to the UN Security Council for informational purposes only 

while simultaneously noting the active cooperation of Libya since beginning 

verification activities and commending Libya’s actions to remedy its noncompliance. By September 2004, the IAEA assessed that aspects of Libya’s 

nuclear program had been declared consistently and completely. The IAEA 

continued its verification work in Libya throughout 2005 and anticipated doing 

so for the foreseeable future. 

Safeguards 

The United States believes it is important that all NPT non-nuclear 

weapon states adopt the stronger safeguards provisions included in the 

Additional Protocol. At the end of December, 107 states had signed 

Additional Protocols, and 71 had brought them into force. During the year, the 

G-8 (comprised of Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia, the United 

Kingdom, and the United States, with participation of the European Union) 

continued a G-8 diplomatic effort begun during the U.S. presidency of the G-8 

in 2004 to encourage all states that had not yet done so to sign and ratify 

safeguards agreements and Additional Protocols. 

To demonstrate U.S. leadership on safeguards, the United States has 

worked steadily to prepare for ratification and entry into force of the U.S. 

Additional Protocol. A central goal of President Bush’s nuclear nonproliferation policy, as he stated in his nonproliferation speech to the National 

Defense University on February 11, 2004, is the universal adoption of the 

model Additional Protocol. The Model Additional Protocol was approved by 

the IAEA Board in 1997 and provides for stronger safeguards provisions. 

Although all five nuclear weapons states have signed Additional Protocols, 

and the United Kingdom and France are implementing their Protocols, only 

the United States accepted the full text of the Additional Protocol, subject to a 

National Security Exclusion. In 2002, President Bush sent the Additional 

Protocol to the Senate for its advice and consent to ratification, which the 

Senate provided on March 31, 2004. Congress must now adopt implementing 

legislation for certain provisions before the United States can bring the 

protocol into force. 

Nuclear Security 

The IAEA continued to provide guidance, technical support, and 

training programs in the prevention of nuclear terrorism in 2005. The United 

States was a primary supporter of IAEA training programs in physical 
Specialized Agencies and Other Bodies 

97 

protection and nuclear security, having developed the training curricula and 

presented the courses and workshops on behalf of the Agency in 27 training 

events in 23 countries. 

Under the IAEA’s Nuclear Security Action Plan, the Agency 

accelerated its activities to prevent, detect, and respond to illicit activities 

involving nuclear and other radiological materials and facilities. As of 

December 31, 28 member states and two organizations had pledged $53.1 

million to the Nuclear Security Action Plan. The United States pledged nearly 

two-thirds of this total, and encouraged member states to recognize that all 

nations face the threat of nuclear terrorism and would benefit from the 

assistance provided by the Agency. 

With U.S. encouragement, the IAEA began to develop Integrated 

Nuclear Security Support Plans with individual states. These plans will 

provide an important tool for improved coordination with bilateral donor state 

programs; eight were prepared in 2005. 

The IAEA also further developed its 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. In 2005, the IAEA, supported by 

experts from member states, conducted INSServ missions to Paraguay, 

Albania, and Namibia. 

The IAEA Board of Governors made substantial strides in advancing 

the security of radioactive sources when it approved the revised Code of 

Conduct on the Safety and Security of Radioactive Sources (Code) in 

September 2003, and supplemental Guidance on the Export and Import of 

Radioactive Sources (Guidance) in September 2004. The United States took a 

leadership role in promoting the Code and Guidance as international guidance 

for controlling sources throughout their lifecycle. By the end of 2005, 

approximately 80 member states had written to the IAEA Director-General 

expressing their support for the Code. 

The United States continued its longstanding support of the IAEA’s 

Model Project, which promoted the development of domestic infrastructures 

for the long-term management of radioactive sources and other efforts through 

the Nuclear Security Action Plan to consolidate and protect vulnerable and 

orphan sources. 

As a result of the joint U.S.-IAEA initiative in 2004, the Agency’s 

appraisal tool, the Radiation Safety and Security of Radioactive Sources 

Infrastructure Appraisal (RaSSIA), for assessing the ability of states to manage 

radioactive sources was enhanced to incorporate security as well as safety. In 

2005, the IAEA conducted 23 RaSSIAs under this new paradigm to help states 

ensure that radioactive sources are managed in a safe and secure manner. 

Created in 2004, the Global Threat Reduction Initiative has worked in 

coordination and cooperation with the IAEA to accelerate removal of highrisk, vulnerable nuclear materials around the world, speed up the conversion of 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2005 

98 

research reactor fuel from high enriched uranium to low enriched uranium 

everywhere, accelerate the securing or removal of vulnerable radiological 

materials worldwide, and address security “gaps” for nuclear and radiological 

material not yet covered by existing threat reduction programs. In particular, 

the United States worked with the IAEA and others on the Russian Research 

Reactor Fuel Return Program, the Reduced Enrichment for Research and Test 

Reactors Program, and the Tripartite Initiative to secure high-risk radioactive 

sources. 

The United States also continued to play a key role in the multi-year 

effort to achieve amendment of the Convention on the Physical Protection of 

Nuclear Material, which was negotiated at IAEA Headquarters. That effort 

culminated on July 8, 2005, when a diplomatic conference of States Parties 

convened by the IAEA adopted an amendment to the Convention. Among 

other provisions, the amendment extended the scope of the physical protection 

obligations in the Convention by requiring each State Party to the amended 

Convention to establish, implement, and maintain an appropriate physical 

protection regime applicable to nuclear material and nuclear facilities used for 

peaceful purposes under its jurisdiction. The amendment also extended the 

scope of cooperation among States Parties on physical protection matters and 

included new criminal offenses in the criminal regime established by the 

Convention. The amendment had not entered force by the end of 2005. 

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. 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 2005, 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 continued work of 

the IAEA International Expert Group on Nuclear Liability. 

The United States continued to support the development of a robust 

international response system for radiological emergencies, notably the 

establishment of the IAEA’s Incident and Emergency Center (IEC). The IEC 

provides the notification system for two conventions (the Convention on Early 

Notification of a Nuclear Accident and the Convention on Assistance in the 

Case of a Nuclear Accident or Radiological Emergency). 

The IAEA remained active throughout 2005 in fostering international 

cooperation for the peaceful uses of nuclear technologies and worked “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, which was designed 
Specialized Agencies and Other Bodies 

99 

to complement and promote the development objectives in recipient states, 

with particular attention to the least developed countries. The United States 

continued to support use of the sterile insect technique (using radiation to 

sterilize male insects), including for tsetse fly eradication efforts, and the 

IAEA’s new radiotherapy initiative, the Program of Action on Cancer Therapy 

(PACT). 

The IAEA regular budget for 2005 was $281 million, of which $276 

million was assessed to member states. The United States was assessed 

approximately $78 million. In addition, the United States remained the largest 

single contributor of voluntary support to the IAEA, contributing $49.5 million 

to support technical and financial assistance to safeguards, nuclear safety and 

security projects, cost-free experts, the Technical Cooperation Fund, PACT, 

and U.S.-hosted training courses and fellowships. 

In recent years, the United States has been disappointed by the 

decline in U.S. representation in the IAEA Secretariat. In 2005, Americans 

held 88 of the 766 positions that are subject to its geographical distribution 

guidelines, or 11.5 percent. 

International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) 

Established in 1944 by the Chicago Convention and becoming a UN 

specialized technical agency in 1947, the International Civil Aviation 

Organization (ICAO) fosters the safe and orderly growth of international civil 

aviation. Today’s air transport industry includes nearly 900 scheduled 

commercial air carriers operating about 21,500 aircraft worldwide. There are 

also some 22,000 business aircraft and many more owned by private pilots. 

Thus, the challenge of keeping the skies of the world safe and working to keep 

them operating efficiently is enormous. For more than 60 years, ICAO has 

been the forum for global civil aviation cooperation among its contracting 

states. 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, based in Montreal, Canada, has 189 members. The United 

States has consistently been elected to the ICAO Council and was re-elected to 

a three-year term at the 2004 ICAO triennial Assembly. Dr. Taïeb Chérif 

(Algeria) has been the Secretary-General since 2003. Dr. Assad Kotaite 

(Lebanon) continued as President of the Council of ICAO, a post he has held 

since 1976. 

The last triennial ICAO Assembly was held from September 28 to 

October 8, 2004, with record attendance from 175 Contracting States and 36 

observer delegations. The next Assembly will be held in 2007. 

Ensuring aviation safety and security remained the primary goal of 

the organization in 2005, with several initiatives, including the Universal 

Safety Oversight Audit Program (USOAP) and the Universal Security Audit 

Program (USAP), endorsed by the Assembly designed to improve further the 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2005 

100 

integrity of the global aviation system. In the area of safety, these initiatives 

included the application of ICAO’s successful USOAP to all safety-related 

provisions of the Annexes to the Chicago Convention. ICAO has 

accomplished this via a comprehensive systems approach. Launched in 

January 1999, USOAP consists of audits carried out by ICAO in all 189 

contracting states to assess their level of compliance with ICAO’s safety 

standards and to establish corrective measures. When the program was 

initiated, three safety-specific annexes were audited. In 2004, the audit 

process was expanded to cover 16 Annexes. To promote increased 

transparency, full audit reports are shared among member states. The United 

States has provided technical experts to serve as auditors as required. In 

2005, 10 states were audited by the organization. 

The Assembly requested greater sharing among contracting states of 

the results of the ICAO USAP, created to help identify and correct deficiencies 

in the implementation of security-related standards in airports. Aviation 

security audits were conducted on another 44 contracting states in 2005, for a 

total of 113 aviation security audits since the inception of the program. The 

United States provides more than a dozen auditors to this program who also 

serve as trainers in other activities. Short-term results from this program have 

been positive; however, sustained improvement requires focused attention to 

continuing problem areas. To that end, in 2005 ICAO initiated a coordinated 

assistance and development program to address deficiencies identified in the 

audits. By coordinating and sharing information through ICAO, the United 

States is more effective at prioritizing assistance work. 

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 

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 

states in aviation security implementation and cooperation. The United States 

is a significant contributor to this fund, contributing over 25 percent of the 

fund’s resources each year. In addition to funding, the United States had two 

full-time specialists seconded to ICAO in 2005 and numerous specialists who 

participated in training activity around the world. 

In 2005, ICAO shifted its focus from developing new standards to 

assisting in the implementation of existing ones, and from detailed technical 

specifications to performance-based standards. ICAO especially accelerated 

the development of standards and guidance for ICAO’s program to prevent 

Controlled Flight Into Terrain accidents, which are among the leading causes 

of aircraft accidents. 
Specialized Agencies and Other Bodies 

101 

The Assembly called on contracting states to exercise strict and 

effective controls on the global movement and storage of man-portable 

defense systems while ensuring the destruction of existing units. The 

Assembly urged members to keep fully up to date with the security provisions 

of Annex 17 the Chicago Convention and, if not yet parties, to become parties 

to international conventions related to aviation security. 

In 2004, the ICAO Council adopted the use of machine readable 

passports as a new standard in Annex 9 of the Chicago Convention. In 2005, 

ICAO began to update Document 9303, which detailed the specifications for 

machine readable and e-passports, to include the new, revised specifications of 

integrated biometric identification information, agreed to by ICAO in 2003.

The United States served as a member of the Technical Advisory Group with 

responsibility for developing this material. The group met September 26–28, 

2005. Additionally, in an effort to assist states with implementation of these 

new standards, ICAO hosted a Biometric Symposium on September 29–30 to 

encourage information sharing. In both the advisory group and at the 

symposium, the United States contributed technical expertise to the activity. 

ICAO agreed to serve as the supervisory authority for the Public Key 

Directory that will be used to help government authorities authenticate 

passports embedded with the electronic signature of the issuing authority. 

This service will be fully funded by governments issuing electronic passports. 

The United States is one such government. 

ICAO is also involved with environmental issues. In 2005, the ICAO 

Council approved a recommendation made in early 2004 by the ICAO 

Committee on Aviation Environmental Protection (CAEP) to establish new 

emissions standards for nitrogen oxides. The 2004 document altered the 

recommended levels to be 12 percent more stringent than the levels agreed to 

in 1999. ICAO also produced substantive guidance to assist states in 

implementing a balanced approach to noise management. This balanced 

approach is comprised of four principal elements: reduction of noise at the 

source; land use planning and management; noise abatement operational 

procedures; and operating restrictions on aircraft. Throughout 2005, CAEP 

continued to work on developing guidance for use of market-based options, 

including emission charges and emissions trading, to address aircraft 

emissions that will be discussed at the 2007 Assembly. In addition, in 2005, 

CAEP laid the groundwork in modeling and long-term technologies for 

tackling aviation’s environmental impacts. 

ICAO assessments are based on member countries’ economic factors 

and relative importance in civil aviation, as measured by a number of factors, 

including amount of mileage flown. The maximum assessment of any 

member country is 25 percent. Member assessments for the calendar year 

2005 ICAO budget totaled $58.5 million. The U.S. share in 2005 was $14.6 

million, or 25 percent of the assessed budget. In 2005, the U.S. Government 

provided an additional $992,000 in voluntary financial contributions for the 

Aviation Security Program. 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2005 

102 

U.S. citizens continued to be under-represented at ICAO in 2005, 

with Americans occupying only 13 of the 201 (6.5 percent) professional 

positions subject to equitable geographic distribution. In addition, several U.S. 

experts worked on detail on the ICAO staff, including in the area of aviation 

security programs. 

International Health Organizations 

World Health Organization (WHO) 

The World Health Organization (WHO), based in Geneva, 

Switzerland, was established in 1948 with the objective of “the attainment by 

all peoples of the highest possible level of health.” In 2005, WHO worked in 

close partnership with its 192 member states and two associate members, 

many international organizations, over 180 nongovernmental organizations, 

and nearly 1,200 leading health-related institutions around the world 

designated as “WHO collaborating centers.” WHO representatives worked 

with health ministries in 142 countries as advisors and managers of technical 

cooperation programs. 

During 2005, U.S. representatives participated in various WHO and 

WHO-related meetings, including those of the World Health Assembly; the 

WHO Executive Board; the four Regional Committees for the Americas, 

Western Pacific, Africa, and Europe; the Intergovernmental Working Group 

on the revision of the International Health Regulations; and the Governing 

Council of the International Agency for Research on Cancer. The United 

States was also a participant in meetings conducted by the Program 

Coordinating Board of the Joint UN Program on HIV/AIDS, which is 

cosponsored by the WHO and nine other agencies. 

Dr. Jong-Wook Lee (South Korea) served the third year of his fiveyear term as Director-General. Dr. Lee continued to focus the organization on 

achieving the health-related goals of the UN Millennium Declaration. Under 

Dr. Lee’s leadership, the focus throughout 2005 has been on decentralizing 

WHO’s work, renewing accountability and effectiveness at WHO, improving 

global disease surveillance and data management, tackling specific health 

issues and unmet challenges, and strengthening the WHO’s human resources. 

At the end of 2005, WHO reviewed the results of its efforts to 

galvanize international support for the 3 by 5 Initiative, the goal of which was 

to treat 3 million people living with HIV/AIDS by 2005. Although WHO and 

its partners were unable to reach the goal of placing 3 million people on antiretroviral therapy, approximately 1.3 million had obtained access to such 

treatment by the end of 2005. WHO asserted that the momentum of the 3 by 

5 Initiative will lead to greater gains toward the goal of universal access to 

treatment in future years. 

The WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC), 

which the United States signed in May 2004, entered into force in 2005. The 
Specialized Agencies and Other Bodies 

103 

first Conference of the Parties, the institution responsible for reviewing and 

facilitating effective implementation of the FCTC, was scheduled for early 

2006. 

Negotiations began in 2004 on the revision of the International Health 

Regulations (IHRs) with the second and third meetings of the 

Intergovernmental Working Group (IGWG) taking place in February and May 

2005. The IGWG agreed on an ad referendum text of the International Health 

Regulations just prior to the May 2005 World Health Assembly. The 

Assembly formally adopted the International Health Regulations (2005). The 

IHRs establish an international legal framework for States Parties to notify the 

WHO and effectively respond to public health emergencies of international 

concern. Upon entry into force in 2007, the IHRs, among other things, will 

obligate States Parties to develop, strengthen, and maintain their ability to 

detect, respond to, reduce, or eliminate the spread of public health emergencies 

of international concern, and to report in a timely way to WHO. The IHRs 

also will authorize the Director-General of the WHO to issue non-binding 

recommendations on measures that affected States Parties may take, including, 

if appropriate, restrictions on travel and commerce to and from affected areas. 

The United States joined in the consensus adoption of the IHRs and expects 

them to make a significant contribution towards strengthening international 

cooperation against global public health threats. 

The 2005 World Health Assembly also addressed pandemic influenza 

preparedness and control. As a result of a U.S. initiative, the Assembly 

adopted a resolution that urged member states to develop and implement 

national plans for pandemic-influenza preparedness and response; develop and 

strengthen national surveillance and laboratory capacity; strengthen linkages 

between health, agriculture, and other pertinent authorities; support an 

international research agenda; and provide vaccines and antiviral drugs as 

necessary during a global pandemic. The resolution also asked the DirectorGeneral to strengthen influenza surveillance; assess the feasibility of using 

anti-viral medication stockpiles to contain an initial outbreak of influenza; 

evaluate the potential benefit of personal protection measures; and work 

closely with the Food and Agriculture Organization and other relevant UN 

organizations. The Assembly agreed to the WHO Director-General’s proposal 

committing additional resources from the WHO Regular Budget to address 

avian influenza. 

The Assembly also considered a variety of diverse but substantive 

topics such as the health-related goals of the Millennium Declaration, 

enhancement of laboratory biosafety, health action in crises and disasters, 

tuberculosis prevention and control, polio eradication, antimicrobial resistance, 

infant and young child nutrition, cancer prevention and control, the harmful 

use of alcohol, plan of action on aging, and eHealth, an initiative for accessing 

information and communication technologies for health. The Assembly 

supported the maintenance of the WHO Global Smallpox Vaccine Reserve, to 

which the United States is the largest contributor; this notwithstanding, South 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2005 

104 

Africa called for the immediate destruction of the authorized smallpox stocks 

held at the official repositories in the United States and the Russian 

Federation. 

The Assembly did not accept a proposal for a new agenda item 

granting observer status for Taiwan. Unlike in 2004, when the issue was put 

to a vote in the Plenary, there was limited debate on the proposal, with the 

chair allowing no more than two countries to speak in favor of the proposal 

and two countries to speak against. 

In 2005, the Assembly again took up the long-standing agenda item 

on “Health conditions of, and assistance to, the Arab population in the 

occupied Arab territories, including Palestine.” The draft resolution proposed 

by a number of Arab states included harsh condemnation of Israel. The United 

States stated its view that the resolution did not advance the health of the 

Palestinian people and interjected political issues into the debate of the 

Assembly that were unambiguously outside the mandate of WHO. The United 

States requested a roll-call vote; the resolution was adopted, with the United 

States and seven other countries voting against it, and a number of abstentions 

and absences. 

On financial matters, following in-depth discussion at the Executive 

Board on the WHO Program Budget for 2006–2007, the World Health 

Assembly (WHA) adopted the WHO Budget for 2006–2007 without 

protracted negotiations and with broad support. The WHA also adopted a new 

scale of assessments for 2006 and 2007. In 2005, the United States provided 

$96.1 million (22 percent) to the WHO regular assessed budget, as well as 

approximately $100 million in voluntary contributions. 

There were more U.S. citizens than citizens of any other country in 

WHO professional posts. At the end of 2005, U.S. citizens held the senior 

posts of Assistant Director-General for HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria; 

senior advisor to the Director-General; Assistant Legal Counsel; Director of 

Internal Audit and Oversight; and Director of Security and Staff Services. In 

2005, WHO had 1,571 posts subject to geographic distribution; of those, U.S. 

citizens held 176 posts, or 11.2 percent. 

International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) 

The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) was 

established in 1965 pursuant to a World Health Organization resolution. The 

United States was a founding member of IARC. IARC is a leading cancer 

research institute that monitors global cancer occurrence, identifies causes of 

cancer, and develops scientific strategies for cancer control. The IARC 

Governing Council, comprising IARC members (of which the United States is 

one) and the Director-General of the World Health Organization, met at IARC 

headquarters in Lyon, France, on May 12–13, 2005. The Governing Council 

discussed IARC’s program of work in cancer prevention and its various 

collaborative research efforts, and took action on various administrative issues. 
Specialized Agencies and Other Bodies 

105 

Dr. Peter Boyle (United Kingdom), a cancer epidemiologist and biostatistician, 

continued his second year as IARC Director. 

U.S. regular budget contributions to IARC (based on a 9.88 percent 

assessment) were $1.7 million in 2005. IARC had 52 professional posts; of 

those, four, or 7.7 percent, were held by U.S. citizens. 

Pan American Health Organization (PAHO) 

The Pan American Health Organization (PAHO) was established in 

1902 as the Pan American Sanitary Bureau, and is the world’s oldest 

intergovernmental health organization. The United States has been a member 

since 1902. The Directing Council of the PAHO convened at its headquarters 

in Washington, D.C. on September 26–30, 2005. A number of officials from 

the United States, including U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services 

Michael O. Leavitt, participated in that meeting, as well as in meetings of the 

Subcommittee on Planning and Programming in March and the PAHO 

Executive Committee in June. The United States served as Chair of the PAHO 

Executive Committee during 2005. The Directing Council discussed and 

adopted resolutions on pressing health issues, including HIV/AIDS, blood 

safety, tuberculosis, family and health, and renewal of Primary Health Care. 

The Council also adopted a resolution expressing condolences to the United 

States for the losses suffered in Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, and urging 

greater priority to reducing vulnerability of populations to major emergencies. 

Representatives of PAHO’s 38 member states participated, mostly at the 

ministerial level. 

Throughout 2005, the Director of PAHO, Dr. Mirta Roses 

(Argentina), continued to focus on the priorities of creating greater health 

equity for the poor, 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. 

PAHO’s strategies and work with countries of the Americas in 2005 

focused on the importance of achieving the health-related development goals 

of the Millennium Declaration, including reducing child mortality; improving 

maternal health; strengthening preparedness for and response to disasters; 

providing access to safe drinking water; improving immunization coverage; 

and controlling the spread of HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria. 

In 2005, the United States paid over 59 percent of the PAHO budget. 

The scale of assessments coincides with that of the Organization of American 

States, with adjustments for the number of members. The United States 

provided $57 million to the PAHO regular assessed budget, as well as 

voluntary contributions of approximately $16.5 million. In 2005, PAHO had 

470 professional posts. U.S. citizens filled 77, or 16.4 percent, of these posts. 

Joint UN Program on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS) 

The Joint UN Program on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS) began formal 

operations in 1996. Dr. Peter Piot (Belgium) has been the Executive Director 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2005 

106 

since its inception. The UNAIDS cosponsoring agencies are the World Health 

Organization (WHO), the UN Development Program, the UN Office on Drugs 

and Crime, the UN Children’s Fund, the UN Population Fund, the UN 

Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization, the International Labor 

Organization, the World Food Program, UN High Commission for Refugees, 

and the World Bank. UNAIDS also has a cooperation agreement with the 

Food and Agriculture Organization. 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 Program Coordinating Board (PCB) is the UNAIDS governing 

body and acts on all programmatic issues concerning policy, strategy, finance, 

monitoring, and evaluation. The membership of the PCB is comprised of 22 

government representatives, distributed by region and elected from among the 

member states of the cosponsoring organizations. The term of membership on 

the PCB is three years, with approximately one-third of the membership 

replaced annually. The United States participated in the PCB as an elected 

member in 2005 and will serve on the PCB through 2007. The UNAIDS 

cosponsoring organizations participate fully in PCB deliberations and 

decision-making, but without the right to vote. Six of the 10 cosponsors may 

participate in the PCB at any one time, with the selection of participants 

decided on by the cosponsors. Five nongovernmental organizations are also 

invited to participate in PCB meetings, again, without the right to take part in 

the formal decision-making process or the right to vote. 

The PCB met from June 27–29, 2005, in Geneva. The PCB endorsed 

a UNAIDS Policy Position Paper called, “Intensifying HIV Prevention”; 

approved the voluntarily funded $320.5 million Unified Budget and Workplan 

for 2006–2007; and endorsed the recommendations of the Global Task Team 

to improve AIDS coordination among multilateral institutions and 

international donors. The PCB Decisions, Recommendations and Conclusions 

document reflected the U.S. opinion that AIDS program-based approaches 

must include both parallel financing and pooled funding. The document also 

included language indicating that the United States does not fund needle and 

syringe programs because such programs are inconsistent with current U.S. 

law and policy, which prioritizes the eradication of illicit drug abuse and 

considers needle and syringe programs as counter to this objective. The 

United States continues to be strongly supportive of UNAIDS’ work. 

In 2005, UNAIDS continued to play an active role in promoting 

WHO’s global target to provide 3 million people living with HIV/AIDS in 

low- and middle-income countries with antiretroviral treatment by the end of 

2005. The number of people on antiretroviral treatment increased from 

700,000 to 1.3 million people by the end of 2005. Although the global 

community did not reach the WHO and UNAIDS target, the initiative clearly 

demonstrated that administration of antiretroviral drugs in resource-limited 

settings is feasible. The United States supported the global effort to increase 
Specialized Agencies and Other Bodies 

107 

the number of individuals on treatment through its financial contributions to 

UNAIDS; the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria; and 

bilaterally through the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, as well as 

through the U.S. strong political commitment to advancing access to AIDS 

treatment around the world. 

UNAIDS also worked with the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, 

Tuberculosis, and Malaria (the Fund), an independent, non-UN organization, 

during 2005. Along with WHO, UNAIDS serves as an ex officio member of 

the Board of the Fund. UNAIDS focused on providing advice to countries 

seeking assistance in preparing funding proposals and submitting them to the 

Global Fund. In 2005, through the Department of Health and Human Services 

and the Center for Disease Control, the United States provided $2 million to 

UNAIDS to provide technical assistance to Global Fund grantees. The 

countries eligible for assistance under this agreement are Thailand, India, 

Malawi, Senegal, Zimbabwe, and the Democratic Republic of Congo. 

The UNAIDS core budget for 2005 was $135.3 million, comprised 

completely of voluntary contributions. The United States continued to be 

among the major donors to UNAIDS and provided approximately 20 percent 

($27.1 million) to the 2005 core budget. The United States also provided an 

additional $5.4 million to UNAIDS in extra-budgetary funds during the 2004–

2005 biennium. 

In 2005, UNAIDS had 179 professional posts; of those, 13 posts, or 

7.3 percent, including that of Director of Evaluation, were held by U.S. 

citizens. 

International Labor Organization (ILO) 

The International Labor Organization (ILO), founded in 1919, has a 

mandate to advance the working conditions of men and women worldwide. 

The organization promotes respect for fundamental principles and rights at 

work, such as freedom of association and the effective recognition of the right 

to collective bargaining, prohibitions on forced labor and child labor and nondiscrimination in employment. It also seeks to create greater employment 

opportunities; enhance social protection; and strengthen social dialogue among 

governments, employers, and workers, with the goal of contributing to poverty 

alleviation and increased social stability around the world. 

Based in Geneva, Switzerland, the ILO has 178 member states. Juan 

Somavia (Chile) was elected Director-General of the ILO in 1999 and reelected to a second five-year term that began 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 held in June 2005. 

This tripartite structure is unique to the ILO. 

The ILO’s activities and programs serve key U.S. interests by seeking 

to increase global respect for democracy and human rights. Further, the ILO 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2005 

108 

has helped advance U.S. interests on priority issues in the areas of freedom of 

association, prohibition of forced labor, security concerns, eradication of child 

labor, programs on HIV/AIDS in the workplace, and technical assistance for 

key countries and regions (Afghanistan, China, Iraq, Africa, Latin America, 

and the Middle East). 

As one of the 10 countries of “chief industrial importance,” the 

United States has a permanent government seat on the ILO’s 56-member 

Governing Body. In addition, a U.S. worker representative (usually from the 

AFL-CIO) and a U.S. employer representative (from the U.S. Council for 

International Business) hold seats on the Governing Body. They speak and 

vote independently of the U.S. Government. 

The ILO focuses international attention on cases of abuse of basic 

worker rights and strives for elimination of those abuses. For example, the 

ILO is engaged in ongoing efforts to achieve the elimination of forced labor in 

Burma, which an ILO Commission of Inquiry in 1998 found to be 

“widespread and systematic.” In 2005, the ILO cited Belarus, Burma, China, 

Colombia, and Venezuela for violations of fundamental trade union rights and 

the principle of freedom of association. 

The ILO plays a key role in combating exploitative child labor 

worldwide, a U.S. priority. In 2005, the International Program on the 

Elimination of Child Labor (IPEC) removed or prevented more than 160,000 

children from subjection to exploitative work through the provision of 

educational and training opportunities in ongoing projects funded by the U.S. 

Department of Labor. Through these projects, IPEC also increased the 

capacity of 39 countries to address child labor, including improvements in the 

countries’ legal frameworks that reflect international child labor standards; the 

adoption or implementation of programs or policies to combat the worst forms 

of child labor; mainstreaming of child labor concerns into relevant 

development, social and anti-poverty policies and programs; and/or 

establishment of a child labor monitoring mechanism. Since its establishment 

in 1992, IPEC has received from donor governments and organizations over 

$350 million, with annual expenditures now running at $55 to 70 million. 

Projects to combat exploitative child labor are located in Latin America, the 

Caribbean, Africa, Asia, the Middle East, and Europe. 

In 2005, the ILO had technical assistance programs in place or under 

development in several countries of vital concern to the United States. The 

ILO continued to work with Iraqi Labor Ministry officials, business leaders, 

and trade unionists in discussions about implementation of the new Iraqi labor 

code (developed with ILO assistance), enhancing the capabilities of the 

reformed Iraqi Ministry of Labor and Social Affairs, generating employment, 

and strengthening employment services. The ILO has been instrumental in 

assisting U.S. trading partners in Central America, Oman, and the United Arab 

Emirates to establish labor codes and practices in conformity with its core 

principles of workers’ rights as a precondition to Free Trade Agreements with 
Specialized Agencies and Other Bodies 

109 

the United States. In China, the ILO sponsored anti-trafficking and mine 

safety programs. 

In calendar year 2005, the ILO’s regular budget was approximately 

$287 million. The U.S. assessment for the ILO was about $64 million, 

representing 22 percent of the ILO’s regular budget funded by assessed 

contributions. The United States also contributed $40 million to IPEC. 

At the end of 2005, the ILO had 643 professional posts subject to 

geographic distribution, 86 of which were held by U.S. citizens (13.4 percent 

compared with 13.8 percent for 2004). 

International Maritime Organization (IMO) 

The International Maritime Organization’s (IMO) principal objectives 

are to foster international cooperation on technical matters affecting 

international shipping and to achieve the highest practicable standards for 

maritime safety, security, and environmental protection. 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, headquartered in London, is governed by the Assembly 

and Council. The United States has been elected to the 40-member Council 

ever since the creation of the IMO in 1948 and was again re-elected in 

November 2005 to another two-year term. Efthimios Mitropoulos (Greece) is 

the Secretary-General of the IMO. His initial term of four years will extend 

until 2007. There are 166 full IMO members and three associate members (the 

Faroe Islands, Hong Kong, and Macao). East Timor and Zimbabwe joined the 

IMO in 2005. 

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 as well as 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. The SOLAS and ISPS 

amendments consist of both voluntary and mandatory provisions. The 

amendments require ships and port facilities to develop and maintain security 

plans and to designate security officers to ensure that the plans are fully 

implemented. Ships are also required to carry documents on their recent 

activities, ownership, and control. Furthermore, the amendments mandate a 

ship-to-shore system to alert authorities to security incidents. Most 

significantly, the IMO standards enable states to use their existing port 

authority to verify that ships comply with IMO security regulations and to take 

appropriate measures in response to any deficiencies found, including the 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2005 

110 

denial of port entry. As a port state, the United States continued to use this 

authority in 2005 to enhance maritime security. 

The SOLAS amendments and the ISPS Code entered into force on 

July 1, 2004. This marked the high point in a period of intense activity 

throughout the industry as all sectors—port authorities and operators, ship 

owners and operators, and governments and administrations—worked to 

implement the new measures as quickly and as effectively as possible. 

Figures made available by IMO in November 2005 indicated that compliance 

was close to 100 percent. The task now is to enhance the level and quality of 

compliance in every country. To this end, the IMO established a trust fund to 

provide technical assistance to countries on maritime security. During 2005, 

the United States contributed almost $100,000 to the fund to provide technical 

assistance to countries on maritime security. 

As part of the international community’s continuing response to the 

threat of international terrorism, the IMO held a diplomatic conference in 

October to adopt two protocols. These protocols will respectively amend the 

1988 Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of 

Maritime Navigation and the 1988 Protocol for the Suppression of Unlawful 

Acts Against the Safety of Fixed Platforms Located on the Continental Shelf 

(the IMO SUA instruments), and which will complement the SOLAS and 

ISPS Code, practical measures already in force. Among other things, the 2005 

protocols expand the scope of offences in the IMO SUA instruments to 

address acts involving the use and transport of biological, chemical, and 

nuclear materials; to provide for the first time a comprehensive regime for the 

boarding of foreign flag ships in international waters; and to provide an 

enhanced basis for bringing to justice persons who organize, direct, or engage 

in a conspiracy related to the commission of offences covered under the IMO 

SUA instruments. 

IMO worked to facilitate protection of shipping lanes of strategic 

importance. An example is the IMO’s initiative to enhance the security, 

safety, and environmental protection in the Straits of Malacca and Singapore, 

which have been subject to attacks by pirates. Any serious disruption to the 

flow of maritime traffic through the Straits would have a widespread and farreaching detrimental effect, presenting ships with a long detour and, without 

doubt, higher freight rates and costlier goods and commodities would ensue. 

In September 2005, IMO sponsored a conference in Jakarta, Indonesia, 

consisting of representatives of Malacca Straits littoral states, Straits users, and 

other concerned parties, including industry. This meeting began an on-going 

process of cooperation between diverse interests to combat piracy as well as to 

enhance environmental protection and maritime safety in this vital waterway. 

The IMO, strongly urged by the United States, adopted a plan in 

November 2005 to undertake audits of countries’ effectiveness in 

implementing IMO global shipping standards, to include the ISPS Code. The 

IMO Member State Voluntary Audit Scheme will help promote maritime 
Specialized Agencies and Other Bodies 

111 

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. 

While the audits will initially be voluntary, they are expected ultimately to 

become mandatory. Ideally, 33 countries will be audited each year on a fiveyear rotating basis. In addition, the Scheme should help identify where 

capacity-building activities would have the greatest effect and target 

appropriate, relevant actions; assist member states to improve their own 

capacity to put the applicable instruments into practice; and inform member 

states of generic lessons learned so that the benefits are widely shared. 

Moreover, the results of the learning experience could be systematically fed 

back into the regulatory process at IMO to help make measurable 

improvements in the effectiveness of the international regulatory framework of 

shipping. 

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 U.S. contribution was approximately $1.4 

million toward IMO’s 2005 assessed budget of approximately $38.3 million. 

In 2005, U.S. citizens held four of the 97 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. In 2005, there were 189 member 

states and over 700 sector and associate members in the ITU. Yoshio Utsumi 

(Japan) is Secretary-General of the ITU. ITU activities touch on areas of 

fundamental importance for U.S. national and commercial security, 

particularly those related to radio spectrum allocation, setting of global 

telecommunication standards, and consideration of global telecommunication 

policy. 

The 46–member ITU Council, of which the United States is a 

member, 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 

Geneva-based ITU held its annual Council meeting July 12–22, 2005. The 

United States was particularly interested this year in the ongoing efforts to 

reform the ITU financial system as a means to enhance the transparency and 

efficiency of the Union, and in the manner by which the ITU—as Secretariat 

for the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS)—would fully 

finance and coordinate the Phase II WSIS held in Tunis in November 2005. 

For the past several years, the United States led a highly successful reform 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2005 

112 

effort in the ITU that resulted in the ITU increasingly operating on a sound 

financial basis. 

Unlike most other UN agencies, the ITU is funded by a system of 

voluntary contributory units rather than assessed contributions. At the 2005 

Council, the United States successfully limited the increase in the base 

contributory unit for the 2006–2007 biennial period to less than one percent of 

the current rate ($263,477, or approximately $2,487 above its 2005 level). The 

United States pays 30 contributory units annually. 

In addition, the 2005 session of the ITU Council concluded with an 

agreement to extend and clarify the mandate of a Canadian-led Council Group 

on Financial Regulations and to establish a Council Working Group for the 

Elaboration of the Draft ITU Strategic Plan and Draft ITU Financial Plan for 

the period 2008–2011. The Council Group was instructed to more closely link 

the ITU’s Strategic, Operational, and Financial Plans for the next quadrennial 

period and the United States stressed the importance of coordination with the 

more management-focused work of the Council Oversight Group. 

As a result of extensive discussion about cost recovery allocation 

mechanisms and income from satellite network filings during and after the 

2004 Council session, the 2005 Council adopted a new satellite network filing 

cost recovery mechanism. The United States successfully negotiated a cost 

recovery mechanism that provided greater predictability of costs and fairer 

pricing. 

The Telecommunication Development (D) Sector provides 

opportunities for U.S. Government and industry participation as it focuses on 

expanding telecommunications networks and services in the developing world. 

In March 2002, the ITU held its quadrennial World Telecommunication 

Development Conference in Istanbul. The Conference produced a four-year 

Action Plan that guided the work of the D Sector membership, and of the ITU 

Development Bureau leadership and staff. Through the Istanbul Action Plan, 

developed and developing countries worked together to improve 

telecommunications and boost economic growth in developing, and especially 

least developed, countries. At the 2005 Council, the United States pushed for 

greater transparency and accountability regarding the projects undertaken, 

with special efforts to complete or terminate projects that had not moved 

forward in the past year. The Sector also increased private-sector participation 

in, and funding for, national and regional workshops to build public-private 

partnerships aimed at developing infrastructure and improving telephone 

density. The resulting effort coincided with ITU and industry programs 

related to WSIS, resulting in ITU cooperation with companies such as 

Hewlett-Packard, Microsoft, and Cisco Systems and the Governments of 

Afghanistan, Benin, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Burundi, Cameroon, 

and Rwanda, among others, to help bring information and communication 

technology skills to underserved communities and provide cheaper and more 

reliable communication to remote areas. 
Specialized Agencies and Other Bodies 

113 

At the 2005 Council, member states agreed that the ITU should play a 

role in the implementation and follow-up to WSIS within its core 

competencies. The ITU effectively carried out its role as Secretariat to the 

WSIS and in that capacity raised sufficient funds to cover all expenses and to 

repay to the ITU money advanced to the WSIS in 2004. Phase II of the WSIS 

held in Tunis in November 2005 was very successful. The United States 

achieved its primary objectives in the documents adopted by consensus at 

WSIS Phase II of maintaining the status quo in terms of the current 

management of the Internet and the Internet’s Domain Name System and in 

reaffirming support for human rights, freedom of expression and the press, and 

the free flow of information. 

ITU’s 2005 budget was approximately $84.8 million. The United 

States contributed approximately $7.6 million in 2005. In 2005, of 282 ITU 

personnel positions subject to geographic distribution, U.S. citizens occupied 

16, or 5.7 percent of the total. 

UN Educational, Scientific, and Cultural 

Organization (UNESCO) 

The UN Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization 

(UNESCO) was established in 1945 with the primary objective of contributing 

to peace and security worldwide by promoting global collaboration through 

education, science, and culture. Since rejoining UNESCO on October 1, 2003, 

the United States continues to promote U.S. priorities at UNESCO in each of 

the Organization’s five sectors: Education, Culture, Communication and 

Information, Natural Sciences, and Social and Human Sciences. 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. UNESCO, which is headquartered in Paris, has 191 member 

states and has been led since 1999 by Director-General Koichiro Matsuura 

(Japan). He was reappointed for a four-year term in October 2005. 

The Executive Board, one of UNESCO’s three constitutional bodies, 

consists of 58 member states with four-year terms of office. It examines the 

program of work and corresponding budget proposals, and ensures the 

effective and rational execution of the program by the Director-General. As a 

member of the Board, with a term that expires in 2008, the United States 

participated in the semiannual Board Sessions in Paris in April and September 

2005. The Board continued negotiations on two instruments, the Convention 

on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions and 

the Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights. The United States engaged 

actively in negotiating both of these instruments. In September, the Executive 

Board recommended that the General Conference, which met in October, 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2005 

114 

consider the Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of 

Cultural Expressions and the Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights. 

The Executive Board examined the Director-General’s preliminary 

proposals concerning UNESCO’s Program and Budget for 2008–2009. The 

Board also recommended that the Director-General temporarily stop creating 

normative instruments, put more effort into implementing education for all, 

and implement a review of the Natural and Social and Human Science 

programs. 

U.S. priorities at the Executive Board were to maintain budget 

discipline within UNESCO and focus UNESCO program efforts and budget 

resources on the areas of literacy, capacity building in science and 

engineering, and the preservation of cultural objects. In particular, the United 

States was pleased with UNESCO efforts in the area of education. 

In 2005, UNESCO saw several successes in the area of education, a 

main priority for the United States. The United States worked with other 

member states to promote results-based education programs at the country 

level, where they will do the most good toward achieving the goals of 

education for all. The United States also worked closely with UNESCO in 

launching the Literacy Initiative for Empowerment, a literacy strategic 

framework with the goal of achieving concrete, measurable results in 34 

countries with the highest rates of illiteracy. U.S. literacy experts were 

included in the preparation of this strategy, as a way to help ensure that U.S. 

research and experience in this critical area could be shared with others, 

including the promotion of an inter-generational, mother/child approach to 

literacy programming. 

At the General Conference in October, the United States was able to 

join consensus on the Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights by heading 

off an intense effort to include a number of subjects that were inappropriate for 

the declaration. The United States, however, voted against the Convention on 

the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions after it 

became clear that the Convention was going to be used to implement trade 

protections for “cultural expressions.” Negotiations on the Convention, which 

was heavily promoted by France and Canada, were set in motion by the 

adoption of a related Declaration before the U.S. reentry to UNESCO in 2003. 

In addition to concerns about the Convention’s potential effect on trade, the 

United States also expressed concerns about the impact of the Convention on 

the free flow of information. The vote on adoption of the Convention was 148 

to two (U.S. and Israel), with four abstentions. Thirty countries must deposit 

their instruments of ratification with UNESCO for it to enter into force. 

The UNESCO regular budget for 2005 was approximately $305 

million; the U.S. assessment was $76.7 million. Since 1986, the United States 

has also regularly made voluntary contributions to UNESCO. The 2005 

contribution totaled $837,000 and was used to support UNESCO-related 
Specialized Agencies and Other Bodies 

115 

international educational, scientific, cultural, and communications activities 

considered to be in the U.S. national interest. In 2005, of the 732 positions 

subject to geographic distribution, Americans held 30 posts, or 4.1 percent. 

UN Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic 

Radiation (UNSCEAR) 

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 53rd session met in Vienna, on September 26–30, 2005. The 

U.S. delegation included advisors from academia, the private sector, and the 

U.S. Government. The Scientific Committee reviewed 12 scientific 

documents on topics that included sources-to-effects assessment of radon in 

homes and workplaces; 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. Deliberations of the Scientific Committee resulted in a 

path forward for the upcoming year. As some of the documents are at a much 

more advanced stage than others, the Scientific Committee anticipates that a 

report to the General Assembly with scientific annexes will be made in 2006, 

with a second set of annexes to follow in 2007. 

Increased communication and coordination between UNSCEAR and 

the UN Environment Program (UNEP) in 2003 partially restored UNSCEAR 

funding to 1994 nominal funding levels. However, funding issues continued 

to plague UNSCEAR in 2005. The United States encouraged UNEP and the 

UNSCEAR Secretariat to strengthen communication and coordination. This 

engagement included discussions between the U.S. Permanent Representative 

in Nairobi and the UNEP Executive Director and U.S. input to the 2006–2007 

UN budget process. In the proposed program budget report for the 2006–

2007 biennium, the UN’s Advisory Committee on Administrative and 

Budgetary Questions noted that, in lieu of additional resources in 2006–2007, 

UNEP would provide the needed resources through redeployment to ensure 

that the Scientific Committee fulfills it mandate. 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 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2005 

116 

operate as an effective, credible, and independent scientific body and that its 

findings are widely disseminated. 

UNSCEAR has a very small secretariat staff in Vienna, composed of 

a full-time scientist or secretary. UNSCEAR’s budget for 2005 was $465,500 

and is funded from the UN regular budget. The U.S. assessment was 

approximately $102,410. 

Universal Postal Union (UPU) 

The Universal Postal Union (UPU), with headquarters in Bern, 

Switzerland, facilitates the efficient operation of postal services across national 

borders and serves as a forum for regulatory and customer issues related to 

postal and express delivery markets. Edouard Dayan (France) was elected 

Director-General of the UPU in 2004. The United States joined the UPU at its 

founding in 1874. In 2005, the UPU had 190 members. In recent years the 

UPU has become noted for strict fiscal discipline, advances in strategic 

planning, measurement of the service performance of individual postal 

administrations, and innovative voluntary organizations known as 

“cooperatives” which have brought to the UPU corporate-like structures that 

feature weighted voting, targeted business plans, and boards whose directors 

are elected in their individual capacity, as opposed to the country being 

elected. 

Throughout 2005, U.S. policy goals focused on building a system of 

terminal dues (inter-administration payments for the handling and delivery of 

inbound international mail) based as closely as possible on costs; improving 

existing methodologies for measuring the performance of postal 

administrations, airlines and contractors in transporting and delivering 

international mail; and solidifying private-sector participation in the UPU. 

For the first time, the United States was elected as the chair of the 

Postal Operations Council (POC) in 2004. At this session, the U.S. delegation 

set a clear strategic direction for the Council. The United States also retained 

leadership of two critical bodies: the Postal Security Action Group and the 

Standards Board. The United States also served in key positions in the 

Telematics Cooperative, the Express Mail Service Cooperative, and the 

Quality of Service Fund Board of Trustees. Due to UPU regulations, the 

United States cannot serve on the Council of Administration during the 2005–

2008 period. 

Also at the 2004 session, the POC considered nearly 400 proposals to 

amend the UPU Letter and Post Regulations. Eleven of the 13 proposals 

submitted by the United States were adopted, while the remaining two were 

referred for study. The successful U.S. proposals concerned mandatory use of 

barcodes on parcels; a standard universal mailbag; regulations governing 

inquiries; and confirmation of receipt of preadvised letter and parcel 

dispatches through electronic messages. Another U.S. proposal of importance 

to the nation’s scientific community adopted at this session lifted a UPU 
Specialized Agencies and Other Bodies 

117 

prohibition against mailing fruit flies (of the genus drosophila melanogaster) 

across national borders. These flies are used worldwide for critical biomedical 

research on the genetic causes of major human diseases, and the ability to 

include them in international postal items is expected to accelerate this 

research considerably. 

Since 2005 was the first year of the quadrennial Congress period, the 

U.S. delegations to both the POC and the Council of Administration 

contributed heavily to organizing the structures of the working groups formed 

by these Councils and drafting four-year work plans. In addition to the groups 

already cited, the U.S. delegation showed a keen interest in those groups 

engaged in strategic planning, further reform of the UPU, refinement of legal 

definitions in the UPU Acts, customs clearance, World Trade Organization 

issues as they relate to cross-border postal traffic, as well as improvement and 

growth of parcel post and direct mail. 

The UPU Consultative Committee, which was formed by the 2004 

Bucharest Congress and whose members included private-sector associations 

of mailers, express delivery firms, trade unions, equipment manufacturers, and 

other postal stakeholders, launched an ambitious four-year work program 

focusing on such issues as customs clearance, trade matters, and projects of 

particular interest to large mailers, such as cross-border address forwarding 

and access models. The Chair of the Committee, Charles Prescott of the 

Direct Marketing Association, is American. The UPU is one of the few UN 

specialized agencies that allows participation by private sector representatives 

at its meetings. 

The UPU operates under a biennial budget. The UPU Congress 

approved an overall budget ceiling of $116.5 million for the next two biennial 

UPU budgets (through 2008). The UPU budget for 2005–2006 is about $56.3 

million. The UPU approved budget has remained level since 1998. 

Member country contributions to the UPU are determined according 

to “contribution units” that each country volunteers to pay. The United States 

subscribes to 50 contribution units, which amounts to approximately 5.7 

percent of the UPU budget. The cost to the United States was approximately 

$1.6 million in 2005. In addition, the U.S. Postal Service made extrabudgetary 

contributions to UPU in 2005 amounting to $397,000 including the salary of a 

postal security consultant seconded to the UPU staff. 

The UPU staff is comprised of 97 professionals. At the end of 2005, 

four (4.1 percent) of these professionals were U.S. citizens, including the chef 

de cabinet. 

World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) 

The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) promotes the 

protection of intellectual property rights throughout the world through 

facilitating cooperation among member states and collaboration with other 

international organizations. Established by the WIPO Convention in 1967, it 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2005 

118 

became a specialized agency of the United Nations in 1974. WIPO is 

headquartered in Geneva, Switzerland, and operates several offices around the 

world, including in New York, Washington, D.C., and Brussels, Belgium. Dr. 

Kamil Idris (Sudan) is the Director-General. There are 183 members of the 

WIPO Convention (Afghanistan joined in 2005). The United States is 

currently a party to 14 WIPO treaties. Fees for service generate more than 90 

percent of WIPO’s revenue, and fees paid by U.S. nationals comprise 

approximately 40 percent of WIPO’s fee revenue. 

WIPO administers various treaties that deal with the legal and 

administrative aspects of intellectual property, which include patents, 

trademarks, and copyrights. The two principal treaties are the Paris and Berne 

Conventions (with, in 2005, 169 and 159 members, respectively). WIPO also 

administers 20 multilateral “unions” (the treaty administering organs). 

The General Assemblies of WIPO Unions were held in Geneva from 

September 26–October 5, 2005. The WIPO General Assembly, of which the 

United States is a member, addressed many important issues facing the 

organization, including efforts to strengthen accountability and oversight 

within the organization, conclude a treaty to update international intellectual 

property standards for broadcasting in the information age, establish a 

constructive framework in which to assess how to further integrate a 

development dimension into WIPO’s work, and develop a possible work 

program for the Standing Committee on the Law of Patents (SCP). 

The United States achieved several major objectives in line with the 

U.S. vision of UN reform. The Assembly adopted a balanced, results-based 

budget for the first time in several years. The budget included no fee increases 

or changes in member contributions, both major U.S. goals. The United 

States, working with like-minded countries, gained approval of the following 

two decisions to strengthen accountability and oversight and improve internal 

management and transparency: adoption of an Internal Audit Charter and 

approval of the creation of an Audit Committee. The Audit Committee will 

oversee the desk-to-desk audit recommended by the UN Joint Inspection Unit 

(JIU) and will also provide significant oversight of a new building 

construction project (valued at over $100 million). The Assembly stipulated 

that an external manager must be engaged for the construction project to 

prevent a repeat of significant cost overruns that occurred with the previous 

WIPO construction project. Modifications to staff regulations also tightened 

rules on conflict of interest and financial disclosure. 

The United States pushed strongly for implementation of the other 

JIU recommendations, including limiting the Director-General’s ability to 

transfer funds, to make personal promotions, and to fill positions through 

direct recruitment. However, those reforms were referred to the WIPO 

Program and Budget Committee for further review. In 2005, at the strong 

urging of a group of like-minded states led by the United States, WIPO 

engaged independent auditors Ernst & Young to investigate allegations of 
Specialized Agencies and Other Bodies 

119 

fraud and mismanagement, with their report to be delivered in early 2006. A 

separate Swiss investigation into possible criminal wrongdoing is ongoing. 

The General Assembly extended the mandate of the 

Intergovernmental Committee (IGC) on Intellectual Property and Genetic 

Resources, Traditional Knowledge, and Folklore, of which the United States is 

an active member, through 2006–2007. The IGC will continue its current 

mandate to “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.” 

After much discussion, the 2005 WIPO General Assembly also 

agreed to enhance the development dimension in WIPO’s work by establishing 

a Provisional Committee on Proposals Related to a WIPO Development 

Agenda (PCDA) to accelerate and complete discussions on proposals related 

to enhancement of a WIPO development agenda. The PCDA will meet twice 

in 2006 to complete its work. In its interventions on this proposal during the 

General Assembly, the United States emphasized that WIPO’s activities 

already included a strong development component, and that the United States 

had previously proposed an Internet-based WIPO Partnership Program. 

Utilizing existing WIPO resources, the Partnership Program would assure that 

information on WIPO’s many ongoing development activities was made more 

readily available to developing countries. 

The Assembly also instituted a process to move forward on 

discussions on substantive patent law harmonization. An informal open forum 

will be held followed by an informal meeting of the SCP to agree on a work 

program for the SCP, taking into account the forum discussions. The 

Assembly also called for two meetings of the Standing Committee on 

Copyright and Related Rights before the next Assembly to finalize a draft 

Broadcasters Treaty text. If successful, a diplomatic conference on that treaty 

will be convened by the 2006 Assembly. The United States strongly 

supported both of these measures as a means to move forward on discussions 

in WIPO that had been stalled for some time. 

In 2005, the portion of WIPO’s budget assessed to member states was 

$13.8 million; the U.S. share of that assessed WIPO budget was 6.59 percent, 

or $909,398. The U.S. assessed contribution represents less than one percent 

of WIPO’s total revenue, although, as noted above, approximately 40 percent 

of WIPO’s revenue comes from filing fees paid by U.S. nationals, the largest 

group of WIPO supporters. Of 357 positions subject to geographic 

distribution, Americans occupied 21, or six percent. 

World Meteorological Organization (WMO) 

The World Meteorological Organization (WMO), based in Geneva, 

Switzerland, facilitates international cooperation in meteorology, hydrology, 

climate, and other related matters. As weather and climate transcend 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2005 

120 

geopolitical boundaries, international cooperation in meteorological data 

collection and exchange is essential to U.S. economic interests. Through 

coordination of a network of member-operated observation stations, 

telecommunications systems, and forecasting centers, WMO facilitates the 

rapid exchange of standardized, quality-controlled meteorological data, 

weather forecasts, and disaster warnings. WMO provides essential data to the 

U.S. National Weather Service for use in the development of weather forecasts 

and warnings, better enabling the United States to protect life and property 

from severe weather events, and furthering its economic interests in, among 

other things, the aviation, shipping, and agricultural sectors. WMO also 

sponsors capacity-building initiatives aimed at improving local data collection 

and forecasting capacities, thus enhancing the accuracy and timely delivery of 

meteorological data and services on a global scale. Secretary-General Michel 

Jarraud (France) was re-elected to a four-year term in 2003. 

The WMO membership includes 181 states and six member 

territories, all of which maintain their own meteorological services and collect 

meteorological data within their domain. The WMO governing structure 

includes a Congress and Executive Council. The Congress, which meets every 

four years and is comprised of member states and territories, establishes the 

budget and overall priorities for the organization. The Executive Council 

meets every year and oversees administration of the budget and addresses 

related technical and policy issues. The Council is comprised of 37 members, 

the President and Vice-President of the organization, six presidents of the 

regional associations, and 27 directors of the members’ national 

meteorological or hydrometeorological services. The U.S. representative to 

the WMO was re-elected to the WMO Executive Council in 2003 for a fouryear term. 

The United States participated in the 2005 Executive Council session 

and ensured that WMO operations were consistent with U.S. interests in 

meteorology, hydrology, and climate, and supportive of the newly created 

Group on Earth Observations. The Council reviewed administration of the 

WMO budget and established technical and policy priorities for the following 

year. The United States succeeded in maintaining a strong emphasis on 

improved internal oversight, management reform, and adoption of resultsbased budgeting. In 2005, the WMO strengthened its internal oversight 

functions and increased transparency in its accounts. Work was also initiated 

on development of a new Long Term Plan, with updated goals and strategies 

for consideration and possible adoption by the WMO next Congress, which 

will meet in 2007. 

In 2005, WMO continued to facilitate meteorological data collection 

and exchange through key programs such as the World Weather Watch and the 

Global Climate Observing System. These programs provided essential data 

for numerical weather modeling and made it possible for WMO members, 

including the United States, to provide weather-related services at costs far 
Specialized Agencies and Other Bodies 

121 

below those that would be incurred if each member acted alone. Also in 2005, 

WMO upgraded the Global Telecommunications Service, which served as the 

communications backbone for exchange of weather data, forecasts, and 

warnings, including tsunami and hurricane alerts. WMO also supported 

education, training, and technical cooperation programs aimed at enhancing 

the capacity of countries to provide weather forecasts for their own 

populations and to contribute to global data collection and forecasting efforts. 

Through the WMO Voluntary Cooperation Program (VCP), the 

United States supported key projects and provided equipment, training, and 

services to WMO members requiring assistance. In 2005, the U.S. 

contribution funded, among other things, natural disaster prediction and 

preparedness initiatives, including support for the development of a tsunami 

early warning system in the Indian Ocean, and improvement of flood 

forecasting capabilities in the Americas. 

In 2005, WMO regular budget spending was approximately $51.5 

million, or one-quarter of the 2004–2007 quadrennial budget of $205 million. 

Total member assessments in 2005 amounted to $50.4 million, of which the 

U.S. share, at 21.6 percent, amounted to approximately $10.9 million. The 

United States also contributed approximately $1.9 million to the VCP. Out of 

the 124 professional-level staff subject to geographical distribution, only six 

were American citizens (4.8 percent). Notably, WMO hired American citizens 

to several key posts in 2005, including Director of the World Weather Watch 

and Chief of the Tropical Cyclone Program. 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2005 

122 
123 

Part 4 

Legal Developments 

Cloning 

On March 8, 2005, the UN General Assembly adopted a U.S.-backed 

Declaration urging UN member states to prohibit all human cloning and to 

enact domestic legislation to that end. The UN General Assembly adopted the 

Declaration, on the recommendation of the Sixth (Legal) Committee, by a vote 

of 84 (U.S.) to 34, with 37 abstentions. Seven states that missed the vote later 

went on record as supporting the Declaration. In part, the Declaration called 

on UN members to adopt all measures necessary to protect adequately human 

life in the application of life sciences; to prohibit all forms of human cloning 

inasmuch as they are incompatible with human dignity and the protection of 

human life; to adopt the measures necessary to prohibit the applications of 

genetic engineering techniques that may be contrary to human dignity; to take 

measures to prevent the exploitation of women in the application of life 

sciences; and to adopt and implement without delay national legislation to 

bring into effect the above actions. 

The Committee also acted on three proposed amendments to the 

Declaration, put forward by Belgium. The United States did not support 

opening the text to amendments and accordingly voted against all three 

proposals. The Committee adopted the first amendment, which added a clause 

which referenced Article 11 of the Universal Declaration on the Human 

Genome and Human Rights, by a vote of 59 to 47 (U.S.), with 41 abstentions. 

The Committee rejected the other two amendments. The second amendment, 

defeated by a vote of 48 to 57 (U.S.), with 42 abstentions, would have deleted 

operative language calling on member states to adopt measures necessary to 

protect human life. The third amendment, defeated by a vote of 52 to 55 

(U.S.), with 42 abstentions, would have replaced operative language calling on 

member states to prohibit all forms of human cloning with language calling 

upon member states to prohibit the reproductive cloning of human beings. 

The United States made a statement expressing support for the 

Declaration on Human Cloning, explaining that this Declaration was 

consistent with the longstanding U.S. position that all forms of human cloning 

are contrary to human dignity and should be banned. The Declaration’s 

adoption reflected the fact that more and more UN members had come to 

support such a ban. 

The United States had been working for the past four years with likeminded states to achieve this strong statement by the United Nations against 

human cloning. The United Nations began discussing cloning in 2001 when 

the General Assembly adopted a French/German resolution that created and 

tasked an ad hoc committee of the Sixth Committee to develop a framework 

for a convention to ban human reproductive cloning. In 2002, 2003, and 2004, 

the ad hoc committee and the working group of the Sixth Committee were 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2005 

124 

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 on human cloning for reproductive purposes but not for experimental 

purposes. In November 2004, the Committee decided by consensus to take up 

the issue of human cloning as a non-binding declaration (instead of a legally 

binding convention) which would be considered in February 2005. Italy 

submitted a draft declaration, which the United States supported. U.S. 

representatives worked with like-minded states to ensure adoption of the draft 

declaration by the Sixth Committee with minimal changes. 

UN Commission on International Trade Law 

(UNCITRAL) 

The UN Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL), 

established by UN General Assembly Resolution 2205 (XXI) in 1966, 

continued its technical legal work on commercial and economic law reform to 

promote trade and commerce in all geographic regions. The Commission’s 

work is reviewed and approved by the General Assembly’s Sixth (Legal) 

Committee, and its international legal texts are subject to adoption or 

endorsement by the General Assembly. In December 2005, the General 

Assembly reaffirmed the Commission’s mandate as the core legal body within 

the UN system in the field of international trade law (Resolution 60/20). The 

United States started its new six-year elected term on the Commission in 2004. 

The Commission focuses on economic and technical effects of 

commercial law. It promotes economic reform through multilateral 

conventions, model national laws, UN legislative guidelines, and technical 

assistance on trade and commercial law. 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. 

Located at the UN’s International Center in Vienna, Austria, the 

Commission usually holds two one-week working group meetings annually on 

each topic, as well as interim meetings of experts groups. Each project is then 

examined at the Commission’s annual plenary session, which reviews and 

approves the work program. The Commission invites industry and privatesector nongovernmental organizations which have established expertise in the 

topic of a working group to participate fully as observers and speak on 

technical matters. U.S. private-sector associations are particularly active on 

this basis, and the Department of State works closely with U.S. bar and trade 

and industry groups to assure representation of their interests in all 

UNCITRAL topics. The 2005 annual plenary session was held July 4–15 in 

Vienna. 

The Commission finalized and adopted the UN Convention on the 

Use of Electronic Communications in International Contracts, which was 

subsequently endorsed and opened for signature and ratification by the 

General Assembly in Resolution 60/21, adopted on November 23. The 
Legal Developments 

125 

Convention broke new ground, first by adopting basic rules to enable 

international e-commerce, so as to promote harmonization between states 

before the otherwise inevitable enactment of widely disparate national laws, 

and second by including optional provisions enabling states to modernize preexisting treaties. The Convention’s rules were based on the Commission’s 

1996 model law on e-commerce, which was the basis in the United States of 

both federal and uniform state law on e-commerce. It adopted a minimalist 

and non-regulatory approach, favored by the United States and like-minded 

states. 

The Convention applies generally to international contracts; validates 

computer-based messages in commerce; and provides rules for signatures, 

originals, location of parties, time and place of sending and receipt, and certain 

automated transactions, all of which are important for Internet and email-based 

commerce and are difficult to resolve under traditional contract law. These 

rules preserve party autonomy and can be varied by transacting parties; they 

are also subject to broad exclusion by states, in recognition that e-commerce is 

in an early stage of development. Excluded altogether are consumer 

transactions and certain financial and market transactions. 

The Convention’s provisions allow states to optionally apply it to 

existing treaties to which it is a party, which is consistent with the practice 

under international private law, of allowing formal declarations by states 

which vary application of certain provisions only in that state, but which do 

not affect other states’ application of those provisions. The Commission 

rejected a controversial provision sought by the European Commission which 

would have had a UN treaty regulate European Union (EU) internal affairs, 

which was opposed by the United States and 16 of 17 EU member states 

attending (the United Kingdom represented the EU Presidency and did not 

take a position). 

Working Group I continued to draft changes to the Commission’s 

Model Law on Procurement of Goods, Construction, and Services, which has 

been used by the World Bank and others to promote economically sound laws 

for public acquisition which also promote transparency, competition, and anticollusion practices. The changes were mainly focused on updating the Model 

Law to incorporate electronic bidding and computer-based transactions and 

acquisitions. 

The Working Group also considered draft provisions on electronic 

communications and relevant controls over e-procurement, electronic reverse 

auctions, framework agreements, permissible uses of suppliers’ lists, remedies 

and enforcement, community participation, legalization of documents, and 

other matters. While remaining consistent with modern principles in public 

procurement, reflected in U.S. state and federal laws and practice, the 

Commission’s objectives were to produce texts and principles that could be 

more readily adopted by developing and emerging states. 

Working Group II continued its effort to resolve several longstanding differences on the power of an arbitral tribunal to grant interim relief, 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2005 

126 

including relief on an ex-parte basis, as well as interim measures issued by 

state courts in support of arbitration. Issues involving interim relief and ex 

parte orders in particular remained contentious. Once resolved, they may be 

considered as additional provisions to the already widely adopted UNCITRAL 

Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration. A compromise solution 

supported by the United States is hoped to be finalized in 2006. 

The Working Group, in conjunction with the International Bar 

Association, various regional and national arbitration centers, and others, 

continued to monitor the legislative implementation of the 1958 UN “New 

York” Convention on Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards. The Working 

Group also considered potential future work, including revising the widely 

used UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules; on-line dispute resolution; arbitration of 

intra-corporate disputes; and disputes involving immovable property, 

insolvency, or unfair competition. 

Working Group III continued its effort to bring unity to a field of law 

largely split for almost 80 years between differing sets of international rules 

and national laws, by drafting a new convention on carriage of goods by sea 

and other modes of transportation. The complexity of the issues reflected the 

number of stakeholders involved, such as carriers, shippers, freight forwarders, 

insurers, consignees, and others. The draft, in addition to its focus on carriage 

of goods by sea, also would deal with related issues involving land 

transportation, as well as bills of lading, liability limitations, right of control, 

transfer of rights, jurisdiction, arbitration, party autonomy, and special rules 

for negotiated contracts. 

The Commission clarified some issues concerning working methods 

of the Working Group and the informal work of industry groups and states 

both at the meetings and between the meetings. The United States and likeminded states and the maritime and transportation industry have pursued 

discussion of a number of issues in informal settings in order to move the 

process forward; the Commission agreed that the Working Group and the 

Commission remained responsible for any decisions made. Even with 

approval of four weeks of intergovernmental negotiations per year, twice that 

of most UNCITRAL projects and given the number and complexity of issues, 

final adoption was considered likely only in 2008. 

Working Group VI continued its work on a UN Legislative Guide for 

Secured Finance Reform, building on its completion of the 2001 UNCITRAL 

Convention on the Assignment of Receivables in International Trade 

(Assignments Convention). In the 2005 meeting, the United States stated that 

modernizing such laws could release significantly more assets for collateral, 

and promote new finance, including finance for small and medium enterprises, 

in credit-deficient countries and regions. Initially focused on inventory 

financing and sales, the Commission authorized an extension of the legislative 

guide to intangibles such as bank deposits, letter of credit proceeds, and 

intellectual property rights. It was agreed that the Commission would seek 

coordination with work underway at the Organization of American States, the 
Legal Developments 

127 

World Bank, and others in this field. A basic divide remained between 

modern economic laws already tested in the United States and some other 

capital markets, which depend on transparent systems and public filings, and 

older traditions in some countries. Coordination of this project with prior 

work already completed by the Commission in its 2004 Legislative Guide on 

Insolvency Law presented difficult policy issues for the Group, since each 

project sought to boost trade in quite different ways. Given the rate of overall 

progress, the Commission was expected to seek interim approval of the 

secured finance legislative guide in 2006. 

The U.S. Congress enacted the 1997 UNCITRAL Model Law on 

Cross-Border Insolvency Cases as the new Chapter 15 of the U.S. Bankruptcy 

Code, effective in October 2005, reaffirming the value UN negotiated texts 

could have in the field of private law. The Senate Judiciary Committee and 

others expressed the hope that other countries would follow suit. Chapter 15 

opens U.S. courts to a wider range of actions involving foreign interests in 

business bankruptcy actions and is expected to promote more effective 

redistribution of assets in cross-border cases of business failure, a critical 

factor for modern economies. 

Building on that, and the subsequent completion in 2004 of the UN 

Legislative Guide on Insolvency Law, in 2005, the Commission held an 

international colloquium in Vienna to assess needs for further work in this 

field. Attendees supported work in the following three areas: treatment of 

corporate groups in cross-border insolvency cases; protocols to effect crossborder cooperation between courts and administrators in different countries; 

and rules allowing post-bankruptcy commencement financing, a key to 

enabling U.S.-style business rescue and reorganization to take place. 

The Commission continued its effort, supported by the United States, 

to develop information useable to stem the rising problem of international 

commercial fraud, affecting banks and other financial institutions in countries 

at all levels of development. In 2005, the Commission held an international 

colloquium involving experts from many countries, a method of work that 

permits a wide variety of interests to present their views to the Commission. 

A number of commercial sectors were involved, such as banking, letters of 

credit, insurance, and maritime shipping and cargo. This work was done in 

coordination with the UN’s Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal 

Justice, which also meets in Vienna. 

The Commission reviewed its working methods, reaffirming its 

objective of avoiding politicized issues and south versus north issues. It 

continued to support its tradition of adoption of technical commercial law 

provisions on the basis of substantial majority support, thus avoiding 

requirements for complete consensus which would render adoption of complex 

commercial law impractical. It also confirmed its method of assuring market 

effectiveness of its products by obtaining sufficient technical input from 

qualified nongovernmental organizations, which participate by special 

invitation. 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2005 

128 

Host Country Relations 

The General Assembly established the Committee on Relations with 

the Host Country in 1971 to address issues concerning the presence of the 

United Nations and the UN diplomatic community in the United States. These 

issues concerned the security of missions, the safety of their personnel, tax 

questions, legal and visa issues, and privileges and immunities. 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. 

In light of the enhanced national security requirements implemented 

in the United States following the events of September 11, 2001, and the 

difficulties experienced by representatives to the United Nations arriving and 

departing from the United States, the U.S. Mission hosted a special briefing at 

the United Nations on August 10, 2005, for all missions in preparation for the 

60th General Assembly. The briefing included guidance on diplomatic 

overflight and landing clearances, expedited port courtesies, customs and 

immigration, the escort-screening program, and related matters. Members 

were encouraged to do their part to make the processes work smoothly. The 

number of complaints from delegations to the 60th General Assembly with 

respect to arrivals and departures were minimal. 

Host Country Committee members continued to express concern 

about the implementation of the Parking Program for Diplomatic Vehicles, 

which was adopted in 2002. The Committee agreed that the host country 

would continue to bring to the attention of New York City officials reports of 

problems encountered by the permanent missions and that the Committee 

would remain seized of the matter. 

On November 23, the General Assembly adopted without a vote the 

“Report of the Committee on Relations with the Host Country” (Resolution 

60/24). 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; 

noted that the Committee would continue to review the implementation of the 

Parking Program; expressed its appreciation for the efforts made by the host 

country; noted that some travel restrictions previously imposed on the staff of 

certain missions and staff members of the Secretariat of certain nationalities 

were removed; and noted that the Committee anticipates that the host country 

will 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 
Legal Developments 

129 

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, 2005, the Court was composed as 

follows: Shi Jiuyong (China—President); Raymond Ranjeva (Madagascar—

Vice President); Abdul G. Koroma (Sierra Leone); Vladlen S. Vereshchetin 

(Russian Federation); Rosalyn Higgins (United Kingdom); Gonzalo ParraAranguren (Venezuela); Pieter H. Kooijmans (Netherlands); Francisco Rezek 

(Brazil); Awn Shawkat Al-Khasawneh (Jordan); Thomas Buergenthal (United 

States); Nabil Elaraby (Egypt); Hisashi Owada (Japan); Bruno Simma 

(Germany); Peter Tomka (Slovakia); and Ronny Abraham (France). 

In elections held on November 6, 2005, Judge Thomas Buergenthal 

of the United States was re-elected to the seat on the Court he has held since 

2000. In addition, four other judges were elected to the Court for the first 

time: Kenneth Keith (New Zealand); Bernardo Sepulvdea Amor (Mexico); 

Mohammed Bennouna (Morocco); and Leonid Skotnikov (Russian 

Federation). The terms of these judges begin on February 6, 2006. In 

addition, on February 15, Ronny Abraham (France) was elected to fill out the 

remainder of the term of Judge Gilbert Guillaume (France), who retired. 

The United States was not party to any cases before the Court in 

2005. On February 28, 2005, President Bush issued a determination that the 

United States would comply with the Court’s 2004 decision in a case brought 

by Mexico under the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations. (This case is 

discussed in more detail in the report on U.S. Participation in the United 

Nations in 2004.) 

The ICJ is funded from the UN regular budget, of which the United 

States pays 22 percent. The ICJ’s appropriation in 2005 was $16.9 million. 

International Criminal Court (ICC) 

The International Criminal Court (ICC) is not a UN body, and the 

United States is not a party to the Rome Statute establishing the ICC. As in 

previous years, the United States dissociated itself from consensus on the 

annual resolution in the General Assembly on the ICC which, among other 

things, called on all states that are not parties to the Rome Statute to consider 

ratifying or acceding to it without delay. In its statement on the resolution in 

the General Assembly on November 23, 2005, the United States emphasized 

that it respects the rights of states to become parties to the Rome Statute, but 

asks in return that other states respect our decision not to do so. The United 

States also stressed its commitment to ensuring accountability for perpetrators 

of genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity, and urged common 

efforts to advance these objectives and avoid divisiveness over the ICC. 

On March 31, the UN Security Council adopted Resolution 1593 

referring the situation in Darfur, Sudan, to the ICC. The United States 

abstained on this resolution. In its statement in the Security Council on the 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2005 

130 

resolution, the United States indicated that, in light of its concerns about the 

ICC, it believed that a hybrid tribunal in Africa would have been a better 

mechanism for addressing serious crimes committed in Darfur. The statement 

indicated that the United States decided not to oppose the resolution because 

of the need for the international community to work together in order to end 

the climate of impunity in Sudan, and because the resolution provided 

protections from investigation or prosecution by the ICC for U.S. nationals 

and members of the armed forces of countries that are not parties to the Rome 

Statute. 

International Law Commission (ILC) 

The UN General Assembly established the International Law 

Commission (ILC) to promote the codification and progressive development 

of international law. Its 34 members, each of a different nationality, are 

persons of recognized competence in international law who serve in their 

individual capacities. The General Assembly elects them for five-year terms. 

The current member of the Commission from the United States is Michael 

Matheson, a former Principal Deputy Legal Adviser (and Acting Legal 

Adviser) at the Department of State. Mr. Matheson was elected in 2003 to fill 

the vacancy arising from the resignation of Robert Rosenstock, a former Legal 

Counselor at the U.S. Mission to the UN in New York. Mr. Matheson’s term, 

as a result, expires in 2006. 

The ILC 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 ILC, 

special rapporteurs typically prepare draft articles for detailed discussion by 

the members of the ILC. These are considered and refined in a drafting group 

prior to formal adoption by the ILC. The ILC reports annually on its work to 

the Sixth (Legal) Committee of the General Assembly. 

At its 57th session in 2005, the ILC continued its work on the topic of 

“Shared Natural Resources.” In addition to considering the third report of the 

Special Rapporteur, which contained 25 draft articles on the law of 

transboundary aquifers, the ILC established a Working Group on 

Transboundary Groundwaters to review draft articles presented by the Special 

Rapporteur, bearing in mind the ILC’s discussion on the topic. The Working 

Group reviewed and revised eight draft articles, which it will consider further 

in 2006. 

The ILC also continued its work on the topic “Responsibility of 

international organizations.” In that regard, the Commission adopted nine 

draft articles (along with commentaries) dealing with the existence of a breach 

of an international agreement by an international organization and the 

responsibility of an international organization in connection with the act of a 

state or another international organization. 
Legal Developments 

131 

With regard to the topic “Effects of armed conflict on treaties,” the 

ILC reviewed the first report of the Special Rapporteur on the subject, which, 

among other things, contained a set of 14 draft articles. The ILC endorsed the 

Special Rapporteur’s suggestion that a request for information be sent to 

member Governments for information regarding their practice with regard to 

this topic. 

The ILC also continued its work on the topic of “Diplomatic 

protection,” by considering the sixth report of the Special Rapporteur, which 

dealt with whether the clean hands doctrine should be included in draft articles 

on this topic. The ILC also worked on the following topics: “Expulsion of 

aliens,” reviewing the Special Rapporteur’s preliminary report on the topic; 

“Unilateral acts of States,” considering the eighth report of the Special 

Rapporteur that analyzed 11 cases of state practice; “Reservations to Treaties,” 

referring seven draft guidelines concerning the validity of reservations and the 

definition of object and purpose of the treaty to the Drafting Committee and 

adopting two draft guidelines on the definition of objections to reservations 

and the definition of objection to the late formulation or widening of the scope 

of a reservation; and “Fragmentation of international law” (difficulties arising 

from the diversification and expansion of international law), exchanging views 

on the topic based on a presentation by the Chair of the Study Group on the 

work of the Study Group. 

During the annual consideration by the Sixth Committee of the UN 

General Assembly of the Commission’s report, the U.S. representative made 

detailed observations on various procedural and substantive aspects of the 

ILC’s work, including the following: the view that, as a general matter, it is 

important that the ILC proceed cautiously in the area of responsibility of 

international organizations and that it carefully assess the unique 

considerations relevant to this topic and not simply work to develop analogous 

rules to those set forth that would apply to states; the view that the current 

project on diplomatic protection should be limited in scope to the codification 

of customary international law, or at most, vary from or supplement customary 

international law only as warranted by sound public policy considerations 

supported by a broad consensus of states; the view that, rather than producing 

another convention to address pressures on transboundary groundwaters, it 

would be more useful for the ILC to develop a list of guidelines that states 

might take into account in negotiation more specific and meaningful bilateral 

or regional arrangements; support for the ILC’s work on aquifers, as part of its 

work on shared natural resources, and the view that the ILC should avoid 

taking on more controversial sub-topics, such as oil and gas; the belief that to 

suggest that a state can be bound to a treaty without the benefit of a reservation 

it has made would be in direct conflict with the basic principle of consent; and 

the opinion that “Fragmentation of international law” is not a topic that lends 

itself to the development of draft articles. The United States expects the ILC 

to take these observations into account in its work on these topics at its 58th 

session in 2006. 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2005 

132 

Special Committee on the Charter of the United 

Nations 

In 1974, the General Assembly adopted Resolution 3349, which 

established an Ad Hoc Committee on the Charter of the United Nations. The 

Committee was mandated to consider, among other things, any specific 

proposals that governments might make with a view to enhancing the UN’s 

ability to achieve its purposes as well as other suggestions for the more 

effective functioning of the United Nations that might not require amendments 

to the Charter. Since its 30th session, the General Assembly has reconvened 

the Special Committee on the Charter of the United Nations (“Special 

Committee”) every year, considered its successive reports, and renewed and 

revised its mandate on an annual basis in its resolutions on the topic of the 

Report of the Special Committee. The General Assembly, in Resolution 50/52 

(1995), decided that the Charter Committee should henceforth be open to all 

UN member states and that it would continue to operate on the basis of 

consensus. 

The Special Committee held its annual session at UN Headquarters 

from March 14–18, 2005. The General Assembly adopted by consensus 

Resolution 60/23, entitled “Report of the Special Committee on the Charter of 

the United Nations and on the Strengthening of the Role of the Organization,” 

which addressed, among other things, implementation of the provisions of the 

UN Charter related to assistance to third states affected by the application of 

sanctions and, on a priority basis, ways and means of improving the Special 

Committee’s working methods and enhancing its efficiency. 

As regards the question of implementation of the provisions of the 

Charter related to assistance to third states affected by the application of 

sanctions, the Special Committee recommended that the General Assembly 

request that it continue to consider, in an appropriate substantive manner and 

framework, the results of the June 1998 ad hoc expert group meeting on 

methodological approaches to assessing the third-country effects of sanctions. 

The Special Committee also recommended that the General Assembly address 

further the question of implementation of provisions of the Charter relating to 

assistance to third states affected by the application of sanctions under Chapter 

VII of the Charter and the implementation of General Assembly resolutions, 

taking into account all pertinent reports of the Secretary-General on the 

subject, proposals presented and views expressed in the Special Committee. 

As regards the question of improving the working methods of the 

Special Committee and identification of new subjects, the United States 

continued to support initiatives to streamline the Committee’s work, including 

through a mechanism for removing 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 being agreed on. The United States considered as unnecessary and 

inappropriate continued efforts by some other delegations to foster new, 

generic criteria and guidelines aimed at establishing certain controls with 
Legal Developments 

133 

respect to such issues as the imposition of sanctions, peacekeeping operations, 

the use of force, and General Assembly versus Security Council prerogatives. 

Other subjects considered by the Committee included the peaceful 

settlement of disputes, proposals concerning the Trusteeship Council, and the 

Repertory Practice of the UN Organs and the Repertoire of the Practice of the 

Security Council. With regard to the item on peaceful settlement of disputes, 

some delegations acknowledged achievements made in improving the 

organization’s dispute prevention and settlement capabilities with specific 

reference to such instruments as the Manila Declaration on the Peaceful 

Settlement of International Disputes and the Declaration on the Prevention and 

Removal of Disputes and Situations Which May Threaten International Peace 

and Security. On the subject of the Trusteeship Council, delegations were 

unable to agree on whether proposals to abolish the Council or change its 

status should be addressed to the General Assembly. As for the subject of the 

repertory practice of the UN Organs and the Repertoire of the Practice of the 

Security Council, the Special Committee recommended to the General 

Assembly that it encourage voluntary contributions to both the Trust Fund for 

Updating the Repertoire of the Practice of the Security Council and the Trust 

Fund for the elimination of the backlog on the Repertory of Practice of the 

United Nations Organs; the sponsoring on a voluntary basis, at no cost to the 

United Nations, of associate experts to assist in the preparation of studies of 

both the Repertoire of the Practice of the Security Council and the Repertory 

of Practice of the United Nations Organs; and the enhancing of cooperation 

between the Secretary-General and academic institutions to facilitate 

preparation of studies of both the Repertoire of the Practice of the Security 

Council and the Repertory of Practice of UN Organs. 

War Crimes Tribunals 

International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda 

The Security Council established the International Criminal Tribunal 

for Rwanda (ICTR) in November 1994. The Tribunal investigates and tries 

individuals accused of having committed genocide, crimes against humanity, 

and other serious violations of international humanitarian law in Rwanda from 

January 1, 1994, through December 31, 1994. Under the Tribunal’s 

completion strategy, as endorsed by the UN Security Council, the ICTR seeks 

to complete all trials by 2008, and all work on appeals by 2010. 

The surrender and prosecution of indictees by the ICTR, especially 

senior leader Felicien Kabuga, remained a critical priority for the United States 

and the Security Council in 2005. The United States continued to strongly 

urge all pertinent parties, particularly the Governments of Rwanda, the 

Democratic Republic of the Congo, Kenya, and the Republic of the Congo, to 

cooperate and support the efforts and integrity of the ICTR by apprehending 

and transferring, freezing the assets, and restricting travel of fugitive indictees. 

The Court began seven new trials and delivered three judgments in 2005. 

Three indictees were also arrested in 2005. At the end of 2005, 19 ICTR 

indictees remained fugitives from justice. 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2005 

134 

The U.S. Government continued to closely monitor the tribunal and 

to ensure that it adopted and adhered to practices that improved efficiency and 

effectiveness. The 2005 budget for ICTR was approximately $138 million; the 

United States was assessed $33.5 million for ICTR in 2005, approximately a 

quarter of the total costs. 

International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia 

The Security Council established the International Criminal Tribunal 

for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) in May 1993 to investigate and try 

individuals accused of having committed genocide, crimes against humanity, 

and other serious violations of international humanitarian law on the territory 

of the former Yugoslavia. A Security Council resolution provides for the 

ICTY’s continuing mandate, with reports due to the Council every six months. 

The ICTY has indicted 161 individuals. Twenty-five indictments 

were withdrawn prior to completion of the proceedings. Of the 132 persons 

who appeared before the Tribunal, 40 were convicted and eight were acquitted 

of all charges. Six indictees, including Stojan Zupljanin, Vlastimir Djordjevic, 

Goran Hadzic, Zdravko Tolimir, and the two most wanted—Radovan 

Karadzic and Ratko Mladic—remained fugitives from justice. In December 

2005, Ante Gotovina, a fugitive indicted by the ICTY in 2001, was arrested 

and transferred to the Tribunal. 

The apprehension and prosecution at the ICTY of persons indicted for 

war crimes—especially senior leaders Karadzic and Mladic—has long been a 

critical priority for the United States and the Security Council. As such, the 

United States strongly urged all entities and states, particularly the Republika 

Srpska in Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Republic of Serbia, to cooperate 

and support the efforts and integrity of the ICTY by apprehending and 

transferring fugitive indictees to the Tribunal, and by freezing the assets and 

restricting travel of fugitive indictees and those who support them. The United 

States also made clear to regional authorities that meeting their obligations to 

the ICTY is a prerequisite for full integration into Euro-Atlantic institutions. 

To support the ICTY completion strategy, the United States helped 

create the capacity for the fair and credible adjudication of low- and mid-level 

war crime cases by domestic courts in the region, and it supported the transfer 

of such ICTY cases to domestic courts. For example, in 2005, the United 

States was the single largest contributor of funds—almost $14 million—to 

help establish the War Crimes Chamber of the Bosnia and Herzegovina State 

Court for this purpose. 

The United States continued to support the Tribunal’s efforts to 

ensure a successful completion strategy, which calls for completion of all trials 

by 2008 and appeals by 2010. The United States welcomed the ICTY’s 

successful meeting of its first Completion Strategy benchmark when it issued 

its last indictments at the end of 2004. 

The United States continued to monitor the Tribunal closely to ensure 

that it adopts and adheres to practices that improve both efficiency and 
Legal Developments 

135 

effectiveness, and that any increases to its budget are fully justified and in line 

with the Tribunal’s Security Council-endorsed Completion Strategy. 

The Tribunal’s budget for 2005 was approximately $180.3 million. 

In 2005, U.S. assessed contributions for the Tribunal totaled approximately 

$43.7 million. Theodor Meron (United States) was President of the Tribunal 

until November 2005, when his term expired and he returned to being a 

Tribunal judge. 

Special Court for Sierra Leone 

The Special Court for Sierra Leone was established by an agreement 

between the Government of Sierra Leone and the United Nations. The court 

would be financed by voluntary donations. It is mandated to try those who 

bear the greatest responsibility for serious violations of international 

humanitarian law and Sierra Leonean law committed in the territory of Sierra 

Leone since November 30, 1996. 

The Special Court originally intended to complete its work in 2005. 

This proved to be unattainable, as three joint trials of three defendants each 

continued and former Liberian President Charles Taylor, indicted by the 

Special Court, was not in its custody. In May 2005, the Special Court 

presented its completion strategy to the UN Secretary-General, aiming to 

complete its work in 2007. 

Bringing former President Taylor to justice remained a priority for 

the United States. In November 2005, the United States joined other Security 

Council members in adopting Resolution 1638, which stressed that Taylor 

remained under indictment by the Special Court and determined that his return 

to Liberia would constitute an impediment to stability and a threat to the peace 

of Liberia and to international peace and security in the region. The resolution 

authorized the UN Mission in Liberia (UNMIL) to apprehend and detain 

Taylor in the event of his return to Liberia and to transfer him or facilitate his 

transfer to Sierra Leone for prosecution before the Special Court. UNMIL’s 

ability to apprehend Taylor was important to U.S. objectives in the region. 

The individuals under indictment by the Special Court for Sierra 

Leone were individuals with histories of abuse of power and support from 

many in the region who contributed to Sierra Leone’s instability. To curb the 

threat they presented, on September 19, the United States joined the other 

Security Council members in adopting Resolution 1626, which authorized 

UNMIL to deploy up to 250 military personnel to Sierra Leone to provide 

security for the Special Court. The resolution further authorized UNMIL to 

deploy military personnel to Sierra Leone, if and when needed, to evacuate 

officials of the Special Court for Sierra Leone in the event of a serious security 

crisis affecting Court personnel. UNMIL assumed responsibility for the 

Special Court’s security on December 1. The Nigerian unit of the UN Mission 

in Sierra Leone, which had been guarding the Special Court, stayed on, under 

UNMIL command, until deployment of an UNMIL unit of Mongolian 

peacekeepers in January 2006. 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2005 

136 

The United States has been the largest financial contributor to the 

Special Court for Sierra Leone, contributing a total of $22 million in 2003 and 

2004. The United States did not make a voluntary contribution in 2005. In 

2005, the Court did not receive sufficient contributed funds to cover its 

operating costs. The UN regular budget paid $32.1 million to the Court to 

make up the shortfall. 

Cambodia Khmer Rouge Tribunal 

The United Nations and the Royal Government of Cambodia (RGC) 

signed an agreement in June 2003 to establish the Khmer Rouge Tribunal 

(KRT) to try senior leaders of the Khmer Rouge and those who were most 

responsible for the atrocities that were committed by that regime between 

April 17, 1975, and January 7, 1979. The official name of the Tribunal is the 

Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia. The Cambodia National 

Assembly ratified the agreement in October 2004. In 2005 Sean Visoth 

(Cambodia) was appointed Director of the KRT’s office of administration and 

Michelle Lee (China) was appointed Deputy Director. 

The KRT will consist of Pre-Trial and Trial chambers, and a Supreme 

Court. There will be two prosecutors (one from each chamber) and two 

investigating judges (likewise). A Cambodian law included in the agreement 

provides that life imprisonment shall be the maximum sentence for anyone 

convicted by the KRT. 

The United States did not make financial contributions to the KRT in 

2005. The Fiscal Year 2005 Consolidated Appropriations Act (Sec. 554(a)(1) 

stated that, “None of the funds appropriated by this Act may be made available 

for assistance for the Central Government of Cambodia.” Although it is a joint 

Cambodian and international venture, the KRT will lie within the existing 

Cambodian court structure. Furthermore, the Senate Appropriations 

Committee Report on the subject stated that, “The Committee again restricts 

assistance to the Cambodian Government, with few exceptions, and notes that 

the budget request does not contain funding for a United States contribution to 

the Khmer Rouge Tribunal.” 
137 

Part 5 

Reform of the UN System 

Secretary-General Report: In Larger Freedom 

The UN Secretary-General presented his report, In Larger Freedom: 

Towards Development, Security and Human Rights for All, in March 2005. 

The report outlined actions to be taken to implement the Millennium 

Declaration. The report was based in part on two other reports: the High-Level 

Panel’s (HLP) Report on Threats, Challenges and Change (December 2004) 

and the UN Millennium Project’s Investing in Development (the Project’s 

recommendations for reaching the Millennium Development Goals, released 

January 2005). 

The Secretary-General’s report focused on development, security, 

democracy, and organizational reform. Concerning development, the report 

endorsed establishing a 0.7 percent GNP target for official development assistance 

(ODA) by no later than 2015 and called for increased assistance to developing 

countries through a more development-oriented trade system and wider debt 

relief. The United States believes that the level of ODA should be based on 

the needs of the recipient country, not on an arbitrary input target. Arbitrary 

input targets shift attention away from the true determinants of economic 

performance, which are the actions of developing countries. As noted in the 

Monterrey Consensus, “each country has primary responsibility for its own 

economic and social development, and the role of national policies and 

development strategies cannot be overemphasized.” ODA is a complement to, 

not a substitute for, developing countries’ efforts at policy, institutional, and 

governance reform. 

The report called for completion of the Doha Round no later than 

2006 and “quick win” initiatives such as anti-malarial measures. It also 

endorsed an expanded and comprehensive response to HIV/AIDS. The 

United States continued to support completion of the Doha Round by the end 

of 2006. However, experience with development projects over the past 50 

years has demonstrated that “quick win” and other similar initiatives do not 

have long-lasting, positive results. 

On the issue of security, the Secretary-General made 

recommendations regarding nonproliferation, terrorism, use of force, and 

establishment of a peacebuilding commission. The report urged full 

compliance with major security treaties and welcomed the Proliferation Security 

Initiative as a supplement to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. The 

Secretary-General called for adoption of a comprehensive UN strategy for 

counter-terrorism; for states’ accession to the 12 international conventions; and for 

conclusion of a comprehensive convention on terrorism before the end of the 

60th UN General Assembly. He also endorsed the HLP’s call for a 

definition of terrorism. The report concluded that the right to use force in self-
United States Participation in the United Nations—2005 

138 

defense under Article 51 of the Charter included using force to defend against an 

imminent attack as well as one that had already occurred. The report also called for 

the UN Security Council to adopt a resolution setting out force-authorization 

principles and expressing its intention to be guided by them when deciding whether 

to authorize or mandate use of force. The United States agreed with the report 

on the need for a more effective international response to the threats posed by 

terrorism and weapons of mass destruction. Regarding the use of force, the 

United States welcomed the report’s assertion that Article 51 of the UN 

Charter should not be changed and its recognition of a right of anticipatory 

self-defense in appropriate circumstances. The United States continued to 

oppose, however, a Council resolution setting out principles to guide it when 

deciding to authorize the use of force. 

The Secretary-General endorsed the establishment of a Peacebuilding 

Commission with a core membership of representatives of the Security Council and 

Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC), leading troop contributors, and major 

donors to a standing fund for peacebuilding. The new commission would report 

to the Security Council and ECOSOC. The Secretary-General supported the 

creation of the UN Democracy Fund. The focus of the Fund was to support 

pro-democracy activities of civil society, helping fill gaps in UN work to 

promote elections and good governance. 

The Secretary-General’s report made a number of organizational 

reform recommendations. One of the recommended reform measures was 

Security Council enlargement, calling for states to consider the two models for 

enlargement proposed by the High-Level Panel, as well as other viable 

proposals. The report endorsed enlargement before the September World 

Summit, noting that consensus was preferable, but not an excuse for 

postponing action. The report also endorsed establishment of a smaller 

Human Rights Council to replace the Commission on Human Rights, with 

members elected directly by the General Assembly by two-thirds majority. 

World Summit/Outcome Document 

Heads of state and government met at UN headquarters September 

14–16, 2005, to commemorate the 60th anniversary of the founding of the 

United Nations and to work to make the United Nations more effective and 

efficient. Throughout the spring and summer of 2005, national delegations 

worked with General Assembly President Jean Ping (Gabon) and thematic 

facilitators to draft an Outcome Document (OD) text that heads of state could 

adopt by consensus during the World Summit in September. With member 

states deadlocked on most issues only days before the Summit, a small group 

of permanent representatives began work to resolve outstanding issues. 

President Ping then produced a final document that incorporated the agreements 

reached by the permanent representatives and subsidiary negotiating groups. 

The resulting document was widely regarded as falling far short of 

expectations. The United States had two specific concerns with the final OD 

adopted by the Heads of State. First, the section resolving to replace the 

discredited Commission on Human Rights with a new Human Rights Council 
Reform of the UN System 

139 

(HRC) was not sufficiently specific to provide a useful basis for continuing 

negotiations, although it did emphasize the need for an HRC to address 

county-specific situations of human rights abuses. Second, sections on 

impunity and nonproliferation and disarmament were discarded completely due to 

an inability to reach agreement on fundamental issues. 

The document was notable, however, for its specific directives on 

management reform; emphasis on the importance of concluding the Comprehensive 

Convention on International Terrorism; reaffirmation of the Monterrey 

Consensus on development; and endorsement of states’ “responsibility to 

protect” their citizens from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing, and crimes 

against humanity. The OD also contained acceptable language on the use of force 

and Security Council expansion. 

Following the Summit, newly installed General Assembly President 

Jan Eliasson (Sweden) set about facilitating the implementation of the OD’s 

reform decisions. He named the Permanent Representatives of Denmark and 

Tanzania to co-chair discussions on the Peacebuilding Commission (PBC), and 

the Permanent Representatives of South Africa and Panama to oversee those 

on the HRC. Informal General Assembly consultations on these and other 

subjects began in October. 

A divide soon became apparent in discussions on the PBC, with the 

Non-Aligned Movement, G-77, and African Union member states asserting 

that the Commission should remain under General Assembly control. The 

European Union (EU), Canada, New Zealand, Russia, and China advocated a 

central role for the Security Council in the PBC and argued that the PBC should 

serve the Council in an advisory role. By December, debate had narrowed to 

the following two issues: membership of the PBC organizational committee 

and its institutional reporting lines. The final resolutions establishing the PBC, 

adopted simultaneously by the Security Council and the General Assembly on 

December 20, provided that for post-conflict matters with which the Security 

Council is seized, the main purpose of the PBC will be to provide advice to the 

Council at its request. The resolutions also provide for the PBC to submit an annual 

report on its work to the General Assembly, and to make the outcome of its 

discussions and recommendations publicly available as UN documents to all relevant 

bodies and actors. Following adoption of the resolutions, UN members started 

discussing election of members to the Organizational Committee. 

Negotiations on the HRC were difficult and continued throughout 

2005. They took the form of several speeches in plenary more often than 

efforts to forge and draft compromises. Members hoped to reach conclusion 

on a draft resolution by early March 2006, before the scheduled annual 

session of the former Commission on Human Rights. 

The UN Secretariat worked to implement OD-directed management 

changes, including establishment of an Ethics Office, strengthening the 

capacity of the Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS), creation of an 

Independent Audit Advisory Committee, and external review of oversight and 

governance, including OIOS. By December, the Secretariat had acted on several of 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2005 

140 

these measures, but other key reforms were put off until 2006. Chief among 

them was a comprehensive review of mandates of UN programs and activities. 

The United States led a push for management reform to be included in the 

2006–2007 budget authorization due by the end of December. In a lastminute deal brokered by the EU, the General Assembly passed a budget that 

imposed a spending cap of $950 million, equivalent to approximately six 

months of expenses, during which time member states would work to 

implement management reforms. The G-77 states it did not accept a direct 

linkage requiring reforms before the cap would be lifted. The United States 

also began working with Japan to analyze UN programs, activities, and 

mandates in preparation for the mandate review. 

General Assembly President Eliasson moved forward with plans for 

reform of the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC). In November, he 

announced his intention to create informal consultations of the Assembly on 

“ECOSOC reform and development.” 

Management Reform 

In 2005, the United Nations, supported by the active engagement of 

the United States and other member states, focused a great deal of attention on 

management reform. In March, the Secretary-General offered his vision for 

transforming the United Nations to meet the challenges of the 21st century in 

his report entitled “In larger freedom: towards development, security and 

human rights for all.” The report helped set many of the themes for the 

September UN World Summit, including management reform. Throughout 

the spring and summer, national delegations worked with General Assembly 

President Jean Ping (Gabon) and thematic facilitators to draft the text of an 

outcome document that heads of state would adopt by consensus during the 

Summit. 

With member states deadlocked on most issues only days before the 

Summit, a small core group of permanent representatives, including the U.S. 

permanent representative, began to work on resolving the impasse. Following 

consultations with the core group, President Ping produced a final text that 

incorporated the agreements reached by the permanent representatives, 

presented as Resolution 60/1. The final document set a wide-ranging agenda 

for management reform that included the following: 

• Establishment of an Ethics Office; 

• Improved financial disclosure procedures; 

• Enhanced whistleblower policies; 

• Review of UN budgetary, financial, and human resources rules and 

regulations; 

• Review of mandates older than five years; 

• Proposals for a staff buyout to refresh the UN’s workforce; 

• Improved UN oversight, including strengthening the expertise, capacity, 

and resources of the Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS) in 
Reform of the UN System 

141 

audits and investigations and ensuring the operational independence of 

OIOS; 

• Independent external evaluation of the oversight and governance systems 

for the United Nations and the specialized agencies (including a review of 

OIOS); 

• Proposal for the creation of an Independent Oversight Advisory 

Committee (later renamed the Independent Audit Advisory Committee); 

• Proposal for OIOS to provide oversight services to interested UN 

agencies; and 

• Comprehensive approach to victims of sexual abuse and exploitation by 

UN personnel. 

Shortly after the Summit, Secretary Rice addressed the UN General 

Assembly and called upon the entire membership “to enact the vital reforms 

that will make the United Nations more accountable to its members, more 

suited to new challenges, and more faithful to its founding purposes.” To 

follow up on the Summit Declarations, the new General Assembly President 

and former Ambassador to the United States Jan Eliasson (Sweden) named 

Ambassadors Alan Rock (Canada) and Munir Akram (Pakistan) to co-chair 

discussions on implementing the management reforms. 

In November, the Secretariat submitted proposals to the General 

Assembly for creation of an Ethics Office, expansion of the capacity of the 

OIOS, establishment of the Independent Audit Advisory Committee, and the 

external review of UN governance and oversight. In December, the United 

States pressed for inclusion of these proposals in the 2006–2007 budget that 

would be approved before the General Assembly adjourned for the year. As a 

result, the General Assembly, in Resolution 60/246, approved the SecretaryGeneral proposal to provide temporary additional resources to OIOS. The 

Assembly also, in Resolution 60/248, approved by consensus the 

establishment of the Ethics Office, endorsed the external review of governance 

and oversight, and approved in principle the establishment of the Independent 

Audit Advisory Committee. 

Many other reforms could not be implemented until 2006 due to their 

scope and complexity, chief among them the mandate review. Consequently, 

the U.S. permanent representative insisted that members not adopt the 2006–

2007 budget, but instead agree to an interim budget with the goal of fostering 

continued focus by delegations on implementing the decisions from the 

Summit. Several delegations, particularly members of the G-77, opposed this 

proposal due to concerns that an interim budget could undermine the work of 

the Secretariat. At the last minute, the European Union brokered a consensus 

agreement for an alternative in which the General Assembly approved the full 

2006–2007 budget but limited the Secretariat’s spending authority to $950 

million or approximately six months of expenses (see General Assembly 

Resolution 60/247 A-C). 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2005 

142 

Following the adoption by the General Assembly of the 2006–2007 

UN budget, the U.S. deputy permanent representative stated, “It is clear that in 

six months we can assess progress on management reform issues and then 

decide how to address resource questions for the remainder of 2006. We have 

the ability, which the negotiators of the resolutions have acknowledged, to 

refrain from joining consensus on the next budget decision.” 

Peacebuilding Commission 

In 2005, the United States pursued the creation of a Peacebuilding 

Commission, a top priority within the UN reform agenda. The United States 

shared the belief of the Secretary-General and of other member states that the 

United Nations needed an institutional mechanism designed to ensure the 

success of countries emerging from conflict. The Peacebuilding Commission 

(PBC) was envisioned as a mechanism to reverse the trend in which nearly 

half the countries that succeed in reaching a political settlement to a conflict 

soon slide back into war. The PBC would provide affected countries with the 

best advice available from member states (including countries that had 

themselves successfully emerged from conflict) and would ensure better 

coordination between the affected countries’ economic and development goals 

with the response strategies developed by UN agencies, international financial 

institutions, and key donors. 

The United States participated in extensive negotiations concerning 

the PBC in preparation for the September 2005 World Summit in New York. 

U.S. objectives concerning the PBC included ensuring that the PBC’s 

activities remained tied to the UN Security Council’s mandate on peace and 

security issues; ensuring that the PBC be created as an advisory, consensusdriven, body without operational responsibilities; ensuring that the 

Commission would not duplicate capabilities already found in the UN system; 

ensuring that the permanent members of the Security Council held seats in the 

Organizational Committee of the PBC; and ensuring that there would be a five 

year review of the PBC following its creation. 

The United States attained its objectives for the PBC in the outcome 

document signed by the leaders of all member states at the World Summit. 

The document established the general outline of the PBC. It also authorized 

the establishment of a Peacebuilding Support Office to provide advice and 

support to the PBC and a voluntary Peacebuilding Fund to provide funding for 

Peacebuilding activities not covered by other UN mechanisms. The outcome 

document called for the PBC to begin its work not later than December 31. 

Following the World Summit, the United States engaged in 

negotiations within the General Assembly and the Security Council on 

resolutions to formally establish the PBC. In a unique arrangement, the two 

UN bodies adopted concurrent resolutions establishing the PBC on December 

20, 2005 (Security Council Resolution 1645 and General Assembly Resolution 

60/180). Security Council Resolution 1646 of the same date specified that the 

permanent members of the Security Council would constitute five of the seven 

seats allotted to the PBC’s Organizational Committee. The Organizational 
Reform of the UN System 

143 

Committee also included seven members elected according to rules and 

procedures decided by the General Assembly, seven members of the 

Economic and Social Council, five of the top 10 financial contributors to the 

United Nations, and five of the top 10 troop contributors to UN operations. 

Security Council Reform 

The United States consistently stated that it supported an expansion 

of the Security Council that can contribute to its strength and effectiveness. In 

2005, the United States publicly supported Japan for a permanent seat, while 

not taking a position with regard to any other countries. There was 

widespread international interest in expanding the Council to increase the 

number of permanent members and broaden regional representation, but member 

states were divided both on the size of any expansion and on possible new 

permanent members. 

The United States had not publicly endorsed any specific plan for 

Security Council expansion, and opposed the proposals submitted in the 60th 

General Assembly by the African Union (AU) and the G-4 (Brazil, India, 

Germany, and Japan). A group of four African nations (Nigeria, Senegal, 

Ghana, and South Africa) tabled the AU resolution after divisive discussions 

within the AU, particularly with Egypt and Algeria. The AU resolution called 

for an expansion of the Council to 26 members, with six new permanent members 

(including two from Africa) and five new non-permanent seats (including two 

from Africa). The proposal provided for veto rights for the new permanent 

members. 

The G-4 framework sought to increase the Council to 25 members, 

with six new permanent members (including two from Africa) and four new 

non-permanent members (including one from Africa, as opposed to two in the 

AU proposal). A decision on veto rights for new permanent members would be 

deferred for 15 years. 

Both proposals divided the UN membership and neither came to a 

vote. In addition, the United States sought to keep the United Nations focused 

on more urgent reform priorities, such as management reform and the creation of 

the Human Rights Council. 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2005 

144 
145 

Part 6 

Administration and Budget 

UN Financial Situation 

At his semi-annual briefing in October 2005 to the Fifth 

(Administrative and Budgetary) Committee regarding the UN’s financial 

situation, the UN Controller, Warren Sach, provided a cautious outlook on the 

state of the UN’s finances for the remainder of the year. With major payments 

anticipated from the United States by the end of the year, the UN’s cash on 

hand for all assessment accounts would be similar to last year’s level of $2.9 

billion. One concern was the increase in the amounts owed to UN troop 

contributors, which was expected to increase to $779 million by the end of the 

year, as compared to $549 million at the end of 2004. Another concern related 

to the financial situation of the international war crime tribunals in former 

Yugoslavia and Rwanda, which had $74 million in unpaid assessments as of 

October 7, 2005. The amount was reduced to $17 million by the end of the 

year, following payments by the U.S. and other UN members. In closing his 

presentation, Mr. Sach noted the limited ability of the United Nations to 

weather shortfalls in the payment of assessed contributions and urged all UN 

members to make such payments in “a fuller and more timely fashion.” 

The United Nations ended 2005 with members’ arrears totaling 

$3.310 billion for assessments relating to the UN regular budget, the 

international war crimes tribunals in the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda, UN 

peacekeeping operations, and the UN Capital Master Plan. This figure was 

approximately $1 billion higher than at the end of 2004 when $2.332 billion 

was outstanding. The higher figure reflected primarily amounts owed for the 

UN peacekeeping operations, which accounted for $2.969 billion of the total 

owed at the end 2005. The total owed for the UN regular budget was $314 

million, and the amounts owed for the international war crimes tribunals and 

the UN Capital Master Plan were $17 million and $9 million, respectively. 

The United States accounted for $1.1 billion, or one-third, of the total 

amount owed by all UN members at the end of 2005. Most of the U.S. 

amount, $833 million, related to UN peacekeeping operations. As in past 

years, the U.S. payment pattern was affected by the delay in enactment of the 

funding appropriation for the current fiscal year. Enactment of the fiscal year 

2006 appropriation occurred in late November 2005, or nearly two months 

after the start of the fiscal year on October 1. Only partial payments could be 

made up to that point from funds made available under various continuing 

resolutions. With respect to the UN regular budget, the United States was able 

to pay $355 million toward its annual assessment of $439 million before the 

end of the year. The remainder of the assessment, $84 million, would be paid 

in calendar year 2006. With enactment of the fiscal year 2006 appropriation, 

the United States also was able to pay by December 31, 2005, the full amount, 

$78 million, of its current year assessments for the two international war 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2005 

146 

crimes tribunals. The total U.S. payments in the course of calendar year 2005 

for all UN assessments amounted to $1.614 billion, or 25.48 percent of the 

$6.334 billion in total payments made by all UN members during 2005. Most 

of the U.S. payments, approximately $1.1 billion, related to assessments for 

peacekeeping. 

UN Budget 

At its regular 60th session in autumn 2005, the UN General Assembly 

adopted resolutions approving the final budget for the biennium 2004–2005 

and the initial budget for the biennium 2006–2007. All resolutions were 

adopted by consensus. 

On December 23, 2005, the General Assembly adopted Resolution 

60/245, which approved the final level of the UN program budget for the 

biennium 2004–2005. The approved amount of $3,655,800,600 represented a 

reduction of $81,708,200 from the previous level of $3,737,508,800, and was 

based on the Secretary-General’s second budget performance report for the 

biennium. The reduction resulted primarily from exchange rate gains owing to 

a stronger U.S. dollar, lower than estimated inflation costs, and a higher than 

estimated staff vacancy rate, which reduced the overall costs for staff 

remuneration. The United States joined consensus in the adoption of 

Resolution 60/245. Prior to approval of the final budget level, the Fifth 

Committee (Administrative and Budgetary) on December 16, 2005, took the 

unusual action of voting for a measure proposed by the G-77 that would 

provide additional conference services for informal consultations of the 

Committee beyond 6 p.m. and on weekends until the end of the main part of 

the 60th session. The United States and other like-minded members opposed 

the measure, which would result in additional costs of $257,200 and would 

represent a departure from the concept of UN budget discipline. By a recorded 

vote of 80 to 34 (U.S.), with 4 abstentions, the measure was adopted as 

General Assembly Decision 60/539. 

In the late hours of December 23, 2005, the General Assembly 

adopted by consensus Resolutions 60/246, 60/247 A-C, and 60/248, which 

approved the initial 2006–2007 UN budget at a level of $3,798,912,500. The 

key element of the budget decision was contained in paragraph 3 of Resolution 

60/247A, which limited UN expenditures to $950 million, or approximately 

six months, in the course of which “...the General Assembly, in order to ensure 

the availability of resources for program delivery, will act in response to a 

request from the Secretary-General, at an appropriate time, for expenditure of 

the remaining funds.” The paragraph reflected the efforts of the United States, 

Japan, and other like-minded members to maintain the momentum of 

management and related reforms, as approved by heads of state in the 

Outcome Document from the September World Summit. The G-77 did not at 

the time accept a direct linkage between implementing reforms and eventual 

lifting of the cap. While some reform measures were endorsed by the General 

Assembly in the course of its autumn session, including the establishment of a 

UN Ethics Office, provision for an independent external evaluation of 
Administration and Budget 

147 

oversight and audit in the UN system, and the creation of an Independent 

Audit Advisory Committee in the United Nations, the majority of the 

management reforms approved in the Outcome Document were not acted upon 

prior to the adoption of the 2006–2007 UN budget in late December. 

In his statement to the General Assembly following adoption of the 

2006–2007 UN budget, the U.S. Deputy Permanent Representative to the 

United Nations, Ambassador Alejandro Wolff, outlined U.S. expectations in 

the coming months with regard to the implementation of further reforms and 

the lifting of the $950 million spending cap: 

“The United States welcomes today’s General Assembly 

decision to approve budgetary arrangements that will permit 

ongoing UN operations and activities while member states 

continue discussions on implementing the reforms they agreed 

to during the September 2005 World Summit...It is clear that 

in six months we can assess progress on management reform 

issues and then decide how to address resource questions for 

the remainder of 2006. We have the ability, which the 

negotiators of the resolution have acknowledged, to refrain 

from joining consensus on the next budget decision.” 

The major reform initiatives to be addressed by the General 

Assembly in early 2006 included the review of UN mandates that were more 

than five years old, the Secretary-General’s proposals regarding management 

reforms, and the recommendations contained in the report of the independent 

external evaluation of oversight and audit in the UN system. A decision on the 

lifting of the $950 million spending cap was expected to occur in June, 

following a request from the Secretary-General. 

Scale of Assessments 

On December 23, 2005, the General Assembly adopted by consensus 

Resolution 60/237, which granted temporary exemption from loss of voting 

rights to nine UN member states in accordance with Article 19 of the UN 

Charter. Article 19 prescribes that a member of the United Nations, which is 

in arrears to the organization, shall have no vote in the General Assembly if 

the amount of its arrears equals or exceeds the amount due from it for the two 

preceding years. The General Assembly may, nevertheless, permit such a 

member to vote if it is satisfied that the failure to pay is due to conditions 

beyond the control of the member. 

The General Assembly granted temporary exemption from loss of 

vote through the end of its 60th session to the following members: Central 

African Republic, Comoros, Georgia, Guinea-Bissau, Liberia, Niger, Sao 

Tome and Principe, Somalia, and Tajikistan. The United States joined 

consensus in the adoption of Resolution 60/237. 

The General Assembly also decided to defer until its resumed 60th 

session in 2006 consideration of the methodology to be used in the preparation 

of the scale of assessments for the period 2007–2009, with a view to giving 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2005 

148 

guidance to the Committee on Contributions on the matter. Japan sought the 

deferral, indicating that it was not yet ready to submit a proposal for the next 

scale, but intended to do so at the resumed 60th session. Other members, 

including the United States, also indicated that they would be submitting 

proposals at the resumed session, which would convene in March 2006. 

Committee for Program and Coordination (CPC) 

The Committee for Program and Coordination (CPC) is comprised of 

34 members elected by the General Assembly on the basis of equitable 

geographic distribution among regions. The United States is one of the 

longest serving members of the CPC, participating every year since 1974. 

CPC members serve for periods of three years, and may serve multiple 

successive terms. The CPC is the main subsidiary organ of the Economic and 

Social Council (ECOSOC) and the General Assembly for planning, 

programming, and coordination. The CPC is charged with reviewing and 

recommending priorities among UN programs, guiding the Secretariat on 

translating legislation into programs, developing evaluation procedures, and 

making recommendations on where duplication could be avoided. The CPC 

considers the activities of UN agencies on a sectoral basis in order to 

recommend guidelines that take into account the need for system-wide 

coherence and coordination. 

The CPC held its 45th session from June 6 to July 1, 2005, in New 

York. Although its agenda was light compared to past sessions, the poor 

leadership by the chairs, delaying tactics employed by the Group of 77 (G-77), 

and divergent interpretations of the budget reform resolution adopted in 2003 

weakened the effectiveness of the Committee and minimized its utility. The 

United States and other like-minded members, in particular the United 

Kingdom, were disappointed by the Committee’s failure to reach consensus on 

proposals to improve CPC’s working methods. The United States believed 

that the CPC’s dysfunctional nature and failure to accomplish its mandate 

prompted the United Kingdom to withdraw its membership from CPC 

following the session. 

As a result of concerns that the G-77 were trying to weaken the 

budget reform resolution, the United States sought to block the G-77’s 

attempts to formally introduce the budget and thereby impede the G-77’s 

attempt to ensure that the CPC would have the ability to review whether the 

program mandates in the biennial program plan, a component of the Strategic 

Framework, were identical to the program mandates in the budget. In a 

compromise, the UN Controller made a statement explaining the new mandate 

changes since the adoption of the Strategic Framework and delegations were 

allowed to comment on differences they perceived between the budget and 

biennial program plan. After much debate, the Committee recommended that 

the overview parts of the budget section addressing programmatic issues 

should be identical to the overall orientation section of the biennial program 

plan. 
Administration and Budget 

149 

The CPC endorsed the benchmarking framework proposed by the 

Joint Inspection Unit in the report entitled “Overview of the series of reports 

on managing for results in the United Nations” as a helpful tool for the 

Secretary-General and the oversight bodies. The Committee also encouraged 

the Secretary-General to play a more active role in harmonizing the 

implementation of results-based management (RBM) throughout the UN 

system. During discussion of this item, the United States indicated a desire for 

the United Nations to implement RBM to the fullest extent possible and 

encouraged the sharing of best practices and harmonization of the 

implementation of RBM systems among UN agencies. 

Under the agenda item on evaluation, the Committee reviewed and 

provided conclusions and recommendations on the following reports by the 

Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS): “Linkages between 

headquarters and field activities: a review of the best practices for poverty 

eradication in the framework of the United Nations Millennium Declaration”; 

“In-depth evaluation of human settlements”; “Triennial review of the 

implementation of recommendations made by the Committee at its fortysecond session on the evaluation of the subprograms on General Assembly and 

Economic and Social Council affairs and Council support and coordination”; 

and “Triennial review of the implementation of recommendations made by the 

Committee at its forty-second session on the evaluation of legal affairs.” For 

the most part, the Committee’s conclusions and recommendations merely 

supported findings reached by the OIOS and offered little if any new insight. 

The Committee selected “knowledge management networks in the 

pursuit of the goals of the Millennium Declaration” for the next OIOS 

thematic evaluation. The United States had expressed a preference for the 

selection of this topic, noting that it would be a relevant follow-up to the OIOS 

thematic evaluation on headquarters/field linkages. 

Under its agenda item on coordination, the Committee considered the 

Secretary-General’s report on the UN system support for the New Partnership 

for Africa’s Development (NEPAD) and the report of the UN system Chief 

Executives Board for Coordination (CEB). With respect to the NEPAD 

report, the Committee welcomed improvements in coordination, reporting, and 

resource mobilization within the framework of NEPAD and encouraged 

continuing improvements in this regard. 

The CEB report generated much discussion on the CEB’s role in 

implementing the goals of the Millennium Declaration, system-wide strategies 

for conflict prevention, the UN information and communication and 

technology strategy, trends in voluntary funding, and human resource issues 

related to the work of the International Civil Service Commission. However, 

despite numerous sessions, the recommendations approved by the Committee 

offered no strategic guidance to the CEB or ECOSOC on any of the issues 

raised in the report. For this reason, the United States supported efforts to 

eliminate this agenda item from the CPC’s consideration. The G-77 strongly 

resisted this attempt and in a compromise, the Committee agreed to 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2005 

150 

recommendations calling for a more strategic approach to the CEB report in 

future CPC sessions. 

During the session, the CPC again failed to reach consensus on how 

to reform the Committee’s working methods, despite the fact that the General 

Assembly had welcomed the body’s decision during its 44th session to address 

this item as a matter of priority. The United States urged the Committee to 

adopt reforms that would, among other things, better organize the program of 

work, rationalize the agenda and meeting time, improve the format of the 

report, and limit the participation of observers in the Committee’s decision–

making process. This failure of the Committee to agree on any improvements 

led the United States to dissociate from the report of the CPC. 

The United States was frustrated and disappointed over the CPC’s 

continuously poor performance and marginal utility. This caused the Untied 

States to consider the utility of continued participation on the Committee. No 

decision was made in 2005. 

Audit Reports 

 The Board of Auditors, 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, 

which cannot be served consecutively. In 2005, the Board was composed of 

the Auditors-General of the Philippines, South Africa, and France. Additional 

information is available online at www.unsystem.org/auditors. 

Since the Board of Auditors issues most of its reports in evennumbered years (in line with the financial periods of most of the organizations 

under its oversight, which are biennial ending in odd-numbered years), the 

Fifth Committee (Administrative and Budgetary) only had three reports to 

consider in 2005. During the regular session in fall 2005, the Fifth Committee 

discussed the Board’s report on the voluntary funds administered by the UN 

High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) for the year ended December 31, 

2004, and the report on the implementation of the Board’s recommendations 

from the biennium 2002–2003, as well as the report by the Advisory 

Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions (ACABQ) concerning 

both reports. 

The U.S. delegate commended the Board for its report on the 

UNHCR and stated that the Board had provided a helpful assessment of the 

financial position of the UNHCR, as well as an overview of key financial and 

management issues faced by the Commission. The delegate noted some areas 

of concern in UNHCR, including the continuing depletion of financial reserves 

and the significant unfunded liabilities for end-of-service and post-retirement 

benefits. The U.S. delegate explained that the UNHCR’s $336 million in 

long-term liabilities was a serious matter and that the “UNHCR, in conjunction 

with member states, must address this issue or risk serious financial jeopardy.” 

The delegate also stressed that investment and cash-management duties 
Administration and Budget 

151 

needed to be appropriately segregated between UNHCR’s Finance and 

Treasury sections and called upon UNHCR to address this matter immediately. 

During the Fifth Committee’s consideration of the Board’s report on 

the implementation of its recommendations relating to the biennium 2002–

2003, the U.S. delegate stated that the implementation rate of 46 percent was 

notable given that the overall number of recommendations has increased over 

the previous three biennia. However, the delegate also expressed concern 

regarding the increase in the percentage of recommendations that had yet to be 

implemented and called for intensified efforts to implement all 

recommendations fully. 

On December 23, 2005, the General Assembly adopted Resolution 

60/234 by consensus, which endorsed the recommendations of the Board of 

Auditors and the ACABQ concerning UNHCR and the implementation of the 

Board’s recommendations from the 2002–2003 biennium. The General 

Assembly took steps to improve the implementation rate for recommendations 

in the future by calling on the Secretary-General and the executive heads of 

the UN funds and programs to set timeframes and identify individuals with 

responsibility for implementation.

In December 2005, the Fifth Committee also began separate 

discussions of the Board’s report on the Capital Master Plan and the associated 

ACABQ report as part of the overall consideration of the Capital Master Plan. 

However, the Fifth Committee deferred action on the Capital Master Plan until 

2006. 

Joint Inspection Unit (JIU) 

The Joint Inspection Unit (JIU), based in Geneva, Switzerland, is an 

external oversight body for the entire UN system, performing inspections, 

investigations, and evaluations. The JIU produces reports, notes, and 

confidential letters detailing its recommendations. It is accountable to member 

states through the General Assembly and through the governing bodies of UN 

specialized agencies. The JIU is funded from the UN regular budget and the 

budgets of specialized UN agencies. 

The JIU is comprised of 11 inspectors as well as research and support 

personnel. According to the JIU statute, the inspectors should 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 are elected by the General Assembly 

and limited to serve two five-year terms. In 2005, Mr. Ion Gorita (Romania) 

was the Unit’s Chair, and Ms. M. Deborah Wynes (United States) was the 

Vice-Chair. 

The JIU produced the following nine reports in 2005, in addition to a 

separate document entitled “Report of the Joint Inspection Unit for 2004 and 

program of work for 2005.” These reports and other information on the JIU 

are available at: http://www.unjiu.org/. 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2005 

152 

• Review of Management and Administration in WIPO [World Intellectual 

Property Organization]: Budget, Oversight and Related Issues 

(JIU/REP/2005/1) 

• Some Measures to Improve Overall Performance of the United Nations 

System at the Country Level; Part I: A Short History of United Nations 

Reform in Development; and Part II (JIU/REP/2005/2 Parts I and II) 

• Policies of United Nations System Organizations Towards the Use of 

Open Source Software (OSS) in the Secretariats (JIU/REP/2005/3) 

• A Common Payroll for United Nations System Organizations 

(JIU/REP/2005/4) 

• Review of the Management, Administration and Activities of the 

Secretariat of the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification 

(UNCCD) (JIU/REP/2005/5) 

• External Review of the Implementation of Strategic Budgeting Within a 

Results-based Management Framework in the International Labour 

Organization (ILO) (JIU/REP/2005/6) 

• Policies of United Nations System Organizations Towards the Use of 

Open Source Software (OSS) for Development (JIU/REP/2005/7) 

• Further Measures to Strengthen United Nations System Support to the 

New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD) (JIU/REP/2005/8) 

• Common services in Vienna: Buildings Management Services 

(JIU/REP/2005/9) 

The General Assembly considered the “Report of the Joint Inspection 

Unit for 2004 and Program of Work for 2005” as well as the JIU report 

“Harmonization of the Conditions of Travel throughout the UN System” 

(JIU/REP/2004/10). 

Under the agenda item pertaining to the JIU, the United States 

expressed concern regarding the JIU’s planned 2005 study on oversight gaps; 

welcomed the JIU’s efforts to improve the quality of its reports; sought the 

earlier release of the JIU’s program of work; and continued to push for further 

reform of the JIU, as requested in General Assembly Resolution 59/267. With 

respect to the travel report, the United States advocated for the General 

Assembly to adopt the JIU recommendation that only heads of organizations 

should be allowed to travel in first-class. However, no decisions were taken 

with respect to these items during the regular Assembly session. As a result of 

a crowded Fifth Committee (Administrative and Budgetary) agenda, 

consideration of the resolution was deferred to the March 2006 resumed 

session. 

The Committee for Program and Coordination, in its 2005 session, 

endorsed the benchmarking framework proposed by the JIU in the report 

entitled “Overview of the series of reports on managing for results in the 

United Nations” (JIU/REP/2004/5) as a helpful tool for the Secretary-General 

and the oversight bodies. During discussion of this item, the United States 
Administration and Budget 

153 

indicated a desire for the United Nations to implement results-based 

management (RBM) to the fullest extent possible and encouraged the sharing 

of best practices and harmonization of the implementation of RBM systems 

among UN agencies. 

Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS) 

The Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS) is based in New 

York. In July 2005, Inga-Britt Ahlenius (Sweden) was appointed by the 

Secretary-General, following consultation with the General Assembly, to a 

five-year non-renewable appointment as the Under Secretary-General for 

Internal Oversight Services. She succeeded Dileep Nair (Singapore), whose 

term expired in April. General Assembly Resolution 48/218B states that the 

“purpose of [OIOS] is to assist the Secretary-General in fulfilling his internal 

oversight responsibilities in respect of the resources and staff of the 

organization through the exercise of the following functions:” which are listed 

as monitoring, internal audit, inspection, evaluation, investigation, and 

“implementation of recommendations and reporting procedures.” In addition 

to these mandated responsibilities, OIOS provides some management 

consulting services. 

In 2005, OIOS continued to work as an effective oversight body. The 

Fifth Committee (Administrative and Budgetary) considered several OIOS 

reports including the annual report for the year ending June 30, 2005. 

According to the annual report, OIOS made 2,167 recommendations. OIOS 

classified 35.9 percent of these recommendations as critical because they 

addressed issues such as “improvements in productivity, savings, and recovery 

of resources and accountability for fraud, waste, and abuse.” Of all the 

recommendations OIOS issued during the reporting period, 50.3 percent had 

already been fully implemented as of June 30, 2005. OIOS recommendations 

identified approximately $35.1 million in potential cost savings and recoveries 

in the current reporting period. Total actual savings and recoveries for the 

period of July 1, 2004–June 30, 2005, was $18 million, which included 

recommendations from this and previous reporting periods. 

OIOS uses a risk-management framework to determine its annual 

work program. In the 2005 annual report, OIOS explained that it used this 

framework to “focus resources to those areas that have the greatest exposure to 

fraud, waste, abuse, inefficiencies and mismanagement.” OIOS outlined the 

criteria used in determining its annual work program as follows: “risks to the 

organization’s resources and reputation; mandates of the General Assembly; 

requests from departments and offices for oversight coverage; large budget 

items; new activities with no previous oversight coverage; and priority areas 

for the Secretary-General.” Many of OIOS’ reports to the General Assembly 

are available on its website www.un.org/depts/oios. Examples of specific 

audits and investigations performed by OIOS in the period covered by the 

annual report included the following: 

• Investigations by OIOS uncovered serious cases of sexual abuse and 

misconduct by UN peacekeepers at the UN Organization Mission in the 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2005 

154 

Democratic Republic of the Congo and elsewhere and made 

recommendations to help detect and prevent future cases of misconduct. 

To address this matter, the U.S. delegate pressed other members to send a 

“strong political signal” that sexual abuse or other misconduct would not 

be tolerated. In June 2005, the General Assembly adopted by consensus 

Resolutions 59/296 and 59/300 that provided additional authority and 

resources for OIOS’ Investigations Division to handle cases of sexual 

exploitation and abuse. 

• OIOS characterized procurement as “one of the most significant risks to 

the organization in terms of the potential for inefficiency, uneconomical 

contracting, fraud, corruption, and abuse.” Consequently, OIOS activities 

focused on procurement, both at headquarters and in the field, including 

investigations into allegations of corrupt behavior by UN staff; audits of 

the Committees on Contracts at the UN High Commissioner for Refugees 

and the UN offices in Geneva, Nairobi, and Vienna; audits of several UN 

peacekeeping missions; and a report on the Capital Master Plan. 

• A comprehensive risk assessment of the Tsunami relief operations in 

South Asia, which identified ways to improve the coordination and 

management of the efforts of multiple UN organizations. Investigators 

also recommended enhancing field security, addressing weaknesses in the 

procurement process, and establishing a regional oversight office for all 

involved agencies. 

The annual report also informed member states that OIOS did not 

have sufficient resources to carry out its mandated activities, particularly in the 

area of extrabudgetary activities. The report further noted the findings of the 

Independent Inquiry Committee into the Oil-for-Food program that 

recommended strengthening OIOS’ budgetary independence. The United 

States agreed with the Committee that OIOS should have greater financial 

independence. To address this recommendation, the OIOS annual report 

proposed that the budgets of UN funds and programs should include an 

allocation for OIOS to ensure adequate oversight coverage. 

During UN Fifth Committee discussions in October concerning the 

annual OIOS report, the United States pressed for the implementation of all of 

OIOS’ recommendations. In her statement to the Fifth Committee, 

Ambassador Anne W. Patterson noted a relative decline in the implementation 

rate compared with previous annual reports and called upon OIOS to create an 

automated system that would track the implementation of recommendations. 

Consideration of a resolution on the annual report was deferred until March 

2006. However, the General Assembly did approve by consensus additional 

resources for OIOS’ investigations and auditing division (see Resolution 

60/247 A-C), as well as an external review of OIOS (see Resolution 60/248). 

In 2005, OIOS had 194 staff, and a budget of $32.2 million. 
Administration and Budget 

155 

Human Resources Management 

In 2005, the UN General Assembly’s Fifth Committee 

(Administrative and Budgetary) considered and reached consensus on a 

limited number human resource management issues. At its resumed 59th 

session, in June 2005, the General Assembly decided to defer to its 60th 

session consideration of the Secretary-General report on the list of staff of the 

UN Secretariat; the biennial report of the Secretary-General on the use of 

gratis personnel, indicating nationality and summarizing duration of service 

and function performed; the report of the Advisory Committee on 

Administrative and Budgetary Questions (ACABQ) regarding gratis 

personnel; and the Secretary-General report on a comprehensive assessment of 

the system of geographical distribution and assessment of the issues relating to 

possible changes in the number of posts subject to the system of geographical 

distribution. 

In the Fifth Committee, the United States expressed concern about the 

continuing occurrence of over-represented, under-represented, and unrepresented states, as well as the apparent lack of inclination of the Secretariat 

to limit the hiring of nationals from over-represented states. Additionally, the 

United States noted that senior management at the highest levels should expect 

and demand timely results on the issue of adequate representation from 

department heads and not accept the status quo. 

The Secretary-General proposed amendments to the Staff Regulations 

to enhance the financial accountability of UN staff involved in the 

management of the organization’s resources and zero tolerance for UN staff 

who commit sexual exploitation and sexual abuse. The United States pushed 

for and supported these overdue changes. 

Although the United States supported increasing the financial 

disclosure requirements, the proposal did not go far enough. The United 

States raised a concern that the strengthened requirements meant to enhance 

financial accountability of UN staff did not cover all officials serving on 

intergovernmental bodies, such as the ACABQ, the International Civil Service 

Commission, the Joint Inspection Unit, and others. While consensus could not 

be reached on this point, the General Assembly adopted by consensus a 

resolution that increased the breadth of financial disclosure reporting, 

including by senior officials and those with fiduciary responsibilities. Due to 

the attention given to this matter by the United States and like-minded member 

states, the Secretariat clarified its interpretation of the existing rules and actual 

practices to mean that the Secretary-General can require these experts and 

other staff officials to submit these forms. 

On December 23, 2005, the General Assembly adopted by consensus 

Resolution 60/238, the Fifth Committee’s recommended resolution on human 

resources management, which, among other things: 

• Requested the Secretary-General to ensure that the highest standards 

of efficiency, competence and integrity serve as the paramount consideration 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2005 

156 

in the employment of staff, with due regard for the principle of equitable 

geographical distribution; 

• Requested the Secretary-General to submit to the General Assembly a 

report on the activities of the Management Performance Board, including how 

the internal system of accountability has been improved to hold program 

managers accountable for achieving the objectives contained in human 

resources action plans; 

• Requested the Secretary-General to provide an assessment of 

recruitment to certain entry-level posts, including the effect of the national 

competitive examinations and, if relevant, recommendations on how to 

improve this method of recruitment; and, 

• Approved an amendment to staff regulations that would require all 

staff members at the D-1 or L-6 level and above to file financial disclosure 

statements on appointment and at intervals thereafter as prescribed by the 

Secretary-General, in respect of themselves, their spouses, and their dependent 

children, and to assist the Secretary-General in verifying the accuracy of the 

information submitted when so requested. 

International Civil Service Commission (ICSC) 

 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 final year of her four-year term that 

expired December 31, 2005, and was re-elected during the 60th General 

Assembly. Ms. Myers’ new term as the U.S. member on the Commission will 

expire December 31, 2009. 

In 2005, the Commission met in Bangkok and New York for its 60th 

and 61st sessions, respectively. At the two sessions, the Commissioners 

focused on expanding the definition and changing the rate of hazard pay, 

increasing by 2.49 percent the base/floor salary scale in 2006 for professional 

staff via a consolidation of post adjustment, modernizing and simplifying 

allowances, and the pilot study for broad-banding/ pay-for-performance. 

The ICSC revised the conditions for awarding hazard pay to include 

the risk from life threatening diseases. The Commission also decided to set 

the level of hazard pay at $1,300 per month, an increase from $1,000. 

The Commission found that because of the increase in the U.S. 

federal civil service salaries (the UN’s comparator), the UN common system’s 

base/floor salary scale should be increased by 2.49 percent in 2006 by 

consolidating post adjustment on a no loss/no-gain basis. This is done to 

ensure that staff will neither benefit nor gain from the changes in the post 

adjustment. 

The Fifth Committee (Administrative and Budgetary) of the General 

Assembly discussed the 2005 report of the ICSC during its 60th session. The 

United States raised concerns that UN organizations may be deviating from 
Administration and Budget 

157 

the parameters set by the ICSC for the pilot study for broad-banding and payfor-performance systems. The United States stressed that General Assembly 

Resolution 59/268 stated that no new strategy on these issues should be 

pursued until the General Assembly had had time to review the results of the 

initial pilot study. 

The Fifth Committee welcomed, but deemed too costly, the 

Commission’s recommendation to comprehensively review the current scheme 

of mobility, hardship, and benefit paid when household goods are not shipped 

to the new duty assignment. The review was aimed at updating these benefits 

so that the ICSC might better address these the current conditions of service, 

compensate staff for hardship service, and encourage mobility. 

The United States was encouraged by the ICSC’s adoption of a new 

framework of guidelines for determining the type and nature of employment 

contracts. The United States will continue to push member states to act on this 

long overdue simplification of the current overly complex contract system. 

Efforts by the United States, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand to 

reform the ICSC continued to be blocked by the G-77, China, and Russia, 

which favored continuation of the status quo, opposed term limits, and 

prevented application of any professional/experience/education criteria for 

commissioner selection. 

Due to the stalemate on ICSC reform, the Fifth Committee did not 

approve a resolution on ICSC recommendations. 

Employment of Americans 

The U.S. 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 Unit, along with counterparts within 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, also provide support for this 

function through regular contacts with UN agency officials. While the U.S. 

Government places special emphasis on recruiting and promoting Americans 

for key, senior-level positions throughout the UN system, it supports recruitment 

at all levels, including by sponsorship of the UN’s National Competitive 

Recruitment Exam to identify Americans for entry-level positions. 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2005 

158 

Total Employment Numbers 

The following chart shows the total number of Americans in 

professional and senior positions as of December 31, 2005, in the United 

Nations, its specialized agencies, and the International Atomic Energy Agency 

(IAEA). It does not include the international financial institutions or the 

World Tourism Organization. 

Table 1 

U.S. Representation in the UN System 

Professional and Senior Staff 

 Total Americans Percent

UN Secretariat 4,136 446 10.8% 

UN Peacekeeping Operations 1,840 179 9.7% 

UN Subsidiary Bodies 12,738 946 7.4% 

UN Specialized Agencies and IAEA 9,388 773 8.2%

Total 28,102 2,344 8.3%

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 individual agency’s governing body establishes these formulas and 

the number and type of positions subject to geographic consideration. 

The following chart lists those UN agencies that had such ranges in 

2005—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, 2005. (Note: These figures represent only those 

professional posts “subject to geographic distribution” that were funded from 

the UN agencies’ assessed budgets.) 
Administration and Budget 

159 

Table 2 

UN-Related Agencies with Geographic Ranges for 

Employment 

UN U.S. 2005 Total Desirable Filled by Americans 

Agency Assessment Filled Range 

 Number Percent 

UN 22% 2,606 298-404 307 11.8% 

FAO 22% 1,100 138-187 141 12.8% 

ICAO 25% 201 26 13 6.5% 

ILO 22% 643 86-115 86 13.3% 

UNESCO 22% 732 46-76 30 4.1% 

WHO 22% 1,571 142-193 176 11.2% 

In 2005, the percentage of U.S. citizens in posts subject to 

geographic distribution in the United Nations, FAO, ILO, and WHO declined 

from the previous year, while the percentage increased in ICAO and 

UNESCO. 

Agencies Seeking Geographic Balance 

Other UN specialized agencies 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 the 

U.S. regular budget contribution, total professional posts filled that are subject 

to geographic consideration (i.e., not necessarily all professional posts), or if the 

agency doesn’t make such a distinction, the number and percent of total filled 

professional posts, and the number and percent of Americans in such posts as of 

December 31, 2005. 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). 

Table 3 

UN-Related Agencies without Geographic Ranges for 

Employment 

 

UN U.S. 2005 

Agency Assessment Total U.S. Number U.S. Percent 

 

IAEA 25.9% 766 88 11.4% 

IMO 3.5% 97 4 4.1% 

ITU 8.9% 282 16 5.7% 

UPU 5.7% 97 4 4.1% 

WIPO 6.6% 357 21 5.9% 

WMO 21.6% 124 6 4.8% 

Professional Posts Filled 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2005 

160 

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 Joint UN Program on HIV/AIDS 

(UNAIDS), 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 

UNAIDS 179 13 7.3% 

UNDP 3,040 189 6.2% 

UNHCR 1,877 136 7.2% 

UNICEF 3,684 260 7.1% 

UNRWA 132 21 15.9% 

WFP 1,193 116 9.7% 

In 2005, for at least part of the year, Americans held the top position 

in three UN agencies: UNICEF (Ann Veneman, Executive Director), WFP 

(James Morris, Executive Director), and UNRWA (Karen Koning AbuZayd, 

Commissioner-General). Americans also held one of the second-most senior 

posts in FAO (Deputy Director-General), IAEA (Deputy Director-General), 

ILO (Executive Director, Social Dialogue Sector), Office of the UNHCR 

(Deputy High Commissioner), WHO (Under Secretary-General), 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 Republic of Congo, and the Special Representative of the 

Secretary-General and Coordinator of UN Operations in Liberia. Four other 

Americans held UN Secretariat positions at the Assistant Secretary-General 

level. 

Representation of U.S. Women 

Throughout the year, UN agencies continued to give special attention 

to recruiting qualified women. In 2005, American women represented about 

49 percent of all Americans in professional and senior positions in the UN 

Secretariat, and about 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 seconding federal employees to them either on “transfer” (in 

International Professional Posts Filled 
Administration and Budget 

161 

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 2005, a total of 115 federal 

employees from 14 federal agencies were on detail or transfer to UN system 

agencies (the UN Secretariat, UN subsidiary bodies, UN specialized 

agencies, and the IAEA), representing about 4.9 percent of the Americans who 

worked in professional positions. Of the 57 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 WHO. Of the 58 employees on “transfer” to UN agencies, the 

largest number (14) were from the Department of Transportation who worked 

for ICAO. [Note: This reflects a decrease from previous years’ reports which 

included information on secondments to non UN organizations.] 

Junior Professional Officers 

The United States also continued to fund a number of Junior 

Professional Officer positions at the UNHCR (14), FAO (1), and WFP (1). 

Such positions allow officers to develop experience to make them competitive 

for future positions. 

Capital Master Plan 

The UN Capital Master Plan (CMP) consists of full renovation of the 

UN headquarters complex in New York. The UN facilities, the majority of 

which are 55 years old, are not compliant with building codes for fire and life 

safety; they also are energy inefficient and do not meet modern security 

requirements. The proposal for the CMP was first introduced by the UN 

Secretary-General in 2000 and endorsed, in principle, by the General 

Assembly in 2002 by Resolution 57/292. 

In 2005, the UN re-assessed options for executing the CMP due to the 

loss of their planned swing space. At the same time, other changes were 

presented to member states, including updated construction-cost inflation data 

and a revised construction start date. All of these changes resulted in an 

increase in the project cost estimate. The United Nations presented three 

viable strategies for implementing the project. The full-scope strategy was 

expected to cost approximately $1.8 billion and take seven years to complete 

construction. It also presented a new option for financing the project, using 

direct assessments instead of a U.S. loan. 

In June, the General Assembly adopted Resolution 59/295 providing 

the UN funding to proceed with design and pre-construction work on the 

CMP, and requesting that the Secretary-General report back at its 60th session 

on a wide range of questions on the CMP. The CMP was taken up during the 

60th session in fall 2005; however, further decision on both project 

implementation strategy and the method of financing was deferred by the 

General Assembly until its next resumed session in 2006. However, an 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2005 

162 

additional $26 million in funding was provided in 2005 in order for design and 

pre-construction work to continue. 

This new information presented by the United Nations generated a 

great deal of discussion among members on how best to proceed with the 

CMP. The United States sought to ensure that the project management 

processes put in place were sound and that rigorous oversight was being 

applied to the project as it progressed. While the United States continued to 

support the CMP overall, it urged diligence in containing costs and advocated 

that a prudent approach be taken in moving forward on the CMP. 

 
163 

Appendix 1 

Address by Secretary Condoleezza Rice 

Statement by Secretary Condoleezza Rice before the 60th regular 

session of the UN General Assembly on September 17, 2005. 

On behalf of President 

Bush and all of the American 

people, welcome to New York 

City. 

In the aftermath of 

Hurricane Katrina, my fellow 

citizens have experienced the 

compassion of the United Nations. 

I want to thank Secretary-General 

Annan for mobilizing the support 

of this institution. I also want to 

thank the representatives of the 

126 countries that have offered 

assistance in our relief efforts. 

The United States will never 

forget their generosity in our time 

of need. 

In moments of 

tumultuous historical change, 

leaders must become architects of 

a better world. We must survey 

the new international landscape, 

lay firm foundations of moral 

principle, and build institutions 

that reflect our unique moment in 

history. It is those institutions that 

enable citizens of conviction to 

lead us ever closer to the ideals of 

justice that stir every soul: the 

universal desire for security, 

prosperity, liberty, and dignity. 

Sixty years ago was just 

such a time of transformation. 

After one of the greatest 

cataclysms in world history, the 

United States joined with 

visionary builders from over 50 

countries to create the United 

Nations. We placed the enduring 

principles of human rights and 

fundamental freedoms at the 

foundation of the United Nations 

Charter. We built an institution 

that has helped to support a 

peaceful world order for six 

decades. Today, however, with 

the end of the cold war and the 

rise of globalization and the 

emergence of new threats, the very 

terrain of international politics has 

shifted beneath our feet. In this 

new world, we must again 

embrace the challenge of building 

for the future. 

The time to reform the 

United Nations is now. We must 

seize this opportunity together. 

Chapter I, Article 1, of the Charter 

of the United Nations proclaims 

the four purposes of the United 

Nations, great aspirations that 

have stood the test of time. But 

consider what different forms they 

take today, in 2005, as opposed to 

1945, when they were first 

declared. 

The first purpose of the 

United Nations is to help maintain 

international peace and security. 

In 1945, the most serious threats to 

peace and security emerged 

between states, and were largely 

defined by their borders. Today, 

however, the greatest threats we 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2005 

164 

face emerge within states, and 

melt through their borders: 

transnational threats like terrorism 

and the proliferation of weapons, 

pandemic disease, and the 

trafficking in human beings. 

The second purpose of 

this institution, as written in the 

United Nations Charter, is to 

develop friendly relations among 

nations, based on equal rights and 

the self-determination of all 

peoples. In 1945, a life of liberty 

and dignity was more an aspiration 

than a reality for a majority of the 

world’s people. Today, however, 

more nations than ever have 

enshrined the principles of 

democracy and human rights—a 

true moral triumph that will be 

complete only when all 

individuals are secure in their 

basic freedoms. 

The third purpose of the 

United Nations is to achieve 

international cooperation in 

solving international problems. In 

1945, the fear was that strong, 

aggressive states, eager and able to 

expand their frontiers with force, 

would be the primary cause of 

international problems. Today, 

however, it is clear that weak and 

poorly governed states, unwilling 

or incapable of ruling their 

countries with justice, are the 

principal source of global crises, 

from civil war and genocide to 

extreme poverty and humanitarian 

disaster. 

The final purpose of the 

United Nations, as the Charter 

states, is to be a center for 

harmonizing the actions of nations 

in the attainment of common ends. 

In 1945, the world’s leaders joined 

together to build an institutional 

partnership that could address the 

shared challenges of their time. 

Today, faced with the realities of a 

new world, we must transform the 

United Nations to meet the shared 

challenges of our time. 

The members of this 

body must work together to 

strengthen security in a world 

threatened by stateless extremists. 

Today, I call on the nations of the 

world to ratify the comprehensive 

convention on terrorism. No 

cause, no movement and no 

grievance can justify the 

intentional killing of innocent 

civilians and noncombatants. That 

is unacceptable by any moral 

standard. It is time for every 

member of the United Nations to 

outlaw acts of international 

terrorism. 

We must also work 

together to promote prosperity and 

development in a world of great 

potential. The United States is 

committed to the Millennium 

Development Goals. And at the 

Monterrey Conference three years 

ago, all nations agreed that 

development must be a two-way 

street. Donor countries have a 

responsibility to increase their 

assistance to developing nations. 

And developing nations have a 

responsibility to govern justly, 

advance economic liberty, and 

invest in their people. The 

Monterrey Consensus is working. 

Now is not the time to 

revert to old, failed thinking about 

development. Countries 

representing three quarters of the 
Address by Secretary Condoleezza Rice 

165 

developing world’s population are 

on a pace to meet the targets of the 

Millennium Declaration by 2015. 

And, as President Bush 

said on Wednesday, the United 

States is prepared to take new 

action to accelerate this progress: 

we will eliminate all tariffs and 

subsidies that distort free trade—

as other nations do the same. 

Members of the United 

Nations must work together as 

well to support democracy in a 

world of expanding liberty. To 

advance this common purpose, in 

2004, President Bush proposed the 

creation of a democracy fund. 

With the broad support of this 

body, we have made it a reality. 

The Fund is now receiving 

donations in cash and in kind from 

countries large and small that wish 

to help other nations lay the 

foundations of democracy. 

Showing its leadership as the 

world’s largest democracy, India 

made the generous opening pledge 

of $10 million. 

Now, to be sure, when 

speaking about democracy, the 

United States has every reason for 

humility. After all, it was only in 

my lifetime that America 

guaranteed the right to vote for all 

its citizens. Obviously, the path to 

democracy is long and imperfect 

and different for every nation. But 

the principles of democracy are 

universal, as is the desire for them. 

And the United Nations must 

support every country that 

embraces the challenge of selfgovernment. In Afghanistan, Iraq, 

Lebanon, the Palestinian 

territories, and throughout the 

world, peoples who want to build 

democracy deserve our help. 

The many goals we share 

are great indeed. And the United 

Nations has a major role to play in 

their achievement. But for this 

institution to become an engine of 

change in the 21st century, it must 

now change itself. The United 

Nations must launch a lasting 

revolution of reform. 

The United Nations 

summit declaration (Resolution 

60/1), which every head of state 

endorsed this week, expresses a 

global consensus on the fact that 

reform is imperative. I want to 

thank former General Assembly 

President Ping for his tireless hard 

work. 

Our challenge now, under 

President Eliasson’s leadership, is 

to enact the vital reforms that will 

make the United Nations more 

accountable to its members, more 

suited to new challenges, and 

more faithful to its founding 

purposes. 

The United States 

welcomes the commitment of all 

leaders to establish a new 

Peacebuilding Commission. Now, 

we must embrace the difficult task 

of implementing that vision. A 

Peacebuilding Commission should 

plan for post-conflict missions 

before crises erupt. And it must 

help to coordinate reconstruction 

efforts after the fighting stops. In 

a world threatened by civil strife, 

the United Nations needs to be 

better prepared to help countries 

rebuild in the aftermath of 

conflict. 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2005 

166 

We are also pleased that 

the world’s leaders have 

recognized the importance of 

establishing a new Human Rights 

Council. But it will take a lot of 

hard work in the coming months 

to realize that goal. The Human 

Rights council must have fewer 

members, less politics, and more 

credibility. And it should never, 

never empower brutal 

dictatorships to sit in judgment of 

responsible democracies. The 

Human Rights Council must have 

the moral authority to condemn all 

violators of human rights, even 

those that sit among us in this hall. 

Finally, we welcome the 

promise of the world’s leaders to 

make the United Nations a more 

effective and a more principled 

institution. As President Bush 

said on Wednesday, the United 

Nations must stand for integrity 

and live by the high standards it 

sets for others. For the United 

Nations to champion democracy 

more legitimately, we must 

increase the transparency and the 

accountability of this institution. 

For the United Nations to promote 

prosperity more credibly, tougher 

ethics rules and greater internal 

oversight are needed to ensure the 

highest professional standards. 

And to make the United Nations 

relevant to the challenges of today, 

the purpose and the performance 

of all United Nations programs 

must be reviewed thoroughly, 

consistently, and 

comprehensively. 

Our fellow citizens 

deserve a United Nations that 

commands their respect and is 

worthy of their hard-earned tax 

dollars. In a democracy, leaders 

must be able to justify that their 

people’s money is indeed being 

well spent. 

Real progress on those 

fundamental reforms will prove 

that the United Nations can 

address greater issues of change, 

in particular the reform of the 

Security Council. We want that 

important body to reflect the world 

as it is in 2005, not as it was in 

1945. The United States is open 

to expanding the Security Council. 

We have long supported a 

permanent seat for Japan. And we 

believe that developing countries 

deserve greater representation on 

that body. All this would make 

for a more effective Security 

Council. 

And the Security Council 

must be effective. It must be able 

to deal with great challenges such 

as terrorism and nuclear 

proliferation, especially when it 

faces real threats and when 

countries such as Iran threaten the 

effectiveness of the global 

nonproliferation regime. When 

diplomacy has been exhausted, the 

Security Council must become 

involved. Questions about Iran’s 

nuclear activities remain 

unanswered, despite repeated 

efforts by the International Atomic 

Energy Agency. And after 

agreeing to negotiate with Europe, 

Iran unilaterally walked away 

from the talks and restarted its 

nuclear programs. Iran should 

return to the negotiations with the 

European Union three and 
Address by Secretary Condoleezza Rice 

167 

abandon forever its plans for a 

nuclear-weapons capability. 

The experience of recent 

years has reinforced the universal 

truth that international institutions 

are only as strong and effective 

and relevant as their members 

choose to make them. The United 

Nations is no different. 

The United States 

believes in a United Nations that is 

strong and effective. And we have 

ambitious hopes for its future. 

So in this year, as the 

United Nations marks its 60th 

anniversary, let us recommit 

ourselves to principled action. Let 

us embrace the same spirit of 

creation that moved the builders 

and leaders of 1945. And let us 

reform this great institution to 

meet the challenges of a new era. 

Thank you. 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2005 

168 
169 

Appendix 2 

Principal UN Organs 

General Assembly 

The General Assembly is composed of all 191 members of the United 

Nations. As of December 31, 2005, 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 

Colombia Nov. 5, 1945 

Member Date of Admission 

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 

Hungary Dec. 14, 1955 

Iceland Nov. 19, 1946 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2005 

170 

Member Date of Admission 

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 Sept. 14, 1999 

Korea, Democratic People’s 

 Republic Sept. 17, 1991 

Korea, Republic of 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 of Sept. 14, 1999 

Nepal Dec. 14, 1955 

Netherlands Dec. 10, 1945 

New Zealand Oct. 24, 1945 

Nicaragua Oct. 24, 1945 

Member Date of Admission 

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 

The Former Yugoslav 

 Republic of 
Principal UN Organs 

171 

Member Date of Admission 

 Macedonia April 8, 1993 

Timor-Leste Sept. 27, 2002 

Togo Sept. 20, 1960 

Tonga, Kingdom of Sept. 14, 1999 

Trinidad and 

 Tobago Sept. 18, 1962 

Tunisia Nov. 12, 1956 

Turkey Oct. 24, 1945 

Tuvalu Sept. 5, 2000 

Turkmenistan March 2, 1992 

Uganda Oct. 25, 1962 

Ukraine Oct. 24, 1945 

Member Date of Admission 

 Emirates Dec. 9, 1971 

United Kingdom Oct. 24, 1945 

United States Oct. 24, 1945 

Uruguay Dec. 18, 1945 

Uzbekistan March 2, 1992 

Vanuatu Sept. 15, 1981 

Venezuela Nov. 15, 1945 

Vietnam Sept. 20, 1977 

Yemen Sept. 30, 1947 

Zambia Dec. 1, 1964 

Zimbabwe Aug. 25, 1980 

United Arab 

*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 59th regular session of the General Assembly, which had been 

suspended December 23, 2004, held resumed sessions during 2005. The 

session was formally closed on September 13. 

The General Assembly held its 28th Special Session in January, 

devoted to the Commemoration of the 60th anniversary of the liberation of the 

Nazi concentration camps. 

The 60th regular session of the General Assembly convened 

September 13, 2005, and was suspended December 23. 

The Assembly elected Jan Eliasson (Sweden) as President and the 

Chairs of the Delegations of Angola, Armenia, Brazil, Central African 

Republic, China, France, Guinea-Bissau, India, Iran, Israel, Kenya, Malaysia, 

Mali, Myanmar (Burma), Pakistan, Paraguay, Russia, Tunisia, the United 

Kingdom, the United States, and Venezuela 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)—

Choi Young-jin (Republic of Korea) 

Second Committee (Economic and Financial)—Aminu Bashir 

Wali (Nigeria) 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2005 

172 

Third Committee (Social, Humanitarian, and Cultural)—Francis 

K. Butagira (Uganda) 

Fourth Committee (Special Political and Decolonization)—Yashar 

Aliyev (Azerbaijan) 

Fifth Committee (Administrative and Budgetary)—John W. Ashe 

(Antigua and Barbuda) 

Sixth Committee (Legal)—Juan Antonio Yáñez-Barnuevo (Spain) 

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: 

2005: Algeria, Benin, Brazil, the Philippines, and Romania 

2006: Argentina, Denmark, Greece, Japan, and Tanzania 

On October 10, the Assembly elected the Congo, Ghana, Peru, Qatar, 

and Slovakia as members of the Security Council for 2-year terms of office 

beginning January 1, 2006. 

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 2005. 

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: 

2005: Azerbaijan, Benin, Congo, Cuba, Ecuador, France, Germany, 

Greece, Ireland, Jamaica, Japan, Kenya, Malaysia, Mozambique, Nicaragua, 

Portugal, Saudi Arabia, and Senegal 

2006: 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 

2007: Albania, Australia, Brazil, Chad, China, Costa Rica, the 

Democratic Republic of the Congo, Denmark, Guinea, Iceland, India, 
Principal UN Organs 

173 

Lithuania, Mexico, Pakistan, Russia, South Africa, Thailand, and the United 

Kingdom 

The General Assembly elected Angola, Austria, Benin, Cuba, Czech 

Republic, France, Germany, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Japan, 

Madagascar, Mauritania, Paraguay, Saudi Arabia, Spain, Sri Lanka, and 

Turkey for 3-year terms beginning on January 1, 2006. All were elected on 

October 17. 

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, 

2005, 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) 

Ronny Abraham, France (2009)** 

*resigned, effective February 11, 2005 

**elected February 15, 2005, to complete the term for Gilbert 

Guillaume after his resignation 

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. 

Kofi Annan, Secretary-General 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2005 

174 

Louise Frechette, Deputy Secretary-General 

Nobuyasu Abe, Under Secretary-General, Department for 

Disarmament Affairs 

K.Y. Amoako (to August); Abdoulie Janneh (from September) 

Executive Secretary (rank of Under Secretary-General), Economic 

Commission for Africa 

Catherine Bertini (to April 2005); Christopher Burnham (from May 

2005), Under Secretary-General, Department of Management 

Mark Malloch Brown, Chef de Cabinet (rank of Under SecretaryGeneral) 

Chen Jian, Under Secretary-General, Department for General 

Assembly and Conference Services 

Antonio Maria Costa, Director General (rank of Under SecretaryGeneral), UN Office at Vienna; Executive Director of the UN Office on Drugs 

and Crime 

Jan Egeland, Under Secretary-General, Office for Coordination of 

Humanitarian Affairs 

Jean-Marie Guéhenno, Under Secretary-General, Department of 

Peacekeeping Operations 

Nicholas Michel, Under Secretary-General, Office of Legal Affairs 

Dileep Nair (to April 2005); Inga-Britt Ahlenius (from July 2005), 

Under Secretary-General, Office of Internal Oversight Services; 

Jose Antonio Ocampo, Under Secretary-General, Department of 

Economic and Social Affairs 

Sir Kieran Prendergast (to June 2005); Ibrahim A. Gambari (from 

July 2005), Under Secretary-General, Department of Political Affairs 

Shashi Tharoor, Under Secretary-General, Department of Public 

Information 

Klaus Toepfer, Director General, UN Office at Nairobi; Executive 

Director, UN Environment Program 

David Veness, Under Secretary-General, Safety and Security 

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 Secretary-General Kofi 

Annan (Chair), Deputy Secretary-General Louise Frechette, all of the Under 

Secretary-Generals, and the following: 

Louise Arbour, High Commissioner for Human Rights 

Marek Belka, Executive Secretary, Economic Commission for 

 Europe 

Anwarul Chowdhury, 

High Representative for Least Developed Countries, 

Landlocked, and Small Island Developing States 
Principal UN Organs 

175 

Kim Hak-Su, 

Executive Secretary, Economic and Social Commission for 

Asia and the Pacific 

Ruud Lubbers (to February 2005); Antonio Manuel de Oliveira 

Guterres (from May 2005), High Commissioner for 

Refugees 

José Luis Machinea 

Executive Secretary, Economic Commission for Latin 

America and the Caribbean 

Mark Malloch Brown (to January 2005); Kemal Dervis (from August 

2005), Administrator, UN Development Program 

James T. Morris, Executive Director, World Food Program 

Thoraya Obaid, Executive Director, UN Population Fund 

Sergei A. Ordzhonikidze, Director General, UN Office at Geneva 

Supachai Panitchpakdi (from May 2005) 

Secretary-General, UN Conference on Trade and 

Development 

Mervat M. Tallawy 

Executive Secretary, Economic and Social Commission for 

Western Asia 

Anna K. Tibaijuka, Executive Director, UN-HABITAT 

Ann M. Venneman, Executive Director, UN Children’s Fund 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2005 

176 
177 

Appendix 3 

U.S. Representatives 

Permanent Representative and Chief of Mission to the United 

Nations: John C. Danforth (to January 2005); John R. Bolton (from August 

2005) 

Deputy Permanent Representative to the United Nations: Anne W. 

Patterson (to November 2005); Alejandro D. Wolff (from October 2005) 

Deputy Permanent Representative to the Security Council: Anne W. 

Patterson (to November 2005); Alejandro D. Wolff (from October 2005) 

Representative on the Economic and Social Council: Sichan Siv 

Alternative Representative for Special Political Affairs: Stuart W. 

Holliday 

Representative for UN Management and Reform: Patrick F. Kennedy 

(to February 2005) 

U.S. Representative to the European Office of the United Nations, 

Geneva: Kevin E. Moley 

U.S. Representative to International Organizations, Vienna: George 

Glass, Chargé d’Affairs (to July 2005); Greg Schulte (from July 2005) 

UN General Assembly 

60th regular session (New York, Sept. 13–Dec. 23) 

Representatives: John R. Bolton1 (Chair); Anne W. Patterson; Donald 

M. Payne; Edward R. Royce; and Alejandro D. Wolff 

Alternate: Sichan Siv 

Subsidiary and Other Bodies 

UN Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation 

53rd session (Vienna, Sept. 26–30) 

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

30th session (New York, March 14–24) 

Representative: Eric Rosand 

Alternates: Damir Arnaut; Eric Pelofsky 

Committee on Conferences

Substantive session (New York, Sept. 19–27) 

Representative: Patrick F. Kennedy 

Alternate: Benny Garcia 

 

1

 The Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, served as chair of the delegation, 

ex officio, during her presence at the session. 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2005 

178 

Disarmament Commission

26th session (New York, July 18–Aug. 5) 

Representative: John A. Bravaco 

Alternate: James Donovan 

Conference on Disarmament

First Part (Geneva, Jan. 24–April 1) 

Representative: Jackie W. Sanders 

Alternate: Thomas Cynkin 

Second Part (Geneva, May 30–July 15) 

Representative: Jackie W. Sanders 

Alternate: Thomas Cynkin 

Third Part (Geneva, Aug. 8–Sept. 13) 

Representative: Jackie W. Sanders 

Alternate: Thomas Cynkin 

Committee on Information

27th session (New York, April 18–28) 

Representative: David A. Traystman 

UN Commission on International Trade Law

38th session (Vienna, July 4–15) 

Representative: Harold S. Burman 

Alternate: Cameron Thompson 

Special Committee on Peacekeeping Operations

Meets intermittently in New York. 

Security Council 

Representative: John C. Danforth (to January 2005); Anne W. 

Patterson (January 2005 to July 2005); John R. Bolton (from August 2005) 

Deputy Representatives: Patrick F. Kennedy (to February 2005); 

Stuart W. Holliday (to January 2005); Anne W. Patterson (to July 2005); 

Sichan Siv (to December 2005); Alejandro D. Wolff (from December 2005) 

Alternate Representatives: William Brencick; Reed Fendrick; 

Richard Grenell; Mark Groombridge; Gordon Olson; Mary Catherine Phee; 

Nicholas Rostow; Thomas A. Schweich; Gerald Scott; Frank Urbancic; Peter 

Vrooman; Carolyn Willson 

Trusteeship Council 

Did not meet in 2005. 

Economic and Social Council and Related Bodies 

Organizational sessions: New York, Feb. 4 and April 27–28 

Substantive session (New York, June 29–July 27) 

Representative: Sichan Siv 
U.S. Representatives 

179 

Alternate: Miriam Hughes 

Functional Commissions 

Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice

14th session (Vienna, May 23–27) 

Representative: Elizabeth G. Verville 

Alternates: John Bargeron; George Glass 

Commission on Human Rights

61st session (Geneva, March 14–April 22) 

Representative: Rudolph E. Boschwitz 

Alternate: Kevin E. Moley 

Commission on Narcotic Drugs

48th session (Vienna, March 7–14) 

Representative: John P. Walters 

Alternates: George Glass; Eric Rubin 

Commission on Population and Development

38th session (New York, April 4–8) 

Representatives: Kelly Ryan; Sichan Siv 

Commission for Social Development

43rd session (New York, Feb. 9–18) 

Representative: Sichan Siv 

Alternate: Lucy Tamlyn 

Commission on the Status of Women

49th session (New York, Feb. 28–March 11) 

Representative: Ellen Sauerbrey 

Alternates: Mark Lagon; Sichan Siv 

Commission on Sustainable Development

13th session (New York, April 11–22) 

Representative: Paula Dobriansky 

Alternates: Jonathan Margolis; Sichan Siv; John Turner 

Regional Economic Commissions 

Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific

61st session (Bangkok, May 12–18) 

Representative: Richard Behrend 

Alternate: Michael J. Delaney 

Economic Commission for Europe

60th session (Geneva, Feb. 22–25) 

Representative: Lynn Cassel 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2005 

180 

Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean

Did not meet in 2005. 

Standing Committees 

UN Human Settlements Program

20th session (Nairobi, April 4–8) 

Representative: Shannon Sorzano 

Alternates: Richard Behrend; Karen Levine 

Committee on Non-Governmental Organizations

Regular session (New York, Jan. 5–14 and May 9–20) 

Representative: Sichan Siv 

Alternate: Mariano Ceinos-Cox 

Committee for Program and Coordination

45th session (New York, June 6–July 1) 

Representative: Sichan Siv 

Alternate: Thomas A. Repasch 

Related Subsidiary Bodies 

UN Children’s Fund 

Executive Board, annual session (New York, June 6–10) 

Representative: William O. Brisben 

Alternate: Sichan Siv 

UN Development Program 

Executive Board, annual session (New York, June 13–24) 

Representative: Sichan Siv 

Alternates: Richard W. Behrend; Nan Kennelly; Kelly Ryan; Lucy 

Tamlyn 

UN Environment Program 

Governing Council, 23rd session (Nairobi, Feb. 21–25) 

Representative: John F. Turner 

Alternate: Claudia McMurray 

Office of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees

Executive Committee, 56th session (Geneva, Oct. 3–7) 

Representative: Richard L. Greene 

Alternates: Kevin Moley; Linda Thomas-Greenfield 

UN Conference on Trade and Development 

Conference did not meet in 2005. 

Trade and Development Board, 52nd session (Geneva, Oct. 3–14) 

Representative: Kevin E. Moley 

Alternate: David Shark 
U.S. Representatives 

181 

Specialized Agencies and Other Bodies 

Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) 

33rd Conference (Rome, Nov. 19–26) 

Representative: Mike Johanns 

Alternates: J. Michael Cleverley; Tony P. Hall; J.P. Penn 

International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) 

General Conference, 49th session (Vienna, Sept. 26–30) 

Representatives: Samuel W. Bodman; Gregory L. Schulte 

International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) 

Congress did not meet in 2005. 

International Labor Organization (ILO) 

Conference, 93rd session (Geneva, May 31–June 16) 

Minister: Elaine L. Chao 

Government Delegates: Robert Hagen; Martha Newton 

Alternates: Kevin E. Moley; Robert B. Shepard 

International Maritime Organization (IMO) 

24th Assembly (London, Nov. 17–Dec. 2) 

Representative: Thomas Collins, Admiral 

Alternates: Thomas Gilmour, Rear Admiral; Laurence Tobey 

International Monetary Fund (IMF) 

U.S. Governor: John Snow 

Alternate: Alan Greenspan 

International Telecommunication Union (ITU)

Plenipotentiary Conference did not meet in 2005. 

Council (Geneva, July 12–22) 

Representative: Richard C. Beaird 

Alternate: Marian Gordon 

UN Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO)

33rd General Conference (Paris, Oct. 3–21) 

Representative: Margaret Spellings 

UN Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO)

The United States withdrew from UNIDO on December 31, 1996. 

Universal Postal Union (UPU) 

Universal Postal Congress did not meet in 2005. 

World Bank Group 

International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD)
United States Participation in the United Nations—2005 

182 

 U.S. Governor: John Snow 

 Alternate: Josette S. Shiner 

 U.S. Executive Director: Robert B. Holland, III 

 Alternate: Jennifer Dorn 

 International Development Association (IDA)

 The U.S. Governor, Executive Director, and alternates 

 were the same as those of the IBRD. 

 International Finance Corporation (IFC) 

 The U.S. Governor, Executive Director, and alternates 

 were the same as those of the IBRD. 

World Food Program (WFP) 

Annual session (Rome, June 6–June 10) 

Representatives: Tony P. Hall; Lauren Landis 

World Health Organization (WHO) 

58th World Health Assembly (Geneva, May 16–25) 

Representatives: Michael O. Leavitt; Kevin E. Moley; William R. 

Steiger 

Alternates: Ann Blackwood; Julie Gerberding, M.D.; David E. 

Hohman; Stewart Simonson; Mary Lou Valdez 

World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO)

Governing Bodies (Geneva, Sept. 26–Oct. 5) 

Representative: Jonathan W. Dudas 

Alternates: Lois Boland; Candy Green; Joyce W. Namde 

World Meteorological Organization (WMO) 

Congress did not meet in 2005. 

World Trade Organization (WTO) 

6th Ministerial Conference (Hong Kong, Dec. 13–18) 

Representative: Robert Portman 

Alternates: Peter F. Allgeier; Karan K. Bhatia; Michael Johanns; 

Franklin L. Lavin; Susan C. Schwab 

U.S. Permanent Representatives to the United 

Nations from 1946 to 2005 

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) 
U.S. Representatives 

183 

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–June 2004) 

John C. Danforth (July 2004–January 2005) 

Anne W. Patterson, Chargé d’Affaires (January 2005–July 2005) 

John R. Bolton (August 2005– ) 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2005 

184 
185 

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) 

1540 Committee (http://disarmament2.un.org/Committee1540/index.html) 

Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions 

 (http://www.un.org/ga/acabq/) 

Board of Auditors (http://www.unsystem.org/auditors/Default.htm) 

Children’s Fund (http://www.unicef.org) 

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 Insolvency Law 

 (http://www.uncitral.org/uncitral/en/uncitral_texts/insolvency/2004Guide.html) 

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 for Program and Coordination (http://www.un.org/ga/cpc/) 

Committee on Non-Governmental Organizations 

 (http://www.un.org/esa/coordination/ngo/) 

Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People 

 (http://www.un.org/Depts/dpa/qpalnew/committee.htm) 

Conference on Disarmament (http://disarmament.un.org/cd/) 

Conference on Trade and Development (http://www.unctad.org) 

Counter-Terrorism Committee (http://www.un.org/sc/ctc/) 

Democracy Fund (http://www.unfoundation.org/features/un_democracy_fund.asp) 

Department of Disarmament Affairs (http://disarmament.un.org/) 

Department of Peacekeeping Operations 

 (http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/dpko/home.shtml) 

Development Program (http://www.undp.org) 

 Partnership for Clean Fuels and Vehicles 

 (http://www.unep.org/pcfv/main/main.htm) 

Disarmament Commission (http://disarmament.un.org/undiscom.htm) 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2005 

186 

Division for Palestinian Rights (http://www.un.org/Depts/dpa/qpalnew/dpr.htm) 

Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (http://www.unescap.org) 

Economic and Social Council (http://www.un.org/docs/ecosoc) 

Economic Commission for Europe (http://www.unece.org) 

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/60/fifth/index.html) 

First Committee (http://www.un.org/ga/60/first/index.html) 

Fourth Committee (http://www.un.org/ga/60/fourth/index.html) 

General Assembly (http://www.un.org/ga/60/) 

General Assembly Resolutions, 60th Session 

 (http://www.un.org/Depts/dhl/resguide/r60.htm) 

High Commissioner for Refugees/UN Refugee Agency (http://www.unhcr.ch) 

High-Level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change Report 

 (http://www.un.org/secureworld/) 

Human Resources Management (https://jobs.un.org/elearn/production/home.html) 

Human Rights Council (http://www.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/) 

Human Settlements Program (http://www.unhabitat.org) 

In Larger Freedom (http://www.un.org/largerfreedom/) 

Independent Expert on the Question of Human Rights and Extreme Poverty 

 (http://www.ohchr.org/english/issues/poverty/index.htm) 

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/incb/index.html) 

International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (http://www.unisdr.org) 

Iraq: Oil-for-Food Inquiry 

 (http://www.un.org/apps/news/infocusRel.asp?infocusID=97&Body=Oil-forFood&Body1=inquiry 

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.unjiu.org/) 

 Reports (http://www.unjiu.org/en/reports.htm) 

Joint UN Program on HIV/AIDS (http://www.unaids.org) 

Millennium Project: Investing in Development 

 (http://www.unmillenniumproject.org/reports/index.htm) 

Mine Action (http://www.mineaction.org/) 
UN and Related Websites 

187 

Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs 

 (http://ochaonline.un.org/) 

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) 

Peacebuilding Commission (http://www.un.org/peace/peacebuilding/) 

Permanent Missions to the United Nations – Geneva: 

(http://www.unog.ch/80256EE600582E34/(httpPages)/8CEC446B720477DA80256EF

8004CB68C?OpenDocument) 

Permanent Missions to the United Nations – New York: 

 (http://www.un.org/Overview/missions.htm#perm) 

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/60/second/index.html) 

Secretary-General (http://www.un.org/news/ossg/sg/index.shtml) 

Security Council (http://www.un.org/Docs/sc/) 

Repertoire of the Practice of the Security Council 

 (http://www.un.org/Depts/dpa/repertoire/index.html) 

Security Council Presidential Statements 2005 

 (http://www.un.org/Docs/sc/unsc_pres_statements05.htm

Security Council Resolutions 2005 

 (http://www.un.org/Docs/sc/unsc_resolutions05.htm) 

Security Council Sanctions Committees 

 (http://www.un.org/Docs/sc/committees/INTRO.htm) 

Sexual Exploitation and Abuse and Peacekeeping 

 (http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/dpko/ctte/SEA.htm) 

Sixth Committee (http://www.un.org/law/cod/sixth/60/sixth60.htm) 

Special Committee of 24 on Decolonization 

 (http://www.un.org/Depts/dpi/decolonization/special_committee_main.htm) 

Special Committee on the Charter of the United Nations 

 (http://www.un.org/law/chartercomm/) 

Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers 

 (http://www.ohchr.org/english/issues/judiciary/index.htm) 

Special Rapporteur on the Right of Everyone to the Enjoyment of the Highest 

 Attainable Standard of Physical and Mental Health 

 (http://www.ohchr.org/english/issues/health/right/index.htm) 

Special Rapporteur on the Right to Education 

 (http://www.ohchr.org/english/issues/education/rapporteur/index.htm) 

Special Rapporteur on the Situation of Human Rights in Myanmar 

 (http://www.ohchr.org/english/countries/mm/mandate/index.htm) 

Special Rapporteur on Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment 

 or Punishment (http://www.ohchr.org/english/issues/torture/rapporteur/index.htm) 

Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2005 

188 

 (http://www.ohchr.org/english/bodies/subcom/index.htm) 

Third Committee (http://www.un.org/ga/60/third/index.html) 

Trusteeship Council (http://www.un.org/Depts/dpi/decolonization/council.htm) 

UN Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (http://www.unesco.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 Police [UNPOL] (http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/dpko/civpol/civpol1.html) 

UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) 

 (http://www.un.org/unrwa/) 

UN Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) 

 (http://www.unscear.org/) 

UN System Chief Executives Board for Coordination (http://www.unsystemceb.org/) 

UN Missions/Peacekeeping Operations 

International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) (http://www.afnorth.nato.int/ISAF/) 

UN Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA) 

 (http://www.unama-afg.org/) 

UN Assistance Mission for Iraq (UNAMI) 

 (http://www.uniraq.org/aboutus/aboutus.asp) 

UN Disengagement Observer Force (UNDOF) 

 (http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/missions/undof/index.html) 

UN Integrated Office in Sierra Leone (http://www.uniosil.org/) 

UN Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK) 

 (http://www.unmikonline.org/) 

UN Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) 

 (http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/missions/unifil/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 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 Sudan (http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/missions/unmis/) 

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 Operation in Burundi (ONUB) (http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/missions/onub/) 

UN Operation in Côte d’Ivoire (UNOCI) 
UN and Related Websites 

189 

 (http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/missions/unoci/) 

UN Organization Mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (MONUC) 

 (http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/missions/monuc/index.html) 

UN Peace-Building Support Office in Guinea-Bissau 

 (http://www.un.org/depts/dpa/guinea-bissau.html) 

UN Peace-Building Support Office in the Central African Republic 

 (http://www.un.org/depts/dpa/car.html) 

UN Peacekeeping Force in Cyprus (UNFICYP) 

 (http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/missions/unficyp/index.html) 

UN Political Office in Somalia (http://www.un.org/depts/dpa/somalia.html) 

UN Stabilization Mission in Haiti (MINUSTAH) 

 (http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/missions/minustah/) 

UN Truce Supervision Organization (UNTSO) 

 (http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/missions/untso/index.html) 

Nongovernmental and International Organizations 

A Woman’s Voice International (http://www.awomansvoice.org/) 

AFL-CIO (http://www.afl-cio.org/) 

African Center for the Constructive Resolution of Disputes 

 (http://www.accord.org.za/web/home.htm) 

African Union (http://www.africa-union.org/) 

 Mission in the Sudan (http://www.africa-union.org/DARFUR/homedar.htm) 

Agreement on Humanitarian Ceasefire in the Conflict in Darfur [Sudan] 

 (http://www.africa-union.org/DARFUR/homedar.htm#) 

Codex Alimentarius Commission 

 (http://www.codexalimentarius.net/web/index_en.jsp) 

Columbia University’s Conflict Resolution Network 

 (http://www.law.columbia.edu/center_program/adr/collaboration) 

Commonwealth of Independent States (http://www.cisstat.com/eng/cis.htm) 

Democracy Caucus (http://www.democracycaucus.net) 

Democracy Coalition (http://www.demcoalition.org/2005_html/home.html) 

Development Fund for Iraq (http://www.cpa-iraq.org/budget/DFI_intro1.html) 

Economic Community of West African States (http://www.ecowas.int) 

European Center for Conflict Prevention (http://www.conflict-prevention.net/) 

European Commission (http://europa.eu.int/comm/index_en.htm) 

European Union (http://europa.eu.int) 

Food and Agriculture Organization (http://www.fao.org) 

Freedom House (http://www.freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=1) 

Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria 

 (http://www.theglobalfund.org/en/) 

Group of 77 (http://www.g77.org) 

Group on Earth Observations (http://earthobservations.org/) 

Independent Inquiry Committee (http://www.iic-offp.org/index.html) 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2005 

190 

Inter-Agency Standing Committee (http://www.humanitarianinfo.org/iasc/) 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (http://www.ipcc.ch) 

Interim Commission on Phytosanitary Measures of the International 

 Plant Protection Convention (https://www.ippc.int/IPP/En/default.jsp) 

International Advisory and Monitoring Board (http://www.iamb.info/) 

International Agency for Research on Cancer (http://www.iarc.fr/) 

International Atomic Energy Agency (http://www.iaea.org) 

International Bar Association (http://www.ibanet.org/) 

International Civil Aviation Organization (http://www.icao.org) 

International Criminal Court (http://www.un.org/law/icc/) 

International Foundation for Election Systems (http://www.ifes.org/) 

International Labor Organization (http://www.ilo.org) 

International Maritime Organization (http://www.imo.org) 

International Mission for Monitoring Haitian Elections 

 (http://www.mieeh-immhe.ca/default_e.asp) 

International Monetary Fund (http://www.imf.org) 

International Organization for Migration (http://www.iom.int/jahia/jsp/index.jsp) 

International Telecommunication Union (http://www.itu.int) 

International Trade Center (http://www.intracen.org/) 

Khmer Rouge Tribunal (http://www.cambodia.gov.kh/krt/english/index.htm) 

League of Arab States (http://www.arableagueonline.org) 

Multi-National Force/Operation Iraqi Freedom (http://www.mnf-iraq.com/) 

N’djamena Ceasefire Agreement [Sudan] 

 (http://www.africa-union.org/DARFUR/homedar.htm#) 

NATO (http://www.nato.int) 

 International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) 

 (http://www.afnorth.nato.int/ISAF/index.htm) 

 Stabilization Force (SFOR) (http://www.nato.int/sfor/) 

New Partnership for Africa’s Development (http://www.nepad.org/) 

Non-Aligned Movement (http://www.nam.gov.za) 

Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development 

 (http://www.oecd.org/home/0,2987,en_2649_201185_1_1_1_1_1,00.html) 

Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (http://www.osce.org) 

Organization of American States (http://www.oas.org/) 

Pan American Health Organization (http://www.paho.org) 

Partnership for Clean Fuels and Vehicles (http://www.unep.org/pcfv/main/main.htm) 

Rotary International (http://www.rotary.org/) 

Special Court for Sierra Leone (http://www.sc-sl.org/) 

Swiss Foundation for Mine Action (http://www.fsd.ch/) 

Transnational Radical Party (http://www.radicalparty.org/welcome2.html) 

U.S. Council for International Business (http://www.uscib.org/) 
UN and Related Websites 

191 

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 Organization for Animal Health (http://www.oie.int/eng/en_index.htm) 

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/) 

Coast Guard (http://www.uscg.mil/uscg.shtm) 

Commerce (http://www.commerce.gov/) 

Congress 

 U.S. House of Representatives (http://www.house.gov/) 

U.S. Senate (http://www.senate.gov/) 

Defense Department (http://www.defenselink.mil/) 

Energy Department (http://www.doe.gov/engine/content.do) 

Environmental Protection Agency (http://www.epa.gov) 

Health and Human Services Department (http://www.hhs.gov/) 

Homeland Security (http://www.dhs.gov/dhspublic/) 

Housing and Urban Development (http://www.hud.gov/) 

Labor Department (http://www.dol.gov/) 

McGovern-Dole International Food for Education and Child Nutrition Program 

 (http://www.fas.usda.gov/excredits/FoodAid/FFE/FFE.asp) 

National Weather Service (http://www.nws.noaa.gov/) 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission (http://www.nrc.gov/) 

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) 

Transportation (http://www.dot.gov/) 

U.S. Agency for International Development (http://www.usaid.gov) 

U.S. embassies (http://usembassy.state.gov/) 

U.S. Postal Service (http://www.usps.com/) 

White House (http://www.whitehouse.gov) 

IO Missions 

Geneva (http://www.us-mission.ch/index.html) 

New York (http://www.un.int/usa) 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2005 

192 

 UN Headquarters Agreement (http://www.un.int/usa/host_hqs.htm) 

Paris/USUNESCO (http://www.usunesco.org/) 

Rome (http://usunrome.usembassy.it) 

Vienna (http://www.usun-vienna.rpo.at/) 

Conferences 

2005 Review Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation 

 of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) [NPT RevCon; New York, NY; May 2005] 

 (http://www.un.org/events/npt2005/) 

2005 World Summit: High Level Plenary Meeting of the 60th Session of the 

 General Assembly [New York; September 2005] (http://www.un.org/summit2005/) 

10-Year Review of the Implementation of the Copenhagen Declaration and Program of 

 Action and the Outcome of the 24th Special Session of the General Assembly 

 [New York; February 9–18, 2005] (http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/csd/csocd2005.htm) 

2nd International Forum on Partnerships for Sustainable Development [Marrakech, 

 Morocco; March 21–23, 2005] (http://www.iisd.ca/sd/sdifp/) 

11th International Congress on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice (Crime 

 Congress) [Bangkok, Thailand; April 2005] 

 (http://www.un.org/events/11thcongress/) 

Beijing+10 Conference on Women [New York; February 28–March 11, 2005] 

 (http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/Review/) 

UN Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) [Rio Earth Summit; 

 Rio de Janeiro, Brazil; 1992] 

 (http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/documents/docs_unced.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/cairo.html) 

UN World Summit for Social Development [Copenhagen, Denmark; 1995] 

 (http://www.iisd.ca/wssd95.html) 

UN World Summit on Sustainable Development [Johannesburg, South 

 Africa; Aug./Sept. 2002] (http://www.un.org/events/wssd/) 

World Conference on Disaster Reduction [Kobe, Japan; January 18–22, 2005] 

 (http://www.unisdr.org/wcdr/) 

World Summit on the Information Society, Second Phase [Tunis, Tunisa; November 

 16–18, 2005] (http://www.itu.int/wsis/index.html) 

World Telecom Development Conference [Istanbul, Turkey; March 18–27, 2002] 

 (http://www.itu.int/ITU-D/conferences/wtdc/2002/) 

Conventions/Agreements/Basic Documents 

1951 Refugee Convention (http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/o_c_ref.htm) 

Accra Peace Agreement (2003) [Liberia] 

 (http://www.usip.org/library/pa/liberia/liberia_08182003_cpa.html) 

Agreed Principles for the Rafah Crossing [Middle East] 

 (http://www.imra.org.il/story.php3?id=27639) 

Agreement on a Cease-fire and Separation of Forces [Georgia/Abkhazia] 
UN and Related Websites 

193 

(http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:XpHUVUEg_Z8J:www.incore.ulst.ac.uk/cds/agre

ements/pdf/geo1.pdf+%22agreement+on+a+ceasefire+and+separation+of+forces%22&

hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1) 

Agreement on Movement and Access [Middle East] 

(http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache:RiHeERVio9AJ:siteresources.worldbank.org/IN

TWESTBANKGAZA/Resources/AgreementMovementAccess.pdf+%22agreement+on

+movement+and+access%22+2005&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1) 

Algiers Peace Agreement [Ethiopia/Eritrea] 

 (http://www.usip.org/library/pa/eritrea_ethiopia/eritrea_ethiopia_12122000.html) 

Bangkok Declaration (http://www.un.org/events/11thcongress/declaration.htm) 

Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works 

 (http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/berne/index.html) 

Bonn Agreement [Afghanistan] 

 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/world/texts/bonnagreement.html) 

Bougainville Peace Agreement (http://www.unpo.org/article.php?id=746) 

Chemical Weapons Convention (http://disarmament2.un.org/wmd/cwc/index.html) 

Chicago Convention (http://www.icao.int/cgi/goto_m.pl?/icaonet/dcs/7300.html 

Comprehensive Peace Agreement [Sudan] 

 (http://www.usip.org/library/pa/sudan/cpa01092005/cpa_toc.html) 

Comprehensive Peace Agreement between the Government of Liberia and Liberians 

 United for Reconciliation and Democracy and the Movement for Democracy in 

 Liberia and Political Parties [Accra Peace Agreement, 2003] [Liberia] 

 (http://www.usip.org/library/pa/liberia/liberia_08182003_cpa.html) 

Convention Against Corruption 

 (http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/crime_convention_corruption.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 of the World Meteorological Organization 

 (http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/decade/decad055.htm) 

Convention on Assistance in the Case of a Nuclear Accident or Radiological 

 Emergency 

 (http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Infcircs/Others/inf336.shtml) 

Convention on Early Notification of a Nuclear Accident 

 (http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Conventions/cenna.html) 

Convention on International Civil Aviation 

 (http://www.icao.int/cgi/goto_m.pl?/icaonet/dcs/7300.html) 

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/incb/convention_1971.html) 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2005 

194 

Convention on the Marking of Plastic Explosives for the Purpose of Identification 

 (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 on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural 

 Expressions 

 (http://portal.unesco.org/culture/en/ev.phpURL_ID=29123&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html) 

Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards 

 (http://www.uncitral.org/uncitral/en/uncitral_texts/arbitration/NYConvention.html) 

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/) 

Dayton Peace Agreement [Bosnia and Herzegovina] 

 (http://www.ohr.int/dpa/default.asp?content_id=380) 

Declaration on the Prevention and Removal of Disputes and Situations which may 

 Threaten International Peace and Security 

 (http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/43/a43r051.htm) 

Food and Agriculture Organization Basic Texts 

 (http://www.fao.org/docrep/007/j2954e/j2954e00.htm) 

Framework Agreement [Western Sahara] (http://www.wsahara.net/framagrm.html) 

Framework Convention on Climate Change (http://unfccc.int/2860.php) 

Framework Convention on Tobacco Control 

 (http://www.who.int/tobacco/framework/en/) 

Houston Agreement [Western Sahara] (http://www.wsahara.net/UN/sg/S1997742.pdf) 

IAEA Code of Conduct on the Safety and Security of Radioactive Sources 

 (http://www-ns.iaea.org/tech-areas/radiation-safety/code-of-conduct.htm) 

IAEA Guidance on the Export and Import of Radioactive Sources 

 (http://www-ns.iaea.org/tech-areas/radiation-safety/code-of-conduct.htm) 

IAEA Model Additional Protocols 

 (http://www.iaea.org/OurWork/SV/Safeguards/sg_protocol.html) 

International Agency for Research on Cancer Statute 

 (http://governance.iarc.fr/ENG/statute.php) 

International Convention Against the Taking of Hostages 

 (http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/terrorism_convention_hostages.html) 

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) 

International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism 
UN and Related Websites 

195 

 (http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/resolution_2000-02-25_1.html) 

International Health Regulations (http://www.who.int/csr/ihr/en/) 

International Labor Organization Constitution 

 (http://www.ilo.org/public/english/about/iloconst.htm) 

International Plant Protection Convention (https://www.ippc.int/IPP/En/default.jsp) 

International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture 

 (http://www.fao.org/ag/cgrfa/itpgr.htm) 

Kyoto Protocol 

 (http://unfccc.int/essential_background/kyoto_protocol/items/2830.php) 

Lome Peace Agreement [Sierra Leone] (http://www.sierra-leone.org/lomeaccord.html) 

Lusaka Ceasefire Agreement [Democratic Republic of the Congo] 

 (http://www.state.gov/t/ac/csbm/rd/22634.htm) 

Manila Declaration on the Peaceful Settlement of International Disputes 

 (http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/37/a37r010.htm) 

Millennium Declaration (http://www.un.org/millennium/declaration/ares552e.htm) 

Monterrey Consensus on Financing for Development 

(http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache:qSw9S5lsZlcJ:www.un.org/esa/ffd/MonterreyConsensus-exceptsaconf198_11.pdf+%22monterrey+consensus+on+financing+for+development%22&hl

=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=2) 

Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer 

 (http://www.unep.org/ozone/Montreal-Protocol/Montreal-Protocol2000.shtml) 

New York Convention 

 (http://www.uncitral.org/uncitral/en/uncitral_texts/arbitration/NYConvention.html) 

Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty 

 (http://disarmament.un.org:8080/wmd/npt/index.html) 

Pan American Health Organization Basic Documents 

 (http://www.paho.org/English/D/OD_308.htm) 

Paris Agreement between the EU3 (France Germany, and the United Kingdom) and 

 Iran (http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache:FZtOF-d6N64J:www.auswaertigesamt.de/diplo/en/Aussenpolitik/FriedenSicherheit/Downloads/IAEA041124.pdf+%22pa

ris+agreement%22+%2226+November+2004%22&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1) 

Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property 

 (http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/paris/trtdocs_wo020.html) 

Parking Program for Diplomatic Vehicles 

 (http://www.un.int/usa/host_parking_program.htm) 

Peace Agreement between the Government of Sierra Leon and the Revolutionary 

 United Front of Sierra Leone (http://www.sierra-leone.org/lomeaccord.html) 

Peace Plan for Self-Determination for the People of Western Sahara

 (http://www.wsahara.net/03/bakerplan.html) 

Program of Action to Prevent, Combat, and Eradicate the Illicit Trade in Small Arms 

 and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects (http://disarmament.un.org/cab/poa.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) 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2005 

196 

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 (1967) 

 (http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/o_p_ref.htm) 

Rome Statute (http://www.un.org/law/icc/) 

Rotterdam Convention on Prior Informed Consent (http://www.pic.int/) 

Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs [1961] 

 (http://www.incb.org/incb/convention_1961.html) 

Statute of the International Atomic Energy Agency 

 (http://www.iaea.org/About/statute.html) 

Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants 

 (http://www.pops.int/) 

Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons 

 (http://disarmament.un.org:8080/wmd/npt/index.html) 

UN Charter (http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/index.html) 

UN Convention Against Corruption 

 (http://www.unodc.org/unodc/crime_convention_corruption.html) 

UN Convention Against the Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic 

 Substances [1988] (http://www.incb.org/incb/convention_1988.html) 

UN Convention Against Transnational Organized Crime and Its Protocols 

 (http://www.odccp.org/crime_cicp_signatures.html) 

UN Convention on the Assignment of Receivables in International Trade 

(http://www.uncitral.org/uncitral/en/uncitral_texts/payments/2001Convention_receivab

les.html) 

UN Convention on the Use of Electronic Communications in International Contracts 

(http://www.uncitral.org/uncitral/en/uncitral_texts/electronic_commerce/2005Conventi

on.html) 

UN Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization Constitution 

 (http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.phpURL_ID=6206&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html) 

UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (http://unfccc.int/2860.php) 

UN Headquarters Agreement (http://www.un.int/usa/host_hqs.htm) 

UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency 

 (http://www.uncitral.org/uncitral/en/uncitral_texts/insolvency/1997Model.html) 

UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration 

(http://www.uncitral.org/uncitral/en/uncitral_texts/arbitration/1985Model_arbitration.ht

ml) 

UNCITRAL Model Law on Procurement of Goods, Construction, and Services 

(http://www.uncitral.org/uncitral/en/uncitral_texts/procurement_infrastructure/1994Mo

del.html) 

Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights 

 (http://portal.unesco.org/shs/en/ev.phpURL_ID=9049&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html) 

Universal Declaration on the Human Genome and Human Rights 
UN and Related Websites 

197 

 (http://portal.unesco.org/shs/en/ev.phpURL_ID=1881&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html) 

Vienna Convention on Consular Relations and Optional Protocols 

 (http://www.un.org/law/ilc/texts/consul.htm) 

WIPO Convention (http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/convention/index.html) 

World Summit Outcome Final Document 

 (http://www.un.org/summit2005/documents.html) 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2005 

198 
199 

Appendix 5 

2005 World Summit Outcome Summary 

The world’s leaders, meeting at UN headquarters in New York from 

September 14–16, 2005, agreed to take action on a range of global challenges. 

Development 

• Strong and unambiguous commitment by all governments, in donor and 

developing nations alike, to achieve the Millennium Development Goals 

by 2015. 

• Additional $50 billion a year by 2010 for fighting poverty. 

• Commitment by all developing countries to adopt national plans for 

achieving the Millennium Development Goals by 2006. 

• Agreement to provide immediate support for quick impact initiatives to 

support anti-malaria efforts, education, and healthcare. 

• Commitment to innovative sources of financing for development, 

including efforts by groups of countries to implement an International 

Finance Facility and other initiatives to finance development projects, in 

particular in the health sector. 

• Agreement to consider additional measures to ensure long-term debt 

sustainability through increased grant-based financing, cancellation of 100 

percent of the official multilateral and bilateral debt of heavily indebted 

poor countries (HIPCs). Where appropriate, to consider significant debt 

relief or restructuring for low- and middle-income developing countries 

with unsustainable debt burdens that are not part of the HIPC initiative. 

• Commitment to trade liberalization and expeditious work towards 

implementing the development dimensions of the Doha work program. 

Terrorism 

• Clear and unqualified condemnation—by all governments, for the first 

time—of terrorism “in all its forms and manifestations, committed by 

whomever, wherever, and for whatever purposes.” 

• Strong political push for a comprehensive convention against terrorism 

within a year. Support for early entry into force of the Nuclear Terrorism 

Convention. All states are encouraged to join and implement it as well as 

the 12 other antiterrorism conventions. 

• Agreement to fashion a strategy to fight terrorism in a way that makes the 

international community stronger and terrorists weaker. 

Peacebuilding, Peacekeeping, and Peacemaking 

• Decision to create a Peacebuilding Commission to help countries 

transition from war to peace, backed by a support office and a standing 

fund. 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2005 

200 

• New standing police capacity for UN peacekeeping operations. 

• Agreement to strengthen the Secretary-General’s capacity for mediation 

and good offices. 

Responsibility to protect 

• Clear and unambiguous acceptance by all governments of the collective 

international responsibility to protect populations from genocide, war 

crimes, ethnic cleansing, and crimes against humanity. Willingness to 

take timely and decisive collective action for this purpose, through the 

Security Council, when peaceful means prove inadequate and national 

authorities are manifestly failing to do it. 

Human Rights, Democracy, and Rule of Law 

• Decisive steps to strengthen the UN human rights machinery, backing the 

action plan and doubling the budget of the High Commissioner. 

• Agreement to establish a UN Human Rights Council during the coming 

year. 

• Reaffirmation of democracy as a universal value, and welcome for new 

Democracy Fund which has already received pledges of $32 million from 

13 countries. 

• Commitment to eliminate pervasive gender discrimination, such as 

inequalities in education and ownership of property, violence against 

women and girls, and to end impunity for such violence. 

• Ratification action taken during the Summit triggered the entry into force 

of the Convention Against Corruption. 

Management Reform 

• Broad strengthening of the UN’s oversight capacity, including the Office 

of Internal Oversight Services, expanding oversight services to additional 

agencies, calling for developing an independent oversight advisory 

committee, and further developing a new ethics office. 

• Update the United Nations by reviewing all mandates older than five 

years, so that obsolete ones can be dropped to make room for new 

priorities. 

• Commitment to overhauling rules and policies on budget, finance, and 

human resources so the organization can better respond to current needs; 

and a one-time staff buy-out to ensure that the United Nations has the 

appropriate staff for today’s challenges. 

Environment 

• Recognition of the serious challenges posed by climate change and a 

commitment to take action through the UN Framework Convention on 

Climate Change. Assistance will be provided to those most vulnerable, 

like small island developing states. 
2005 World Summit Outcome Summary 

201 

• Agreement to create a worldwide early warning system for all natural 

hazards. 

International Health 

• A scaling up of responses to HIV/AIDS, TB, and malaria, through 

prevention, care, treatment, and support, and the mobilization of 

additional resources from national, bilateral, multilateral, and private 

sources. 

• Commitment to fight infectious diseases, including a commitment to 

ensure full implementation of the new International Health Regulations, 

and support for the Global Outbreak Alert and Response Network of the 

World Health Organization. 

Humanitarian Assistance 

• Improved Central Emergency Revolving Fund to ensure that relief arrives 

reliably and immediately when disasters happen. 

• Recognition of the Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement as an 

important international framework for the protection of internally 

displaced persons. 

Updating the UN Charter 

• A decision to revise and update the Charter by winding up the Trusteeship 

Council, marking completion of UN’s historic decolonization role; and 

deleting anachronistic references to “enemy states” in the Charter. 

The full text of the document is available on the Summit website at 

http://www.un.org/summit2005/. 

 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2005 

202 
203 

Index 

A 

A Woman’s Voice 

 International 80 

Abbas, Mahmoud 7 

Abkhazia 35–36 

Abraham, Ronny 129 

AbuZayd, Karen 85 

Adechi, Joël W. 22 

Afghanistan 12–14, 74, 83 

 Bonn Agreement 13, 14 

 elections 13 

 humanitarian aid 13 

 International Security 

 Assistance Force 14 

 opium production 14 

 political process 13, 14 

 reconstruction 14 

 refugees 13–14, 83 

 UN Assistance Mission in 

 Afghanistan 13, 14 

 UN Commission on the Status 

 of Women 74 

African Union 18, 30, 31–32, 143 

 Côte d’Ivoire 18 

 Mission in Sudan 30, 31–32 

 UN Security Council reform 143 

Ahlenius, Inga-Britt 153 

Ahtisaari, Martti 37 

Al-Hussein, Prince Zeid Ra’ad 43 

Al-Khasawneh, Awn Shawkat 

 129 

al-Qaida 44–45, 47, 49 

Alhassan, Mohammad 24–25 

Algeria 32 

Arnault, Jean 13 

Arbour, Louise 76 

arrears 145 

ASOPAZCO: International 

 Council of the Associations for 

 Peace in the Continents 79–80 

Atomic Radiation, UN Scientific 

 Committee on the Effects of 

 115–116 

AU: African Union 18, 30, 31–32, 

 143 

Aung San Suu Kyi 33, 77 

avian influenza 90, 103 

Aviation Security Plan of Action 

 100 

AWVI: A Woman’s Voice 

 International 80 

B 

Banny, Charles Konan 18 

Bastagli, Francesco 32 

Beijing Women’s Conference 10th 

 Anniversary 73, 74 

Belarus 75, 77, 108 

Belka, Marek 65 

Bennouna, Mohammed 129 

bin Laden, Usama 44–45, 47, 49 

Bonn Agreement 13, 14 

BONUCA: UN Peace-Building 

 Support Office in the Central 

 African Republic 17 

Boschwitz, Rudy 74, 75, 79 

Bosnia and Herzegovina 35 

Bougainville 32–33 

 Bougainville Peace 

 Agreement 32 

 elections 32–33 

 political process 32–33 

 UN Observer Mission in 

 Bougainville 32, 33 

Bout, Victor 26 

Boyle, Peter 105 

Bozizé, François 16 

Bryant, Gyude 25, 26, 27 

budget, UN 140, 141–142, 

 146–147 

 spending cap 140, 141–142, 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2005 

204 

 146 –147 

Buergenthal, Thomas 129 

Burma 33, 77, 108 

 human rights mechanisms 77 

 International Labor 

 Organization 108 

 Security Council 33 

Burundi 15–16 

 elections 15 

 peace process 15, 16 

 UN Operation in Burundi 15, 16 

 UN Organization Mission in the 

 Democratic Republic of the 

 Congo 16 

Bush, George W. 7, 50, 63, 77, 96, 

 129 

C 

CAC: UN Convention Against 

 Corruption 70, 71 

Cambodia 136 

Capital Master Plan 161–162 

 financing 161 

CAR: Central African Republic 

 16–17 

Caribbean region 62–63 

CCIT: Comprehensive 

 Convention on International 

 Terrorism 45–46 

CD: Conference on Disarmament 

 39–40 

Central African Republic 16–17 

 elections 16, 17 

 peace process 17 

 political process 17 

 UN Peace-Building Support 

 Office in the Central African 

 Republic 17 

Central America 108 

Chérif, Taïeb 99 

Chidiac, May 12 

Children and Armed 

 Conflict 50 

Children’s Fund, UN 57, 58–60, 

 82, 106 

 development 57, 59–60 

 Inter-Agency Standing 

 Committee 59 

 Joint UN Program on 

 HIV/AIDS 106 

 vaccines 59 

 World Food Program 82 

China 64, 80, 108, 109 

 International Labor 

 Organization 108, 109 

 NGO Committee 80 

 UN Population Fund 64 

CHR: UN Commission on 

 Human Rights 74–76, 80 

Civil Society in Conflict 

 Prevention 50–51, 52–53 

Civilians in Armed Conflict 51 

climate change 63–64 

Climate Change, UN Framework 

 Convention on 63–64 

cloning 123–124 

 UN Declaration on Human 

 Cloning 123, 124 

CMP: Capital Master Plan 

 161–162 

CND: UN Commission on 

 Narcotic Drugs 71–72 

Codex Alimentarius Commission 

 89, 90 

Colombia 108 

Commission on Sustainable 

 Development 57–58 

Commission on Human Rights 

 74–76, 80 

Committee for Program and 

 Coordination 148–150, 152–153 

 Chief Executives Board for 

 Coordination 149–150 

 effectiveness 148 

 New Partnership for Africa’s 

 Development 149 
Index 

205 

 Office of Internal Oversight 

 Services evaluation reports 149 

 reform 150 

 results-based management 149, 

 152–153 

 Strategic Framework 148 

Committee on Nongovernmental 

 Organizations 79–80 

 A Woman’s Voice International 

 80 

 China 80 

 International Council of the 

 Associations for Peace in the 

 Continents 79–80 

 Commission on Human Rights 

 80 

Community of Democracies 78, 

 79 

Comprehensive Convention on 

 International Terrorism 45–46 

Comprehensive Peace Agreement 

 30, 31 

Conference on Disarmament 

 39–40 

Congo, Democratic Republic 

 of the 19–21, 43, 47 

 disarmament 19, 20 

 elections 20 

 peace and security 19–21 

 sanctions 47 

 UN Organization Mission in the 

 Democratic Republic of the 

 Congo 16, 19–21, 43 

 sexual exploitation and abuse 

 19, 20, 43 

 violence 19, 20, 21 

Convention for the Suppression of 

 Unlawful Acts Against the Safety 

 of Maritime Navigation 110 

Convention on the Protection and 

 Promotion of the Diversity of 

 Cultural Expressions 113–114 

Convention on the Rights of 

 Persons with Disabilities 68–69 

Costa, Antonio Maria 70 

Côte d’Ivoire 17–19, 48 

 African Union 18 

 Economic Community of 

 West African States 18 

 elections 18 

 peace and security 18 

 peace process 18–19 

 International Working 

 Group 18 

 sanctions 17, 18–19, 48 

 UN Mission in Liberia 18 

 UN Mission in Sierra Leone 18 

 UN Operation in Côte d’Ivoire 

 17–18, 19 

 violence 18 

Counter-Terrorism Committee 44, 

 45 

CPA: Comprehensive Peace 

 Agreement 30, 31 

CPC: Committee for Program and 

 Coordination 148–150, 152–153 

CPD: UN Commission on 

 Population and Development 65 

Crane, David 28 

crime prevention and criminal 

 justice 69–71 

 Crime Congress 69–70 

 UN Commission on Crime 

 Prevention and Criminal 

 Justice 69, 70 

 UN Convention Against 

 Corruption 70, 71 

 UN Convention Against 

 Transnational Organized Crime 

 70–71 

 UN Office on Drugs and Crime 

 70 

CSD: Commission on Sustainable 

 Development 57–58 

CSW: UN Commission on the 

 Status of Women 73–74 

CTC: Counter-Terrorism 

 Committee 44, 45 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2005 

206 

Cuba 74, 75, 79–80 

Cyprus 35 

 peace and security 35 

 reunification 35 

 Settlement Plan 35 

 UN Peacekeeping Force in 

 Cyprus 35 

D 

Dayan, Edouard 116 

de Silva, Desmond 28 

Declaration on Bioethics and 

 Human Rights 113–114 

decolonization 48–49 

 non-self-governing 

 territories 48–49 

 Special Committee on the 

 Situation with Regard to the 

 Implementation of the 

 Declaration on the Granting of 

 Independence to Colonial 

 Countries and Peoples 48 

 Special Political and 

 Decolonization Committee 48 

democracy 77–79, 138 

 Democracy Caucus 78–79 

 Community of Democracies 

 78, 79 

 UN Commission on Human 

 Rights 78–79 

 UN Democracy Fund 77–78, 

 138 

Department of Peacekeeping 

 Operations, UN 43, 44, 51, 52 

Dervis, Kemal 55 

development 55–58, 59–60, 106, 

 119 

 Commission on Sustainable 

 Development 57–58 

 development partnerships 

 57 

 International Forum on 

 Partnerships for Sustainable 

 Development 57 

 Learning Center 58 

 reform 57 

 UN Children’s Fund 57 

 UN Development Program 57 

 Water Cycle 57–58 

 World Health Organization 57 

 UN Children’s Fund 57, 59–60 

 UN Conference on 

 Trade and Development 55–56 

 Investment Map 56 

 market access preferences 56 

 technical assistance 56 

 UN Development Program 55, 

 57, 106 

 Commission on Sustainable 

 Development 57 

 democratic governance 55 

 Joint UN Program on 

 HIV/AIDS 106 

 reform 55 

 World Intellectual Property 

 Organization 119 

Development Fund for Iraq 6 

DFI: Development Fund for 

 Iraq 6 

Diouf, Jacques 89, 91 

Disabilities, Convention on the 

 Rights of Persons with 68–69 

disarmament 38–41 

 Conference on Disarmament 

 39–40 

 Program of Work 39–40 

 NPT Conference 40–41 

 spread of nuclear weapons 401 

 Iran 40 

 North Korea 40 

 UN Disarmament Commission 

 38–39 

 agenda 39 

disarmament, demobilization, 

 and repatriation 19, 20, 26 

disaster and humanitarian relief 

 activities 86–87 

 International Strategy for 

 Disaster Reduction 87 

 South Asia earthquake 86–87 
Index 

207 

 World Conference on Disaster 

 Reduction 87 

 Hyogo Framework for Action 

 2005–2015 87 

Djordjevic, Vlastimir 134 

Dobriansky, Paula 58, 78 

Doss, Alan 25 

DPKO: UN Department of 

 Peacekeeping Operations 43, 44, 

 51, 52 

DRC: Democratic Republic of the 

 Congo 19–21 

drug control 14, 71–72, 106 

 counter-narcotics 71 

 International Narcotics Control 

 Board 72 

 UN Commission Narcotic 

 Drugs 71–72 

 needle exchange 72 

 UN Office on Drugs and 

 Crime 14, 71–72, 106 

 Afghanistan 14 

 Joint UN Program on 

 HIV/AIDS 106 

Dweh, George 27 

E 

East Timor 33–34 

 human rights violations 34 

 optional religious education 34 

 UN Mission of Support in East 

 Timor 33, 34 

 UN Office in Timor-Leste 33, 34 

ECE: Economic Commission for 

 Europe 65–66 

ECLAC: Economic Commission 

 for Latin America and the 

 Caribbean 66–67 

Economic and Social Commission 

 for Asia and the Pacific 67 

 aid to victims of Indian Ocean 

 tsunami 67 

 reform 67 

Economic Commission for 

 Europe 65–66 

 reform 66 

Economic Commission for Latin 

 America and the Caribbean 

 66–67 

Economic Community of West 

 African States 18, 24, 27 

education 77, 114 

Egypt 10 

Eide, Kai 37 

Elaraby, Nabil 129 

ElBaradei, Mohamed 92, 94 

elections 

 Afghanistan 13 

 Bougainville 32–33 

 Burundi 15 

 Central African Republic 

 16, 17 

 Côte d’Ivoire 18 

 Democratic Republic of the 

 Congo 20 

 Guinea-Bissau 23, 24 

 Haiti 37, 38 

 Iraq 5, 6–7 

 Lebanon 12 

 Liberia 25–26 

 Palestine 7 

Eliasson, Jan 139, 140, 141 

employment of Americans 

 157–161 

 geographic targets 158–160 

environment 61–64, 101, 

 111, 115–116 

 climate change 63–64 

 Intergovernmental Panel on 

 Climate Change 64 

 UN Framework Convention on 

 Climate Change 63–64 

 Eleventh Conference of the 

 Parties 63–64 

 greenhouse gases 63 

 Kyoto Protocol 63 

 International Civil Aviation 

 Organization 101 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2005 

208 

 International Maritime 

 Organization 111 

 UN Environment Program 

 61–63, 115–116 

 capacity building 62 

 Caribbean 62–63 

 chemicals 62 

 Indian Ocean tsunami 63 

 Iraq 62 

 program implementation 62 

 vehicle technologies 63 

 UN Scientific Committee on the 

 Effects of Atomic Radiation 

 115–116 

Eritrea 21–23 

 Boundary Commission 21, 22, 

 23 

 escalation 22 

 peace and security 21 

 UN Mission in Ethiopia and 

 Eritrea 21–23 

 cooperation 22 

ESCAP: Economic and Social 

 Commission for Asia and the 

 Pacific 67 

Ethiopia 21–23 

 Boundary Commission 21, 22, 

 23 

 escalation 22 

 peace and security 21 

 UN Mission in Ethiopia and 

 Eritrea 21–23 

EU: European Union 35 

European Union 35 

F 

FAO: Food and Agriculture 

 Organization 82, 89–91 

FCTC: Framework 

 Convention on Tobacco Control 

 102–103 

financial situation of the United 

 Nations 145–146 

 members’ arrears 145 

FNL: Palipehutu-Forces 

 Nationales de Libération 15, 16 

Food and Agriculture 

 Organization 82, 89–91, 106 

 avian influenza 90 

 Codex Alimentarius 

 Commission 89, 90 

 external evaluation 89 

 fisheries 90–91 

 forestry issues 90 

 food safety 89–90 

 International Treaty on Plant 

 Genetic Resources for Food 

 and Agriculture 90 

 Joint UN Program on HIV/AIDS 

 106 

 plant genetic resources 90 

 reform 91 

 trade issues 90 

 World Food Program 82 

Framework Convention on 

 Tobacco Control 102–103 

Frente Popular para la Liberacion 

 de Saguia el-Hamra y Rio de 

 Oro 32 

G 

Gambari, Ibrahim 33 

Garang, John 31 

Gbagbo, Laurent 18 

Gedi, Ali Mohammed 29 

Georgia 35–36 

 Abkhazia 35–36 

 peace and security 35–36 

 UN Observer Mission in 

 Georgia 35–36 

Global Fund to Fight AIDS, 

 Tuberculosis, and Malaria 107 

Gorita, Ion 151 

Gotovina, Ante 134 

Guinea-Bissau 23–24 

 Economic Community of 

 West African States 24 

 elections 23, 24 

 political process 23, 24 
Index 

209 

 UN Peace-building Support 

 Office in Guinea-Bissau 

 23, 24 

Guterres, Antonio 82 

H 

Hadzic, Goran 134 

Haiti 37–38 

elections 37, 38 

 peace and security 37 

 political process 37, 38 

 UN Stabilization Mission in 

 Haiti 37–38 

Hansen, Peter 85 

Hariri, Rafiq 11 

Higgins, Rosalyn 129 

High-Level Panel report 137 

HIV/AIDS 51, 102, 105–107 

 3 by 5 initiative 102, 106–107 

 Department of Peacekeeping 

 Operations 51 

 Global Fund to Fight AIDS, 

 Tuberculosis, and Malaria 107 

 Joint UN Program on HIV/AIDS 

 105–107 

Hizballah 9–10 

Holocaust commemoration 8 

host country relations 128 

 national security requirements 

 in preparation for General 

 Assembly 128 

 Parking Program for Diplomatic 

 Vehicles 128 

HRC: Human Rights Council 74, 

 75–76, 138–139 

human resources management 

 155–156 

financial accountability of staff 

 155, 156 

 member representation on staff 

 155 

human rights 34, 73–79, 80, 136 

 China 80 

 Cuba 79–80 

 East Timor 34 

 Khmer Rouge 136 

 Office of the High 

 Commissioner for Human 

 Rights 76–77 

 Guantanamo Bay 77 

 Human Rights Council 76 

mechanisms 77 

 Belarus 77 

 Burma 77 

 education 77 

 extreme poverty 77 

 UN Commission on 

 Human Rights 74–76, 78–79, 

 80 

 Belarus 75 

 China 80 

 Cuba 74, 75 

 defamation of religion 75 

 democracy 78–79 

 Guantanamo Bay 75 

 Human Rights Council 74, 

 75–76, 138–139 

 Israel 75 

 NGO Committee 80 

 North Korea 75 

 reform 75–76 

 Sudan 75 

 women 73–74 

Human Rights Council 74, 75–76, 

 138–139 

humanitarian aid 9, 13, 29, 59, 

 81–87 

 Afghanistan 13 

 Inter-Agency Standing 

 Committee 59, 84 

 Somalia 29 

 South Asia earthquake 86–87 

 UN Children’s Fund 59 

 UN High Commissioner for 

 Refugees 82–85 

 UN Relief and Works Agency 9, 

 85–86 

 World Food Program 81–82 

Hussein, Saddam 46 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2005 

210 

Hyogo Framework for Action 

 2005–2015 87 

I 

IAEA: International Atomic 

 Energy Agency 92–99 

IAMB: International Advisory 

 and Monitoring Board 6 

IARC: International Agency for 

 Research on Cancer 104–105 

IASC: Inter-Agency Standing 

 Committee 59, 84 

ICAO: International Civil 

 Aviation Organization 99–102 

ICC: International Criminal 

 Court 31, 129–130 

ICJ: International Court of Justice 

 128–129 

ICSC: International Civil Service 

 Commission 156–157 

ICTR: International Criminal 

 Tribunal for Rwanda 133–134 

ICTY: International Criminal 

 Tribunal for the former 

 Yugoslavia 134–135 

Idris, Kamil 118 

IHRs: International Health 

 Regulations 103 

IIC: Independent Inquiry 

 Committee 48 

ILC: International Law 

 Commission 130–131 

ILO: International Labor 

 Organization 107–109 

IMO: International Maritime 

 Organization 109–111 

INCB: International Narcotics 

 Control Board 72 

Independent Inquiry Committee 

 48 

India 14–15 

 peace and security 15 

 UN Military Observer Group in 

 India and Pakistan 14–15 

Indian Ocean tsunami 63, 67 

Inter-Agency Standing 

 Committee 59, 84 

Intergovernmental Panel on 

 Climate Change 64 

Interim Commission on 

 Phytosanitary Measures of the 

 International Plant Protection 

 Convention 89, 90 

International Advisory and 

 Monitoring Board 6 

International Agency for Research 

 on Cancer 104–105 

International Atomic Energy 

 Agency 92–99 

 nuclear security 96–98 

 peaceful uses of nuclear 

 technologies 98–99 

 physical protection of nuclear 

 materials 98 

 safeguards 92–96 

 Iran 94–95 

 EU3 negotiations 94, 95 

 UN Security Council 95 

 Iraq 92–93 

 Libya 96 

 North Korea 93 

 security of radioactive sources 

 97–98 

International Civil Aviation 

 Organization 99–102 

 aviation safety 99–100 

 Universal Safety Oversight 

 Audit Program 99–100 

 aviation security 99–100 

 Aviation Security Plan of 

 Action 100 

 Universal Security Audit 

 Program 99-100 

 environmental issues 101 

 machine-readable passports 101 

International Civil Service 
Index 

211 

 Commission 156–157 

employment contracts 157 

hazard pay 156 

mobility benefits 157 

pilot study for broad-banding 

 and pay-for-performance 

 156–157 

reform 157 

salary scale 156 

International Convention for the 

 Safety of Life at Sea 109–110 

International Convention for the 

 Suppression of Acts of Nuclear 

 Terrorism 46 

International Council of the 

 Associations for Peace in the 

 Continents 79–80 

International Court of Justice 

 128–129 

International Criminal Court 

 31, 129–130 

 Darfur, Sudan 31, 129–130 

International Criminal Tribunal for 

 Rwanda 133–134 

International Criminal Tribunal for 

 the former Yugoslavia 134–135 

International Foundation for 

 Election Systems 38 

International Health Regulations 

 103 

International Labor Organization 

 107–109 

 abuse of basic worker rights 108 

 exploitative child labor 108 

 Iraq 108–109 

 Joint UN Program on HIV/AIDS 

 106 

International Law Commission 

 130–131 

 natural resources 130 

 responsibility of international 

 organizations 130 

International Maritime 

 Organization 109–111 

 audit plan 110–111 

 environment 111 

 maritime safety 110 

 maritime security 109–110 

 International Convention for 

 the Safety of Life at Sea 

 109–110 

 International Ship and Port 

 Facility Security 109–110 

 terrorism 109–110 

 Convention for the 

 Suppression of Unlawful Acts 

 Against the Safety of 

 Maritime Navigation 110 

International Mission for the 

 Monitoring of Haitian 

 Elections 38 

International Monetary Fund 23 

International Narcotics Control 

 Board 72 

International Program on the 

 Elimination of Child Labor 

 108 

international security 137–138 

International Security Assistance 

 Force 14 

International Ship and Port 

 Facility Security 109–110 

International Strategy for Disaster 

 Reduction 87 

International Telecommunication 

 Union 111–113 

 cost recovery from satellite 

 network filings 112 

 reform 112 

 World Summit on the 

 Information Society 113 

International Trade Law, UN 

 Commission on 124–127 

 arbitration 125–126 

 carriage of goods by sea 126 

 insolvency law 127 

 international commercial fraud 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2005 

212 

 127 

 procurement 125 

 secured finance reform 126–127 

 UN Convention on the Use of 

 Electronic Communications in 

 International Contracts 

 124–125 

International Treaty on Plant 

 Genetic Resources for Food and 

 Agriculture 90 

International Working Group 18 

IPCC: Intergovernmental Panel 

 on Climate Change 64 

IPEC: International Program on 

 the Elimination of Child Labor 

 108 

IPPC: Interim Commission on 

 Phytosanitary Measures of the 

 International Plant Protection 

 Convention 89, 90 

Iran 40, 94–95 

cooperation with international 

 community regarding nuclear 

 safeguards 94–95 

 Nuclear Non-Proliferation 

 Treaty Conference 40 

Iraq 5–7, 62, 74, 92–93, 108–109 

 Development Fund for Iraq 6 

 elections 5, 6–7 

 International Advisory and 

 Monitoring Board 6 

 International Atomic Energy 

 Agency 92–93 

 International Labor Organization 

 108–109 

 Multinational Force 6, 7 

 political process 5–7 

 UN Assistance Mission for Iraq 

 5, 6, 7 

 UN Commission on the Status of 

 Women 74 

 UN Environment Program 62 

ISAF: International Security 

 Assistance Force 14 

ISDR: International Strategy for 

 Disaster Reduction 87 

ISPS: International Ship and Port 

 Facility Security 109–110 

Israel 7–11, 73, 75 

 assistance to Palestinian 

 women 73 

 Holocaust commemoration 8 

 liberation of Nazi concentration 

 camps 7, 8 

 Middle East resolutions 8–9 

 peace process 8 

 peace and security 9–11 

 permanent status 7, 8 

 Roadmap 7, 8 

 security barrier 7 

 UN Commission on Human 

 Rights 75 

 UN Disengagement 

 Observer Force 10–11 

 UN Interim Force in Lebanon 

 9–10 

 UN Truce Supervision 

 Organization 10 

 violence 9 

ITU: International 

 Telecommunication Union 

 111–113 

IWG: International Working 

 Group 18 

J 

Jalal, Massouda 74 

Jammu 15 

Japan 143, 147–148 

Jarraud, Michel 120 

JIU: Joint Inspection Unit 

 118, 151–153 

Johnson Sirleaf, Ellen 25–26 

Joint Inspection Unit 118, 

 151–153 

Joint UN Program on HIV/AIDS 

 105–107 

Jones, General James 32 
Index 

213 

Jordan 10 

K 

Kabuga, Felicien 133 

Karadzic, Radovan 134 

Kashmir 15 

Keith, Kenneth 129 

Khmer Rouge Tribunal 136 

Kiir, Salva 31 

Kim Hak-Su 67 

Klein, Jacques Paul 25 

Kooijmans, Pieter H. 129 

Koroma, Abdul G. 129 

Kosovo 36–37 

 political process 36–37 

 UN Interim Administration 

 Mission in Kosovo 36, 37 

Kotaite, Assad 99 

Kroeker, Mark 24 

Kyoto Protocol 63 

L 

Leavitt, Michael O. 105 

Lebanon 9–10, 11–12 

 elections 12 

 sovereignty 11–12 

 Syrian involvement in Hariri 

 assassination 11 

 Syrian withdrawal 11, 12 

 terrorism 11, 12 

 UN Interim Force in Lebanon 

 9–10 

 UN International Independent 

 Investigation Commission 11 

 Syrian cooperation 11 

 UN Truce Supervision 

 Organization 10 

Lee Jong-Wook 102 

Lee, Michelle 136 

Levitsky, Melvin 72 

liberation of Nazi concentration 

 camps 7, 8 

Liberia 18, 24–28, 47, 135 

 disarmament, demobilization, 

 and repatriation 26 

 Economic Community of 

 West African States 27 

 elections 25–26 

 political process 25–26 

 sanctions 26, 47 

 sexual exploitation and abuse 27 

 Special Court for Sierra Leone 

 25, 27, 135 

 Taylor, Charles 26–27, 135 

 UN Mission in Liberia 18, 24, 

 25, 26–28, 135 

 violence 27 

Libya 96 

Lubbers, Ruud 82 

Lugar, Richard 32 

M 

machine-readable passports 101 

Machinea, José Luis 66 

Malacca Straits 110 

Matsuura, Koichiro 113 

Matheson, Michael 130 

Mbeki, Thabo 18 

Mehlis, Detlev 11 

Middle East 7–11 

 peace and security 9–11 

 resolutions condemning Israel 

 8–9 

MINURSO: UN Mission for 

 the Referendum in Western 

 Sahara 32 

MINUSTAH: UN Stabilization 

 Mission in Haiti 37–38 

Mitropoulos, Efthimios 109 

Mladic, Ratko 134 

MNF: Multinational Force 6, 7 

MONUC: UN Organization 

 Mission in the Democratic 

 Republic of the Congo 16, 

 19–21, 43 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2005 

214 

Monteiro, Antonio 18 

Morocco 32 

Morris, James T. 81 

Multinational Force 6, 7 

Munoz, Vernor 77 

N 

NATO 14, 35, 36 

New Partnership for Africa’s 

 Development 149 

NGO Committee: Committee on 

 Nongovernmental Organizations 

 79–80 

Nkurunziza, Pierre 15 

non-self-governing territories 

 48–49 

North Korea 40, 75, 93 

 Commission on Human Rights 

 75 

 International Atomic Energy 

 Agency 93 

 Nuclear Non-Proliferation 

 Treaty Conference 40 

Nuclear Non-Proliferation 

 Treaty Conference 40–41 

O 

OAS: Organization of American 

 States 38, 105, 126 

Obaid, Thoraya Ahmed 64 

OCHA: UN Office for the 

 Coordination of Humanitarian 

 Affairs 29 

ODA: official development 

 assistance 137 

Office of Internal Oversight 

 Services 140–141, 149, 153–154 

Office of the High Commissioner 

 for Human Rights 76–77 

official development assistance 

 137 

OHCHR: Office of the High 

 Commissioner for Human Rights 

 76–77 

OIE: World Organization for 

 Animal Health 90 

Oil-for-Food Program 

 investigation 48–49 

OIOS: Office of Internal 

 Oversight Services 140–141, 

 149, 153–154 

Oman 108 

ONUB: UN Operation in 

 Burundi 15, 16 

Opande, Daniel 24 

Organization of American 

 States 38, 105, 126 

Otham, Narmin 74 

oversight 118, 140–141, 149, 

 150–154 

 Board of Auditors 150–151 

 implementation of 

 recommendations 151 

 UN High Commissioner for 

 Refugees 150–151 

 Joint Inspection Unit 118, 

 151–153 

 results-based management 153 

 World Intellectual Property 

 Organization 118 

 Office of Internal Oversight 

 Services 140–141, 149, 

 153–154 

 Committee for Program and 

 Coordination 149 

 implementation of 

 recommendations 153, 154 

 procurement 154 

 reform 140–141 

 sexual abuse allegations 

 against peacekeepers 

 153–154 

 Tsunami relief operations 

 assessment 154 

Owada, Hisashi 129 

Owonibi, Joseph 24 
Index 

215 

P 

PAHO: Pan American Health 

 Organization 105 

Pakistan 14–15 

 peace and security 15 

 UN Military Observer Group in 

 India and Pakistan 14–15 

Palestine 7–9, 73, 104 

 assistance to Palestinian 

 women 73 

 elections 7 

 health conditions 104 

 Middle East resolutions 8–9 

 peace process 8 

 permanent status of Israel 7, 8 

 Roadmap 7, 8 

 security barrier 7 

Palestine Liberation Organization 

 86 

Palipehutu-Forces Nationales de 

 Libération 15, 16 

Pan American Health 

 Organization 105 

Parking Program for Diplomatic 

 Vehicles 128 

Parra-Aranguren, Gonzalo 129 

PBC: Peacebuilding Commission 

 138, 139, 142–143 

peace and security 

 Abkhazia 35–36 

 Côte d’Ivoire 18 

 Cyprus 35 

 Democratic Republic of the 

 Congo 19–21 

 Eritrea 21 

 Ethiopia 21 

 Georgia 35–36 

 Haiti 37 

 India 15 

 Jammu 15 

 Kashmir 15 

 Middle East 9–11 

 Pakistan 15 

 sanctions 46–48 

 Somalia 29 

 Sudan 31–32 

 women 53 

peace process 

 Burundi 15, 16 

 Central African Republic 17 

 Côte d’Ivoire 18–19 

 Middle East 8 

 Sudan 30–32 

peacebuilding 52, 138, 139, 

 142–143 

 Peacebuilding Commission 

 138, 139, 142–143 

 Security Council thematic 

 debates 52 

peacekeeping issues 19, 20, 27, 

 41–44, 51, 52, 153–154 

 Department of Peacekeeping 

 Operations 43, 44, 51, 52 

 prevention and enforcement 

 strategies to fight sexual 

 exploitation and abuse 

 43, 44 

 financing 41–42 

 HIV/AIDS 51 

 protection of U.S. peacekeepers 

 42 

 sexual exploitation and abuse 

 19, 20, 27, 43, 44, 52, 153–154 

 UN Police 42–43 

 formed units 42–43 

Ping, Jean 138, 140 

Pinheiro, Sergio 77 

Piot, Peter 105–106 

PLO: Palestine Liberation 

 Organization 86 

POLISARIO Front: Frente 

 Popular para la Liberacion de 

 Saguia el-Hamra y Rio de Oro 

 32 

political process 

 Afghanistan 13, 14 

 Bougainville 32–33 

 Central African Republic 17 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2005 

216 

 Guinea-Bissau 23, 24 

 Haiti 37, 38 

 Iraq 5–7 

 Kosovo 36–37 

 Liberia 25–26 

population 64–65, 106 

 UN Commission on 

 Population and Development 

 65 

 UN Population Fund 64, 106 

 China 64 

 Joint UN Program on 

 HIV/AIDS 106 

Prescott, Charles 117 

Pronk, Jan 31 

Q 

Qazi, Ashraf 5 

Qassir, Samir 12 

R 

Ranjeva, Raymond 129 

Razali Ismail 33 

reform 

 budget tied to reform 140, 

 141–142, 146–147 

 Commission on Sustainable 

 Development 57 

 Committee for Program and 

 Coordination 150 

 Economic and Social 

 Commission for Asia and the 

 Pacific 67 

 Economic Commission for 

 Europe 66 

 Ethics Office 139, 140, 141 

 Food and Agriculture 

 Organization 91 

 International Civil Service 

 Commission 157 

 International 

 Telecommunication Union 

 112 

 management of the organization 

 139–142 

 mandate review 140, 141 

 Office of Internal Oversight 

 Services 140–141 

 outcome document 139–140 

 Peacebuilding Commission 138, 

 139, 142–143 

 Security Council expansion 143 

 African Union proposal 143 

 G-4 proposal 143 

 Secretary-General report 

 137–138 

 High-Level Panel report 137 

 international security 137–138 

 official development 

 assistance 137 

 organizational reform 138 

 Peacebuilding Commission 

 138 

 UN Commission on Human 

 Rights 75–76 

 UN Development Program 55 

 World Intellectual Property 

 Organization 118–119 

 World Meteorological 

 Organization 120 

refugees 9, 14, 82–86, 106, 

 150–151 

 UN High Commissioner for 

 Refugees 14, 82–85, 86, 106, 

 150–151 

 Afghanistan 14, 83 

 audit reports 150–151 

 Framework for Cooperation 

 84 

 Inter-Agency Standing 

 Committee 84 

 Joint UN Program on 

 HIV/AIDS 106 

 South Asia earthquake 86 

 Sudan 83 

 supplemental appeals 85 

 World Food Program 82 

 UN Relief and Works Agency 

 for Palestine Refugees in the 

 Near East 9, 85–86 

 tolerance 85 
Index 

217 

Rezek, Francisco 129 

Rice, Condoleezza 141 

Roses, Mirta 105 

S 

Sach, Warren 145 

sanctions 17, 18–19, 26, 29, 30–

31, 44–45, 46–48, 49, 132 

 al-Qaida 44–45, 47, 49 

 bin Laden, Usama 44–45, 47, 49 

 Côte d’Ivoire 17, 18–19, 48 

 Democratic Republic of the 

 Congo 47 

 Hussein, Saddam 46 

 Liberia 26, 47 

 peace and security 46–48 

 Somalia 29, 47 

 Special Committee on the 

 Charter of the United Nations 

 132 

 Sudan 30–31, 47 

 Taliban 44–45, 47, 49 

 terrorism 44–45, 49 

Sanhá, Malam Bacai 23 

Sauerbrey, Ellen 73 

scale of assessments 147–148 

 Article 19 147 

 methodology 147–148 

Schmognerova, Brigita 65 

school food programs 81 

Security Council 51–52, 143 

 reform 143 

 role in humanitarian crises 

 51–52 

Sengupta, Arjun 77 

Sepulvdea Amor, Berndardo 129 

Settlement Plan 35 

Severin, Adrian 77 

sexual exploitation and abuse 

 19, 20, 27, 43–44, 52, 153–154 

 Office of Internal Oversight 

 Services 153–154 

 UN Department of Peacekeeping 

 Operations 43, 44, 52 

Shi Jiuyong 129 

Sierra Leone 18, 25, 27, 28–29, 

 135–136 

 Sierra Leone Special Court 25, 

 27, 28, 135–136 

 UN Integrated Office in Sierra 

 Leone 28 

 UN Mission in Liberia 28 

 UN Mission in Sierra Leone 

 18, 28–29 

small arms 53 

Simma, Bruno 129 

Singh, Manmohan 77 

Skotnikov, Leonid 129 

Social Development, Commission 

 for 68 

 review of the World Summit for 

 Social Development 68 

SOLAS: International Convention 

 for the Safety of Life at Sea 

 109–110 

Somalia 29–30, 47 

 humanitarian aid 29 

 peace and security 29 

 sanctions 29, 47 

 UN Political Office in Somalia 

 29–30 

Somavia, Juan 107 

Special Committee on the Charter 

 of the United Nations 132–133 

 sanctions 132 

 streamlining of work 132–133 

Special Committee on the 

 Situation with Regard to the 

 Implementation of the 

 Declaration on the Granting of 

 Independence to Colonial 

 Countries and Peoples 48 

Special Court for Sierra Leone 25, 

 27, 28, 135–136 

Special Political and 

 Decolonization Committee 48 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2005 

218 

SPLM/A: Sudan People’s 

 Liberation Movement/Army 

 30, 31 

SUA: Convention for the 

 Suppression of Unlawful Acts 

 Against the Safety of Maritime 

 Navigation 110 

Sudan 30–32, 47, 75, 81, 83, 

 129–130 

 African Union Mission in 

 Sudan 30, 32 

 Comprehensive Peace 

 Agreement 30, 31 

 International Criminal Court 31, 

 129–130 

 peace and security 31–32 

 peace process 30–32 

 refugees 83 

 sanctions 30–31, 47 

 UN Mission in Sudan 30, 31–32 

 UN Commission on Human 

 Rights 75 

 World Food Program 81 

Sudan People’s Liberation 

 Movement/Army 30, 31 

Supachai Panitchpakdi 56 

Swing, William Lacey 19 

Syria 10–12 

 cooperation with the UN 

 International Independent 

 Investigation Commission 11 

 involvement in Hariri 

 assassination 11 

 UN Disengagement Observer 

 Force 10–11 

 withdrawal from Lebanon 11, 12 

T 

Taiwan 104 

Taliban 44–45, 47, 49 

Taylor, Charles 26–27, 135 

terrorism 11, 12, 44–47, 49, 

 50, 109–110 

 al-Qaida 44–45, 47, 49 

 bin Laden, Usama 44–45, 47, 49 

 Comprehensive Convention on 

 International Terrorism 45–46 

 Counter-Terrorism 

 Committee 44, 45 

 International Convention for the 

 Suppression of Acts of Nuclear 

 Terrorism 46 

 International Maritime 

 Organization 109–110 

 Lebanon 11, 12 

 sanctions 44–45, 49 

 Taliban 44–45, 47, 49 

 World Summit 45–46 

Tibaijuka, Anna 60 

TOC: UN Convention Against 

 Transnational Organized Crime 

 70–71 

Tolimir, Zdravko 134 

Tomka, Peter 129 

Töpfer, Klaus 61 

trafficking in women and girls 73 

Transnational Organized Crime, 

 UN Convention Against 70–71 

Turk, Danilo 33 

U 

U.S. Department of Housing and 

 Urban Development 61 

UN Assistance Mission for Iraq 5, 

 6, 7 

UN Assistance Mission in 

 Afghanistan 13, 14 

UN Children’s Fund 58–60 

UN Commission on Crime 

 Prevention and Criminal Justice 

 69, 70 

UN Commission on Human 

 Rights 74–76, 80 

UN Commission on International 

 Trade Law 124–127 

UN Commission on Narcotic 

 Drugs 71–72 
Index 

219 

UN Commission on Population 

 and Development 65 

UN Commission on the Status of 

 Women 73–74 

UN Conference on Trade and 

 Development 55–56 

UN Convention Against 

 Corruption 70, 71 

UN Convention Against 

 Transnational Organized Crime 

 70–71 

UN Convention on the Use of 

 Electronic Communications in 

 International Contracts 124–125 

UN Declaration on Human 

 Cloning 123, 124 

UN Democracy Fund 77–78, 138 

UN Department of Peacekeeping 

 Operations 43, 44, 51, 52 

UN Development Program 55, 57, 

 106 

UN Disarmament Commission 

 38–39 

UN Disengagement Observer 

 Force 10–11 

UN Educational, Scientific, and 

 Cultural Organization 106, 

 113–115 

 Convention on the Protection 

 and Promotion of the Diversity 

 of Cultural Expressions 

 113–114 

 Declaration on Bioethics and 

 Human Rights 113–114 

 education 114 

 Joint UN Program on HIV/AIDS 

 106 

UN Environment Program 61–63, 

 115–116 

UN Framework Convention on 

 Climate Change 63–64 

UN High Commissioner for 

 Refugees 14, 82–85, 86, 106, 

 150–151 

UN Human Settlements Program 

 60–61 

 urban governance 61 

 urbanization 61 

UN Integrated Office in Sierra 

 Leone 28 

UN Interim Administration 

 Mission in Kosovo 37 

UN Interim Force in Lebanon 

 9–10 

UN International Independent 

 Investigation Commission 11 

 Syria cooperation 11 

UN Military Observer Group in 

 India and Pakistan 14–15 

UN Millennium Project 137 

UN Mission for the Referendum in 

 Western Sahara 32 

UN Mission in Ethiopia and 

 Eritrea 21–23 

UN Mission in Liberia 18, 24, 25, 

 26–28, 135 

UN Mission in Sierra Leone 

 18, 28–29 

UN Mission in Sudan 30, 31–32 

UN Mission of Support in East 

 Timor 33, 34 

UN Observer Mission in 

 Bougainville 32, 33 

UN Observer Mission in Georgia 

 35–36 

UN Office for the Coordination of 

 Humanitarian Affairs 29 

UN Office on Drugs and Crime 

 14, 70, 71, 72, 106 

UN Office in Timor-Leste 33, 34 

UN Operation in Burundi 15, 16 

UN Operation in Côte d’Ivoire 

 17–18, 19 

UN Organization Mission in the 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2005 

220 

 Democratic Republic of the 

 Congo 16, 19–21, 43 

UN Peace-Building Support 

 Office in Guinea-Bissau 23, 24 

UN Peace-Building Support 

 Office in the Central African 

 Republic 17 

UN Peacekeeping Force in Cyprus 

 35 

UN Police 42–43 

UN Political Office in Somalia 

 29–30 

UN Population Fund 64 

UN Relief and Works Agency for 

 Palestine Refugees in the Near 

 East 9, 85–86 

UN Scientific Committee on the 

 Effects of Atomic Radiation 

 115–116 

 UN Environment Program 

 115–116 

UN Stabilization Mission in Haiti 

 37–38 

UN Truce Supervision 

 Organization 10 

UN-HABITAT: UN Human 

 Settlements Program 60–61 

UNAIDS: Joint UN Program on 

 HIV/AIDS 105–107 

UNAMA: UN Assistance Mission 

 in Afghanistan 13, 14 

UNAMI: UN Assistance Mission 

 for Iraq 5, 6, 7 

UNAMSIL: UN Mission in Sierra 

 Leone 18, 28–29 

UNCHR: UN Commission on 

 Human Rights 74–76, 80 

UNCITRAL: UN Commission on 

 International Trade Law 124–127 

UNCTAD: UN Conference on 

 Trade and Development 55–56 

UNDC: UN Disarmament 

 Commission 38–39 

UNDEF: UN Democracy Fund 

 77–78, 138 

UNDOF: UN Disengagement 

 Observer Force 10–11 

UNDP: UN Development 

 Program 55, 57, 106 

UNEP: UN Environment 

 Program 61–63, 115–116 

UNESCO: UN Educational, 

 Scientific, and Cultural 

 Organization 106, 113–115 

UNFCCC: UN Framework 

 Convention on Climate 

 Change 63–64 

UNFICYP: UN Peacekeeping 

 Force in Cyprus 35 

UNFPA: UN Population Fund 64 

UNHCR: UN High 

 Commissioner for Refugees 

 14, 82–85, 86, 106, 150–151 

UNICEF: UN Children’s Fund 

 58–60 

UNIFIL: UN Interim Force in 

 Lebanon 9–10 

UNIIIC: UN International 

 Independent Investigation 

 Commission 11 

UNIOSIL: UN Integrated Office 

 in Sierra Leone 28 

United Arab Emirates 108 

Universal Postal Union 116–117 

 Letter and Post Regulations 

 116–117 

Universal Safety Oversight Audit 

 Program 99–100 

Universal Security Audit Program 

 99–100 

UNMEE: UN Mission in 

 Ethiopia and Eritrea 21–23 

UNMIK: UN Interim 

 Administration Mission in 
Index 

221 

 Kosovo 36, 37 

UNMIL: UN Mission in 

 Liberia 18, 24, 25, 26–28, 135 

UNMIS: UN Mission in Sudan 

 30, 31–32 

UNMISET: UN Mission of 

 Support in East Timor 33, 34 

UNMOGIP: UN Military 

 Observer Group in India and 

 Pakistan 14–15 

UNOCI: UN Operation in Côte 

 d’Ivoire 17–18, 19 

UNODC: UN Office on Drugs 

 and Crime 14, 70, 71, 72, 106 

UNOGBIS: UN Peace-Building 

 Support Office in Guinea-Bissau 

 23, 24 

UNOMB: UN Observer Mission 

 in Bougainville 32, 33 

UNOMIG: UN Observer Mission 

 in Georgia 35–36 

UNOTIL: UN Office in Timor- 

 Leste 33, 34 

UNPOL: UN Police 42–43 

UNPOS: UN Political Office in 

 Somalia 29–30 

UNRWA: UN Relief and Works 

 Agency for Palestine Refugees in 

 the Near East 9, 85–86 

UNSCEAR: UN Scientific 

 Committee on the Effects of 

 Atomic Radiation 115–116 

UNTSO: UN Truce Supervision 

 Organization 10 

UPU: Universal Postal Union 

 116–117 

USAP: Universal Security Audit 

 Program 99–100 

USOAP: Universal Safety 

 Oversight Audit Program 99–100 

Utsumi, Yoshio 111 

V 

van Walsum, Peter 32 

VCP: Voluntary Cooperation 

 Program 121 

vehicle technologies 63 

Veneman, Ann 58, 160 

Venezuela 108 

Vereshchetin, Vladlen S. 129 

Vieira, Joao Bernardo 23 

violence 

 Côte d’Ivoire 18 

 Democratic Republic of the 

 Congo 19, 20, 21 

 Liberia 27 

 Middle East 9 

Visoth, Sean 136 

Voluntary Cooperation Program 

 121 

W 

war crimes tribunals 25, 26–27, 

 28, 29, 133–136 

 Cambodia Khmer Rouge 

 Tribunal 136 

 International Criminal Tribunal 

 for Rwanda 133–134 

 International Criminal Tribunal 

 for the former Yugoslavia 

 134–135 

 apprehension of fugitives 134 

 completion strategy 134–135 

 Special Court for Sierra Leone 

 25, 26–27, 28, 29, 135–136 

 Taylor, Charles 26–27, 135 

 UN Mission in Liberia 25, 

 26–27, 135 

Weah, George 25, 26 

Western Sahara 32 

 POWs 32 

 UN Mission for the Referendum 

 in Western Sahara 32 

WFP: World Food Program 

 81–82 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2005 

222 

WHO: World Health 

 Organization 57, 82, 89, 90, 

 102–104, 106–107 

WIPO: World Intellectual 

 Property Organization 117–119 

WMO: World Meteorological 

 Organization 119–121 

Wolff, Alejandro 147 

women 53, 73–74, 160 

 Afghanistan 74 

 Iraq 74 

 peace and security 53 

 political participation 74 

 recruitment of women in UN 

 agencies 160 

 UN Commission on the 

 Status of Women 73–74 

 assistance to Palestinian 

 women 73 

 Beijing Women’s Conference 

 10th Anniversary 73, 74 

 trafficking in women and 

 girls 73 

World Bank 23, 55, 106, 125, 127 

World Conference on Disaster 

 Reduction 87 

World Food Program 81–82, 86, 

 106 

 Darfur, Sudan 81 

 Food and Agriculture 

 Organization 82 

 Joint UN Program on 

 HIV/AIDS 106 

 school feeding operations 81 

 South Asia earthquake 86 

 UN Children’s Fund 82 

 UN High Commissioner for 

 Refugees 82 

 World Health Organization 82 

World Health Organization 57, 82, 

 89, 90, 102–104, 106–107 

 avian influenza 103 

 Codex Alimentarius 

 Commission 89, 90 

 Commission on Sustainable 

 Development 57 

 Framework Convention on 

 Tobacco Control 102–103 

 HIV/AIDS 102–103 

 International Health Regulations 

 103 

 Joint UN Program on 

 HIV/AIDS 106–107 

 Palestinian health conditions 104 

 Taiwan 104 

 World Food Program 82 

World Intellectual Property 

 Organization 117–119 

 allegations of irregularities 

 118–119 

 development 119 

 Joint Inspection Unit 118 

 patent law harmonization 

 119 

 reform 118–119 

World Meteorological 

 Organization 119–121 

 reform 120 

 Voluntary Cooperation Program 

 121 

World Organization for Animal 

 Health 90 

World Summit 45–46, 62, 79, 

 138–140, 142 

 outcome document 45–46, 62, 

 79, 138–139, 140, 142 

 Human Rights Council 

 138–139 

 Peacebuilding Commission 

 139, 142 

 organizational reform 139–140 

 terrorism 45–46 

World Summit on the Information 

 Society 113 

WSIS: World Summit on the 

 Information Society 113 

Wynes, M. Deborah 151 

Y 
Index 

223 

Yala, Kumba 23 

Yusuf Ahmed, Abdullahi 29 

Z 

Zebari, Hoshyar 6 

Zupljanin, Stojan 134