i 

CONTENTS 

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

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

1. Political and Security Affairs 

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

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

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

Iran.................................................................................................... 7 

Arab-Israeli Situation........................................................................ 9 

UN Truce Supervision Organization (UNTSO) ................................ 12 

UN Disengagement Observer Force (UNDOF) ................................ 12 

UN Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL)........................................... 13 

Lebanon/Syria ................................................................................... 15 

UN International Independent Investigation Commission (UNIIC)..17

South Asia ............................................................................................... 19 

Afghanistan....................................................................................... 19 

India/Pakistan.................................................................................... 20 

Africa ...................................................................................................... 21 

Burundi ............................................................................................. 21

Central African Republic .................................................................. 22 

Côte d’Ivoire ..................................................................................... 23 

Democratic Republic of the Congo ................................................... 24 

Ethiopia/Eritrea ................................................................................. 27 

Guinea-Bissau ................................................................................... 29 

Liberia............................................................................................... 29 

Sierra Leone...................................................................................... 31 

Somalia ............................................................................................. 32

Sudan ................................................................................................ 34 

Western Sahara ................................................................................. 36 

East Asia and the Pacific ......................................................................... 36 

Burma................................................................................................ 36 

East Timor......................................................................................... 37 

Nepal................................................................................................. 38 

North Korea ...................................................................................... 38 

Europe and Eurasia.................................................................................. 40

Bosnia and Herzegovina ................................................................... 40 

Cyprus............................................................................................... 40 

Georgia.............................................................................................. 41 

The former Yugoslavia: UN Interim Administration Mission in 

 Kosovo (UNMIK)........................................................................... 42 

Western Hemisphere ............................................................................... 43 

Haiti .................................................................................................. 43 

Disarmament Issues....................................................................................... 44 

UN Disarmament Commission (UNDC)................................................. 44 

Conference on Disarmament (CD) .......................................................... 46 

1540 Committee ...................................................................................... 47

Small Arms and Light Weapons.............................................................. 47 

Peacekeeping Issues....................................................................................... 49 

Peacekeeping Financing .......................................................................... 49 

UN Police................................................................................................ 49 

Sexual Abuse........................................................................................... 49 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2006 

 ii

Special Issues................................................................................................. 52 

Terrorism................................................................................................. 52 

Sanctions ................................................................................................. 54 

Security Council Membership................................................................. 57 

New UN Member (Montenegro) ............................................................. 58 

Secretary-General.................................................................................... 59 

Peacebuilding Commission ..................................................................... 60 

Non-Self-Governing Territories .............................................................. 61 

Security Council Thematic Debates ........................................................ 62 

2. Economic and Social Affairs 

Economic and Development Issues ............................................................... 67 

Development Bodies and Programs......................................................... 67 

UN Development Program (UNDP) ................................................. 67 

UN Conference and Trade and Development (UNCTAD)................ 68 

Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD)............................. 69 

UN Children’s Fund (UNICEF)........................................................ 70 

UN Human Settlements Program (UN-HABITAT) .......................... 71 

Environment............................................................................................ 73 

UN Environment Program (UNEP) .................................................. 73 

UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) 

and Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)................. 74 

 Population ............................................................................................... 75 

UN Population Fund (UNFPA)......................................................... 75 

UN Commission on Population and Development (CPD) ................ 75 

Regional Economic Commissions........................................................... 76 

Economic Commission for Europe (ECE) ........................................ 76 

Economic Commission for Latin America and the 

Caribbean (ECLAC) ......................................................................... 77 

Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the 

 Pacific (ESCAP) ............................................................................. 77 

Social Issues .................................................................................................. 78 

Commission for Social Development (CSocD)....................................... 78 

Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities............................ 79 

UN Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice (Crime 

 Commission) and UN Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) .............. 80 

Drug Control ........................................................................................... 82 

Commission on Narcotic Drugs (CND) ............................................ 83 

International Narcotics Control Board (INCB) ................................. 83 

Human Rights................................................................................................ 84 

Status of Women ..................................................................................... 84

Commission on Human Rights................................................................ 85 

UNGA Third Committee......................................................................... 86 

Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights .............................. 86 

UN Democracy Fund............................................................................... 87 

Democracy Caucus.................................................................................. 88 

Committee on Non-governmental Organizations .................................... 88 

Holocaust Remembrance......................................................................... 91 

Humanitarian Affairs ..................................................................................... 91 

World Food Program (WFP) ................................................................... 91 

UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) ................................... 93 

UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near 

 East (UNRWA) ..................................................................................... 96 
Table of Contents 

iii

Disaster and Humanitarian Relief Activities ........................................... 98 

3. Specialized Agencies and Other Bodies 

Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO).................................................... 101 

International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) ............................................... 103 

International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) ........................................ 108 

International Health Organizations ................................................................ 109 

World Health Organization (WHO) ........................................................ 109 

International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC)............................ 112 

Pan American Health Organization (PAHO)........................................... 112 

Joint UN Program on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS).......................................... 113 

International Labor Organization (ILO)......................................................... 115 

International Maritime Organization (IMO) .................................................. 116 

International Telecommunication Union (ITU) ............................................. 118 

UN Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO).............. 119 

UN Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation 

 (UNSCEAR)................................................................................................ 121 

Universal Postal Union (UPU)....................................................................... 122

World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) ........................................ 124 

World Meteorological Organization (WMO) ................................................ 126 

4. Legal Developments 

Host Country Relations.................................................................................. 129 

International Court of Justice (ICJ)................................................................ 130 

International Criminal Court (ICC)................................................................ 130 

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 ................................................................ 134 

Special Tribunal for Lebanon.................................................................. 135 

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

5. Reform of the UN System 

Management Reform and Mandate Review................................................... 139 

Security Council Reform ............................................................................... 142 

6. Administration and Budget 

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

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

Scale of Assessments..................................................................................... 148 

Committee for Program and Coordination (CPC).......................................... 149 

Audit Reports................................................................................................. 152 

Joint Inspection Unit (JIU) ............................................................................ 153 

Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS)................................................ 154 

Human Resources Management .................................................................... 156 

International Civil Service Commission (ICSC)............................................ 158 

Capital Master Plan........................................................................................ 159 

UN Joint Staff Pension Board........................................................................ 160

Appendices 

1. General Assembly Address by President George Bush ............................ 163 

2. Principal UN Organs................................................................................. 171 

General Assembly ................................................................................... 171

Security Council...................................................................................... 174 

Trusteeship Council................................................................................. 174 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2006 

 iv

Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) .............................................. 174 

International Court of Justice .................................................................. 175 

UN Secretariat ......................................................................................... 175 

3. U.S. Representatives................................................................................. 179 

UN General Assembly............................................................................. 179 

Subsidiary and Other Bodies............................................................. 179 

Security Council...................................................................................... 180 

Trusteeship Council................................................................................. 180 

Economic and Social Council and Related Bodies.................................. 180 

Functional Commissions................................................................... 181 

Regional Economic Commissions..................................................... 181 

Standing Committees ........................................................................ 182 

Related Subsidiary Bodies ................................................................ 182 

Specialized Agencies and Other Bodies .................................................. 183 

U.S. Permanent Representatives to the United Nations from 

 1946 to 2006.......................................................................................... 184 

4. UN and Related Websites ......................................................................... 187

UN Bodies............................................................................................... 187 

UN Missions/Peacekeeping Operations ............................................ 190 

Non-governmental and International Organizations................................ 191 

Specialized U.S. Government Agency Sites............................................ 193 

IO Missions ............................................................................................. 194 

Conferences............................................................................................. 194 

Conventions/Agreements/Basic Documents............................................ 194 

Index.................................................................................................................... 201 
v 

Acronyms and Short Forms 

ACABQ Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary 

 Questions 

ANDS Afghan National Development Strategy 

AR4 Fourth Assessment Report 

AU African Union 

BONUCA UN Peace-Building Office in the Central African Republic 

CAC UN Convention Against Corruption 

CAEP Committee on Aviation Environmental Protection

CAP UN Consolidated Appeal 

CAR Central African Republic 

CBM Confidence Building Measures 

CCIT Comprehensive Convention on International Terrorism 

CD Conference on Disarmament 

CDT Conduct and Discipline Team (for UN Peacekeepers) 

CEB Chief Executives Board 

CERF Central Emergency Response Fund 

CHR UN Commission on Human Rights 

CIC Council of Islamic Courts 

CIS Commonwealth of Independent States 

CMP Capital Master Plan 

CND UN Commission on Narcotic Drugs 

COE Commission of Experts 

COP Conference of the Parties 

CSocD Commission for Social Development 

COSP Conference of the States Parties 

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 

DC Democracy Caucus 

DESA Department of Economic and Social Affairs 

DFI Development Fund for Iraq 

DPKO UN Department of Peacekeeping Operations 

DPA Darfur Peace Agreement 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2006 

vi 

DPRK Democratic People’s Republic of Korea 

DRC Democratic Republic of the Congo 

DSRSG Deputy Special Representative of the Secretary-General 

ECE Economic Commission for Europe 

ECLAC Economic Commission for Latin America and the 

 Caribbean 

ECOSOC Economic and Social Council 

ESCAP Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific 

ESS Emergency Special Session 

EU European Union 

EU3 France, Germany, and the United Kingdom 

EUFOR European Union Reserve Force 

EXCOM Executive Committee of the UN High Commissioner for 

 Refugees 

FAO Food and Agriculture Organization 

FCCC/UNFCCC UN Framework Convention on Climate Change 

FDA Forest Development Authority 

FMCT Fissile Material Cutoff Treaty 

FNL 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 

ICDT International Center for Democratic Transition

ICC International Criminal Court 

ICJ International Court of Justice 

ICPD International Conference on Population and 

 Development 

ICSC International Civil Service Commission 
Acronyms and Short Forms 

vii 

ICTR International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda 

ICTY International Criminal Tribunal for the former 

 Yugoslavia 

IDF Israeli Defense Forces 

IDP Internally displaced persons 

IEE Independent external evaluation 

IGC Intergovernmental Committee on Intellectual Property 

 and Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge, and 

 Folklore 

IGWG Intergovernmental Working Group 

IHRs International Health Regulations 

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 

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 Non-governmental organization 

NGO Committee Committee on Non-governmental Organizations 

NPT Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty 

NSAs Negative security assurances 

OAS Organization of American States 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2006 

viii 

OASEA Office Addressing Sexual Exploitation and Abuse 

OCHA Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs 

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 

OSO Operation Support Officers 

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 

PLO Palestine Liberation Organization 

POC Postal Operations Council 

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

 Rio de Oro 

PRT Provincial Reconstruction Team 

PSC Peace and Security Council 

RaSSIA Radiation Safety and Security of Radioactive Sources 

 Infrastructure Appraisal 

RGC Royal Government of Cambodia 

SCP Standing Committee on the Law of Patents 

SOLAS International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea 

Special Committee Special Committee on the Charter of the United Nations 

SRSG Special Representative of the Secretary-General 

SUA Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts

 Against the Safety of Maritime Navigation 

TFG Transitional Federal Government 

TFI Transitional Federal Institutions 

TOC UN Convention Against Transnational Organized Crime 

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 
Acronyms and Short Forms 

ix 

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 

UNMIT UN Mission in Timor-Leste 

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 Peacebuilding Support Office in Guinea-Bissau 

UNOMIG UN Observer Mission in Georgia 

UNOTIL UN Office in Timor-Leste 

UNPOL UN Police 

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 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2006 

x 

USG Under Secretary-General 

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 2006, 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 2006, 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, or by employing 

coercive measures including sanctions. 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—2006 

2 

In 2006 the United States continued to work in the United Nations for 

a resolution to the crisis in Darfur, Sudan. Although the Sudanese government 

and a significant rebel faction signed the Darfur Peace Agreement in May, the 

conflict in Darfur intensified, led by rebel groups that did not sign the 

agreement. In August, the Security Council adopted Resolution 1706, 

authorizing a transition of the African Union’s Mission in Sudan (AMIS) to a 

larger and more robust UN peacekeeping operation. A meeting convened by 

the United Nations and the African Union in November led to an agreement 

providing for UN support to AMIS in three phases – a light support package, 

followed by a heavy support package, and finally a joint AU/UN hybrid 

support operation. In spite of the agreement, Sudan’s President Bashir 

continued to resist UN deployment in Darfur. 

Faced with Iran’s decision early in 2006 to resume enrichment-related 

activities and to suspend its cooperation with the International Atomic Energy 

Agency (IAEA), the Security Council adopted Resolution 1696, calling on 

Iran to take steps required by the IAEA and to suspend enrichment-related and 

reprocessing activities. Iran’s continued refusal to cooperate led the Council 

to later adopt Resolution 1747, which imposed a range of sanctions on Iran. 

In the Middle East, the Security Council helped broker a cessation of 

hostilities after fighting in Lebanon in July and August that resulted from 

Hizballah attacks on Israel and the capture of Israeli soldiers. Security 

Council Resolution 1701 provided for an expanded UN Interim Force in 

Lebanon (UNIFIL), which numbered nearly 12,000 by the end of the year. 

The Council also extended the mandate for the International Independent 

Investigation Commission (UNIIIC) investigating the 2005 assassination of 

former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri, and laid the groundwork for an 

international Tribunal to prosecute those identified by UNIIIC as involved in 

the Hariri killing and related crimes. 

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. 

The United Nations’ new Human Rights Council held its first three 

regular sessions, as well as four Special Sessions, in 2006. The United States 

was disappointed in the Council’s nearly singular focus on Israel, and 

remained concerned that the Council lacked the will to address urgent and 

serious human rights situations. The United States decided not to run for 

election for membership in the Council that took place in May. In contrast to 

the Human Rights Council’s weak performance, in the General Assembly’s 

Third Committee the United States, Canada and the European Union were able 

to pass country-specific condemnatory human rights resolutions against 

Belarus, Burma, Iran, and North Korea. While a U.S.-sponsored resolution 

against Uzbekistan was blocked from consideration by a procedural motion, 
Prologue 

3 

retaliatory resolutions against the United States by Belarus and against Canada 

by Iran were soundly defeated. 

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. 

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

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

Yugoslavia. 

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

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

Although progress was made on the implementation of reform 

initiatives agreed to earlier, the United States was concerned about a move by 

many member states to stall a package of reforms to modernize the UN 

Secretariat, and by the lack of progress on U.S. priorities for reform, including 

review of program mandates. 

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

current UN financial situation and resource management issues. 

At the end of 2006, the General Assembly adopted new scales of 

assessments for the UN regular budget and for UN peacekeeping for the years 

2007–2009. The United States was successful in maintaining the 22-percent 

ceiling on its assessment rate for the UN regular budget, and the assessment 

rate for peacekeeping was reduced from nearly 27 percent to roughly 26 

percent. 

Finally, the report’s appendices include the President’s 2006 speech 

to the UN General Assembly. Appendices also include information about the 

principal organs of the United Nations and their membership and leadership in 

2006, a list of U.S. representatives to the United Nations in 2006, and other 

reference information. 

Questions about this report may be directed to the Bureau of 

International Organization Affairs, U.S. Department of State. 
5 

Part 1 

Political and Security Affairs 

Regional Issues 

Near East 

Iraq 

 The United States continued its active engagement in the United 

Nations in 2006 to support Iraq’s efforts to build a united, secure and stable 

country in the face of growing security concerns. The UN Assistance Mission 

for Iraq (UNAMI) supported an electoral process that resulted in the formation 

of the first constitutionally elected Iraqi government in May 2006. In July, the 

Government of Iraq and the United Nations launched the International 

Compact with Iraq to build a partnership between Iraq and the international 

community in support of economic reform and development. Cooperation 

between Iraqi security forces and the Multinational Force-Iraq (MNF-I) 

continued in an effort to combat the violence in the country and to assist Iraqi 

forces toward assuming full responsibility for the country’s security. 

 On February 14, the President of the Security Council made a 

statement on behalf of the Council, welcoming the certification of election 

results for the Iraqi Council of Representatives, and giving special recognition 

to the Independent Electoral Commission of Iraq for its role in organizing and 

administering the elections. The statement commended and congratulated the 

people of Iraq for demonstrating their commitment to a peaceful, democratic 

political process, and for having braved difficult conditions and the threat of 

violence to cast their votes. The statement also stressed the importance of 

inclusiveness, national dialogue and unity as Iraq’s political development 

moved forward, and underlined the need for enhanced international support 

from all states and relevant organizations to assist Iraq. 

 Special Representative of the Secretary-General (SRSG) for Iraq 

Ashraf Qazi (Pakistan) briefed the Security Council on March 15. Qazi 

focused on the threat of sectarian violence to Iraq’s political transition and 

urged all international efforts to be directed at strengthening the momentum of 

the political process in order to prevent the situation from deteriorating further. 

He noted that sectarian fissures had come to dominate and define the country’s 

politics and future prospects, but that calls by a large spectrum of Iraq’s 

political and religious leaders for restraint and peaceful dialogue and the quick 

government action to bring the situation under control were promising signs 

for potential peaceful political solutions. Qazi cautioned that, if not effectively 

addressed, ongoing violence would prevent donor programs from having their 

desired impact. 

 Iraq’s constitutionally elected government was inaugurated on May 

20. The President of the Security Council, on behalf of the Council, issued a 

statement on May 24 congratulating the people of Iraq on this milestone in 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2006 

6 

their country’s political transition. The statement encouraged the new Iraqi 

government to promote national reconciliation through dialogue and inclusion 

and to build an atmosphere in which sectarianism is rejected. The Council 

also urged all Iraqis to participate in the political process peacefully, 

demanding that those who continued to use violence lay down their arms. The 

statement reiterated the Council’s condemnation of acts of terrorism. The 

statement also urged all states and relevant international organizations to 

continue and to enhance their help to Iraq’s sovereign government. 

 On June 15, Security Council members held a semi-annual review of 

the mandate of MNF-I along with certain arrangements for the Development 

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

(IAMB), consistent with Resolutions 1546 (2004) and 1637 (2005). During 

the Council’s meeting, Iraqi Minister for Foreign Affairs Zebari acknowledged 

that, despite the progress of a new Constitution and the formation of the first 

constitutional government, a difficult and destructive security situation 

persisted. Zebari emphasized that continued cooperation between Iraqi forces 

and MNF-I was vital for the country’s security and for Iraq’s goal of selfsufficiency in defending itself and securing peace. He also stressed the 

importance of promoting national consensus, tolerance, justice and respect for 

human rights. Assistant Secretary-General for Political Affairs Angela Kane 

also briefed the Council, noting Iraq’s success over the past three years in 

achieving its first constitutionally elected government. She noted the 

continued instability, violence and violations of human rights in Iraq, and 

urged the Iraqi government to heal the social and political divisions through 

dialogue and confidence building, to strengthen democratic institutions and the 

rule of law, and to improve the living conditions for all Iraqis. 

 The United States and other Council members unanimously adopted 

Resolution 1700 on August 10, which extended UNAMI’s mandate for an 

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

in one year or sooner, if so 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 the promotion of national dialogue and 

unity. 

 On September 14, SRSG Qazi again briefed the Security Council, 

reporting that ongoing attacks and violations of human rights continued to 

inflict untold suffering. He pointed to the Prime Minister’s National 

Reconciliation Plan and steps taken to broaden support for the Iraqi 

Government and to increase the effectiveness of the Iraqi security forces. He 

identified one of the key challenges as ensuring greater respect for human 

rights and the rule of law, and noted that one of UNAMI’s priorities was 

assisting the Iraqi government in setting up a strong national human rights 

protection system. Qazi called on the international community to provide 

support for Iraq’s efforts to transform itself into a participatory and 

institutionalized democracy. 
Political and Security Affairs 

7 

 On November 28, the Security Council adopted Resolution 1723, 

extending until December 31, 2007, the mandate of the MNF-I and certain 

arrangements for the DFI/IAMB. The resolution also contained language 

setting a review of the mandate for the MNF-I and DFI/IAMB no later than 

June 15, 2007, and declared that it would terminate the mandate earlier if so 

requested by the Government of Iraq. 

 On December 11, SRSG Qazi briefed the Council on developments in 

Iraq, warning of the prospects of a civil war and even a regional conflict. He 

called for a collective international and regional initiative in support of the 

Iraqi government’s efforts to reduce the current levels of violence and resolve 

key issues. 

 During 2006, the United States, on behalf of the MNF-I, presented 

four reports to the Security Council regarding MNF-I activities in Iraq, 

consistent with Resolutions 1546 (2004), 1637 (2005), and 1723 (2006). 

 UNAMI, with staff in Baghdad, Irbil and Basra, continued its support 

for the Iraqi government and people, including assistance on electoral 

activities, national reconciliation and constitutional review processes, and 

efforts to address humanitarian and development needs. 

Iran 

 Throughout 2006, the United States was actively engaged in the 

United Nations and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to 

pressure Iran to comply with its international obligations. In the wake of the 

ongoing threat presented by Iran’s continued pursuit of a nuclear weapons 

capability, the Security Council and the IAEA took a number of actions 

against Iran, culminating in sanctions imposed by the Security Council at the 

end of the year. 

 On February 4, the IAEA Board of Governors passed a resolution 

requesting the IAEA Director General to report to the Security Council all 

IAEA reports and resolutions, as adopted, relating to the implementation of 

nuclear safeguards in Iran. The resolution was adopted by vote of 27-3-5. 

 The IAEA Director General issued a report on February 27, listing a 

number of outstanding issues and concerns regarding Iran’s nuclear program, 

including topics that could have a military nuclear dimension, and noted that 

the IAEA was unable to conclude that there were no undeclared nuclear 

materials or activities in Iran. 

 On March 29, the President of the Security Council made a statement 

on behalf of the Council noting with serious concern Iran’s decision to resume 

enrichment-related activities and to suspend cooperation with the IAEA under 

the Additional Protocol. The Council called upon Iran to take steps required 

by the IAEA Board of Governors and expressed the conviction that Iran’s 

suspension of its enrichment-related and reprocessing activities, including 

research and development, and full, verified Iranian compliance with the 

requirements set out by the IAEA Board of Governors would contribute to a 

diplomatic, negotiated solution that guaranteed Iran’s nuclear program was for 

exclusively peaceful purposes. The Council underlined the willingness of the 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2006 

8 

international community to work positively for such a solution which would 

also benefit nuclear non-proliferation elsewhere. The Security Council 

requested a report from the IAEA Director General in 30 days on the process 

of Iranian compliance. 

 The IAEA Director General’s report, issued April 28, noted that after 

more than three years of IAEA efforts to seek clarity about all aspects of Iran’s 

nuclear program, the existing gaps in knowledge continued to be a matter of 

concern, and that the IAEA was unable to make progress in its efforts to 

provide assurances about the absence of undeclared nuclear material and 

activities in Iran. On June 6, China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, the 

United States, and Germany (the permanent members of the Security Council 

plus Germany) offered Iran a generous package of incentives that would be 

made available if Iran suspended its enrichment and reprocessing activities, 

cooperated fully with the IAEA, and engaged in constructive negotiations. 

 On June 8, the IAEA Director General reported that Iran had not 

taken the steps required of it by the IAEA Board of Governors and, on July 31, 

the Security Council adopted Resolution 1696, calling upon Iran to take the 

steps required by the IAEA, and demanding that Iran suspend its enrichmentrelated and reprocessing activities. The resolution called upon all states, in 

accordance with their national legal authorities and legislation and consistent 

with international law, to exercise vigilance and prevent the transfer of any 

items, materials, goods, and technology that could contribute to Iran’s 

enrichment-related and reprocessing activities and ballistic missile programs. 

The resolution requested the IAEA Director General to report by August 31 on 

whether Iran had established full and sustained suspension of all activities 

mentioned in the resolution, as well as compliance with the IAEA 

requirements. 

 On August 31 and again on November 16, the IAEA Director General 

issued reports confirming that Iran had not established full and sustained 

suspension of all enrichment-related and reprocessing activities as set out in 

Resolution 1696, and on December 23, the Security Council, acting under 

Chapter VII of the UN Charter, unanimously adopted Resolution 1737, which 

imposed sanctions on Iran for its failure to comply with Security Council 

resolutions and the requirements of the IAEA Board of Governors. The 

Council required Iran to suspend all nuclear enrichment-related and 

reprocessing activities, including research and development, as well as work 

on all heavy water-related projects, including the construction of a research 

reactor moderated by heavy water. The suspension of those activities would 

be verified by the IAEA. Iran was also required to cooperate fully with the 

IAEA in order to resolve all outstanding issues surrounding its nuclear 

program. The resolution prohibited the import or export of specified nuclear 

and missile-related items, as well as any technical or financial assistance 

related to the transfer or use of such items. 

 The Council also decided to require all states to prevent the supply, 

sale or transfer, for the use in or benefit of Iran, of any items, equipment or 
Political and Security Affairs 

9 

technology, which states determined would contribute to enrichment-related, 

reprocessing or heavy water-related activities, the development of nuclear 

weapons delivery systems, or any other activities about which the IAEA had 

expressed concern. Member states were also required to freeze the assets of 

persons or entities designated by the Council or the Sanctions Committee 

established pursuant to Resolution 1737 as supporting Iran’s proliferationsensitive nuclear activities or the development of nuclear-weapon delivery 

systems. In addition, member states were required to notify the Sanctions 

Committee of the entry into or transit through their territories of designated 

persons. 

 The Sanctions Committee established by Resolution 1737 was 

mandated to monitor implementation of the measures imposed by the 

resolution and to designate further individuals to whom or entities to which 

sanctions would apply. The resolution requested the IAEA Director General 

to report within 60 days on Iran’s compliance with the terms of the resolution. 

The Council affirmed its intent to review Iran’s actions and adjust the 

measures accordingly, including by adopting further appropriate measures in 

the event that the IAEA Director General reported that Iran had not complied 

with the resolution. 

Arab-Israeli Situation 

 The United States actively pursued in the United Nations President 

Bush’s vision of a two-state solution, with 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, and Russia) to achieve progress on the Quartet’s 

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

Israeli-Palestinian Conflict (“Roadmap”). 

Following the January 25, 2006, Palestinian Legislative Council 

elections, the Security Council on February 3 adopted a Presidential Statement 

congratulating the Palestinian people on “an electoral process that was free, 

fair, and secure.” The Security Council expressed its expectation that the new 

Palestinian Government would remain committed to realizing the aspirations 

of the Palestinian people for peace and statehood. The Security Council also 

welcomed Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas’ affirmation of the 

Palestinian Authority’s commitment to the Roadmap, previous agreements and 

obligations, and a negotiated two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian 

conflict. 

On January 27, 2006, the UN General Assembly observed the first 

International Day of Commemoration in memory of the victims of the 

Holocaust. On November 1, 2005, the General Assembly had adopted a 

resolution titled “Holocaust Remembrance” by consensus with 104 member 

states co-sponsoring. The resolution established January 27 as an annual day 

of commemoration. Then-UN General Assembly President Jan Eliasson of 

Sweden, in his January 27 statement, cited in particular the resolution’s 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2006 

10 

language that “the General Assembly unequivocally rejects any denial of the 

Holocaust as an historic event, either in full or in part.” 

On July 13, the United States cast a “no” vote – its first in nearly two 

years – to veto an unbalanced draft Security Council resolution on the IsraeliPalestinian situation. The United States had worked with other Security 

Council members to achieve a more balanced text, one that would have 

acknowledged that Israel’s then-ongoing military actions in Gaza had been in 

direct response to repeated rocket attacks into Israel from Gaza and the June 

25 abduction by Hamas of Israeli Defense Force Corporal Gilad Shalit. The 

final vote was 10-1(U.S.)-4 (UK, Denmark, Slovakia, and Peru). The summer 

2006 conflict between Hizballah and Israel, sparked by Hizballah’s July 12 

raid into Northern Israel in which three Israeli soldiers were killed and two 

captured, led to enormous suffering and destruction both in Lebanon and 

Israel. 

The Security Council adopted a Presidential Statement on July 27 

expressing its shock and distress at the July 25 firing by Israeli Defense Forces 

(IDF) on a United Nations Observer post in Southern Lebanon, which killed 

four UN military observers. On July 30, the Security Council adopted another 

Presidential Statement expressing its “extreme shock and distress” at IDF 

shelling of a residential building in Southern Lebanon. 

The Security Council unanimously adopted a resolution (1701) on 

August 11 that called for a full cessation of hostilities based upon both the 

immediate cessation of attacks by Hizballah as well as the immediate cessation 

of Israeli offensive military operations, and expanded the mandate of the UN 

Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) to monitor the cessation of hostilities. 

After casting the U.S. vote, Secretary of State Rice told the Security Council: 

“With the passage of this resolution, the international community has helped to 

open a path to lasting peace between Lebanon and Israel that will end the 

suffering and violence of the past month. The status quo that precipitated this 

conflict was unstable. Since the conflict began, we have sought an immediate 

end to the fighting. But we have also insisted that a durable cease-fire requires 

a decisive change from the status quo that produced this war. Today’s 

resolution lays the foundation to achieve that goal. With this resolution, a new 

- stronger - Lebanon can emerge with the world’s help. Now the hard, urgent 

work of implementation begins.” 

On November 11, the United States cast a “no” vote to veto an 

unbalanced draft Security Council resolution that condemned the Israeli 

shelling of Beit Hanoun in Gaza on November 8 that resulted in civilian 

casualties but did not similarly condemn the terrorist attacks into Israel. The 

final vote was 10-1(US)-4 (UK, Denmark, Slovakia, Japan). Following this 

veto, the General Assembly reconvened the 10th Emergency Special Session 

(ESS) of the General Assembly on November 17. The 10th ESS was first 

convened in 1997, and although it has remained open, has only been convened 

periodically, most recently in July 2004. The November 17 ESS adopted a 

resolution on the Beit Hanoun incident similar to the earlier Security Council 
Political and Security Affairs 

11 

draft resolution by a vote of 156-7(U.S., Australia, Israel, Marshall Islands, 

Micronesia, Nauru, Palau)-6(Canada, Cote d’Ivoire, Papua New Guinea, 

Tonga, Tuvalu, Vanuatu). 

The 10th ESS reconvened again on December 15 to consider a followup resolution to its July 2004 resolution on the Israeli-constructed security 

barrier in and around the West Bank. The July 2004 ESS had adopted a 

resolution requesting that the Secretary-General establish a Register to 

document Palestinian claims of damages in the wake of an International Court 

of Justice Advisory Opinion that had concluded that Israel’s construction of 

the security barrier was contrary to international law, and that Israel was 

obligated to make reparation for damages caused by the barrier’s construction. 

The Secretary-General issued a report outlining recommended parameters for 

the Register on October 17. At its December 15, 2006, session, the ESS 

adopted a resolution establishing the Register of Damages by a vote of 162-7 

(U.S., Australia, Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, Palau)-7 

(Cameroon, Canada, Cote d’Ivoire, Malawi, Papua New Guinea, Tonga, 

Uganda). The final resolution established a process for the creation and 

operation of the Registry that deviated from recommendations made by the 

Secretary-General and was ill-defined, open-ended in duration, and likely to 

raise false expectations on the part of claimants and divert resources from 

more important tasks. 

On December 6, the Security Council adopted a Press Statement 

welcoming the agreement between Israeli Prime Minister Olmert and 

Palestinian Authority President Abbas to establish a mutual cease-fire in Gaza. 

The Council followed this on December 12 with a Presidential Statement 

welcoming the cease-fire agreement. 

The 61st General Assembly regular session in the fall of 2006 voted 

on 23 resolutions concerning the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and related issues. 

The United States opposed many of these resolutions for several reasons: they 

addressed final status issues that the Israelis and Palestinians must decide 

through negotiations; advocated activities or language incompatible with basic 

principles of the Middle East peace process; or expended resources that could 

be used in more productive ways to improve the lives of the Palestinian 

people. Of three new resolutions addressing the July-August Israel-Hizballah 

hostilities, one was eventually withdrawn – leaving two new General 

Assembly resolutions. 

During the 61st General Assembly, the United States continued its 

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

embody institutional discrimination against Israel. These are the Division for 

Palestinian Rights, the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights 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 U.S. diplomatic efforts, 

there was little change in voting patterns on these resolutions between 2005 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2006 

12 

and 2006, and the 61st General Assembly again adopted all three by votes of 

101-7 (U.S.)-62, 101-7 (U.S.)-62, and 90-9 (U.S.)-81, respectively. 

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 Truce Supervision Organization (UNTSO)

 The UN Truce Supervision Organization (UNTSO) was the first 

peacekeeping mission organized by the United Nations, established in 1948 

under UN Security Council Resolution 50 to supervise the truce called for by 

the Council at the end of the British mandate in Palestine. Since then the 

Council has entrusted UNTSO with a variety of tasks, including the 

supervision of the implementation and observance of the general agreements 

between Israel and its four Arab neighbors: Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, and 

Syria. Following the 1967 Middle East War, UNTSO assumed cease-fire 

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

In 1972, a similar operation was established in southern Lebanon. Unarmed 

UNTSO military observers were directed to assist UN peacekeeping forces 

deployed in the Sinai (1973), the Golan Heights (1974), and southern Lebanon 

(1978). 

 In 2006 UNTSO maintained a presence in the region, including 

providing military observers and administrative staff to support the United 

Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) and the United Nations 

Disengagement Observer Force (UNDOF) in the Golan Heights. At Egypt's 

request, the mission also provides a small monitoring team to patrol the Sinai. 

As of December 31, 2006, UNTSO had 150 military observers. 

UN Disengagement Observer Force (UNDOF)

 The UN Disengagement Observer Force (UNDOF) was established 

by UN Security Council Resolution 350 of May 31, 1974, in the aftermath of 

the 1973 Arab-Israeli War. UNDOF observes 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, with the last renewal authorized by the 

Security Council on December 15, 2006. 

 UNDOF’s mission is to monitor the cease-fire between Israel and 

Syria, supervise the disengagement of Israeli and Syrian forces in the Golan 

Heights, and monitor the areas of separation and limitation between the two 

countries. As of December 31, 2006, UNDOF had 1,048 troops. 

 In carrying out its mandate, UNDOF is also assisted by military 

observers from the UN Truce Supervision Organization (UNTSO) based in 

Jerusalem. In 2006, the security situation in UNDOF’s area of operations 

remained generally calm, though the Secretary-General reported to the Council 

in June and December that the situation in the Middle East remained tense and 
Political and Security Affairs 

13 

was likely to remain so, unless and until a comprehensive peace settlement 

covering all aspects of the Middle East problem can be reached. 

UN Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL)

 United Nations Security Council Resolutions 425 (1978) and 426 

(1978) established United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) in 

March 1978. These measures responded to an 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, assisting the Government of Lebanon in restoring its effective 

authority, and contributing to the restoration of international peace and 

security in the region. In a report to the Security Council in 2000, the 

Secretary-General stated that UNIFIL had essentially completed two of the 

three parts of its mandate, the remaining task being the restoration of 

international peace and security. 

 On January 31, 2006, the Security Council extended UNIFIL’s 

mandate for six months until July 31. In the Secretary-General’s semi-annual 

report on UNIFIL, issued on July 21, he noted that the situation in Lebanon 

remained tense and volatile, although generally quiet, for most of the reporting 

period. 

 However, on July 12, Hizballah initiated a diversionary Katyusha 

rocket and mortar attack on Israeli military positions and on the towns of Even 

Menahem and Mattat, injuring five civilians. At the same time, a ground 

contingent of Hizballah attacked two Israeli armored Humvees along the 

Israel-Lebanon border with anti-tank rockets, capturing two Israeli soldiers 

and killing three. Five other Israelis were killed later that day on the Lebanese 

side of the border during a mission to rescue the two captured soldiers. The 

kidnappings led to an escalation of tensions and hostilities between the Israeli 

military and Hizballah forces operating within the southern territory of 

Lebanon. 

 While the fighting continued, the Security Council approved a 

Presidential Statement on July 27, expressing its deep shock and distress at the 

Israel Defense Forces (IDF) bombing of a United Nations Observer post in 

southern Lebanon on July 25, which caused the death of four UN military 

observers. On July 30, the Security Council issued another Presidential 

Statement expressing its “extreme shock and distress at the shelling by the 

Israeli Defense Forces of a residential building in Qana, in southern Lebanon, 

which has caused the killing of dozens of civilians, mostly children, and 

injured many others.” 

 In the period following these developments, the international 

community worked with the Lebanese and Israeli governments in an effort to 

address the causes of this violence and to create the conditions for a durable 

end to the fighting. A key objective was the development of a stabilization 

force in southern Lebanon to assist the Lebanese government in asserting its 

control in the area and to provide Israel with the confidence necessary to allow 

it to withdraw its forces across the Blue Line (a UN demarcation of the 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2006 

14 

Lebanese-Israeli border published June 7, 2000, to verify Israeli withdrawal 

from Lebanese territory). It was decided that an enhanced UNIFIL, rather than 

a new multinational force, would serve as the stabilization force. In this 

connection, the Government of Lebanon expressed its willingness on August 7 

to deploy 15,000 troops from the Lebanese Armed Forces to southern 

Lebanon, to be assisted by an enhanced UNIFIL that was supplemented in 

numbers, equipment, mandate, and scope of cooperation. 

 On August 11, the Security Council unanimously adopted Resolution 

1701 (2006), reiterating its strong support for the territorial integrity, 

sovereignty, and political independence of Lebanon. Key points of Resolution 

1701 included calling for a cessation of hostilities and the withdrawal of Israel 

forces from Lebanon, imposing a legally binding obligation on all states to 

prevent the entry into Lebanon of arms and related material, and authorizing 

deployment of an expanded UNIFIL force in Lebanon with a robust new 

mandate. 

 The UN-brokered cessation of hostilities went into effect on August 

14, after 34 days of fighting, during which nearly 1,200 Lebanese were killed 

and approximately 4,400 injured. At the height of the emergency, the conflict 

displaced nearly one million Lebanese from their homes. The large majority 

of these displaced persons had returned to their homes by year-end. The 

hostilities claimed the lives of 170 Israelis, including 52 civilians killed by 

rocket fire. More than 600 Israeli civilians were injured and between 300,000 

and 500,000 Israeli civilians either fled their homes or remained in shelters 

during the conflict. Most of these residents returned to their homes when the 

hostilities ended. 

 During this crisis, the United States facilitated the transportation of 

international troops to Lebanon. The United States also committed over $240 

million in humanitarian, reconstruction, and security assistance to Lebanon by 

December 2006. 

 In his one-week report on implementation of Resolution 1701 on 

August 18, the Secretary-General detailed the steps taken to consolidate the 

cessation of hostilities, in particular the withdrawal and deployment of forces 

in southern Lebanon and the rapid reinforcement of UNIFIL, and provided an 

assessment of the actions taken by the United Nations to address the 

humanitarian situation. 

 On September 7 and 8, Israel lifted its air and sea blockades of 

Lebanon. By October 2, the Israeli Armed Forces had withdrawn almost 

completely from southern Lebanon. 

 The Secretary-General presented his second report on the 

implementation of Resolution 1701 on September 12. He noted that the 

parties had generally complied with the cessation of hostilities. UNIFIL 

continued to coordinate the gradual withdrawal of IDF elements from, and 

Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF) deployment into, southern Lebanon. 

 On October 24, the UN Development Program assumed responsibility 

for coordinating reconstruction activities. 
Political and Security Affairs 

15 

 On December 11, the Secretary-General presented the Security 

Council with a report on the Middle East that included information on the 

implementation of Resolution 1701, in lieu of a stand-alone 1701 report. The 

report noted: “The past two tumultuous years in Lebanon’s history have 

illustrated the vulnerabilities of the Lebanese state to both external influences 

and internal political divisions, and their potential to ignite conflicts old and 

new.” He underscored the importance of the historic achievement of the 

deployment of the Lebanese army in the area south of the Litani River and 

along the Blue Line for the first time in nearly 40 years. The next day the 

Security Council issued a Presidential Statement reiterating its full support for 

the legitimate and democratically elected Government of Lebanon and calling 

for the full implementation of Resolution 1701. 

 By the end of the year, UNIFIL had 11,563 troops from 26 nations. 

No U.S. troops serve in UNIFIL. The Lebanese Armed Forces had 15,000 

soldiers positioned south of the Litani River. The Israeli withdrawal from 

Lebanon was complete except for the border village of Ghajar, where 

arrangements were still pending with UNIFIL for final Israeli withdrawal. 

During this period, UNIFIL recorded numerous rocket launches into Israeli 

territory by Hizballah, as well as violations by Israeli military aircraft 

overflying Lebanese territory. 

 The United States supports peace and stability in southern Lebanon, 

the extension of effective Lebanese government control over the whole of its 

territory, and the elimination of attacks on Israel across the Blue Line. 

UNIFIL is a stabilizing influence in reducing tensions along the Blue Line. 

The United States continued to call on the international community, Iran and 

Syria in particular, to meet the international legal obligations contained in 

Resolutions 1701 and 1559 (2004) to prevent illicit arms shipments to 

Hizballah.

Lebanon/Syria 

 UN Security Council Resolution 1559 (2004) reaffirmed the Security 

Council’s call for the strict respect of the sovereignty, territorial integrity, 

unity, and political independence of Lebanon. In addition, Resolution 1559 

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. 

 On January 23, 2006, the Security Council issued a Presidential 

Statement welcoming the Secretary-General’s report (released October 2005) 

and reaffirming its support for the sovereignty, territorial integrity, unity, and 

political independence of Lebanon. The Council regretted that some of the 

provisions of Resolution 1559 had not been implemented, particularly the 

disbanding and disarming of Lebanese and non-Lebanese militias, the 

extension of government control over all Lebanese territory, and free and fair 

Presidential elections conducted according to Lebanese constitutional rules, 

without foreign interference and influence. The Council called on all other 

parties, in particular the Government of Syria, to cooperate with Lebanon to 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2006 

16 

achieve full diplomatic relations and the demarcation of their common border. 

The Council also expressed concern about reports of movement of arms into 

Lebanon and condemned the continued terrorist attacks, warning that those 

responsible would be held accountable. 

 The Speaker of the Lebanese Parliament, Nabih Berri, brought 

together 14 leaders of the Lebanese factions and parties for the first session of 

the National Dialogue on March 2, 2006. Discussion at the National Dialogue 

included the investigation into the assassination of former Prime Minister 

Rafik Hariri, the Palestinian issue in Lebanon, Syria-Lebanon relations, the 

status of Sheba’a Farms, the Presidency, and Hizballah’s weapons. 

 In April, the Secretary-General released his third semi-annual report 

on the implementation of Resolution 1559. The Secretary-General reported 

that the situation in Lebanon remained tense; however, there had been a 

decrease in the number of terrorist attacks and acts of intimidation compared 

to the previous six-month period. The report also noted that Lebanon had 

made significant progress towards implementing Resolution 1559, particularly 

based on the agreements made during the National Dialogue. However, the 

report noted that the provisions of Resolution 1559 cited in the Council’s 

January statement had not yet been fully implemented. 

 Although the parties at the National Dialogue had decided to 

formalize the bilateral relationship between Syria and Lebanon, the SecretaryGeneral’s report of April noted that this agreement had not been implemented. 

Syria’s Minister of Foreign Affairs, Walid Muallem, stated, “the channels of 

communication and trade are effectively developed enough to make the 

opening of embassies unnecessary, although Damascus does not exclude the 

establishment of diplomatic missions sometime in the future.” Additionally, 

the Secretary-General underscored the importance of demarcating the border 

between Syria and Lebanon, particularly in the Deir al-Ashayr area, in which a 

Syrian military unit was stationed. 

 The Lebanese National Dialogue met again April 28-May 16 and on 

June 8 to discuss the Lebanese Presidency and Hizballah’s weapons. They 

agreed on a written code of conduct stipulating that political leaders would 

refrain from attacking each other. On June 29, the National Dialogue met for 

the last time but reached no further agreements. 

 On July 12, Hizballah initiated a cross-border raid, kidnapping two 

Israeli soldiers and killing several others. The resulting hostilities between 

Israel and Hizballah continued until August 14, when a cessation of hostilities 

agreement went into effect pursuant to UNSC Resolution 1701 (2006). 

Resolution 1701 also provided, inter alia, for the expansion in the mandate 

and size of the UN Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL), the establishment of a 

weapons-free zone in the area between the Blue Line and the Litani River, a 

ban on the transfer of arms to Lebanon (except as authorized by the Lebanese 

government or to UNIFIL), and for a report by the Secretary-General with 

proposals for the delineation of the international borders of Lebanon, including 

the Shebaa Farms area. 
Political and Security Affairs 

17 

 On October 19, the Secretary-General released his fourth semi-annual 

report on the implementation of Resolution 1559, stating: “In the six months 

since my last report, of 19 April 2006, Lebanon witnessed first political 

standstill, then severe deterioration and prolonged instability.” In this report, 

the Secretary-General observed that progress had been made in the expansion 

of the Government of Lebanon’s control of Lebanese territory, especially due 

to the deployment of the Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF) to the south of 

Lebanon for the first time in almost 40 years. Also, the LAF deployed along 

the Syria-Lebanon border after the adoption of Resolution 1701. The report 

noted, however, that no progress had been made on the provisions of 

Resolution 1559 dealing with the disbanding and disarming of all Lebanese 

and non-Lebanese militias and respect for the strict sovereignty, territorial 

integrity, unity and political independence of Lebanon. 

 The Security Council adopted a Presidential Statement on October 30 

welcoming the fourth semi-annual report on the implementation of Resolution 

1559. The Council noted that important progress had been made through the 

deployment of the LAF in southern Lebanon; however, the Council also 

regretted that the disbanding and disarming of militias had yet to take place 

and that free and fair presidential elections without any foreign interference 

and influence had not been conducted. 

 The United States continues to support full implementation of all the 

provisions of Resolution 1559 in order to ensure the stability of Lebanon and 

the wider region. 

United Nations International Independent Investigation 

Commission (UNIIC) 

 On February 15, 2005, the Security Council adopted a Presidential 

Statement that condemned the previous day’s terrorist bombing that had killed 

former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri and 19 others, and called on the 

Government of Lebanon to bring to justice all those responsible for this 

terrorist act. On April 7, 2005, the Security Council unanimously adopted 

Resolution 1595, which established the International Independent 

Investigation Commission (UNIIIC) to assist the Lebanese authorities in their 

investigation. On October 31, 2005, the Security Council welcomed the 

Secretary-General’s decision to extend UNIIIC’s mandate until December 15, 

2005, and required Syria to cooperate with the Commission. In response to 

the Government of Lebanon’s request, the Security Council unanimously 

adopted Resolution 1644 on December 15, 2005, which extended the UNIIIC 

mandate until June 15, 2006, acknowledged the Lebanese government’s 

request that those responsible for this terrorist act be tried by a tribunal of an 

international character, and requested the Secretary-General to help the 

Lebanese government identify the nature and scope of the international 

assistance needed in this regard. On January 13, 2006, the Secretary-General 

named Serge Brammertz (Belgium) to be the Commissioner of the UNIIIC, 

succeeding Detlev Mehlis. Brammertz’s tenure was extended for six months 

on July 14, 2006. 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2006 

18 

 During 2006, UNIIIC issued four progress reports on its investigation 

of the Hariri assassination. Its March 14 report noted that it had found links 

between the Hariri assassination and 14 other terrorist attacks since October 1, 

2004. In its June 10 report, UNIIIC concluded that it had made considerable 

progress in the Hariri investigation, specifically the critically important work 

relating to the crime scene, the Hariri convoy and associated events on the day 

of Hariri’s assassination. On September 25, UNIIIC reported that progress in 

the investigation had been hindered by the Hizballah-initiated war with Israel 

in July-August of 2006. Despite this complication, the Commission continued 

to finalize its primary crime scene work, including its forensic research and 

analysis, and was able to establish facts to an evidentiary standard. The 

December 12 report provided information on the Commission’s continued 

priority work in forensic investigation of the Hariri case, focusing on the 

identification of the perpetrators as well as the advancement of its technical 

assistance on the 14 cases, including the establishment of linkages. The 

Commission also reported on its provision of technical assistance to the 

Lebanese authorities in their investigation of the assassination of Pierre 

Gemayel, the Minister of Industry of Lebanon, on November 21. 

 On June 15, 2006, the Council adopted Resolution 1686, which 

extended the Commission’s mandate for one year, through June 15, 2007, and 

authorized UNIIIC to extend its technical assistance to Lebanese authorities 

with regard to their investigations into the other terrorist attacks perpetrated in 

Lebanon since October 1, 2004. 

 On November 21, 2006, the Security Council issued a Presidential 

Statement condemning the assassination of Industry Minister Pierre Gemayel 

and the following day, in a letter to the Secretary-General, authorized UNIIIC 

to provide technical assistance to the Government of Lebanon in its 

investigation into this crime. 

 Pursuant to the request in Resolution 1644 (2005), the SecretaryGeneral issued a report on March 21, 2006, in which he requested the Security 

Council’s authorization to begin negotiations with the Government of Lebanon 

aimed at establishing a tribunal of an international character to prosecute those 

identified by UNIIIC for their involvement in the Hariri assassination. The 

Security Council authorized the Secretary-General to negotiate such an 

agreement in Resolution 1664, unanimously adopted on March 29. On 

September 6, the UN Legal Counsel presented the initial draft agreement and 

statute to the Lebanese Prime Minister and to the Minister of Justice of 

Lebanon for their consideration. On November 21, the Security Council 

approved the Tribunal documents; however, by the end of 2006, the 

Agreement had not been ratified by the Lebanese Parliament. 

 The United States strongly supports the efforts of UNIIIC and is 

committed to seeing those responsible for the assassination of Rafik Hariri 

brought to justice. 
Political and Security Affairs 

19 

South Asia 

Afghanistan

 During 2006, the United States continued to work through the United 

Nations and with the international community in pursuit of a sovereign, stable, 

democratic, and more prosperous Afghanistan. Overall, Afghans remained 

supportive of the international presence, both civilian and military, but many 

difficult challenges remained. Violence significantly increased in the South, 

the East, and in Kabul during the spring and summer of 2006. In response, 

Afghan authorities and international partners began implementation of a new, 

comprehensive approach to integrate security operations with economic 

revitalization, infrastructure development, better governance, public 

diplomacy, counter-narcotics activities, and cooperation with Pakistan.

The Security Council established the UN Assistance Mission in 

Afghanistan (UNAMA) in Resolution 1401 (2002) with a mandate to facilitate 

implementation of the Bonn Agreement, which established provisional 

arrangements in Afghanistan pending the re-establishment of permanent 

government institutions. After the completion of the Bonn process and the 

adoption in London of the Afghanistan Compact in January 2006, UNAMA’s 

mandate was renewed and updated on March 23, 2006, by Resolution 1662. 

The mandate contained six main elements: providing political and strategic 

advice for the peace process, including strengthening emerging democratic 

institutions; providing good offices, as appropriate; assisting the Government 

of Afghanistan in the coordination and monitoring of the implementation of 

the Afghanistan Compact, and co-chairing the Joint Coordination and 

Monitoring Board (JCMB); promoting human rights through an independent 

role in monitoring human rights violations and capacity building of national 

institutions; providing technical assistance in sectors where the United Nations 

has a demonstrated comparative advantage and expertise, including in the 

disbandment of illegal armed groups and support to the Independent Electoral 

Commission; and managing all United Nations humanitarian relief, recovery, 

reconstruction and development activities in Afghanistan. 

 UNAMA is a Special Political Mission directed and supported by the 

UN Department of Peacekeeping Operations (DPKO) and funded by the UN 

regular budget. With strong U.S. support, a key focus of UNAMA in 2006 

was to implement the Afghanistan Compact and increase international 

coordination in Afghanistan through the (JCMB). The JCMB was widely 

viewed as the main symbol of the international civilian presence in the 

country, paralleling NATO’s action in the security sphere. Tom Koenigs 

(Germany) was appointed as the Secretary-General’s Special Representative 

(SRSG) and head of UNAMA on February 16, 2006. 

 Security was mainly the responsibility of the UN-mandated, NATOled, International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) and the Afghan National 

Security Forces (ANSF). ISAF’s mission was to assist the Government of 

Afghanistan and the international community in maintaining security. During 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2006 

20 

2006, ISAF’s area of operation gradually expanded to the south of Afghanistan 

in July and to the East in October. ISAF also took over the 25 Provincial 

Reconstruction Teams (PRTs), 12 of which were led by the United States. 

Separately from ISAF, the U.S.-led Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) 

continued its focus on counter-terrorism operations. 

 Afghan national security forces comprised the Afghan National Army 

and national, border, highway and counter-narcotics police. Training for the 

police and the justice sector was coordinated with UNAMA. The Afghan 

National Army (ANA) expanded and proved its capabilities fighting alongside 

OEF and ISAF troops. The formal Disarmament, Demobilization, and 

Reintegration (DDR) process for more than 63,000 former combatants was 

completed in 2006. Afghanistan continued this effort through the 

Disbandment of Illegal Armed Groups (DIAG) program.

 Afghanistan made several advances in economic policy and 

reconstruction efforts in 2006, controlling inflation, developing the banking 

sector, and adopting new commercial and investment laws. The new currency – 

the Afghani – remained stable. Annual growth was around 14 percent of GDP 

in 2005-2006. An Afghan National Development Strategy (ANDS) that 

paralleled the Afghanistan Compact was adopted in London in January 2006. 

 Reconstruction efforts continued, with a particular focus on 

infrastructure. As of the end of 2006, about 75 percent of Afghanistan’s 

national ring road had been completed. In coordination with UNAMA, the 

United States also built over 3,500 kilometers of secondary and district roads. 

Several multi-national projects were underway to build Afghanistan’s hydro 

and electrical power systems. Education and health care are also U.S. and UN 

priorities. Over five million children attended school, and a majority of the 

population gained access to basic health services. 

 After a decrease in poppy cultivation in 2005, Afghanistan produced 

a record poppy crop in 2006, according to the UN Office on Drugs and Crime 

(UNODC). The Afghan government and its international partners began 

implementing a long-term, integrated strategy in 2006 to combat the narcotics 

industry. UNAMA’s Rule of Law Unit established the International 

Coordination Group for Justice Reform (ICGJR) in 2006, co-chaired with 

Italy, which resulted in much-improved coordination among donors’ justice 

programs. 

 Over 387,000 refugees returned to Afghanistan in 2006, 36 percent of 

them with the assistance of UNHCR. More than 4.8 million Afghans have 

returned home since 2002, of which over 3.6 million were assisted by 

UNHCR, the most successful refugee repatriation in UNHCR’s history. The 

number of mine victims continued to decline in 2006 as a direct result of the 

UN Mine Action program. 

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 

21 

(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 cease-fire line to be supervised by UN 

observers. In 1971, hostilities again broke out between India and Pakistan. In 

1972, following a cease-fire, both agreed on a Line of Control which 

UNMOGIP monitors. UNMOGIP’s functions are to observe and report, 

investigate complaints of cease-fire violations, and submit findings to the 

parties and to the UN Secretary-General. 

 Since the 1972 Agreement, India has taken the position that 

UNMOGIP’s mandate has lapsed; however, Pakistan did not accept India’s 

position. Given the disagreement between the parties on UNMOGIP’s 

mandate, the UN Secretary-General adopted the position that the mandate can 

be terminated only by a decision of the UN Security Council. As of 

December 31, 2006, UNMOGIP had 41 military observers. 

Africa 

Burundi 

 In 2006, the United States continued to work in the Security Council 

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

national reconciliation. The United States joined consensus for a Security 

Council Presidential Statement on March 23 that expressed concern about the 

continuing violence carried out by the Forces Nationales de Libération (FNL), 

the fighting between the FNL and the Burundian army, and the human rights 

abuses committed by both sides. The Council called for the immediate 

cessation of hostilities and human rights abuses. 

 In the Secretary-General’s June report on Burundi, he noted that 

while Burundi had made progress toward the consolidation of peace after its 

emergence from a 12-year civil war, the political and security situation 

remained fragile and required the sustained engagement of the country’s 

international partners. The United Nations and the Government of Burundi 

reached an agreement on May 24 in which the government reconfirmed its 

request for the establishment of a UN Integrated Office in Burundi (BINUB) 

following the termination of the UN peacekeeping operation in Burundi 

(ONUB). 

 On June 30, the United States supported Security Council Resolution 

1692, which extended the mandate of the ONUB until December 31, 2006. 

This resolution also welcomed the intention of the Secretary-General to 

establish BINUB at the end of ONUB’s mandate. 

 The United States supported adoption of Resolution 1719 on October 

25, which requested the Secretary-General to establish BINUB for an initial 

period of 12 months, commencing on January 1, 2007, and welcomed the 

Secretary-General’s recommendation that an Executive Representative head 

BINUB. The resolution requested that BINUB, once established, focus on and 

support the government in the following areas: peace consolidation and 

democratic governance; disarmament, demobilization, and reintegration and 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2006 

22 

reform of the security sector; promotion and protection of human rights and 

measures to end impunity; and donor and UN agency coordination. In a letter 

to the Security Council on December 22, the Secretary-General expressed his 

intention to appoint Youssef Mahmoud (Tunisia) as his Executive 

Representative, effective January 1, 2007. 

 Throughout 2006, ONUB and the UN Mission in the Democratic 

Republic of Congo (MONUC) continued to coordinate operations to deter 

illicit movement of combatants and weapons along the DRC-Burundi border. 

Central African Republic 

 The Security Council continued to address the serious situation in the 

Central African Republic (CAR) during 2006. The CAR continued to be 

plagued by political insecurity, conflict, and significant humanitarian needs 

throughout the year. The creation of a rebel movement in the Northwest early 

in the year affected the government’s ability to control the countryside, and the 

government’s offensive against the rebels resulted in the displacement of more 

than 50,000 refugees into neighboring Chad and an estimated 150,000 

internally displaced persons (IDPs) in the northern part of the country. 

Chronic conflict, poor infrastructure, and economic mismanagement continued 

to hamper CAR’s economic development, and the country was faced with 

increasing food insecurity, high HIV/AIDs prevalence, and decreasing life 

expectancy. During 2006, the CAR Government initiated significant 

governance reforms that resulted in re-engagement with the IMF and World 

Bank and made the CAR eligible for $82 million in debt relief. 

 On July 7, 2006, the Special Representative of the Secretary-General 

for the Central African Republic, General Lamine Cissé (Senegal), and a 

representative of the UN Department of Peacekeeping Operations briefed the 

Security Council on the situation in the CAR. In a statement to the press after 

the briefing, Council members expressed their concern at the increase of 

poverty in the country, the fragility of the economic recovery, the deterioration 

of the humanitarian situation, and the persistent violence in Darfur, which 

threatened to continue negatively to affect the security and stability of the 

CAR. Council members invited the CAR authorities to continue their efforts 

to improve public finances and governance, called on the government and all 

political parties to settle their disputes through peaceful means and dialogue, 

and urged the government to improve respect for human rights and rule of law 

and to bring to justice those responsible for human rights violations. Council 

members also invited the CAR authorities to expedite their efforts in 

restructuring the National Armed Forces. 

 The Security Council adopted a Presidential Statement on November 

22 that acknowledged the progress made in the CAR and called on 

international donors to remain engaged, while also expressing 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. The statement 

expressed serious concern that instability along the border areas of Chad, 

Sudan and the CAR represented a threat to security and stability in the region. 
Political and Security Affairs 

23 

It also noted that Central African defense and security forces were unable to 

repel the armed groups in the northern and northeastern parts of the country. 

 Throughout 2006, the UN Peace-Building Office in the CAR 

(BONUCA) remained actively engaged in support of the government’s efforts 

to consolidate peace and national reconciliation, to strengthen democratic 

institutions, and to facilitate mobilization of international political support and 

resources for reconstruction and economic recovery. In addition, BONUCA 

worked to promote domestic public awareness of human rights issues and 

monitored developments in this field. 

Côte d’Ivoire 

The Security Council established the UN Operation in Cote d’Ivoire 

(UNOCI) by its Resolution 1528 on February 27, 2004. The International 

Working Group (IWG), established by the African Union (AU) to support the 

Ivorian peace process, met in Abidjan on January 15. The IWG issued a 

communiqué recommending that the term of the National Assembly not be 

extended. The National Assembly played a consistently obstructionist role 

during efforts over the previous two years to move forward critical legislation 

on nationality and other questions central to the peace process. In response, 

pro-government militia groups such as the Young Patriots staged mass 

demonstrations in Abidjan for nearly a week, claiming the IWG had 

"dissolved" the National Assembly. 

Nigerian President Obasanjo flew to Abidjan on January 18, and 

shortly thereafter he and President Bongo of Gabon issued a statement 

undercutting the IWG's authority. This action restored order in the short term 

and bolstered President Gbagbo's action about a week later extending the 

National Assembly's term in office. The Security Council issued a strong 

statement on January 19, condemning the violence, and reaffirming its support 

for the IWG's communiqué. On January 24, the Council unanimously adopted 

Resolution 1652, extending UNOCI's mandate and personnel levels until 

December 15. 

In February, the Security Council's Cote d'Ivoire Sanctions 

Committee named three people to be subject to a visa ban and assets freeze for 

their actions advocating violence. The three individuals were pro-government 

militia leaders Charles Ble Goude, Eugene Djue, and Forces Nouvelles

commander Kouakou Martin Fofie. On February 8, the White House 

announced that President Bush had signed an executive order implementing 

the Security Council sanctions in the United States. The Departments of 

Treasury and State put measures in place respectively to freeze any U.S. assets 

of these three persons and to require Washington review of any visa 

application. 

On February 6, Security Council Resolution 1657 (2006) authorized 

the temporary transfer of a mechanized infantry company of 200 Nigerian 

soldiers from the UN Mission in Liberia (UNMIL) to UNOCI, as a precaution 

against any violence in response to the announcement of sanctions. The 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2006 

24 

transfer was authorized until March 31, with a review to be conducted at 30 

days in the context of the security situation in both Liberia and Cote d'Ivoire. 

The Security Council issued a Presidential Statement on March 29 

urging the Ivorian parties to begin disarmament/demobilization programs and 

election preparations immediately. In mid-April, Secretary-General Annan 

named Gerard Stoudmann of Switzerland to replace Antonio Monteiro 

(Portugal) as High Representative for Elections. 

On June 2, the Security Council adopted Resolution 1682, (2006) 

temporarily increasing UNOCI's authorized ceiling by up to an additional 

1,500 personnel (1,025 military and 475 police), until December 15. There 

was some movement forward politically in June, with first steps taken on both 

disarmament of combatants and the identification process. A pilot 

identification program was conducted from May 18 through May 27 at seven 

sites. 4,810 applicants were interviewed. 2,601 birth certificates and 2,188 

certificates of nationality were approved. After the first day, the population 

was able to participate in the process without significant harassment from progovernment militias (although they continued to pass out literature calling for 

disarmament before identification). 

The International Working Group (IWG) met again on May 19. The 

Security Council issued a Presidential Statement endorsing the IWG's 

communiqué and underlining again that the Council stood prepared to impose 

sanctions on persons impeding the peace process. 

On September 14 the Security Council adopted Resolution 1708 

(2006), which extended until December 15 the mandate of the Cote d'Ivoire 

Group of Experts reporting on implementation of the diamonds and arms 

embargoes. 

ECOWAS heads of state met on October 16, and the African Union's 

Peace and Security Council (AU/PSC) issued a communiqué on October 17, 

announcing the extension of the deadline for elections for another year, until 

October 31, 2007. The AU/PSC also extended President Gbagbo's tenure in 

office for an additional year, and strongly reaffirmed the authority and 

powers it had conveyed on Prime Minister Banny in 2005. The Security 

Council on November 1 adopted Resolution 1721 (2006), which similarly 

affirmed Banny's powers (including authority over the armed forces) and 

extended Gbagbo's term for another year. Both the AU and the Security 

Council stressed that this should be the last extension. 

As of December 31, 2006, UNOCI had 9,029 troops, police, 

and military observers. 

Democratic Republic of the Congo 

The UN Mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo 

(MONUC) was established under Security Council Resolution 1258 (1999) to 

assist in the implementation of the Lusaka Ceasefire Agreement between the 

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

Zimbabwe for a cessation of hostilities. 
Political and Security Affairs 

25 

On January 23, MONUC announced that eight peacekeepers from the 

Guatemalan Special Forces contingent were killed during joint operations with 

the Congolese Army (FARDC) against the Ugandan Lord's Resistance Army 

(LRA) at Garamba National Park. On February 10, a MONUC convoy was 

ambushed by suspected elements of the Democratic Forces for the Liberation 

of Rwanda (FDLR) while transporting Disarmament, Demobilization, and 

Reintegration (DDR) candidates affiliated with the armed rebel group. On 

February 25, FARDC, backed by MONUC troops, began an operation against 

Rwandan Hutu rebels in South Kivu. 

On March 3, MONUC announced that it had suspended Operation 

Ituri Engraver. About 300 MONUC peacekeepers from the Pakistani, 

Bangladeshi and Moroccan contingents returned to Bunia after FARDC 

commandos protested conditions of service, withdrew from fighting, and 

staged a mutiny. Sporadic fighting between FARDC and the FRPI in Ituri 

continued through mid-March. In a separate joint FARDC-MONUC 

operation, about 300 MONUC peacekeepers supported successful FARDC 

efforts to dislodge FDLR militia from heavily forested areas in South Kivu. 

On March 6, the UN Under Secretary-General for Peacekeeping Operations, 

Jean-Marie Guehenno, began a 10-day working visit to the DRC. On March 

21, as part of a two-week Africa visit, the UN Secretary-General arrived in 

Kinshasa for three days of consultations. 

During April, MONUC continued intensive patrolling in Ituri and 

South Kivu. From April 5 to 29, the World Food Program (WFP), with 

MONUC support, airdropped food relief to people displaced by fighting 

between FARDC and Mayi-Mayi militia in Katanga. On April 10, the 

Security Council adopted Resolution 1669, authorizing the Secretary-General 

to redeploy until July 1, 2006, up to one infantry battalion, a military hospital 

and up to 50 military observers from ONUB to MONUC. On April 15, the 

Beninese Army initiated deployment of one battalion to MONUC. On April 

20, MONUC began a series of meetings with traditional village chiefs in the 

Ituri district to reinforce MONUC's ability to protect civilians and to 

streamline MONUC support for elections scheduled for July 30. On April 25, 

the Security Council unanimously adopted Resolution 1671 authorizing 

deployment of a European Union reserve force (EUFOR) to support 

MONUC's security efforts during the upcoming elections in the DRC and for 

up to four months afterwards. MONUC and FARDC troops launched a joint 

initiative, North Network, against FDLR positions in North Kivu on April 26. 

Approximately 200 Mai surrendered to MONUC forces on May 6 

and were taken to a FARDC base. On May 8, SRSG Swing had consultations 

with officials at the State Department. On May 9, FARDC, backed by 

MONUC peacekeepers, launched a new military operation in Ituri District 

with the aim of eliminating militias from the Congolese Revolutionary 

Movement (MRC). MONUC later confirmed that Mai leader Gedeon 

surrendered to peacekeepers on May 12. On May 21, FARDC troops, backed 

by MONUC, retook control of the town of Tchei in Ituri. On May 28, one 

Nepalese peacekeeper was killed during an anti-militia operation in Ituri. 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2006 

26 

Seven other Nepalese peacekeepers were captured during Operation Ituri 

Element 3, a joint operation that began May 27. During an intense firefight, 

three other Nepalese peacekeepers were wounded. 

On June 2, Deputy SRSG Ross Mountain held consultations with 

U.S. officials in Washington. On June 10-13, a Security Council mission 

visited the DRC. On June 12, the EU adopted a decision to deploy an 800-

strong military force in Kinshasa, backed up by 1,200 reserve troops in Gabon. 

The force complemented MONUC's security presence through the elections. 

Starting June 17, DRC peacekeepers used mortars and heavy machine guns to 

shell the village of Kazana in Ituri district, while MONUC personnel stood by 

as Congolese government troops torched huts in the village with civilians still 

inside them. On June 30, the Security Council unanimously adopted 

Resolution 1693, extending until September 30 the temporary increases in 

MONUC's military and civilian police strength authorized the previous year by 

resolutions 1621 and 1635. On June 26, MONUC forces withdrew from the 

town of Tchei (where rebels mounting a new military offensive again wrested 

control of the eastern DRC town), forcing FARDC troops to abandon their 

positions. On July 30, the DRC’s first free presidential election in 46 years 

was held. 

During September, MONUC helped to disseminate electoral kits 

throughout the DRC. On September 29, the Security Council renewed 

MONUC's mandate until February 15, 2007. On October 27, peacekeepers 

freed Francois Joseph Mobutu Nzanga, a key ally of current President Joseph 

Kabila, after rival soldiers had surrounded him for 24 hours. On October 29, 

provisional and presidential runoff elections took place. With assistance from 

MONUC, the Independent Electoral Commission (CEI) collected ballots and 

tally sheets from voting sites throughout the DRC. 

The President of the Security Council received a letter from the 

Secretary-General on November 15, requesting the Council to consider a 

temporary increase in MONUC'

s authorized military strength to accommodate 

the troops whose deployment was authorized under the UN Operation in 

Burundi (ONUB). On November 16, SRSG Swing deployed about 100 UN 

troops in armored cars around presidential rival Jean Pierre Bemba's residence 

to serve as a deterrent to fighting. On November 25, approximately 700 UN 

peacekeeping troops were deployed in Sake to discourage any potential 

advance toward the provincial capital of Goma. On November 28, a 

delegation which included DSRSG Haile Menkarios visited Sake to assess the 

situation. On November 29, the last three Ituri armed groups signed a 

comprehensive agreement, by which they agreed to surrender their weapons to 

MONUC and to enter the DDR process. 

On December 4, alongside police in Ituri, MONUC detained 

Agenonga Ufoyuru, a fugitive former rebel militia member alleged to have 

been involved in the murder of two UN observers. On December 6, Guehenno 

visited the DRC for the inauguration ceremony of Kabila. On December 8, 

EUFOR left the DRC after having spent several months, in cooperation with 
Political and Security Affairs 

27 

MONUC, helping to secure the capital during the October elections. On 

December 11, with the help of MONUC, the disarmament of the Ituri FRPI 

militia group commenced in Aveba. 

As of December 31, 2006, MONUC had 18,296 troops and military 

observers. Former U.S. Ambassador Bill Swing serves as the SRSG for 

MONUC. 

Ethiopia/Eritrea 

The United Nations 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. 

Throughout January, Eritrean restrictions on UNMEE remained in 

force. On January 9, the Security Council voiced unanimous support for a 

U.S. initiative, in which Ambassador Bolton proposed that the Security 

Council maintain UNMEE's current configuration and defer action for 30 days 

while the United States undertook a diplomatic initiative on demarcation. 

On February 8, Under Secretary-General for Peacekeeping 

Operations, Jean-Marie Guehenno, briefed the SC on the situation in EthiopiaEritrea and outlined contingency planning options for UNMEE' s future. On 

February 9-10, former African Affairs Deputy Assistant Secretary Don 

Yamamoto held consultations with UN and other officials on the diplomatic 

initiative for resumption of demarcation. As a result of Eritrea's continuing 

ban on UNMEE helicopter flights, an ill soldier from UNMEE's Jordanian 

contingent had to be transported by road to a hospital. On February 22, 

representatives of the five Algiers Witnesses met at the United Nations and 

adopted a joint statement supporting the EEBC and urging the EEBC to 

convene a meeting of the parties. On February 24, the Council adopted a 

PRST that welcomed the meeting of the Algiers Witnesses, demanded that 

Eritrea and Ethiopia permit UNMEE to carry out its duties without restrictions, 

and urged the two countries to meet with Eritrea-Ethiopia Boundary 

Commission (EEBC). 

On March 1, an Indian UNMEE peacekeeper suffered a heart attack 

and died. Due to the helicopter ban, the Indian peacekeeper was taken on an 

hours-long medical evacuation flight to Addis Ababa. The Council and the 

Secretary-General reiterated UN demands that Eritrea lift its restrictions on 

UNMEE operations. In the March 6 Secretary-General’s Report on Ethiopia 

and Eritrea to the Council, the Secretary-General expressed concern about the 

restrictions on UNMEE imposed by Eritrea, voiced alarm about the death of 

the Indian peacekeeper, and highlighted the U.S. diplomatic initiative, as well 

as the February meeting of the Algiers Witnesses. On March 14, the 

Council adopted Resolution 1661, which extended UNMEE's mandate 

until April 15, 2006. On March 31, outgoing SRSG Joseph Legwaila 

met with Eritrean President Isiais. 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2006 

28 

On April 6, Eritrean militia briefly detained without 

explanation a UN military observer; he was released later. On April 9, Major 

General Mohammed Taisir Masadeh (Jordan) assumed command of UNMEE's 

military contingent. On April 14, the Council adopted Resolution 

1670, extending UNMEE's mandate until May 15, 2006, to allow for 

diplomatic follow-up to the meeting of the EEBC with the parties. 

In May, the DSRSG Azzouz Ennifar became acting SRSG. During 

the week of May 7, 11 UNMEE local staff members were arrested by Eritrean 

police forces. The week of May 15, Eritrean authorities released without 

explanation one of the detained UNMEE local staff members. The following 

week Eritrean authorities arrested another UNMEE local staff member. On 

May 15, the Council adopted Resolution 1678 to extend the mandate of 

UNMEE until May 31. The resolution also demanded full compliance with 

Resolution 1640 and stated that the Council shall adjust the mandate and troop 

level of UNMEE by the end of May 2006. The resolution also requested the 

Secretary-General to report any further recommendations on adjusting 

UNMEE to focus on support for demarcation. On May 31, the Council 

adopted Resolution 1681 to extend the existing mandate of UNMEE until 

September 30, 2006, and to decrease the force ceiling to 2,300 uniformed 

personnel, including 230 military observers. On May 17, a meeting of the 

EEBC, which included representatives of Eritrea, Ethiopia, the United 

Nations, and the Witnesses took place in London. 

For several months, Eritrean authorities had repeatedly detained and 

released members of UNMEE's national staff. As of the end of June, 10 

UNMEE Eritrean national employees remained in Eritrean custody. 

Moreover, Eritrea committed several violations of the agreed arrangements for 

the Temporary Security Zone (TSZ). On June 26, UNMEE officials 

met with a visiting U.S. delegation. 

In October, Eritrean Defense Forces (EDF) initiated battalion-size 

movement into the TSZ. On October 17, the DPKO deputy briefed the 

Council on the incursion. On October 21, an UNMEE soldier from Jordan 

shot and killed an Eritrean intruder in an UNMEE camp. 

On November 11, Eritrea informed Ennifar that the government no 

longer recognized him and asked that he leave the country. The Eritreans 

stated that the official reason for his expulsion was that he had not been 

confirmed as the SRSG, and was therefore not an authorized member of 

UNMEE. On November 20, the EEBC convoked a formal session at The 

Hague with the intention of announcing a demarcation decision in 

which the Ethiopia-Eritrea border would be demarcated by geographical 

coordinates rather than the placement of pillars on the ground. The United 

States, the EU, Algeria, and the United Nations sent representatives to The 

Hague; however, the governments of both Ethiopia and Eritrea boycotted the 

meeting, both parties having rejected the EEBC's intended approach. On 

November 22, the DPKO provided official notification that several Western 

nations would cut their troop contributions to UNMEE between 30 and 

50 percent starting in January 2007. 
Political and Security Affairs 

29 

Secretary-General Annan proposed reducing UNMEE force levels 

due to the stalemated border demarcation process in a draft report on the 

border situation on December 27. The four options contained in the draft 

SRSG's report ranged from reducing UNMEE personnel to 1,700 from its 

current level of 2,300 to converting the operation into a liaison office. As of 

December 31, 2006, UNMEE had 2,285 troops and military observers. 

Guinea-Bissau 

In 2006, the United States supported efforts of the UN’s 

Peacebuilding Support Office in Guinea-Bissau (UNOGBIS) to restore 

constitutional rule in Guinea-Bissau in the aftermath of the coup d’état staged 

by the military on September 14, 2003. Throughout the year, the situation in 

the country was strained, difficult and complex. President Vieira struggled to 

maintain control over the National Assembly and the general operations of the 

government. 

UNOGBIS assists in managing the political transition and in building 

trust among national stakeholders and international partners in the posttransition 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 tense. In 

December 2006, the UN Security Council renewed the mandate of UNOGBIS 

for an additional 12 months. 

Liberia 

The United Nations Mission in Liberia (UNMIL) was established by 

Security Council Resolution 1509 (2003) to support the implementation of the 

cease-fire agreement and peace process in Liberia. 

Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf was inaugurated as President of Liberia on 

January 16, making her the first woman to be elected president of a country in 

Africa. First Lady Laura Bush led the U.S. delegation, which also included 

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. President Johnson-Sirleaf moved 

rapidly after taking office to make ministerial and other key 

government appointments. In late January she asked for the 

resignations of all political appointments of the Transitional 

Government. 

In January recruiting began for the U.S.-funded Security Sector 

Reform program to assist Liberia in building a new, democratically oriented, 

representative, and capable armed forces appropriate in scale to Liberia's 

needs; the program was expected to train approximately 2,000 troops by the 

end of 2008. 

Security Council Resolution 1657 (February 6) authorized the 

temporary transfer of an infantry company from UNMIL to the UN Operation 

in Cote d'Ivoire (UNOCI), as a precaution in the event of disturbances in 

response to Security Council sanctions targeted against individuals in Cote 

d'Ivoire. A mechanized infantry company of 200 soldiers, drawn from the 

Nigerian battalion assigned to Monrovia, was sent to Abidjan, Cote d'Ivoire, 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2006 

30 

on February 15. Resolution 1657 authorized the transfer until March 31, with 

a review after 30 days in the context of the security situation in both Liberia 

and Cote d'Ivoire. The general authority to transfer personnel and other assets 

between the two missions in Liberia and Cote d'Ivoire was conferred by UN 

Security Council Resolution (UNSCR) 1609 in June 2005. 

On February 2, President Johnson-Sirleaf signed an executive order 

implementing recommendations of the Forest Concession Review Committee 

and canceled all existing forest concessions. The order also established the 

Forestry Reform Monitoring Committee, composed of representatives of the 

Liberian government, international partners, Liberian civil society and 

international civil society, to guide all future reforms at the Forestry 

Development Authority (FDA). The decree mandated a number of 

critical reforms in areas such as contractual requirements, and was an 

important step toward eventual lifting of UN timber sanctions. 

Security Council Resolution 1667 of March 31 extended UNMIL’s 

mandate until September 30. The resolution rolled over UNMIL’s temporary 

troop increase (approved in 2005) of 15,250 for an additional six months. The 

Security Council also decided not to renew the temporary transfer of Nigerian 

troops from UNMIL to UNOCI. 

Former President Charles Taylor was detained attempting to cross the 

Nigeria/Cameroon border. On March 29 the Nigerian government transferred 

Taylor to Liberia, whence UNMIL escorted him to Sierra Leone under guard 

in an UNMIL helicopter. 

In late April, President Johnson-Sirleaf inaugurated the George W. 

Bush Bridge in Barclayville, linking southeast Liberia with the rest of the 

country. The bridge was funded by AID, providing work for a core team of 

100 Liberians for a year, as well as temporary work for hundreds of other 

Liberians, including ex-combatants and war-injured civilians. UN offices, 

including UNMIL, helped prepare the terrain and provided critical logistical 

and oversight during the construction. 

In early May the non-governmental group Save the Children-UK 

issued a report alleging continuing sexual exploitation of vulnerable women 

and children in Liberia. The report was based on interviews with several 

hundred children and adults in 2005, when the camps serving internally 

displaced persons in Liberia were still open. The allegations were aimed at 

local and international employees of NGOs, as well as civilian UN staff and 

UN peacekeepers. Following earlier allegations, the UN Department of 

Peacekeeping Operations instituted training for peacekeepers and set up a 

well-publicized program for the public to report allegations of abuse. 

Security Council Resolution 1683 of June 13 approved a waiver of 

the arms embargo in order to import weapons and ammunition for training the 

President's security detail, as well as for vetted and trained members of the 

police and armed forces. Following several incidents in July and August 

involving armed clashes between members of the Special Security Service 

(SSS), guards to the Liberian president, UNMIL posted military units near the 
Political and Security Affairs 

31 

residences of the Director and Deputy Director of the SSS. The weapons 

involved were privately owned, in violation of public arms control policy as 

well as of SSS guidelines. These incidents followed a July 26 fire at the 

presidential mansion. Following an investigation by three different groups of 

experts – from South Africa, UNMIL and the Special Court in Sierra Leone -- 

the Liberian Government announced that the fire was caused by faulty wiring, 

not arson as originally suspected. 

On September 29, the Security Council adopted U.S.-drafted 

Resolution 1712, which extended UNMIL's mandate for another six months, 

until March 31, 2007. The Secretary-General's report of September 12 

reiterated the recommendations made in June for a gradual military drawdown 

as security conditions permit, with increasing emphasis placed on police work. 

The plan called for the departure of a battalion by the end of 2006, with 

another battalion leaving in the first part of 2007 if the security situation 

permitted. 

On December 20, 2006 the Security Council adopted 

Resolution 1731, extending embargoes on arms and diamonds, as well as the 

travel ban on individuals. The resolution amended the arms embargo to make 

it easier for the Government of Liberia to procure non-lethal military 

equipment. The resolution extended the mandate of the panel of experts for 

an additional six months. The diamond ban was extended for six 

months with a review at four months; the arms embargo and travel 

ban were extended for 12 months. 

As of December 31, 2006, UNMIL had 14,898 troops and military 

observers. 

Sierra Leone 

 Despite the end of its 11-year civil war in 2002, Sierra Leone remains 

a fragile state. The United Nations Mission in Sierra Leone (UNAMSIL), 

originally established in 1999, completed its mandate in December 2005. 

UNAMSIL was succeeded by the United Nations Integrated Office in Sierra 

Leone (UNIOSIL), established on January 1, 2006, in accordance with 

Security Council Resolution 1620 (2005) to help consolidate peace in the 

country, enhance development, ensure human rights, and build capacity to 

hold free and fair elections in 2007. 

 In his November 28, 2006, report, the Secretary-General noted Sierra 

Leone’s progress in its peacebuilding efforts and its remaining challenges. To 

address these challenges, he recommended an increase in the strength of the 

UNIOSIL Military Liaison Team and the UNIOSIL Police Section to ensure 

effective support for Sierra Leone’s security sector in carrying out its electionrelated responsibilities. UNIOSIL effectively supported the Government of 

Sierra Leone’s peace consolidation efforts, which included focusing on gender 

equality, democracy, and implementation of the recommendations of the 

Sierra Leone Truth and Reconciliation Commission. On December 22, the 

United States joined other Council members in the unanimous adoption of 

Resolution 1734, which extended the mandate of UNIOSIL until December 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2006 

32 

31, 2007, endorsed the Secretary-General’s proposed increase in UNIOSIL 

personnel for election-related purposes, and called on all parties in Sierra 

Leone to ensure that the 2007 presidential and parliamentary elections were 

peaceful, transparent, free and fair. 

 Throughout 2006, the Security Council continued to support the 

Sierra Leone Special Court. On March 25, following the installation of an 

elected Liberian government under President Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf, Nigerian 

President Olusegun Obasanjo permitted the transfer of former Liberian 

President Charles Taylor, who had been living in exile in Nigeria, to Sierra 

Leone for prosecution. Taylor was transferred to Sierra Leone under UN 

guard on March 29. On June 16, the Security Council adopted Resolution 

1688, providing for Taylor’s transfer to The Netherlands and for the Special 

Court to detain and try him there consistent with the terms of an agreement 

between the Special Court and the Government of the Netherlands and the 

provisions of the resolution. 

Somalia 

 Throughout 2006, the Security Council repeatedly expressed its 

support for the political framework outlined by the Somalia Transitional 

Federal Charter and for the Transitional Federal Government (TFG), the 

components of which are known as the Transitional Federal Institutions 

(TFIs). The Council also repeatedly expressed its growing concern regarding 

violence in Mogadishu and the military expansion of the Council of Islamic 

Courts (CIC) throughout southern and central Somalia, and actively urged 

parties to seek a peaceful, negotiated solution through political dialogue. On 

May 6, Secretary-General Annan extended for one year the mandate of his 

Special Representative for Somalia, Francois Lonseny Fall (Guinea), who was 

originally appointed on May 3, 2005. In June, the United States and Norway 

formed the International Contact Group (ICG) on Somalia to serve as a forum 

for international coordination and to help to guide the international 

community’s efforts in seeking a lasting solution in the country. In addition to 

the United States and Norway, the membership of the ICG included Italy, 

Kenya, Sweden, Tanzania, the United Kingdom, the African Union (AU), the 

Arab League, the European Union and European Commission, and the United 

Nations. 

 The United States joined consensus on a March 15, 2006, Security 

Council Presidential Statement that reaffirmed the Council’s commitment to a 

comprehensive and lasting settlement of the situation in Somalia and its 

respect for the sovereignty, territorial integrity, political independence and 

unity of Somalia. The statement commended the efforts of the TFG President 

and the former Speaker of Parliament toward reconciliation and dialogue, 

particularly the signing, with the facilitation of the Government of Yemen, of 

the Aden Declaration on January 5, 2006, which culminated in the convening 

of the First Session of the Transitional Federal Parliament (TFP) in Baidoa, 

Somalia, on February 26, 2006. It also welcomed the AU Summit decision of 

January 25, 2006, on Somalia, including the possible deployment of a regional 
Political and Security Affairs 

33 

Peace Support Mission to Somalia (IGASOM), to be followed by an AU Peace 

Support Mission. The statement also took note of the increasing incidents of 

piracy and armed robbery against ships in the waters off the coast of Somalia 

and urged active prosecution of piracy offenses. 

 The arms embargo imposed on Somalia in Security Council 

Resolution 733 (1992) remained in place. Concerned about the increase in 

violations of this arms embargo, the United States supported adoption of 

Resolution 1676 on May 10, which re-established for six months a Monitoring 

Group, originally established by Resolution 1519 (2003), to continue 

monitoring implementation and violations of the arms embargo on Somalia. 

In its May 2006 report, the Monitoring Group noted a significant increase in 

the flow of weapons and ammunition to and through Somalia that violated the 

arms embargo and posed a serious threat to Somalia’s peace process. In a 

Presidential Statement adopted on July 13, the Security Council expressed its 

readiness to consider a limited modification of the arms embargo to enable the 

TFIs, on the basis of a sustainable peace process, to develop Somalia’s 

security sector and national institutions capable of responding to security 

issues. 

 In its November 2006 report, the Monitoring Group noted that arms 

continued to flow into Somalia, particularly to the two principal groups 

contending for power in central and southern Somalia: the TFG and the CIC. 

The report cited aircraft and ocean-going vessels that were clandestinely 

delivering arms and other military support from neighboring states to the TFG 

and the CIC for a military build-up on each side. In Resolution 1724, adopted 

on November 29, the Council further extended the mandate of the Monitoring 

Group for six months. 

 In his October report, the Secretary-General noted that the situation in 

Somalia had not improved and continued to be a threat to international peace 

and security. The United States co-sponsored Resolution 1725, adopted on 

December 6, which reiterated that the Transitional Federal Charter and 

Institutions offered the only route to achieving peace and stability in Somalia. 

Resolution 1725 emphasized the need for continued credible dialogue between 

the TFIs and the CIC and urged them to resume peace talks and adhere to 

agreements reached in their dialogue. The Council further stated its intention 

to consider taking measures against those who sought to prevent or block a 

peaceful dialogue, overthrow the TFIs by force, or take action that further 

threatened regional stability. Acting under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, the 

Council authorized the Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD) 

and member states of the AU to establish a protection-and-training mission in 

Somalia to protect members of the TFI and those involved in the political 

dialogue, to maintain security in Baidoa, and to train TFI security forces. 

 In voting to adopt Resolution 1725, the United States expressed its 

concern about the deteriorating security situation in Somalia and the prospects 

for a wider regional conflict. The United States condemned the military 

expansion by the CIC and its efforts to destabilize the Horn of Africa further 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2006 

34 

through irredentist claims on the Somali-populated regions of neighboring 

states and support for insurgent groups in Ethiopia. The United States 

expressed support for the deployment of a regional force to Somalia as a 

critical element to help to resume credible dialogue between the TFIs and CIC 

and to help to create the conditions for Ethiopian and Eritrean disengagement 

from Somalia. The United States also reiterated its commitment to working 

with international partners in the International Contact Group to encourage 

dialogue among Somali parties. The United States welcomed efforts to 

strengthen and improve the effectiveness of the UN arms embargo on Somalia. 

 During the year, the humanitarian assistance community had only 

intermittent access to vulnerable communities, particularly in the south and 

central parts of the country, as a result of security concerns. 

Sudan 

The United States joined other UN Security Council members in 

welcoming the Darfur Peace Agreement (DPA) signed May 5 in Abuja by the 

Government of Sudan and the Sudan Liberation Movement/Army led by 

Minni Minawi (SLM/MM) that ended the Darfur conflict. The DPA 

established security-, wealth-, and power-sharing arrangements and required 

the Government of Sudan to complete verifiable disarmament and 

demobilization of Janjaweed militia. Rebel armed forces were to be 

integrated into the Sudanese Armed Forces and police; other rebels 

were to be supported through education and training programs to 

assist in the civilian reconstruction and development in Darfur. 

On May 16, the UN Security Council unanimously adopted 

Resolution 1679, which called on the African Union (AU), the United Nations, 

member states, and regional and international organizations to strengthen the 

African Union Mission in Sudan’s (AMIS's) capacity to enforce the security 

arrangements of the DPA, with a view to a follow-on UN mission. This 

resolution endorsed the May 15 decision of the African Union Peace and 

Security Council that concrete steps be taken to effect the transition of 

AMIS to a UN operation. The resolution requested the Secretary-General to 

submit, within a week of the conclusion of an assessment mission, 

recommendations on the UN operation in Darfur. 

An AU/UN joint assessment team, led by UN Under SecretaryGeneral Jean-Marie Guehenno and AU Peace and Security Commissioner 

Ambassador Said Djinnit, met in Addis Ababa June 5 to begin work to 

strengthen AMIS and prepare for transition to a UN operation. A Security 

Council Mission, led by Ambassador Emyr Jones Perry (UK), met senior 

southern Sudan officials, including First Vice President and 

Government of Southern Sudan President Salva Kiir, on June 8 in Juba, 

to discuss implementation of the CPA. The Secretary-General's report 

of July 28, 2006, outlined steps for the transition of AMIS into UNMIS. 

On August 30, the UN Security Council adopted Resolution 1706, 

which authorized the transition of AMIS to UNMIS. It authorized up to 

17,300 soldiers and 3,300 police officers plus 16 formed police units and 
Political and Security Affairs 

35 

included a Chapter VII mandate to authorize the use of force to protect 

civilians. It requested that the Secretary-General take the necessary 

steps to strengthen AMIS through UN resources with a view to transition to a 

UN operation in Darfur. The resolution passed with 12 positive votes and 

abstentions by China, Russia, and Qatar.

Despite the passage of Resolution 1706, President Bashir refused to 

acquiesce to UN deployment in Darfur. Now Senior Assistant to the 

President Minni Minawi said he would accept a UN operation in Darfur. 

In addition, senior SPLM officials confirmed that the SPLM supported a 

transition to a UN operation in Darfur. UNMIS SRSG Pronk addressed the 

Security Council, calling for a boost to AMIS forces in Darfur and 

outlining a five-point plan for reviving the DPA. Pronk was expelled in 

October from Sudan by the Government of Sudan for allegedly making 

inflammatory remarks on the situation in Darfur. 

On November 16, U.S. Special Envoy Natsios attended the High 

Level Consultation on Darfur under the leadership of the United Nations and 

AU in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. The group, which also included Sudan and 

other African states, agreed on a consensus framework that called for a ceasefire, a re-energized peace process to get non-signatories to agree to the DPA, 

and a UN-controlled AU-UN hybrid force. On November 30, the African 

Union Peace and Security Council endorsed this three-phase plan. At the 

request of President Bashir, the Security Council also endorsed it in a 

Presidential Statement on December 19. 

During this period, the violence in Darfur increasingly affected the 

border areas of Chad and the Central African Republic (CAR). Pursuant to 

Paragraphs 9(d) and 13 of UNSCR 1706, the Secretary-General 

dispatched a multidisciplinary technical assessment mission to Chad and the 

CAR. The mission was curtailed due to security concerns, but was dispatched 

again in January, when it recommended options for a robust UN peacekeeping 

force in Chad and the CAR. Senior U.S. officials had agreed to support 

such a deployment, with the authority to use force to protect civilians, in 

November. 

As of December 31, 2006, UNMIS in southern Sudan had 10,006 

troops and military observers. The force increasingly played a proactive 

arbitration and humanitarian role in resolving clashes in the Malakal region 

and elsewhere. In November, heavy fighting between elements of the 

Sudanese Armed Forces and the Sudan People’s Liberation Army killed at 

least 150 people, including civilians, in Malakal. The UNMIS-chaired 

Ceasefire Joint Military Committee played a key role in bringing the fighting 

to a halt, and the parties withdrew to their pre-conflict positions. Joint patrols, 

including UNMIS observers, monitored a buffer zone.

In addition to protection of civilians, UNMIS military personnel 

supported local communities, including the building of a medical clinic and 

constructing roads. These efforts helped support the return of refugees. 

UNMIS also engaged in human rights monitoring, rule of law, gender issues, 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2006 

36 

mine action, elections preparation, economic recovery, and HIV/AIDS 

education and testing activities. It also worked with politicians and local 

communities to promote the Comprehensive Peace Agreement and the 

Southern Sudan Interim Constitution, and provided aviation support for peace 

efforts regarding Abyei and the negotiations between the Government of 

Uganda and the Lord’s Resistance Army. 

Western Sahara

 The United Nations Mission for the Referendum in the Western 

Sahara (MINURSO) was established by Security Council Resolution 690 

(1991) to assist in the implementation of the settlement proposals accepted on 

August 30, 1988, by Morocco and the Frente Popular para la Liberacion de 

Saguia el-Hamra y Rio de Oro (POLISARIO Front), supported by Algeria. 

The Security Council has regularly renewed MINURSO’s mandate in sixmonth intervals, including most recently in UNSCR 1720 of October 2006. In 

October, prior to the latest MINURSO renewal, the Secretary-General’s report 

called on the two parties to enter into negotiations without preconditions with 

a view to achieving a just, lasting and mutually acceptable political solution 

that will provide for the self-determination of the people of Western Sahara. 

During the course of the past year, MINURSO supported the Office of the 

High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) program of Confidence Building 

Measures (CBM). The CBM flights bring families together from the refugee 

camps in Tindouf, Algeria, and the Moroccan-controlled part of Western 

Sahara. Some of these families have not seen each other for almost 30 years. 

As of December 31, 2006, MINURSO had 218 troops and military observers 

from 25 countries. 

East Asia and the Pacific 

Burma 

 Razali Ismail (Malaysia), the Special Envoy of the Secretary-General 

for Myanmar (Burma), resigned in January 2006. Razali was appointed 

Special Envoy in April 2000, but had been unable to gain entry to Burma to 

carry out his duties since March 2004. The Secretary-General created the 

Office of the Special Envoy in 1993. UNGA Resolution 54/186 of April 29, 

2000, established the Special Envoy’s mandate 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 his (the SecretaryGeneral’s) discussions on the situation of human rights and the restoration of 

democracy with the Government of Myanmar, [and] to submit additional 

reports to the General Assembly....” As of December 31, 2006, the SecretaryGeneral had not appointed a successor to Razali. 

 Throughout 2006, the United States actively sought action on Burma 

in UN agencies. Under Secretary-General Ibrahim Gambari visited Burma in 

May and November 2006, and after his trips briefed the Security Council on 
Political and Security Affairs 

37 

the situation there. In September, the United States proposed that the Council 

hold a formal meeting on Burma. A vote to put Burma on the Council’s 

agenda was held on September 15, and resulted in a 10-4-1 vote in favor (with 

China, Russia, Qatar, and Congo opposing and Tanzania abstaining). As a 

result, a formal meeting of the Security Council was held on September 29. In 

December, the United States and United Kingdom introduced a Security 

Council resolution supporting the Secretary-General’s good offices mission 

and calling on the Burmese regime to implement democratic reforms. 

Discussions on the draft resolution were continuing at the year’s end. 

East Timor 

 In August, the Security Council adopted Resolution 1704 to establish 

UN Integrated Mission in Timor-Leste (UNMIT) with a six-month mandate to 

expire February 2007. This mission replaced the special United Nations 

Office in Timor-Leste (UNOTIL), created in 2005 with a one-year mandate. 

UNOTIL in turn had replaced the United Nations Mission of Support in East 

Timor (UNMISET), established in 2002. 

 UNMIT was charged with consolidating stability, ensuring public 

security while Timorese institutions are rebuilt, helping the Government of 

East Timor (GOET) administer presidential and parliamentary elections in 

2007, enhancing a culture of democratic governance, and facilitating political 

dialogue in an effort to foster national reconciliation and social cohesion. 

 In 2006, instability continued to threaten democratic institutions in 

this new state. In October, a significant increase in communal conflict 

occurred in Dili that resulted in two confirmed deaths and other casualties. 

Extensive UN police and Australian military operations were launched in 

response to the disturbances. 

 Violent clashes in April and May resulted in the collapse of the police 

force and resignation of Prime Minister Mari Alkatiri. These clashes 

highlighted the still-fragile security and political situation. 

 In May, at the request of the Government of East Timor, Australia led 

a multinational force to help to restore order after civil unrest. Approximately 

1,000 Australian troops remain in East Timor. This international security 

force led by Australia deployed to provide military back-up necessary to 

ensure safety, security and freedom of movement in East Timor. The 

Government of East Timor stated publicly that continuation of the Australianled international security force as currently constituted best suits conditions 

there. 

 In December, UNMIT signed an agreement with the GOET that gives 

the UN mission prime responsibility for police operations throughout the 

country. The agreement set out the operational arrangements and command 

and control procedures under which the UN Police contingent discharged its 

tasks as an interim law enforcement body for Timor-Leste. 

 On December 17, veteran Indian diplomat Dr. Atul Khare began his 

new job in Dili as Special Representative of the UN Secretary-General. He 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2006 

38 

said that reforming Timor-Leste’s security sector remained the main priority of 

the UN mission. The second challenge is the provision of assistance to the 

GOET to ensure that 2007 elections are independent, fair and free. 

 Timor-Leste continued to need international assistance in key areas of 

governance and institution building. The fledgling Timorese police, which 

had to be completely rebuilt, and judiciary will require continued international 

training and monitoring -- with the presence of international judges and 

prosecutors and UN executive authority over policing -- until such time as the 

Timorese are clearly capable of assuming these roles. 

 As of December 31, 2006, UNMIT had 1,131 police and 

military observers. 

Nepal 

 On December 1, 2006, the United States and other Security Council 

members supported a Statement by the President of the Council welcoming the 

Comprehensive Peace Agreement signed on November 21 by the Government 

of Nepal and the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist), and the parties’ stated 

commitment to achieving a permanent peace. The Presidential Statement also 

noted that the parties had requested UN assistance in implementing key 

elements of the Peace Agreement, including election observation and 

monitoring of human rights, cantonment of arms and combatants, and the 

parties’ agreed cease-fire code of conduct. The Council agreed that the United 

Nations should respond quickly and positively to the Nepalese requests, and 

welcomed the Secretary-General’s intention to send a technical assessment 

mission to Nepal to develop proposals for a UN political mission, as well as to 

dispatch an advance team of UN monitoring and electoral assistance 

personnel. The United States welcomed the Agreement as a positive sign and 

supported the Secretary-General's technical assessment mission as a way to 

bolster that Agreement. The United States anticipated that the UN political 

mission in Nepal would be established in early 2007. 

 The Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights 

(OHCHR) continued to operate in Nepal in 2006 under a mandate set out in 

the April 2005 Agreement between the United Nations and the Government of 

the Kingdom of Nepal. This mandate included monitoring human rights and 

international humanitarian law throughout the country and advising the 

authorities of Nepal on the formulation and implementation of policies, 

programs and measures for the promotion and protection of human rights in 

Nepal. Ian Martin (UK) served as OHCHR Representative in 2006. 

North Korea 

 On July 15, 2006, in response to the multiple ballistic missile 

launches by the Democratic Republic of Korea (DPRK) that took place on July 

5, 2006, the Security Council unanimously adopted Resolution 1695, 

introduced by Japan. The United States fully supported firm and clear action 

by the Security Council against the DPRK’s missile launches. 
Political and Security Affairs 

39 

 Resolution 1695 demanded that the DPRK suspend all activities 

related to its ballistic missile program, required all member states to “exercise 

vigilance” and prevent the procurement of missiles and missile-related items 

by the DPRK, and strongly urged the DPRK to return immediately to the SixParty Talks without precondition to work toward the expeditious 

implementation of the September 19, 2005, Joint Statement, and to return at an 

early date to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and 

International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards. The resolution made clear 

that the actions of the DPRK jeopardized the peace and security of the region. 

Resolution 1695 was the first UNSC resolution on North Korea since 1993, 

reflecting the gravity of this situation and the unity and determination of the 

Council. 

 On October 14, in response to North Korea’s October 9 nuclear test, 

the Security Council, acting under Chapter VII authority, unanimously 

adopted Resolution 1718. The United States welcomed the unanimity of this 

resolution, which sent a strong and clear message to North Korea and other 

would-be proliferators that there would be serious repercussions in continuing 

to pursue weapons of mass destruction (WMD). The United States 

characterized the proclaimed test of a nuclear device by the DPRK as one of 

the gravest threats to international peace and security that the Security Council 

had had to confront. 

 Resolution 1718 required all UN member states to prevent the 

transfer to the DPRK of a broad range of items, including certain conventional 

arms, items determined by the 1718 Sanctions Committee established pursuant 

either to the resolution or to the Security Council as being related to WMD and 

missiles, and luxury goods. The resolution also prohibited North Korea from 

exporting weapons-related items designated by the Sanctions Committee or 

the Security Council. Resolution 1718 required member states to freeze assets 

owned or controlled, directly or indirectly, by individuals or entities 

designated by the Sanctions Committee or the Security Council as being 

engaged in or providing support for North Korea’s WMD or ballistic missile 

programs. The resolution also required member states to take steps to prevent 

the entry into, or transit through, their territories of individuals so designated. 

The 1718 Sanctions Committee agreed on lists of WMD- and missile-related 

items banned from transfer to and from the DPRK in accordance with the 

provisions of the resolution. However, by the end of 2006, the Committee had 

not yet adopted guidelines for its operation, or designated entities or 

individuals as subject to the travel ban or asset freeze as called for in the 

resolution. The United States and a number of other UN Member states took 

steps to implement national measures pursuant to the requirements of 

Resolution 1718. 

 The Security Council did not establish a Panel of Experts to work 

with the 1718 Sanctions Committee, as it often does for sanctions committees. 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2006 

40 

Europe and Eurasia 

Bosnia and Herzegovina 

 The UN Mission in Bosnia and Herzegovina closed on December 31, 

2002, but in 2006 the United Nations continued to endorse the ongoing 

operations of NATO and the European Union (EU) in support of the 1995 

Dayton Peace Agreement. On November 21, 2006, the Security Council 

unanimously adopted Resolution 1722 authorizing the continuation for 12 

months of the EU-led multinational stabilization force (EUFOR) in 

cooperation with NATO. Resolution 1722 also emphasized the role of the 

High Representative in monitoring the implementation of the Dayton Peace 

Agreement. 

Cyprus 

 Since the de facto division of Cyprus in 1974 as a result of the 

Turkish military intervention that followed a coup d’etat directed by Greece, 

the UN Peacekeeping Force in Cyprus (UNFICYP) has served as a buffer 

force between Turkish and Turkish Cypriot forces on one side, and Greek 

Cypriot National Guard and Greek (Hellenic Republic) forces on the other. 

The first UN-sponsored negotiations to develop institutional arrangements 

acceptable to both communities began in 1968; several sets of negotiations and 

other initiatives followed. 

 Turkish Cypriots focus on “bizonality,” security guarantees, and 

political equality between the two communities. Greek Cypriots emphasize 

the rights of movement, property, settlement, and the return of territory. 

Turkish Cypriots favor a loose grouping of two nearly autonomous societies 

living side by side, while Greek Cypriots envision a more integrated structure. 

Both communities, however, have committed themselves to pursuing a 

bizonal, bicommunal federation. 

 The United States continued to support the role of the UN SecretaryGeneral and the efforts of his Special Representative in seeking a solution to 

the conflict. Michael Moller (Denmark) was appointed Special Representative 

on January 1, 2006. 

 On July 8, 2006, UN Under Secretary-General Gambari coordinated 

the first meeting between the Turkish Cypriot leader and the President of the 

Republic of Cyprus in two years, resulting in a statement of principles to 

convoke technical committees and expert working groups to discuss day-today and substantive issues, respectively. With sufficient progress, the two 

communities would then take up a negotiation process under a UN “good 

offices” mission. 

 In November 2006, Under Secretary-General Gambari addressed a 

letter to Greek and Turkish Cypriots, proposing a process to move forward 

with the July 8 agreement and to prepare the ground for full-fledged 

negotiations aimed at a comprehensive settlement. Both community leaders 

responded positively to the letter. However, although negotiators for both 
Political and Security Affairs 

41 

communities met regularly with SRSG Moller to begin implementing the 

agreement, obstacles remain and the technical committees and working groups 

had not met by year-end. 

 On November 22, the last two mines in the Nicosia airport UN buffer 

zone were detonated during a special ceremony, signaling a historic milestone 

in the UN de-mining program that had begun in 2005. De-mining in Cyprus 

will continue for at least two more years. 

 In his December 2006 report, Secretary-General Annan expressed 

frustration with the lack of a resolution to the situation in Cyprus. The 

Secretary-General concluded that in the absence of a comprehensive 

settlement, UNFICYP’s presence remained necessary to maintain the ceasefire. His report indicated existing force levels would be required for the 

foreseeable future. 

 On December 15, the Security Council unanimously adopted 

Resolution 1723 to extend the UNFICYP mandate for an additional six 

months. The resolution welcomed the signing by both parties of the July 8 

agreement meant to spur a preparatory phase for the resumption of settlement 

talks. The Council expressed full support for the steps outlined by Under 

Secretary-General Gambari to begin to implement the agreement, and called 

for early completion of the preparatory phase so a full-fledged “good offices” 

process could resume.

Georgia 

 Established on August 24, 1993, by UN Security Council Resolution 

858, the United Nations Observer Mission in Georgia (UNOMIG) monitors 

compliance with a cease-fire agreement reached between the Georgian 

government and Abkhaz separatists. On July 21, 1994, UNSCR 937 increased 

the authorized number of military observers in UNOMIG (all unarmed) from 

55 to 136. 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. 

 On January 31, 2006, the United Nations Security Council 

unanimously approved UNSCR 1656, which extended the mandate until 

March 31, 2006. The UNSC approved this “technical rollover” of the mandate 

as they could not reach consensus on the political text because of changes in 

national positions just prior to the end of the mandate. On March 31, 2006, the 

UNSCR renewed the UNOMIG mandate for a full six months. The new 

resolution was a leaner version of previous resolutions that reaffirmed member 

states’ commitment to the sovereignty, independence, and territorial integrity 

of Georgia, and supported efforts to settle the conflict peacefully within the 

framework of previous UNSC resolutions. 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2006 

42 

 Mr. Jean Arnault of France was appointed as the Special 

Representative of the Secretary-General (SRSG) for UNOMIG in July 2006. 

Mr. Arnault, an experienced diplomat with extensive experience in United 

Nations peacekeeping operations, most recently headed the UN Mission in 

Afghanistan. 

 On October 13, 2006, the UNOMIG mandate was renewed for six 

months by UNSCR 1716. Negotiations leading up to the final agreement were 

very contentious because of contrary viewpoints among key UNSC members 

on a July operation conducted by the Republic of Georgia to re-establish law 

and order in the Upper Kodori valley. 

As of December 31, 2006, UNOMIG had 139 military observers and 

police. 

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 (KFOR) and an 

international civilian presence to establish an interim governing authority and 

meaningful self-government in Kosovo until resolution of its future status. 

 The resolution mandated the United Nations Interim Administration 

Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK) to provide civilian administration of Kosovo; 

develop provisional institutions for a democratic and autonomous selfgovernment, facilitate a process to determine Kosovo’s future status; support 

economic reconstruction, humanitarian and disaster relief; maintain law and 

order, protect and promote human rights; and support refugee/internally 

displaced person returns. 

 UNMIK is a collaborative effort of the international community and 

includes organizations such as the Organization for Security and Cooperation 

in Europe (OSCE) and the European Union (EU). In 2003, the UN SecretaryGeneral’s Special Representative in Kosovo announced Standards for Kosovo, 

including the creation of 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. 

 Progress on Standards implementation was encouraging throughout 

2006, particularly on the 13 Priority Standards outlined by the Contact Group 

in June. The Standards program continued to strengthen the Kosovo 

institutions, but its impact on the Kosovo Serbs was limited by their own 

reluctance, largely at Belgrade’s behest, to cooperate with the Pristina 

authorities. 

 As the year ended, UN Special Envoy Martti Ahtisaari reached the 

final stages of the Kosovo future status process. In November, Ahtisaari said 

he would postpone making recommendations on the future status until after 

Serbian elections in January 2007. 
Political and Security Affairs 

43 

 At year’s end, it was expected that a 120-day transition from UNMIK 

to a new International Civilian Office would occur after a settlement. The ICO 

would oversee implementation of a settlement, and NATO would remain to 

provide a safe and secure environment. 

 As of December 31, 2006, UNMIK had 37 military observers and 

1,960 United Nations Police (UNPOL) from 13 nations.

Western Hemisphere 

Haiti 

 The UN Stabilization Mission in Haiti (MINUSTAH) made 

significant progress in setting security conditions and promoting the political 

process leading to presidential and legislative elections in early 2006. 

MINUSTAH assisted Haitian authorities in organizing and conducting 

presidential, parliamentary and local elections; helping to develop a police 

reform plan; conducting joint anti-crime operations; supporting the extension 

of state authority; and aiding the fight against poverty through quick-impact 

projects and other activities. 

 The Security Council issued four Presidential Statements in 2006. 

One of the most remarkable was issued on February 9, commending Haiti for 

holding the first round of national elections on February 7, and congratulating 

them on taking this fundamental step towards the restoration of democracy and 

stability in their country. The Council also called on all parties to respect the 

outcome of the elections; to remain engaged in the political process; and to 

renounce all forms of violence. 

 On February 7, the presidential and initial round of parliamentary 

elections were held, marking the first nationwide voting since an insurgency 

forced former President Jean-Bertrand Aristide into exile two years before. 

The United Nations worked alongside the Haitian electoral officials to 

organize and conduct the elections. The mission's 6,500-plus troops and 1,895 

UN police officers provided security and logistical support throughout the 

country, including distributing election materials to some 9,200 polling 

stations. MINUSTAH’s military and police components coordinated closely 

with the Haitian National Police (HNP). The poll locations were free from 

violence and had a higher electoral turnout than anyone had predicted (51 

percent). The election was hailed as a significant step forward for Haiti. René 

Préval was declared the elected President by Haitian authorities later that 

month by Parliament. 

 The United Nations Security Council (UNSC) passed two unanimous 

Mandate renewals in 2006. On February 14, the Security Council 

unanimously voted on UNSC Resolution 1658 extending MINUSTAH’s 

mandate for six months. Again on August 15, the UNSC adopted Resolution 

1702 for six more months to February 2007. 

 MINUSTAH provided full logistical, technical and security support 

for the second round of parliamentary elections held April 24. These led to the 

establishment of a broad-based Parliament and the formation of a multi-party 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2006 

44 

government, following extensive consultations. On December 3, the electoral 

cycle was completed with the holding of local and municipal elections and a 

number of legislative run-offs. 

 The successful cycle of elections not only anchored the transition to 

democracy and aided Haiti internally, but also boosted the country’s 

international standing; the Caribbean Community (CARICOM), the regional 

body which had suspended Haiti following President Aristides’s ouster, 

readmitted it as a full member in 2006. 

 Security remained a crucial issue for Haiti, where kidnappings are 

relatively commonplace and other forms of criminality flourish. A significant 

step toward reforming and strengthening Haiti’s security structure was taken 

when the government signed the Haitian National Police Reform Plan on 

August 8. This plan followed an extended review and consultation between 

Haitian police and political officials with support from the United Nations, and 

laid out a clear and comprehensive outline for the development of a basic 

policing capacity within Haiti, drawing on experience in the country and 

internationally. 

 Haitian and MINUSTAH officials also agreed in late August to an 

enhanced security plan for the least secure areas of Port-au-Prince. A series of 

joint Haitian police and UN checkpoints were set up, several MINUSTAH 

platoons redeployed from the outlying regions to the volatile shantytowns of 

Port-au-Prince to support the increased tempo of operations, and the 

configuration of Formed Police Units (specially trained and heavily armed UN 

police) was adjusted. In December, MINUSTAH and the HNP further 

increased their pace of operations to counter the activities of armed criminal 

gangs, especially the kidnapping of innocent civilians, including 

schoolchildren. December 23 also marked the approval of the jointly crafted 

Five-year HNP Reform Plan to vet and build a professional and credible 

national police force in support of Security Sector reform. 

 MINUSTAH’s other significant activities included improving the 

poor human rights situation; refocusing the stalled disarmament, 

demobilization and reintegration process; and strengthening the democratic 

structures of governance and the rule of law. As of December 31, 2006, 

MINUSTAH had 8,376 troops and police. 

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, various issues in the field of disarmament. It 

typically meets annually for three weeks in New York. The UNDC reports 

annually to the UNGA. All UN member states are eligible to participate, but 

barely one-third attended the UNDC in recent years.
Political and Security Affairs 

45 

 The UNDC focuses for a three-year cycle on a limited number of 

agenda items, and its recommendations must be approved by consensus. The 

focus of the United States has been to ensure that the UNDC adopts reports 

that advance and are consistent with U.S. policy. The Non-Aligned Movement 

(NAM) states historically tried to focus UNDC discussion almost exclusively 

on nuclear disarmament issues. The United States, however, tried to maintain 

a balance in UNDC work between nuclear disarmament and nuclear 

nonproliferation, 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 2006 UNDC session was the first dealing with substance since 

2003, when the Commission failed to agree on any recommendations after 

three years of effort. The UNDC then settled into nearly three more years of 

disagreement over its agenda, resolving that impasse only in December 2005. 

The UNDC finally convened in April 2006 to begin its three-year 

consideration of issues relating to nuclear nonproliferation, nuclear 

disarmament, and practical confidence-building measures (CBMs) in the field 

of conventional weapons. The agenda the Commission adopted, proposed by 

the United States, for the first time equated nuclear nonproliferation with 

nuclear disarmament as a UNDC priority. Also at U.S. insistence, the UNDC 

considered and adopted a modest set of measures to improve its internal 

operations. 

 The United States was the first and, for much of the session, the only 

country to issue a national working paper (A/CN.10/2006/WG.I/WP.1) 

containing scores of recommendations for strengthening the global nuclear 

nonproliferation regime. In addition, U.S. national statements focused on the 

importance of preventing the further spread of nuclear weapons, and on the 

need for states party to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) to abide 

by the Treaty’s nonproliferation obligations if nuclear disarmament were to be 

achieved. The U.S. goal was to end the impasse in the UNDC and give it an 

opportunity to make a real contribution to international peace and security. 

 Unfortunately, the UNDC failed to meet this challenge, electing Iran 

as one of the eight vice-chairs of the Commission. Iran was the candidate of 

the Asian regional group. Each UN regional group has the prerogative to 

choose its own candidates for UN conference officer positions, and all 

nominees traditionally are confirmed by acclamation. In its closing national 

statement at the UNDC, the United States publicly criticized the election of 

Iran as a mockery of a UN body responsible for developing consensus 

recommendations on nuclear nonproliferation and nuclear disarmament. 

 At the 2006 session of the General Assembly, the United States 

declined to participate in the adoption of the annual UNDC resolution because 

of concerns over the Commission's approach to its work. 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2006 

46 

Conference on Disarmament (CD) 

 The Geneva-based Conference on Disarmament (CD) is the principal 

multilateral forum for negotiating arms control and disarmament agreements. 

Its agenda includes 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. 

 The CD is an autonomous body, but is supported through the budget 

of the UN Department of Disarmament Affairs. The Conference’s 65 member 

states are divided into geopolitical groups – the Western Group, the Eastern 

Group, and the Non-Aligned (G-21) Group, with China as an independent 

member. Thirty-five non-members also participated in 2006 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 15, 2006. 

 The CD produced significant treaties in the past, including the 

Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and the Chemical Weapons Convention. 

When the 2006 session began, however, the CD had been stalemated for nine 

consecutive years because it was unable to agree on a Program of Work 

(POW) outlining the subjects on which it would work. 

 In an effort to break the stalemate, the CD altered its approach to its 

work. For the first time, the six countries scheduled to hold the rotational CD 

Presidency in 2006 worked together to design a year-long timetable that 

allowed for a rolling discussion of all the CD’s eight agenda items. Each 

President organized general debates focused on two of the agenda items, with 

time allowed for focused, structured debate, including possible participation 

by experts. “Friends of the Presidents” were named to assist in informal 

consultations on review of the CD agenda, improvement of methods of work, 

and other issues. The CD held 49 formal plenary sessions and 22 informal 

plenary meetings during the 2006 session. 

 The vast majority of CD members agreed that the CD should 

negotiate a Fissile Material Cutoff Treaty (FMCT). On May 19, 2006, the 

United States introduced a draft FMCT text and negotiating mandate. The 

2006 session again ended in stalemate as the CD failed to act on FMCT or on 

banning the sale or export of persistent landmines, two initiatives the United 

States first proposed to the CD Plenary on July 29, 2004. 

 The United States reiterated its commitment to effective multilateral 

solutions to disarmament issues, but made clear that agreement on a CD 

Program of Work would not be possible as long as some CD members insisted 

on making linkages between agreed subjects, such as FMCT, and unrelated 

issues about which there was no agreement. Many members were encouraged 

that the CD did more work in 2006 than in recent years, but the continued 
Political and Security Affairs 

47 

stalemate increased concern that the CD’s relevance as an international 

negotiating forum was waning. 

1540 Committee 

 United Nations Security Council Resolution 1540 established, for the 

first time, binding obligations on States under Chapter VII of the UN Charter 

to develop and enforce appropriate legal and regulatory measures against the 

proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) and their means of 

delivery. Among other things, UNSC Resolution 1540 obligates states to 

criminalize and take action against proliferation-related activities, to include 

financing. The Security Council established a subsidiary Committee to assist 

with implementation, because it viewed implementation of Resolution 1540 as 

an important obligation by member states to prevent and deter illicit access to 

WMD, their means of delivery, and related materials. Implementing the 

requirements of 1540 also will benefit regions that seek to be key global 

economic suppliers of goods and services, including to the United States. 

 In Resolution 1673 (2006), the Security Council unanimously 

extended the mandate of the 1540 Committee for two years and asked the 

Committee to “intensify its efforts to promote the full implementation by all 

states of Resolution 1540 through a work program which shall include the 

compilation of information on the status of states’ implementation of all 

aspects of Resolution 1540: outreach, dialogue, assistance, and cooperation.” 

The United States developed an approach designed to encourage and support 

the Committee in fulfilling its mandate. Specifically, the United States is 

working cooperatively with the Committee to: 1) develop useful information 

such as identification of gaps in laws and controls; 2) outline regional and 

state-specific assistance priorities for stemming proliferation activity; and 3) 

help to coordinate assistance requests so that donors can work together and 

with recipients to implement 1540 obligations. 

 The United States completed its National Action Plan on May 31, 

2006, and has used the Plan as a working document. Likewise, each UN 

member country will tailor its action plan to reflect its own national priorities. 

The initial approach in the U.S. Plan focuses on ways to strengthen states’ 

nonproliferation capacities through on-going assistance programs and projects, 

particularly by working with regional organizations such as the Organization 

for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), the ASEAN Regional Forum 

(ARF), and the Organization of American States (OAS), consistent with the 

1540 Committee’s April 2006 report (S/2006/257). 

 The United States is working with the 1540 Committee to factor the 

Committee’s analyses of states’ implementation of Resolution 1540 into (1) 

U.S. decisions regarding assistance in areas related to 1540, and (2) other 

domestic steps.

Small Arms and Light Weapons 

 UN Member states met from June 26-July 7, 2006 for the Conference 

to Review Progress Made in the Implementation of the “Program of Action to 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2006 

48 

Prevent, Combat and Eradicate the Illicit Trade of Small Arms and Light 

Weapons” (POA), as called for in Section IV of the 2001 political agreement 

(UN Document A/CONF.192/15). The states participating in the Review 

Conference failed to come to consensus on an outcome document due to 

disagreement on a number of issues, including follow-up conferences beyond 

the 2006 Review Conference. The Conference’s proceedings revealed 

significant differences of opinion among delegations on how best to continue 

addressing the illicit trade in small arms/light weapons (SA/LW). The U.S. 

delegation highlighted the leading role played by the United States in reducing 

and securing stockpiles of SA/LW that are obsolete, loosely held, or otherwise 

at risk of illicit diversion. 

 The U.S. delegation focused on practical measures to implement 

existing commitments in the POA. The delegation outlined U.S. best practices 

and lessons learned in the implementation of U.S. assistance and cooperation 

efforts in the area of SA/LW. Countries seeking assistance from the United 

States were encouraged to provide organized requests and to ensure 

supervision of projects through completion. The U.S. delegation also 

highlighted issues such as stockpile security, management, and destruction, as 

well as robust export and import control systems that are central to any serious 

effort to reduce illicit trafficking in SA/LW. The U.S. delegation pressed the 

Conference to replace references to “end-user certificates” with “end-user 

certification or certification processes” in order to encourage states to verify 

that importers were actually complying with the provisions of any given 

certificate. The U.S. delegation underscored how few states actually 

implemented various portions of the POA. The United States alone opposed 

the holding of an additional review conference. Although the Review 

Conference did not result in a consensus outcome document, participating 

states renewed their commitment to the implementation of the POA. 

 Following the Review Conference, the United States continued to 

push the international community in 2006 to implement the POA “on the 

ground” at the regional level at conferences and workshops on SA/LW 

sponsored by the Organization of American States, the Organization for 

Security and Cooperation in Europe, NATO, and by various sub-regional 

organizations. The United States also urged states to work first at the national, 

sub-regional, and regional levels and funded, for the second year, training 

programs under the Regional Center for Small Arms, an organization of 11 

East and Central African states, to help reduce the illicit trade in SA/LW in the 

Horn of Africa. 

 The United States will continue to support the implementation of the 

POA by participating in those United Nations meetings that take a practical 

and comprehensive approach in the implementation of the POA. 
Political and Security Affairs 

49 

Peacekeeping Issues 

Peacekeeping Financing 

 In 2006, the United States supported the continued expansion of the 

overall level of UN peacekeeping operations including the authorization for a 

UN peacekeeping presence in Darfur, the dramatic expansion of the size and 

mandate of the peacekeeping force in Lebanon, and the re-establishment of a 

peacekeeping operation in East Timor. 

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 

United Nations’ ability to assess conflict situations, to plan and manage 

peacekeeping operations, and to respond quickly to United Nations mandates. 

The United States has also encouraged other 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 2006 increased by 

10,530 from 2005, due primarily to the expansion in Lebanon and new mission 

in East Timor (Timor-Leste). As of December 31, 2006, the United Nations 

had a total of 69,146 troops, 2,527 military observers, and 7,241 UN police 

participating in UN peacekeeping operations. The U.S. contribution for UN 

peacekeeping included 298 U.S. police and 26 U.S. military serving in UN 

military staff or observer positions. 

UN Police 

 UN police officers have participated in peacekeeping missions since 

the 1960s. The UNPOL division of the Department of Peacekeeping 

Operations is responsible for issues related to civilian and military police, as 

well as gendarmes. The United States continued its efforts to provide highquality police officers to UN operations. At the end of 2006, the United States 

had police officers assigned to the UN missions in Haiti (50 officers), Kosovo 

(223), Liberia (10), Sudan (11), and East Timor (4). In 2006 the demand for 

qualified police officers to deploy to peacekeeping missions continued to 

outpace the supply. The United States helped develop a concept, approved in 

2006 by the General Assembly’s Fifth Committee (Budget), to train a cadre of 

approximately 25 police professionals who would be available to start new UN 

policing operations or troubleshoot existing operations. Each member of the 

“Standing Police Capacity” (SPC) would have his or her own area of 

expertise. The SPC will eventually be based at the UN Logistics Base in 

Brindisi, Italy. At the end of 2006, recruitment for the SPC had not been 

completed. 

Sexual Abuse 

According to the UN Department of Peacekeeping Operations 

(DPKO), there were 357 allegations of sexual exploitation and abuse involving 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2006 

50 

UN peacekeeping personnel reported in 2006. Of these allegations, 252 were 

predicated for investigation. The UN Office of Internal Oversight (OIOS) 

reviewed all allegations received and conducted investigations into those 

allegations deemed serious and credible. In 2006, OIOS completed 153 

investigations. Of these investigations, 14 allegations were considered 

substantiated and 139 allegations were considered by OIOS as “less serious,” 

and were referred back to the relevant peacekeeping mission to take action. 

 Alleged and confirmed cases of sexual exploitation and abuse are 

reported in the Department’s comprehensive semi-annual report to the 

Congress on UN measures taken to prevent sexual exploitation and abuse, and 

the effectiveness of such measures, pursuant to section 104(e) of the 

Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act, FY 2006, (P.L. 109-164). 

The Department’s report covered all alleged cases that are reported to DPKO 

or alleged cases reported by the press. Additionally, the report provided 

insight from embassies in the countries where the UN peacekeeping mission is 

located and/or where the alleged incident of sexual exploitation and abuse 

occurred. Each report covered all peacekeeping missions expected to be 

created or renewed during the next six months. The first report to the 

Congress covered UN peacekeeping missions with a mandate expiration or 

renewal during the period of August 15, 2006, to February 15, 2007. 

 Throughout 2006, UN member states – through the Special 

Committee on Peacekeeping Operations and its Working Group (C-34) and the 

General Assembly’s Fifth Committee – along with several UN officials, 

addressed the issue of sexual exploitation and abuse prevention. 

 On January 25, DPKO’s new Chief of Conduct and Discipline Team 

(CDT), Ms. Yewande Odia (Nigeria), briefed delegates of the C-34 and the 

Fifth Committee on the status of implementation of measures taken to address 

sexual exploitation and abuse. The briefing touched on DPKO’s priorities for 

2006, which included: finalization of the UN/TCC draft model Memorandum 

of Understanding; full staffing of code of conduct and discipline teams at 

Headquarters and in the field; and recommendations of the Group of Legal 

Experts to address criminal accountability of staff. Although not all of these 

priorities were met in 2006, one notable achievement was that CDTs were 

established at Headquarters and in all peacekeeping missions, with some 

CDTs covering more than one peacekeeping mission. 

 On February 23, the Under Secretary-General for Peacekeeping, 

Jean-Marie Guéhenno (France), briefed the Security Council on the 

“significant progress” that had been made in dealing with incidents of sexual 

exploitation and abuse. He was encouraged by the progress but recognized 

that there was still much work to be done. Specifically, he stressed the need 

for member states to send “an uncompromising message” against prostitution 

in peacekeeping missions. The Secretary-General’s Advisor on sexual 

exploitation and abuse, Prince Zeid Ra’ad Zeid Al-Hussein (Jordan), who was 

also Jordan’s Permanent Representative to the UN, added that the Secretary-
Political and Security Affairs 

51 

General would release a bold UN policy statement and strategy on assistance 

and support to victims of abuse. 

 On March 2, DPKO submitted a draft policy statement and strategy 

on sexual exploitation and abuse victim’s assistance to Secretary-General 

Annan. The draft included provisions for assistance to complainants, victims, 

and children fathered by United Nations’ staff. The proposed assistance 

included medical care, psychosocial support, educational opportunities, access 

to legal services and financial support. If allegations were confirmed, the 

perpetrator would bear the cost of victim’s assistance through fines or salary 

deductions. The draft included a proposal for the universal collection of DNA 

samples from UN staff to verify paternity claims. By the end of 2006, the 

policy statement and strategy remained a draft. 

 On March 22, the C-34 issued a report that included 

recommendations and proposals to implement the comprehensive strategy to 

eliminate sexual exploitation and abuse outlined by Prince Zeid Ra’ad Zeid 

Al-Hussein. The Committee reiterated that the responsibility for creating and 

maintaining an environment that prevents sexual exploitation and abuse should 

be part of the performance objectives of UN peacekeeping mission managers 

and commanders. Additionally, the Committee encouraged further 

cooperation between the United Nations and troop-contributing countries in 

investigations of alleged cases of sexual exploitation and abuse, and 

recommended that all troop-contributing countries ensure that all personnel 

deployed to UN peacekeeping missions receive DPKO’s training module on 

“Prevention of Sexual Exploitation and Abuse,” which is part of a mandatory 

induction training course for all peacekeeping personnel. 

 In 2006, the United States continued to take an active, leading role in 

the prevention of sexual exploitation and abuse. During its presidency of the 

Security Council, the United States convened a special meeting on this subject 

where DPKO briefed member states on the status of reforms. As a result, one 

of several measures taken by the Security Council, at the request of the United 

States, included language on the prevention of sexual exploitation and abuse in 

Security Council resolutions for UN peacekeeping mission mandates created 

or renewed. Such language included in Security Council Resolution 1675 

(2006), extended the mandate for the UN Mission for the Referendum in 

Western Sahara (MINURSO): 

 “Requests the Secretary-General to continue to take the necessary 

measures to achieve actual compliance in MINURSO with the United Nations 

zero-tolerance policy on sexual exploitation and abuse, including the 

development of strategies and appropriate mechanisms to prevent, identify and 

respond to all forms of misconduct, including sexual exploitation and abuse, 

and the enhancement of training for personnel to prevent misconduct and 

ensure full compliance with the United Nations code of conduct, requests the 

Secretary-General to take all necessary action in accordance with the 

Secretary-General’s Bulletin on special measures for protection from sexual 

exploitation and sexual abuse (ST/SGB/2003/13) and to keep the Council 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2006 

52 

informed, and urges troop-contributing countries to take appropriate 

preventive action including the conduct of pre-deployment awareness training, 

and to take disciplinary and other action to ensure full accountability in cases 

of such conduct involving their personnel....” 

 In March, DPKO released a comprehensive report on “Sexual 

Exploitation and Abuse: Lessons Learned Study: Addressing Sexual 

Exploitation and Abuse in MONUC.” The report provided a summary and 

analysis of the activities of the Office for Addressing Sexual Exploitation and 

Abuse (OASEA), a part of the UN Mission in the Democratic Republic of the 

Congo (MONUC). The report extrapolated lessons from MONUC’s 

experiences for existing and future UN peacekeeping missions on how to 

prevent sexual exploitation and abuse involving UN peacekeepers. 

 During 2006, the United Nations made progress in structural reforms 

aimed at preventing misconduct, enforcing UN standards of conduct, and 

taking remedial measures regarding sexual exploitation and abuse. Key 

reforms such as the UN/TCC draft model Memorandum of Understanding, and 

the comprehensive strategy to assist victims of sexual exploitation and abuse, 

were under negotiation with member states for several months but likely will 

not be finalized in the near future.

Special Issues 

Terrorism 

 In 2006, 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 addressed terrorism-related 

issues (the 1267 al-Qaida/Taliban/Usama bin Laden Sanctions Committee, the 

Counter-Terrorism Committee created pursuant to Resolution 1373, and the 

1540 [nonproliferation] Committee), and the UN General Assembly. 

 The Security Council adopted four resolutions directly related to 

terrorism in 2006. Resolution 1673 extended the mandate of the Resolution 

1540 Committee for a period of two years, and that of its panel of experts, and 

endorsed an intensive program of work. Resolution 1699 authorized increased 

cooperation between the United Nations and Interpol in support of the 

mandates of the counterterrorism and sanctions committees. Resolution 1730 

adopted new procedures to ensure the fairness and clarity of the process of 

listing and delisting individuals and entities on all of the UN sanctions lists, 

including that related to terrorism. Resolution 1735 reauthorized the 

Resolution 1267 Committee and its Monitoring Team, and made 

improvements and clarifications to its mandate. 

 The 1267 Sanctions Committee used its renewed and refined mandate

to continue developing and maintaining its list of individuals and entities 

associated with al-Qaida, the Taliban, and Usama bin Laden, as well as 

subjecting international sanctions — asset freezes, travel bans, and arms 

embargoes — that all UN member states are obligated to implement. The 
Political and Security Affairs 

53 

United States continued referring names of individuals and entities for 

inclusion on the Committee’s sanctions list. The names or entities were first 

vetted within U.S. government agencies and then circulated to the other 

members of the Committee with sufficient explanatory information for the 

Committee to determine whether they should be added. In response to calls 

for greater transparency and fairness in the 1267 listing and de-listing 

procedures, the United States and France co-drafted Resolution 1730, which 

created a mechanism to ensure that all sanctioned individuals who petition to 

be delisted would get a fair hearing by the Committee. 

 The Counter-Terrorism Committee (CTC), established by Security 

Council Resolution 1373 after the events of 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, and urged 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 2006, the 

CTC adopted the Preliminary Implementation Assessment (PIA) template, an 

analytical tool to measure country progress on implementing Resolution 1373, 

and the Counter Terrorism Executive Directorate (CTED), the Secretariat staff 

supporting the CTC, significantly expanded its number of country visits to 

conduct assessments (10 in all). 

 The General Assembly adopted a number of terrorism-related 

resolutions in its 61st Session, which began in September 2006. Most 

importantly, the General Assembly on September 8 adopted a Global 

Counterterrorism Strategy, a UN plan to enhance national, regional and 

international efforts to counter terrorism. This marked the first time that all 

UN member states agreed to a common strategic approach to fighting 

terrorism, including practical steps to be taken individually and collectively. 

 On December 4, the General Assembly passed Resolution 61/40 on 

“Measures to Eliminate International Terrorism,” which condemned all acts, 

methods, and practices of terrorism as criminal and unjustifiable, wherever and 

by whomsoever committed. This resolution reaffirmed previous resolutions 

and declarations on Measures to Eliminate International Terrorism, and called 

upon all states, the United Nations and other international, regional and subregional organizations to implement the UN Global Counterterrorism Strategy. 

This resolution also urged states to become parties to all international 

terrorism conventions and protocols, including the recently adopted 

International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism; 

the Amendment to the Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear 

Material; the Protocol of 2005 to the Convention for the Suppression of 

Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Maritime Navigation; and the Protocol of 

2005 to the Protocol for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety 

of Fixed Platforms Located on the Continental Shelf. Resolution 61/40 

stipulated that the Ad Hoc Committee established by General Assembly 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2006 

54 

Resolution 51/210 should continue its work on negotiation of the 

Comprehensive Convention on International Terrorism (CCIT). 

 The General Assembly passed two additional terrorism-related 

resolutions in 2006: on December 6, the General Assembly adopted 

Resolution 61/86 on “Measures to prevent terrorists from acquiring weapons 

of mass destruction,” and on December 19, the General Assembly passed 

Resolution 61/171 on “Protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms 

while countering terrorism.” Each of these resolutions was adopted by 

consensus. 

Negotiations on the CCIT in 2006 remained at an impasse over a 

provision, which the United States supported, exempting state military forces 

from the scope of the Convention because other provisions of international law 

already govern their activities. Negotiations also failed to resolve the question 

of whether the CCIT should include language that could be used to argue that 

terrorists claiming to act in the name of national liberation movements were 

excluded from the scope of the Convention. The United States took the 

position that any provision of this nature would undermine the credibility of 

UN and member state counterterrorism efforts. 

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 United Nations Charter authorized the Security Council 

to mandate member states to implement measures not involving the use of 

armed force to carry out its decisions. Under this authority, the Security 

Council has resorted to the use of targeted sanctions as a tool to address threats 

to international peace and security in conjunction with diplomatic efforts. 

 The United States believes that sanctions, appropriately structured, 

targeted, supported, and implemented by the international community, can 

serve as an important 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 can be an important tool 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. 

 In 2006, the UN Security Council imposed numerous sanctions 

regimes, primarily in response to civil wars in Africa, international terrorism 

and the threat of proliferation of nuclear weapons. During 2006, UN sanctions 

remained in effect in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), Liberia, 

Somalia, Sudan, and Côte d’Ivoire. UN restrictions on non-governmental 

groups in Rwanda and Sierra Leone also remained in effect. UN sanctions 

established pursuant to Resolution 1518 (2003) remained in place against 

senior officials of the former Iraqi regime, and their immediate family 
Political and Security Affairs 

55 

members. Sanctions pursuant to the family of 1267 resolutions remained in 

place against individuals and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the 

Taliban, and al-Qaida. The United Nations Security Council imposed two new 

sanctions regimes in response to the pursuit of nuclear weapons by the 

Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and Iran. To ensure that fair and clear 

procedures exist to place individuals and entities on sanctions lists and to 

remove them, the United States and France drafted Resolution 1730, adopted 

on December 19, 2006, requesting the Secretary-General to establish within 

the Secretariat Sanctions Branch a focal point to receive de-listing requests 

and to perform the tasks described in the annex to the Resolution. 

 The arms embargo on Somalia, dating to 1992, remained in place as 

the oldest sanctions regime currently in effect. Resolution 1676, adopted on 

May 10, 2006, re-established for six months a monitoring group, established 

by Resolution 1519 (2003), to continue monitoring implementation and 

violations of the arms embargo on Somalia. Resolution 1724, adopted on 

November 29, 2006, further extended the mandate of the monitoring group for 

six months. Resolution 1725, adopted on December 6, 2006, authorized the 

Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD) and member states of 

the African Union to establish a protection and training mission in Somalia, 

deciding that the arms embargo would not apply to supplies of weapons and 

military equipment intended solely for supporting this force. 

 Recognizing the progress made in Liberia, the United States drafted 

Resolution 1683, adopted June 13, 2006, modifying the arms embargo first 

imposed by Resolution 1521 (2003), to incorporate additional exemptions for 

the Liberian Special Security Service and for members of the Liberian police 

and security forces. Resolution 1689, adopted on June 20, 2006, lifted timber 

sanctions imposed by Resolution 1521 (2003); renewed for six months the 

diamond ban imposed by Resolution 1521 (2003); and renewed for six months 

the mandate of the Panel of Experts established by Resolution 1521 (2003). In 

acknowledgment of the still fragile security situation in Liberia, the United 

States drafted Resolution 1731, adopted on December 20, 2006, which 

renewed the arms embargo for 12 months, with a modification to allow trained 

and vetted security forces to procure medical and non-lethal equipment, 

excluding non-lethal weapons; extended the travel ban for a period of 12 

months; renewed the diamond ban for six months; and re-appointed the Panel 

of Experts for six months. 

 The Security Council adopted Resolution 1654 on January 31, 2006, 

to re-establish for six months the Group of Experts for the Democratic 

Republic of the Congo (DRC), established by Resolution 1533 (2004). In light 

of planned elections in the DRC and the continued instability, Resolution 

1698, adopted July 31, 2006, renewed for one year the arms embargo imposed 

by Resolution 1493 (2003), the travel ban imposed by Resolution 1596 (2005), 

and the assets freeze imposed by Resolution 1596 (2005). Resolution 1698 

also extended the travel ban and assets freeze to political and military leaders 

designated as having recruited or used children in armed conflict, and 

extended the mandate of the Group of Experts for one year, tasking the Group 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2006 

56 

to report on feasible and effective measures the Council might impose to 

prevent the illegal exploitation of natural resources. The United States was 

pleased to support Resolution 1698, as this was the first and only Security 

Council sanctions regime that targeted those unlawfully recruiting and using 

children in armed conflict. 

 Resolution 1708, adopted on September 14, 2006, extended the 

mandate of the Group of Experts in Côte d’Ivoire, established pursuant to 

Resolution 1584, for three months. Recognizing continued instability in Côte 

d’Ivoire, the Security Council adopted Resolution 1727 on December 15, 

2006, to renew the arms embargo, the travel ban, the assets freeze, the 

embargo on the import of rough diamonds originating in Côte d’Ivoire and the 

mandate of the Group of Experts, which investigates violations of the 

sanctions related to Cote d’Ivoire. Resolution 1727 also demanded that all 

Ivorian parties provide unhindered access to the Group of Experts, the UN 

Operation in Côte d’Ivoire (UNOCI), and the French forces supporting 

UNOCI to allow them to carry out their respective mandated responsibilities. 

 The Security Council adopted Resolution 1665 on March 29, 2006, to 

re-establish the Panel of Experts in Sudan, established by Resolution 1591 

(2005), which investigates violations of the sanctions related to Sudan, for six 

months and called on all states, relevant UN bodies, the African Union, and 

other interested parties to cooperate fully with the Committee and the Panel of 

Experts. Resolution 1672, co-sponsored by the United States and adopted 

April 25, 2006, designated four individuals for sanctions and required all states 

to implement the assets freeze and travel ban on these individuals as specified 

in paragraph 3 of Resolution 1591 (2005). Following the signing of the Darfur 

Peace Agreement on May 5, the United States co-sponsored Resolution 1679, 

adopted on May 16, 2006, which called on parties to the Agreement to respect 

their commitments and urged parties that had not yet signed the Agreement to 

sign without delay. Resolution 1679 expressed the intention of the Council to 

take strong and effective measures, such as a travel ban and assets freeze, 

against any individual or group that violated or attempted to block 

implementation of the Agreement. The United States introduced Resolution 

1713, adopted on September 29, 2006, which renewed for one year the 

mandate of the Panel of Experts and requested the Secretary-General to 

appoint a fifth expert to the Panel to strengthen its ability to investigate 

violations of sanctions. 

 In order to strengthen the sanctions regime against Usama bin Laden, 

al-Qaida, the Taliban, and their associates, the Security Council adopted 

Resolution 1735 on December 22, 2006. Resolution 1735 refocuses the 1267 

Committee on updating the Taliban portion of the sanctions list and includes 

provisions to improve sanctions procedures, specifically listing, delisting, and 

notifications for the Committee. 

 In response to the launch of ballistic missiles by the Democratic 

People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK), the Security Council adopted Resolution 

1696 on July 15, 2006, demanding that the DPRK suspend all activities related 
Political and Security Affairs 

57 

to its ballistic missile program. Resolution 1696 also called on all states, in 

accordance with national and international law, to prevent the transfer to or 

procurement from the DPRK of missile-related items and technology. The 

United States welcomed the unanimous adoption of Resolution 1718 on 

October 14, 2006, which condemned the nuclear test proclaimed by the DPRK 

on October 9, 2006. Resolution 1718 imposed a ban on imports to and exports 

from the DPRK of specific nuclear and chemical-biological weapons-related 

items, an embargo on conventional arms, and targeted sanctions on those 

participating in or supporting DPRK’s weapons of mass destruction programs. 

The resolution also established a Security Council Committee to oversee the 

implementation of the sanctions measures related. The United States drafted 

Resolution 1718 to send a strong, clear message to North Korea that the 

Security Council was united in its condemnation of the DPRK’s provocative 

actions and was committed to preventing its ability to engage in proliferation 

activities. 

 In response to Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons capability, 

Resolution 1696, adopted on July 31, 2006, called on Iran to take steps 

required by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Board of 

Governors and suspend all nuclear enrichment-related and reprocessing 

activities to be verified and reported to the Security Council by the IAEA 

Director-General by August 31, 2006. Resolution 1696 called on all states to 

prevent the transfer of any items, materials, goods and technology that would 

contribute to Iran’s nuclear enrichment-related and reprocessing activities and 

ballistic missile programs. Recognizing that Iran did not comply with 

Resolution 1696, on December 23, 2006, the Security Council unanimously 

passed Resolution 1737 to impose sanctions on Iran to stop its nuclear and 

missile proliferation activities, and compel Iran to return to constructive 

negotiations. Resolution 1737 required all states to implement a proliferationsensitive nuclear and ballistic missile program-related embargo, to exercise 

vigilance regarding travel by targeted individuals, and to impose an assets 

freeze on persons and entities designated in an annex to the Resolution, as well 

as any additional persons and entities designated by Security Council or the 

Committee established to oversee the sanction measures. UNSCR 1737 also 

imposes a general prohibition on technical/financial assistance to Iranian 

activities related to these proliferation-sensitive nuclear programs and Iran’s 

development of nuclear weapons delivery systems. In addition, UNSCR 1737 

limited IAEA technical cooperation with Iran to those activities with food, 

agricultural, medical, or humanitarian purposes, or in furtherance of the 

construction of light water reactors. Finally, the resolution obliged all states to 

report to the Committee on implementation of the resolution within 60 days of 

adoption. 

Security Council Membership 

 The United States conducted a major diplomatic campaign in 2006 

with the goal of preventing the election of Venezuela to the Security Council 

for the 2007-2008 period. 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2006 

58 

 Each year the General Assembly elects five non-permanent members 

of the Council for two-year terms. In accordance with the UN Charter and 

Council practice, the non-permanent Council seats rotate among the various 

regional groups. In 2006, the five open seats were allocated as follows: one 

for Africa, one for Asia, two for the Western Europe and Others Group 

(WEOG), and one for the Latin America and Caribbean Group (LAC). 

 Four of the five non-permanent seats were uncontested because the 

regional groups reached consensus on their candidates: South Africa, 

Indonesia, Belgium, and Italy. The General Assembly generally approves by 

acclamation regional consensus candidates. However, the LAC did not reach 

consensus on a candidate for its one open seat, with both Guatemala and 

Venezuela contesting the seat. 

 On October 16, the General Assembly began voting for the nonpermanent members, approving the consensus candidates and conducting 10 

rounds of balloting for the LAC seat. Balloting for this seat continued for a 

total of 48 rounds of voting over a period of three weeks, making it the third 

longest contested Security Council election ever. While Guatemala held a lead 

over Venezuela in 46 of the first 47 ballots, and the two countries tied in the 

final round, neither country was able to obtain the two-thirds majority 

necessary for election. The stalemate was resolved on November 7 when both 

countries agreed to withdraw and a compromise candidate, Panama, was 

elected. 

 The United States viewed Venezuela’s record during the previous 

year as an indication that election to the Security Council would have a 

negative effect on the Council’s ability to address effectively threats to 

international peace and security, including nuclear nonproliferation. 

Venezuelan representatives disrupted the Community of Democracies meeting 

in Chile in April 2006 and the Summit of the Americas in Argentina in 

November 2005. At the September 2005 World Summit in New York, 

Venezuela was the only nation to reject the Outcome Document, which was 

designed to prepare the United Nations to address the challenges of the 21st

century.

New UN Member (Montenegro) 

 Montenegro became the 192nd member of the United Nations in 2006. 

On May 21, 2006, Montenegro held a referendum in which 55.7 percent of the 

voters chose independence from Serbia. On June 4, the Montenegrin 

Parliament formally declared independence in a special session. 

 On June 5, Montenegrin President Vujanovic applied for UN 

membership for Montenegro in a letter to the UN Secretary-General, pursuant 

to Rule 134 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Assembly, and attached 

the formal declaration of acceptance of the obligations contained in the 

Charter, required of nations wishing to join the United Nations. On June 16, 

the Secretary-General transmitted the application of Montenegro to the 

Security Council and the General Assembly. 
Political and Security Affairs 

59 

 Secretary Rice announced on June 13 the formal recognition by the 

United States of the Republic of Montenegro as a sovereign and independent 

state and U.S. support for Montenegro’s admission to the United Nations. 

 On June 21, the Security Council Committee on the Admission of 

New Members unanimously recommended that Montenegro be admitted to 

membership in the United Nations. On June 22, the Security Council 

transmitted this recommendation to the General Assembly, and on June 28, the 

General Assembly formally accepted Montenegro as a member of the United 

Nations.

Secretary-General 

 On October 13, 2006, the General Assembly appointed by 

acclamation Ban Ki-moon as the new UN Secretary-General to succeed Kofi 

Annan, whose term of office ended on December 31, 2006. Ban was the 

Foreign Minister of the Republic of Korea at the time of his appointment. His 

five-year term begins January 1, 2007. 

 Article 97 of the UN Charter states that, “the Secretary-General shall 

be appointed by the General Assembly upon the recommendation of the 

Security Council.” Since the Charter provided no further details, in 1946, the 

General Assembly adopted Resolution 11, which established the ground rules 

for the appointment process, including that the Security Council should 

recommend only a single name to the General Assembly. Since 1971, each 

new Secretary-General has been appointed by acclamation. In 1997, the 

General Assembly adopted Resolution 51/241, which called for greater 

transparency in the selection process, a consultative role for the UN General 

Assembly President, and for identifying the “best candidate for the post” with 

due regard given to “regional rotation” and “gender equality.” 

 In practice, the Security Council engages in consultations to develop 

a list of candidates and conducts “straw polls” to identify the leading 

contenders. The Council selects a candidate by an affirmative vote of nine 

members, but in practice the Council’s recommendation depends largely on 

agreement among the five permanent members. Candidates may be subject to 

a veto by any of the permanent members. Permanent members exercised 

numerous vetoes in almost all of the previous Secretary-General elections. 

 Although there is no requirement or established practice for regional 

rotation in the selection of the Secretary-General, many UN member states 

believed that the new Secretary-General should be from an Asian country, 

since the last Secretary-General from Asia was U Thant, who served from 

1961-1971. The United States and other countries held that the SecretaryGeneral should be the best-qualified candidate regardless of region. 

 In a letter to the President of the General Assembly on June 2, 2006, 

the President of the Security Council announced the Council’s intention to 

begin in early July the process of consideration of candidacies for the position 

of Secretary-General. Seven candidates were formally nominated: Jayantha 

Dhanapala (Sri Lanka); Shashi Tharoor (India); Ashraf Ghani (Afghanistan); 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2006 

60 

Prince Zeid Al-Hussein (Jordan); Surakiart Sathirathai (Thailand); Vaira VikeFreiberga (Estonia); and Ban Ki-moon (South Korea). The Council conducted 

straw polls on July 24, September 14, September 28, and October 2, in which 

Security Council members voted whether to “encourage, “discourage,” or 

express “no opinion” on each of the official candidates. Ban Ki-moon led in 

each of the polls. In the fourth poll, Ban emerged as the only candidate with 

the support of all the permanent members of the Council. The other 

candidates withdrew their candidacies. On October 9, the Security Council 

unanimously adopted Resolution 1715, recommending to the General 

Assembly that Ban Ki-moon be appointed Secretary-General. In Resolution 

A/Res/61/3 of October 13, the General Assembly appointed Ban. 

 In 2006, the Security Council took a number of steps to respond to 

calls from the General Assembly for increased transparency in the SecretaryGeneral selection process. These measures included: formal nominations of 

candidates by member states, meetings between the candidates and the 

regional groups in New York, and monthly meetings between the Presidents of 

the Security Council and the General Assembly regarding the selection 

process. 

 Secretary-General Ban is eligible for re-appointment to consecutive 

five-year terms. In practice, no Secretary-General has served more than two 

consecutive terms. 

Peacebuilding Commission 

 The Peacebuilding Commission (PBC) is a result of the World 

Summit Outcome Document of September 20, 2005, and was recommended 

prior to this Summit, such as in the Secretary-General’s In Larger Freedom 

report and by the High Level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change. The 

Outcome Document stated: “recognizing the need for a dedicated institutional 

mechanism to address the special needs of countries emerging from conflict 

toward recovery, reintegration, and reconstruction, and to assist them in laying 

the foundation for sustainable development, and recognizing the vital role of 

the United Nations in that regard, we decide to establish a Peacebuilding 

Commission....” 

 The UN Security Council and UN General Assembly passed 

concurrent resolutions (UNSCR 1645 and UNGA A/RES/60/180) on 

December 20, 2005, establishing the creation of the PBC as an 

intergovernmental advisory body. The PBC was inaugurated on June 23, 

2006, with the inaugural meeting of its Organizational Committee. 

 The PBC is mandated to bring together all relevant actors to marshal 

resources and to advise on and propose integrated strategies for post-conflict 

peacebuilding and recovery; to focus attention on the reconstruction and 

institution-building efforts necessary for recovery from conflict; to support the 

development of integrated strategies to lay the foundation for sustainable 

development; and to provide recommendations and information to improve the 

coordination of all relevant actors within and outside the United Nations. The 
Political and Security Affairs 

61 

PBC was also created to develop best practices, to help to ensure predictable 

financing for early recovery activities, and to ensure long-term attention by the 

international community to post-conflict recovery. 

 The structure of the PBC includes an Organizational Committee of 31 

states: seven from the Security Council, seven from the Economic and Social 

Council, five from the General Assembly; the five largest troop-contributing 

states, and the five largest donors to peacekeeping. Angola was selected as the 

overall chair. The Security Council requested the PBC to provide 

peacebuilding advice for Sierra Leone and Burundi. Based in part on host 

government presentations made in October 2006 and subsequent countryspecific meetings, the PBC is working with the host governments, civil 

societies, the UN country teams, and donors to develop “integrated 

peacebuilding strategies” for these two countries. Norway and the 

Netherlands respectively headed the country-specific meetings on Burundi and 

Sierra Leone. El Salvador is charged with coordinating a working group on 

thematic issues. 

 In addition, Security Council Resolution 1645 and General Assembly 

Resolution A/RES/60/180 requested the establishment of a Peacebuilding 

Support Office (PBSO) and Peacebuilding Fund. The PBSO was intended to 

be small, so as to avoid excessive bureaucratization, in order to assist and 

support the PBC. The current PBSO is Assistant Secretary-General Carolyn 

McAskie of Canada, former Special Representative of the Secretary-General 

and head of the UN operation in Burundi (ONUB). 

Non–Self-Governing Territories 

 The status of non-self-governing territories, defined as “territories 

whose people have not yet attained a full measure of self-government,” is 

considered annually by the Special Committee on the Situation with Regard to 

the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to 

Colonial Countries and Peoples (Committee of 24 or C-24) and by the Special 

Political and Decolonization Committee (Fourth Committee) of the UN 

General Assembly. 

 The United States is the administering power of three non-selfgoverning territories considered by the Committee: American Samoa, Guam, 

and the U.S. Virgin Islands. In 2006 the United States continued its longstanding practice of joining 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 confirmed the right of self-determination and 

reiterated the call for complete decolonization. It further recognized 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 reporting 

requirements as requested by this resolution and Article 73(e) of the UN 

Charter. 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2006 

62 

 During the General Assembly, the United States voted against or 

abstained on a series of resolutions addressing the governance and 

independence of non-self-governing territories. These resolutions contained 

unacceptable provisions regarding land tenure, economic and military 

activities, or the responsibilities of administering powers.

Security Council Thematic Debates 

 In 2006, the Security Council held thematic debates on nine issues, 

three fewer than in 2005 and six fewer than in 2004. For the fifth year in a 

row, terrorism continued to command the greatest attention. In September the 

Council heard a briefing by the Chairs of the Counter-Terrorism Committee, 

the Committee on the Non-Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction and 

the Committee Concerning Al-Qaida and the Taliban, during which the United 

States expressed its strong support for the Council’s counterterrorism 

subsidiary bodies. Furthermore the Chair of the Committee on CounterTerrorism briefed the Council in December (S/PV.5601). The Council also 

met 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: 

• Children in Armed Conflict. In July the Council held an open 

meeting and issued a Presidential Statement (S/PRST/2006/33) 

detailing progress on the implementation of a comprehensive 

framework for addressing the protection of children in armed 

conflict. The United States recognized the agonizing 

consequences of using child soldiers, especially in Sudan, 

northern Uganda, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, 

Colombia, and Burma. The United States also welcomed the 

establishment of the Security Council Working Group on 

Children in Armed Conflict. In November the Council heard a 

briefing by the Secretary-General on his report on Children in 

Armed Conflict (S/2006/826). The United States expressed its 

support to help end this practice, including monitoring 

governments named in the Secretary-General’s report, and 

engaging in direct dialogue with governments and armed groups 

to develop action plans to eliminate the use of child soldiers. 

• Threats to International Peace and Security Caused by Terrorist 

Acts. The Council met six times over the course of the year 

under this item, adopting one resolution and four Presidential 

Statements. The Council issued several Presidential Statements 

on specific terrorist attacks, including: in April on the bombing 

in Dahab, Egypt (S/PRST/2006/18); in June on the abduction and 

killing of Russian diplomats in Iraq (S/PRST/2006/29); and in 

July on the bombings in different parts of India, including 

Mumbai (S/PRST/2006/30). The Council also issued a

Presidential Statement (S/PRST/2006/56) under this item in 

December which confirmed its readiness to implement the UN 
Political and Security Affairs 

63 

Global Counter Terrorism Strategy (A/RES/60/288) and 

endorsed the Counter-Terrorism Committee’s recommendation 

that the Counter-Terrorism Committee Executive Directorate 

report directly to the Committee. Also in December, the Council 

passed by unanimous vote a U.S. co-sponsored resolution on 

measures concerning the Al-Qaida/Taliban consolidated list 

(Resolution 1735). 

• Refugees. In January, the Security Council held a meeting to 

discuss the issue of refugees around the world, and was briefed 

by the High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). The United 

States indicated its strong support for UNHCR and for a 

multilateral approach to serving refugees. The United States also 

cautioned UNHCR not to let its work with internally displaced 

persons detract from its work with refugees. 

• Peacekeeping Operations. Under the United States’ tenure as 

President of the Security Council in February, the Council 

discussed issues concerning the procurement process used in 

peacekeeping operations and the sexual exploitation and abuse 

(SEA) of local populations by UN peacekeepers. For the 

Security Council debate on procurement in peacekeeping 

operations (S/PV.5376), the United States requested views from 

three different parts of the United Nations system: the Office of 

Internal Oversight Services (OIOS), the Department of 

Peacekeeping Operations (DPKO), and the Department of 

Management. Instead of three briefings by these separate 

offices, only the Deputy Secretary-General Mark Malloch Brown 

briefed the Council. Brown cited his close working relationship 

with all three departments and asserted it was this relationship 

that made him the most appropriate senior official to brief the 

Council. There was considerable debate on the appropriate 

nature of the Council discussing procurement issues, but the 

United States insisted that the legitimacy for the debate came 

from the Council’s responsibility under the UN Charter for 

creating, supervising, and terminating peacekeeping operations. 

The United States also highlighted parallels between the OIOS 

Report on DPKO’s procurement process and the Report on the 

United Nations Oil For Food Program by Paul Volcker, 

specifically the United Nations’ “culture of inaction.” The 

Council also discussed SEA under the U.S. Presidency. The 

United States indicated the strong interest of the U.S. Congress 

on this issue, and noted that, as of June 2006, the U.S. Congress 

required the Executive Branch to report on the actions taken by 

the United Nations and other international organizations to 

prevent trafficking and sexual exploitation and abuse by 

employees, contractors, and peacekeeping forces. The United 

States also strongly endorsed the recommendations of the UN 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2006 

64 

General Assembly’s Special Committee on Peacekeeping to 

strengthen enforcement of a uniform UN code of conduct for 

peacekeepers; to improve the capacity of the United Nations, in 

cooperation with troop-contributing countries; and to investigate 

allegations of sexual exploitation and abuse, establish assistance 

to and compensation for victims, and enhance pre- and postdeployment training. 

• Women and Peace and Security. In October, the Council held a 

debate on the role of women in the consolidation of peace. The 

United States offered numerous examples of how women around 

the world have contributed to peace processes, including in 

Sierra Leone, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and Nepal. 

The Council issued a Presidential Statement (S/PRST/2006/42) 

at the end of this debate, which requested the Secretary-General 

to include, in his reporting to the Council, progress in gender 

mainstreaming throughout UN peacekeeping missions as well as 

on other aspects relating specifically to women and girls. The 

Council emphasized the need for the inclusion of gender 

components in peacekeeping operations and encouraged member 

states and the Secretary-General to increase the participation of 

women in all areas and at all levels of peacekeeping operations. 

• Civilians in Armed Conflict. In 2006, the Security Council held 

four meetings on the theme of Civilians in Armed Conflict. In 

April, the Council unanimously adopted Resolution 1674 

demanding that all states cease the targeting of civilians in 

situations of armed conflict. At an open meeting in June, the 

United States discussed specific cases of concern, paying special 

attention to the situation in Darfur. In December, the Security 

Council discussed this issue again and the United States 

highlighted the increased consistency with which the Council 

was addressing the regional dimensions of civilian conflict, and 

called for the need to promote the safety of UN personnel. At a 

separate meeting in December, the Council unanimously adopted 

Resolution 1738, which condemned attacks against journalists, 

and stated that journalists are to be considered civilians provided 

they take no action adversely affecting their status as civilians. 

• Strengthening International Law: Rule of Law and Maintenance 

of International Peace and Security. In June, the Council held a 

debate and issued a Presidential Statement (S/PRST/2006/28) on 

international law and international peace and security. Both the 

U.S. statement and the Presidential Statement reinforced the use 

of targeted sanctions as an important tool in the maintenance of 

international peace and security. 

• Cooperation between the United Nations and Regional

Organizations in Maintaining International Peace and Security. 
Political and Security Affairs 

65 

At a Council meeting in September on regional cooperation, the 

United States indicated that enhanced cooperation between 

regional organizations and the United Nations could be valuable, 

especially when they share lessons learned and information about 

peacekeeping missions. However, the United States cautioned 

that these relationships should be informal and should not detract 

from the relationship between the United Nations and member 

states. During the meeting, the Council also issued a Presidential 

Statement (S/PRST/2006/39) that listed ways in which the 

Council could expand its cooperation with regional organizations 

including by inviting relevant regional and sub-regional 

organizations to participate in the Council’s meetings, and by 

continuing to have informal consultations with them as 

appropriate. 

• Small Arms. The Council discussed the issue of small arms at an 

open meeting in March, during which the United States 

expressed its commitment to finding practical and effective ways 

to curb illicit trafficking in small arms and light weapons. The 

United States discussed several measures it has implemented to 

this end, including: having promoted transparency and greater 

responsibility in transfers of conventional arms; having worked 

to prevent their destabilizing accumulation in fora such as the 

Wassenaar Arrangement; and having offered bilateral, financial, 

and technical assistance to help countries develop national export 

and import controls, improve border security against arms 

smugglers, and secure and destroy illicit stocks of small and light 

weapons in conflict-prone regions. 

• Non-Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction. In April, the 

Council unanimously adopted Resolution 1673 which extended 

the mandate of the Security Council Committee on the NonProliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction for two years, 

ending April 27, 2008. 
67 

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 presence in over 

130 developing countries. The United States is a member of its 36-state 

governing body, the Executive Board. 

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, and 

that UNDP is transparent and accountable in its work. 

 In 2006, the United States continued to encourage UNDP to improve 

its management through results-based strategic planning and an enhanced 

transparency and accountability framework. The United States worked in 

concert with other Executive Board members to pass a Board decision 

requesting UNDP to report its country program performance information. 

The UNDP’s strategic framework for 2004-2007 includes the 

following five goals: reducing poverty, fostering democratic governance, 

managing energy and environment for sustainable development, supporting 

crisis prevention and recovery, and responding to HIV/AIDS. 

UNDP is a partner in promoting democratic governance and 

consolidating democracy in many parts of the world. For example, the United 

States worked with UNDP and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and 

Development (OECD) in launching the Partnership for Democratic 

Governance, a multilateral initiative designed to assist developing countries to 

improve governance, strengthen capacity and accountability and deliver 

essential services -- such as efficient customs, judicial and tax services -- 

effectively. UNDP continues to work closely with the United States on the 

Good Governance for Development Initiative in the Middle East to promote 

reforms in administrative, financial, and judicial sectors. 

The United States has also worked closely with UNDP in post-conflict 

reconstruction situations. UNDP plays a useful role in international 

community-led efforts to assist countries emerging from conflict or natural 

disaster. 

For example, in 2006, UNDP helped to mobilize $229 million to 

support Afghanistan, where UNDP’s programs focus mainly on three areas: 

state building, poverty reduction, and empowering democracy and civil society. 

The United States, Japan, the United Kingdom, and Canada have provided 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2006 

68 

funding to and have worked together with UNDP on many of these programs. 

UNDP is playing an important role and has been a valuable partner to the 

United States in assisting Liberia’s recovery. UNDP delivered over $50 

million of assistance in 2006. It has worked closely with the Liberian 

government in these important areas: disarmament, demobilization, 

reintegration and rehabilitation of combatants, community-based recovery, 

human rights protection, and fighting HIV/AIDS. 

UNDP receives its funding through voluntary contributions. 

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 

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 53rd annual session of the Trade and 

Development Board, at which members discussed the findings of the expert 

groups and Commissions. During 2006, UNCTAD held three meetings to 

complete the mid-term review of progress since the 2004 Conference in Sao 

Paulo. Members agreed that UNCTAD should enhance the integration of its 

three pillars (research, policy analysis, and technical assistance), while placing 

more emphasis on concrete results and impact. Also during 2006, the 

Commission on Trade in Goods and Services and Commodities held five 

meetings, including its annual session; the Commission on Investment, 

Technology and related Financial Issues held six meetings, including its annual 

session; the Commission on Enterprise, Business Facilitation, and Development 

held five meetings, including its annual session; and the Commission on 

Science and Technology for Development, serviced by UNCTAD, held its 

ninth session. At each of the meetings, delegates discussed the activities of the 

relevant Commission, including advisory and technical missions to developing 

countries; 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 World Trade Organization 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 that free trade is a vital avenue 

for development and has strongly encouraged UNCTAD’s work on trade and 

investment facilitation. In 2006, the United States led efforts to convince other 

member states to urge UNCTAD to increase its technical assistance in areas 

that can help to ensure that developing countries benefit from processes of 

globalization. The United States also supports UNCTAD’s work in investment 
Economic and Social Affairs 

69 

policy reviews and in development of databases that enable countries to find 

markets for their products and to search investment agreements and tariff data. 

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 UN Conference on Environment and 

Development (UNCED), also known as the Rio Earth Summit. Based at UN 

Headquarters in New York, it is composed of 53 UN members, elected to threeyear terms. During its first decade, the CSD met formally four weeks annually 

to consider specific sustainable development issues and to 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. 

The United States has been a member of the Commission since its 

inception. Following the WSSD, the United States actively advanced ideas for 

how the CSD could implement reforms to serve as a stronger catalyst for 

action. 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. The second cycle 

(2005-2007) focused on energy-related issues: energy for sustainable 

development, industrial development, air pollution/atmosphere, and climate 

change. Each two-year cycle includes a non-negotiating "review year" to 

assess the state of implementation and to provide a venue to focus on 

sustainable development partnerships and capacity-building activities. The 

second half of each cycle is 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. 

Under Secretary of State for Democracy and Global Affairs Paula 

Dobriansky led the U.S. delegation to the May 2006 CSD 15 “Policy Session.” 

The delegation included representatives from a wide range of U.S. government 

agencies, including the State Department, the White House Council on 

Environmental Quality, the Agency for International Development, the 

Department of Energy, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department 

of Housing and Urban Development, and the Department of Agriculture. 

Key outcomes of the 2005-2007 CSD Energy Cycle include: 

• Several multilateral public-private partnerships announced 

concrete results and ambitious future actions. For example, the 

Partnership for Clean Fuels and Vehicles assisted Sub-Saharan 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2006 

70 

African countries in phasing out leaded gasoline by the end of 

2005. This partnership has now set its sights on a global phaseout of leaded gasoline by 2008. 

• Key new partnerships were launched, including the International 

Biofuels Forum, the Global Bioenergy Partnership, and the UN 

Environmental Program’s Global Partnership for Reduction of 

Mercury Emissions from Coal-Fired Utilities. 

• CSD participants submitted more than 200 case studies to the 

CSD Matrix, a practical knowledge-sharing tool with lessons 

learned and best practices from all corners of the globe. 

(http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/csd/matrix.htm) 

The CSD Learning Center again showcased an innovative way of 

doing business at the United Nations, providing capacity-building training to 

nearly 1,000 CSD participants.

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 works 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 2006, 90 percent of UNICEF’s total expenditures of $2.4 billion 

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 non-governmental 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. The 

United States has worked to ensure that UNICEF maintains strong operational 

capabilities. A significant proportion of UNICEF’s work, however, is tied to 

capacity-building, piloting and disseminating best practices, and conducting 

research on the problems affecting children. 

The United States has been a member of UNICEF’s Executive Board, 

now comprised of 36 members serving three-year terms, since the Fund’s 

inception. In 2003, the United States began another term running until 2006. 

Former U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Ann Veneman has served as UNICEF’s 

Executive Director since 2005. 

UNICEF has capabilities to provide rapid and cost-effective delivery 

of medicines and materials in support of national and international efforts. In 

2006, UNICEF procured vaccines for 40 percent of children in developing 

countries – over three billion doses – and worked to ensure not only the 
Economic and Social Affairs 

71 

distribution, but also the development and availability of life-saving vaccines 

and drugs for children. For example, in support of the Global Polio Eradication 

Initiative (of which the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention are a 

partner), UNICEF procured 2.4 billion doses of Oral Polio Vaccines. Also in 

2006, UNICEF procured 181 million doses of measles vaccine, 106 million 

doses of tuberculosis vaccine, and 92 million doses of tetanus vaccine. 

UNICEF’s programming is guided by its Medium-Term Strategic Plan 

for 2006-2009. This plan anchored UNICEF around five focal areas: child 

survival; education; HIV/AIDS; child protection; and policy support. In line 

with U.S. concerns, UNICEF increased malaria prevention efforts and procured 

25 million insecticide-treated bed nets. Also in 2006, the United Nations 

released the “UN Secretary-General’s Study on Violence Against Children,” 

which UNICEF co-sponsored. 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. 

The United States continued to push UNICEF to play a leadership role 

in efforts to harmonize and simplify UN development activities, particularly at 

the national level. In dealing with joint programming between UNICEF and 

other UN agencies, UNICEF’s 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. 

The Inter-Agency Standing Committee (IASC) established a “clusterled” approach to improve the UN’s response to humanitarian disasters. Under 

this approach, UNICEF is responsible for the water and sanitation, nutrition and 

feeding, and protection sectors. UNICEF is also an active participant in the UN 

Consolidated Appeal (CAP) process, a mechanism through which humanitarian 

organizations plan, implement, and monitor their activities as well as appeal for 

donor support of humanitarian assistance programs. UNICEF is strengthening 

its emergency response capacity, including by reinforcing its Core 

Commitments for Children (CCCs) in Emergencies. The United States has 

supported UNICEF’s role in emergencies, particularly following the tsunami 

and South Asian earthquake.

UN Human Settlements Program (UN-HABITAT) 

In 2001, 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). 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. 

The creation of the new UN-HABITAT program marked a significant 

achievement in the U.S. reform agenda. The United States had pressed for an 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2006 

72 

overhaul of the former Center after the 1996 Habitat II Conference in Istanbul 

and had cut off voluntary contributions to the Center. Following the complete 

restructuring of the organization by new management, the United States 

supported the granting of program status and resumed voluntary contributions. 

UN-HABITAT is headquartered in Nairobi, Kenya, and is led by 

Executive Director Anna Tibaijuka (Tanzania). Mrs. Tibaijuka was re-elected 

by the General Assembly to a second four-year term in 2006 after having 

served since September 2000 as Director of the Center on Human Settlements. 

UN-HABITAT’s Governing Council meets every two years, most recently in 

April 2005, and UN-HABITAT sponsors the World Urban Forum in the 

intervening years. States are elected to the Governing Council through regional 

groups for four-year terms. The United States was re-elected in 2006 for 

another term by the Western Europe and Other Group.

UN-HABITAT’s activities in 2006 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 normative (research and data-collection) and 

capacity-building work, supplemented by operational activities including pilot 

projects. Overall, UN-HABITAT performed its roll as a catalyst well, and it 

continued to focus more on consolidating many small programs, trust funds, 

and other mechanisms into a coherent whole. 

In June 2006, UN-HABITAT and the Government of Canada 

sponsored the third session of the World Urban Forum (WUF). Held in 

Vancouver on the 30th Anniversary of the Habitat I Conference, WUF brought 

together over 10,000 participants from national and local governments, nongovernmental organizations, and the private sector to discuss urban issues and 

possible solutions. Secretary Alphonso Jackson of Housing and Urban 

Development (HUD) led the U.S. delegation, and the U.S. government 

sponsored or co-sponsored over a dozen events within the forum. The fourth 

session of the World Urban Forum will be held in 2008 in Nanjing, China. 

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 2006 UN-HABITAT, HUD, and the Government of 

Ghana collaborated on a peer exchange on housing financing, which followed a 

similar event held in Uganda in 2005. This event was technical in nature, with 

participants from West African governments, U.S. Government agencies, and 

other multilateral and non-governmental organizations. This highly successful 

peer exchange covered analysis of the current housing financing situation in 

West Africa, emerging trends, viable tools, policy options, and future steps. 

UN-HABITAT and HUD plan to replicate this peer exchange in Central 

America in 2007. 
Economic and Social Affairs 

73 

UN-HABITAT also conducted global campaigns to promote improved 

urban governance, and to promote secure tenure (of housing and land). These 

campaigns aimed to facilitate access to credit, and advocated 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. 

Environment 

United Nations 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, including the 

United States. The UN General Assembly elects members from different 

regional groupings for four-year terms. UNEP’s Executive Director Klaus 

Töpfer (Germany) retired after his second four-year term in 2006. Achim 

Steiner (Germany) of the World Conservation Union was elected Executive 

Director of UNEP by the General Assembly in June 2006 after being 

nominated by the UN Secretary-General. 

UNEP addresses environmental problems that transcend borders and 

potentially affect the health and prosperity of U.S. citizens. Active 

involvement in UNEP helps the United States to promote sustainable 

development and protect the environment by combating global environmental 

degradation. Our involvement in UNEP also promotes the interests of U.S. 

industry, which is directly affected by evolving international environmental 

standards. Chemicals are an area of particular interest. In 2006, the United 

States negotiated the Strategic Approach for International Chemicals 

Management (SAICM), establishing broad voluntary standards for producing 

and transporting chemicals worldwide. The United States has also 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 is the main supporter of the UNEP 

Mercury Program, which is aimed at helping countries to reduce global 

mercury. UNEP also contributes to regional stability through work in areas 

affected by conflict. 

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. 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2006 

74 

The United States was instrumental in the negotiations culminating in 

the Bali Strategic Plan for Technology Support and Capacity Building, and is 

working with UNEP and its members to mainstream capacity-building within 

the regular programs of UNEP. As a part of this effort to focus UNEP’s 

programs on implementation, the United States has encouraged UNEP to 

strengthen its linkages with scientific institutions, and is assisting in developing 

nations to improve their ability to monitor and assess environmental change and 

implement multilateral environmental agreements. As prescribed by paragraph 

169 of the World Summit Outcome Document of September 2005, the United 

Nations in 2006 initiated a two-track review to improve coordination and 

efficiency of its environmental activities. 

UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) 

and Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 

The UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) 

entered into force in March 1994. The ultimate objective of the UNFCCC is to 

achieve stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a 

level that would prevent dangerous human interference with the climate system. 

The United States ratified the UNFCCC in 1992; today, 191 countries have 

ratified the Convention. The Kyoto Protocol to the UNFCCC 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 1990 levels for the United 

States). The Kyoto Protocol exempts developing countries from binding 

emission targets, including some of the world’s largest emitters of greenhouse 

gases, and would harm the U.S. economy. President Bush therefore announced 

in March 2001 that the United States would not ratify the Protocol. This 

decision is consistent with the recommendation of Senate Resolution 98, 

approved in July 1997, by a vote of 95-0. 

The United States is engaged in extensive international efforts on 

climate change, both through bilateral and multilateral activities. Our 15 

bilateral climate change partnerships encompass over 450 activities with 

countries and regional organizations that, together with us, represent over 80 

percent of the world’s emissions. Since 2002, the U.S. government has 

initiated multiple international partnerships to promote development and 

deployment of key climate change-related energy technologies. These include 

the Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate, the Carbon 

Sequestration Leadership Forum, the International Partnership for the 

Hydrogen Economy, the Methane to Markets Partnership, and Gen IV 

International Forum. Continued U.S. participation in and support for the 

UNFCCC helps to advance U.S. approaches to climate change issues. 

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 2006, drafts of the IPCC Fourth 
Economic and Social Affairs 

75 

Assessment Report (AR4), involving contributions from several hundred 

experts, underwent government and expert review. The Fourth Assessment 

Report will be issued in 2007. 

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.

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 39th session in New York April 3-7, 2006. The 

central theme of the session was international migration and development. The 

United States emphasized that immigration has played an important and 

defining role in shaping the history and success of the United States. While the 

U.S. delegation noted that orderly migration, when managed effectively, is a 

positive phenomenon, migration is a complex issue that has proven extremely 

difficult to address at the international level. The United States joined 

consensus on the two resolutions concerning the central theme and the 

Commission’s program of work. The United States also delivered an 

Explanation of Position emphasizing that the United States does not recognize 

abortion as a method of family planning or support abortion in its reproductive 

health assistance, nor do the resolutions create international legal rights or 

legally binding obligations on states under international law. 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2006 

76 

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 out of the regular UN budget, of which 

the United States pays 22 percent. Many of their activities are financed by 

extra-budgetary grants from bilateral and multilateral donors. The United 

States is a member of ECE, ECLAC, and ESCAP. U.S. participation in 

regional commissions advances and safeguards U.S. foreign policy and 

commercial interests in these regions. 

Economic Commission for Europe (ECE) 

The Economic Commission for Europe (ECE), 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 2006, ECE membership consisted of 56 

countries, including those of Western Europe, as well as the United States, 

Canada, Israel, Turkey, and the Central Asian and Caucasian states of the 

former Soviet Union. In December 2005, the UN Secretary-General appointed 

Marek Belka (Poland) as Executive Secretary. 

The ECE is traditionally a “standards-setting” and coordination body 

in many technical fields, such as in e-commerce, energy, the environment, 

vehicle construction, road safety, timber and agricultural produce, border 

crossing, and statistical collection. Many ECE standards are adopted around the 

world. 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 61st Plenary, February 21-24, 2006, the ECE agreed to changes 

proposed by the Negotiating Committee on ECE reform, based on the external 

evaluation report prepared in 2005. These changes included simplifying the 

governance structure by merging two governing bodies into one, an Executive 

Committee that meets monthly; eliminating two sub-programs (Economic 

Analysis and Industrial Restructuring); creating a new one (Economic 

Cooperation and Integration); and re-assigning 30 staff members to functions in 

line with member state priorities. 
Economic and Social Affairs 

77 

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 43 member states as of December 

2006. The United States is a full member with voting privileges. ECLAC also 

has eight Associate Members, including the U.S. territories of Puerto Rico and 

the 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. Executive Secretary Jose 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. ECLAC produced a well-respected manual for 

post-disaster needs assessment that was useful in its coordinating role in 

assistance to Guatemala after the deadly mudslides caused by Tropical Storm 

Stan in October 2005. 

ECLAC held its biennial plenary session in Montevideo, Uruguay, 

March 20-24, 2006, including an ad hoc meeting of its Committee on 

Population and Development. The program of work for 2008-2009 was 

adopted. The centerpiece of the conference was the document “Shaping the 

Future of Social Protection;” it generated a discussion of labor markets, health 

systems, pension systems, and education. The United States countered those 

delegates supporting a rights-based social protection system by emphasizing 

that no long-term solution to the problem of inequality will happen without 

both linking obligations to rights and ensuring that participants in any 

protection scheme have a vested interest in contributing. Delegates also 

approved the admission of Japan as a member state and Turks and Caicos as an 

associate member, and welcomed the Dominican Republic’s offer to host the 

2008 plenary. During 2006, ECLAC also held its second fair at which it 

awarded prizes for the best Experiences in Social Innovation. 

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; 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; 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2006 

78 

and disseminating knowledge and data through meetings, seminars, 

publications, and inter-country networks. 

Since his appointment in July 2000, Executive Secretary Dr. Kim HakSu (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 Jakarta, April 6-12, 2006. The 

conference agenda focused on implementing the Millennium Development 

Goals in the region; increasing economic growth in Pacific island countries 

through greater cooperation in the areas of trade and investment, infrastructure, 

and information and communication technology; and meeting the needs for 

improved disaster management.

Social Issues 

Commission for Social Development (CSocD) 

The Commission for Social Development (CSocD) held its annual 

meeting (44th session) in New York from February 8-to-17, 2006. CSocD, a 

functional commission of the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) of the 

United Nations, consists of 46 member states elected by ECOSOC. 

The Commission for Social Development is the UN body in charge of 

the follow-up and implementation of the Copenhagen Declaration and Program 

of Action, adopted at the World Summit for Social Development in 1995. In 

2006, CSocD adopted resolutions titled: “Social Dimensions of the New 

Partnership for Africa’s Development;” “Modalities for the First Review and 

Appraisal of the Madrid International Plan of Action on Aging, Promoting 

Youth Employment;” and “Comprehensive and Integral International 

Convention to Protect and Promote the Rights and Dignity of Persons with 

Disabilities.” The U.S. delegation made an explanation of position (EOP) on 

the resolution on the “Social Dimensions of the New Partnership for Africa’s 

Development,” explaining that the United States understood the term “right to 

development,” found in Operative Paragraph 4 of that resolution, to mean that 

each individual should enjoy the right to develop her or his intellectual or other 

capabilities to the maximum extent possible through the exercise of the full 

range of civil and political rights. 

Discussions on the priority theme of the 44th session, Review of the 

First UN Decade for the Eradication of Poverty, did not result in agreed 

conclusions. The United States delegation, as well as the delegation of the 

European Union and delegations of several other countries, resisted efforts to 

divert the work of the Commission from its mandated responsibility to focus on 

the social dimensions of development into issues of economic development 

which are normally treated in other fora within the United Nations. 
Economic and Social Affairs 

79 

The Commission adopted a resolution on the Future Organization and 

Methods of Work of the Commission for Social Development that established a 

two-year cycle in which one year’s work will consist of a review to result in a 

chairperson’s summary, while the other year’s work will consist of a policy 

segment whose outcome shall be negotiated, with action-oriented strategies. It 

was also decided that the theme for the 2007-2008 review and policy cycle 

would be “promoting full employment and decent work for all.” 

The Netherlands and the Dominican Republic were elected upon the 

conclusion of the 44th Session as vice-chairs to serve on the Bureau of the 45th

Session of the Commission. Subsequently, Iran was elected as chair, and 

Tanzania and Ukraine were elected as the two other vice-chairs of the 

Commission for the next session. 

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, given the complexity of 

regulations and enforcement mechanisms needed to ensure equal opportunity 

for persons with disabilities (PWDs), it would be more productive for nations to 

strengthen their domestic legal frameworks related to non-discrimination and 

equality than to negotiate a new UN convention. For this reason, the United 

States had no intention of becoming a party to the treaty. Ralph Boyd, who was 

Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights at the time, stated the U.S. position 

early in the negotiations. 

 An Ad Hoc Committee on Disabilities was established to negotiate a 

Convention. Although the Committee consisted of member states, there was 

extensive civil society participation during the negotiations, with opportunities 

reserved for representatives from NGOs and disabled persons organizations 

(DPOs) to speak. 

 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 make interventions on issues or articles 

in the draft text involving international law or practice. In the JanuaryFebruary 2005 and August 2005 negotiations, the United States engaged on a 

number of key issues, such as establishment of a treaty monitoring body, family 

issues, and support for the overarching principle of non-discrimination. During 

the fall of 2005, the United States expanded its engagement to other issues. 

 The concluding five weeks of negotiations on the draft Disabilities 

Convention took place in January-February and in August 2006. At the August 

2006 session, the United States called for a vote on a preamble paragraph, 

forced into the text by the Arab Group, containing a reference to foreign 

occupation. The vote was 102 – 5(U.S.) – 8. Australia, Canada, Israel, and 

Japan voted with the United States, while Cameroon, Cote d’Ivoire, Gabon, 

Kenya, Korea, Niger, Nigeria, and Serbia abstained. The United States then 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2006 

80 

joined consensus on moving the text forward to the fall 2006 UN General 

Assembly for action. At the UN General Assembly on December 13, 2006, the 

United States joined consensus on adopting the Convention with an 

Explanation of Position on the preamble paragraph citing foreign occupation 

and the article on health containing the term “reproductive health.” 

 The active U.S. role in the disabilities negotiations has been 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 have welcomed increased involvement.

UN Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal 

Justice (Crime Commission) and UN Office on Drugs 

and Crime (UNODC) 

The UN Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice 

(Crime Commission) is the principal UN policy-making body on criminal 

justice issues. The 40-member Commission convenes annually at the UN 

Office in 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 and Committee of the 

Whole. 

Support given by the United States during the year greatly assisted UN 

anti-crime programs and policy. The UN Office on Drugs and Crime 

(UNODC) used funds provided by the United States to support global programs 

to strengthen the legal framework and operations of countries with organized 

crime cases, fortify the legal regime against terrorism, and increase 

implementation of the UN corruption convention. Country-specific U.S. funds 

were also used to enhance law enforcement response to trafficking in persons in 

India. 

The 15th session of the UN Crime Commission convened April 24-28, 

2006, in Vienna. The thematic discussion of the Commission was “maximizing 

the effectiveness of technical assistance in crime prevention and criminal 

justice.” The Commission negotiated 12 resolutions, including several U.S. cosponsored resolutions in the areas of trafficking in persons, corruption, security 

at major events, and the Africa Round Table Program of Action. These 

resolutions direct the work of the UNODC toward areas where it has relevant 

expertise and can best complement U.S. bilateral assistance efforts. 

The United States played a crucial role in brokering compromises on a 

number of resolutions, such as a proposal to develop a potentially cumbersome 

follow-up mechanism for the 11th Congress on Crime Prevention and Criminal 

Justice (Crime Congress) held in Bangkok in 2005. The U.S. delegation was 

able to intervene and to promote a modified framework for a working group 

that would instead examine lessons learned from the Crime Congresses. The 

United States also worked assiduously with the Indonesian delegation on a 
Economic and Social Affairs 

81 

resolution regarding trafficking in timber resulting from illegal logging. 

However, the Brazilian delegation ultimately blocked consensus. 

The United States was instrumental in jump-starting Crime 

Commission reform both on procedural and substantive grounds. U.S. 

delegates introduced a streamlined agenda for the upcoming session that 

compressed the Commission’s agenda and avoided duplication between the 

work of the Commission and the work of the Conference of Parties for the two 

UN crime conventions: the UN Convention against Transnational Organized 

Crime (TOC), and the UN Convention Against Corruption (CAC). 

The United States voiced its strong support for implementation and 

ratification of the TOC and the CAC, as well as the counterterrorism 

instruments, and urged other states to join it in contributing resources for 

technical assistance in implementing the Conventions. 

The United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized 

Crime (TOC) entered into force on September 29, 2003. As a party to the 

Convention and participant in the 2006 Conference of Parties (COP), the 

United States supported collecting information to implement the Convention 

and its protocols; it also actively facilitated donor-recipient dialogue on 

UNODC’s delivery of technical assistance to implement the TOC and its 

Protocols and the identification of priority needs. The Conference of Parties 

also endorsed UNODC’s creation of an online directory of central authorities to 

help implement mutual legal assistance and extradition. The U.S. delegation 

reached agreement with other states parties on the way forward in reviewing 

implementation of the TOC, prevented the adoption of an overly burdensome 

implementation monitoring mechanism, and secured consensus that the first 

two rounds of questionnaires must be completed before moving to additional 

phases of information gathering. 

Throughout 2006, this convention and its three protocols have helped 

to raise international awareness of pressing issues – such as trafficking in 

persons and migrant smuggling – that previously were not widely recognized. 

For example, in 2006, the United States, for the first time ever, successfully 

utilized the migrant smuggling protocol as the basis for an extradition case with 

Bulgaria. U.S. authorities also used the TOC as the basis for provisional arrest 

warrants and a pending mutual legal assistance request. 

The United Nations Convention against Corruption (CAC), adopted in 

2003, is the first truly globally negotiated anticorruption treaty and the most 

comprehensive existing anticorruption instrument. The CAC entered into force 

on December 14, 2006, and its Conference of the States Parties (COSP) 

convened its first meeting in December 2006 in Jordan. At the first COSP, 

member states agreed on the necessity of creating a mechanism for reviewing 

implementation of CAC. To achieve this goal, the United States created a selfassessment checklist as a model for soliciting and gathering such information 

that member states agreed to use. The COSP also created experts’ working 

groups tasked with discussing how to move forward on the issues of asset 

recovery and technical assistance. With strong support from the U.S. 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2006 

82 

delegation, the COSP also appealed for states party to expedite compliance 

with the mandatory criminalization provisions, to increase steps to address 

bribery of international organization officials, and to consider a case study 

examination of prevention as an activity at the next COSP to be held in 

Indonesia in 2007. 

Throughout 2006, the United States encouraged UNODC to continue 

to improve its strategic management through the development of its 

overarching strategy and the creation and implementation of performancebased indicators in project and standard evaluations. The United States 

participated in numerous negotiations on the new UNODC Medium-Term 

Strategy for 2008-2011, during which the United States emphasized the need 

for UNODC to prioritize its projects and establish performance indicators that 

accurately measure the impact of UNODC’s assistance. The Strategy would be 

finalized in early 2007 and sent both to the Commission on Crime Prevention 

and Criminal Justice and to the Commission on Narcotic Drugs for approval. 

The United States expects that the final product will set forth useful distinctions 

(on HIV/AIDS, terrorism and the issue of the Conventions vice 

standards/norms), assist UNODC in long-term planning, and increase donor 

confidence in the organization. 

Drug Control 

The UN Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) and the International 

Narcotics Control Board (INCB), 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, coca 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. 

U.S. support during 2006 had significant impact on the operations and 

expansion of UN counter-narcotics programs and policy. UNODC used funds 

provided by the United States to enhance global programs that work to: reduce 

precursor chemical control; combat money laundering and terrorist financing; 

provide legal advice on treaty implementation of the UN drug conventions, 

drug abuse and HIV/AIDS prevention; and augment an international network of 

treatment and rehabilitation centers. U.S. funds also supported numerous 

regional projects, including strengthening precursor control in East Asia and 

increasing border control in Central Asia. U.S. funds also supported countryspecific programs in Afghanistan, providing for eradication verification 

activities; in Venezuela, implementing a legal advisory program; in Peru, 

monitoring illicit drug crops; and in South Africa, preventing drug abuse and 

raising awareness of HIV/AIDS. 
Economic and Social Affairs 

83 

Commission on Narcotic Drugs (CND) 

The 53-member UN Commission on Narcotic Drugs (CND), of which 

the United States has been a member since 1946, is the central policy-making 

body within the UN system for dealing with drug-related matters. The CND 

held its 49th session in Vienna March 13-17, 2006. During the regular CND 

session, delegates reviewed the worldwide activities and management of the 

UNODC, and received briefings on various aspects of the global narcotics 

situation. Delegates also debated UNODC’s role in the provision of alternative 

development during the thematic debate. The United States emphasized the 

need for a comprehensive approach to alternative development that included 

eradication of illicit crops as a condition for alternative development assistance, 

and the importance of mainstreaming alternative development and other drug 

control strategies into broader development goals. 

The United States achieved its major goals during the CND session, 

including the adoption of the U.S.-sponsored resolution on control of precursor 

chemicals used in the manufacture of synthetic drugs, in particular 

methamphetamine. This resolution was critical to fostering international 

cooperation on halting the diversion of chemicals and was widely supported by 

the other Commission members. As a result of this resolution, hundreds of tons 

of precursors for methamphetamine, that feed the epidemic in the United States, 

were stopped or seized. The United States also co-sponsored several 

resolutions related to controlled substances and chemicals, as well as a 

resolution promoting international cooperation among law enforcement at the 

operational level, another on the Paris Pact Initiative (a 2003 French-led effort 

for stronger multilateral action against Afghan heroin trafficking), and one 

proposed by Afghanistan seeking support for its National Drug Control 

Strategy. U.S. delegates worked to mitigate problematic text contained in 

resolutions on drug abuse enabling “harm reduction” and “preventive 

alternative development.” 

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 

governments’ compliance with the provisions of the international drug control 

treaties, and to assist governments in this effort. The Board meets periodically 

to monitor the implementation of the drug control treaties and the international 

movement of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances. 

The INCB presented its annual report to the Commission on Narcotic 

Drugs in March 2006. The report called upon governments to estimate their 

legitimate requirements for precursors which may be used in the illicit 

manufacture of amphetamine-type stimulants, and urged governments to 

control pharmaceutical products containing scheduled substances in the same 

way they control the scheduled substances themselves. These comments 

directly supported the U.S. aforementioned precursor resolution at the CND. In 

addition, the United States was pleased with the report’s first chapter on 

alternative development and legitimate livelihoods that contains helpful 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2006 

84 

statements linking alternative development to eradication and law enforcement. 

The report again expressed frustration with the misuse of the Internet to obtain 

prescription narcotic drugs from illegal Internet pharmacies, and also criticized 

non-governmental organization advocacy in favor of the legalization of opium 

poppy cultivation in Afghanistan. All of these statements helped to reinforce 

U.S. drug policy internationally. 

In May 2006, the U.S. candidate to the INCB, former Ambassador 

Melvyn Levitsky, was successfully re-elected to the Board. Ambassador 

Levitsky will serve in his private capacity on the Board for an additional fiveyear term, which will extend from 2007-2012. 

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 (ECOSOC), 

seeks to improve the situation of women in the areas of political participation, 

economic opportunity, social development, health, and education. Following 

the 1995 Fourth World Conference on Women (Beijing Women’s Conference), 

the General Assembly mandated that the CSW institute a follow-up process to 

the Conference by regularly reviewing the 12 critical areas of concern in the 

Beijing Platform for Action, and mainstreaming a gender perspective in UN 

activities. The United States regards the CSW favorably and is active in the 

Commission’s work, and has successfully used the annual CSW meetings to 

highlight U.S. activities to improve conditions for women throughout the 

world. 

 The CSW convened its 2006 session in New York from February 27-

March 10, 2006, with a brief wrap-up session on March 16. At the conclusion 

of the two-week session, member states adopted the following resolutions by 

consensus: “Situation of Women and Girls in Afghanistan” (EU resolution, 

U.S. co-sponsor); “Release of Women and Children Taken Hostage, Including 

those Subsequently Imprisoned, in Armed Conflict” (Azerbaijan resolution); 

“Women, the Girl Child, and HIV/AIDS” (SADC resolution; U.S. joined 

consensus with an EOP); and a procedural resolution on “Advisability of the 

Appointment of a Special Rapporteur on Laws that Discriminate Against 

Women” (Slovenia / Rwanda resolution). 

 The United States called for a vote on and voted against the resolution 

on “Situation of and Assistance to Palestinian Women.” Each year the United 

States opposes this unbalanced and one-sided resolution that criticizes Israel 

while failing to note that the Palestinian side and Arab states also have 

responsibilities to meet in resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The 

resolution addresses a number of issues, including territory and refugees, which 

must be resolved by negotiations between the parties. The vote was 41–2(U.S. 

and Canada)–1(Nicaragua). 

 During the March 16 resumed session, member states adopted by 

consensus one resolution and two sets of Agreed Conclusions. The UK 
Economic and Social Affairs 

85 

resolution on “Future Organization and Methods of Work of the Commission 

on the Status of Women” set the CSW work program for 2007-2009, with the 

following themes: Eliminating Discrimination and Violence Against the Girl 

Child (2007); Financing for Gender Equality and Empowerment (2008); and 

“Equal Sharing of Responsibilities Between Women and Men, Including in the 

Context of HIV/AIDS” (2009). On the Agreed Conclusions on “Equal 

Participation of Women and Men in Decision-Making Processes at All Levels,” 

Cuba, Sudan, and Syria called for inserting wording on foreign occupation, 

while the United States opposed it. Because those three countries did not want 

to be perceived as blocking consensus on this text, they eventually substituted 

wording on the obstacles women faced that affected their participation in 

decision-making processes, “including, inter alia, ... armed conflict ....” For 

the Agreed Conclusions on “Enhanced Participation of Women in 

Development,” Egypt withdrew language on foreign occupation largely 

because of U.S. opposition. 

 The U.S. held a side event on the situation of women in Darfur, which 

U.S. Representative to the CSW Ambassador Patricia Brister moderated. 

Commission on Human Rights 

During 2006, there was a major change in the UN human rights 

framework with the elimination of the UN Commission on Human Rights 

(which reported to the UN General Assembly (UNGA) via the Economic and 

Social Council (ECOSOC)), and the creation of the UN Human Rights Council 

(which reports directly to UNGA). While the United States supported the 

Secretary-General’s 2005 initiative to replace the Commission on Human Rights 

(CHR) with a smaller, action-oriented Human Rights Council (HRC), 

negotiations to establish the Council resulted in weak standards for membership 

and a low threshold for calling Special Sessions. The United States did not vote 

for the resolution creating the HRC (UNGA Resolution 60/251), which was 

approved 170-4(U.S)-3. The United States disassociated from consensus in the 

Fifth Committee on a vote that called for $4.3 million to be designated for the 

UN Human Rights Council. The United States also did not run for membership 

in 2006, yet nevertheless engaged with the body as an active observer. 

The Council’s initial 47 members were elected in May 2006 for one-, 

two- and three-year terms. Subsequent elections will be for three-year terms 

only. In contrast to the Commission on Human Rights, which met for one sixweek session per year, the Human Rights Council meets throughout the year for 

a minimum of 10 weeks of plenary meetings in Geneva, but for many more 

weeks in practice when working groups and other HRC-related bodies are 

considered. In addition, the Council frequently called Special Sessions, since 

only one-third of the members were needed to do so. Three regular sessions 

(June 19–30, September 18–October 6 -- continued November 27–29, and 

November 29–December 8) and four Special Sessions (July 5-6, August 11, 

November 15, and December 12–13) were held in 2006. Three of the Special 

Sessions focused exclusively on Israel and the fourth on Sudan. None of the 

U.S. goals for the new HRC was achieved during 2006, save the calling of the 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2006 

86 

Special Session on Sudan, but the principal institutional matters concerning the 

Council will not be resolved until mid-2007 at the earliest. 

UNGA Third Committee

The United States succeeded in accomplishing several key objectives in 

the Third Committee in 2006. With active lobbying and global demarches on 

the part of the United States and its allies, four significant country-specific 

resolutions passed, some defeating associated procedural no-action motions in 

the process. A top U.S. priority, the Canada-sponsored resolution on the human 

rights situation in Iran, passed in a vote of 70(U.S.)-48-55. The EU-sponsored 

DPRK and Burma resolutions passed by 91(U.S.)-21-60 and 79(U.S.)-28-63, 

respectively. The U.S.-sponsored resolution on Belarus was adopted (70(U.S)-

31-67), but the Uzbekistan resolution was withdrawn from consideration when a 

procedural no-action motion passed by a margin of only five votes. Retaliatory 

resolutions condemning the human rights record of the United States and 

Canada were tabled by Belarus and Iran respectively; neither passed. 

A politically biased resolution blaming Israel for human rights 

violations in Lebanon passed by a vote of 109-7(U.S.)-59. The resolutions on 

the Right to Development and the Rights of the Child passed again by a large 

majority, although the EU voted against the development resolution when Cuba, 

on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement, insisted on maintaining a reference to 

the need for a convention. The United States was able to join consensus on 

Denmark’s resolution against torture and on the resolution on the protection of 

migrants, after successfully resisting language proposed by Mexico that 

challenged U.S. border protection measures. The United States worked 

extensively on negotiating resolutions regarding international cooperation 

against the scourges of drugs and crime. Ultimately, the United States cosponsored both the Mexican-sponsored resolution strengthening international 

drug control and the Italian-sponsored resolution strengthening the UN crime 

prevention and criminal justice program. The United States joined consensus on 

Res. 61/144, “Trafficking in Women and Girls,” and Res. 61/143, 

“Intensification of Efforts to Eliminate All Forms of Violence Against Women.” 

The United States joined consensus with an EOP on Res. 61/106, “Convention 

on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.” The resolution on the elimination of 

all forms of religious intolerance was adopted by consensus – preserving 

important language on anti-Semitism over calls from some other countries to 

eliminate any references to specific religions.

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. 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 
Economic and Social Affairs 

87 

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’s operations in 2006 included these activities: monitoring the 

human rights situation in Darfur; assisting the governments of Nepal, Colombia 

and Guatemala; and pressing the government of Sri Lanka to accept assistance. 

OHCHR also signed a Memorandum of Understanding with the government of 

Togo, and established a new country office in Lome. 

 OHCHR provided staff for the secretariat of the UN Human Rights 

Council and for the independent UN special procedures, including special 

rapporteurs. OHCHR does not control or have great influence over the HRC 

nor the special procedures. 

UN Democracy Fund 

The UN Democracy Fund (UNDEF), growing out of an idea presented 

by President Bush at the United Nations in 2004 and established in 2005, had a 

successful first year. UNDEF is funded completely voluntarily, with 22 

countries pledging and contributing some $50 million. The 17-member 

(including the United States) UNDEF Advisory Board selected 125 projects for 

funding from more than 1,300 proposals by over 100 countries. The grants, 

totaling $36 million, are now being disbursed, with the majority going to prodemocracy civil-society organizations. 

Among the 125 approved projects, particular attention was given to 

NGOs in emerging democracies. Many U.S. priority projects received funding, 

among which were: Hungary’s International Center for Democratic Transition 

(ICDT), an NGO that provides guidance on the transition to democracy based 

upon lessons learned by countries that have undergone the process; and the 

strengthening of civil society participation in the Broader Middle East and North 

Africa Initiative (BMENA). Although some of the approved projects already 

receive bilateral support from the United States and others, the direct support of 

NGOs is a new development. At the Board meeting, the United States insisted 

that no more than 20 percent of the funded projects be administered by UN 

agencies. Seventy percent went to NGOs, with the remainder going to 

government, regional, and international organizations. 

The Fund is an expression of President Bush’s vision for introducing 

the benefits of democracy to people all over the world. By empowering civil 

society organizations, democracy can grow naturally from culturally resonant 

institutions within the citizenry of emerging democracies. As an outcome of UN 

reform, the fund truly represents the possibility for new thinking on the use of 

technical assistance to build democratic institutions. While the political climate 

in the UN human rights institutions worsens, the Democracy Fund stands out as 

a symbol of what the United Nations can do when properly mobilized. The 

United States has been integral in the formation of this innovative institution 

and, with continued participation, can help to sustain its achievements over the 

long term. 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2006 

88 

Democracy Caucus 

The UN Democracy Caucus (DC) is a network of democratic nations 

through which the United States can advance the work of the United Nations in 

areas such as human rights, good governance, and the rule of law. The United 

States believes that democratic nations must work more closely together in order 

to help the United Nations to live up to its founding principles. The Democracy 

Caucus is comprised of the approximately 130 countries that participate in the 

Community of Democracies, whose participants meet standards set out in the 

Warsaw Declaration of June 27, 2000. The Democracy Caucus is not intended 

to supplant long-standing regional or other groupings, but rather to provide an 

added mechanism for like-minded democratic nations to cooperate. It serves as 

a supplementary network that countries use to cooperate on resolutions and 

alternatives. The United States participates on the Convening Group, comprised 

of 16 countries and chaired by Mali, which provides leadership for the Caucus. 

Democracy Caucus work is done regularly in Geneva and New York, 

and an initiative is under consideration in Paris. In May, the Community of 

Democracies Convening Group issued a statement, which the United States 

supported, encouraging participating states to support candidates with good 

human rights records in the Human Rights Council election. In Geneva, 

Ambassador Tichenor met regularly with Convening Group ambassadors to 

discuss initiatives to advance the various ways to express the common 

commitment to protect human rights and fundamental freedoms. In New York, 

the CD Ministerial during the UN General Assembly focused on furthering 

democracy, development, and poverty reduction. The U.S. delegation to the 

Ministerial Conference, led by Under Secretary for Democracy and Global 

Affairs Paula Dobriansky, also highlighted the need to support the UN 

Democracy Fund and urged that the Community face the global challenge posed 

by the restrictions imposed by some undemocratic and borderline democratic 

regimes on civil society organizations. In Paris, a discussion was held among 

several Caucus participants to explore establishing a group to focus on 

initiatives such as civic education. 

The Democracy Caucus continued its institution-building work. Efforts 

to establish a Secretariat for the Democracy Caucus began to gain momentum. 

In preparation for the Community of Democracies Ministerial Meeting in Mali 

in November 2007, working groups were established to focus on tangible 

activities that could be accomplished before the conference. Members of the 16-

member Convening Group began to meet in Washington, and in Bamako, Mali, 

to determine the invitation list for the upcoming Ministerial. 

Committee on Non-governmental Organizations 

The Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) Committee on Nongovernmental Organizations (CONGO) is the UN body that adjudicates requests 

by non-governmental organizations for accreditation to participate in ECOSOC 

and its subsidiaries’ meetings. The 19 members of CONGO in 2006 were 

Cameroon, Chile, China, Colombia, Côte d’Ivoire, Cuba, France, Germany, 
Economic and Social Affairs 

89 

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 was renewed when it ended on December 31, 2006. 

At its regular session, which met January 19-27, 2006, the NGO 

Committee had before it 144 applications for consultative status, including 

applications deferred from earlier sessions dating back to 1999. CONGO 

recommended 97 applications for consultative status with ECOSOC; 18 were 

U.S.-based NGOs. The committee deferred 39 NGOs for further consideration, 

closed consideration of two NGOs, reclassified 2 NGOs, and reviewed 52 

quadrennial reports. It also decided not to recommend consultative status with 

ECOSOC for three NGOs: the International Lesbian and Gay Association 

(ILGA); the Danish National Association for Gays and Lesbians (LBL); and 

People in Need. CONGO withdrew the consultative status of one NGO, the 

Islamic African Relief Agency (IARA), based on a complaint submitted by the 

U.S. delegation. 

U.S. delegates participated in discussions both on accreditation and on 

deferral of applications to future sessions. In the case of ILGA and LBL, the 

Iranian and Pakistani delegations submitted the motions to the committee to 

decide not to recommend granting consultative status with ECOSOC based on 

concerns about the organizations’ policies regarding pedophilia. The decisions 

were approved by roll call votes of 10 in favour (Cameroon, China, Cuba, Iran, 

Pakistan, Russia, Senegal, Sudan, United States, and Zimbabwe); 5 against 

(Chile, France, Germany, Peru, and Romania); 3 abstentions (Colombia, India, 

and Turkey). In the case of People in Need, a Czech-based NGO, Cuba 

submitted the motion not to grant consultative status with ECOSOC, alleging 

that the NGO was involved in political activity contrary to Resolution 1996/31 

and the UN charter. Cuba alleged that the NGO receives millions of Euros from 

the Czech government and U.S. institutions -- USAID and the National 

Endowment for Democracy -- and that it has been used to illegally introduce in 

Cuba material and money sent to mercenaries paid by the U.S. and Czech 

governments to overthrow the Cuban constitutional order. Cuba’s motion not to 

grant consultative status to People in Need was approved by a roll call vote of 9 

for (China, Colombia, Cuba, India, Iran, Senegal, Sudan, Russian Federation, 

Zimbabwe), 4 against (France, Germany, Romania, United States) and 4 

abstaining (Chile, Pakistan, Peru, Turkey). 

In the case of IARA, the U.S. delegation provided information to the 

committee via the complaint regarding the known affiliation of this NGO with 

terrorist financing, and the inclusion of this organization on terrorist lists of the 

United States and the European Union. The withdrawal decision was achieved 

by consensus. The U.S. delegation also requested the closure of the application 

of World Assembly of Muslim Youth (WAMMY) based on current indictment 

and searches by federal authorities in the United States of the NGO’s U.S. 

locations and activities. 

CONGO held its resumed session May 10-19, 2006, in New York. It 

reviewed 96 applications for consultative status, including applications deferred 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2006 

90 

from earlier sessions dating back to 1999. The committee recommended 55 

applications for consultative status: 14 were U.S.-based NGOs. It deferred 37 

NGOs for further consideration, took note of 33 quadrennial reports, and 

reclassified the status of one NGO. On a proposal made by the delegation of 

Iran, the committee also decided not to grant consultative status to two NGOs: 

the Lesbian and Gay Federation in Germany and ILGA-Europe. The proposal 

was adopted by roll call vote of 9 in favor (Cameroon, China, Cote d’Ivoire, 

Iran, Pakistan, Russian Federation, Senegal, Sudan, and Zimbabwe); 7 against 

(Chile, Colombia, France, Germany, Peru, Romania, and United States); and 2 

abstentions (India and Turkey.) 

The NGO Committee also considered a proposal by the delegation of 

Sudan to re-open the withdrawal decision taken in the regular session of the 

committee on the organization IARA. The delegation of Sudan claimed that the 

NGO is a legal organization with no links to terrorism, and that its government 

is very familiar with its work, contrary to the allegations presented with the U.S. 

complaint during the previous session of the committee. The U.S. delegation 

challenged the veracity of the delegation of Sudan, noting that during the 

previous session Sudan had supported the withdrawal and had stated that it was 

unaware of the organization. The motion to re-open the case was rejected by 

roll call vote of 8 in favor (China, Cuba, India, Iran, Pakistan, Senegal, Sudan 

and Zimbabwe); 9 against (Chile, Colombia, France, Germany, Peru, Romania, 

Turkey, Russian Federation, and the United States); and two abstentions 

(Cameroon and Cote d’Ivoire.) 

During consideration of strengthening the Department of Economic and 

Social Affairs’ (DESA) NGO Section, the U.S. delegation, supported by 

Germany and other delegations, raised its concern regarding the expansion of 

certain activities by the Secretariat and the effect on its work as a supporting unit 

for the committee. The U.S. delegation noted that the NGO Section could not 

undertake additional work and projects that would interfere with or diminish the 

capacity of the Secretariat to address its primary mandate as stated in Resolution 

1996/31, which entails providing a clear channel of communication between 

NGOs and ECOSOC, particularly regarding new application for accreditation, 

submission of quadrennial reports, documentation of withdrawals and 

suspensions, and overall questions and answers from NGOs regarding the 

application process and accreditation status. In this regard, the U.S. delegation 

requested that the NGO Section submit to the committee a document containing 

the composition and assignment of duties of its personnel. 

Overall, the NGO Committee is a highly politicized technical 

committee. As such, the most frequently attacked and scrutinized NGOs are 

those working in the fields of human rights, the rule of law, and democracy. 

The U.S. presence and participation in the NGO Committee allows these NGOs 

to obtain and keep accreditation with ECOSOC. The U.S. delegation also plays 

a crucial oversight role for the administration and control of DESA’s NGO 

Section. 
Economic and Social Affairs 

91 

Holocaust Remembrance 

On January 27, 2006, the UN General Assembly observed the first 

International Day of Commemoration in memory of the victims of the 

Holocaust. UN General Assembly President Jan Eliasson of Sweden cited in 

particular the resolution’s language that “the General Assembly unequivocally 

rejects any denial of the Holocaust as an historic event, either in full or in 

part.” 

The resolution establishing the International Day of Commemoration 

was introduced by Israel during the 60th UN General Assembly and adopted 

by consensus on November 1, 2005, with 104 Member states co-sponsoring. 

This resolution built on the successful December 2004 request of the United 

States, the European Union, Australia, Canada, Israel, New Zealand, and the 

Russian Federation to convene a special session of the General Assembly in 

January 2005 to commemorate the 60th anniversary of the liberation of the 

Nazi concentration camps. 

 In December 2006, in direct contravention of the 2005 resolution, the 

Iranian government sponsored an international conference titled, “Review of 

the Holocaust: Global Vision,” specifically aimed at denying the existence of 

the Holocaust as a historical event. Reflecting the widespread condemnation 

by the international community, the United States pressed for a UN General 

Assembly resolution reiterating the General Assembly’s rejection of 

Holocaust denial. As of the end of 2006, the draft resolution, which 

condemned without reservation any denial of the Holocaust, had attracted 

widespread support and numerous co-sponsors, and was expected to be 

presented for General Assembly consideration on January 26, 2007, the eve of 

the second annual International Day of Commemoration. 

Humanitarian Affairs 

World Food Program (WFP) 

The World Food Program (WFP) is the United Nations’ front-line 

agency in the fight against global hunger. In 2006, WFP distributed 4.0 

million metric tons of food aid to 87.8 million people in 78 countries. James 

T. Morris (United States) served as WFP’s 10th Executive Director, from 

2002-2006. In November 2006, Josette Sheeran (United States) was selected 

to become WFP’s 11th Executive Director. 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 for 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. 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2006 

92 

In 2006, WFP helped the United States to achieve its humanitarian 

and development goals, carrying out programs in Sudan, Ethiopia, Kenya, 

Bolivia, Ecuador, Nepal, and Indonesia among other locations. Sudan was the 

largest single-country operation in 2006, receiving 64 percent of direct 

emergency expenditures and targeting 6.1 million beneficiaries. Kenya and 

Ethiopia were the second- and third-largest beneficiaries, respectively. 

The Immediate Response Account (IRA) received the highest 

amount of external funding since its creation in 1991. This allowed the IRA 

to respond quickly and effectively to 58 relief projects, among them 14 

sudden natural disasters and many civil crises. Burundi, the Democratic 

Republic of Congo, Rwanda, Lebanon, Colombia, Indonesia, Iraq, and 

Philippines were among those aided by IRA funds. 

In 2006, WFP had schoolchildren feeding operations in 71 countries 

and provided school meals and/or take-home rations to 20.2 million children. 

Working with national governments, local authorities, and other aid groups, 

WFP uses food to attract children to school in areas where enrollment ratios 

are lowest and where feeding schoolchildren will have the greatest impact. 

Since 2001, the United States has been the largest single donor to WFP 

schoolchildren feeding activities. U.S. contributions to WFP’s global 

schoolchildren feeding programs come from the McGovern-Dole International 

Food for Education and Child Nutrition Program. This program provides for 

donations of U.S. agricultural products, as well as financial and technical 

assistance, for feeding schoolchildren and maternal and child nutrition 

projects in low-income, food-deficit countries that are committed to universal 

education. In 2006, WFP was the implementing partner for McGovern-Dole 

programs in Bangladesh, Chad, Kenya, and Pakistan. 

Throughout 2006, 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 

its donor base by attracting new donors, including from the private sector. 

WFP carried out an analysis of its eight largest operations to determine 

effectiveness and timeliness of internal advance funding mechanisms. 

Donations from the private sector have increased since 2003, reaching $55 

million in cash, commodities, and services from nearly 100 organizations. 

In 2006, WFP increased its work with other UN organizations to a 

record level. UNICEF remained WFP’s largest UN partner, primarily in 

projects to overcome child hunger, reduce the impact of HIV/AIDS, and 

improve education. FAO was WFP’s second largest partner, primarily on 

food security assessments. WFP also developed close working relations with 

WHO (on health, nutrition, and HIV/AIDS), and with UNHCR (to ensure the 

distribution of food rations for 1.9 million refugees, and 2 million returnees in 

30 countries). Partnerships with NGOs also increased, as 3,264 NGOs 

handled half of all WFP food in 2006. 
Economic and Social Affairs 

93 

WFP operates exclusively from voluntary contributions of 

commodities and cash donated by governments and other donors. WFP’s 

overhead is one of the lowest among aid agencies (7 percent), which means 

that 93 cents of every dollar goes to feed the hungry. In 2006, WFP had 

10,587 employees and had $2.9 billion in direct expenditure. 

UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) 

Since its inauguration January 1, 1951, the office of the United 

Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), based in Geneva, 

Switzerland, has led and coordinated 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. Since June 15, 2005, Antonio Guterres (Portugal) has served as 

High Commissioner. 

During 2005 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 over 6 percent. The 

primary reason for the increase was a result of UNHCR caring for an 

increased number of IDPs, stateless persons, and others in a similar situation. 

At the end of 2005, refugees constituted 40 percent of the total population of 

concern to UNHCR, down from 49 percent at the start of 2005. Internally 

displaced persons protected or assisted by UNHCR are the second-largest 

group under UNHCR’s mandate, accounting for 32 percent, followed by 

stateless persons with 11 percent. Some 6,689 international and national 

employees and short-term staff, in 116 countries, carried out UNHCR 

operations. 

In 2006, the UN regular budget accounted for approximately 3 

percent of the UNHCR annual budget of $1,146.8 million; the remaining 97 

percent came from voluntary sources. In addition, UNHCR issued 

supplementary appeals, totaling some $288 million, for emergency assistance 

to: Sudanese refugees in eastern Chad and Darfur, protection and assistance to 

refugees and IDPs in Darfur, the return and reintegration of Sudanese refugees 

to Southern Sudan, the return and reintegration of Burundian refugees, the 

repatriation and reintegration of Congolese refugees, the Iraq Operation, the 

tsunami emergency, the Western Sahara Operation, and the South Asia 

earthquake emergency. The IDP Supplementary Appeals covered operations 

in Liberia, Somalia, Uganda, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Nepal, 

Colombia, East Timor, Chad, and headquarters costs for IDP operations. 

In late 2005, UNHCR predicted a funding shortfall for 2006 and 

instituted a 20-percent cap on the 2006 Executive Committee-approved 

program budgets and non-staff administrative cost budgets. Subsequently, an 

additional $20 million in targeted budgetary reductions were identified in the 

second quarter of the year, half of which were at headquarters. Although 

these measures were deemed necessary, they have resulted in refugee care 

falling below accepted standards. As a result of the steps UNHCR took in 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2006 

94 

2006, the organization is predicting a favorable carryover of an estimated 

$58.8 million. The High Commissioner was cautiously optimistic that no 

capping of refugee assistance programs will be required in 2007. 

About half (52 percent) of all refugees benefit from UNHCR 

assistance programs, with the vast majority located in countries covered by the 

UNHCR Bureaus for Central Asia, South-West Asia, and the Middle East 

(CASWANAME, 47 percent) and for Africa (41 percent). By the end of 

2005, the number of refugees directly assisted by or through UNHCR fell to 

4.4 million refugees. 

Due to continued repatriation, the number of Afghan refugees 

dropped by 21 percent during the year. Significant decreases in the refugee 

population, often as a result of durable solutions or revised refugee estimates 

following registration exercises, were also recorded for refugees originating 

from Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Western Sahara, and Sudan. Other 

major countries of origin experiencing important refugee decreases were 

Burundi, Liberia, Serbia, and Montenegro. Virtually all regions reported a 

decrease in the refugee population, with the largest reductions recorded in 

West Africa and CASWANAME, followed by Europe. The only region that 

experienced a marginal increase was East Africa and the Horn of Africa. 

Afghans constituted the largest group among UNHCR’s total population of 

concern (2.9 million). Colombians were the second largest, made up 

primarily of IDPs, followed by Iraqis, Sudanese, and Somalis. These five 

nationalities alone accounted for 9.6 million or almost half (46 percent) of all 

populations of concern to UNHCR. 

The UNHCR Executive Committee (EXCOM), which is responsible 

for approving UNHCR’s budget and advising UNHCR on issues of concern, 

is comprised of 68 member states, including the United States. In October 

2006, the 57th Session of EXCOM met to discuss protection programs and 

policy, management and oversight, finance, and human resource issues. 

UNHCR noted that despite progress in some situations, the desperate need for 

protection and assistance of the internally displaced in Sudan’s Darfur region 

reflected the need for a clear framework for the exercise of the “responsibility 

to protect.” The High Commissioner cited the central importance of 

preserving the institution of asylum in a rapidly changing world, opposing all 

forms of forced return, and ensuring respect for international refugee law. He 

acknowledged efforts by governments and other partners in addressing the 

protection needs of refugees. 

During the week of EXCOM, the U.S. delegation worked to advance 

a number of U.S. interests. These included: strengthening efforts by the 

international community to address protection and the pursuit of durable 

solutions for refugees; maximizing UNHCR’s operational performance; 

increasing coordination and strengthening partnerships among UNHCR, its 

donors, refugee hosting countries, and UNHCR’s implementing and 

operational partners; and improving emergency preparedness and response 

capacity. The United States also focused on security issues, the protection of 
Economic and Social Affairs 

95 

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 stressed the need 

to support the High Commissioner’s management reforms and called for 

increased donor support for the work of UNHCR. 

Domestic and overseas personnel of State Department’s Bureau of 

Population, Refugees, and Migration (PRM) 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 placed 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. 

The United Nations and its humanitarian partners in the Inter-Agency 

Standing Committee (IASC) agreed in 2005 to a cluster lead approach to 

sector 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 United States is following this issue very closely. 

Since 2001, the relationship between PRM and UNHCR has been 

governed by a Framework of Cooperation in which priorities and shared goals 

are laid out. In 2006, Framework priorities included better protection of 

refugees, with special focus on enhancing refugee protection by strengthening 

UNHCR’s operational protection capacity and by promoting gender equality 

and women’s empowerment, including through the continued rollout of the 

Age, Gender, and Diversity Mainstreaming initiative. Another Framework 

priority was increasing and improving the level and quality of registration of 

persons of concern, including through rollout of Project Profile to all UNHCR 

operations registering refugees and others of concern. Still a third priority 

was enhancing resettlement as a protection tool and durable solution. Other 

Framework priorities were: strengthening UNHCR’s preparedness and 

response capacity, strengthening UNHCR’s support for collaborative efforts 

to address situations of internal displacement comprehensively and implement 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2006 

96 

the agreed pilot projects, and initiating implementation of a workforce 

management strategy aiming to enhance the efficiency of the organization. 

As UNHCR’s largest donor, the U.S. Government has a significant 

interest in the success of UNHCR in meeting the protection and assistance 

needs of refugees and other persons of concern to the organization. 

State/PRM’s monitoring of international organizations (IOs) derives directly 

from its mission statement: “To act through the multilateral system to achieve 

operational productivity on behalf of victims and burden-sharing performance 

on behalf of the American taxpayer.” 

It is important to match the proportion of State/PRM’s resources 

provided to IOs (over 85 percent) with rigorous monitoring and evaluation. 

Therefore, in order to ensure accountability and effectiveness in the field, 

State/PRM provides annual monitoring and evaluation (M&E) training of both 

IOs and NGOs for incoming officers in Washington and refugee coordinators 

posted overseas, as well as for a limited number of IOs and NGOs. PRM also 

provides expanded M&E sessions for Washington staff in order to enhance 

and strengthen M&E concepts throughout the year. In addition, refugee 

coordinators are requested to participate and report on UNHCR’s Country 

Operations Plans (COPs) for the coming year, which occur every spring. 

UNHCR’s COP process provides an ideal opportunity for the U.S. 

Government to gain valuable insight into UNHCR’s planning process as well 

as the overall direction of its program. It also provides an opportunity to 

influence policy and resource decisions in the field and to monitor and 

evaluate UNHCR’s progress toward its goals and objectives, as well as those 

agreed to in the USG-UNHCR Framework for Cooperation. 

UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees 

in the Near East (UNRWA) 

 Since 1950, the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees 

in the Near East (UNRWA) has provided education, health, and social 

services to Palestinian refugees and their descendants who reside in the West 

Bank, Gaza, Jordan, Syria, and Lebanon. These refugees now number over 

4.4 million. UNRWA, led by Commissioner-General Karen AbuZayd (United 

States), has approximately 27,000 employees, almost 80 percent of whom are 

teachers. 

 In 2006, UNRWA spent about 48 percent of its regular budget on 

education, including schools and teachers. UNRWA allocated 19 percent of 

its 2006 regular budget on health services, and another 8 percent on relief and 

social services. UNRWA spent nearly 30 percent of its budget in Gaza and 18 

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 2006, the United States continued to fund UNRWA’s corps of 

independent inspectors, known as Operation Support Officers (OSO), through 

our contribution to UNRWA's Emergency Appeal. Operation Support 
Economic and Social Affairs 

97 

Officers systematically monitor UNRWA’s operations and help to ensure that 

its facilities are not being used for political purposes or militant activity. Also 

in 2006, UNRWA expanded its highly regarded tolerance education program 

to include vocational training centers, teacher training centers, and educational 

science facilities. As a result, UNRWA's 666 schools, 8 vocational training 

centers, and 3 educational sciences faculties participated in the tolerance 

education, conflict resolution, and democracy training programs. 

 Following Hamas’ victory in the January 25, 2006, 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. 

 As socio-economic conditions in the West Bank and Gaza Strip 

deteriorated during the year, UNRWA increased the amount of its 2006 

Emergency Appeal from $95 million to $171 million to meet rapidly 

expanding needs for food, temporary employment, and relief. Through the 

Emergency Appeal UNRWA provided food assistance to 240,000 refugee 

families (approximately 1.2 million individuals) and created over 3 million 

workdays for 50,000 unemployed refugees. 

 In 2006, UNRWA launched its Organizational Development Plan 

(ODP), a three-year initiative to implement reforms in service delivery and 

program management, including strategic planning, resource management, 

and accountability. In 2006, UNRWA also launched a four-year campaign to 

rehabilitate all 12 Palestinian refugee camps in Lebanon. The project is tied to 

the Lebanese government’s “National Dialogue,” which includes the 

demilitarization of armed Palestinian groups and concrete improvement in 

living conditions, civil rights, and employment opportunities for Palestinian 

refugees in Lebanon. The United States earmarked $500,000 to the ODP and 

$2.56 million to the Lebanon camp initiative in 2006. 

 On December 8, 2005, the General Assembly adopted a decision that 

expanded the membership of UNRWA’s Advisory Commission and gave 

observer status to the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), the European 

Union, and the League of Arab States. In 2006, the expanded Advisory 

Commission adopted a work plan, tied to UNRWA’s budgetary cycle, which 

involves closer oversight of UNRWA’s expenditures and operations, 

including monitoring progress on UNRWA's Organizational Development 

Plan and implementation of recommendations made by the UN Board of 

Auditors. The Commission includes two subcommittees, comprised of both 

donor and host countries, that provide recommendations to UNRWA on 

technical issues related to reform, audit implementation, budgeting, and 

management oversight. The U.S. Government was the first chair of the 

Subcommittee on Finance and Budget and played a large role in establishing 

this subcommittee. 

The UN Board of Auditors, Board of Examiners, and the Office of 

Internal Oversight Services scrutinize UNRWA’s operations and fiscal 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2006 

98 

practices to ensure accountability. In July 2006, the UN Board of Auditors 

(BOA) released the results of its UNRWA audit led by the Auditor-General of 

the Republic of South Africa for the biennium ending 2005. The BOA issued 

an unqualified audit opinion for UNRWA’s 2004-2005 financial statements, 

which signifies that the auditors performed an extensive examination of 

UNRWA’s financial records and have no reservations regarding the accuracy 

and fairness of its presentation. The BOA made 34 recommendations in 

multiple areas of UNRWA’s programming, including procurement, human 

resources, program management, and information technology. UNRWA 

developed an implementation work plan and is in the process of implementing 

these recommendations. UNRWA is fully in line with other UN agencies in 

implementing BOA recommendations. UNRWA’s 78 percent implementation 

rate for the audit covering 2002-2003 was one of the highest for any UN body.

Disaster and Humanitarian Relief Activities 

In 2006, 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 UN agency governing 

bodies and support groups, including the Donor Support Group for the Office 

for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA). The United States 

also continued to be actively engaged in initiatives to reform the U.N. 

humanitarian system, including through the participation on the Advisory 

Group of the Central Emergency Response Fund (CERF) and in providing 

funding and guidance to the UN cluster initiative as well as to strengthen the 

Humanitarian Coordinator system. 

While 2006 was notable for the absence of grand-scale natural 

disasters, the United States provided substantial support to UN humanitarian 

operations throughout the world for smaller-scale disasters, as well as ongoing 

relief efforts to protracted crises such as Sudan, DRC, and the Horn of Africa. 

Following the outbreak of conflict between the Israeli Defense 

Forces and Hezbollah in July 2006, the United States immediately deployed a 

Disaster Assistance Response Team to the region, which coordinated closely 

with UN-led coordination and response activities. The United States provided 

$7 million to support the UN Flash Appeal for Lebanon to the World Food 

Program (WFP) and the UN Joint Logistics Center for logistics and 

coordination, the UN Children’s Fund (UNICEF) for water and sanitation 

activities, OCHA, and OCHA’s Humanitarian Information Center (HIC) for 

coordination and information management. In addition, the United States 

provided $7.5 million to the UN High Commissioner for Refugees and the UN 

Relief Works Agency for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA) for protection, 

shelter, and emergency relief supplies, to the UN Department of Safety and 

Security (UNDSS) for safety and security activities, and to the International 

Organization for Migration (IOM) for transportation of third-country 

nationals. 

As the humanitarian crisis in Darfur continued, the United States 

remained the largest bilateral donor. A significant portion of U.S. assistance 
Economic and Social Affairs 

99 

was channeled through UN operational agencies such as WFP, UNICEF, the 

World Health Organization (WHO) and the UN Department of Safety and 

Security to address emergency needs. The United States contributed more 

than $300 million in food commodities to WFP for distribution in Darfur and 

for refugees from Darfur in eastern Chad. More than $13 million was 

contributed to UNICEF to support the provision of safe water, as well as 

emergency health and nutrition services. 

 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 International 

Strategy for Disaster Reduction (ISDR), strengthening UN coordination of 

emergency humanitarian assistance, improving the safety and security of 

humanitarian personnel and protection of UN personnel, and several countryspecific resolutions pertaining to humanitarian situations. 
Specialized Agencies and Other Bodies 

 101

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. It employs more than 3,600 staff members, about 

1,600 professional and 2,000 general service staff, and currently maintains five 

regional offices, nine sub-regional offices, five liaison offices, and 74 country 

offices. 

Dr. Jacques Diouf (Senegal) has been Director-General of FAO since 

1994. He was re-elected to a third term starting in January 2006. FAO’s 

highest policy-making body, the biennial Conference, comprises all 189 FAO 

member nations plus one member organization, the European Community. 

The Conference determines FAO policy and approves FAO’s regular program 

of work and its budget. Each biennial Conference elects a 49-member Council 

that meets at least three times between regular Conference sessions to make 

recommendations to the Conference on budget and policy issues. The North 

American region, which comprises the United States and Canada, is allocated 

two seats on the Council and one seat each on FAO’s Program, Finance, and 

Constitutional and Legal Matters Committees. In 2006, the United States held 

the North American seat on the Finance, and the Constitutional and Legal 

Matters Committees. Canada held the North American seat on the Program 

Committee. The United States also 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. Government 

priority. At its November 2005 session, the Council agreed on the terms of 

reference and oversight mechanisms for the evaluation. In February 2006, the 

Committee of the FAO Council charged with oversight of the IEE approved 

the selection of the core team of evaluators and decided that the IEE would 

formally begin on March 13, 2006. Completion of the evaluation report is 

expected in time for the November 2007 Council and Conference. 

In 2006, the United States continued to stress more efficient use of 

scarce resources and greater program effectiveness, and 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. The United States also worked actively 

to promote U.S. candidates for key posts. 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2006 

102

Of particular importance to the United States are the internationally 

recognized standards for food safety and plant health developed by the joint 

FAO/World Health Organization (WHO) Codex Alimentarius Commission 

and the Interim Commission on Phytosanitary Measures of the International 

Plant Protection Convention (IPPC). The work of these bodies facilitates trade 

and protects consumers in developed and developing countries. In 2006, the 

United States continued to work with other countries in the FAO policymaking bodies to ensure greater financial support from the overall FAO 

budget for Codex and IPPC. 

The United States also values FAO's expertise in agricultural 

commodity and trade issues, and continued to press in 2006 for more active 

roles by the FAO Committee on Commodity Problems and the Consultative 

Committee on Surplus Disposal. The United States continues 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 International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and 

Agriculture entered into force in June 2004. The United States signed the 

treaty in 2002, but has not yet ratified it. The treaty establishes a transparent 

system to facilitate access to plant genetic resources and to share the benefits. 

In 2006, states parties to the treaty negotiated and adopted a “material transfer 

agreement,” which sets terms for access and benefit sharing, and which is 

acceptable to the United States. 

FAO has a mandate, in collaboration with the 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 launched a 

Global Strategy for the prevention and control of avian influenza that 

addressed country-level activities as well as regional and international 

coordination. FAO’s multi-faceted approach includes: strengthening 

intelligence about the disease and emergency preparedness; examining the role 

of migratory birds in the spread of avian influenza; enhancing field 

surveillance, laboratory capabilities, and global avian influenza surveillance 

and early warning capabilities; analyzing the social and economic 

consequences of both the disease and its control; and advising governments 

and building capacities on disease surveillance and control. 

In 2006, the United States helped FAO to launch a Crisis 

Management Center (CMC) to coordinate multinational rapid response to 

avian influenza and other diseases. The CMC, a facility run by the FAO in 

close collaboration with OIE, provides animal disease analysis and 

information and deploys international resources to prevent and contain 

dangerous animal diseases. The United States provided funds to FAO for the 

center and seconded four veterinary specialists to it. As of December 2006, 

the United States had committed $434 million to support international 

response and preparedness for avian and pandemic influenza, making the 

United States the largest contributor; and had provided assistance to more than 
Specialized Agencies and Other Bodies 

 103

79 countries, WHO, FAO, OIE, and regional organizations to fight avian 

influenza and to prepare for a possible pandemic. 

International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) 

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), established in 

1957, serves critical U.S. interests in nuclear nonproliferation, 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 holds regular meetings in Vienna five times a year: March, June, 

twice in September, and 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 approving the recommendations and 

decisions of 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 September 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. 

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, the Six Parties unanimously adopted a Joint Statement in 

which 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. 

The other parties agreed to economic cooperation, energy assistance, and steps 

toward normalization of relations, provided that matters of bilateral concern 

are addressed, including human rights and North Korea’s missile programs. 

Subsequently North Korea withdrew from the Six-Party process and said it 

would not rejoin the talks so long as the United States pursued what North 

Korea called a “hostile policy.” Despite continued efforts to bring all parties 

back to the table, North Korea had not agreed to return by the end of 2006. 

Meanwhile, the IAEA continued to prepare for inspections to support any 

diplomatic solution that might be achieved.

Iran 

Iran admitted to the IAEA in 2003 that it had engaged previously in 

covert efforts to conduct undeclared research in several enrichment 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2006 

104

technologies, including gas centrifuge and atomic vapor laser isotope separation, 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, that was more advanced than the P-1 design 

Iran had admitted to earlier. 

IAEA DG ElBaradei's reports throughout 2005 confirmed that the 

IAEA continued to investigate these two serious 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-210; and the involvement of the Iranian military both 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 concerns that 

Iran continued not to allow the Agency to investigate at least two undeclared 

facilities where the IAEA believes undeclared nuclear activities may have been 

conducted. 

In November 2004, Iran and the EU3 (France, Germany, and the 

United Kingdom) signed an agreement in Paris obliging Iran to suspend fully all 

enrichment-related and reprocessing activities, and initiating negotiations on a 

long-term arrangement in which Iran provides "objective guarantees" that its 

nuclear program is peaceful, 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 a verified Iranian agreement to end its pursuit 

of an indigenous nuclear fuel cycle. Following that agreement, the EU3 and 

Iran had 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 WTO, 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. 

On March 29, 2006, the President of the Security Council made a 

statement on behalf of the Council noting with serious concern Iran’s decision 

to resume enrichment-related activities and to suspend cooperation with the 

IAEA under the Additional Protocol. The Council called upon Iran to take the 

steps required by the IAEA Board of Governors and expressed the conviction 

that Iran’s suspension of its enrichment-related and reprocessing activities, 

including research and development, and full, verified Iranian compliance with 

the requirements set out by the IAEA Board of Governors would contribute to 

a diplomatic, negotiated solution that guaranteed that Iran’s nuclear program 

was exclusively for peaceful purposes. The Council underlined the 

willingness of the international community to work positively for such a 
Specialized Agencies and Other Bodies 

 105

solution, which would also benefit nuclear nonproliferation elsewhere. The 

Security Council requested a report from the IAEA Director General in 30 

days on the process of Iranian compliance. 

On June 8, 2006, the IAEA Director General reported that Iran had 

not taken the steps required of it by the IAEA Board of Governors and, on July 

31, the Security Council adopted Resolution 1696 calling upon Iran to take the 

steps required by the IAEA, and demanding that Iran suspend its enrichmentrelated and reprocessing activities. The resolution called upon all states, in 

accordance with their national legal authorities and legislation and consistent 

with international law, to exercise vigilance and prevent the transfer of any 

items, materials, goods, and technology that could contribute to Iran’s 

enrichment-related and reprocessing activities, and ballistic missile programs. 

The resolution requested the IAEA Director General to report by August 31 on 

whether Iran had established full and sustained suspension of all activities 

mentioned in the resolution, as well as compliance with the IAEA 

requirements. 

On August 31, 2006, and again on November 16, the IAEA Director 

General issued reports confirming that Iran had not established full and 

sustained suspension of all enrichment-related and reprocessing activities as 

set out in Resolution 1696, and on December 23, the Security Council, acting 

under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, unanimously adopted Resolution 1737, 

which imposed sanctions on Iran for its failure to comply with Security 

Council resolutions and the requirements of the IAEA Board of Governors. 

The Council required Iran to suspend all nuclear enrichment-related and 

reprocessing activities, including research and development, and work on all 

heavy water-related projects, including the construction of a research reactor 

moderated by heavy water. The suspension of those activities would be 

verified by the IAEA. Iran was also required to cooperate fully with the IAEA 

in order to resolve all outstanding issues surrounding its nuclear program. The 

resolution prohibited the import or export of specified nuclear and missilerelated items, as well as any technical or financial assistance related to the 

transfer or use of such items. The Council also decided to require all States to 

prevent the supply, sale or transfer, for the use in or benefit of Iran, of any 

items, equipment or technology, which states determined would contribute to 

enrichment-related, reprocessing or heavy water-related activities, the 

development of nuclear weapons delivery systems, or any other activities 

about which the IAEA had expressed concern. Member states were also 

required to freeze the assets of persons or entities designated by the Council or 

the Sanctions Committee established pursuant to Resolution 1737 as 

supporting Iran’s proliferation-sensitive nuclear activities or the development 

of nuclear-weapon delivery systems. In addition, member states were required 

to notify the Sanctions Committee of the entry into or transit through their 

territories of designated persons. 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2006 

106

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 2006, 145 states had signed the 

Additional Protocol, and 76 had ratified and brought it 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 diplomatic effort begun during the U.S. Presidency 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 at the 

National Defense University on February 11, 2004, is the universal adoption 

of the model Additional Protocol (AP). 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 AP 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 its entry into force. 

Nuclear Security 

The IAEA continued to provide guidance, technical support, and 

training programs in the prevention of nuclear terrorism in 2006. The United 

States was a primary supporter of the IAEA training programs in physical 

protection and nuclear security, having developed the training curricula and 

presented the courses and workshops on behalf of the Agency in 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. 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. 

The IAEA also further developed its new and more encompassing 

International Nuclear Security Advisory Service (INSServ) to help states to 

evaluate and strengthen their overall nuclear security posture to include 

radioactive sources and border controls. The IAEA Board of Governors made 

substantial strides in the security of radioactive sources when it approved the 

revised Code of Conduct on the Safety and Security of Radioactive Sources 
Specialized Agencies and Other Bodies 

 107

(Code) in September 2003, and supplemental Guidance on the Export and 

Import of Radioactive Sources (Guidance) in September 2004. The United 

States has taken a leadership role in promoting the Code and Guidance as 

global benchmarks for controlling sources throughout their life cycle. 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 for assessing the ability of states to manage radioactive sources 

was enhanced to incorporate security as well as safety, Radioactive Source 

Safety and Security Infrastructure Appraisal (RaSSia). 

In May 2004, the U.S. Secretary of Energy announced an ambitious 

new Global Threat Reduction Initiative (GTRI) to identify, secure, recover, 

and/or facilitate the disposition of high-risk, vulnerable nuclear and 

radiological materials around the world that pose a threat to the United States 

and the international community. Since its inception, the GTRI has worked in 

coordination with the IAEA to accelerate removal of high-risk, vulnerable 

nuclear materials around the world, speed up the global conversion of research 

reactor fuel from high-enriched uranium to low-enriched uranium, 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. 

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. That effort culminated on July 8, 2005, when a diplomatic 

conference of states parties adopted an Amendment to the Convention. 

Among other provisions, the Amendment extends the scope of the physical 

protection obligations in the unamended 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 extends the scope of cooperation among states parties on 

physical protection matters and includes new criminal offenses in the criminal 

regime established by the unamended Convention. 

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 2006, the United States allocated funds for priority 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2006 

108

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. 

International Civil Aviation Organization 

(ICAO) 

Established in 1944 and designated a UN specialized technical 

agency in 1947, the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) 

promotes international cooperation for the safe and orderly growth of 

international civil aviation within the objectives of security, safety, and 

environmental protection. Today’s air transport industry includes nearly 900 

scheduled air carriers worldwide operating about 21,500 aircraft. The United 

States has a vital interest in keeping civil aviation secure, safe, and efficient. 

ICAO is instrumental in achieving these objectives. 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 had 190 members in 2006. The United States has been elected 

to ICAO's governing Council every three years since the organization was 

founded. The most recent Council election took place in 2004, with the next 

scheduled for September 2007. Dr. Taïeb Chérif (Algeria) has served as 

Secretary-General since 2003 and was re-elected in February 2006 to a second 

three-year term. Roberto Kobeh (Mexico) was elected President of the 

Council of ICAO in February 2006 and took office in August 2006, following 

the retirement of Assad Kotaite, who had served as Council President since 

1976. The next triennial ICAO Assembly will be held in September 2007. 

In 2006, ICAO continued to give civil aviation security its highest 

priority. ICAO continued implementation of its Aviation Security Plan of 

Action, originally adopted following the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. 

The Council committed ICAO to funding Security Plan implementation from 

ICAO's regular budget. It also requested greater sharing among contracting 

states of data obtained from audits performed under the ICAO Universal 

Security Audit Program (USAP). 

In August 2006, the ICAO Council met in extraordinary session to 

consider the terrorist plot discovered in the United Kingdom, where terrorists 

planned to use ordinary liquids brought on board in carry-on baggage to create 

explosives that could be used to threaten or destroy aircraft in flight. The 

Council called for action to develop standards to regulate liquids, aerosols, and 
Specialized Agencies and Other Bodies 

 109

gels, and to develop improved means of detection. ICAO issued guidance 

with worldwide applicability regarding liquids, aerosols, and gels. In 

September 2006, ICAO's Aviation Security Panel accepted the U.S. position 

that ICAO's Security Manual needed to be revised to give appropriate 

protection to diplomatic pouches, and a drafting committee under U.S. 

leadership began preparing revisions. 

In March 2006, ICAO held an extraordinary Conference of Directors 

General of Civil Aviation following a rash of serious accidents in 2005. 

Among other decisions, the Conference decided to begin making the results of 

ICAO safety audits public beginning in 2008, giving member states two years 

to prepare. The ICAO Universal Safety Oversight Audit Program (USOAP), 

begun in 1999, consists of audits carried out by ICAO in all 190 member states 

to assess their level of compliance with ICAO’s safety standards and to 

establish corrective measures. In 2006, ICAO carried out 26 safety audits. 

ICAO is now shifting its focus from developing new standards to assisting 

member states with implementation of existing standards, and from detailed 

technical specifications to performance-based standards. 

Regarding environmental issues, working groups of the ICAO 

Committee on Aviation Environmental Protection (CAEP) developed draft 

ICAO guidance material "to incorporate emissions from international aviation 

into contracting states' emissions trading schemes" on the basis of mutual 

consent, and draft ICAO guidance material on implementing aircraft emissions 

charges related to local air quality that is consistent with overall ICAO 

guidance in this area. However, there is ongoing debate about the mutual 

consent aspect of the emissions trading guidance and the effectiveness of local 

air quality charges.

During 2006, ICAO undertook important management reform 

initiatives, including recommending term limits of two three-year terms for 

both the Secretary-General and the Council President, an important U.S. 

priority. ICAO also hired a new chief financial officer and consolidated the 

administrative functions for the safety and security audit programs into one 

office to eliminate overhead. The Secretary-General appointed a study group 

to advise on other management reforms within the Secretariat that contained 

many other U.S. initiatives, but he did not accept the study group's 

recommendations.

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 2006, WHO worked in 

close partnership with its 193 member states and two associate members, 

many international organizations, more than 180 non-governmental 

organizations, and nearly 1,200 leading health-related institutions around the 

world designated as “WHO collaborating centers.” WHO representatives in 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2006 

110

142 countries worked with health ministries as advisors and managers of 

technical cooperation programs. 

During 2006, U.S. representatives participated in meetings of the 

World Health Assembly (WHA); the WHO Executive Board; Regional 

Committees for the Americas, the Western Pacific, Africa, and Europe; and 

the Governing Council of the International Agency for Research on Cancer. 

U.S. officials also participated in meetings of the management committees of 

WHO’s major voluntarily funded programs; and of the Intergovernmental 

Working Group on Public Health, Innovation, and Intellectual Property. 

WHO Director-General, Dr. Jong-Wook Lee (South Korea), was 

serving the third year of his five-year term when he died of a stroke on May 

22, 2006. The WHA President announced at the opening session of the World 

Health Assembly on May 22 that Dr. Lee had died, and that Dr. Anders 

Nordstrom, Assistant Director-General for General Management, was named 

Acting Director-General. The WHO Executive Board (EB) confirmed that 

decision in an emergency session. The Executive Board also approved an 

accelerated process for the election of a new Director-General and agreed to 

holding an extraordinary meeting of the Board on November 6-8, 2006, and a 

one-day World Health Assembly on November 9, 2006, to consider the 

nomination and appoint a new Director-General. 

Director-General Lee’s legacy included having established the “3 by 

5” initiative (access for 3 million people to anti-retroviral drugs by the end of 

2005), giving priority to eradication of polio worldwide, achievement of the 

health-related goals of the UN Millennium Declaration, decentralization of 

WHO’s work, and renewing accountability and effectiveness at WHO through 

results-based management. Health Ministers and WHO Staff also lauded Dr. 

Lee’s personal legacy of dedication, genuine care for others, and his wry 

humor and unpretentiousness. 

Thirteen candidates were nominated to serve as Director-General of 

WHO, and most campaigned for the post with visits to WHO Executive Board 

member states, including the United States, prior to the November election. 

At the extraordinary Board session, the first task was to determine a short list 

of five finalists; each finalist was then interviewed for the position. A series of 

votes were then held to determine the nominee, and on the fourth ballot Dr. 

Margaret Chan of (Hong Kong) China emerged as the winning nominee. On 

the next day, November 9th, the World Health Assembly convened formally to 

elect Dr. Chan to serve as WHO Director-General and to set her term of office 

at five-and-a-half years beginning on January 4, 2007. 

With an avian and pandemic influenza threat as a growing concern 

during the course of 2006, the World Health Assembly adopted a resolution 

urging voluntary implementation of the pandemic influenza-related provisions 

of the International Health Regulations (2005) prior to their entry into force in 

2007. The IHRs establish an international legal framework for states parties to 

notify the WHO and respond to a public health emergency of international 

concern. Upon entry into force in June 2007, the IHRs obligated states parties 
Specialized Agencies and Other Bodies 

 111

to strengthen their ability to detect, respond to, reduce or eliminate the spread 

of public health emergencies, and to report in a timely way to WHO. The 

IHRs will also authorize the Director-General of the WHO to issue nonbinding recommendations on measures that affected states parties should take, 

including, if necessary, restrictions on travel and commerce to and from 

affected areas. During 2006, the Secretariat noted it was taking steps to 

accelerate IHR implementation, including the establishment of a Pandemic 

Influenza Task Force, to be able to provide immediate assistance to affected 

countries on effective control measures, laboratory support, and outbreak 

communications. 

The 2006 World Health Assembly also addressed a number of issues 

important to the United States. Health, trade, and intellectual property issues 

were prominent, and three separate resolutions were proposed, all focused on 

these issues, including one that envisioned development of a “global 

framework” for essential health research and development. While the United 

States did not agree to such a framework, agreement was reached on the 

creation of an Inter-governmental Working Group (IGWG) to draw up a 

“global strategy and plan of action” to provide a medium-term framework 

based on the recommendations of the 2006 Report of the Commission on 

Innovation, Public Health and Intellectual Property (CIPIH). The United 

States sought a pragmatic focus on research and development into needsdriven essential health research rather than compulsory licenses and other 

issues relating to patents. 

The Assembly also considered a variety of substantive topics such as 

the international migration of health personnel, a global strategy on sexually 

transmitted infections, progress on polio eradication, and emergency 

preparedness and response. The WHA welcomed the successful convening in 

February 2006 of the first session of the Conference of the Parties (COP) to 

the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC). While South 

Africa called for the immediate destruction of the authorized smallpox stocks 

held at the official repositories in the United States and the Russian 

Federation, it was not possible to bridge the divide with several African 

countries at the Assembly on setting a date for the destruction of the smallpox 

virus stocks, and the Assembly postponed the issue until the January 2007 

Executive Board. 

The Assembly did not accept a proposal for a new agenda item on 

granting observer status for Taiwan, put forward by several countries having 

diplomatic relations with Taiwan. There was limited debate on the proposal, 

with the Assembly President allowing no more than two countries to speak in 

favor of the proposal and two to speak against. 

Once again, the Assembly took up the long-standing agenda item on 

“Health conditions of, and assistance to, the Arab population in the occupied 

Arab territories, including Palestine.” The draft resolution proposed by a 

number of Arab states was extremely unbalanced in its references to Israel. 

The United States requested a roll-call vote; the resolution was adopted, with 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2006 

112

the United States and eight other countries voting against it, and a number of 

abstentions and absences. The United States noted the responsibility of the 

Hamas-led Palestinian Authority Government for recent hardships of the 

Palestinian people, indicated the U.S. humanitarian and medical assistance, 

and stated that the resolution did not advance the health of the Palestinian 

people but interjected political issues into the debate of the Assembly that 

were unambiguously outside the mandate of WHO. 

The Assembly adopted the Eleventh General Program of Work, a 10-

year strategic planning document for 2006-2015. The newly created Program, 

Budget, and Administration Committee also met prior to the Assembly and 

considered management and reform issues in depth, including: development of 

the Medium-Term Strategic Plan 2008-2013; results-based management 

initiatives; and the development of the Global Management System, an 

integrated program management and administration system. The Assembly 

also approved the financial report for 2004-2005, and considered reports from 

the External and Internal Auditors. The annual Human Resources report 

showed an increase in the hiring of women, but little progress on closing the 

gap on hiring from under-represented countries. 

International Agency for Research on Cancer 

(IARC) 

The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), a 

subsidiary body of the World Health Organization, 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, with 18 member states, including two new members in 2006 (India 

and Korea), met at IARC headquarters in Lyon, France, on May 18–19, 2006. 

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. Dr. Peter Boyle (United Kingdom), a cancer 

epidemiologist and biostatistician, continued his third year as IARC Director. 

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 Directing Council of PAHO 

convened at its headquarters in Washington, D.C., on September 25–29, 2006. 

U.S. officials, including U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services 

Michael 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 Director of PAHO, Dr. Mirta Roses (Argentina), who took office 

in February 2003, 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. 
Specialized Agencies and Other Bodies 

 113

PAHO’s strategies and work with countries of the Americas in 2006 

focused on the importance of achieving the health-related development goals 

of the Millennium Declaration, such as the reduction of child mortality; 

improvements of maternal health; strengthening preparedness for and response 

to disasters; access to safe drinking water; improvements in immunization 

coverage; and control of HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria. 

The Directing Council discussed and adopted resolutions on pressing 

health issues, including immunizations, maternal and child health, indigenous 

peoples’ health, health promotion, a regional strategy on nutrition, and the 

development of the Health Agenda for the Americas 2008-2017. 

Representatives of PAHO’s 38 member states participated, mostly at the 

ministerial level. 

The Directing Council also agreed to restructure and reform several 

areas of governance, following the recommendations of a working group in 

which the United States participated, and to disband two Subcommittees, i.e., 

on women and on animal health, whose topics were better addressed through 

incorporation into other governance discussions. The Directing Council also 

changed the name of the Subcommittee on Planning and Programming to 

become the Subcommittee on Program, Budget, and Administration, and 

revised its terms of reference with a focus on issues of budget, management, 

and administrative issues. The Directing Council also agreed to a number of 

changes to improve the procedures and transparency of the election of the 

Director of PAHO. 

Joint UN Program on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS) 

The Joint United Nations Program on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS) began 

formal operations in 1996. UNAIDS is comprised of a Geneva-based 

Secretariat and 10 co-sponsoring bodies: 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 has a field-based staff and works directly 

in 75 countries dealing with the HIV/AIDS epidemic, primarily through 

country-coordination theme groups that seek to mobilize all sectors to address 

AIDS. Dr. Peter Piot (Belgium) has been the Executive Director of UNAIDS 

since its inception. 

UNAIDS’ governing body is the Program Coordinating Board (PCB), 

which meets three times per biennium. The PCB oversees UNAIDS’ allvoluntary budget and acts on issues concerning policy, strategy, finance, 

monitoring, and evaluation. The PCB is comprised of 22 member states, 

distributed by region and elected from among the member states of the cosponsoring organizations: six representatives from the co-sponsoring 

organizations; and five representatives from non-governmental organizations, 

three from developing countries and two from developed countries. Member 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2006 

114

states are elected by the UN Economic and Social Council for three-year 

terms, but can choose to cede a portion of their term to another member state 

subject to ECOSOC approval. The United States was elected to the PCB in 

2005 and will serve through 2007. Representatives from the UNAIDS cosponsoring organizations and non-governmental organizations serving on the 

PCB have the right to participate fully in PCB deliberations, but do not have 

the right to vote. The PCB seeks to operate by consensus whenever possible. 

The PCB met twice in 2006 – first on June 27-28, in Geneva; and 

again December 6-8, in Lusaka, Zambia. Discussions at both meetings were 

dominated by the formulation of the UN system’s response to the 2006 

Political Declaration on HIV/AIDS, which was adopted by the UN General 

Assembly on June 2. UNAIDS modified implementation of its voluntarily 

funded $439.6 million Unified Budget and Workplan for 2006–2007 in order 

to support better the priorities established through the 2006 Political 

Declaration. Most importantly, UNAIDS strengthened its support for countrydriven efforts to work toward universal access to comprehensive prevention 

programs, treatment, care, and support by 2010. Through active participation 

in the PCB meetings, the United States successfully ensured that PCB 

decisions endorsed the need for the international response to HIV/AIDS to 

remain country-driven, and emphasized the key role of the UN system in 

advocating for development of national strategies through inclusive, 

transparent processes and in providing technical support to countries in key 

areas such as monitoring and evaluation. The United States continues to be 

strongly supportive of UNAIDS’ work. 

In 2006, the UNAIDS PCB approved a 2007-2010 Strategic 

Framework for UNAIDS support to countries' efforts to move toward 

universal access. The Strategic Framework places working toward universal 

access as the overarching objective of UNAIDS for the next four years; 

reaffirms UNAIDS support for coordinated, country-level planning and 

budgeting; establishes a common set of Strategic Directions among UNAIDS 

co-sponsoring organizations and the Secretariat; and aims to bring longer-term 

direction, accountability, and consistency to the work of UNAIDS and its 

cosponsors. The United States supported the global effort to move toward 

universal access to prevention programs, treatment and care through its strong 

political commitment to advancing access to AIDS prevention, treatment, and 

care around the world, and 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. 

The United States also worked closely with UNAIDS during 2006 to 

highlight the importance of voluntary HIV testing and counseling. At the UN 

General Assembly High Level Meeting in June, First Lady Laura Bush noted 

that it is not possible to receive life-saving treatment without knowing one’s 

status and called for the establishment of an International Voluntary HIV 

Counseling and Testing Day. At the request of the United States, UNAIDS 

followed up this call by conducting a feasibility study on the merits of holding 

an International Testing Day; the study determined that it could be useful in 
Specialized Agencies and Other Bodies 

 115

many circumstances with proper planning and preparation. Heeding this 

advice, the United States and 24 other governments from Africa, the Americas, 

and Asia proposed a decision text calling on all UN Member States to observe 

an International Voluntary HIV Counseling and Testing Day in 2007. The UN 

General Assembly adopted this decision by consensus on December 4, 2006. 

The United States will continue working with UNAIDS and WHO to support 

this initiative. 

 During 2006, UNAIDS continued to strengthen its relationship with 

the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria (the Global Fund), 

an independent, non-UN organization. Along with WHO, UNAIDS serves as 

an ex officio member of the Board of the Fund. UNAIDS provided advice and 

technical assistance to countries seeking assistance to prepare and submit 

funding proposals to the Global Fund. In response to the lack of technical 

support for HIV/AIDS efforts more generally, UNAIDS established the 

Technical Support Facilities (TSF) model in late 2005, with technical 

assistance programs beginning in 2006. Since their establishment, the 

UNAIDS TSFs have provided over 3,000 person-days of technical assistance 

in strategic planning, implementation, monitoring, and evaluation of efforts in 

support of national HIV/AIDS programs, covering over 60 countries. Clients 

of the TSFs to date include national AIDS authorities and other national 

ministries, regional bodies, and civil society. During 2006, the United States 

worked with the TSFs to provide technical support upon request, specifically 

to improve performance of Global Fund grants.

International Labor Organization (ILO) 

 The International Labor Organization (ILO), founded in 1919, 

promotes humane labor conditions. The organization’s core mission is to 

foster 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 assist states 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. 

Headquartered in Geneva, Switzerland, the ILO has 180 member 

states. Juan Somavia (Chile) was elected Director-General of the ILO in 1999 

and re-elected 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 

(ILC) held in June. This tripartite structure is unique to the ILO. 

In 2006, the ILO advanced U.S. policy priorities for universal human 

rights standards and economic growth and development. The ILO helped to 

advance U.S. interests in the key areas of freedom of association, eradication 

of forced labor and child labor, education on HIV/AIDS in the workplace, and 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2006 

116

technical assistance in 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, the AFL-CIO represents U.S. workers and the 

New York-based U.S. Council for International Business represents U.S. 

employers in the Governing Body. These representatives speak and vote 

independently of the U.S. Government.

In 2006, the ILO continued to focus international attention on forced 

labor in Burma, which a 1998 ILO Commission of Inquiry found to be 

“widespread and systematic.” In all three of its annual meetings, the ILO 

threatened to refer Burma to the International Court of Justice for this abuse of 

human rights. The ILO also cited Belarus and Colombia 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 2006, the International Program on the 

Elimination of Child Labor (IPEC) removed or prevented approximately 

130,000 children from exploitative work through the provision of educational 

and training opportunities in ongoing projects funded by the U.S. Department 

of Labor. The United States has funded action to fight child labor in 79 

countries. Draft legislation to realize the fundamental principles and rights at 

work, including a prohibition against child labor, was developed in 12 

countries.

In 2006, the ILO provided advice on labor law reform to 

approximately 30 countries, and technical assistance to 18 countries to 

modernize their labor ministries. The ILO assisted U.S. trading partners in 

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 the United States. 

International Maritime Organization (IMO) 

The mission of the International Maritime Organization (IMO) is to 

foster international cooperation to promote maritime safety, security, and the 

protection of the marine environment. International trade is critical to the U.S. 

economy, and shipping carries nearly 90 percent of the world's trade. The 

United States strongly supports IMO's work. The IMO develops conventions 

and treaties on international shipping, facilitates international maritime trade, 

and provides technical assistance in maritime matters to developing countries. 

The IMO also develops standards and practices to protect against oil spills and 

pollution from hazardous and noxious cargo, ship waste, ballast water, and 

emissions. 

The United States has been elected to the IMO's 40-member 

Governing Council every two years since the organization was founded in 

1948. Efthimios Mitropoulos (Greece) is the Secretary-General of the IMO. 

He served an initial four-year term 2004-2007, and in November 2006 the 
Specialized Agencies and Other Bodies 

 117

Council approved him for a second four-year term. The IMO has 167 full 

IMO members and three associate members (Hong Kong, Macao, and the 

Faroe Islands). 

The IMO supports U.S. interests by enhancing maritime safety, 

security, and environmental protection. Significantly, the IMO created the 

International Ship and Port Facility Security (ISPS) Code, which incorporated 

U.S.-sponsored amendments into universal international standards that parallel 

U.S. domestic maritime security requirements. IMO has also focused on 

protecting vital shipping lanes of strategic importance. The Straits of Malacca 

and Singapore have suffered many attacks by pirates. Any serious or lasting 

disruption of maritime traffic through the Straits would have a widespread and 

far-reaching detrimental effect, requiring ships to make a long detour around 

Indonesia and force shippers to pay higher freight rates. In September 2006, 

IMO sponsored a conference in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, consisting of 

representatives of the Malacca Straits littoral states, Straits users including the 

United States, and other concerned parties including the shipping industry. 

This was the second of three meetings hosted by the states bordering the 

Straits of Malacca and Singapore. During 2006, the international insurance 

industry lowered its rates from wartime back to normal levels because pirate 

attacks in the Straits had decreased. Another area that suffers from piracy is 

the Horn of Africa off the Somali coast. After the UN Security Council 

endorsed the IMO's call for member states to use their naval and air assets in 

the region to protect merchant shipping, U.S. naval vessels participated in 

several anti-piracy missions in 2006, including one that lead to the arrest, trial, 

and imprisonment of seven pirates. 

In 2006, the IMO carried out the first audits of member states (Chile 

and Denmark) under the IMO Voluntary Audit Scheme. The Audit Scheme 

will help to promote maritime safety, security, and environmental protection 

by assessing how effectively member states are implementing and enforcing 

IMO Convention standards. The audits will also provide feedback to the 

member states with advice on how to improve their performance. Eventually 

33 countries will be audited each year on a five-year, rotating basis. The Audit 

Scheme should bring about many benefits, such as identifying where capacitybuilding activities would have the greatest effect, and targeting appropriate, 

relevant actions; the member states themselves should receive valuable 

feedback to assist them in putting the applicable instruments into practice; and 

generic lessons learned from audits could be provided to all member states so 

that the benefits could be widely shared. 

During 2006, the IMO was especially active in protecting the marine 

environment by coordinating the international response to an oil spill in the 

Eastern Mediterranean Sea that had been caused by the bombing of a power 

plant in Lebanon.
United States Participation in the United Nations—2006 

118

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 2006, there were 191 member 

states and over 700 sector and associate members in the ITU. Yoshio Utsumi 

(Japan) completed his second term as Secretary-General of the ITU in 2006. 

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 the governing board of the ITU between plenipotentiary 

conferences. The Council is comprised of representatives from five regions: 

the Americas, Western Europe, Eastern Europe, Africa, and Asia elected at 

plenipotentiary conferences. It meets annually to address management and 

other issues. The Geneva-based ITU held its annual Council meeting April 

19-28, 2006, with a one-day extraordinary session on November 4 

immediately prior to the 2006 Plenipotentiary Conference. The United States 

was particularly interested this year in revising certain portions of the 

Constitution and Convention, as is done at each plenipotentiary conference; 

enhancing efforts to reform the ITU financial system as a means to enhance 

the transparency and efficiency of the Union; and directing the ITU’s role in 

the implementation of certain aspects of the outcomes of the World Summit on 

the Information Society (WSIS), concluded in Tunis in November 2005. For 

the past several years, the United States has led a highly successful reform 

effort in the ITU that has resulted in the ITU increasingly operating on a sound 

financial basis. 

2006 was a crucial year for the ITU, as two important quadrennial 

meetings were held that set the direction of the organization for the next four 

years. In March 2006, the World Telecommunication Development 

Conference (WTDC) took place in Doha. The Conference produced a fouryear Action Plan that guides the work of the Telecommunication Development 

(D) Sector membership, and of the ITU Development Bureau leadership and 

staff. Through the Doha Action Plan, developed and developing countries 

continue to work together to improve telecommunications and boost economic 

growth in developing, and especially least developed countries. The D Sector 

provides opportunities for U.S. Government and industry participation as it 

focuses on expanding telecommunications networks and services in the 

developing world. Among the initiatives approved in Doha are the 

mainstreaming of gender issues in all ITU development work; the approval of 

five pilot projects per region based on each region’s preferences; and the 

incorporation of the implementation of the outcomes of the WSIS, particularly 
Specialized Agencies and Other Bodies 

 119

in reference to information and communication infrastructure and building 

confidence and security in the use of information and communication 

technologies (ICTs) as a major responsibility of the D Sector. 

The United States accomplished its main goals at the Plenipotentiary 

Conference in Antalya, Turkey, in November 2006. The United States was reelected to the Council for another four-year term (2007-2010) with a larger 

number of votes than it received in 2002. In addition, the United States 

succeeded in having an American elected to the Radio Regulations Board, a 

12-member body that issues vital recommendations on international radio 

regulations. The U.S. candidate became the first woman ever elected to any 

office in the ITU’s history. The United States also achieved its objectives in 

limiting consideration of Cuban complaints about U.S. broadcasting, and in 

ensuring that Palestinian Authority observer status in the ITU does not exceed 

that extended to it at the UN General Assembly. The United States continued 

to push for greater transparency and accountability, as it has for several years. 

Linkages between the Strategic, Operational, and Financial Plans for the next 

quadrennial were reinforced and the use of results-based management 

principles was mandated, in addition to continuing the implementation of 

results-based budgeting. The United States also successfully proposed the 

creation of a Management and Budget Group to provide member state 

guidance and oversight to the ITU’s management between Council sessions. 

The Plenipotentiary Conference also laid out the role of the ITU in the 

implementation of WSIS outcomes within its core competencies, without 

expanding its mandate. The Plenipotentiary Conference elected the top five 

officials of the Union (Secretary-General, Deputy Secretary-General, and the 

three Directors of the Sectors), to take office in January 2007. 

The United States has considerable interests in all areas of ITU 

activities. The Radiocommunication Sector’s World Radiocommunication 

Conference (WRC), a treaty–level meeting that occurs every three-to-four 

years, was scheduled for 2007; it is central to U.S. national security and 

commercial interests. These conferences allocate scarce frequency bands to 

radio services, and assign equally scarce orbital slots to member states, which 

in turn make decisions with respect to their use for radio and other services. 

The U.S. private sector is notably engaged in the Standardization (T) and 

Radiocommunication (R) Sectors. The standardization activities of the ITU 

are indispensable to U.S. Government and commercial interests to ensure 

world-wide compatibility and interoperability of global networks. 

UN Educational, Scientific, and Cultural 

Organization (UNESCO) 

UNESCO was established in 1945 with the primary objective of 

contributing to peace and security worldwide. Since rejoining UNESCO on 

October 1, 2003, the United States has continued 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 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2006 

120

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, increased understanding of 

democratic principles and practice, use of scientific knowledge, and protection 

of the cultural and natural heritage of humankind. UNESCO, which has a 

Secretariat headquartered in Paris, has 192 member states and has been led 

since 1999 by Director-General Koichiro Matsuura (Japan). 

The Executive Board, one of UNESCO’s governing 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. A U.S. delegation 

participated in the semiannual Board Sessions in Paris, April 2006 (174th

Session), and September 2006 (175th Session). The sessions focused on 

preparing the Medium Term Strategy for 2008-2013, as well as on issues of 

freedom of expression and Education for All. 

The April Executive Board, in the wake of the Danish cartoon 

controversy, examined the issue of freedom of expression, and respect for 

sacred beliefs and values and religious and cultural symbols. At this Board, 

the United States was able to ensure protections for freedom of expression and 

media freedom, and joined consensus on the item. During the September 

Executive Board, the United States began to focus on reforms of the Education 

Sector. As a participant in the One UN process, UNESCO must continue to 

focus its programs and its personnel on field offices. The United States will 

follow these and other sector reforms in the coming years. 

U.S. priorities at the 2006 meetings of the Executive Board were to 

maintain budget discipline within UNESCO and focus UNESCO program 

efforts and budget resources on the areas of literacy, democracy (civic 

education and press freedom), access to potable water, and natural hazards 

mitigation. The Executive Board began its examination of the Medium Term 

Strategy for 2008-2013 through a drafting group to which the United States is 

a member. The Medium Term Strategy plots a course for the Organization for 

a six-year time period. The United States worked with other delegations, 

ensuring that U.S. priorities in the areas of education, science, and democracy 

appeared in the Medium Term Strategy. 

In 2006, UNESCO saw several successes in the area of education, a 

main U.S. priority. The United States worked with other member states in 

promoting results-based education programs at the country level, where they 

will do the most good toward achieving the goals of Education for All. 

UNESCO’s Literacy Initiative for Empowerment (LIFE) program, a literacy 

strategic framework with the goal of achieving concrete, measurable results in 

35 countries with the highest rates of illiteracy, saw implementation in 11 

countries. The second phase of LIFE will be launched in 2008 to another 11 

countries. In her role as honorary Ambassador for the UN Literacy Decade, 

First Lady Laura Bush hosted the first-ever White House Conference on 
Specialized Agencies and Other Bodies 

 121

Global Literacy in September 2006. The White House Conference set in 

motion six regional UNESCO literacy conferences that will be completed by 

the end of 2008. These conferences will focus on the themes of Mother/Child 

Literacy, Literacy for Health, and Literacy for Economic Self-Sufficiency; and 

will disseminate effective practices, create cooperation among stakeholders, 

mobilize partners and resources, and advocate for literacy. 

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, 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 54th session met in Vienna, from May 29-June 2, 2006. The U.S. 

delegation, led by Dr. Fred Mettler of the University of New Mexico and the 

Veterans Administration, included seven other advisors from academia, the 

private sector, and the U.S. Government. The Scientific Committee reviewed 

10 scientific reports on topics that included sources-to-effects assessments 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, exposures from radiation accidents, and 

medical radiation exposures. Five reports were approved for publication. 

Deliberations of the Scientific Committee resulted in a path forward for the 

upcoming year, including plans for the review of six draft reports at the 55th 

session, with the expectation that three will be approved for publication. 

March 14, 2006, marked the 50th anniversary of the first session of 

UNSCEAR, and the Scientific Committee commemorated this milestone 

during its 54th session with a ceremony hosted by the City of Vienna and 

attended by dignitaries, scientists, and government officials including the U.S. 

Ambassador of the U.S. Mission to the United Nations in Vienna. The 

Secretariat continued its efforts to raise awareness of the work and relevance 

of UNSCEAR outside of the traditional scientific community. The 

UNSCEAR Scientific Committee’s website has been substantially updated and 

revised to enhance access to UNSCEAR products. All past reports of the 

Committee are now available electronically on the website. 

UNSCEAR is an independent UN advisory body and reports its 

findings directly to the UN General Assembly. However, the UN 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2006 

122

Environment Program (UNEP) provides administrative support for 

UNSCEAR, and funding for the UNSCEAR Secretariat and operations are 

included in the UNEP program and budget. Communication and coordination 

between UNSCEAR and UNEP have greatly improved in recent years, and the 

United States continues to encourage cooperation between UNEP and the 

UNSCEAR Secretariat in order to maintain recent improvements in 

UNSCEAR administration. In response to a budgeting error, which left 

UNSCEAR without funds for publishing in the 2006-07 biennium, UNEP 

provided $49,000 in additional resources for 2006 to ensure that the Scientific 

Committee was able to fulfill a crucial element of its mandate: publication 

and dissemination of its findings. However, funding and staffing issues 

continued to challenge UNSCEAR in 2006. Declining budgets and the loss of 

a P-5 post in the early 1990's has left UNSCEAR with only one professional 

staff position to manage an increasing workload with decreasing resources. 

In light of U.S. and international efforts to prevent, manage, and 

mitigate radiological incidents and burgeoning interest in nuclear energy, it is 

in the U.S. interest that UNSCEAR continue to operate as an effective, 

credible, and independent scientific body, and that its findings be widely 

disseminated. 

Universal Postal Union (UPU) 

The purpose of the Universal Postal Union (UPU), with headquarters 

in Bern, Switzerland, is to facilitate the efficient operation of postal services 

across national borders, and to serve as a forum for regulatory and customer 

issues related to postal and express delivery markets. The United States joined 

the UPU at its founding in 1874. The UPU has since grown to encompass 191 

member countries. In recent years the UPU gained attention for its 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 ad personam. 

Edouard Dayan of France is the current Director General of the UPU 

International Bureau. Romania chairs the Council of Administration, and the 

United States chairs the Postal Operations Council (POC). Michael Regan of 

the U.S. Postal Service currently serves as POC Chairman. 

In 2006, U.S. policy goals continued to focus on designing 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 

systems and methodologies for measuring the performance of postal 

administrations in delivering international mail; linking inter-administration 

payments to performance; solidifying private-sector participation in the UPU; 

and strengthening the Union’s strategic planning capabilities. 

Work on terminal dues progressed with the completion of several 

important studies on international mail volumes, domestic postage rates, and 
Specialized Agencies and Other Bodies 

 123

costs. A terminal dues workshop with more than 150 participants from over 

75 countries took place in Bern to gather member-country views on the 

principles and an initial system design for the future terminal dues system to 

be decided at the 2008 Nairobi Congress. 

The project where the UPU arguably made its most progress in 2006 

was in drafting the design for a “global monitoring system” to measure the 

performance of developing postal administrations in delivering inbound 

international letters. A system for measuring the quality of service of 

industrialized postal administrations in delivering international letters and 

linking terminal dues payments to performance results was formally deployed 

in 2005; and the UPU published the first reports generated by the system in 

early 2006. The technology employed by these measurement systems relies 

heavily on transponders utilizing Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) chips 

inserted in test letters mailed and received by independent correspondents. In 

recent years, the prices of these transponders and associated technology have 

fallen considerably, and the UPU has seized on this opportunity to design an 

affordable measurement system accessible to a wider range of its member 

postal administrations. 

During 2006, the United States remained actively engaged in the 

efforts of several working groups, of both the POC and the Council of 

Administration, whose overall purpose is to ensure high-quality international 

postal services at affordable prices. Within the POC, the United States 

continued to lead the Postal Security Action Group and Standards Board, and 

served in key positions in the Telematics Cooperative, the Express Mail 

Service (EMS) Cooperative, the Terminal Dues Project Group, 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. 

The UPU’s Consultative Committee, which was formed by the 2004 

Bucharest Congress and whose members include private sector associations of 

mailers, express delivery firms, trade unions, equipment manufacturers, and 

other postal stakeholders, pursued an ambitious work program focusing on 

trade matters and projects of particular interest to large mailers, such as crossborder address forwarding and access models. The Chairman 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. 

Throughout 2006, the United States played a central role in 

innovative work carried out by the UPU’s Strategic Planning Group in the 

field of results-based management. The Group adopted a concept proposed by 

the United States under which the UPU produces “report cards” showing the 

progress made by each member administration in achieving selected UPU 

strategic goals. The latter include service and tracking performance, access to 

postal services, and legislative reform of national postal services. The 

Strategic Planning Group also approved an approach put forward by the 

United States to seek the views of member countries about UPU strategic and 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2006 

124

budgetary priorities through surveys containing specific lists of discretionary 

UPU activities. The intent is to prioritize the activities in the biennial UPU 

Program and Budget so that optimum use can be made of limited UPU 

financial resources. 

World Intellectual Property Organization 

(WIPO) 

The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) promotes the 

protection of intellectual property rights throughout the world through 

cooperation among member states. Established by the WIPO Convention in 

1967, it 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 184 members of the 

WIPO Convention. 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 includes patents, 

trademarks, and copyrights. The two principal treaties are the Paris and Berne 

Conventions (with, in 2006, 171 and 163 members, respectively). WIPO also 

administers 20 multilateral “unions” (the treaty administering organs). 

The General Assemblies of WIPO Unions were held in Geneva from 

September 25-October 3, 2006. The WIPO General Assembly, of which the 

United States is a member, addressed many important on-going issues facing 

the organization, including efforts to strengthen accountability and oversight 

within the organization, concluding a treaty to update international intellectual 

property standards for broadcasting in the information age, establishing a 

constructive framework in which to assess how to integrate further a 

development dimension into WIPO’s work, and developing a possible work 

program for the Standing Committee on Patents (SCP). 

The United States achieved several major objectives in line with the 

U.S. vision of UN reform. The Assembly adopted limits on fund transfers 

between programs, approved the hiring of a new internal auditor, and 

requested that WIPO prepare a draft revision of the Financial Rules and 

Regulations for its consideration in 2007. The Assembly also approved a new 

mechanism to involve member states earlier and more actively in the 

preparation of the biennial program and budget, which will be utilized for 

preparation of the 2008-2009 Program and Budget. The United States also 

expressed its support for the work of the Audit Committee in providing 

significant oversight of a new building construction project (valued at over 

$100 million) and the desk-to-desk audit recommended by the UN Joint 

Inspection Unit (JIU). The construction project charter was substantially 

improved in response to the Audit Committee’s recommendations, as was the 
Specialized Agencies and Other Bodies 

 125

plan for the desk-to-desk review, which began in 2006. The United States 

pushed strongly for implementation of other measures designed to improve 

transparency and accountability related to the adoption of a general code of 

ethics and a clear system of performance evaluation. 

The Director-General’s ability to make personnel promotions and to 

fill positions through direct recruitment was curtailed, with limited success. A 

hiring freeze was put in place pending the outcome of the desk-to-desk review, 

but it also has not been fully implemented. 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 fraud and 

mismanagement. Although the report could not conclusively document fraud, 

it indicated that serious weaknesses in the management of WIPO made such 

acts feasible. The report highlighted, among other recommendations, the need 

for a comprehensive written human resources management policy, a 

recommendation the United States strongly supported. In 2006, WIPO took 

initial steps toward development of such a policy, a process that continues to 

date. A separate Swiss investigation into possible criminal wrongdoing has 

been ongoing since 2004. 

The Intergovernmental Committee (IGC) on Intellectual Property and 

Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Folklore, of which the United 

States is an active member, continued its work under its extended mandate 

through 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.” 

At the 10th meeting of the IGC, in 2006, the United States 

successfully negotiated a new work plan for both traditional knowledge and 

traditional cultural expressions. At the 11th IGC, work on traditional 

knowledge and traditional cultural expressions will commence with discussion 

on a List of Issues drafted by the Chair of the 10th IGC. Work on genetic 

resources will continue at the 11th meeting of the IGC, with discussion on a 

Secretariat-prepared document listing options for further work. 

After much discussion, the 2006 WIPO General Assembly agreed to 

an extension and a specific format for the work of the Provisional Committee 

on Proposals related to a WIPO Development Agenda (PCDA). The 

Assembly called for two more meetings, prior to the 2007 Assembly, on two 

baskets of proposals in order to complete discussions related to enhancement 

of a WIPO development agenda. In its interventions on this proposal during 

the General Assembly, the United States continued to emphasize that WIPO’s 

activities already included a strong development component, and that the 

United States had previously proposed an Internet-based WIPO Partnership 

Program. 

Although the 2005 Assembly instituted a process to move forward on 

discussions on substantive patent law harmonization, WIPO members 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2006 

126

remained deadlocked in deciding on a work plan for the Standing Committee 

on Patents (SCP) in 2006. The industrialized countries want to pursue 

harmonization of patent examination standards (so-called "prior art" issues), 

but several developing countries are opposed to this narrow focus and want to 

include numerous controversial topics in the discussions such as a new patent 

disclosure requirement relating to genetic resources and traditional knowledge. 

The Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights 

recommended to the 2006 Assembly that a diplomatic conference on a 

Broadcasters’ Treaty be convened in November 2006. However, the United 

States, along with several other countries, argued that it was premature to 

convene a conference until the text had been further refined and agreed upon. 

As a result, the Assembly called for two more meetings of the Standing 

Committee on Copyright and Related Rights before the next Assembly to 

refine and finalize a draft Broadcasters Treaty text. If successful, a diplomatic 

conference would be convened by the 2007 Assembly. The United States 

strongly supported this measure as a means to move forward to ensure that any 

diplomatic conference convened could include a treaty that would adequately 

address U.S. industry needs and concerns. 

World Meteorological Organization (WMO) 

The World Meteorological Organization (WMO) facilitates free and 

unrestricted exchange of weather- and climate-related data, products, and 

services in real or near-real time among members. It thus contributes to the 

protection of life and property from natural disasters, and enhances the 

economic interests of members, particularly in the agricultural, aviation, 

shipping, energy, and defense sectors. WMO also sponsors capacity-building 

initiatives that improve meteorological data collection and forecasting 

capacities around the world, thereby enhancing the accuracy and timeliness of 

weather-related services on a global scale. 

The WMO membership includes 182 states and six member 

territories, all of which maintain their own meteorological services and collect 

meteorological and hydrological data within their domain. The WMO 

governing structure includes a quadrennial Congress comprised of member 

states and territories, which establishes the budget and overall priorities for the 

organization, and an annual Executive Council, which oversees administration 

of the budget and addresses technical and policy issues. The WMO Executive 

Council is comprised of 37 Permanent Representatives to the WMO, typically 

heads of weather services, serving in their personal capacities. The United 

States Permanent Representative to the WMO was re-elected to the Executive 

Council in 2003 for a four-year term. The Geneva-based Secretariat is led by 

WMO Secretary-General Michel Jarraud (France), who was elected for a fouryear term in 2003. 

In 2006, the United States participated in the WMO Executive 

Council and a variety of WMO Regional Association, Technical Commission, 

and expert-level meetings, ensuring that WMO operations are consistent with 

U.S. interests in meteorology, hydrology, and climate. Through participation 
Specialized Agencies and Other Bodies 

 127

in the WMO Executive Council, the United States provided oversight of the 

WMO budget and established technical and policy priorities for the remainder 

of the 2006-2007 biennium. The United States also negotiated consensus 

decisions on enhancement of the World Weather Watch program and the 

Global Telecommunications System, preparation of a zero-nominal growth 

budget proposal for the 2007-2011 financial period, alignment of the resultsbased budget proposal with the WMO Long Term Plan, and continued 

improvement of internal oversight measures. The United States chaired 

WMO’s Audit Committee in 2006, and successfully pushed for increased 

financial accountability and transparency within WMO. Consistent with the 

Audit Committee’s guidance, WMO hired a new Director of Internal 

Oversight, finalized a Code of Ethics for WMO staff, adopted strengthened 

financial disclosure requirements, and instituted additional management 

reforms. 

In 2006, WMO continued to facilitate meteorological data collection 

and exchange through the World Weather Watch program and the Global 

Climate Observing System. These programs provide data that is essential for 

numerical weather modeling, and enable WMO members to provide weatherrelated forecasts and services at costs far below those that would be incurred if 

each member acted alone. Also in 2006, WMO continued to upgrade the 

Global Telecommunications Service, which serves as the communications 

backbone for exchange of weather data, forecasts, and warnings, including 

tsunami and hurricane alerts. It also implemented the final phase of the World 

Area Forecast System (WAFS), thereby improving the quality and consistency 

of route forecast guidance provided to international civil aircraft operations. 

U.S. commercial air carriers rely extensively on WAFS data to economize 

their operations, and to avoid potentially hazardous in-flight weather 

conditions. 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 2006, the United States’ 

voluntary contribution to this program funded, inter alia, development of 

improved flash flood prediction and hurricane warning guidance, natural 

disaster prediction and preparedness initiatives, and training for national 

weather service staff around the world. The United States is the largest 

supporter of the Voluntary Cooperation Program. This U.S. contribution 

benefits the United States by improving the quality of weather, water, and 

climate-related data used by the U.S. National Weather Service to generate 

weather forecasts and severe storm warnings. Our voluntary contributions 

also greatly enhance U.S. influence within the WMO.
129 

Part 4 

Legal Developments 

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. The 

Committee is composed of representatives of the Host Country and 18 other 

member states. The issues addressed by the Committee include the security of 

missions, the safety of their personnel, tax questions, 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 effect 

of such requirements on representatives to the United Nations arriving and 

departing from the United States, the U.S. Mission again hosted a special 

briefing for all missions at the United Nations on August 30, 2006, in 

preparation for the 61st General Assembly. The briefing included guidance on 

diplomatic overflight and landing clearances, expedited port courtesies, 

customs and immigration, the escort-screening program, and other related 

matters. Member states were encouraged to take their own initiative to make 

the processes work smoothly. As a result of these efforts, the number of 

credible complaints from delegations to the 61st General Assembly regarding 

arrivals and departures was minimal. 

Host Country Committee members continued to express concern 

about implementation of the Parking Program for diplomatic vehicles, which 

was originally adopted in 2002. The Committee agreed to bring to the 

attention of New York City officials any problems encountered by the 

permanent missions and began a periodic review of the implementation of the 

program in 2006. 

On December 4, the General Assembly adopted without a vote the 

“Report of the Committee on Relations with the Host Country” (Resolution 

61/41). The resolution requested that the host country continue to solve, 

through negotiations, problems that might arise and take all necessary 

measures to prevent interference with the functioning of the missions; noted 

that the Committee would periodically review the implementation of the 

Parking Program; expressed appreciation for the efforts made by the host 

country; noted that some travel restrictions previously imposed on the staff of 

certain missions and members of the Secretariat of certain nationalities were 

removed in 2006; and noted that the Committee anticipated that the host 

country would continue to facilitate timely issuance of visas to representatives 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2006 

130 

of member states for the purpose of traveling to New York on official UN 

business.

International Court of Justice (ICJ) 

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 ICJ is composed of 15 judges, no 

two of whom may be nationals of the same state. The UN General Assembly 

and the UN Security Council vote separately to elect the Court’s judges from 

a list of persons nominated by national groups on the Permanent Court of 

Arbitration. 

Judges are elected for nine-year terms, with five judges elected every 

three years. As of December 31, 2006, the Court was composed as follows: 

Rosalyn Higgins (United Kingdom, President); Awn Shawkat Al-Khasawneh 

(Jordan, Vice President); Raymond Ranjeva (Madagascar); Shi Jiuyong 

(China); Abdul G. Koroma (Sierra Leone); Gonzalo Parra-Aranguren 

(Venezuela); Thomas Buergenthal (United States); Hisashi Owada (Japan); 

Bruno Simma (Germany); Peter Tomka (Slovakia); Ronny Abraham 

(France); Kenneth Keith (New Zealand); Bernardo Sepulveda Amor 

(Mexico); Mohammed Bennouna (Morocco), and Leonid Skotnikov (Russian 

Federation).

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 20, 2006, 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 avoidance of divisiveness over the ICC. 

In 2005, the UN Security Council adopted Resolution 1593, referring 

the situation in Darfur, Sudan, to the ICC. Pursuant to that resolution, the 

Prosecutor of the ICC made two reports to the UN Security Council during 

2006 on the ICC’s work on investigating crimes in Darfur. As of the end of 

2006, the ICC had not brought any formal charges in connection with its 

Darfur investigation.

International Law Commission (ILC) 

 The UN General Assembly established the International Law 

Commission (ILC) to promote the codification and progressive development 
Legal Developments 

131 

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 ILC members for fiveyear terms, and held elections for the upcoming five-year term at its 61st

session. Michael Matheson, a U.S citizen and former Principal Deputy Legal 

Adviser (and Acting Legal Adviser) at the Department of State, served the 

remainder of his term during 2006 but was not elected to serve an additional 

term. 

The ILC studies international law topics either 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 or reports 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 58th session, in 2006, the ILC concluded its work on a number 

of topics. The ILC considered the final report of its Study Group on the 

“Fragmentation of International Law” and took note of its 42 conclusions. 

The ILC also concluded its work on the “Unilateral Acts of States” and 

adopted a set of 10 Guiding Principles and legal commentaries relating to 

unilateral declarations of states. It also completed its second reading of draft 

articles on the topic of “Diplomatic Protection,” and recommended the 

development of a convention on the basis of the draft articles. The ILC also 

considered the third report of the Special Rapporteur on the topic, 

“International liability for injurious consequences arising out of acts not 

prohibited by international law (International liability in the case of loss from 

transboundary harm arising out of hazardous activities),” and completed its 

second reading of this topic. It recommended that the General Assembly 

endorse the draft principles by resolution and urge states to take national and 

international action to implement them. 

The ILC continued its work on the topic “Responsibility of 

international organizations,” and adopted 14 draft articles together with 

commentaries dealing with circumstances precluding wrongfulness and with 

the responsibility of a state in connection with the act of an international 

organization. It also completed its first reading of the draft articles on the law 

of transboundary aquifers under the topic “Shared natural resources,” 

considered the second part of the Special Rapporteur’s 10th report on the topic 

“Reservations to treaties,” and the second report of the Special Rapporteur on 

the topic “Effects of armed conflicts on treaties.”

The ILC also added five new topics to its long-term program of work: 

immunity of state officials from foreign criminal jurisdiction, jurisdictional 

immunity of international organizations, protection of persons in the event of 

disasters, protection of personal data in transborder flow of information, and 

extraterritorial jurisdiction. 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2006 

132 

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: 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 articles analogous to those 

developed for states; it would not be advisable to attempt to develop a binding 

instrument on the topic of diplomatic protection; it was appropriate for the ILC 

to present the conclusions of its work on the topic of transboundary 

groundwaters in the form of non-binding standards of conduct and practice; 

the ILC should continue its work on aquifers, as part of its work on shared 

natural resources, rather than introduce new topics; and that it was appropriate 

for the ILC to conclude its work on fragmentation of international law by 

recommending that the report of its Study Group be published as a useful 

contribution to the ongoing development of this complex topic. The United 

States expects the ILC to take these observations into account in its work on 

these topics at its 59th session, in 2007. 

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, 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. 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. Pursuant to General Assembly

Resolution 50/52 (1995), the Special Committee operates by consensus. 

The Special Committee held its annual session April 3-12, 2006. The 

General Assembly’s Sixth Committee adopted a resolution commemorating 

the 60th anniversary of the International Court of Justice and a resolution 

adopting the report of the Committee’s work. The General Assembly 

subsequently adopted the resolutions by consensus on December 18 

(Resolutions 61/37 and 61/38, respectively). 

The Special Committee recommended to the General Assembly that it 

continue to consider 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. The U.S. delegation to the annual meeting reiterated 
Legal Developments 

133 

its support for enhanced procedural and other attention to this issue, including 

from international financial institutions, while opposing proposals such as 

those which would provide a compensation mechanism for payments to third 

states affected by the application of sanctions. The U.S. delegation joined 

other delegations to the Special Committee in highlighting the work of the 

Security Council Informal Working Group on General Issues of Sanctions and 

in noting that all Security Council sanctions are currently targeted and that no 

State has requested assistance in the past year. 

The United States continued to support initiatives to streamline the 

work of the Special Committee, including by advocating for removal from the 

Committee’s meeting agenda longstanding, often politically charged proposals 

that are duplicative of matters considered elsewhere in the organization, and 

which stand no chance of achieving consensus. In this regard, the United 

States continued to oppose efforts by other delegations to foster new, generic 

criteria and guidelines aimed at establishing certain controls with respect to the 

imposition of sanctions, peacekeeping operations, use of force, and General 

Assembly vs. Security Council prerogatives. 

War Crimes and Other Tribunals 

International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda 

The Security Council established the International Criminal Tribunal 

for Rwanda (ICTR) in November 1994, pursuant to Resolution 955 (2004). 

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-December 31, 1994. 

Under the Tribunal’s Completion Strategy, as endorsed by the Security 

Council in Resolution 1503 (2003), the ICTR seeks to complete all trials by 

2008, and all work on appeals by 2010. 

By the end of 2006, the Tribunal had completed 33 trials, with 28

convictions and five acquittals. At least 27 defendants were in trial or 

awaiting judgments. There were nine defendants still awaiting trial. An 

additional 18 indictees, including alleged genocide financier Felicien Kabuga, 

remained at large. 

The surrender and prosecution of indictees by the ICTR, especially 

Felicien Kabuga, remains a critical priority for the United States and the 

Security Council. The United States has called on all member states, 

particularly Kenya and the Democratic Republic of the Congo, to fulfill their 

international obligations to apprehend and transfer to the ICTR all fugitive 

Tribunal indictees within their territories. 

The United States continued to monitor the Tribunal closely, to 

ensure adherence to practices that improved efficiency and effectiveness. The 

United States helped to make sure that all increases to the ICTR budget were 

fully justified and in line with the Tribunal’s completion strategies. 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2006 

134 

International Criminal Tribunal for the former 

Yugoslavia 

The International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia 

(ICTY) was established in May 1993 in UNSC Resolution 808 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. 

The apprehension and prosecution at the ICTY of persons indicted for 

war crimes, especially senior Bosnian Serb leaders Radovan Karadzic and 

Ratko Mladic, has long been a critical priority for the United States and the 

Security Council. The United States strongly urges all entities and states, 

particularly the Republic of Serbia and the Republika Srpska in Bosnia and 

Herzegovina, to cooperate by apprehending and transferring the remaining 

four fugitive indictees to the Tribunal, and to freeze the assets and restrict 

travel of those who support the fugitive indictees. The United States has also 

made clear to authorities in the region that meeting their obligations to the 

ICTY is a prerequisite for full integration into the Euro-Atlantic family. 

In 2006, the United States worked to help to create the capacity for 

the fair and credible adjudication of low- and mid-level war crime cases by 

domestic courts in the region, and supported the transfer of such cases from 

the ICTY to domestic courts. 

In the August 1, 2005-July 31, 2006 reporting period, the ICTY 

issued four judgments on the merits and five decisions referring nine accused 

to domestic jurisdictions for prosecution. Additionally, by the end of the 

reporting period, the ICTY was conducting six simultaneous trials of 21 

accused. The United States continues to support the Tribunal's efforts to 

ensure successful implementation of its Completion Strategy and 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 works closely with the Tribunal to ensure that it 

adopts and adheres to practices that improve both efficiency and effectiveness, 

and that any increases to its budget are fully justified and in line with the 

Tribunal’s UNSC-endorsed Completion Strategy. 

Since commencing its work, the ICTY has indicted 161 individuals. 

Fourteen persons have been referred to domestic jurisdictions for prosecution; 

25 indictments were withdrawn prior either to commencement or to 

completion of the proceedings. Of those who have appeared before the 

Tribunal, 51 have been convicted and 5 acquitted. Four indictees, including 

Stojan Zupljanin, Goran Hadzic and the two most wanted -- Karadzic and 

Mladic - remain fugitives from justice. 

Special Court for Sierra Leone 

In 2006, the United States continued to support the United Nations 

and the Special Court for Sierra Leone in its mandate to “prosecute persons 
Legal Developments 

135 

who bear the greatest responsibility for serious violations of international 

humanitarian law and Sierra Leonean law committed in the territory of Sierra 

Leone since 30 November 1996.” The Court’s mission remains a key part of 

the reconciliation process in war-torn West Africa. The Special Court was 

originally intended to complete its work in 2005. This goal proved to be 

unattainable; the three joint trials (each with three defendants) have continued 

in Freetown well past that date, and former Liberian President Charles Taylor, 

indicted by the Special Court in March 2003, was only apprehended and 

transferred to the custody of the Special Court in Freetown in March 2006. 

On June 16, 2006, the United States joined the other Security Council 

members in adopting Resolution 1688 which facilitated Taylor’s transfer to the 

Netherlands so that the Special Court could detain and try him there consistent 

with the terms of an agreement between the Special Court and the Government 

of the Netherlands. The resolution noted that Taylor’s continued presence in 

Freetown represented an impediment to stability and a threat to the peace of 

Liberia and Sierra Leone and to international peace and security in the region. 

The Special Court revised its completion strategy accordingly, aiming to 

conclude trials and appeals in Freetown by the end of 2008, and the Taylor 

trial and appeals in The Hague by the end of 2009. 

Special Tribunal for Lebanon 

Former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri was assassinated on February 14, 

2005. His assassination prompted two weeks of protests calling for Syria’s 

withdrawal from Lebanon. On December 13, 2005, a day after the 

assassination of Gibran Tueni, the Government of Lebanon requested the 

establishment of a tribunal of an international character to try those found 

responsible for assassinating Hariri and others and to expand the mandate of 

the Commission to investigate additional assassinations and assassination 

attempts that took place in Lebanon. 

The UN’s Office of Legal Affairs began initial consultations with 

Lebanese authorities in Beirut on January 26-27, 2006, which were followed 

by consultations at UN Headquarters with two senior Lebanese judges. On 

March 29, with the adoption of Resolution 1664 (2006), the Security Council 

requested that the Secretary-General negotiate an agreement with the 

Government of Lebanon aimed at establishing a tribunal of an international 

character based on the highest standards of international criminal justice. 

Negotiations on the legal framework for the establishment of the Special 

Tribunal for Lebanon between the UN and the Government of Lebanon 

(represented by the judges) took place thereafter, including in New York on 

May 31-June 1 and in The Hague July 3-7. 

On September 6, the UN Legal Counsel presented the initial draft 

agreement and statute to the Lebanese Prime Minister and to the Minister of 

Justice of Lebanon for their consideration. On November 21, the Security 

Council approved the Tribunal documents. On November 25, after six 

Cabinet members resigned, the Lebanese Cabinet approved the draft text 

establishing the Tribunal. Lebanese President Lahoud, Parliamentary Speaker 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2006 

136 

Berri, and the Cabinet ministers who had resigned publicly disavowed the 

Cabinet's decision as “illegitimate.” 

Following the Lebanese Cabinet’s approval, the Agreement was 

forwarded to President Lahoud, who refused to sign the Agreement. After the 

stipulated 15-day waiting period, the Lebanese Cabinet again approved the 

Agreement and was prepared to forward the Agreement to the Parliament for 

ratification. 

By the end of 2006, the Agreement had yet to be ratified by the 

Lebanese Parliament, even though a majority in the Parliament supported the 

creation of the Tribunal. Approval of the Tribunal became a key element in 

the political tensions in Beirut in the fall of 2006, pitting Prime Minister 

Siniora and the “March 14” political bloc, led by Saad Hariri, against the proSyrian, Hizballah-Aounist alliance, which attempted to link the establishment 

of the Tribunal to its attempt to get a blocking minority in the Cabinet. The 

United States strongly supported the establishment of the Tribunal. 

Cambodia Khmer Rouge Tribunal 

The U.S. Cambodian Genocide Justice Act of April 30, 1994, 

committed the United States to “support efforts to bring to justice members of 

the Khmer Rouge for their crimes against humanity committed in Cambodia 

between April 17, 1975 and January 7, 1979.” Following the recommendation 

of a UN-appointed panel to create a Khmer Rouge special tribunal, the UN and 

the Royal Government of Cambodia (RGC) began discussions on the 

establishment of such a tribunal. Negotiations on the form and composition of 

a tribunal were contentious and broke down in February 2002 over the 

question of whether the tribunal would be constituted as an international 

tribunal or a Cambodian tribunal with international assistance. Negotiations 

resumed in early 2003, and an agreement was signed in June 2003 to establish 

the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia (ECCC), a hybrid 

tribunal to try senior leaders of the Khmer Rouge. Due to a political impasse 

following Cambodian national elections in 2003, Cambodia’s National 

Assembly did not ratify the agreement until October 2004. Michelle Lee 

(China) was appointed Deputy Administrator of the Khmer Rouge Tribunal 

(KRT) on October 14, 2005, and the international and Cambodian judges to sit 

in the tribunal chambers were announced on May 7, 2006. 

The KRT consists of three chambers: Pre-Trial, Trial, and a Supreme 

Court. The Pre-Trial Chamber and the Trial Chamber have five judges each 

(three Cambodian and two international) and the Supreme Court Chamber has 

seven judges (four Cambodian and three international). In addition, there are 

two prosecutors (one from each group) and two investigating judges 

(likewise). The names of these officials and their deputies were announced on 

May 7, 2006, and include two Americans, Paul Coffey, as a reserve coprosecutor, and Judge Martin Karopkin, as a reserve judge in the Supreme 

Court Chamber. The Cambodian law implementing the 2003 UN-Cambodia 

Agreement to establish the KRT provides that life imprisonment shall be the 

maximum sentence for anyone convicted by the KRT. 
Legal Developments 

137 

Donors were concerned by the initial cost estimate of almost $80 

million for the KRT; however, protracted negotiations finally resulted in a 

budget of $56.3 million ($43 million from the UN and $13.3 million from the 

RGC). In January 2005, the UN issued a call for voluntary contributions. As 

of the end of 2006, $41.8 million had been pledged, with Japan providing 

$21.6 million. Other major donors are France ($4.8 million), Germany ($2.9 

million), the UK ($2.87 million), Australia ($2.3 million), the Netherlands ($2 

million), Canada ($1.6 million), and the EU ($1.3 million). Cambodia has said 

it can only contribute $1.5 million of its share of the tribunal budget and is 

seeking international donor support to make up the difference. 

On May 1, 2006, the Secretary-General announced that enough of the 

required funding had been received to begin organizing the tribunal. 
139 

Part 5 

Reform of the UN System 

Management Reform and Mandate Review 

In 2006, the United Nations, supported actively by the United States 

and other member states, focused a great deal of attention on following up on 

the management reform agenda from the September 2005 UN World Summit. 

Throughout 2006, delegations continued to work to implement the 

commitments made by heads of state and government during the Summit. 

From January-June 2006, Ambassadors Alan Rock (Canada) and Munir 

Akram (Pakistan) co-chaired plenary discussions on management reform and 

mandate review. In July 2006, Ambassador David Cooney (Ireland) replaced 

Ambassador Rock. 

The 2006 management reform agenda consisted of a broad range of 

initiatives to modernize the UN Secretariat; strengthen ethics, oversight, and 

accountability systems; and review UN program mandates. Due to the scope 

and complexity of the reform agenda, member states agreed in December 2005 

to limit the Secretariat’s initial spending authority for the 2006-2007 UN 

budget to $950 million: in effect authorizing UN operations through 

approximately June 2006, with the goal of fostering continued focus by 

delegations on implementing the decisions from the Summit (General 

Assembly Resolution 60/247 A-C). Although the cap on spending authority 

was adopted by consensus, several delegations, particularly among developing 

nations, later voiced their strong disapproval. As a result few decisions were 

taken by the General Assembly during the first half of 2006. 

On January 3, 2006, the newly created Ethics Office began 

operations. An American served as interim director in 2006 while a 

permanent director was being recruited. Under the interim director’s 

leadership, the office launched an ethics training program and administered the 

financial disclosure program. In April 2006, the Ethics Office issued the 

Secretary-General’s guidelines for a revised and expanded financial disclosure 

program (ST/SGB/2006/6). The Ethics Office also established guidelines for 

the acceptance of pro bono goods and services to help prevent conflicts of 

interest (ST/SGB/2006/5). In August 2006, the Office produced the first 

report on its operations covering January 1-July 31, 2006 (A/61/274). 

In March 2006, the Secretary-General offered his vision for 

transforming the UN Secretariat to meet the challenges of the 21st century in a 

report titled “Investing in the United Nations: for a stronger Organization 

worldwide.” The report was the result of the Secretary-General’s review of 

UN budgetary, financial, and human resource practices, and helped set many 

of the themes discussed by member states during the remainder of 2006. The 

report proposed broad initiatives in the areas of human resource management, 

leadership and management structures, information and communications 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2006 

140 

technology (ICT) systems, program delivery, budgetary and financial 

operations, and governance. 

Despite efforts to reach consensus on a modest package of reforms 

from “Investing in the United Nations” and to endorse the Secretary-General’s 

overall efforts to modernize the Secretariat, the Fifth Committee on April 28 

adopted a resolution submitted by the Group of 77 and China (A/C.5/60/L.37) 

by a vote of 108-50(U.S.), with 3 abstentions. The United States voted against 

the resolution because it rejected or deferred implementation of most of the 

Secretary-General’s reform proposals. The resolution cast aside the proposals 

for reorganizing the Secretariat, redefining the role of the Deputy SecretaryGeneral, outsourcing document translation and editing services, and reforming 

the working methods and governance of the General Assembly with respect to 

management and budgetary matters. The resolution delayed moving forward 

on human resource reform, upgrading the ICT infrastructure, strengthening 

procurement processes, and improving financial management and budgetary 

practices. As a result, it sent the wrong message in terms of member states’ 

commitment to reform. In an Explanation of Vote, Ambassador John Bolton 

stated, “Absent top-to-bottom management reform, the United Nations will 

continue to be ill-equipped to meet the current demands that we as member 

states place upon the organization. The United States is committed to 

pursuing necessary management reforms to ensure that the United Nations 

remains an effective, efficient, transparent, and accountable organization. As 

such, the United States is joined by many other states in voting ‘no’ against the 

Resolution tabled by the Group of 77 and China.” 

The vote was a departure from the Fifth Committee’s longstanding 

practice of making decisions on budgetary and administrative matters on the 

basis of consensus. On April 27, the United States and 46 other member states 

sent a letter to General Assembly President Jan Eliasson (Sweden) seeking his 

help to reach consensus, but this effort to avert a vote in the Fifth Committee 

was unsuccessful. On May 8, 2006, the General Assembly reaffirmed the 

decision taken in the Fifth Committee by adopting Resolution 60/260 by a vote 

of 121-50(U.S.), with 2 abstentions. 

On June 28, 2006, the Fifth Committee decided by consensus to 

approve resolution A/C.5/60/L.44 that lifted the budget cap (see also General 

Assembly decision 60/561). Because the United States felt that too little 

progress had been made on management reform, we decided to disassociate 

from the decision and were joined by Australia, Canada, and Japan, who 

shared our assessment. In an Explanation of Position, Ambassador Bolton 

stated: “It is thus with deep regret that the United States finds it necessary to 

oppose lifting the interim budget cap, and therefore to disassociate from 

consensus on the lifting of that cap.” Ambassador Bolton further explained 

that in spite of this difference, the United States was committed to working 

with other member states to take concrete steps forward before the close of the 

session. 
Reform of the UN System 

141 

On July 7, 2006, the General Assembly adopted Resolution 60/283 by 

consensus, which approved a small set of the Secretary-General’s proposals 

for transforming the Secretariat that included: 

• Granting limited authority to the Secretary-General to shift up to 

$20 million in budget savings to support priority programs, 

• Establishing the position of Chief Information Technology 

Officer at the Assistant Secretary-General level, 

• Endorsing the Secretariat’s intention to replace the current ICT 

system with an integrated enterprise resource planning system, 

and 

• Improving UN financial management practices including through 

the implementation of International Public Sector Accounting 

Standards. 

While the U.S. government welcomed these reforms, Ambassador 

Mark Wallace expressed disappointment that the General Assembly did not 

take more action in terms of oversight and procurement reform. Ambassador 

Wallace also reaffirmed the U.S. commitment to making further substantive 

reforms. 

In the area of procurement, the Secretary-General proposed a series of 

reforms designed to improve the overall performance of the procurement 

service, strengthen internal controls, reduce acquisition costs, create a career 

path for procurement officers, and increase procurement opportunities for 

developing nations (A/60/846/Add.5). On December 22, 2006, the General 

Assembly approved Resolution 61/246 by consensus, which accepted the 

following initial steps to strengthen the UN’s procurement system: endorsing 

the establishment of an independent bid protest system, improving the training 

program for procurement officers, and converting 26 temporary positions to 

permanent posts in support of procurement at headquarters and in the field. 

The Secretary-General’s reports “Investing in people” (A/61/255) and 

“Investing in people: Reforming the Field Service category: Investing in 

meeting the human resources requirements of United Nations peace operations 

in the 21st century” (A/61/255/Add.1), built upon his goal of transforming the 

UN Secretariat by proposing an integrated package of initiatives aimed at 

strengthening the current human resources policies and practices. While the 

reports contained many worthwhile ideas, some required more development. 

The ACABQ report (A/61/537) also recommended scaling back on the 

package of the Secretary-General’s reform proposals. The direction of the 

proposals, as modified by the ACABQ, was generally in agreement with the 

U.S. Government’s goals. On December 22, 2006, the General Assembly 

adopted Resolution 61/244 by consensus. This resolution approved additional 

resources for leadership and management development; provided resources to 

upgrade the human resources ICT systems; rejected the Secretary-General’s 

proposal for a staff buyout; and requested follow-up reports on a staff mobility 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2006 

142 

program, consolidation of staff contracts under one set of rules, 

standardization of the conditions of service in the field, and gender balance. 

Finally, member states initiated a systematic review of the mandates 

of UN activities. The September 2005 World Summit called for a review of 

all mandates older than five years “to strengthen and update the program of 

work of the United Nations so as to respond to the contemporary requirements 

of member states” (General Assembly Resolution 60/1). On March 30, 2006, 

the Secretary-General released a report titled “Mandating and Delivering: 

Analysis and recommendations to facilitate the review of mandates.” In 

connection with the report, the Secretariat produced an online database of UN 

mandates (http://webapps01.un.org/mandatereview/searchStart.do). 

Throughout 2006, the United States stressed the need for meaningful 

action on mandate review and outlined specific proposals for the 

improvement, consolidation and/or elimination of mandates. The United 

States actively consulted with other member states and the Secretariat on the 

goals and expectations for mandate review and developed a common approach 

to mandate review within the Japan-U.S.-South Korea-Canada-Australia-New 

Zealand (JUSKCANZ) group. However, this common approach was not 

accepted by other member states. 

During the second half of 2006, member states engaged in and 

completed Phase I of the review – the review of those mandates older than five 

years and not renewed. Despite active U.S. engagement, progress during this 

phase was disappointing. Subsequently, due largely to the efforts of the 

United States and Japan, member states agreed to continue the review of 

mandates beyond the end of the 2006 deadline set in the 2005 World Summit 

Outcome Document and to take up those mandates older than five years that 

have been renewed, under a thematic cluster approach aligned with GA 

priority areas. However, by the end of 2006, virtually no progress was 

achieved. 

Security Council Reform 

 During 2006, the United States reiterated its position of support for 

a modest expansion of the Security Council (UNSC) that could contribute to 

its strength and effectiveness, as well as its support for a permanent seat for 

Japan. The United States has not taken a position with regard to the 

permanent membership of any other countries. 

 The UN General Assembly held open debates on UNSC reform on 

April 20 and December 11, 2006. Both debates revealed continued 

widespread interest among UN Members in expanding the UNSC to increase 

the number of both permanent and non-permanent members to broaden 

regional representation; however, the debates also underscored continued, 

deep divisions on both the size of any expansion and on possible new 

permanent members. 

 A group of four African nations (Nigeria, Senegal, Ghana, and South 

Africa) re-tabled the African Union (AU) resolution on December 14, 2005, after 
Reform of the UN System 

143 

divisive discussions within the AU; this draft resolution had originally been 

submitted during the 59th General Assembly. The AU resolution called for 

expanding 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. 

 In light of this African initiative, Germany, Brazil, and India re-tabled 

the G-4 resolution on January 5, 2006; this resolution had also been originally 

introduced in 2005. The G-4 framework would 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). The decision on 

veto rights for new permanent members would be deferred for 15 years. Japan, 

originally a member of the G-4, neither “dissociated” itself from the G-4 nor 

“endorsed” the re-tabled initiative. 

 The United States has not publicly endorsed any specific plan for 

Security Council expansion, and opposed the AU and the G-3 (Brazil, India, 

and Germany) proposals on the grounds that they were overly expansive, 

calling for 11 and 10 new members, respectively. Both proposals were 

extremely divisive and neither came to a vote. Throughout 2006, the United 

States sought to keep the UN focused on more urgent reform priorities, such 

as management reform. 
145 

Part 6 

Administration and Budget 

UN Financial Situation 

At the end of 2006, UN members owed $2.335 billion in outstanding 

assessments for the UN regular budget, UN peacekeeping activities, the 

international war crimes tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and for Rwanda, 

and the UN Capital Master Plan. The amount is approximately $1 billion 

below the comparable amount at the end of the 2005, when $3.310 billion was 

outstanding. The lower figure is attributable primarily to UN peacekeeping, 

which accounted for $1.889 billion of the total owed at the end of 2006. The 

total owed for the regular budget was $361 million, and the amounts owed for 

the international war crimes tribunals and the UN Capital Master Plan were 

$51 million and $33 million, respectively. 

 The United States accounted for $1.0 billion, or 43 percent, of the 

total amount owed by all UN members at the end of 2006. Most of the U.S. 

amount, $677 million, related to UN peacekeeping operations. As in past 

years, the U.S. payment pattern regarding all UN assessments was affected by 

the delay in the U.S. appropriation process for FY 2007, which began on 

October 1, 2006. Only partial payments could be made between October 1 

and December 31, using the funding authority provided by temporary 

continuing resolutions. The balance of the planned payments would be made 

in 2007, subject to enactment by Congress of the full-year appropriation for 

FY 2007. Overall, the United States accounted for $1.008 billion, or 22.7 

percent, of the total $6.146 billion in payments made by all UN members in 

the course of 2006. Most of the U.S. payments, nearly $962 million, related to 

assessments for peacekeeping. 

At a briefing in November 2006 to the UN’s Fifth (Administrative 

and Budgetary) Committee, the UN Controller, Mr. Warren Sach (UK), 

provided a mixed outlook on the UN’s financial situation for the remainder of 

the calendar year. While the projected cash balances for the Capital Master 

Plan and the international war crimes tribunals were higher than at the end of 

2005, the end-of-year balance for the regular budget was uncertain and could 

either approximate the positive balance at the end of 2005 or require 

borrowing from reserves. The outcome would depend on the payments 

received from a few member states during November and December. With 

respect to peacekeeping, Mr. Sach noted that the amounts owed to troop and 

equipment providers were expected to increase by over $300 million instead of 

the modest reduction that had been expected. The increase reflected higher 

obligations, owing to an increased level of activity, and lower payments, 

owing to delays in the receipt of assessed contributions. It also reflected the 

delay in the issuance of assessments for 2007 until the General Assembly 

adopted the new scale of assessments for the period 2007-2009. The new 

scale subsequently was adopted on December 22, 2006. In closing his 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2006 

146 

presentation, Mr. Sach noted that the financial position of the UN “remains 

fragile,” and that “the only way to overcome the problem and to ensure a more 

stable financial base for the work of the United Nations is for member states to 

meet their financial obligations to the Organization in a fuller and more timely 

fashion.” 

UN Budget 

During 2006, the UN General Assembly (UNGA) took several 

actions relating to the UN program budget for the biennium 2006-07. Three of 

the actions related to the adoption of resolutions that resulted in increases in 

the approved budget level for the biennium. One action related to the lifting of 

the budget spending cap that had been imposed by the UNGA in December 

2005. The United States joined consensus in the adoption of the three 

resolutions, but disassociated from consensus on the UNGA decision to lift the 

spending cap from the previously imposed level of $950 million. 

On June 28, 2006, the General Assembly adopted by consensus 

Resolution 60/281, approving an additional appropriation of $26.4 million in 

2006 for costs relating to UN Special Political Missions in Afghanistan 

(UNAMA) and East-Timor (UNOTIL), and for the International Independent 

Investigation Commission (IIIC), which relates to the UN’s investigation of 

the 2005 assassination of the former Prime Minister of Lebanon, Rafik Hariri. 

The appropriation would cover the additional costs in 2006 resulting from 

decisions taken by the Security Council to extend the respective mandates of 

each of the three activities. The costs cover April 1–December 31 for 

UNAMA, June 21–August 31 for UNOTIL, and June 6–December 31 for the 

IIIC. 

On June 30, 2006, the General Assembly adopted Decision 60/561 to 

lift the spending cap of $950 million on the UN budget and, thus, authorize the 

expenditure of the remaining funds appropriated for the 2006-07 biennium in 

Resolution 60/247 of December 23, 2005. Resolution 60/247 approved the 

initial 2006-07 UN budget at a level of $3.79 billion. It also included language 

that would, “as an exceptional measure,” limit the first portion of the 

Secretary-General’s expenditures for 2006 to $950 million; and decided that, 

“in order to ensure the availability of resources for program delivery, it would 

act in response to a request from the Secretary-General, at an appropriate time, 

for expenditure of the remaining funds.” Such a request was made on June 20. 

During consideration of the issue in the UN’s Fifth (Administrative and 

Budgetary) Committee, the United States, Japan, and Australia disassociated 

from the decision to lift the spending cap due to insufficient progress on UN 

reform measures. The U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations, 

John Bolton, stated: “We do not believe it is in the long-term interest of the 

United Nations, much less its member governments, to continue delaying 

reforms that many of us know will serve to make this institution stronger and 

more effective in fulfilling the mandates outlined in the Charter. It is thus with 

deep regret that the United States finds it necessary to oppose lifting of the 

interim budget cap, and, therefore, to disassociate from consensus on the 
Administration and Budget 

147 

lifting of that cap. Know, however, that the United States will continue to 

press for change and reform here at the United Nations and work with other 

member states and the Secretariat to achieve our mutually shared objectives.” 

On July 7, 2006, following its consideration of management and 

related reform initiatives proposed by the Secretary-General in his report, 

“Investing in the United Nations: for a Stronger Organization Worldwide,” the 

UN General Assembly adopted by consensus Resolution 60/283. Among its 

provisions, the resolution approves the introduction of International Public 

Sector Accounting Standards (IPSAS) in the United Nations and an increase in 

the level of the Working Capital Fund (WCF) from $100 million to $150 

million. It also includes measures to strengthen the UN procurement system, 

initiate steps to improve the UN information and communication technology 

system, and, on an experimental basis, provide the Secretary-General with 

discretionary budget authority to spend up to $20 million for the biennia 2006-

2007 and 2008-2009 to meet the “evolving needs of the organization in 

attaining its mandated programs and activities.” In adopting the resolution, the 

General Assembly approved an increase of $4.6 million in the budget 

appropriation level for 2006-07. The increase deals with added requirements 

relating to the adoption of IPSAS and to the planned, initial improvements in 

the UN information and communication technology system. The United 

States supported these measures and joined consensus in the adoption of 

Resolution 60/283.

In accord with UN budget procedure, further revisions to the 2006-07 

UN budget were considered by the General Assembly at its 61st session in 

autumn 2006. This included review of the Secretary-General’s first budget 

performance report for the biennium, and updated requirements resulting from 

actions taken by UN governing bodies. On December 22, 2006, the General 

Assembly adopted by consensus Resolution 61/253, which approved the 

revised 2006-07 UN budget level of $4.174 billion. The revised level included 

additional appropriations of $344 million approved by the General Assembly 

during the autumn session, most of which pertained to three categories: (1) 

estimated requirements for the funding of 27 Special Political Missions ($253 

million) in 2007 [NB: The United States supports these missions through its 

actions in the Security Council and is assessed for them at a lower rate (22 

percent) than for peacekeeping missions (26 percent)]; (2) added inflation and 

exchange rate costs ($67 million), which mainly reflect the declining value of 

the U.S. dollar; and (3) additional costs relating to the new Human Rights 

Council ($4 million) and to the Office of the High Commissioner for Human 

Rights ($5 million). The United States joined consensus in the adoption of 

Resolution 61/253. The final 2006-07 UN budget will be considered by the 

General Assembly in autumn 2007, in the context of the final budget 

performance report for the biennium. 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2006 

148 

Scale of Assessments 

On December 22, 2006, the UN General Assembly, on the 

recommendation of the Fifth (Administrative and Budgetary) Committee, 

adopted by consensus Resolution 61/237, the UN scale of assessments for 

2007-2009. The approved scale maintains the ceiling rate of assessment at 22 

percent, as adopted in 2000, and the basic parameters of the UN scale formula, 

as recalculated to reflect more current economic data under the concept of 

“capacity to pay.” The parameters include a “base period” of the average of 

three and six years to measure the Gross National Income (GNI) of UN 

members, the provision for a low Per-Capita-Income (PCI) discount for 

developing countries based on a “gradient” level of 80 percent, the provision 

for an external debt discount for developing countries, the retention of the 0.01 

percent ceiling rate for the least developed countries and the retention of the 

0.001 percent floor rate in the overall UN scale. 

The scale debate in the Fifth Committee was among the most 

contentious at the 61st session of the UN General Assembly (UNGA). The 

United States sought to maintain the 22-percent ceiling rate, while also 

proposing certain technical changes in the scale formula that would more 

accurately reflect the current economic situation of UN members, and provide 

for a more equitable distribution of their respective assessment shares. These 

included a shorter base period of three years in order to gauge better the 

current capacity to pay of UN members; the introduction of a “stepped 

gradient” formula to reduce the amount of discount accorded to certain 

developing countries with exceptionally large economies; and the possible use 

of Purchasing Power Parity (PPP) to measure better the capacity to pay of 

individual UN members. There was mixed support from others for the U.S. 

proposals. The three-year base period was supported by Japan, but strongly 

opposed by members of the European Union (EU) and the Group of 77 (G-77). 

The “stepped gradient” formula and the use of PPP were opposed by the G-77. 

The majority of UN members, especially those from the EU and the G-77, 

sought to raise the ceiling rate to its pre-2001 level of 25 percent. As 

justification, members cited the notion that the United States had not lived up 

to its earlier commitment to pay its arrears. The U.S. delegation was able to 

refute that notion. 

The scale debate evolved to a handful of issues that ultimately 

decided the outcome of the scale resolution. The G-77 advocated retention of 

the existing scale formula, including recalculation of the individual scale 

parameters to reflect more current economic data. Japan was willing to 

compromise on its advocacy of a three-year base period by agreeing to the 

existing period of the average of three and six years. The United States also 

was willing to compromise on its various proposals by agreeing to the 

retention of the existing scale formula, including provision for a 22 percent 

ceiling rate. The EU was firm in its insistence on a six-year base period, as the 

longer base period would help mitigate somewhat the increase in assessment 

rates for its (then) 25 members. There was no support from others for the EU 
Administration and Budget 

149 

position. In the end, the EU members agreed to the retention of the existing 

scale formula, including the 3-6-year base period and the 22-percent ceiling 

rate. At the request of the EU members, the agreed resolution language also 

includes provision for the UN’s Committee on Contributions to review the 

elements of the UN scale formula in order to reflect the capacity of UN 

members to pay and to report thereon to the General Assembly by the main 

part of its 63rd session (2008). 

The agreed scale of assessments for 2007-2009 has an impact on 

various UN members due to the use of updated economic data within the 

parameters of the scale formula. Among the more significant changes in 

assessment rates from one scale period to the next are Japan, the collective 

members of the EU, and China. Japan’s assessment rate is reduced from 

19.468 percent previously to 16.624 percent in the new UN scale. The 

collective assessment rate of the EU members reflects an increase of 

approximately 2 percentage points, from 36 percent to 38 percent. The 

assessment rate of China reflects an increase from 2.053 percent to 2.667 

percent. In relative terms, the increase for China is the highest of any UN 

member under the new UN scale, i.e., an increase of nearly 30 percent over the 

previous scale. The new assessment rates of all UN members are listed in 

Paragraph 6 of UNGA Resolution 61/237. The rates remain in effect until the 

end of 2009. 

In a separate resolution on the UN scale, Resolution 61/2, the UN 

General Assembly agreed to grant temporary exemption from the loss-of-vote 

provision of Article 19 of the UN Charter to eight UN members: Central 

African Republic, the Comoros, Georgia, Guinea-Bissau, Liberia, Niger, 

Somalia, and Tajikistan. The temporary exemption is granted only through the 

end of the 61st session of the General Assembly. The exemption based on the 

agreement by the Assembly that the failure by these members to pay the 

minimum amount necessary to avoid the application of Article 19 was due to 

“conditions beyond the control” of the respective members. The United States 

joined consensus in the adoption of Resolution 61/2.

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 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 systemwide coherence and coordination. CPC members serve for periods of three 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2006 

150 

years, and may serve multiple successive terms. The United States has been 

one of the longest serving members of the CPC, participating every year since 

1974. However, in 2006, the U.S. decided not to seek re-election to the CPC 

for the 2007-2009 term, due to the Committee’s consistently ineffective, 

inefficient operation and continued lack of progress on reforming its working 

methods. 

The CPC held its 46th session from August 14-September 8, 2006, in 

New York. The session primarily focused on reviewing the proposed strategic 

framework for the 2008-2009 biennium, including consideration and approval 

of 26 programmatic elements of the 2008-2009 budget. Against U.S. 

objections, the Committee approved language requesting that increased 

amounts of detailed information be included in future strategic framework 

documents. Such information is expected to contribute to CPC’s continuing 

attempts to micromanage the planning and budgetary process. The Committee 

also reviewed UN program performance for the biennium 2004-2005, a report 

on the New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD), and the Chief 

Executives Board report on coordination. 

Under the agenda item on evaluation, the CPC reviewed the report of 

the Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS) on strengthening the role of 

evaluation and the application of evaluation findings on program design, 

delivery, and policy directives. It also reviewed the report of the OIOS on the 

thematic evaluation of knowledge management networks in the pursuit of the 

goals of the Millennium Declaration. The CPC requested that the OIOS 

prepare evaluation reports on the following topics:

• UN support for the least developed countries, small island 

developing states, and Africa (2008 in-depth evaluation report); 

• Department of Management – Office of Human Resources 

(OHRM) (2009 in-depth evaluation report); 

• Lessons learned: Protocols and practices (2008 thematic 

evaluation report); and 

• UN coordinating bodies (2009 thematic evaluation report). 

As in previous years, a major focus of the session was how to reform 

the CPC to increase its effectiveness. The United States, which has worked 

for years to turn the CPC into a useful and relevant body, underscored the 

critical importance of improving the Committee’s effectiveness through the 

reform of its working methods and procedures. The United States identified a 

number of key areas for improvement, including: 

• revising the format of the Committee’s annual report to make it 

more action-oriented and user-friendly; 

• modifying the length and timing of CPC sessions (maximum two 

weeks during budget years, four weeks in non-budget years); 

• redefining the role of observers in CPC meetings; and 
Administration and Budget 

151 

• linking CPC’s consideration of evaluation reports to its 

discussion of the biennium budget. 

When the Committee failed to make progress on reforming its 

working methods, the United States took the unprecedented step of limiting 

our subsequent participation on other agenda items to comments delivered in 

the formal meetings of the Committee. During informal consultations, the 

United States intervened only on procedural matters and did not engage in 

negotiating language for the CPC final conclusions and recommendations. 

The United States indicated repeatedly that its failure to intervene should 

neither be interpreted as support for, nor advocacy of, the position ultimately 

taken by the Committee and that, most importantly, U.S. comments on specific 

issues would be presented during ECOSOC and General Assembly (Fifth 

Committee) consideration of the CPC report. The rationale for modifying our 

participation in the CPC was to focus attention on its questionable relevance 

and value. The Japanese delegation also chose to minimize its participation 

during the Committee’s consideration of substantive agenda issues. The 

effectiveness of this effort has not yet been determined. 

At the end of the session, the Chair circulated a “compromise text” of 

proposals to reform the working methods. However, this text failed to include 

any of the U.S. proposals. The United States argued that the Chair’s text 

offered little in terms of meaningful reform and expressed serious concern at 

the CPC’s continued failure to reform its working methods, as requested by 

the General Assembly. In light of the CPC’s failure to achieve meaningful, 

concrete progress in reforming its working methods and procedures, the 

United States and Japan disassociated from consensus in support of the 

Committee’s final report. Israel, Portugal, France, and Italy also registered 

concern that this text failed to advance the reform process, but in the end, 

joined consensus in endorsing the report. 

As a result of the United States and Japan’s disassociation from the 

CPC’s report, the Fifth Committee’s deliberation of Agenda Item 118, 

“Program planning,” under which the report of the CPC is discussed, began on 

a contentious note. Proposals by the United States to alter the strategic 

framework and modify portions of the CPC recommendations and conclusions 

repeatedly were rejected outright, with some member states arguing that as a 

CPC member, the United States had the opportunity to shape the CPC’s 

conclusions and recommendations and thus had no right to seek any changes 

during the General Assembly’s consideration of this item. The United States

strongly opposed this rationale, arguing that every member state has the right 

to make whatever reasoned proposals and comments they want concerning the 

CPC’s final conclusions and recommendations during Fifth Committee 

discussions. 

During the Fifth Committee’s discussion of the CPC report, the 

United States also reiterated its displeasure that a lack of consensus on how to 

reform the CPC’s working methods continued to plague the Committee. The 

United States suggested that, given the lack of progress in improving the 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2006 

152 

CPC’s working methods and the overlap of its work with the ACABQ, it was 

time for member states to consider whether the CPC should continue. The 

U.S. suggestion that the CPC be discontinued triggered protest from other 

member states, particularly the G-77 and China. The lack of progress in 

reforming the CPC’s working methods, combined with the intense opposition 

the United States faced in seeking changes to the strategic framework, led the 

United States both to disassociate from consensus on the program planning 

resolution before the General Assembly and to decide not to run for re-election 

to the CPC.

Audit Reports 

The Board of Auditors, based in New York, serves as the external 

auditor of UN accounts, its funds and programs, and the International War 

Crimes Tribunals for Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia. Members are 

elected to serve six-year terms, which cannot be served consecutively. In 

2006, the Board was composed of the Auditors-General (or national 

equivalent) of the Philippines, South Africa, and France. Additional 

information is available online at: www.unsystem.org/auditors. 

Because 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 and end in odd-numbered years), the 

Fifth Committee had 15 separate audit reports to consider in the fall of 2006. 

The Fifth Committee also reviewed the report of the Advisory Committee on 

Administrative and Budgetary Questions (ACABQ) on the Board’s audits. 

The Fifth Committee discussed separately the audit of the Joint Staff Pension 

Fund and associated ACABQ report in the context of its overall consideration 

of the Pension Board report for 2006. 

The U.S. delegate commended the Board for its helpful assessment of 

the financial statements and overview of key financial and management issues 

faced by UN bodies. The delegate noted some areas of concern, such as the 

Board’s findings related to the systemic weaknesses in the inventory and 

accounting records for non-expendable property. The U.S. delegate 

emphasized that these control weaknesses would present a big challenge to the 

organizations as they begin the transition to International Public Sector 

Accounting Standards. The U.S. delegate also expressed concern that seven 

recommendations from the 1998-1999 biennium had not been fully 

implemented and requested an explanation from the Secretariat concerning the 

delay. In addition, the U.S. delegate stressed the importance of improving 

management’s rate of implementation of the Board’s recommendations to 

achieve greater efficiencies in the work of the entities audited, and to 

maximize the use of member state resources. 

On December 22, 2006, the General Assembly adopted Resolution 

61/233 by consensus, which endorsed the recommendations of the Board of 

Auditors and the ACABQ. The General Assembly called on the SecretaryGeneral and the executive heads of the UN funds and programs to hold 
Administration and Budget 

153 

program managers accountable for the timely implementation of 

recommendations. 

Joint Inspection Unit (JIU) 

The Joint Inspection Unit (JIU), based in Geneva, Switzerland, is an 

external oversight body for the entire UN system. The JIU produces reports, 

notes, and confidential letters detailing its recommendations. It is accountable 

to member states through the UN General Assembly and through the 

governing bodies of specialized UN agencies. The JIU is funded from the 

regular UN 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 2006, Deborah Wynes (United 

States) was the Unit’s Chair and Juan Luis Larrabure (Peru) was the ViceChair. 

The JIU produced the following seven reports and a note in 2006, as 

well as a separate document, titled “Report of the Joint Inspection Unit for 

2005 and program of work for 2006.” These reports and other information on 

the JIU are available at: http://www.unjiu.org/.

• Evaluation of Results-Based Budgeting in Peacekeeping 

Operations (JIU/REP/2006/1); 

• Oversight Lacunae in the United Nations System 

(JIU/REP/2006/2); 

• Follow-up to the Management Review of the Office of the 

United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights 

(JIU/REP/2006/3); 

• A Second Review of the Implementation of Headquarters 

Agreements Concluded by United Nations System 

Organizations: Provision of Headquarters Premises and Other 

Facilities by Host Countries (JIU/REP/2006/4); 

• Towards a United Nations Humanitarian Assistance Program for 

Disaster Response and Reduction: Lessons Learned from the 

Indian Ocean Tsunami Disaster (JIU/REP/2006/5); 

• Results-Based Management in the United Nations in the Context 

of the Reform Process (JIU/REP/2006/6); 

• Staff Mobility in the United Nations (JIU/REP/2006/7); and 

• Goodwill Ambassadors in the United Nations System 

(JIU/NOTE/2006/1). 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2006 

154 

The United States has long encouraged the JIU to improve the quality 

of its reports and to include more detailed information on the implementation 

of its recommendations. In 2006, the JIU responded to these appeals by 

strengthening its recommendation follow-up system. It developed an 

enhanced matrix (“recommendations tracking sheet”) containing the text of 

each recommendation and indicating its intended impact. Participating 

organizations are requested to indicate the status of acceptance, the status of 

implementation, and the achievement of impact. The matrix is expected to 

facilitate reporting by participating organizations on recommendations and to 

enhance the quality of information obtained. 

Under the General Assembly agenda item pertaining to the JIU, the 

United States welcomed the JIU’s efforts to report on the impact and 

acceptance rate of its recommendations, sought the earlier release of the JIU’s 

annual program of work, and continued to push for further reform of the JIU. 

As a result of U.S.-led efforts, the JIU was directed in GA Resolution 61/238 

to present its program of work for 2007 to the General Assembly at its first 

resumed session (scheduled for March 2007). The United States successfully 

pressed for further improvements in the JIU’s reporting on the implementation 

rate and impact of its recommendations, particularly with respect to multiagency reports, as well as calling for the JIU to focus its work on issues of 

system-wide interest and relevance, both of which were also addressed in GA 

Resolution 61/238. The United States also expressed serious concern about 

the narrow approach taken in the JIU’s study on open-source computer 

software (Document JIU/REP/2005/7) and questioned its expertise and 

competence to carry out such a technical, highly specialized study. 

Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS) 

General Assembly Resolution 48/218B states that the “purpose of the 

Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS) is to assist the Secretary-General 

in fulfilling his internal oversight responsibilities in respect of the resources 

and staff of the Organization” through monitoring, internal audit, inspection, 

evaluation, and investigation. In addition to these mandated responsibilities, 

OIOS provides some management consulting services. OIOS is based in New 

York with offices in Geneva, Vienna, and Nairobi, as well as having auditors 

and investigators resident in peacekeeping missions. In July 2006, 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. 

In 2006, the Fifth Committee considered several OIOS reports, 

including the annual report for the year ending June 30, 2006. OIOS reports to 

the General Assembly are available on its website (see 

http://www.un.org/Depts/oios/report&pub.htm). Reports to program managers 

are made available to member states upon request, and a list of these reports 

can be found in the annual report and on the OIOS website. 

According to the 2006 annual report, OIOS made 1,919 

recommendations. OIOS classified 49 percent of these recommendations as 
Administration and Budget 

155 

critical to the effective functioning of the organization. OIOS classifies a 

recommendation as critical if it identifies changes needed to administrative 

policies; corrects systemic deficiencies; results in measurable improvements to 

work processes; holds individuals accountable for fraud, waste, and abuse or 

clears an individual of such allegations; results in savings, recoveries, or 

reduced expenditures of $25,000 or more; requires the concurrence of 

governing bodies; and results in the termination of a relationship between the 

organization and an implementing partner or vendor, or requires action by a 

government. As of June 30, 2006, 47 percent of all recommendations and 42 

percent of critical recommendations during the current reporting period had 

been fully implemented. In the period covered by the latest annual report, 

OIOS recommendations identified approximately $49.2 million in potential 

cost savings and recoveries. Total actual savings and recoveries between July 

2005 and June 2006 as a result of recommendations from this and previous 

reporting periods was $14.2 million. 

OIOS uses a risk-management framework to determine its annual 

work program. In 2006, OIOS identified five areas as being most vulnerable 

to fraud, waste, abuse, mismanagement, ineffectiveness, and inefficiency. As 

a result, OIOS’ work between July 2005-June 2006 focused primarily on 

health, security, and safety issues of UN staff; challenges to effective program 

management; reliability and security of information and communications 

technology systems; the UN Capital Master Plan; and integrity violations. 

During Fifth Committee discussions concerning the OIOS annual 

report, the U.S. delegate pressed for the implementation of all of OIOS’ 

recommendations. The U.S. delegate expressed concern that program 

managers had implemented only 42 percent of the recommendations issued 

between July 2005 and June 2006 that were designated by OIOS as critical. 

The U.S. delegate also expressed concern that 34 recommendations issued 

prior to July 1, 2002, 17 of which were critical, had not been fully 

implemented and requested an explanation from the Secretariat concerning the 

delay. 

By the close of the Main Session of the 62nd General Assembly on 

December 22, 2006, the Fifth Committee had not reached agreement on a 

resolution addressing the OIOS annual report, and no plans were made to 

resume consideration of the matter in 2007. Consequently, the General 

Assembly will examine these issues during its 62nd session, beginning in 

September 2007.

In 2006, the General Assembly also considered an external review of 

UN Governance and Oversight that included an in-depth review of OIOS (see 

A/60/883/Add.2). PricewaterhouseCoopers conducted the review under the 

direction of a steering committee of external experts appointed by the 

Secretary-General. The Governance and Oversight report made several 

recommendations concerning OIOS’ independence, governance, 

organizational structure, human resources policies, working practices, 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2006 

156 

reporting, information and communications technology expertise, knowledge 

management strategy, and performance measurement. 

The findings related to OIOS’ organizational structure were 

contentious. The report recommended that OIOS focus exclusively on internal 

auditing and proposed moving the investigative function to the Office of the 

Legal Adviser and the evaluation and management consulting functions to the 

Department of Management. In response to the Governance and Oversight 

report, the Under Secretary-General for Internal Oversight presented her own 

views on measures needed to strengthen OIOS (see A/60/901). The Under 

Secretary-General for Internal Oversight rejected the proposals to remove 

OIOS’ investigative and evaluation functions but agreed that management 

consulting should be moved to the Department of Management. The Advisory 

Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions (ACABQ) concurred 

with these views and recommended that OIOS retain its investigative and 

evaluation functions (see A/61/605). The Under Secretary-General for 

Internal Oversight also made proposals for strengthening OIOS’ budgetary 

independence and flexibility. On December 22, 2006, the General Assembly 

adopted by consensus Resolution 61/245, which endorsed the conclusions and 

recommendations of the ACABQ. 

Human Resources Management 

In 2006, the UN General Assembly’s Fifth Committee considered and 

reached consensus on a wide range of human resources management issues. 

During these discussions, the United States strongly supported efforts to 

integrate recruitment, selection, training, and mobility into human resources 

planning and management. The United States also supported looking further 

at the contractual arrangements for staff. 

The Secretary-General’s reports, A/61/255 “Investing in people” and 

A/61/255/Add. 1 (along with A/61/255/Add. 1/Corr. 1) “Investing in people: 

Reforming the Field Service category: Investing in meeting the human 

resources requirements of United Nations peace operations in the 21st 

century,” presented in detail his proposed integrated package of reforms aimed 

at strengthening the current human resources policies of the United Nations to 

achieve “an integrated, mobile and multi-skilled global Secretariat staff with 

competitive conditions of service.” The basic outline for these proposals was 

presented earlier in A/60/692 “Investing in the United Nations: for a stronger 

Organization worldwide.” 

The ACABQ commented on these detailed proposals in A/61/537 

“Human resources management” and made recommendations that, if 

implemented, would scale back on and mitigate the financial impact of the 

entire package of the Secretary-General’s reform proposals. The United States 

indicated that while both the Secretary-General’s and the ACABQ’s reports 

contained many worthwhile ideas, some would require more development. 

The general direction of the proposals, incorporating the ACABQ comments, 

was in line with U.S. Government reform goals. 
Administration and Budget 

157 

During general discussions in the Fifth Committee, the United States 

successfully worked with other nations to: reject the staff buyout provisions 

proposed in the Secretary-General’s report; reduce the provisions for a $10 

million increase in training, as it was not designed to improve any of the core 

functions of the United Nations; and promote further discussion of the effort to 

simplify the type and nature of staff contracts and delay consideration of this 

matter until more information is provided on the full financial impact of the 

proposed changes. 

On December 22, 2006, the General Assembly adopted by consensus 

Resolution 61/244 “Human resources management,” the Fifth Committee’s 

recommended resolution on human resources management, which requested 

further information and analysis on the Secretary-General’s reform proposals. 

Among other things, the resolution: 

• Noted the high rate of turnover and the need to minimize this 

trend and requested the Secretary-General to report on the yearly 

rate of turnover in the UN Secretariat; 

• Reiterated that the Secretary-General must ensure that the highest 

standards of efficiency, competence, and integrity serve as the 

paramount consideration in the employment of staff, with due 

regard for the principle of equitable geographic distribution; 

• Requested the Secretary-General to ensure that the use of the 

envisaged expedited recruitment process is confined to surge 

needs and that established procedures for recruitment are waived 

in only exceptional cases; 

• Requested the Secretary-General to provide an assessment of the 

mobility program, including information on the costs, the issue 

of high vacancy rates, and the possible use of incentive programs 

at certain posts; 

• Stressed the need to rationalize the current overly complex 

system of contractual arrangements and requested that the 

Secretary-General report back to the General Assembly with a 

detailed implementation plan that would include how the current 

system would transition to the proposed system and the overall 

financial implications of this proposal; 

• Requested the Secretary-General to conduct a review of the staff 

selection system; and 

• Requested a report from the International Civil Service 

Commission on harmonizing the conditions of service of 

internationally recruited staff serving in non-family duty stations. 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2006 

158 

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 for employees of 

the United Nations and its specialized agencies. In 2006, Lucretia Myers, who 

has been the U.S. member to the Commission for the last 13 years, served the 

first year of her current four-year term. 

In 2006, the Commission met in Vienna and New York for its 62nd

and 63rd sessions, respectively. The Commissioners focused on a variety of 

issues during these sessions, including broad-banding/pay-for-performance, 

the Education Grant, and staff contracts at field missions. The Commission 

made recommendations on the following expanding the definition and 

changing the rate of Hazard Pay, increasing the number of the years of 

eligibility of the education grant for dependents, modernizing and simplifying 

allowances, increasing the base/floor salary scale in 2007 for professional 

staff, and continuing the pilot study for broad-banding/pay-for-performance. 

Efforts by the United States, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand to 

institute large-scale reform of the ICSC were opposed by the G-77, China, and 

Russia, which favored continuation of the status quo. Some of these reforms 

concerned improving the selection process for Commissioners, as well as 

making the ICSC working methods more relevant to allow more direct 

interaction with and impact on the Common System. The United States 

strongly supported clarifying and increasing the qualifications requirements, as 

well as limiting the length of service for the Commissioners. After U.S. 

efforts with other nations to overcome this initial opposition, the UN General 

Assembly (UNGA) approved a limited package of reforms, including the 

institution of term limits for the Commission’s Chair and Vice-Chair, as well 

as minimal professional experience and education qualifications for the 

Commissioners. 

The Fifth (Administrative and Budgetary) Committee of the General 

Assembly discussed both the 2005 and 2006 reports of the ICSC. The 2005 

report was included in the 61st UNGA discussions because the 60th UN 

General Assembly’s Fifth Committee did not reach consensus on resolution 

language, effectively postponing any decision on the 2005 report. 

In particular, the United States raised concerns regarding the 

proposed level of Hazard Pay and the change in the number of years of 

eligibility for the Education Grant for dependents. Hazard pay has long been 

acknowledged as a payment that is symbolic in nature that recognizes the 

difficulties faced by those serving in hardship areas. The United States tried, 

unsuccessfully, to have the Committee identify and discuss alternative ways to 

recognize the difficulties faced by UN staff members rather than strictly with 

monetary payments. As a compromise, the United States favored making any 

increase in the amount of this benefit temporary while looking into one or 
Administration and Budget 

159 

more other measures to acknowledge this service and address this matter in a 

comprehensive fashion. Ultimately, the final resolution language, championed 

by the European Union, called for a permanent increase that the United States 

did not support. 

The intent of the education benefit historically had been to cover a 

portion of the expenses commonly associated with dependents attaining their 

first post-secondary/undergraduate degree or four years of study, whichever is 

less. This was originally enacted to create parity between the many education 

systems by having eligibility for the grant limited both by when the degree is 

awarded and by time. The proposal to change the criteria to cover a full four 

years of post-secondary study regardless of when a degree is awarded, 

corresponds to recent initiatives in the European educational system. The 

United States strongly opposed this change because it would allow coverage 

for a portion of a graduate degree, which is beyond the scope and intent of the 

original Education Grant. 

Due to disagreements in the final resolution language concerning 

these issues, the United States disassociated from the General Assembly’s 

Resolution 61/239 “United Nations common system: report of the 

International Civil Service Commission,” adopted by consensus on December 

22, 2006. The resolution, in addition to adjusting Hazard Pay and the 

Education Grant as previously mentioned, among other things: 

• Requested that the Commission ensure dedicated leadership for 

the pilot project in broad-banding and pay-for-performance; 

• Increased by 2.49 percent the UN common system’s base/floor 

salary scale to be effective January 1, 2007, with this increase 

offset by the consolidation of post adjustment; and

• Reaffirmed the use of a range of 110-to-120 for the margin 

between the net remuneration of Professional staff in New York 

and staff in comparable positions in the comparator civil service 

(United States), on the understanding that the margin would be 

maintained at a level around the midpoint of 115 over a period of 

time. 

Capital Master Plan 

In 2006, key decisions were reached on the UN Capital Master Plan 

(CMP), allowing full implementation of the project to proceed. In June, the 

General Assembly adopted Resolution 60/282, providing the United Nations 

with a decision on the project implementation strategy, and requesting that 

adequate resources be provided to the Office of Internal Oversight Services for 

appropriate construction audit activities, with the Secretary-General reporting 

on the findings. In December, the General Assembly adopted Resolution 

61/251, providing agreement on the project budget and financing 

methodology. This resolution also requested that every effort be made to 

avoid budget increases, and that in the event costs escalate above the approved 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2006 

160 

budget, options on how to remain within the budget will be presented to the 

General Assembly. 

The UN Capital Master Plan 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. The CMP is expected to cost approximately $1.9 billion 

and take 7 years for construction to be completed. 

In 2006, the UN revised the project implementation plan to reflect 

delays in some activities as a result of UN General Assembly decisions being 

reached later than expected. These delays resulted in a slight increase in the 

cost estimate due to the impact of cost escalation. In addition, the United 

Nations presented changes in the planned security upgrades, augmenting the 

level of protection in response to the findings of a new blast assessment, which 

also increased the project cost estimate.

The updated information presented by the United Nations generated 

extensive discussion among members on how best to implement and finance 

the CMP. The United States sought to ensure that the project management 

processes being used were sound and that rigorous oversight was applied to 

the project as it progressed. While the United States supported the CMP 

overall, the U.S. delegation continued to urge diligence in containing costs and 

worked to ensure that UNGA decisions reflected these interests. 

UN Joint Staff Pension Board 

The General Assembly established the Joint Staff Pension Fund in 

Resolution 248 (III) (1948) to provide retirement, death, disability, and related 

benefits for staff in the UN system and other participating organizations. In 

2006, the Fund had 21 member organizations. 

The Joint Staff Pension Board governs the Fund and consists of 33 

people, 12 from the UN (four selected by the General Assembly, four by the 

Secretary-General, and four by the participants) and 21 from the other 

participating organizations (also comprised of representatives selected by the 

Governing Bodies, the Executive Heads, and participants). The Board reports 

to the General Assembly in even-numbered years on the investments and 

operations of the Fund, as well as proposed changes to the Fund’s rules, 

regulations, governance, and operations. 

The 2006 Board report covered the Fund’s operations for the 2004-

2005 biennium. As of December 31, 2005, the Fund had 93,683 active 

participants and 55,140 beneficiaries. The Fund had an actuarial surplus of 

1.29 percent of pensionable remuneration at the close of the biennium, which 

was the fifth consecutive surplus, and the value of the Fund’s assets was over 

$33.1 billion as of March 31, 2006. 
Administration and Budget 

161 

At the June 2006 Pension Board meeting at the UN Office in Nairobi, 

Kenya, the Representative of the UN Secretary-General proposed shifting the 

Fund’s North American equity portfolio from managed assets to passive 

management. The proposed move was expected to be more cost-effective and 

less risk sensitive than the current practice, in which the Fund investment 

manager seeks to exceed market performance. The Pension Board, in a 

departure from its usual practice of making decisions by consensus, voted to 

endorse the proposal over the objections of the representatives of Fund 

participants. The Board also recommended approval of the petition for 

membership in the Fund of the International Organization for Migration (IOM) 

and the establishment of an Audit Committee.

In the fall of 2006, the Fifth Committee considered the Board’s 

report, which also included the financial statements for 2004-2005 and audit 

opinion of the UN Board of Auditors. The U.S. delegate commended the 

Board for making improvements to its governance by deciding to meet and 

report to the General Assembly on an annual basis beginning in 2007, and 

creating an Audit Committee. At the same time, the U.S. delegate expressed 

disappointment that the Board rejected a proposal by a Working Group to 

improve the Board’s efficiency by reducing its size from 33 members to 21. 

The U.S. delegate strongly supported the proposal to shift to passive 

management for the North American equity portfolio. On December 22, 2006, 

the General Assembly adopted, by consensus, Resolution 61/240 concerning 

the report of the Joint Staff Pension Fund Board. The resolution approved the 

shift to passive management for the North American equity portfolio, endorsed 

the Board’s recommendation to admit the IOM as a member organization, 

approved the creation of an Audit Committee, and noted the Board of 

Auditors’ conclusion that the Fund’s financial statements were in compliance 

with generally accepted accounting principles and UN financial regulations. 
163 

Appendix 1 

Address by President George W. Bush 

Statement by President George W. Bush before the 61st regular 

session of the UN General Assembly on September 19, 2006. 

I am grateful for the 

privilege of speaking to the 

General Assembly. 

Last week, America and 

the world marked the fifth 

anniversary of the attacks that 

filled another September morning 

with death and suffering. On that 

terrible day, extremists killed 

nearly 3,000 innocent people, 

including citizens of dozens of 

nations represented right here in 

this hall. Since then, the enemies 

of humanity have continued their 

campaign of murder. Al-Qaida 

and those inspired by its extremist 

ideology have attacked more than 

two dozen nations. And recently, 

a different group of extremists 

deliberately provoked a terrible 

conflict in Lebanon. At the start 

of the 21st century, it is clear that 

the world is engaged in a great 

ideological struggle between 

extremists who use terror as a 

weapon to create fear and 

moderate people who work for 

peace. 

Five years ago, I stood at 

this rostrum and called on the 

community of nations to defend 

civilization and build a more 

hopeful future. This is still the 

great challenge of our time. It is 

the calling of our generation. This 

morning, I want to speak about the 

more hopeful world that is within 

our reach — a world beyond 

terror, where ordinary men and 

women are free to determine their 

own destiny, where the voices of 

moderation are empowered, and 

where the extremists are 

marginalized by the peaceful 

majority. This world can be ours 

if we seek it and if we work 

together. 

The principles of this 

world beyond terror can be found 

in the very first sentence of the 

Universal Declaration on Human 

Rights. This document declares 

that the “equal and inalienable 

rights of all members of the 

human family [are] the foundation 

of freedom, justice, and peace in 

the world.” One of the authors of 

this document was a Lebanese 

diplomat named Charles Malik, 

who would go on to become 

President of this Assembly. Mr. 

Malik insisted that these principles 

apply equally to all people, of all 

religions, in all regions — 

including the men and women of 

the Arab world that was his home. 

In the nearly six decades 

since that document was approved, 

we have seen the forces of 

freedom and moderation transform 

entire continents. Sixty years after 

a terrible war, Europe is now 

whole, free, and at peace; and Asia 

has seen freedom progress and 

hundreds of millions of people 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2006 

164 

lifted out of desperate poverty. 

The words of the Universal 

Declaration are as true today as 

they were when they were written. 

As liberty flourishes, nations grow 

in tolerance, and hope, and peace. 

And we are seeing the bright 

future begin to take root in the 

broader Middle East. 

Some of the changes in 

the Middle East have been 

dramatic, and we see the results in 

this hall. Five years ago, 

Afghanistan was ruled by the 

brutal Taliban regime, and its seat 

in this body was contested. Now 

this seat is held by the freelyelected Government of 

Afghanistan, which is represented 

today by President Karzai. Five 

years ago, Iraq’s seat in this body 

was held by a dictator who killed 

his citizens, invaded his neighbors, 

and showed his contempt for the 

world by defying more than a 

dozen Security Council 

resolutions. Now Iraq’s seat is 

held by a democratic government 

that embodies the aspirations of 

the Iraqi people, represented today 

by President Talabani. With these 

changes, more than 50 million 

people have been given a voice in 

this hall for the first time in 

decades. 

Some of the changes in 

the Middle East are happening 

gradually, but they are real. 

Algeria has held its first 

competitive presidential election, 

and the military remained neutral. 

The United Arab Emirates 

recently announced that half of its 

seats in the Federal National 

Council will be chosen by 

elections. Kuwait held elections 

in which women were allowed to 

vote and run for office for the first 

time. Citizens have voted in 

municipal elections in Saudi 

Arabia, in parliamentary elections 

in Jordan and Bahrain, and in 

multiparty presidential elections in 

Yemen and in Egypt. These are 

important steps, and the 

governments should continue to 

move forward with other reforms 

that show that they trust their 

people. Every nation that travels 

the road to freedom moves at a 

different pace, and the 

democracies they build will reflect 

their own cultures and traditions. 

But the destination is the same: a 

free society where people live at 

peace with each other and at peace 

with the world. 

Some have argued that 

the democratic changes we are 

seeing in the Middle East are 

destabilizing the region. This 

argument rests on a false 

assumption: that the Middle East 

was stable to begin with. The 

reality is that the stability we 

thought we saw in the Middle East 

was a mirage. For decades, 

millions of men and women in the 

region have been trapped in 

oppression and hopelessness. And 

these conditions left a generation 

disillusioned and made this region 

a breeding ground for extremism. 

Imagine what it is like to 

be a young person living in a 

country that is not moving toward 

reform. You are 21 years old, and 

while your peers in other parts of 

the world are casting their ballots 

for the first time, you are 
Address by President George W. Bush 

165 

powerless to change the course of 

your government. While your 

peers in other parts of the world 

have received educations that 

prepare them for the opportunities 

of a global economy, you have 

been fed propaganda and 

conspiracy theories that blame 

others for your country’s 

shortcomings. And everywhere 

you turn, you hear extremists who 

tell you that you can escape your 

misery and regain your dignity 

through violence and terror and 

martyrdom. For many across the 

broader Middle East, this is the 

dismal choice presented every day. 

Every civilized nation, 

including those in the Muslim 

world, must support those in the 

region who are offering a more 

hopeful alternative. We know that 

when people have a voice in their 

future, they are less likely to blow 

themselves up in suicide attacks. 

We know that when leaders are 

accountable to their people, they 

are more likely to seek national 

greatness in the achievements of 

their citizens, rather than in terror 

and conquest. So we must stand 

with democratic leaders and 

moderate reformers across the 

broader Middle East. We must 

give voice to the hopes of decent 

men and women who want for 

their children the same things we 

want for ours. We must seek 

stability through a free and just 

Middle East where the extremists 

are marginalized by millions of 

citizens in control of their own 

destinies. 

Today, I would like to 

speak directly to the people across 

the broader Middle East. My 

country desires peace. Extremists 

in your midst spread propaganda 

claiming that the West is engaged 

in a war against Islam. This 

propaganda is false, and its 

purpose is to confuse you and 

justify acts of terror. We respect 

Islam, but we will protect our 

people from those who pervert 

Islam to sow death and 

destruction. Our goal is to help 

you build a more tolerant and 

hopeful society that honors people 

of all faiths and promotes peace. 

To the people of Iraq: 

Nearly 12 million of you braved 

the car bombers and assassins last 

December to vote in free elections. 

The world saw you hold up purple 

ink-stained fingers, and your 

courage filled us with admiration. 

You have stood firm in the face of 

horrendous acts of terror and 

sectarian violence, and we will not 

abandon you in your struggle to 

build a free nation. America and 

our coalition partners will 

continue to stand with the 

democratic government you 

elected. We will continue to help 

you secure the international 

assistance and investment you 

need to create jobs and 

opportunity, working with the 

United Nations and through the 

International Compact with Iraq 

endorsed here in New York 

yesterday. We will continue to 

train those of you who stepped 

forward to fight the enemies of 

freedom. We will not yield the 

future of your country to terrorists 

and extremists. In return, your 

leaders must rise to the challenges 

your country is facing and make 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2006 

166 

difficult choices to bring security 

and prosperity. Working together, 

we will help your democracy 

succeed, so that it can become a 

beacon of hope for millions in the 

Muslim world. 

To the people of 

Afghanistan: Together, we 

overthrew the Taliban regime that 

brought misery into your lives and 

harbored terrorists who brought 

death to the citizens of many 

nations. Since then, we have 

watched you choose your leaders 

in free elections and build a 

democratic government. You can 

be proud of these achievements. 

We respect your courage and your 

determination to live in peace and 

freedom. We will continue to 

stand with you to defend your 

democratic gains. 

Today, forces from more 

than 40 countries, including 

members of the NATO alliance, 

are bravely serving side-by-side 

with you against the extremists 

who want to bring down the free 

government you have established. 

We will help you defeat these 

enemies and build a free 

Afghanistan that will never again 

oppress you or be a safe haven for 

terrorists. 

To the people of 

Lebanon: Last year, you inspired 

the world when you came out into 

the streets to demand your 

independence from Syrian 

dominance. You drove Syrian 

forces from your country and you 

re-established democracy. Since 

then, you have been tested by the 

fighting that began with 

Hizballah’s unprovoked attacks on 

Israel. Many of you have seen 

your homes and your communities 

caught in crossfire. We see your 

suffering, and the world is helping 

you to rebuild your country and 

helping you deal with the armed 

extremists who are undermining 

your democracy by acting as a 

state within a state. 

The United Nations has 

passed a good resolution that has 

authorized an international force, 

led by France and Italy, to help 

you restore Lebanese sovereignty 

over Lebanese soil. For many 

years, Lebanon was a model of 

democracy and pluralism and 

openness in the region—and it will 

be again. 

To the people of Iran: 

The United States respects you. 

We respect your country. We 

admire your rich history, your 

vibrant culture, and your many 

contributions to civilization. You 

deserve an opportunity to 

determine your own future, an 

economy that rewards your 

intelligence and your talents, and a 

society that allows you to fulfill 

your tremendous potential. The 

greatest obstacle to this future is 

that your rulers have chosen to 

deny you liberty and to use your 

nation’s resources to fund 

terrorism, and fuel extremism, and 

pursue nuclear weapons. 

The United Nations has 

passed a clear resolution requiring 

that the regime in Tehran meet its 

international obligations. Iran 

must abandon its nuclear weapons 

ambitions. Despite what the 

regime tells you, we have no 

objection to Iran’s pursuit of a 
Address by President George W. Bush 

167 

truly peaceful nuclear power 

program. We are working toward 

a diplomatic solution to this crisis, 

and as we do, we look to the day 

when you can live in freedom and 

America and Iran can be good 

friends and close partners in the 

cause of peace. 

To the people of Syria: 

Your land is home to a great 

people with a proud tradition of 

learning and commerce. Today 

your rulers have allowed your 

country to become a crossroad for 

terrorism. In your midst, Hamas 

and Hizballah are working to 

destabilize the region, and your 

government is turning your 

country into a tool of Iran. This is 

increasing your country’s isolation 

from the world. Your government 

must choose a better way forward 

by ending its support for terror, 

and living in peace with your 

neighbors, and opening the way to 

a better life for you and your 

families. 

To the people of Darfur: 

You have suffered unspeakable 

violence, and my nation has called 

these atrocities what they are: 

genocide. For the last two years, 

America joined with the 

international community to 

provide emergency food aid and 

support for an African Union 

peacekeeping force. Yet your 

suffering continues. The world 

must step forward to provide 

additional humanitarian aid, and 

we must strengthen the African 

Union force that has done good 

work, but is not strong enough to 

protect you. The Security Council 

has approved a resolution that 

would transform the African 

Union force into a blue-helmeted 

force that is larger and more 

robust. To increase its strength 

and effectiveness, NATO nations 

should provide logistics and other 

support. The regime in Khartoum 

is stopping the deployment of this 

force. If the Sudanese 

Government does not approve this 

peacekeeping force quickly, the 

United Nations must act. Your 

lives and the credibility of the 

United Nations are at stake. So 

today, I am announcing that I am 

naming a presidential Special 

Envoy — former Administrator of 

the U.S. Agency for International 

Development, Andrew Natsios — 

to lead America’s efforts to 

resolve the outstanding disputes 

and help bring peace to your land. 

The world must also 

stand up for peace in the Holy 

Land. I am committed to two 

democratic states, Israel and 

Palestine, living side-by-side in 

peace and security. I am 

committed to a Palestinian state 

that has territorial integrity and 

will live peacefully with the 

Jewish state of Israel. This is the 

vision set forth in the Road Map, 

and helping the parties to reach 

this goal is one of the great 

objectives of my presidency. The 

Palestinian people have suffered 

from decades of corruption and 

violence and the daily humiliation 

of occupation. Israeli citizens 

have endured brutal acts of 

terrorism and constant fear of 

attack since the birth of their 

nation. Many brave men and 

women have made the 

commitment to peace. Yet 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2006 

168 

extremists in the region are stirring 

up hatred and trying to prevent 

these moderate voices from 

prevailing. 

This struggle is unfolding 

in the Palestinian territories. 

Earlier this year, the Palestinian 

people voted in a free election. 

The leaders of Hamas campaigned 

on a platform of ending corruption 

and improving the lives of the 

Palestinian people, and they 

prevailed. The world is waiting to 

see whether the Hamas 

government will follow through 

on its promises or pursue an 

extremist agenda. The world has 

sent a clear message to the leaders 

of Hamas: Serve the interests of 

the Palestinian people, abandon 

terror, recognize Israel’s right to 

exist, honor agreements, and work 

for peace. 

President Abbas is 

committed to peace and to his 

people’s aspirations for a state of 

their own. Prime Minister Olmert 

is committed to peace, and has 

said he intends to meet with 

President Abbas to make real 

progress on the outstanding issues 

between them. I believe that 

peace can be achieved and that a 

democratic Palestinian state is 

possible. I hear from leaders in 

the region who want to help. I 

have directed Secretary of State 

Rice to lead a diplomatic effort to 

engage moderate leaders across 

the region to help the Palestinians 

reform their security services and 

support Israeli and Palestinian 

leaders in their efforts to come 

together to resolve their 

differences. 

Prime Minister Blair has 

indicated that his country will 

work with partners in Europe to 

help strengthen the governing 

institutions of the Palestinian 

administration. We welcome this 

initiative. Countries like Saudi 

Arabia, Jordan, and Egypt have 

made clear that they are willing to 

contribute the diplomatic and 

financial assistance necessary to 

help these efforts succeed. I am 

optimistic that, by supporting the 

forces of democracy and 

moderation, we can help Israelis 

and Palestinians build a more 

hopeful future and achieve the 

peace in the Holy Land that we all 

want. 

Freedom, by its nature, 

cannot be imposed; it must be 

chosen. From Beirut to Baghdad, 

people are making the choice for 

freedom. And the nations 

gathered in this hall must make a 

choice as well. Will we support 

the moderates and reformers who 

are working for change across the 

Middle East, or will we yield the 

future to the terrorists and 

extremists? America has made its 

choice: We will stand with the 

moderates and reformers. 

Recently, a courageous 

group of Arab and Muslim 

intellectuals wrote me a letter. In 

it, they said this: “The shore of 

reform is the only one on which 

any lights appear, even though the 

journey demands courage, 

patience, and perseverance.” The 

United Nations was created to 

make that journey possible. 

Together, we must support the 

dreams of good and decent people 
Address by President George W. Bush 

169 

who are working to transform a 

troubled region. And by doing so, 

we will advance the high ideals on 

which this institution was founded. 
171 

Appendix 2 

Principal UN Organs 

General Assembly 

The General Assembly is composed of all 192 members of the United 

Nations. As of December 31, 2006, 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—2006 

172 

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 

Montenegro* June 28, 2006 

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 

Member Date of Admission 

Nicaragua Oct. 24, 1945 

Niger Sept. 20, 1960 

Nigeria Oct. 7, 1960 

Norway Nov. 27, 1945 

Oman Oct. 7, 1971 

Pakistan Sept. 30, 1947 

Palau Dec. 15, 1994 

Panama Nov. 13, 1945 

Papua New Guinea Oct. 10, 1975 

Paraguay Oct. 24, 1945 

Peru Oct. 31, 1945 

Philippines Oct. 24, 1945 

Poland Oct. 24, 1945 

Portugal Dec. 14, 1955 

Qatar Sept. 21, 1971 

Romania Dec. 14, 1955 

Russian Federation Oct. 24, 1945 

Rwanda Sept. 18, 1962 

Saint Kitts and 

 Nevis Sept. 23, 1983 

Saint Lucia Sept. 18, 1979 

Saint Vincent and the 

 Grenadines Sept. 16, 1980 

Samoa Dec. 15, 1976 

San Marino March 2, 1992 

Sao Tome and 

 Principe Sept. 16, 1975 

Saudi Arabia Oct. 24, 1945 

Senegal Sept. 28, 1960 

Serbia* 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 
Principal UN Organs 

173 

Member Date of Admission 

The Former Yugoslav 

 Republic of 

 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 

Member Date of Admission 

Ukraine Oct. 24, 1945 

United Arab 

 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 

*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. On June 3, 2006, Montenegro declared 

independence from Serbia. 

The 60th regular session of the General Assembly, which had been 

suspended December 23, 2005, held resumed sessions during 2006. The 

session was formally closed on September 11. 

The 10th Emergency Special Session was reconvened in November 

and December 2006 to discuss Israeli actions in Occupied East Jerusalem and 

the rest of the Occupied Palestinian Territory. 

The 61st regular session of the General Assembly convened 

September 12, 2006, and was suspended December 22. 

The Assembly elected Haya Rashed al-Khalifa (Bahrain) as President 

and the Chairs of the Delegations of Bhutan, Cameroon, Chile, China, 

Colombia, Croatia, France, Guinea, Haiti, Indonesia, Kuwait, Libya, 

Liechtenstein, the Netherlands, Nigeria, Philippines, Russia, Uganda, the 

United Kingdom, the United States, and Zimbabwe 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)—

Mona Juul (Norway) 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2006 

174 

Second Committee (Economic and Financial)—Tiina Intelmann 

(Estonia) 

Third Committee (Social, Humanitarian, and Cultural)—Hamid 

al Bayati (Iraq) 

Fourth Committee (Special Political and Decolonization)—Madhu 

Raman Acharya (Nepal) 

Fifth Committee (Administrative and Budgetary)—Youcef Yousfi 

(Algeria) 

Sixth Committee (Legal)—Juan Manuel Gómez Robledo (Mexico) 

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: 

2006: Argentina, Denmark, Greece, Japan, and Tanzania 

2007: Congo, Ghana, Peru, Qatar, and Slovakia 

On October 16, the Assembly elected Belgium, Indonesia, Italy, and 

South Africa as members of the Security Council for 2-year terms of office 

beginning January 1, 2007. Panama was elected on November 7. 

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 held its 65th session in August. 

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: 

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, 

Lithuania, Mexico, Pakistan, Russia, South Africa, Thailand, and the United 

Kingdom; 
Principal UN Organs 

175 

2008: Angola, Austria, Benin, Cuba, Czech Republic, France, 

Germany, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Japan, Madagascar, Mauritania, 

Paraguay, Saudi Arabia, Spain, Sri Lanka, and Turkey. 

The General Assembly elected Algeria, Barbados, Belarus, Bolivia, 

Canada, Cape Verde, El Salvador, Indonesia, Iraq, Kazakhstan, Luxembourg, 

Malawi, the Netherlands, Philippines, Romania, Somalia, Sudan, and the 

United States of America for 3-year terms beginning on January 1, 2007. All 

but Belarus were elected on November 2. Belarus was elected on November 

7. 

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, 

2006, listed in order of precedence, are: 

Rosalyn Higgins, United Kingdom (2009), President 

Awn Shawkat Al-Khasawneh, Jordan (2009), Vice President 

Raymond Ranjeva, Madagascar (2009) 

Shi Jiuyong, China (2012) 

Abdul G. Koroma, Sierra Leone (2012) 

Gonzalo Parra-Aranguren, Venezuela (2009) 

Thomas Burgenthal, United States (2015) 

Hisashi Owada, Japan (2012) 

Bruno Simma, Germany (2012) 

Peter Tomka, Slovakia (2012) 

Ronny Abraham, France (2009) 

Kenneth Keith, New Zealand (2015) 

Bernardo Sepúlveda Amor, Mexico (2015) 

Mohamed Bennouna, Morocco (2015) 

Leonid Skotnikov, Russia (2015) 

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, and ended December 31, 2006. The Secretariat has a staff 

drawn from about 170 countries: 

Kofi Annan, Secretary-General 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2006 

176 

Louise Frechette (to April 2006); Mark Mallach Brown (from April 

2006), Deputy Secretary-General 

Nobuyasu Abe (to January 2006); Nobuaki Tanaka (from April 

2006), Under Secretary-General, Department for Disarmament Affairs 

Inga-Britt Ahlenius, Under Secretary-General, Office of Internal 

Oversight Services 

Christopher Burnham (to November 2006), Under Secretary-General, 

Department of Management 

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 

Ibrahim A. Gambari, Under Secretary-General, Department of 

Political Affairs 

Jean-Marie Guéhenno, Under Secretary-General, Department of 

Peacekeeping Operations 

Abdoulie Janneh Executive Secretary (rank of Under SecretaryGeneral), Economic Commission for Africa 

Mark Malloch Brown (to March 2006); Alicia Bárcena Ibarra (from 

April 2006), Chef de Cabinet (rank of Under Secretary-General) 

Nicolas Michel, Under Secretary-General, Office of Legal Affairs 

Jose Antonio Ocampo, Under Secretary-General, Department of 

Economic and Social Affairs 

Shashi Tharoor, Under Secretary-General, Department of Public 

Information 

Anna K. Tibaijuka (from September 2006), Director-General, UN 

Office at Nairobi 

Klaus Toepfer (to March 2006), Director-General, UN Office at 

Nairobi; Executive Director, UN Environment Program; Achim Steiner (from 

June 2006), 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 (and later Mark 

Malloch Brown), all of the Under Secretary-Generals, and the following: 

Louise Arbour, High Commissioner for Human Rights; 

Marek Belka, Executive Secretary, Economic Commission for 

 Europe; 
Principal UN Organs 

177 

Anwarul Chowdhury, 

High Representative for Least Developed Countries, 

Landlocked, and Small Island Developing States; 

Radhika Coomaraswamy (from February 2006), 

 Special Rapporteur for Children and Armed Conflict; 

Kemal Dervis, Administrator, UN Development Program; 

Kim Hak-Su, 

Executive Secretary, Economic and Social Commission for 

Asia and the Pacific; 

Antonió Manuel de Oliveira Guterres 

High Commissioner for Refugees; 

José Luis Machinea 

Executive Secretary, Economic Commission for Latin 

America and the Caribbean; 

Rachel Mayanja, Special Advisor on Gender Issues and 

 Advancement of Women; 

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 

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; and 

Ann M. Venneman, Executive Director, UN Children’s Fund. 
179 

Appendix 3 

U.S. Representatives 

Permanent Representative and Chief of Mission to the United 

Nations: John R. Bolton (to December 2006) 

Deputy Permanent Representative to the United Nations: Alejandro 

D. Wolff 

Deputy Permanent Representative to the Security Council: Alejandro 

D. Wolff 

Representative to the Economic and Social Council: Richard T. 

Miller (from March 2006) 

Alternate Representative for Special Political Affairs: Jackie W. 

Sanders (from February 2006) 

Representative for UN Management and Reform: Mark D. Wallace 

(from March 2006) 

U.S. Representative to the European Office of the United Nations, 

Geneva: Kevin E. Moley (to April 2006); Warren W. Tichenor (from May 

2006) 

U.S. Representative to International Organizations, Vienna: Greg 

Schulte 

UN General Assembly 

61st regular session (New York, Sept. 12–Dec. 22) 

Representatives: John R. Bolton1

 (Chair); Barbara Boxer; Norm 

Coleman; Alejandro D. Wolff 

Alternates: Cecil E. Floyd; Richard T. Miller; Jackie W. Sanders; 

and Mark D. Wallace 

Subsidiary and Other Bodies 

UN Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation 

54th session (Vienna, May 29–June 2) 

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

31st session (New York, April 3–13) 

Representative: Elizabeth Wilcox 

Alternate: Carolyn Willson 

Committee on Conferences

Substantive session (New York, Sept. 11–15) 

 

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—2006 

180 

Representative: Mark D. Wallace 

Alternate: David Ibsen 

Disarmament Commission

27th session (New York, April 10–28) 

Representative: Robert L. Luaces 

Alternate: John Bravaco 

Conference on Disarmament

First Part (Geneva, Jan. 23–March 31) 

Representative: Jackie W. Sanders 

Alternate: Thomas Cynkin 

Second Part (Geneva, May 15–June 30) 

Representative: Jackie W. Sanders 

Alternate: Thomas Cynkin 

Third Part (Geneva, July 31–Sept. 15) 

Representative: Christina B. Rocca 

Alternate: Thomas Cynkin 

Committee on Information

28th session (New York, April 24–May 5) 

The United States did not send a representative. 

UN Commission on International Trade Law

39th session (New York, June 19–July 7) 

Representatives: Harold S. Burman; David P. Stewart 

Alternate: Mary Helen Carlson 

Special Committee on Peacekeeping Operations

Meets intermittently in New York. 

Security Council 

Representative: John R. Bolton (to December 2006); Alejandro D. 

Wolff (from December 2006) 

Deputy Representative: Alejandro D. Wolff 

Alternate Representatives: William Brencick; Richard Grenell; Mark 

Groombridge; T. Kirk McBride; Richard T. Miller; Gordon Olson; Mary 

Catherine Phee; Bruce C. Rashkow; Jackie W. Sanders; Mark D. Wallace; 

Carolyn Willson; Donald Yamamoto 

Trusteeship Council 

65th session (New York, Aug. 21) 

Representative: Mark D. Wallace 

Economic and Social Council and Related Bodies 

Organizational session: New York, Feb. 7–10 
U.S. Representatives 

181 

Representative: Miriam K. Hughes 

Alternate: Alec Mally 

Substantive session (Geneva, July 3–28) 

Representative: Richard T. Miller 

Alternate: Miriam K. Hughes 

Functional Commissions 

Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice

15th session (Vienna, April 24–28) 

Representative: Gregory L. Schulte 

Alternates: John Bargeron; George Glass; Elizabeth Verville 

Commission on Human Rights

62nd session (Geneva, March 13–April 21) 

Representative: Kevin E. Moley 

Alternate: Lynn Cassel 

Commission on Narcotic Drugs

49th session (Vienna, March 13–17) 

Representative: Gregory L. Schulte 

Alternates: George Glass; Eric Rubin; Thomas Schweich 

Commission on Population and Development

39th session (New York, April 3–7) 

Representative: Richard T. Miller 

Alternate: Nan Kennelly 

Commission for Social Development

44th session (New York, Feb. 8–17) 

Representative: Mark P. Lagon 

Alternate: Miriam K. Hughes 

Commission on the Status of Women

50th session (New York, Feb. 27–March 10) 

Representative: Patricia Brister 

Alternate: Mark Lagon 

Commission on Sustainable Development

14th session (New York, May 1–12) 

Representative: Paula Dobriansky 

Alternates: Jonathan Margolis; Claudia A. McMurray; Richard T. 

Miller 

Regional Economic Commissions 

Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific

62nd session (Jakarta, April 6–12) 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2006 

182 

Representative: Richard W. Behrend 

Alternate: Michael J. Delaney 

Economic Commission for Europe

61st session (Geneva, Feb. 21–23) 

Representative: Kevin E. Moley 

Alternate: Lynn Cassel 

Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean

31st session (Montevideo, March 20–24) 

Representative: Kelly Ryan 

Alternate: Richard W. Behrend 

Standing Committees 

UN Human Settlements Program

Did not meet in 2006. 

Committee on Non-Governmental Organizations

Regular session (New York, May 10–19) 

Representative: Richard T. Miller 

Alternate: Miriam K. Hughes 

Committee for Program and Coordination

46th session (New York, Aug. 14–Sept. 8) 

Representative: Mark D. Wallace 

Alternate: Thomas A. Repasch 

Related Subsidiary Bodies 

UN Children’s Fund 

Executive Board, annual session (New York, June 5–9) 

Representative: William O. Brisben 

Alternate: Richard T. Miller 

UN Development Program

Executive Board, annual session (Geneva, June 12–23) 

Representative: Richard W. Behrend 

UN Environment Program 

Governing Council did not meet in 2006. 

Office of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees

Executive Committee, 57th session (Geneva, Oct. 2–6) 

Representative: Ellen R. Sauerbrey 

Alternate: Warren W. Tichenor 
U.S. Representatives 

183 

UN Conference on Trade and Development

Conference did not meet in 2006. 

Trade and Development Board, 53rd session (Geneva, Sept. 27–Oct. 

10) 

Representative: Warren W. Tichenor 

Alternates: Gerald C. Anderson; Lisa M. Carle 

Specialized Agencies and Other Bodies 

Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO)

Conference did not meet in 2006. 

International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)

General Conference, 50th session (Vienna, Sept. 18–22) 

Representative: Gregory L. Schulte 

International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO)

Assembly did not meet in 2006. 

International Labor Organization (ILO)

Conference, 95th session (Geneva, May 31–June 16) 

Minister: Elaine L. Chao 

Government Delegates: James Carter; Jeffrey Krilla

Alternates: Lynn Cassel; Robert B. Shepard 

International Maritime Organization (IMO)

Assembly did not meet in 2006. 

International Monetary Fund (IMF)

U.S. Governor: John Snow (to May 2006); Henry M. Paulson, Jr. 

(from July 2006) 

Alternate: Alan Greenspan (to January 2006); Ben S. Bernanke (from 

February 2006) 

International Telecommunication Union (ITU)

Plenipotentiary Conference (Antalya, Turkey, Nov. 6–24) 

Representative: David A. Gross 

Alternate: Richard C. Beaird 

Council (Geneva, April 19–28) 

Representative: Richard C. Beaird 

Alternate: Frank Williams 

UN Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO)

General Conference did not meet in 2006. 

UN Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO)

The United States withdrew from UNIDO on December 31, 1996. 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2006 

184 

Universal Postal Union (UPU)

Universal Postal Congress did not meet in 2006. 

World Bank Group

International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD)

 U.S. Governor: John Snow (to May 2006); Henry M. 

Paulson, Jr. (from July 2006) 

 Alternate: Josette Sheeran 

 U.S. Executive Director: Robert B. Holland, III (to April 

2006) 

 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 12–16) 

Representatives: Lee Brudvig; Jonathan Dworken; Michael Hess 

World Health Organization (WHO)

59th World Health Assembly (Geneva, May 22–27) 

Representatives: Michael O. Leavitt; Lynne Cassel; William R. 

Steiger 

Alternates: John Agwunobi, M.D.; Ann Blackwood; Suzy 

DeFrancis; Julie Gerberding, M.D.; James Heiby; David E. Hohman; Mary 

Lou Valdez 

World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO)

Governing Bodies (Geneva, Sept. 25–Oct. 3) 

Representative: Jonathan W. Dudas 

Alternates: Lois Boland; Joyce W. Namde 

World Meteorological Organization (WMO)

Congress did not meet in 2006. 

World Trade Organization (WTO)

Ministerial Conference did not meet in 2006. 

U.S. Permanent Representatives to the United 

Nations from 1946 to 2006 

Edward R. Stettinius, Jr. (March 1946–June 1946) 
U.S. Representatives 

185 

Herschel V. Johnson (acting) (June 1946–January 1947) 

Warren R. Austin (January 1947–January 1953) 

Henry Cabot Lodge, Jr. (January 1953–September 1960) 

James J. Wadsworth (September 1960–January 1961) 

Adlai E. Stevenson (January 1961–July 1965) 

Arthur J. Goldberg (July 1965–June 1968) 

George W. Ball (June 1968–September 1968) 

James Russell Wiggins (October 1968–January 1969) 

Charles W. Yost (January 1969–February 1971) 

George Bush (February 1971–January 1973) 

John P. Scali (February 1973–June 1975) 

Daniel P. Moynihan (June 1975–February 1976) 

William W. Scranton (March 1976–January 1977) 

Andrew Young (January 1977–April 1979) 

Donald McHenry (April 1979–January 1981) 

Jeane J. Kirkpatrick (February 1981–April 1985) 

Vernon A. Walters (May 1985–January 1989) 

Thomas R. Pickering (March 1989–May 1992) 

Edward J. Perkins (May 1992–January 1993) 

Madeleine K. Albright (February 1993–January 1997) 

Bill Richardson (February 1997–September 1998) 

Peter Burleigh, Charge d’Affaires (September 1998–August 1999) 

Richard C. Holbrooke (August 1999–January 2001) 

James B. Cunningham, Charge d’Affaires (January 2001–September 

2001) 

John D. Negroponte (September 2001–June 2004) 

John C. Danforth (July 2004–January 2005) 

Anne W. Patterson, Chargé d’Affaires (January 2005–July 2005) 

John R. Bolton (August 2005– December 2006) 

Alejandro D. Wolff, Chargé d’Affaires (December 2006) 
187 

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/aboutcom.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://www.unog.ch/80256EE600585943/(httpHomepages)/6A03113D1857348E8025

6F04006755F6?OpenDocument ) 

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) 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2006 

188 

Partnership for Clean Fuels and Vehicles 

 ( http://www.unep.org/pcfv/ ) 

Disarmament Commission (http://disarmament.un.org/undiscom.htm) 

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/61/fifth/index.html) 

First Committee (http://www.un.org/ga/61/first/first.shtml) 

Fourth Committee (http://www.un.org/ga/61/fourth/fourth.shtml )

General Assembly (http://www.un.org/ga/61/)

General Assembly Resolutions, 61st Session 

 (http://www.un.org/Depts/dhl/resguide/r61.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.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2003/20062.htm ) 

Joint Inspection Unit (http://www.unjiu.org/) 

 Reports (http://www.unjiu.org/en/reports.htm) 
UN and Related Websites 

189 

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/) 

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/) 

Second Committee (http://www.un.org/ga/61/second/second.shtml ) 

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 2006 

 (http://www.un.org/Docs/sc/unsc_pres_statements06.htm) 

Security Council Resolutions 2006 

 (http://www.un.org/Docs/sc/unsc_resolutions06.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/CDT/reforms.html ) 

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) 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2006 

190 

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 

 (http://www.ohchr.org/english/bodies/subcom/index.htm) 

Third Committee (http://www.un.org/ga/61/third/third.shtml ) 

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 and Related Websites 

191 

UN Operation in Burundi (ONUB) (http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/missions/onub/) 

UN Operation in Côte d’Ivoire (UNOCI) 

 (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.securitycouncilreport.org/site/c.glKWLeMTIsG/b.2887759/k.7D47/Guine

aBissaubrUN_Documents.htm ) 

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-somalia.org/ ) 

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) 

Non-governmental 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 (ACCORD) 

 (http://www.accord.org.za/web/home.htm) 

African Union (http://www.africa-union.org/) 

African Union Mission in the Sudan and 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) 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2006 

192 

Group on Earth Observations (http://earthobservations.org/) 

Independent Inquiry Committee (http://www.iic-offp.org/index.html) 

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 ) 

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/) 
UN and Related Websites 

193 

Transnational Radical Party (http://www.radicalparty.org/welcome2.html) 

U.S. Council for International Business (http://www.uscib.org/) 

Universal Postal Union (http://www.upu.int) 

UN Watch 

 (http://www.unwatch.org/site/c.bdKKISNqEmG/b.1277549/k.BF70/Home.htm) 

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.energy.gov/) 

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) 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2006 

194 

IO Missions 

Geneva (http://www.us-mission.ch/index.html) 

New York (http://www.un.int/usa) 

 UN Headquarters Agreement 

 (http://www.usunnewyork.usmission.gov/hc_docs/hc_law_80_357.html ) 

Paris/U.S. Mission to UNESCO (http://unesco.usmission.gov/ ) 

Rome (http://usunrome.usembassy.it) 

Vienna (http://vienna.usmission.gov/) 

Conferences 

UN High Level Meeting on HIV/AIDS [New York; May 31-June 2, 2006] 

 (www.un.org/ga/aidsmeeting2006) 

Illicit Trade in Small Arms Conference [New York; June 26 – July 7, 2006] 

 (http://www.un.org/events/smallarms2006/) 

UN High Level Dialogue on International Migration and Development [New York; 

 September 14-15 2006] (www.un.org/esa/population/hldmigration/) 

Sixth Review Conference of the Biological Weapons Convention [New York; 

 November 20 – December 8, 2006] (http://disarmament.un.org/wmd/bwc/sixth) 

2005 World Summit: High Level Plenary Meeting of the 60th Session of the 

 General Assembly [New York; September 2005] (http://www.un.org/summit2005/) 

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, Tunisia; 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) 
UN and Related Websites 

195 

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] 

(http://www.un.org/depts/dpko/missions/unomig/ ) 

Agreement on Movement and Access [Middle East] 

(http://www.usip.org/library/pa/israel_palestinians/movement_access.html ) 

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/) 

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—2006 

196 

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/80256EDD006B8954/(httpAssets)/C8297DB1DE8566F2C1256F

2600348A73/$file/Convention%20P%20&%20I%20(1946)%20-%20E.pdf ) 

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.un.org/depts/dpa/europe.shtml ) 

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 

And IAEA Guidance on the Export and Import of Radioactive Sources 

 (http://www-ns.iaea.org/tech-areas/radiation-safety/code-of-conduct.htm) 

Status of 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) 
UN and Related Websites 

197 

International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism 

 (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://www.un.org/esa/ffd/Monterrey/Monterrey%20Consensus.pdf) 

Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer 

(http://ozone.unep.org/pdfs/Montreal-Protocol2000.pdf ) 

New York Convention on Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards 

(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://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/Focus/IaeaIran/eu_iran14112004.shtml ) 

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.state.gov/ofm/resource/22839.htm ) 

Peace Agreement between the Government of Sierra Leone 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) 

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) 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2006 

198 

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.usunnewyork.usmission.gov/hc_docs/hc_law_80_357.html ) 

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 

 (http://portal.unesco.org/shs/en/ev.phpURL_ID=1881&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html) 
UN and Related Websites 

199 

Vienna Convention on Consular Relations and Optional Protocols 

(http://fletcher.tufts.edu/multi/texts/BH444.txt ) 

WIPO Convention (http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/convention/index.html) 

World Summit Outcome Final Document 

 (http://www.un.org/summit2005/documents.html) 
201 

Index 

A 

A Woman’s Voice 

 International (AWVI) 191 

Abbas, Mahmoud 9, 11, 168 

Abkhazia 195 

Abraham, Ronny 130, 175 

AbuZayd, Karen 96 

Afghanistan 19-20, 67, 82-84, 

 116, 146, 164, 166, 171, 190, 195 

African Union (AU) 2, 23-24, 32, 

 34-35, 55-56, 142, 167, 191 

Ahlenius, Inga-Britt 154, 176 

Ahtisaari, Martti 42 

Al-Hussein, Prince Zeid Ra’ad 

 50-51, 60 

Al-Khasawneh, Awn Shawkat 

 130, 175 

Al-Qaida 52, 55-56, 63, 163 

Algeria 28, 36, 164, 175 

Arnault, Jean 42 

Arbour, Louise 176 

Arrears 148 

Atomic Radiation, UN Scientific 

 Committee on the Effects of 

 121-122, 190 

AU (African Union) 2, 23-24, 32, 

 34-35, 55-56, 142, 167, 191 

Aung San Suu Kyi 36 

Avian influenza 102-103 

Aviation Security Plan of Action 

 108 

B 

Banny, Charles Konan 24 

Beijing Women’s Conference 84 

Belarus 2-3, 86, 116, 175 

Belka, Marek 76, 176 

Bennouna, Mohammed 128, 173 

Bin Laden, Usama 52, 55-56 

Bonn Agreement 19, 195 

Bosnia and Herzegovina 40, 94, 

 134, 173, 196 

Bougainville Peace Agreement 

 195 

Boyle, Peter 112 

Budget, UN 76, 139, 146-147 

Buergenthal, Thomas 130 

Burma 2, 36-37, 62, 86, 116, 189 

Burundi 21-22, 92-94, 191 

Bush, George W. 1, 9, 23, 30, 74, 

 87, 106, 163-169 

C 

Cambodia 136-137, 192 

Capital Master Plan (CMP) 145, 

 155, 159-160 

Caribbean region 44, 77, 188 

Central African Republic (CAR) 

 22-23, 35, 149, 191 

Central America 72 

Chérif, Taïeb 108 

Children and Armed Conflict 62, 

 177 

Children’s Fund, UN 70-71, 98, 

 113, 187 

China 8, 35, 37, 46, 75, 88-90, 

 103, 116, 140, 149, 158, 174 

Civilians in Armed Conflict 64 

Climate change 69, 74-75, 196, 

 198 

Climate Change, UN Framework 

 Convention on 74-75, 198 

Codex Alimentarius Commission 

 102, 191 

Colombia 87, 92-94, 116 

Commission for Social 

 Development (CSocD) 

 78-79, 187 

Commission on Sustainable 

 Development (CSD) 69-70, 187 

Commission on Human Rights 

 (CHR) 85-86, 187 

Committee for Program and 

 Coordination (CPC) 149–152, 

 187 

Committee on Non-governmental 

 Organizations (NGO Committee) 

 88-90 

Community of Democracies 88 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2006 

202 

Comprehensive Convention on 

 International Terrorism (CCIT) 

 53-54 

Comprehensive Peace Agreement 

 (CPA) (Sudan) 34, 36, 195 

Conference on Disarmament (CD) 

 46-47, 187 

Congo, Democratic Republic 

 of the (DRC) 22, 24-27, 52, 54- 

 55, 62, 64, 92-93, 133, 191, 197 

Convention for the Suppression of 

 Unlawful Acts Against the Safety 

 of Maritime Navigation (SUA) 

 53, 195 

Convention on the Rights of 

 Persons with Disabilities 

 79-80 

Corruption 80-81, 167-168, 195 

Costa, Antonio Maria 176 

Côte d’Ivoire 23-24, 29-30, 54, 

 56, 191 

Counter-Terrorism Committee 

 (CTC) 52-53, 62, 187 

Crime prevention and criminal 

 justice 80-82, 86 

Crime Congress 80 

Cuba 86, 88-90, 119 

Cyprus 40-41, 191, 196 

D 

Dayan, Edouard 122 

Declaration on Bioethics and 

 Human Rights 198 

Decolonization 61-62, 189-190 

 Non-self-governing 

 territories 61-62 

Democracy 87-88, 191 

Department of Peacekeeping 

 Operations (DPKO), UN 19, 30, 

 49-52, 63, 187, 190-191 

Dervis, Kemal 177 

Development 67-70, 187 

Development Fund for Iraq (DFI) 

 6, 191 

Diouf, Jacques 101 

Disabilities, Convention on the 

 Rights of Persons with 79-80, 86 

Disarmament 15, 20-21, 24-25, 

 27, 34, 44-47, 68, 187-188 

Disaster and humanitarian relief 

 activities 98-99 

 International Strategy for 

 Disaster Reduction 99, 188 

Dobriansky, Paula 69, 181 

Drug control 82-84, 86 

E 

East Timor 37-38, 93, 190 

Economic Commission for 

 Europe (ECE) 76, 188 

Economic Commission for Latin 

 America and the Caribbean 

 (ECLAC) 77, 188 

Economic and Social Commission 

 for Asia and the Pacific (ESCAP) 

 77-78, 188 

Economic Community of West 

 African States (ECOWAS) 

 24, 191 

Education 20, 34, 36, 70-71, 77, 

 84, 88, 91-93, 96, 111, 119- 

 121, 127, 189-190, 193, 198 

Egypt 12, 62, 85, 164, 168 

ElBaradei, Mohamed 103-104 

Elections: 

 Afghanistan 166 

 Algeria 164 

 Bahrain 164 

 Cambodia 136 

 Côte d’Ivoire 24 

 Democratic Republic of the 

 Congo 25-27, 55 

 East Timor 37-38 

 Egypt 164 

 Haiti 43-44, 192 

 Iraq 5, 165 

 Jordan 164 

 Kuwait 164 

 Lebanon 15, 17 

 Palestine 9, 97, 168 
Index 

203 

 Saudi Arabia 164 

 Sierra Leone 31-32 

 Sudan 36 

 United Arab Emirates 164 

 Yemen 164 

Eliasson, Jan 9, 91, 140 

Environment 67, 69-70, 73-76, 

 109, 116-117, 121-122, 188, 

 193-194 

Eritrea 27-29, 188, 190, 195 

Eritrea-Ethiopia Boundary 

 Commission (EEBC) 27-28, 188 

Ethiopia 27-29, 188 

Ethiopia and Eritrea, UN Mission 

 in (UNMEE) 27-29, 190 

European Union (EU) 2, 9, 25, 

 32, 40, 42, 78, 89, 91, 97, 106, 

 148, 159, 191 

F 

Financial situation of the United 

 Nations 144-147 

 Members’ arrears 148 

Food and Agriculture 

 Organization (FAO) 94, 101– 

 103, 191, 196-197 

Forces Nationales de Libération 

 (FNL) 21 

Framework Convention on 

 Tobacco Control (FCTC) 

 111, 196 

Frente Popular para la Liberacion 

 de Saguia el-Hamra y Rio de 

 Oro (POLISARIO Front) 36 

G 

Gambari, Ibrahim 36, 40-41, 176 

Gbagbo, Laurent 23-24 

Georgia 41-42, 149, 190, 195 

Global Fund to Fight AIDS, 

 Tuberculosis, and Malaria 191 

Guinea-Bissau 29, 149, 191 

Guterres, Antonio 93, 177 

H 

Hadzic, Goran 134 

Haiti 43-44, 49, 191-192 

Hariri, Rafiq 2, 17-18, 135, 146 

Higgins, Rosalyn 130, 175 

HIV/AIDS 22, 36, 67-68, 71, 82, 

 84-85, 92, 113-115, 189, 194 

Hizballah 2, 10-11, 13, 15-16, 

 18, 136, 166-167 

Holocaust Remembrance 9-10, 

 91 

Host country relations 129 

Human resources management 

 125, 156-157 

Human rights 1-2, 6, 11, 19, 21- 

 23, 31, 36, 38, 42, 54, 68, 

 84-88, 90, 115-116, 120, 

 147, 153, 163, 187-190, 198 

 Cuba 85-86, 88-90 

 Khmer Rouge 136-137 

 Office of the High 

 Commissioner for Human 

 Rights 86-87 

 UN Human Rights Council 2, 

 85-88, 147, 188 

 Belarus 2, 3 

 Burma 2 

 Israel 85 

 Sudan 85-86 

 UN Commission on 

 Human Rights 85-86, 187 

 Women, status of 84-85 

Human Rights Council (HRC) 

 2, 85-88, 147, 188 

Humanitarian aid 7, 14, 19, 22, 

 38, 42, 57, 70-71, 90-91, 93-99, 

 111, 153, 167, 189 

 Afghanistan 19 

 Inter-Agency Standing 

 Committee 71, 95, 192 

 Somalia 32-34 

 South Asia earthquake 93 

 UN Children’s Fund 70-71, 98, 

 187 

 UN High Commissioner for 

 Refugees 93-96 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2006 

204 

 UN Relief and Works Agency 

 96-98, 190 

 World Food Program 25, 91-93, 

 98, 193 

I 

Idris, Kamil 124 

Independent Inquiry Commission 

 (IIC) 2, 17-18, 192 

India 20-21, 62, 143, 190 

Indian Ocean tsunami 153 

Inter-Agency Standing 

 Committee (IASC) 71, 95, 192 

Intergovernmental Panel on 

 Climate Change (IPCC) 74-75, 

 192 

Interim Commission on 

 Phytosanitary Measures of the 

 International Plant Protection 

 Convention (IPPC) 102, 192 

International Advisory and 

 Monitoring Board (IAMB) 192 

International Agency for Research 

 on Cancer (IARC) 110, 112, 

 192, 196 

International Atomic Energy 

 Agency (IAEA) 2, 7-9, 103-108, 

 192, 195-198 

International Civil Aviation 

Organization (ICAO) 108-109, 

 192, 195 

International Civil Service 

 Commission (ICSC) 157–159, 

 188 

International Convention for the 

 Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS) 

 196 

International Convention for the 

 Suppression of Acts of Nuclear 

 Terrorism 53 

International Court of Justice (ICJ) 

 130, 188 

International Criminal Court (ICC) 

 130, 192 

International Criminal Tribunal for 

 Rwanda (ICTR) 133, 188 

International Criminal Tribunal for 

 the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) 

 134, 188 

International Foundation for 

 Election Systems 192 

International Health Regulations 

 (IHRs) 110-111, 197 

International Labor Organization 

 (ILO) 115-116, 192, 197 

International Law Commission 

 (ILC) 130-132, 188 

International Maritime 

 Organization (IMO) 116-117, 

 192 

International Monetary Fund 

 (IMF) 192 

International Narcotics Control 

 Board (INCB) 82-84, 188, 

 195, 198 

International Program on the 

 Elimination of Child Labor 

 (IPEC) 116 

International Security Assistance 

 Force (ISAF) 19-20, 190, 192 

International Ship and Port 

 Facility Security (ISPS) 117 

International Strategy for Disaster 

 Reduction (ISDR) 99, 188 

International Telecommunication 

 Union (ITU) 118-119, 192 

International Trade Law, UN 

 Commission on (UNCITRAL) 

 187, 196-198 

International Treaty on Plant 

 Genetic Resources for Food and 

 Agriculture 102, 197 

International Working Group 

 (IWG) 23-24 

Iran 2-3, 7-9, 15, 45, 55, 57, 86, 

 89-90, 103-105, 166-167, 197 

Iraq 5–7, 54, 62, 92-94, 116, 

 164-166, 188, 190-192 

Israel 2, 9-16, 18, 84-86, 91, 

 97-98, 111, 151, 166-168, 

 173, 188 
Index 

205 

J 

Jammu 21 

Japan 38, 67, 77, 103, 106, 137, 

 140, 142-143, 146, 148-149, 151 

Jarraud, Michel 126 

Johnson Sirleaf, Ellen 29-30, 32 

Joint Inspection Unit (JIU) 

 124, 153-154, 188 

Joint UN Program on HIV/AIDS 

 113-115 

Jordan 12, 50, 96, 164, 168 

K 

Kabuga, Felicien 133 

Karadzic, Radovan 134 

Kashmir 21 

Keith, Kenneth 130, 175 

Khmer Rouge Tribunal 136-137, 

 192 

Kim Hak-Su 78, 177 

Koroma, Abdul G. 130, 175 

Kosovo 42-43, 49, 190 

Kotaite, Assad 108 

Kyoto Protocol 74, 197 

L 

Leavitt, Michael O. 112 

Lebanon 2, 10, 12-18, 49, 92, 

 96-98, 117, 135-136, 163, 

 166, 190 

Lee, Michelle 136 

Liberia 24, 29-32, 49, 54-55, 

 68, 93-94, 135, 149, 190, 194- 

 195 

M 

Machinea, José Luis 77, 177 

Malacca Straits 117 

Matsuura, Koichiro 120 

Matheson, Michael 131 

Mehlis, Detlev 17 

Middle East 2, 11-13, 15, 67, 

 87, 94, 116, 164,-165, 168, 195 

Mitropoulos, Efthimios 116 

Mladic, Ratko 134 

Monteiro, Antonio 24 

Morocco 36 

Morris, James T. 91, 177 

Multinational Force (MNF) 5-7, 

192 

N 

New Partnership for Africa’s 

 Development (NEPAD) 78, 150, 

 192 

Non-self-governing territories 

 61-62, 77 

North Atlantic Treaty 

 Organization (NATO) 19, 40, 

 42-43, 48, 166-167, 190, 192 

North Korea 2, 38-39, 56-57, 103 

Nuclear Non-Proliferation 

 Treaty (NPT) 45-46, 103, 197 

O 

Obaid, Thoraya Ahmed 75 

Office of Internal Oversight 

 Services (OIOS) 50, 63, 150 

Office of the High Commissioner 

 for Human Rights (OHCHR) 

 38, 86-87, 188-190 

Oman 116 

Organization of American 

 States (OAS) 47-48, 192 

Oversight 30, 50, 63, 90, 94, 97, 

 101, 103, 109, 119, 124, 127, 

 139, 141, 152-156, 159-160, 189 

Owada, Hisashi 130, 175 

P 

Pakistan 19-21, 89, 92, 190 

Palestine 9-12, 96-98, 111, 

 167, 190 

Palestine Liberation Organization 

 (PLO) 97 

Pan American Health 

 Organization (PAHO) 

 112-113, 192, 197 

Parking Program for Diplomatic 

 Vehicles 129, 197 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2006 

206 

Parra-Aranguren, Gonzalo 130, 

 175 

Peace and security 1, 9, 13, 24, 

 33-35, 39, 45, 54, 58, 62, 64, 

 119, 135, 167, 196 

Peace process 11, 19, 21, 23-24, 

 33, 35, 64 

Peacebuilding 23, 29, 31, 60-61, 

 189 

Peacebuilding Commission 

 (PBC) 60-61 

Peacekeeping issues 49-52 

Piot, Peter 113 

Political process 5-6, 43 

Population 75, 187, 189, 194 

Prescott, Charles 123 

Pronk, Jan 35 

Q 

Qazi, Ashraf 5 

R 

Ranjeva, Raymond 130, 175 

Razali Ismail 36 

Reform 5, 22, 29-30, 37-38, 43- 

 44, 51-52, 67, 69, 71, 73, 76, 78, 

 81, 87, 95, 97, 109, 112-113, 

 118, 120, 124, 127, 139-143, 

 146-147, 150-154, 156-158, 

 164, 168 

Refugees 20, 22, 36, 63, 84, 

 92-98, 188, 190, 196, 198 

Rice, Condoleezza 29, 168, 179 

Roses, Mirta 112 

S 

Sach, Warren 145 

Sanctions 2, 7-9, 23, 30, 39, 

 52-57, 64, 105, 133 

Sauerbrey, Ellen 182 

Scale of assessments 145, 148- 

 149 

Schoolchildren feeding programs 

 92 

Security Council, UN 1-2, 5-43, 

 47, 50-65, 104-105, 117, 130, 

 133-135, 142-143, 146-147, 164, 

 167, 174-175, 179-180, 189 

Sepulveda Amor, Berndardo 130 

Settlement Plan 196 

Sexual exploitation and abuse 

 49-52, 63, 189 

Shi Jiuyong 130, 175 

Sierra Leone 30-32, 54, 61, 

 64, 130, 134-135, 190, 192, 197 

Sierra Leone, Special Court for 

 134-135 

Small arms 47-48, 65, 194, 197 

Simma, Bruno 130, 175 

Skotnikov, Leonid 130, 175 

Somalia 32-34, 54-55, 93, 149, 

 191 

Somavia, Juan 115 

Special Committee on the Charter 

 of the United Nations 

 132-133, 189 

Special Committee on the 

 Situation with Regard to the 

 Implementation of the 

 Declaration on the Granting of 

 Independence to Colonial 

 Countries and Peoples 61 

Special Political and 

 Decolonization Committee 61 

Sudan 2, 22, 34-36, 49, 54, 56, 

 62, 85-86, 90, 93-94, 98, 130, 

 167, 190-192, 195 

Sudan Liberation Movement/ 

 Army 34 

Supachai Panitchpakdi 68, 177 

Suppression of Unlawful Acts 

 Against the Safety of Maritime 

 Navigation, Convention for the 

(SUA) 53, 195 

Swing, William Lacey 25-27 

Syria 12, 15-17, 85, 96, 135, 166- 

 167 

T 

Taiwan 111 

Taliban 52, 55-56, 62, 164, 166 

Taylor, Charles 30, 32, 135 
Index 

207 

Terrorism 1, 6, 20, 52-54, 62-63, 

 80-82, 90, 103, 106, 108, 166- 

 167, 187, 195-197 

Tibaijuka, Anna 72, 176-177 

Tomka, Peter 130, 175 

Töpfer, Klaus 73 

Trafficking in women and girls 86 

Transnational Organized Crime, 

 UN Convention Against (TOC) 

 81, 198 

U 

U.S. Department of Housing and 

 Urban Development (HUD) 

 72, 193 

UN Assistance Mission for Iraq 

 (UNAMI) 5-7, 190 

UN Assistance Mission in 

 Afghanistan (UNAMA) 19-20, 

 190 

UN Children’s Fund (UNICEF) 

 70-71, 92, 98, 187 

UN Commission on Crime 

 Prevention and Criminal Justice 

 (Crime Commission) 80-82 

UN Commission on Human 

 Rights (UNCHR or CHR) 85 

UN Commission on International 

 Trade Law (UNCITRAL) 

 187, 196-198 

UN Commission on Narcotic 

 Drugs (CND) 83 

UN Commission on Population 

 and Development (CPD) 75, 187 

UN Commission on the Status of 

 Women (CSW) 84-85, 187 

UN Conference on Trade and 

 Development (UNCTAD) 

 68-69, 187 

UN Convention Against 

 Corruption (CAC) 81-82, 198 

UN Convention Against 

 Transnational Organized Crime 

 (TOC) 81, 198 

UN Convention on the Use of 

 Electronic Communications in 

 International Contracts 198 

UN Democracy Fund (UNDEF) 

 87-88 

UN Department of Peacekeeping 

 Operations (DPKO) 19, 28, 30, 

 49-51, 63, 187, 190-191, 195 

UN Development Program 

 (UNDP) 67-68, 187 

UN Disarmament Commission 

 (UNDC) 44-45 

UN Disengagement Observer 

 Force (UNDOF) 12-13, 190 

UN Educational, Scientific, and 

 Cultural Organization 

 (UNESCO) 119-121, 190, 194, 

 196, 198 

 Declaration on Bioethics and 

 Human Rights 198 

UN Environment Program 

 (UNEP) 73-74, 122, 188 

UN Framework Convention on 

 Climate Change (UNFCCC) 

 74, 196, 198 

UN High Commissioner for 

 Refugees (UNHCR) 20, 36, 63, 

 92-96, 188 

UN Human Settlements Program 

 (UN-HABITAT) 71-73 

UN Integrated Office in Sierra 

 Leone (UNIOSIL) 31-32, 190 

UN Interim Administration 

 Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK) 

 42-43, 190 

UN Interim Force in Lebanon 

 (UNIFIL) 2, 10, 12-16, 190 

UN International Independent 

 Investigation Commission 

 (UNIIIC) 2, 17-18 

UN Military Observer Group in 

 India and Pakistan (UNMOGIP) 

 20-21, 190 

UN Millennium Project 189 
United States Participation in the United Nations—2006 

208 

UN Mission for the Referendum in 

 Western Sahara (MINURSO) 

 36, 51, 190 

UN Mission in Ethiopia and 

 Eritrea (UNMEE) 27-29, 190 

UN Mission in Liberia (UNMIL) 

 23, 29-31, 190 

UN Mission in Sierra Leone 

 (UNAMSIL) 31, 190 

UN Mission in Sudan (UNMIS) 

 34-36, 190 

UN Mission of Support in East 

 Timor (UNMISET) 37, 190 

UN Observer Mission in Georgia 

 (UNOMIG) 41-42, 190 

UN Office of Coordination of 

Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) 

 98, 189 

UN Office on Drugs and Crime 

 (UNODC) 20, 80-83, 187, 189, 

 195-198 

UN Office in Timor-Leste 

 (UNOTIL) 37, 146 

UN Operation in Burundi (ONUB) 

 26, 61, 191 

UN Operation in Côte d’Ivoire 

 23-24, 29-30, 56, 191 

UN Mission in the Democratic 

 Republic of the Congo 

 (MONUC) 24-27, 52, 191 

UN Peace-Building Support 

 Office in Guinea-Bissau 

 (UNOGBIS) 29, 191 

UN Peace-Building Support 

 Office in the Central African 

 Republic (BONUCA) 23 

UN Peacekeeping Force in Cyprus 

 (UNFICYP) 40, 41, 191 

UN Police (UNPOL) 43, 49, 190 

UN Political Office in Somalia 

 (UNPOS) 191 

UN Population Fund (UNFPA) 

 75, 189 

UN Relief and Works Agency for 

 Palestine Refugees in the Near 

 East (UNRWA) 96-98, 190 

UN Scientific Committee on the 

 Effects of Atomic Radiation 

 (UNSCEAR) 121-122, 190 

UN Stabilization Mission in Haiti 

 (MINUSTAH) 43-44, 191 

UN Truce Supervision 

 Organization (UNTSO) 12, 191 

UNAIDS: Joint UN Program on 

 HIV/AIDS 113-115, 189 

United Arab Emirates 116, 164 

Universal Postal Union (UPU) 

 122-124, 193 

Universal Safety Oversight Audit 

 Program (USOAP) 109 

Universal Security Audit Program 

 (USAP) 108 

Utsumi, Yoshio 118 

V 

Veneman, Ann 70 

Venezuela 57-58, 82 

Vieira, Joao Bernardo 29 

Violence 5-7, 10, 13, 19, 21-23, 

 32, 35, 43, 71, 75, 85-86, 165, 

 167, 197 

Voluntary Cooperation Program 

 (VCP) 127 

W 

War crimes tribunals 3, 133-137, 

 145, 152 

Western Sahara 36, 51, 93-94, 

 190, 196-197 

Wolff, Alejandro 179-180, 185 

Women 2, 30, 64, 73, 75, 84-86, 

 94-95, 113, 163-165, 167, 187, 

 194 

World Bank 22, 113, 193 

World Conference on Disaster 

 Reduction 194 

World Food Program (WFP) 

 25, 91-93, 98, 193 

World Health Organization 

 (WHO) 3, 102-103, 109-113, 

 115, 193 
Index 

209 

World Intellectual Property 

 Organization (WIPO) 124-126, 

 193, 195, 197, 199 

World Organization for Animal 

 Health (OIE) 102-103, 193 

World Summit (60th UNGA, 2005) 

 58, 60, 74, 139, 142, 194, 199 

World Summit on the Information 

 Society (WSIS) 118-119, 194 

Wynes, M. Deborah 153 

Z 

Zebari, Hoshyar 6 

Zupljanin, Stojan 134