DEPARTMENT OF STATE PUBLICATION 11086

Bureau of International Organization Affairs

edited by Pamela Stroh

Released October 2003

Cover photos by: United Nations 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents 

U.S. Government Printing Office 

Washington, D.C. 20402 
United States 

Participation 

in the United Nations 

Report by the Secretary of State

to the Congress

for the year 2002


Table of Contents 

CONTENTS 

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

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

Political and Security Affairs Regional Issues.................................................................................... 3

Near East ....................................................................................... 3

Iraq........................................................................................... 3

UN Iraq/Kuwait Observer Mission (UNIKOM)...................... 5

Arab–Israeli Situation .............................................................. 5

UN Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL)................................. 8

UN Truce Supervision Organization (UNTSO) ...................... 8

UN Disengagement Observer Force (UNDOF)....................... 9

South Asia ..................................................................................... 9

Afghanistan .............................................................................. 9

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

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

Angola.................................................................................... 15

Burundi .................................................................................. 16

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

Democratic Republic of the Congo ....................................... 17

Ethiopia/Eritrea...................................................................... 20

Guinea–Bissau ....................................................................... 20

Liberia .................................................................................... 21

Libya ...................................................................................... 22

Rwanda .................................................................................. 22

Sierra Leone ........................................................................... 23

Somalia .................................................................................. 25

Sudan ..................................................................................... 25

Western Sahara ...................................................................... 26

East Asia and the Pacific ............................................................. 27

Bougainville........................................................................... 27

Burma..................................................................................... 28

Cambodia ............................................................................... 29

East Timor.............................................................................. 30

Europe and Eurasia...................................................................... 31

Cyprus.................................................................................... 31

Georgia................................................................................... 32

The Former Yugoslavia ......................................................... 33

UN Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK) ... 33

UN Mission in Bosnia and Herzegovina (UNMIBH) ........... 35

UN Mission of Observers in Prevlaka (UNMOP) ................. 36

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

Cuba ....................................................................................... 37

Guatemala .............................................................................. 37

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

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

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

UN First Committee (UNFC) ...................................................... 40

Specialized Issues.............................................................................. 41

Terrorism ..................................................................................... 41

Peacekeeping, Force Protection, and CIVPOL ........................... 43

Peacekeeping ......................................................................... 43

Force Protection..................................................................... 44

i 
United States Participation in the United Nations – 2002 

CIVPOL ................................................................................. 45

Sanctions...................................................................................... 45

HIV/AIDS.................................................................................... 46

Security Council Thematic Debates ............................................ 47

Admission of New Members ....................................................... 48

Non–Self–Governing Territories ................................................. 48

Effects of Atomic Radiation ........................................................ 49

Economic and Social Affairs 

Economic and Development Issues................................................... 51

Financing for Development ......................................................... 51

World Summit for Sustainable Development (WSSD) ............... 52

UN Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD) .......... 53

UN General Assembly Resolutions ....................................... 53

World Food Summit: Five Years Later ....................................... 53

UN Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD):

Role and Activities .................................................................... 55

International Trade Center (ITC)....................................................... 56

African Issues: NEPAD............................................................... 57

Development Activities: Bodies/Programs/Issues....................... 57

UN Development Program (UNDP)...................................... 57

UN Children’s Fund (UNICEF)............................................. 60

Millennium Development Goals Campaign .......................... 62

Human Settlements ................................................................ 63

Economic and Social Council High–Level Segment............. 65

Environment ................................................................................ 65

UN Environment Program (UNEP) ....................................... 65

UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) 67

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)............ 68

Population .................................................................................... 68

UN Commission on Population and Development (CPD) .... 68

UN Population Fund (UNFPA) ............................................. 69

Asian and Pacific Population Conference.............................. 70

Regional Commissions ................................................................ 71

Economic Commission for Europe (ECE)............................. 71

Economic Commission for Latin America 

and the Caribbean (ECLAC)................................................ 72

Economic and Social Commission for Asia 

and the Pacific (ESCAP)...................................................... 73

Social Issues ...................................................................................... 74

Aging/Commission for Social Development (CSocD)................ 74

Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice ....................................... 75

International Drug Control .......................................................... 76

Human Rights .................................................................................... 79

General Assembly Special Session on Children 

and the Convention on the Rights of the Child.......................... 79

Status of Women.......................................................................... 81

Human Rights .............................................................................. 82

Humanitarian Issues .......................................................................... 83

Afghanistan.................................................................................. 83

Africa Famine .............................................................................. 85

Biotechnology ........................................................................ 86

World Food Program ................................................................... 87

UN High Commissioner for Refugees......................................... 89

ii
Table of Contents 

UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near

East (UNRWA)......................................................................... 91

UN Disaster and Humanitarian Relief Activities ........................ 91

NGO Committee.......................................................................... 92

Legal Developments Cloning .............................................................................................. 95

UN Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) ........... 96

Host Country Relations ................................................................... 101

International Court of Justice .......................................................... 102

Iran v. United States of America ............................................... 102

Libya v. United States of America ............................................ 103

International Criminal Court (ICC)................................................. 103

International Law Commission (ILC) ............................................. 104

Strengthening the Role of the United Nations ................................ 105

War Crimes Tribunals ..................................................................... 107

International Criminal Tribunals for the 

former Yugoslavia and Rwanda ........................................ 107

Sierra Leone Special Court .................................................. 108

Reform of the UN System Administrative and Management Reform ....................................... 111

Peacekeeping Reform...................................................................... 112

Security Council Reform................................................................. 113

Administration and Budget UN Financial Situation.................................................................... 115

UN Budget....................................................................................... 116

Capital Master Plan ......................................................................... 118

Scale of Assessments ...................................................................... 120

Financing for Peacekeeping Operations.......................................... 121

Committee for Program and Coordination (CPC)........................... 122

Audit Reports .................................................................................. 124

Joint Inspection Unit (JIU) .............................................................. 126

Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS)................................. 127

International Civil Service Commission (ICSC)............................. 129

Human Resources Management...................................................... 131

Employment of Americans.............................................................. 131

UN Joint Staff Pension Board ......................................................... 136

Specialized Agencies and Other Bodies Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) ..................................... 139

International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) ................................ 143

International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) ......................... 148

International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) ............. 151

International Labor Organization (ILO).......................................... 153

International Maritime Organization (IMO) ................................... 157

International Telecommunication Union (ITU) .............................. 160

UN Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization 

(UNESCO) ................................................................................... 163

Universal Postal Union (UPU)........................................................ 165

World Health Organization (WHO) and Other International 

Health Organizations..................................................................... 170

Pan American Health Organization (PAHO) ............................ 174

International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) ............. 175

Joint UN Program on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS)............................ 175

World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) ......................... 176

World Meteorological Organization (WMO) ................................ 179

iii 
United States Participation in the United Nations – 2002 

Appendices

1. Address by President George W. Bush ...................................... 183

2. Principal Organs of the United Nations...................................... 189

General Assembly ...................................................................... 189

Security Council ........................................................................ 192

Trusteeship Council ................................................................... 192

Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) ................................ 192

International Court of Justice..................................................... 193

UN Secretariat ........................................................................... 193

3. United States Representatives .................................................... 195

UN General Assembly ............................................................... 195

Subsidiary and Other Bodies ..................................................... 195

Security Council ........................................................................ 196

Trusteeship Council ................................................................... 197

Economic and Social Council and Related Bodies.................... 197

Functional Commissions...................................................... 197

Regional Economic Commissions ....................................... 198

Standing Committees ........................................................... 198

Related Subsidiary Bodies ................................................... 199

Specialized Agencies and Other Bodies .................................... 199

U.S. Permanent Representatives to the United Nations 

from 1946 to 2001 ................................................................... 201

4. United Nations and Related Web Sites ...................................... 203

UN–Specific .............................................................................. 203

International Organizations ....................................................... 204

Specialized U.S. Government Agency Sites.............................. 205

IO Missions................................................................................ 205

Conferences ............................................................................... 205

Conventions ............................................................................... 206

Index................................................................................. 211

iv
Acronyms and Short Forms 

Acronyms and Short Forms 

ACABQ Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions 

ANA Afghan National Army 

ATF U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms 

BCPR Bureau for Crisis Prevention and Recovery 

BONUCA UN Peace–Building Support Office in the Central African 

Republic 

C–24 Special Committee on the Situation with Regard to the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples (Committee of 

24) 

CAR Central African Republic 

CBM confidence building measures 

CCIT Comprehensive Convention on International Terrorism 

CD Conference on Disarmament 

CICP UN Center for International Crime Prevention 

CIS Commonwealth of Independent States 

CIVPOL Civilian police 

CMP Capital Master Plan 

CND UN Commission on Narcotic Drugs 

CPC Committee for Program and Coordination 

CPD UN Commission on Population and Development 

CSD Commission on Sustainable Development 

CSocD Commission on Social Development 

CSW Commission on the Status of Women 

CTC Counter–Terrorism Committee 

CU contributory units 

DDR disarmament, demobilization, and repatriation/reintegration 

DPKO UN Department of Peacekeeping Operations 

DOPCAT Draft Optional Protocol on the Convention Against Torture 

DRC/DROC Democratic Republic of the Congo 

ECA Economic Commission for Africa 

ECE Economic Commission for Europe 

ECLAC Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean 

ECOSOC Economic and Social Council 

EOP Explanation of Position 

EOV Explanation of Vote 

ESCAP Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific 

v 
United States Participation in the United Nations – 2002 

EU European Union

EXCOM UN High Commissioner for Refugees’Executive Committee

FAO Food and Agriculture Organization

FCCC/UNFCCC UN Framework Convention on Climate Change 

FCTC Framework Convention on Tobacco Control

FMCT Fissile Material Cutoff Treaty

FRY Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro)

FTAA Free Trade Area of the Americas

GC/GMEF Governing Council/Global Environmental Ministerial Forum

GRL Goods Review List

HHS U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

IAEA International Atomic Energy Agency

IARC International Agency for Research on Cancer

ICAO International Civil Aviation Organization

ICC International Criminal Court

ICD Inter–Congolese Dialogue

ICJ International Court of Justice

ICPD International Conference on Population and Development

ICPM Interim Commission on Phytosanitary Measures

ICSC International Civil Service Commission

ICTR International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda

ICTY International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

IDG international development goals

IDP internally displaced persons

IFAD International Fund for Agricultural Development

IFFAS International Financial Facility for Aviation Safety

ILC International Law Commission

ILO International Labor Organization

IMF International Monetary Fund

IMO International Maritime Organization

INCB International Narcotics Control Board

INSARAG International Search and Rescue Group

IO international organizations

IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

IPEC International Program for the Elimination of Child Labor

IPPAS International Physical Protection Advisory Service

IPTF International Police Task Force

IRENE Informal Regional Network

ISAF International Security Assistance Force

vi 
Acronyms and Short Forms 

ISDR International Strategy for Disaster Reduction 

ITC International Trade Center 

ITU International Telecommunication Union 

JIU Joint Inspection Unit 

KFOR Kosovo Force 

KOCB Kosovo Organized Crime Bureau 

KPS Kosovo Police Service 

KPSS Kosovo Police Service School 

KTA Kosovo Trust Agency 

LURD Liberians United for Reconciliation and Democracy 

MARPOL International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution by 

Ships 

MDB multilateral development bank 

MDGs Millennium Development Goals 

MINUGUA UN Verification Mission in Guatemala 

MINURSO UN Mission for the Referendum in Western Sahara 

MONUC UN Mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo 

MTP Medium–Term Plan 

NATO North Atlantic Treaty Organization 

NEPAD New Economic Partnership for Africa’s Development 

NLD National League for Democracy 

NGO Nongovernmental Organization 

NNWS non–nuclear weapon state 

NOAA U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

NPT Nuclear Non–Proliferation Treaty 

NSGT non–self–governing territories 

OECD Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development 

OEF Operation Enduring Freedom 

OFF Oil–for–Food 

OIOS Office of Internal Oversight Services 

OPA 90 U.S. Oil Pollution Act of 1990 

OSCE Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe 

PAHO Pan American Health Organization 

PCT Patent Cooperation Treaty 

PISG Provisional Institutions of Self–Government 

POC Postal Operations Council 

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

de Oro 

PUASP Postal Union of the Americas, Spain, and Portugal 

RBB results–based budgeting 

vii 
United States Participation in the United Nations – 2002 

RCD–Goma Congolese Rally for Democracy–Goma 

RGC Royal Government of Cambodia 

RUF Revolutionary United Front 

SDS Strategic Development Stock 

SOFA Status of Forces Agreements 

SOMA Status of Mission Agreements 

SOLAS International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea 

SPFS Special Program for Food Security 

STOP Special Trafficking Operation Program 

SUA Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the 

Safety of Maritime Navigation 

TCC troop–contributing countries 

TDAG Terminal Dues Action Group 

TISA Transitional Islamic State of Afghanistan 

TOC UN Convention Against Transnational Organized Crime 

TRC Truth and Reconciliation Commission 

UN–HABITAT UN Human Settlements Program 

UNAIDS Joint UN Program on HIV/AIDS 

UNAMA UN Assistance Mission in Afghanistan 

UNAMSIL UN Mission in Sierra Leone 

UNCC UN Compensation Commission 

UNCHR UN Commission on Human Rights 

UNCITRAL UN Commission on International Trade Law 

UNCTAD UN Conference on Trade and Development 

UNDC UN Disarmament Commission OR UN Development Corporation 

UNDCP UN International Drug Control Program 

UNDG UN Development Group 

UNDOF UN Disengagement Observer Force 

UNDP UN Development Program 

UNEP UN Environmental Program 

UNESCO UN Education, Scientific, and Cultural Organization 

UNFC UN First Committee 

UNFICYP UN Peacekeeping Force in Cyprus 

UNFPA UN Population Fund 

UNHCR Office of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees 

UNICEF UN Children’s Fund 

UNIDROIT International Institute for the Unification of Private Law 

UNIFIL UN Interim Force in Lebanon 

UNIKOM UN Iraq–Kuwait Observation Mission 

viii 
Acronyms and Short Forms 

UNITA National Union for the Total Independence of Angola 

UNMEE UN Mission in Ethiopia and Eritrea 

UNMIBH UN Mission in Bosnia and Herzegovina 

UNMIK UN Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo 

UNMISET UN Mission of Support in East Timor 

UNMOGIP UN Military Observer Group in India and Pakistan 

UNMOP UN Mission of Observers in Prevlaka 

UNMOVIC UN Monitoring, Verification, and Inspections Commission 

UNODC UN Office on Drugs and Crime 

UNOGBIS UN Peace–building Support Office in Guinea–Bissau 

UNOMIG UN Observer Mission in Georgia 

UNOV UN Office in Vienna 

UNPOB UN Political Office in Bougainville 

UNRWA UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the 

Near East 

UNSCEAR UN Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation 

UNTAET UN Transitional Administration in East Timor 

UNTSO UN Truce Supervision Organization 

UPU Universal Postal Union 

USAID U.S. Agency for International Development 

USGET U.S. Support Group in East Timor 

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

USPS U.S. Postal Service 

VISC voluntary indicative scale of contributions 

WCT WIPO Copyright Treaty 

WEOG Western European and Others Group 

WFP World Food Program 

WFS5YL World Foot Summit: Five Years Later 

WHO World Health Organization 

WIPO World Intellectual Property Organization 

WMO World Meteorological Organization 

WPPT WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty 

WSIS World Summit on the Information Society 

WSSD World Summit on Sustainable Development 

WTDC World Telecommunication Development Conference 

WTO World Trade Organization 

WUF World Urban Forum 

ix 

Prologue

This report is submitted pursuant to the “United Nations Participation 

Act of 1945, as amended” (Public Law 264, 79th Congress). Section 4 

provides in relevant part: 

“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 intent of the report is (1) to keep Congress informed of UN activities and of those of U.S. representatives in that organization, and (2) to 

provide for an official channel of information to the public on these matters. 

The report is a survey of select U.S Government activities and policies 

in the United Nations and its specialized agencies, as well as of the activities of the United Nations and those specialized agencies themselves. 

More specifically, this report describes what the United Nations accomplished, what trends are evolving, what new issues have surfaced in a 

given year, and where the United States succeeded or failed in achieving 

its goals. 

The present report covers calendar year 2002. As with previous years, 

it is organized thematically and divided into six parts: 

• Political and Security Issues comprises country–specific assessments 

focused on UN Security Council and General Assembly actions and 

peacekeeping operations, disarmament issues, and a section on special political issues, including international terrorism; 

• Economic and Social Affairs assesses the work of the Economic and 

Social Council (ECOSOC), the General Assembly, and the variety of 

subsidiary bodies and commissions on issues including economic

development, human rights, the status of women, humanitarian aid, 

and crime prevention and control; 

• Legal Developments covers the International Court of Justice’s (ICJ) 

caseload, the work of other judicial bodies, such as the War Crimes 

Tribunals in Rwanda and the Former Yugoslavia, and legal issues

such as cloning; 

• Reform of the UN System describes progress on reform of UN management, peacekeeping, and the Security Council; 

1 
United States Participation in the United Nations – 2002 

• Administration and Budget provides an overview of the United

Nations current financial situation and resource management issues; 

and 

• Specialized Agencies describes the work of a host of agencies from 

the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) to the World Health 

Organization (WHO), and assesses how they serve U.S. interests. 

Questions about this report may be directed to the Bureau of International Organization Affairs, U.S. Department of State. 

2 
 Part 1 

Political and Security 

Affairs 

Regional Issues 

Near East 

Iraq 

During 2002, the United States worked with members of the international community to make Iraq’s continuing defiance of the UN Security 

Council a priority at the United Nations. 

Iraq continued to fail to meet its obligations, under Security Council 

Resolution 687 (1991) and other relevant resolutions, to disclose and 

relinquish all capabilities and programs relating to weapons of mass 

destruction and proscribed missile programs. Iraq did not come into compliance with its disarmament obligations even after the unanimous adoption of Resolution 1441 on November 8, 2002, and the return of UN 

Monitoring, Verification, and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) and 

International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors to Iraq on 

November 27. Iraq also continued to reject its obligations pertaining to 

Kuwaitis and other persons missing since Iraq’s invasion and occupation 

of Kuwait. 

UN Secretary–General Kofi Annan and newly appointed UNMOVIC 

Chair Hans Blix held a series of meetings in March, May, and July of 2002 

with senior Iraqi officials to discuss implementation of Security Council 

Resolution 1284 (1999), which Iraq had rejected, and the resumption of 

weapons inspections. Iraq continued to maintain that it had met its disarmament obligations and insisted on a lifting of UN sanctions and other 

preconditions before it would allow inspections. 

Four days after President Bush’s September 12 address to the UN General Assembly, Iraq informed the Secretary–General that it was prepared 

to accept the return of inspectors without such conditions. Dr. Blix and 

IAEA Director–General Mohammed ElBaradei continued technical talks 

with the Iraqis in September and November. 

In the weeks following President Bush’s address to the United Nations, 

the United States, along with the United Kingdom, led an intensive diplomatic campaign to adopt a new Security Council resolution demanding 

Iraq’s full compliance with all of its obligations. Adopted unanimously, 

Security Council Resolution 1441 found that Iraq remained in material 

3 
United States Participation in the United Nations – 2002 

breach of its disarmament obligations; gave Iraq a final opportunity to 

comply; and recalled the Council’s warnings of serious consequences if it 

did not. Resolution 1441 required that Iraq submit a full, accurate, and 

complete declaration of its weapons of mass destruction, delivery systems, 

and related programs within 30 days. Resolution 1441 also enhanced the 

authorities of the inspections regime, under UNMOVIC and IAEA, and 

demanded Iraq’s immediate, unconditional, and active cooperation with 

the inspectors. 

Weapons inspection resumed on November 27, with the United States 

working closely with UNMOVIC and IAEA. The President and senior 

administration officials met with Drs. Blix and ElBaradei, and U.S. officials maintained regular working– and higher–level contacts with their 

teams. The United States provided material support, intelligence, personnel, and technical assistance to the inspections. 

Iraq submitted its weapons declaration on December 8. In a December 

19 Security Council session, Dr. Blix delivered his assessment that the 

declaration did not provide “much significant new information” on Iraq’s 

proscribed weapons programs and that it repeated previous Iraqi declarations. U.S. Ambassador John Negroponte concluded that Iraq had committed a “further material breach” of its disarmament obligations by 

submitting a deficient declaration. 

In 2002, the United States also spearheaded an effort to revise and 

focus UN sanctions on Iraq. After a year of negotiations, that effort culminated in the adoption of Resolution 1409 on May 14, and the “Goods 

Review List” (GRL), which identified consumer items that also could 

have military applications. This revised system had two essential elements: (1) keeping in place prohibitions on providing Iraq weapons or the 

means to produce them; and (2) streamlining the approval process for 

purely civilian goods. UNMOVIC and IAEA used the List to refer GRL 

items to the Sanctions Committee for review. Resolution 1409 stipulated a 

review of the GRL process to consider necessary adjustments. Since that 

review did not take place prior to the November 25 expiration of the six– 

month phase of the Oil–for–Food (OFF) program, the United States proposed short–term rollovers to keep OFF functioning. Resolution 1447 of 

December 4 extended OFF for another six months, and Resolution 1454 

added 38 military–related items to the GRL list. 

Within the Sanctions Committee, the United States and the United 

Kingdom continued to insist that the Committee set prices retroactively 

for Iraqi crude oil in order to minimize Iraq’s ability to exact illegal surcharges. The Multinational Maritime Interception Force reported to the 

Committee that maritime oil smuggling was significantly reduced during 

2002. 

Ambassador Yuli Vorontsov, UN High–Level Coordinator [for 

Kuwaiti missing persons and property], appointed under Resolution 1284 

(1999), reported regularly to the Security Council on his efforts to obtain 

Iraqi cooperation on the return of Kuwaiti archives plundered during the 

4 
Political and Security Affairs 

Gulf War and an accounting of Kuwaiti and third–country war missing 

since 1990. The United States continued to raise the case of U.S. Commander Michael Speicher, missing since the first Gulf War. By the end of 

2002, Iraq, under intense international scrutiny, made some overtures of 

cooperation. Ambassador Vorontsov’s December report cited Iraq’s initial 

moves to return Kuwaiti archives as reason for hope, but Kuwait later 

revealed that Iraq had not returned anything of value. On the issue of 

accounting for war missing, the report characterized progress as “limited.” 

During 2002, the human rights situation in Iraq continued to fall far 

short of international norms. Iraq allowed a brief visit by the UN Commission on Human Rights’(UNCHR) Special Rapporteur for Iraq in February 

2002. The UNCHR adopted a resolution on April 19 that “noted with dismay” that there had been no improvement in the human rights situation in 

Iraq and strongly condemned “the systematic, widespread and extremely 

grave violations of human rights by the Government of Iraq, resulting in 

all–pervasive repression and oppression sustained by broad–based discrimination and widespread terror.” 

UN Iraq/Kuwait Observer Mission (UNIKOM) 

The UN Iraq/Kuwait Observer Mission (UNIKOM) was established in 

1991 under UN Security Council Resolutions 687 and 689, following the 

forced withdrawal of Iraqi forces from the territory of Kuwait. During 

2002, UNIKOM contributed to the maintenance of stability in the demilitarized zone between the two countries, a U.S. goal in the region. 

The situation along the Iraq–Kuwait border was generally quiet in 

2002, and no significant violations were reported. UNIKOM continued to 

maintain close and regular liaison with the authorities of both Iraq and 

Kuwait at various levels. UNIKOM also continued to act in coordination 

with the authorities of Iraq and Kuwait in cases of unauthorized border 

crossings. UNIKOM, when asked, and in tandem with the Office of the 

UN High Commissioner for Refugees and the International Committee of 

the Red Cross, helped facilitate repatriation. 

As of December 31, UNIKOM had 1,105 troops and observers from 

32 countries. The United States provided 11 military observers. UNIKOM’s operating budget for 2002 was $16.8 million, of which the United 

States contributed $4.5 million. 

Arab–Israeli Situation 

In the context of intensified violence in the Middle East in 2002, particularly following Israel’s initiation of Operation Defensive Shield in the 

spring, the United Nations frequently considered resolutions on the situation in the Middle East. 

During the spring, the United States successfully blocked the Security 

Council’s adoption of several one–sided Arab Group draft resolutions that 

were critical of Israel. The United States chose to engage in discussion and 

then vote for the following four alternative resolutions that were supportive of U.S. diplomatic efforts in the region. 

5 
United States Participation in the United Nations – 2002 

UN Security Council Resolution 1397 affirmed the President’s vision 

of two states (Israel and Palestine) with secure and recognized borders. 

Among other provisions, the resolution demanded an immediate cessation 

of all acts of violence, including terror, provocation, incitement, and 

destruction, and called on the two parties to implement the Mitchell Committee recommendations and the Tenet security work plan. 

Security Council Resolution 1402 expressed grave concern about suicide bombings in Israel and the military attack against Palestinian Authority headquarters. It called for the withdrawal of Israeli troops from 

Palestinian cities. Moreover, it called on both parties to move immediately 

to a meaningful cease–fire and to cooperate with the U.S. Special Envoy, 

Retired General Anthony Zinni, in implementing the Mitchell Committee 

recommendations and the Tenet security work plan, with the aim of 

resuming negotiations on a political settlement. 

Security Council Resolution 1403 demanded the implementation of 

Resolution 1402 without delay and welcomed the visit of U.S. Secretary 

of State Colin Powell to the region. 

Security Council Resolution 1405 emphasized the urgency of access 

for Palestinian civilians to medical and humanitarian groups and welcomed the Secretary–General’s initiative to develop accurate information 

on recent events in the Jenin refugee camp. 

In September, the Security Council adopted Resolution 1435, which 

condemned terrorist attacks against civilians; demanded that Israel cease 

measures in and around Ramallah, and withdraw from Palestinian cities to 

the positions held prior to September 2000. It also called on the Palestinian Authority to ensure that those responsible for terrorist acts were 

brought to justice; and it expressed support for the efforts of the Quartet (a 

group formed by the United States that includes the United Nations, the 

European Union, and Russia). The United States abstained on Resolution 

1435, seeking a stronger resolution that explicitly called for action against 

terrorist groups and those who support them. 

In December, the United States introduced in the Security Council and 

achieved adoption of Resolution 1450, which condemned terrorist attacks 

directed against Israelis in Kenya on November 28 and, among other provisions, urged all states to cooperate in bringing those responsible to justice. 

The Security Council also considered in December a draft resolution 

condemning Israeli killings of UN personnel in the Occupied Territories 

and the destruction of a World Food Program warehouse. The draft resolution, among its other provisions, also demanded that Israel, the “occupying power,” comply fully with its obligations under the Fourth Geneva 

Convention and refrain from excessive and disproportionate use of force. 

The United States vetoed this draft resolution because it focused more on 

condemning Israeli occupation than on minimizing threats to UN personnel and facilities. 

6 
Political and Security Affairs 

During 2002, the General Assembly reconvened an “Emergency Special Session on Palestine.” At the May meeting, the General Assembly 

adopted a resolution that, among other provisions, condemned Israeli 

attacks against Palestinian people in several Palestinian cities and the 

refusal of Israel to cooperate with the Secretary–General’s fact–finding 

team to the Jenin refugee camp. It also demanded that Israel cease all hindrances to the work of humanitarian organizations, and requested that the 

Secretary–General present a report on events in Jenin and other Palestinian cities. At the August meeting of the Emergency Special Session, the 

General Assembly adopted a resolution taking note of the Secretary–General’s report and repeating many of the points in the previous resolution. 

The United States voted against both of these resolutions because it 

believed they were unbalanced and distorted the reality of the Middle East 

conflict by ignoring Palestinian terrorism. 

During the General Assembly’s regular session, the United States 

cosponsored and joined consensus in adoption of a resolution on assistance to the Palestinian people. However, the United States continued to 

oppose a number of resolutions that are introduced each year (except the 

resolution on Palestinian children mentioned below, which was new this 

year) on the Middle East. These resolutions were considered under agenda 

items on the Situation in the Middle East, Question of Palestine, Risk of 

Nuclear Proliferation in the Middle East, Permanent Sovereignty of the 

Palestinian People over their Natural Resources, and Report of the Special 

Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices. The United States also voted 

against resolutions on the Palestinian Right to Self–Determination and the 

Situation of Palestinian Children. 

The United States opposed these resolutions because they addressed 

permanent status issues that the Israelis and Palestinians have agreed to 

decide through negotiations; advocated activities or language incompatible with basic principles of the Middle East peace process; and/or 

expended resources that could be used in more productive ways to 

improve the lives of the Palestinian people. 

Secretary–General Annan issued statements frequently throughout the 

year condemning acts of violence by both Palestinians and Israelis against 

civilians. In addition, the Secretary–General participated in the Quartet to 

coordinate actions with the objective of moving the Arab–Israeli peace 

process forward. The Quartet met at the ministerial level in April, July, 

September, and December. One focus of the Quartet was on developing a 

roadmap for halting the violence and the steps that were needed to resume 

negotiations in order to make possible achievement of a Palestinian state 

within three years— the goal President Bush set out in his June 24 speech. 

The representatives of the Quartet met at the White House in December with President Bush, and then issued a joint statement. The statement 

highlighted the fact that President Bush had expressed strong support for 

the efforts of the Quartet and his firm commitment to the Quartet’s roadmap, which would realize his vision of two democratic, accountable 

7 
United States Participation in the United Nations – 2002 

states— Israel and Palestine— living side–by–side in peace and security. 

The statement called the roadmap performance–based and goal–driven. 

The Quartet also functioned at what was called the “envoy” level, 

meeting between ministerial sessions to try to advance the process. Terje 

Roed–Larsen (Norway), who since 1999 had been the Secretary–General’s Special Coordinator (UNSCO) for the Middle East Peace Process, 

represented the United Nations. Roed–Larsen, who had also served as the 

UNSCO from 1994–1996, attempted to resolve problems between Israel 

and its neighbors by offering his good offices. He was based in Gaza. 

[Also see Part 2, Human Rights.] 

UN Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) 

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

1978 under UN Security Council Resolutions 425 and 426 in response to 

the Israeli invasion of southern Lebanon. When Israel withdrew its forces 

from Lebanon in July 2000, the UN Secretary–General declared that UNIFIL had accomplished the first two parts of its mandate: confirming the 

withdrawal of the Israeli Army from southern Lebanon and assisting the 

Lebanese Government in restoring its authority in southern Lebanon. 

Since then, UNIFIL has focused on completing the remaining part of its 

mandate: the restoration of international peace and security in the region. 

As such, UNIFIL is an integral part of U.S. efforts to maintain a cease–fire 

between Israel and Lebanon and peace in the region. 

However, throughout 2002, the UNIFIL area of operation remained 

tense, with Blue Line border violations mainly attributable to Hizbollah 

attacks against Israeli military positions in the Sheb’a Farms, cross–border 

firing of anti–aircraft artillery over Israeli settlements, and over–flights of 

Lebanon by Israeli military aircraft. In April, Hizbollah and the Israeli 

Defense Forces (IDF) clashed repeatedly in and near the Sheb’a Farms. 

Hizbollah, as well as pro–Palestinian elements resident in Lebanon, also 

engaged in sporadic cross–border attacks against Israel from locations 

west of Sheb’a. 

U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell visited Damascus and Beirut in 

mid–April seeking Lebanese and Syrian assistance in defusing the situation along the Israel–Lebanon border. Following Secretary Powell’s visit, 

there was a four–month cessation of cross–border attacks by Hizbollah 

and other groups. By May, the levels of violence along the Blue Line had 

dropped significantly. This trend continued for the most part, with the 

exception of two isolated, yet serious, attacks on the IDF on August 29 

and December 8. 

As of December 31, UNIFIL had 2,300 troops from six states: France, 

Ghana, India, Italy, Poland, and Ukraine. No U.S. troops served in UNIFIL. UNIFIL’s operating budget for 2002 was of $70.2 million, of which 

the United States contributed $18.8 million. 

UN Truce Supervision Organization (UNTSO) 

The UN Truce Supervision Organization (UNTSO) is the first peacekeeping mission organized by the United Nations. UNTSO was estab8 
Political and Security Affairs 

lished in 1948 under UN Security Council Resolution 50 to supervise the 

truce that the Council called for at the end of the British mandate in Palestine. Since then, UNTSO military observers have remained in the region to 

monitor cease–fires, supervise armistice agreements, and assist peacekeeping missions operating in the Middle East. UNTSO’s presence demonstrates the international community’s interest in achieving a 

comprehensive peace in the region. 

UNTSO’s activities are spread over territory within five states, requiring relations with all of them: Egypt, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, and Syria. 

UNTSO observers also participate in other UN peacekeeping missions in 

the region, including the UN Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) and the 

UN Disengagement Observer Force (UNDOF). 

In 2002, UNTSO contributed to the maintenance of regional stability. 

Its military observers and administrative staff continued to provide key 

support to UNIFIL and UNDOF in the Golan Heights. At Egypt’s request, 

the mission also provided a small monitoring team to patrol the Sinai. 

As of December 31, UNTSO had 151 military observers from 23 

nations. The United States provided three military observers to UNTSO. 

Its operating budget for 2002 was $24 million, of which the United States 

contributed $5.2 million. 

UN Disengagement Observer Force (UNDOF) 

The UN Disengagement Observer Force (UNDOF) was established by 

UN Security Council Resolution 350 (1974) in the aftermath of the 1973 

Arab–Israeli War. UNDOF’s mission is to monitor the cease–fire between 

Israeli and Syrian forces on the Golan Heights, and monitor the areas of 

separation and limitation between the two countries. UNDOF has played a 

positive role in observing the implementation of the Israel–Syria Disengagement Agreement and serves U.S. national security interests by maintaining confidence levels and preventing the escalation of tensions 

between Israel and Syria. 

During 2002, UNDOF’s area of operations was relatively quiet with 

incidents only in the disputed Sheb’a Farms area, where Lebanese–based 

Hizbollah forces conducted periodic attacks against Israeli military positions in northern Golan. 

As of December 31, UNDOF had 1,043 troops from six nations: Austria, Canada, Japan, Poland, Slovakia, and Sweden. No U.S. troops served 

in UNDOF. UNDOF’s operating budget for 2002 was $38.3 million, of 

which the United States contributed $10.4 million. 

South Asia 

Afghanistan 

The United Nations, with strong support from the United States, continued to play a pivotal role in Afghanistan in 2002. During the first 

months of the year, the Afghan Interim Authority, established by the Bonn 

Agreement in December 2001, slowly began the process of establishing a 

9 
United States Participation in the United Nations – 2002 

central government and constituting the commissions called for in that 

agreement. 

The United States sought to promote a broad–based Afghan government that respects human rights and the rule of law, the rights of women 

and ethnic and religious minorities, and freedom of conscience. The 

United States also promoted Afghan and UN policies that provide for the 

return of refugees and internally displaced persons (IDPs); counternarcotics operations regarding production and trafficking; and Afghanistan’s 

peaceful cooperation with its neighbors. Additionally, the United States 

sought to encourage the new Afghan government to adopt policies that 

facilitate the transition from humanitarian assistance to effective reconstruction and economic development, and the progressively greater 

involvement of Afghanistan’s economy in international trade and financial 

systems. 

On January 15, the Security Council adopted Resolution 1388 to lift 

restrictions imposed by Resolution 1267 (1999) and Resolution 1333 

(2000) on Ariana Afghan Airlines, the Afghan national airline. These 

restrictions were no longer appropriate with the defeat of the Taliban 

regime and the return of Ariana to friendly hands. The United States introduced the draft resolution, and it was adopted as a Presidential text (all 

Security Council members acted as cosponsors). 

On January 16, in Resolution 1390, the Security Council condemned 

the al–Qaida network and the Taliban regime. It directed states to take certain measures with respect to Usama bin Laden, al–Qaida, and the Taliban 

and associates, including freezing their assets, restricting their travel, and 

preventing the supply of arms to them. The United States cosponsored the 

resolution. 

In March, pursuant to the recommendation of the Secretary–General, 

the Security Council adopted Resolution 1401 establishing the UN Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA) for a period of 12 months. The 

mandate for UNAMA focused on tasks entrusted to the United Nations in 

the Bonn Agreement, including promoting the protection of human rights 

and addressing the rule of law, national reconciliation, and gender issues; 

and managing all UN humanitarian relief, recovery, and reconstruction 

activities in Afghanistan. The Secretary–General’s Special Representative 

to Afghanistan, Lakhdar Brahimi (Algeria), was appointed to head the 

mission. 

UNAMA worked with the Afghan government and the donor community to create a system of Program Secretariats. Under this model, UN 

organizations would work closely with their counterpart ministries in 

Afghanistan to coordinate policy and operations. Typical pairings include 

the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) with the Afghan 

Ministry of Refugee Affairs, the UN Children’s Fund with the Ministry of 

Education, the World Health Organization with the Ministry of Public 

Health, and the World Food Program with the Ministry of Agriculture and 

Livestock. 

10 
Political and Security Affairs 

The Program Secretariat system functioned well during 2002, due in 

part to the presence of U.S. advisors in each ministry, as well as U.S. representatives seeking support from the international community. As the 

year drew to a close, the United States worked with the United Nations 

and Afghan authorities to transform these Program Secretariats into Consultative Group mechanisms by which the Afghans, rather than international donors, would progressively take the lead. 

U.S. counternarcotics objectives in Afghanistan included a substantial 

reduction in production and trafficking as a critical element in establishing 

security. With U.S. support, the United Kingdom— as lead nation in cooperation with the Afghan Interim Authority— undertook a relatively successful one–time effort to compensate farmers for destroying their spring 

opium poppy crop. According to U.K. estimates, almost 30 percent of the 

crop was destroyed in 2002. As a longer–term strategy, compensation was 

determined to be impractical because it was susceptible to abuse and provided no incentive to stop planting. 

Immediate actions in pursuit of U.S. counternarcotics objectives 

included cash–for–work rural livelihood programs, building local Afghan 

law enforcement capacity, strengthening regional cooperation with interdiction programs, and dissemination of anti–drug messages through public 

diplomacy. In the second half of 2002, the United States established an 

effective mix of ground monitoring and intelligence collection and created 

realistic benchmarks to evaluate the effectiveness of counternarcotics 

efforts. 

The UN Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), in close collaboration 

with the United States, assisted the Afghan government in implementing 

counternarcotics programs in 2002 and drafting the Afghan National 

Counter–Drug Strategy and a new drug law. UNODC also collaborated 

with the U.S. Government in holding the Second International Counternarcotics Meeting in Kabul in October. 

In a letter dated May 7, the Foreign Minister of Turkey notified the 

Secretary–General of Turkey’s willingness to assume command of the 

International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) from the United Kingdom. 

On May 23, the Security Council adopted Resolution 1413 to extend the 

mandate of the ISAF for a further six months beyond June 20. The United 

States had drafted this resolution, which was adopted as a Presidential 

text. 

Under British and then Turkish leadership, the ISAF helped stabilize 

Kabul and its environs. In response to calls to expand the scope and mission of ISAF outside Kabul and into the countryside, the United States, 

while not opposed, consistently pointed out the significant challenges 

involved in recruiting and sustaining what was essentially a light infantry 

peacekeeping force to cover the entire country. No country stepped forward to lead or coordinate such an expanded mission. 

In the relatively stable environment created by the ISAF in Kabul, the 

United States began training of the Afghan National Army (ANA) at the 

11 
United States Participation in the United Nations – 2002 

Kabul Military Training Center in May. In the short term, the ANA mission was to conduct stability operations outside of Kabul and to support 

Operation Enduring Freedom, the U.S. military–led operation in response 

to the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. 

The United States committed itself to developing a capable and high– 

quality ANA Central Corps prior to the June 2004 elections. By the end of 

2002, six infantry battalions had been trained and two brigade headquarters were in formation. The United States developed a core of Afghan 

trainers to sustain and increase the tempo of ANA training, with the goal 

of sustaining a training program through Afghan resources and capabilities. Elements of the battalions continued enhanced unit training with U.S. 

trainers embedded in their ranks, and in December they began deploying 

outside of Kabul on low–risk operations designed to build confidence. In 

the short term, ANA units would continue their training and stability operations outside of Kabul to expand capabilities, increase unit cohesion, and 

demonstrate the reach of the central authority. 

An emergency Loya Jirga (grand council, or assembly) was held from 

June 11 to 19, at which the Transitional Islamic State of Afghanistan 

(TISA) was declared and the Afghan Transitional Authority was elected, 

with Hamid Karzai as president and head of state. The United States had 

provided $7 million in logistical support for the Loya Jirga, and much of 

the country listened to the proceedings live on some 30,000 radios distributed by the United States. 

To facilitate humanitarian relief and reconstruction, the new government set a priority on actions that would improve security throughout the 

country. Working with the TISA, the United States sought to put in place 

building blocks to enable the fledgling central government to protect itself 

from internal threats while safeguarding human rights and deterring external aggression. 

On June 26, the UN Security Council adopted Resolution 1419, which 

welcomed the results of the peaceful and successful emergency Loya 

Jirga, the establishment of the transitional authority, and the election of 

President Karzai, and reiterated support for the transitional authority as it 

sought to implement the Bonn Agreement. The United States had cosponsored the resolution. 

A Judicial Commission as called for in the Bonn Agreement was 

established; under the leadership of Italy it began to address the needs of a 

justice sector that was in almost total collapse. U.S. assistance was targeted at supporting the commission, rebuilding infrastructure, training, 

development of a criminal justice system that meets international standards of human rights, and the development of civil society. 

The U.S. military, through Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF), continued to pursue al–Qaida terrorists and loyal Taliban remnants in eastern 

and southeastern Afghanistan, particularly along the border with Pakistan. 

Close cooperation with Pakistan and combined operations with Afghan 

forces led to a number of successful interdictions. The United States 

12 
Political and Security Affairs 

believed that eliminating the terrorist threat was necessary to provide the 

basis for a strong central authority in Afghanistan and the TISA’s ability 

to build a stable political and economic environment. 

The United States and other international stakeholders understood that 

building national security institutions had to be accomplished hand–in– 

hand with the reduction in the strength of regional militias. No disarmament, demobilization, and repatriation (DDR) model existed to fit the circumstances in Afghanistan, and the United States, together with DDR lead 

nation Japan, began working with UNAMA and the TISA to move this 

program forward during the second half of 2002. The United States did 

not seek to eliminate regional leaders, often referred to as “warlords,” who 

played important roles in Afghanistan’s recent history. Rather, the objective was to firmly establish the primacy of the central governmental 

authority and to encourage regional leaders to cooperate with Kabul. 

The Foreign Ministers of Germany and the Netherlands expressed 

their countries’willingness to assume command of ISAF from Turkey in a 

joint letter dated November 21. On November 27, the Security Council 

again extended the mandate of the ISAF for 12 months beyond the date of 

December 20 by adopting Resolution 1444. The United States had advocated this extension. 

On December 2, the United States participated in a conference on 

rebuilding Afghanistan at Petersberg, just outside Bonn, Germany. Conducted at the same location as the first conference on Afghanistan one year 

previously, the conference was widely referred to as “Bonn II.” At the 

conference, President Karzai issued a decree concerning the organization 

and composition of the Afghan National Army; and the Governments of 

China, Iran, Pakistan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan took steps 

toward issuing a “Kabul Declaration on Good Neighborly Relations.” This 

was signed on December 24 in Kabul. The same day, the Security Council 

welcomed the Declaration in Resolution 1453, which the United States 

cosponsored. 

On December 6, the UN General Assembly adopted without a vote 

Resolution 57/113. Part A concerned the implications of the situation in 

Afghanistan for international peace and security. Citing the fragility of 

emerging institutions, the resolution reiterated the General Assembly’s 

strong support for the Afghan Transitional Authority in its efforts to fully 

implement the Bonn Agreement, and called upon member states to support the Authority through direct budgetary support and long–term assistance for economic and social reconstruction and rehabilitation. 

Part B of Resolution 57/113 addressed emergency international assistance for peace, normalcy, and reconstruction. The resolution welcomed 

the Transitional Authority’s commitment to take the lead in reconstruction 

efforts; it welcomed the establishment of the Afghanistan Reconstruction 

Trust Fund and the Law and Order Trust Fund; and it urged the international community to channel assistance through the national development 

13 
United States Participation in the United Nations – 2002 

budget of the Transitional Authority. The United States joined consensus 

on these resolutions. 

On December 18, the General Assembly adopted without a vote Resolution 57/234, which addressed the question of human rights in Afghanistan. It affirmed that the establishment of an environment of good 

governance, democracy, and the rule of law was the primary responsibility 

of the Afghan Transitional Authority, and it recognized that a fair and 

effective national system of justice was key to ensuring fundamental freedoms and human rights, as well as reconciliation and stability. The resolution also welcomed the establishment of several commissions called for in 

the Bonn Agreement, while noting continued humanitarian concerns and 

the existence of large numbers of internally displaced persons and refugees. 

On December 20, the Security Council adopted Resolution 1452 to 

establish a process whereby funds necessary for basic expenses could be 

exempted from the freeze imposed by Resolutions 1267 (1999) and 1390 

(2002). 

India/Pakistan 

The United Nations established the UN Military Observer Group in 

India and Pakistan (UNMOGIP) in 1949 to supervise a cease–fire in 

Jammu and Kashmir. The dispute escalated in the 1990s following the 

outbreak of an insurgency in Indian Kashmir in 1989, and gained renewed 

U.S. and international attention after India and Pakistan announced 

nuclear capabilities in 1998, and then nearly went to war in 2002. 

The United States has consistently called on the two sides to settle the 

dispute through bilateral negotiations. The 1972 Simla Accord and the 

1999 Lahore Declaration, both signed by India and Pakistan, call for bilateral dialogue on Kashmir as the way forward. The “Line of Control” 

(LOC) established at Simla generally follows the 1949 cease–fire line. 

UNMOGIP observers have been deployed mainly on the Pakistan side 

of the LOC. India has rejected an equal–sized contingent on its side, arguing that UNMOGIP’s mandate relates only to the 1949 cease–fire, which 

has lapsed. The UN Secretary–General stated that only a decision of the 

Security Council could terminate the peacekeeping mission. There have 

been no mandate renewals and, as the Council has not requested any written reports from UNMOGIP since 1972, the Council has not reviewed the 

issue in either a formal meeting or informal consultations. 

UNMOGIP observers played no role in addressing the significant 

increase in tensions between India and Pakistan during the summer of 

2002, and the issue did not reach the threshold of Council consideration. 

UNMOGIP’s mandate does not include a mediation role, and more than 

50 years of precedent combined with stringent restrictions on movement 

imposed by both India and Pakistan kept observers from active patrolling 

of the LOC throughout the year. 

14 
Political and Security Affairs 

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

believes that to de–establish the mission without replacing it with an alternative mechanism could upset the delicate equilibrium, arousing Pakistani 

fears that India had succeeded in taking Kashmir off the international 

agenda. 

UNMOGIP is funded through the UN regular budget rather than the 

peacekeeping budget. The two–year approved budget for UNMOGIP was 

$13.1 million. The United States pays 22 percent of the regular budget. As 

of December 31, 2002, there were 45 military observers serving in 

UNMOGIP. No U.S. personnel were assigned to the mission. 

Africa 

Angola 

In 2002, the United States continued to press for appropriate modifications to the UN sanctions regime in Angola to support the restoration of 

peace and security. The UN Security Council lifted all UN sanctions on 

the National Union for the Total Independence of Angola (UNITA) in 

December, after UNITA agreed to end Angola’s 27–year–old civil war 

and accept the 1994 peace agreement (the “Lusaka Protocol”). UNITA 

agreed to disarm and to transform itself into a legitimate political party, 

returning all territory to government control. 

The UN sanctions on UNITA were initially imposed in 1993 with the 

full support of the United States. By 2002, the sanctions were extensive, 

banning the supply of arms, fuel, financing, and other material support to 

UNITA; preventing UNITA officials from traveling or opening political 

offices outside of Angola; and halting the trade in “conflict diamonds” 

used by UNITA to support armed conflict with the Government of 

Angola. 

After the death of UNITA leader Jonas Savimbi on February 22 and 

the agreement between UNITA and the Government of Angola to a cessation of hostilities on April 4, the United States led successful efforts in the 

UN Security Council to support the end of war, including adjusting the 

sanctions. 

To facilitate UNITA’s participation in peace talks, the so–called negotiating “Troika” (the United States and Russia, supported by Portugal) 

introduced draft UN Security Council Resolutions (1412 and 1432) on 

May 17 and August 15, respectively, which each suspended travel sanctions on UNITA’s leaders for 90 days. The resolutions were adopted unanimously. The Security Council also unanimously adopted Resolution 1433 

creating a UN Mission in Angola for six months to assist the Government 

of Angola in protecting human rights, reintegrating demobilized soldiers 

into civilian society, and promoting economic recovery. 

Reflecting the positive developments in the peace talks, the United 

States played a leading role in helping to terminate the travel ban on 

UNITA officials by cosponsoring Resolution 1439. It was adopted unanimously on October 18. The Security Council ended the remaining sanc15 
United States Participation in the United Nations – 2002 

tions on UNITA by unanimously adopting Resolution 1448 on December 

9. 

Burundi 

In 2002, the United States continued to work in the UN Security Council to support international efforts to assist Burundi’s peace process and 

promote national reconciliation. The Security Council closely followed 

the work of the Secretary–General’s Special Representative for Burundi, 

Berhanu Dinka (Ethiopia). Dinka served as the chair of the Implementation Monitoring Committee responsible for ensuring the implementation 

of the August 2000 Arusha Agreement on Peace and Reconciliation in 

Burundi. The Council also received regular briefings on progress in negotiating a successful and all–inclusive cessation of hostilities agreement 

with the four Hutu rebel groups that remained outside the Arusha process. 

The Transitional National Assembly and the Transitional Senate 

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

Agreement. This followed on the establishment of the transitional government in November 2001. Amidst an upsurge in violence between the rebel 

groups and government forces throughout the first part of the year, South 

African Deputy President Jacob Zuma, with the assistance of representatives of Gabon and United Republic of Tanzania, stepped up efforts to 

negotiate cessation of hostilities agreements between the parties. 

On October 7, the Burundian Transitional Government and the 

National Council for the Defense of Democracy/Forces for the Defense of 

Democracy (CNDD–FDD), led by Jean–Bosco Ndayikengurukiya, as well 

as the Party for the Liberation of the Hutu People–National Liberation 

Forces (PALIPEHUTU–FNL), led by Alain Mugabarabona, reached cessation of hostilities agreements. On December 3, a separate cessation of 

hostilities agreement followed between the transitional government and 

CNDD–FDD’s Pierre Nkurunziza faction. 

Despite this progress, the U.S. delegation noted in the UN Security 

Council in December that the situation in Burundi still warranted close 

monitoring by the Council. Specifically, the United States remained concerned that the Agatha Rasa faction of PALIPEHUTU–FNL was continuing its campaign of violence and refusing to sign a cease–fire agreement. 

In addition, several significant provisions of the Arusha Agreement had 

yet to be implemented, including the reform of the armed forces, security 

and intelligence services, and arrangements for the voluntary return of an 

estimated 800,000 Burundian refugees in Tanzania. 

Central African Republic 

Throughout 2002, U.S. policy on the Central African Republic (CAR) 

continued to focus on promoting peace and stability in the aftermath of the 

May 2001 coup attempt by General Andre Kolingba against President 

Ange–Felix Patassee. 

In the UN Security Council, the United States supported the work of 

the UN Peace–Building Support Office in the Central African Republic 

(BONUCA). In particular, the United States supported BONUCA’s efforts 

16 
Political and Security Affairs 

to monitor the human rights situation, to bring about reconciliation among 

CAR parties, and to mediate friction between the CAR and Chad. 

The BONUCA civilian police team organized a training course on 

investigation techniques in February and March for the Central African 

police and another course in May on the enforcement of economic and 

financial rules and regulations. Another course on the maintenance of law 

and order was organized in June for the CAR gendarmerie. 

The United States also made clear its support for the work of the Secretary–General’s representative, General Lamine Cisse (Senegal), and for 

the October 2002 Libreville Accord that established the peacekeeping 

mission in the country. This mission was staffed by member states of the 

Central African Monetary and Economic Community, which replaced 

Libyan and Sudanese troops deployed under a previous mission of the 

Community of Saharan and Sahelian States. 

The situation in the Central African Republic deteriorated following 

another coup attempt on October 25, with continual fighting between the 

government forces and rebel forces of General François Bozizé, former 

Chief of Staff of the CAR armed forces who had engineered the coup 

attempt. 

The resulting unrest led to the suspension of operations of the U.S. 

embassy in Bangui and the evacuation of some UN personnel. The conflict increased tensions between the CAR and Chad, with the CAR accusing Chad of complicity in the coup attempt. The conflict also attracted 

over 1,500 Congolese rebel troops from Jean–Pierre Bemba’s Mouvement 

de Liberation du Congo, who fought alongside CAR Government forces 

in support of President Patassee. 

The UN Secretariat periodically briefed the UN Security Council on 

the unfolding crisis. The CAR foreign minister and the prime minister of 

Chad separately addressed the Council on December 9 regarding CAR 

allegations of Chadian involvement in the October coup attempt. 

The United States supported the Council’s repeated calls on all parties 

to restore law and order, implement the Libreville Accord, and undertake 

an all–inclusive national dialogue that included the rebels. 

The budget for BONUCA in 2002 was $4.63 million, assessed through 

the UN regular budget, of which the United States paid 22 percent. 

Democratic Republic of the Congo 

The Security Council established the UN Mission in the Democratic 

Republic of the Congo (MONUC) under Resolution 1376 (2001) to verify 

and monitor compliance with cease–fire and disengagement agreements 

among the states and Congolese factions involved in the conflict, starting 

with the July 1999 Lusaka Agreement. The civil war in the Congo and 

military interventions by neighboring states continued through 2002. 

MONUC continued monitoring and verifying any disengagement of 

forces within the Congo, and deployment of troops into the eastern Congo 

17 
United States Participation in the United Nations – 2002 

in preparation for supporting the voluntary demobilization, disarmament, 

and repatriation of any Rwandan Hutu rebels and their dependents. 

MONUC observers verified that the lines of military disengagement 

and separation were adhered to. During the first half of 2002, the parties 

failed to reach agreements on the withdrawal of foreign forces called for 

by the Lusaka Accords. The Congo did not actively work to demobilize, 

disarm, and repatriate the Rwandan Hutu rebels within its borders. 

In his Report to the Security Council on February 15, the Secretary– 

General asked that the ceiling on the number of MONUC troops be raised 

from 5,537 to 6,387. In subsequent Security Council discussions, the 

United States took the lead opposing this recommendation, noting that 

there had been no change on the ground to justify an increase; moreover, 

as of March 31, MONUC had deployed only 3,173 troops and 446 observers. The Council did not increase the ceiling. 

In mid–May, following a day of brutal reprisals in Kisangani by the 

Rwandan–supported Congolese Rally for Democracy–Goma (RCD– 

Goma) against an attempted uprising by the RCD–Goma Seventh Brigade 

and some local police officers, MONUC used both Uruguayan soldiers in 

transit to Kindu and Kisangani–based Moroccan troops to patrol the city in 

an effort to halt further violence and reprisals. 

MONUC and the UN Commission on Human Rights sent an investigative team to Goma between May 14 and 30. The UN Special Rapporteur 

for Extra–Judicial Killing, Asma Jehangir, then went to the city. Afterwards, she reported at least 55 deaths due to uprising. On June 14, in Resolution 1417, the Security Council, with United States backing, 

condemned the violence and extended MONUC’s mandate for another 

year. The RCD–Goma, however, did not investigate the atrocities or bring 

the perpetrators to justice. 

In late May, the Secretary–General named Mustapha Niasse, former 

prime minister of Senegal, his Special Envoy to the Inter–Congolese Dialogue (ICD), established by the Lusaka Agreement to resolve the civil war 

in the Congo. Niasse’s efforts, while helpful, were sporadic. South Africa 

took an increasingly active role in assisting UN efforts by bringing representatives of the warring parties together. 

South Africa sponsored a break–through agreement between the 

Congo and Rwanda on July 30, in which Rwanda agreed to withdraw its 

forces from the Congo and the Government of the Democratic Republic of 

the Congo committed to helping Rwandan Hutu rebels demobilize, disarm, and repatriate from territory under its control. Rwanda withdrew its 

troops by early October, but the Congo had made less progress. By year’s 

end, the Congo had repatriated only about 800 rebels and dependents to 

Rwanda. 

On September 6, the Congo and Uganda signed a normalization and 

troop withdrawal agreement, which set up a Joint Pacification Committee 

for the Ituri region bordering Uganda. The implementation of the Committee would allow Uganda to ensure that its security concerns were met, and 

18 
Political and Security Affairs 

thus permit it to withdraw its forces, numbering around 2,000, from the 

Congo. Unfortunately, the Committee did not establish a mechanism to 

ensure law and order, and the proliferation of armed groups and conflicts 

in the Ituri continued. At year’s end, Congo and Uganda had failed to 

establish the Ituri Pacification Committee despite the repeated urging of 

the United States and other Security Council members. 

Zimbabwe, whose forces were in the Congo supporting the Government, withdrew all its troops in response to Rwanda’s withdrawal and 

Uganda’s agreement to withdraw. These withdrawals enabled MONUC to 

deploy into the eastern Congo to support intensive demobilization, disarmament, and repatriation. The United States supported an increase in 

MONUC’s troop and observer ceiling to 8,700, to be comprised of two 

task forces, of which the second task force would only be deployed if the 

Secretary–General reports that the first task force could not handle the 

demobilization, disarmament, and repatriation caseload. On December 4, 

the Security Council adopted Resolution 1445, which extended 

MONUC’s mandate for full Phase III demobilization, disarmament, and 

repatriation activities. 

On December 17, South Africa and the United Nations facilitated talks 

among the Congolese Government, political opposition, and armed rebel 

groups, which resulted in an agreement in Pretoria on an inclusive transitional national government in the Congo. The agreement called for elections within two to three years following an end to hostilities and a period 

of national recovery and institution building; agreement by the parties on 

appointments of ministers and others; and agreement on military positions 

and reform of both the military and security services. 

At the end of 2002, MONUC had deployed 4,389 military personnel, 

including 483 military observers, with no U.S. personnel. The fiscal year 

2002 total cost of the mission was $830.89 million of which the U.S. share 

was $226.39 million. 

A driving factor in the continued violence in the Congo has been the 

struggle for control of natural resources, whose exploitation by militias 

and governments has provided both funding and impetus for the conflict. 

Transparency and possible measures to end unethical resource exploitation led to the creation of an independent panel of experts to advise on 

these issues. On October 24, the Expert Panel on the Illegal Exploitation 

of Natural Resources and Other Forms of Wealth in the Democratic 

Republic of the Congo presented its report to the UN Security Council. 

The Panel was charged with investigating whether illegal exploitation of 

the Congo’s natural resources was contributing to armed conflict in the 

region and thereby posed a threat to international peace and security. The 

Panel concluded that a number of regional and international companies, 

including some based in the United States, were in violation of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises. 

19 
United States Participation in the United Nations – 2002 

Ethiopia/Eritrea 

In 2002, the United States worked closely with other Security Council 

members to support the efforts of the UN Mission in Ethiopia and Eritrea 

(UNMEE) to promote peace between these two nations. 

On March 15, the United States joined other members of the Security 

Council to adopt Resolution 1398, which extended UNMEE’s mandate for 

six months, until September 15, 2002. The resolution underlined the 

necessity for the parties to cooperate with UNMEE and with the Boundary 

Commission. The Commission is an independent body of international 

legal experts that receives technical assistance from the UN Cartographer’s office and is charged with recommending a demarcation of the parties’ disputed border. On April 13, the Boundary Commission announced 

its findings on the location of the disputed border. Each country would 

gain and lose some territory. 

On May 21, Ethiopia and Eritrea met with the Boundary Commission 

and UNMEE representatives in The Hague to discuss implementation of 

the demarcation phase, and in particular, what mechanisms could be established to minimize friction and resolve differences. The parties did not 

agree on procedures for demarcating the border. The United States supported the May 29 Security Council Presidential statement to the press, 

urging the parties, the Boundary Commission, and the United Nations to 

consult on achieving agreement on demarcation procedures. 

The United States also supported Resolution 1430 of August 14 that 

authorized UNMEE to demine key areas to support the demarcation and to 

provide Boundary Commission field offices with administrative and logistic support funded by the UN Trust Fund. 

On September 6, the United States voted along with other Security 

Council members in support of Resolution 1434, which extended 

UNMEE’s mandate for another six months, until March 15, 2003. 

As of December 31, UNMEE consisted of 3,832 troops and 202 

observers. The United States contributed six military observers and one 

staff officer to UNMEE. To support the transition to peace, the United 

States voluntarily contributed $1 million in Economic Support Funds 

(ESF) to the UN Trust Fund to support demarcation and another $500,000 

in ESF to assist communities affected by demarcation. In fiscal year 2002, 

the United Nations assessed member states a total of $247.85 million for 

UNMEE operations. The U.S. share was $67.65 million. 

Guinea–Bissau 

The United States supported UN efforts to help Guinea–Bissau consolidate its democracy and reconstruct its economy following several years of 

internal conflict. The U.S. delegation to the United Nations monitored the 

activities of the UN Peace–building Support Office in Guinea–Bissau 

(UNOGBIS), which, together with the UN Development Program 

(UNDP), continued to organize human rights training seminars throughout 

the year. UNOGBIS’s 2002 budget totaled $2.72 million and was funded 

through the UN regular budget. The U.S. assessment was 22 percent. The 

20 
Political and Security Affairs 

U.S. Agency for International Development also contributed funds to the 

human rights seminars. 

The United States supported the efforts of the Secretary–General’s 

Special Envoy for Gambia and Guinea–Bissau, James Victor Gbeho 

(Ghana), to lessen tension between Gambia and Guinea–Bissau. The Special Envoy facilitated a bilateral ministerial meeting between Guinea–Bissau and Gambia on July 4, 2002, at which these two governments made a 

series of commitments to reduce tensions and increase cooperation 

between their nations. 

In the UN Economic and Social Council, the United States agreed to 

the establishment of the Ad Hoc Advisory Group on Guinea–Bissau to 

help coordinate international development assistance to that country. The 

Group first met on October 29, and on November 9, began a seven–day 

visit to Guinea–Bissau. They met with government officials; UNDP, International Monetary Fund, and World Bank field representatives; and members of the Guinea–Bissau and Dakar–based diplomatic corps. 

The Secretary–General and the Ad Hoc Advisory Group noted in separate reports that the political climate in Guinea–Bissau remained unstable. 

Rumors of coup plots were common and the population lacked personal 

security. On November 15, moreover, during the Ad Hoc Advisory 

Group’s visit, President Kumba Yala dismissed the government of Prime 

Minister Alamara Ntchia Nhasse, dissolved the parliament, and called for 

elections in early 2003. The United States expressed concern in the Security Council about the degree of transparency and fairness of those promised elections. 

Liberia 

In 2002, the United States continued to back UN sanctions on Liberia, 

imposed in 2001 because of Liberian President Charles Taylor’s ongoing 

support of the Revolutionary United Front (RUF), a group responsible for 

numerous atrocities in neighboring Sierra Leone. Some 1,500 members of 

the RUF, including many of its senior leaders, fled to Liberia in late 2000 

after the legitimate Government of Sierra Leone established effective control over the country. Liberia’s continued support of the RUF prompted 

the Security Council to demand in Resolution 1343 (2001) that the 

Liberian Government expel all RUF members from its territory and end all 

support of the RUF. On May 6, 2002, the Security Council, with strong 

U.S. support, adopted Resolution 1408, which imposed sanctions on 

Liberia. The sanctions included an arms embargo while barring senior 

Liberian officials from traveling abroad and prohibiting Liberian exports 

of rough diamonds, many of which were stolen from Sierra Leone. 

A UN Panel of Experts, whose mandate the Security Council had 

unanimously renewed on February 27 in Resolution 1395, monitored 

implementation of the sanctions. The Panel concluded that the sanctions 

had often prevented senior Liberian officials from traveling abroad and 

that Liberian exports of rough diamonds had fallen precipitously— apparently benefiting Sierra Leone’s legitimate diamond trade. 

21 
United States Participation in the United Nations – 2002 

On December 13, the Security Council President, with the Council’s 

unanimous support, issued a statement condemning Liberia, other states, 

and non–state groups, including the rebel group Liberians United for Reconciliation and Democracy (LURD), for violating the arms embargo. The 

statement emphasized that the Council would maintain sanctions against 

President Taylor’s regime until the Council’s demands in Resolution 1343 

were met. The statement also outlined the Security Council’s strategy to 

end hostilities in Liberia, through stopping the flow of weapons into the 

country, supporting the establishment of a peace process involving the 

Government of Liberia and the LURD, promoting the development of stable and democratic political institutions, enhancing the respect for human 

rights, and addressing the humanitarian needs of all Liberians. 

The United States, working with the United Kingdom and France, also 

called for expanding the mandate of the UN Office in Liberia (UNOL), 

dedicated to promoting democracy and national reconciliation. The United 

States and other Security Council members wanted UNOL’s mandate to 

encompass strengthening democratic institutions and the rule of law in 

Liberia, setting the stage to monitor free and fair elections scheduled for 

2003, and promoting respect for human rights. In July 2002, the UN Secretariat began negotiations with Liberia to expand UNOL’s mandate, but 

the regime continued to block the negotiations despite the Security Council’s repeated urgings. 

Libya 

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

for trial by a Scottish court sitting in the Netherlands on the Pan Am 103 

bombing, the Security Council suspended, but did not end, sanctions 

imposed in Security Council Resolutions 748 (1992) and 883 (1993). In 

January 2001, the court convicted one of these Libyans, Abdel Basset al– 

Megrahi. A Scottish appellate court upheld the conviction in March 2002. 

Libya still had not fulfilled its obligations under Security Council resolutions at the end of 2002. For example, it had neither accepted responsibility for the terrorism perpetrated by its officials, nor given appropriate 

compensation to the victims’families. During 2002, the United States and 

the United Kingdom continued a series of discussions with Libya to try to 

get it to comply with its Security Council obligations. 

Rwanda 

In 2002, the United States and the United Nations continued to focus 

on Rwanda’s military involvement in the ongoing war in the Democratic 

Republic of the Congo (DROC). In its discussions, the Security Council 

reiterated its call for the withdrawal of all foreign forces, including those 

from Rwanda and the Congo, and the implementation of the Lusaka 

Cease–Fire Agreement (see section on the Democratic Republic of the 

Congo). 

On June 14, the Council adopted Resolution 1417, which called on 

Rwanda to exercise its influence with its proxy militia in the DROC, the 

Rally for Congolese Democracy–Goma, to end the violence in Kisangani, 

22 
Political and Security Affairs 

and bring to justice those responsible for atrocities. Rwanda, however, 

continued to provide support to this and other armed groups in the eastern 

Congo, even though it entered into the Pretoria Agreement with the 

DROC on July 30, and within three months, withdrew its approximately 

20,000–30,000 troops from the DROC. 

Security Council Resolution 1161 (1998) imposed an arms embargo 

against all groups other than the Government of Rwanda involved in the 

conflict. This embargo continued in force through 2002. While no violation of the embargo was reported in 2002, the United States favored its 

retention as a contribution to international peace and security in the Great 

Lakes region of Africa. 

Sierra Leone 

In 2002, the primary United States’ interest in Sierra Leone was the 

restoration of peace and stability to that country. The United States 

worked with other members of the Security Council to advance the efforts 

of the UN Mission in Sierra Leone (UNAMSIL), created to implement the 

Lome Peace Agreement and the demobilization, disarmament, and reintegration plan, and to contribute to the broader international strategy for 

Sierra Leone and the region. 

On January 16, the United States voted for Security Council Resolution 1389, which authorized UNAMSIL to provide security in elections 

scheduled for May 14, and to give logistical support to Sierra Leone’s 

National Electoral Commission. To help Sierra Leone’s police maintain 

security through the election, the resolution further authorized a temporary 

increase in the number of UN civilian police (CIVPOL) from 60 to 90. 

On March 1, Sierra Leone’s Government lifted the state of emergency 

imposed in 1998 and allowed political parties to hold public meetings and 

campaign in the May elections. Because Sierra Leonean law required that 

the government rapidly charge or release prisoners who had been detained 

under the state of emergency, the Government brought murder and robbery charges against key members of the Revolutionary United Front 

(RUF). On March 4, the Government indicted Foday Saybana Sankoh, 

leader of RUF, and 49 other RUF members. 

On March 28, in Resolution 1400, the United States joined other 

nations in extending UNAMSIL’s mandate for six months with additional 

authority to provide the Sierra Leone Special Court with administrative 

and related support on a cost–reimbursable basis. 

Before the May elections, UNAMSIL established an office in each of 

Sierra Leone’s electoral regions to help monitor the security and transparency of the elections, as well as to transport election materials to election 

sites. The UN High Commissioner for Refugees helped Sierra Leone refugees and internally displaced persons return home before the elections. 

Over 2.2 million Sierra Leoneans registered to vote. 

Nearly 2 million voters turned out for the May 14 nationwide presidential and parliamentary elections. President Ahmad Tejan Kabbah was re– 

23 
United States Participation in the United Nations – 2002 

elected for a five–year term with 70 percent of the vote; his party, the 

Sierra Leone’s People Party, won 83 of the 112 seats in the parliament. 

The RUF party received less than 2 percent of the presidential vote and did 

not win a single seat in the parliament. International observers concluded 

that the election was overall free, fair and transparent. UNAMSIL radio 

covered the elections live. 

In April 2002, a UN team, consisting of military and civilian experts, 

visited Sierra Leone to gauge the success of the disarmament and demobilization of almost 48,000 former combatants that UNAMSIL supervised 

between May 2001 and January 2002. The team deemed the efforts successful, while noting that some weapons, including those seized by the 

RUF from UNAMSIL troops in 2000, had never been recovered, remaining hidden in Sierra Leone or used in Liberia and Guinea by unknown 

forces. 

On June 19, the Secretary–General issued a positive report on the prospects for consolidating the peace after the election. He expressed concern, 

however, that the Liberian conflict could destabilize Sierra Leone and 

other countries in the region. 

On September 24, in Resolution 1436, the United States joined with 

other Security Council members to extend UNAMSIL’s mandate for 

another six months, endorse the deployment of up to a total of 170 civilian 

police officers to Sierra Leone, and authorize phases one and two of the 

Secretary–General’s plan to reduce the size of UNAMSIL from 17,500 at 

December 31, to 5,000 by the end of 2004. 

The Republic of Sierra Leone Armed Forces increased its presence 

throughout the country. With the renewed fighting in Liberia, UNAMSIL 

continued its deployment in areas near the Liberian border to provide 

security and assist fleeing Liberian refugees. 

On February 26, the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) 

and Save the Children Fund alleged in a joint report that West African– 

based representatives of the United Nations, some nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), and possibly some UNAMSIL peacekeeping troops had 

sexually abused refugees, including minors. In early April, the UN Office 

of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS) conducted interviews in Sierra 

Leone and Guinea. The OIOS reported on October 22 that it found evidence of sexual exploitation by UN and NGO employees in 10 out of 43 

alleged incidents. However, the majority of allegations could not be substantiated. 

Responding to reports of sexual wrongdoing, UNAMSIL established a 

Committee on Staff Conduct to review its policies and address complaints. 

UNAMSIL also dispatched teams into the field to investigate allegations 

of misconduct by its troops. It learned of several situations in which 

UNAMSIL soldiers had had relationships with local women who were not 

refugees, but who became pregnant. One case involved a peacekeeper who 

had had a relationship with a girl who was not a refugee, and, while there 

was no evidence of duress, was below the age of consent. All of these 

24 
Political and Security Affairs 

troops had either rotated out of Sierra Leone or were sent home. UNAMSIL asked contributing governments to take disciplinary action. Since the 

release of the UNHCR/Save the Children Fund report, the United States 

became actively engaged, primarily with the UN High Commissioner for 

Refugees, in efforts to establish a clear and uniform code of conduct for 

UN agencies and missions. 

On December 4, in Resolution 1446, the United States joined other 

Security Council members in extending the international ban on trading in 

diamonds from Sierra Leone unless the diamonds are certified as legal. In 

2002, Sierra Leone’s legal diamond exports rose from $25 million in 2001 

to $41.73 million. 

As of December 31, UNAMSIL consisted of 15,788 troops, 254 military observers, and 44 CIVPOL officers. While no U.S. military personnel 

participated in UNAMSIL, three U.S. officers were assigned to the British–led international military training team advising the Sierra Leone Ministry of Defense. In fiscal year 2002, the United Nations assessed members 

a total of $747.63 million for UNAMSIL operations, and the U.S. share 

was $205.94 million. 

Somalia 

In 1991, after the overthrow of dictator Mohammed Siad Barre, Somalia fell into civil war and disorder. In 1992, with United States support, the 

Security Council called for a cease–fire. Resolution 733 (1992) imposed 

an arms embargo on Somalia. 

On March 28, 2002, with the Security Council’s unanimous backing, 

the President of the Council issued a statement expressing serious concern 

about the continued flow of weapons and ammunition into Somalia from 

neighboring states despite the embargo. 

On May 3, with the aim of strengthening the embargo, the Security 

Council adopted Resolution 1407, which created a two–member expert 

panel to investigate violations of the arms ban. On July 22, in Resolution 

1425, the Security Council enlarged the panel to include three members. 

Throughout the year, the United States encouraged states to abide by the 

embargo, stressing its importance to ending the Somalia conflict. 

On December 12, the President of the Security Council, with the unanimous backing of its members, issued a statement supporting a peace process begun in Eldoret, Kenya on October 15 involving all significant 

Somalia parties and the cease–fire to which they agreed on October 27. 

The President of the Council noted the concern of member states over 

cease–fire violations and the slow progress of negotiations. 

Sudan 

The year 2002 saw progress in the effort to end Sudan’s decades–old 

civil war and the ability of humanitarian relief groups to deliver services to 

populations in need. The United Nations continued to comment on the situation in Sudan (the ongoing civil war, human rights abuses, and the 

25 
United States Participation in the United Nations – 2002 

humanitarian crisis generated by the war) through the Commission on 

Human Rights and the General Assembly. 

The October round of peace negotiations held in Machakos, Kenya 

concluded with the Government of Sudan and the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement signing an agreement with the United Nations allowing 

unimpeded access for the delivery of humanitarian aid. The parties also 

reached a cease–fire agreement, since extended to June 30, 2003. With a 

few exceptions, the cease–fire has held, and humanitarian access 

improved. 

The United Nations provided humanitarian aid in Sudan through Operation Lifeline Sudan (OLS), to which the United States contributed. The 

United States, working within and outside the OLS framework, provided 

$136.9 million in humanitarian aid to Sudan in fiscal year 2002. 

At the 58th session of the UN Commission on Human Rights 

(UNCHR), the United States did not cosponsor a European Union–drafted 

resolution on Sudan because the text did not condemn the continued practice of slavery by individuals and did not denounce forced religious conversions by private individuals. The resolution did, however, extend the 

mandate of the UN Special Rapporteur for another year. The resolution 

was adopted by a vote of 25 to 24, with 4 abstentions. [Note: The United 

States was not a voting member during the UNCHR’s 58th Session.] 

The United States also worked with other nations to adopt a resolution 

in the General Assembly condemning human rights abuses in Sudan. On 

December 18, a resolution was adopted. Although it was not as strong as 

the United States initially sought, it did condemn human rights abuses in 

Sudan, identify the perpetrators, and describe their crimes. The General 

Assembly adopted the resolution by a vote of 80 (U.S.) to 62, with 33 

abstentions. 

Western Sahara 

On April 29, 1991, the Security Council established the UN Mission 

for the Referendum in Western Sahara (MINURSO) to help implement a 

settlement plan (the “Settlement Plan”) that Morocco and the Frente Popular para la Liberacion de Saguia el–Hamra y Rio de Oro (POLISARIO) 

agreed to on August 30, 1998. The Settlement Plan called for a cessation 

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

to determine the future status of the territory. For more than a decade, the 

parties have failed to agree on who may vote in the referendum. After the 

completion of the voter identification process in 1999, MINURSO 

received more than 130,000 appeals from individuals not included on the 

voter list. 

Since 1997, former U.S. Secretary of State James A. Baker III has 

been serving as the Secretary–General’s Personal Envoy for the Western 

Sahara. The United States has supported Mr. Baker’s efforts to achieve a 

durable settlement, which would enhance regional stability. 

26 
Political and Security Affairs 

In a February 19, 2002 report to the Security Council, the Secretary– 

General presented Mr. Baker’s assessment that the parties were unlikely to 

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

then presented four options: implementing the Settlement Plan without the 

parties’concurrence; a revised autonomy plan; partition; or withdrawal of 

MINURSO. 

Most members of the Security Council opposed trying to impose a 

solution on the parties, but wanted MINURSO to continue. The United 

States, the United Kingdom, and France supported an approach that would 

involve a revised autonomy plan; other members disagreed. A divided 

Security Council decided to extend MINURSO’s mandate on February 27 

(Resolution 1394) and again on April 30 (Resolution 1406). 

On July 30, the Council unanimously adopted Resolution 1429 that 

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

that invited him to devise a proposal that would lead to self–determination 

in the Western Sahara. The Council also extended MINURSO’s mandate 

to January 31, 2003, called upon the POLISARIO to release immediately 

all prisoners of war, and urged both sides to collaborate with the UN High 

Commissioner for Human Rights and the International Committee of the 

Red Cross to resolve the fate of those missing since the beginning of the 

conflict. 

William Swing, a former U.S. Ambassador, served as the Secretary– 

General’s Special Representative for MINURSO. The United States continued to lead the Friends of Western Sahara, an informal group that 

includes the United Kingdom, France, Russia, and Spain, which consults 

on the margins of the Security Council on next steps in the peace process. 

As of December 31, 2002, 28 countries had contributed a total of 235 

troops (of which seven came from the United States), military observers, 

and civilian police to MINURSO. The U.S. assessed contribution for 

MINURSO totaled $13.3 million. 

East Asia and the Pacific 

Bougainville 

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

Guinea signed the Bougainville Peace Agreement, which granted Bougainville autonomy and an eventual vote on independence from Papua New 

Guinea in 10 to 15 years. By certifying the collection of arms, the United 

States continued to support efforts of the UN Political Office in Bougainville (UNPOB) to implement this Peace Agreement. 

On March 28, 2002, the Security Council held an open meeting to discuss progress in the Bougainville peace process. Assistant Secretary–General Danilo Turk reported that significant progress had been made towards 

collecting weapons and drafting a constitution, but that one faction, led by 

Francis Ona, remained outside the peace process. The United States and 

others urged UNPOB not to allow this one marginal faction to further 

27 
United States Participation in the United Nations – 2002 

delay progress in certifying the collection of arms, and, as a result, autonomy for the island. 

On December 19, the Security Council President issued a letter (S/ 

2002/1380) that extended UNPOB’s mandate through December 31, 

2003. At U.S. urging, this letter stated that the extension would be the last 

and that UNPOB should submit written reports, within existing resources, 

setting forth a clear exit strategy with a timetable and benchmarks. 

Burma 

In 2002, the United States and the United Nations focused on Burmese 

violations of human rights, forced labor, and opium production. The 

United States endorsed the missions of the UN Secretary–General’s Special Envoy for Burma, Razali Ismail (Malaysia), and the UN Special Rapporteur on the Human Rights Situation in Burma, Paulo Sergio Pinheiro 

(Brazil). Ambassador Razali sought to facilitate a meaningful political dialogue between the government and the National League for Democracy 

(NLD), Burma’s leading opposition party. He visited Burma in April, 

August, and November 2002. The government arranged meetings between 

Aung San Suu Kyi, leader of the NLD, and the Minister of Education and 

other government officials. But in November, the international community 

made clear to Ambassador Razali that “no real dialogue” with the regime 

was occurring. 

Mr. Pinheiro visited Burma in February and October 2002. He highlighted Burma’s serious human rights abuses record. Mr. Pinheiro and 

Ambassador Razali joined members of the international community who 

were pressing for the unconditional release of all political prisoners. 

The United States cosponsored resolutions at the UN General Assembly and the UN Commission on Human Rights that expressed concern 

about the regime’s continuing violation of human rights. Both UN bodies 

adopted the resolutions without a vote. 

In June 2002, the Shan Human Rights Foundation (SHRF) accused the 

Burmese Army of systematically using rape as “a weapon of war” in ethnic minority areas along the Thai border. The United States investigated 

these allegations and found many victims whose stories were similar to 

those documented by the SHRF. The Burmese regime nonetheless denied 

these charges. Special Rapporteur Pinheiro could not secure the regime’s 

agreement to allow for an impartial international investigation. 

Forced labor remained a problem in Burma. The United States continued to encourage all members of the International Labor Organization 

(ILO) to implement the body’s 2000 decision, which called upon all members to ensure that their labor policies did not support forced labor in 

Burma. In August 2002, the ILO began to make field visits along the 

Thai–Burmese border that Amnesty International and other human rights 

organizations had identified as places where forced labor occurred and 

ethnic minorities were abused. 

28 
Political and Security Affairs 

In October, the ILO also established an ILO Liaison Office in 

Rangoon. In November, the ILO Governing Body urged the Burmese 

Government to develop a “credible plan of action” to eliminate forced 

labor. 

The United States also contributed to the activities of the UN Office of 

Drug Control (UNODC) to lower Burmese opium production. In June 

2002, the United States pledged $700,000 to support UNODC’s Wa Alternative Development Project, which helped reduce opium cultivation in territories controlled by one of the most notorious former insurgent groups, 

the United Wa State Army. 

Throughout 2002, the U.S. Government worked to make sure that its 

contributions to the UN Development Program (UNDP) did not help the 

Burmese regime financially, militarily, or politically. The United States 

also sought to ensure that the UNDP adhered to instructions from its Executive Board that it only support critical humanitarian needs at the grass– 

roots level, to ensure that its programs helped Burma’s poorest and most 

vulnerable groups. 

Cambodia 

The United States continued to support efforts to establish a credible 

tribunal to bring to justice senior leaders of the Khmer Rouge and others 

who bear the greatest responsibility for genocide and other atrocities committed against the Cambodian people between 1975 and 1979. At the 

United Nations, the United States is part of an ad hoc group, the Friends of 

Cambodia, which includes the European Union, Australia, Japan, New 

Zealand, and Canada, that has supported the creation of such a tribunal. 

In February 2002, after five years of talks, the United Nations 

announced that it would withdraw from negotiations on creating a tribunal 

with the Royal Government of Cambodia (RGC). The United Nations disagreed with the RGC about the relationship between a UN–RGC agreement on UN participation and a Cambodian law promulgated in August 

2001 that established the Extraordinary Chambers to prosecute crimes 

committed during the Khmer Rouge era. 

The Friends of Cambodia asked the Secretary–General to reconsider 

the decision to end negotiations owing to concern that without international participation, the Cambodian Government would not establish a 

credible tribunal and aging Khmer Rouge leaders might escape justice. 

In reports to the UN Commission on Human Rights (CHR) and the 

General Assembly in 2002, the Secretary–General’s Special Representative for Human Rights in Cambodia, Peter Leuprecht (Austria), emphasized Cambodia’s need for a functioning judicial system and its problem 

of election-related violence. 

At the CHR, the United States supported Resolution 2002/89, which 

was adopted by consensus on April 26, 2002 and expressed grave concern 

about continued human rights violations in Cambodia. The resolution also 

expressed concern about problems with the Cambodian judiciary and 

29 
United States Participation in the United Nations – 2002 

impediments to the rule of law, while welcoming the government’s commitment to reform. The resolution urged the government to take measures 

that would ensure judicial independence, impartiality, and effectiveness. 

Resolution 2002/89 also appealed to the Cambodian Government to 

bring to trial senior Khmer Rouge leaders and others who violated Cambodian penal law, Cambodian recognized international conventions, or international humanitarian law and custom, and to do so in accordance with 

international standards of justice, fairness, and legal due process. The resolution recognized the need for Cambodia and the United Nations to 

resume negotiations on a tribunal and appealed to the international community to provide assistance. 

In August, following discussions with the Secretary–General, the 

Cambodian Government addressed some UN concerns regarding the relationship between a UN–RGC agreement and the Cambodian law that 

established the Extraordinary Chambers. The Secretary–General then 

requested a clear mandate from the General Assembly or the Security 

Council to restart negotiations with the RGC. 

In December 2002, the General Assembly adopted Resolution 57/228, 

which requested that the Secretary–General resume negotiations immediately in order to reach an agreement with the Cambodian Government on a 

tribunal. The General Assembly emphasized that the tribunal should meet 

international standards of justice, fairness, and due process as set out in 

articles 14 and 15 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political 

Rights. The United States joined 149 other nations voting for this resolution. The General Assembly also asked the Secretary–General to report to 

it by March 18, 2003 on the status of the negotiations. 

East Timor 

In 2002, the United States worked with other members of the Security 

Council to help the UN Transitional Administration in East Timor 

(UNTAET) and its successor, the UN Mission of Support in East Timor 

(UNMISET) to stabilize this nation and help it achieve independence. The 

United States supported assessed funding for UNMISET on the understanding that the mission would phase out in stages, with the East 

Timorese Government assuming full responsibility for security, law 

enforcement, and all other government functions by mid–2004. On January 31, 2002, the United States supported the adoption of Resolution 1392 

that extended UNTAET’s mandate until May 20. 

On March 22, East Timor’s new constitution went into effect. On April 

14, presidential elections were held with UN help with logistics and planning; balloting was peaceful and orderly. National independence hero 

Xanana Gusmao won with more than 80 percent of the vote. 

With East Timorese independence days away on May 17, the Security 

Council, with U.S. support, adopted Resolution 1410. The Council 

decided that with independence, UNTAET’s duties would pass to 

UNMISET, whose initial mandate was 12 months, authorized until May 

20, 2003. The Council set UNMISET’s strength at a maximum of 5,000 

30 
Political and Security Affairs 

troops, including 120 military observers; 1,250 UN civilian police officers 

(CIVPOL); and 100 civilian advisors to help the new East Timorese Government. UNMISET’s mandate included helping to develop a coordinated 

work plan for UN agencies working in East Timor. 

The Security Council, in addition, assigned UNMISET the duty of 

helping the UN Serious Crimes Unit (SCU), which helps the East 

Timorese to investigate and prosecute those responsible for the 1999 

atrocities in East Timor. 

Though three U.S. military officers participated in UNTAET, the 

United States did not contribute troops to UNMISET because of other 

demands on resources and concern about the potential vulnerability of 

American personnel to International Criminal Court (ICC) jurisdiction. On 

August 23, 2002, however, East Timor and the United States signed an 

agreement protecting U.S. personnel from ICC jurisdiction. 

On September 27, East Timor, under its new official name Timor– 

Leste, became a member of the United Nations with United States support. 

The United States maintained several bilateral programs to help 

UNTAET and, then, UNMISET. The U.S. Pacific Command ran a U.S. 

Support Group East Timor (USGET), with a staff of approximately 10 

Americans, to coordinate U.S. Navy ship visits and military deployments 

of medical and engineering teams to East Timor. USGET closed in 

December. The United States funded two retired American military personnel to staff the Office of Defense Force Development, which is in the 

new East Timor Ministry of Defense. In addition to the voluntary contribution of U.S. police officers serving in UNTAET’s and UNMISET’s 

CIVPOL components, the United States supported UNTAET’s and 

UNMISET’s programs to provide technical assistance, training, and 

equipment to the East Timor Police Service Police College. 

As of December 31, UNMISET, which included 59 Americans, consisted of 111 military observers, 3,742 troops, and 1,307 CIVPOL. In fiscal year 2002, the United Nations assessed member states a total of 

$381.41 million, of which the U.S. share was $103.52 million. 

Europe and Eurasia 

Cyprus 

The United States continued to support UN efforts to achieve a comprehensive settlement to the territorial dispute between Cyprus and Turkey 

during 2002. Since 1974, the UN Peacekeeping Force in Cyprus (UNFICYP) has served as a buffer force between Turkish and Turkish Cypriot 

forces on one side and the Greek Cypriot National Guard and Greek troops 

on the other. Beginning in January 2002, the Good Offices Mission of the 

Secretary–General and his Special Advisor for Cyprus, Alvaro de Soto 

(Peru), accelerated efforts to resolve the dispute through direct talks. 

On the basis of these talks, Secretary–General Annan proposed a 

detailed settlement plan to reunify the island, give considerable authority 

to Greek Cypriot and Turkish Cypriot constituent states, and enable dis31 
United States Participation in the United Nations – 2002 

placed persons to return home. The plan also was intended to allow 

Cyprus, as one entity, to seek accession to the European Union. Both sides 

agreed to postpone customary fall military exercises in an effort to 

improve the negotiating atmosphere. 

The United States strongly supported these talks and maintained close 

contacts throughout them with the United Nations, the Greek and Turkish 

Cypriot leaders, Greece, Turkey, and the European Union. 

The Secretary–General set as his goal the signing of an agreement 

between the parties before the December 12–13 European Council summit. This goal was not met, principally because of Turkish Cypriot reservations. However, the two sides decided to continue working toward a 

settlement. 

The Security Council twice renewed the mandate of the UNFICYP, 

each for six months. Resolutions 1416 and 1442 also urged the Turkish 

Cypriot side and Turkish forces to rescind restrictions that partly closed 

crossing points along the UN buffer zone, as well as restore the military 

status quo ante in the town of Strovilia. 

UNFICYP’s troop level was approximately 1,230 during 2002, with an 

additional 35 civilian police. The United States does not contribute peacekeepers to UNFICYP. Greece and Turkey pay approximately half of 

UNFICYP’s total costs. In fiscal year 2002, the United Nations assessed 

member states a total of $21.90 million for UNFICYP operations. The 

U.S. share was $5.96 million. 

Georgia 

The UN Security Council established the UN Observer Mission in 

Georgia (UNOMIG) on August 24, 1993, expanding its mandate in 1994. 

UNOMIG monitors the cessation of hostilities between the Georgian Government and Abkhaz separatists, as well as activities of the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) peacekeeping force in the Abkhaz 

region. In practical terms, UNOMIG’s patrolling activities have helped 

contain the violence and prevent a major escalation of the conflict. 

UNOMIG’s mandate was unanimously renewed in January 2002 by 

UN Security Council Resolution 1393 and again in July through Resolution 1427. The Security Council stressed in its press releases that the lack 

of progress on reducing hostilities and addressing the refugee and displaced persons problem was unacceptable. 

These renewals of UNOMIG’s mandate occurred as calls were being 

raised in the Georgian parliament for the withdrawal of the CIS peacekeeping force. The United States believed that without the security support of the CIS force, the risk was greater that UNOMIG would be unable 

to fulfill its functions in the security zone. 

The Special Representative of the Secretary–General for Georgia, 

Ambassador Heidi Tagliavini (Switzerland), worked steadily after her 

appointment in 2002 to achieve a comprehensive political settlement, with 

the assistance of the Group of Friends of the Secretary–General (the 

32 
Political and Security Affairs 

United States, the United Kingdom, Germany, France, and Russia) and the 

Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe. 

The Special Representative’s efforts have focused on getting the parties to initiate settlement negotiations based on principles that include protecting the territorial integrity of Georgia and providing substantial 

autonomy for Abkhazia. The Abkhaz separatists resisted dialogue. In 

December, the Friends of Georgia agreed to convene a high–level session 

in Geneva in early 2003 to discuss new settlement strategies. 

Russian–Georgian tensions during much of 2002 tended to overshadow the Abkhaz issue. Russia was concerned about the presence of 

Chechen fighters in Georgian border areas; the Georgia Government was 

concerned about the movements of the primarily Russian CIS peacekeeping force in Abkhazia. 

Despite UNOMIG’s small size (114 unarmed military observers, 

including two Americans in Tbilisi as of December 31), the Mission has 

had considerable political significance. It is a clear indication of international support for the stability, sovereignty, and territorial integrity of 

Georgia and other newly independent states. In fiscal year 2002, the 

United Nations assessed member states a total of $26.74 million for 

UNOMIG operations. The U.S. share was $7.34 million. 

The Former Yugoslavia 

UN Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK) 

After the military campaign by the United States and its NATO allies, 

the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY) agreed to withdraw its forces 

from Kosovo in 1999. On June 10 of that year, the UN Security Council 

adopted Resolution 1244, which authorized both an international security 

presence that became the NATO–led Kosovo Force (KFOR) and an 

interim governing authority in Kosovo. 

The mandate of the UN Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo 

(UNMIK) under Resolution 1244 is to provide civilian administration, 

develop provisional institutions for self–government, facilitate the political process to determine Kosovo’s status, support economic reconstruction 

and humanitarian and disaster relief, maintain law and order and protect 

and promote human rights, and support the return of refugees and displaced persons. Resolution 1244 will continue in force until the Security 

Council decides its provisions have been implemented. 

In January 2002, the Secretary–General appointed Michael Steiner 

(Germany) as his Special Representative (SRSG) for UNMIK. SRSG 

Steiner put forward a plan outlining eight standards of democratic self– 

government to act as benchmarks by which the international community 

could measure Kosovo’s progress in meeting the basic requirements of a 

democratic society. These include functioning democratic institutions, the 

rule of law, return of refugees and internally displaced persons, reintegration of minorities, and development of the economy. 

33 
United States Participation in the United Nations – 2002 

The United States and the international community stressed “standards 

before status,” asking Kosovars to focus on achieving sustainable self– 

government rather than Kosovo’s final political status. However, the issue 

of final status retained a stronghold in the minds of the local leaders and 

populace during the year. 

UNMIK is a unique collaborative effort of the United Nations with 

such entities as the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe 

(OSCE) and the European Union (EU). UNMIK’s four pillars of activity, 

under the authority of the SRSG, are police and justice, civil administration, democratization and institution building, and reconstruction and economic development. 

UNMIK has the leading role in administering police and justice issues. 

As of December 31, UNMIK had 4,442 international civilian police 

(CIVPOL) and 38 military observers. The United States provided two of 

the military observers and 545 members of the civilian police. The Deputy 

Police Commissioner for Operations and Kosovo Police Service (KPS) 

Development is a United States police officer. UNMIK transferred police 

authority to the KPS while retaining unified operational control. The KPS 

employed some 5,200 at year’s end. Developing the KPS is one of 

UNMIK’s most impressive accomplishments. 

The United States provided equipment and personnel to the UNMIK 

Kosovo Organized Crime Bureau (KOCB), which became operational in 

2002 to investigate organized crime, terrorism, and extremism. By year’s 

end, 17 U.S. officers had served in the bureau. The United States contributed funds to UNMIK to purchase equipment that helped the KOCB conduct sensitive investigations. The United States also provided an assistant 

U.S. attorney who worked with UNMIK’s Department of Justice (DOJ) on 

complex organized crime cases and was instrumental in promoting a better 

relationship among the UNMIK DOJ, KFOR, and UNMIK police for handling cases related to ethnic extremism and organized crime. 

The OSCE has the lead on democratization and constitution building. 

Its Kosovo Police Service School (KPSS), led by the United States, provided classroom training to the multiethnic KPS. The 22nd class of cadets 

graduated in December, bringing the total number of police officers 

trained at KPSS to over 5,500. 

The OSCE–run Kosovo Judicial Institute (KJI) provides continuing 

legal education for judges and magistrates. The OSCE oversaw successful 

municipal elections across Kosovo in October and the resultant inaugurations of 30 municipal assemblies, several with Serb majorities or significant Serb participation. This was the third Kosovo–wide election since 

1999. 

Following the seating of the Kosovo Assembly in December 2001, a 

provisional government with a president and prime minister was formed in 

March 2002. The Assembly and 10 ministries make up the Provisional 

Institutions of Self–Government (PISG). The SRSG and UNMIK retain 

reserved powers in areas such as foreign affairs, justice, and defense, and 

34 
Political and Security Affairs 

oversee and monitor compliance with Resolution 1244, the Constitutional 

Framework, and the Framework Regulation for the Executive Branch. The 

United States encouraged UNMIK to transfer additional responsibilities to 

the PISG in accordance with Resolution 1244 and the Constitutional 

Framework. 

The EU, which has responsibility for reconstruction and economic 

development, worked with UNMIK to build a stable macroeconomic environment in Kosovo. Delays in the promulgation of laws and regulations 

and the transfer of authority from UNMIK to the PISG hindered the process. A regulation creating the Kosovo Trust Agency (KTA) did not pass 

until June, slowing implementation of KTA’s operating procedures and 

the privatization process. In addition, ongoing discussions over land use 

regulations hindered the initiation of the privatization process. 

In fiscal year 2002, the United Nations assessed its member states 

$249.39 million for UNMIK operations. The U.S. share was $67.11 million. Americans filled several leadership positions in UNMIK, including a 

U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) official who headed UNMIK’s DOJ for 

2002. 

UN Mission in Bosnia and Herzegovina (UNMIBH) 

The November 1995 Dayton Peace Agreement for Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH) included a provision for a UN civilian police operation to 

assist in creating a safe and secure environment. On December 21, 1995, 

UN Security Council Resolution 1035 established a UN civilian office, the 

UN Mission in Bosnia and Herzegovina (UNMIBH), and the International 

Police Task Force (IPTF). Jacques Paul Klein (United States) was 

appointed Special Representative of the Secretary–General in 1999 and 

served until UNMIBH’s closure on December 31, 2002, after successfully 

completing its mandates. The United Nations transferred responsibility for 

policing to the follow–on European Union Police Mission (EUPM). 

In 2002, IPTF continued to advise and monitor local police. It also 

completed formulation of the Law Enforcement Personnel Registry, which 

verifies that Bosnian officers have undergone background checks and 

have met basic training requirements. Through this vetting process and 

other personnel cuts, IPTF reduced the number of local police officers in 

Bosnia from some 40,000 in 1996 to approximately 20,000 at the end of 

2002. Both the Bosnia–Herzegovina Federation and the Republica Srpska 

(the Bosnia–Serb entity within Bosnia–Herzegovina) maintained multiethnic police academies during 2002, with extensive bilateral assistance from 

the United States. Several U.S. officers held key positions within the 

IPTF, including that of Executive Officer to the Commissioner. 

With UNMIBH’s assistance, the State Border Service (SBS)— Bosnia’s first state–level, multiethnic armed law enforcement agency— 

reached full coverage of all border points in 2002, including BiH’s international airports. Full deployment of the SBS appears to have reduced illegal immigration. The United States made significant bilateral 

35 
United States Participation in the United Nations – 2002 

contributions to the SBS, including a country–wide radio communications 

system and computer based information management system. 

UNMIBH’s Special Trafficking Operation Program (STOP) continued 

to raise the profile of trafficking in persons in Bosnia among local police 

and the public at large. The U.S. Department of State’s Office to Monitor 

and Combat Trafficking in Persons met twice during 2002 with Celhia de 

Lavarene (France), Director of STOP, and maintained close communications. 

Of the approximately 1,600 civilian police in the IPTF during 2002, 40 

were U.S. officers. The IPTF began downsizing following elections in 

October 2002, in preparation for the transition of responsibility to the 

EUPM. In fiscal year 2002, the United Nations assessed member states 

$67.65 million for UNMIBH operations. The U.S. share was $18.28 million. 

UN Mission of Observers in Prevlaka (UNMOP) 

In September 1992, Croatia and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia 

(FRY) agreed to demilitarize the Prevlaka Peninsula at the southernmost 

tip of Croatia. The peninsula overlooks Kotor Bay, the home of the Yugoslav Navy. 

To assist the parties, the UN Security Council established a military 

observer mission (the UN Protection Force) in October 1992 to monitor 

the demilitarization. In 1996, it was increased to 28 observers and 

renamed the UN Mission of Observers in Prevlaka (UNMOP) under Security Council Resolution 1038. UNMOP was renewed at six–month intervals until July 2002, when pressure from the United States and others to 

wind down the mission culminated in only a three–month renewal under 

Resolution 1424. In October 2002, the Security Council adopted Resolution 1437, authorizing the final extension of UNMOP’s mandate until 

December 15, 2002. 

Croatia and the FRY signed an agreement on a temporary land and sea 

protocol for Prevlaka on December 10. This step, and the signing of a free 

trade agreement on December 30, were further indications of the normalization of relations between the two countries. 

The United States had pressed throughout 2002 for UNMOP’s orderly 

withdrawal, given the continued stability in the region and solid progress 

in the normalization of relations between Croatia and FRY, and the evidence that the parties were committed to peaceful and negotiated solutions 

to disagreements. Because of this focus, the United States did not contribute to the mission. 

Throughout most of the year, UNMOP was comprised of 27 military 

observers. Just before its closure in December, UNMOP began to cut 

staffing. UNMOP did not have its own budget; its expenses were included 

in UNMIBH’s budget. It also received administrative support from 

UNMIBH. 

36 
Political and Security Affairs 

Western Hemisphere 

Cuba 

The United States and the United Nations continued to focus significant attention on Cuba and its human rights record in 2002. On April 19, 

the UN Commission on Human Rights (UNCHR) adopted a resolution 

sponsored by Uruguay and 35 other nations chastising Cuba for its human 

rights situation. The vote was 23 to 21, with 9 abstentions. [The United 

States was not on the UNCHR in 2002, so it did not vote.] The resolution 

called on the Government of Cuba to “make efforts to achieve progress in 

respect of human, civil and political rights,” in accordance with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and requested that the UN High 

Commissioner on Human Rights send a representative to Cuba to obtain 

its cooperation in the implementation of the resolution. This was the 

fourth consecutive year in which the UNCHR had adopted such a resolution. 

On November 12, the UN General Assembly adopted a resolution 

sponsored by Cuba on the “Necessity of ending the economic, commercial 

and financial embargo imposed by the United States of America against 

Cuba.” The vote was 173 to 3, with 4 abstentions. The United States voted 

no, along with Israel and the Marshall Islands. The resolution called on 

states to refrain from promulgating and applying laws “such as... the 

‘Helms–Burton Act,’” and urged states that have such laws to repeal them. 

In their explanations of vote, a number of countries voted in favor of the 

resolution but expressed continuing concern over Cuba’s poor human 

rights record. 

In the U.S. explanation of vote, U.S. Ambassador to the United 

Nations Sichan Siv noted that the United States embargo against Cuba is a 

bilateral issue and should not be debated in the General Assembly. The 

Ambassador called the resolution “misguided” and urged all delegations 

to oppose it. He explained that the goal of U.S. policy towards Cuba 

remained to “foster a rapid, peaceful transition to a democratic form of 

government where human rights are protected, civil society thrives, and 

economic prosperity is extended to all Cubans.” 

Guatemala 

Through diplomatic engagement, the United States has strongly supported the UN’s efforts to assist the Guatemalan Government in implementing the peace agreements it had signed with the Unidad 

Revolucionaria Nacional Guatemalteca in 1996, ending a 36–year struggle. There has been progress in some areas, but implementation of the 

peace agreements has fallen behind schedule, while the human rights situation has worsened. 

The primary focus of UN support for the peace accords has been in the 

area of human rights verification. The United Nations first authorized the 

UN Verification Mission in Guatemala (MINUGUA) in 1994, acting on a 

recommendation by the Secretary–General that such a mission could overcome the disturbing pattern of human rights abuses in Guatemala. 

37 
United States Participation in the United Nations – 2002 

During 2002, the activities of MINUGUA included conducting impartial investigations into alleged human rights abuses, monitoring the disbandment of the Presidential Guard and the post–conflict roles and 

activities of the Guatemalan military, promoting grassroots participation 

in development planning, and using its good offices to try to defuse social 

conflicts. In addition, the mission focused increasingly on trying to build 

the capacity of local institutions that would take over once MINUGUA 

was terminated. 

The Guatemalan Government requested in 2002 that MINUGUA be 

continued through 2004, in light of the presidential election that would 

take place in December 2003. The United States and other countries in the 

so–called “Friends of Guatemala” group, including Colombia, Mexico, 

Norway, Spain, and Venezuela, agreed in principle to support this request, 

with the understanding that MINUGUA would continue to scale back its 

operations and that no extensions would be considered beyond 2004. 

The Secretary–General reported that he planned in 2003 to reduce 

MINUGUA’s administrative costs and the number of international professional staff in its headquarters in Guatemala City, while retaining the level 

at its field offices at their current strength. On December 16, 2002, the 

General Assembly adopted by consensus Resolution 57/161, which 

extended MINUGUA’s mandate until December 31, 2003. 

In 2002, MINUGUA, which is led by Thomas Koenigs (Germany), 

had 271 personnel and a budget of $14.8 million. Since it is not a peacekeeping operation, MINUGUA is funded out of the UN regular budget. 

The U.S. assessment rate for the UN regular budget is 22 percent. 

Disarmament Issues 

UN Disarmament Commission (UNDC) 

The UN Disarmament Commission (UNDC) is the principal forum for 

discussion of disarmament issues at the United Nations when the General 

Assembly is not in session. The UNDC operates by consensus to make 

recommendations on various disarmament issues. The focus of the United 

States has been to ensure that the UNDC adopts reports that are consistent 

with, and advance, U.S. policy. A key U.S. interest is to maintain a balance in UNDC work between nuclear and non–nuclear issues, since historically, non–aligned states have tried to focus UNDC discussions on 

nuclear issues. 

The April 2001 session of the UNDC considered two reports, drafted 

by the chairs of its two working groups, on the ways and means to achieve 

nuclear disarmament and practical confidence building measures (CBMs) 

in the field of conventional arms. The starting point of these reports was 

the expressed views of the UNDC delegations. The U.S. delegation’s 

remarks focused on how nuclear disarmament could be advanced and how 

effective CBMs could promote international peace and security. 

38 
Political and Security Affairs 

In the end, the nuclear report was an unfocused compendium of conflicting views, while the CBM report developed arguments showing how 

CBMs could contribute to regional and international peace and security. 

At the request of the non–aligned states, which the United States 

believed was indicative of the limited value this body adds to the UN’s 

work, the UNDC did not meet in 2002. The members, including the 

United States, agreed to the postponement to allow time to prepare revised 

papers. The UNDC will consider the proposed revisions to these 2001 

papers during its 2003 session. 

Conference on Disarmament (CD) 

The Geneva–based Conference on Disarmament (CD) is the principal 

multilateral forum for negotiating arms control and disarmament agreements. It specifically addresses nuclear disarmament and prevention of 

nuclear war, weapons of mass destruction, conventional arms, prevention 

of an arms race in outer space, transparency in disarmament, and terrorism. While the CD has produced significant international treaties in the 

past, notably the Chemical Weapons Convention (1993), it currently is in 

its sixth year of stalemate. In recent years, progress has either been paralyzed by outmoded Cold War–era thinking, or subverted by those who 

refuse to live up to their international obligations. 

Although the CD is financed through the UN regular budget and submits an annual report on its actions to the United Nations, it is an autonomous organization outside the formal UN system, and it makes its 

decisions by consensus. 

The 66 members of the CD are divided into geopolitical groups— the 

Western Group, the Eastern Group, and the non–aligned group, with 

China as an independent member. With CD concurrence, the UN Secretary–General appoints the Secretary–General of the CD (a largely ceremonial position). The latest appointee, Sergei Orzhonikidze (Russia), was 

appointed in March 2002 but has no fixed term. He is also Director–General of the UN Office in Geneva. 

The CD’s 2002 session met in three rounds (January 21–March 29, 

May 13–June 28, and July 29–January 13, 2003). U.S. objectives included 

the establishment of an ad hoc committee to negotiate a Fissile Material 

Cutoff Treaty (FMCT). An FMCT would ban production of fissile materials (plutonium and highly enriched uranium) for nuclear weapons or other 

explosive devices. 

Other members sought to establish a working group on negative security assurances, which are guarantees by nuclear weapon states to not 

employ, subject to conventions, nuclear weapons against non–nuclear 

weapon states. 

The non–aligned states supported negotiation of a global treaty prohibiting the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons against non–nuclear 

weapon states. The United States opposed such a global treaty, preferring 

instead to provide negative security assurances through a unilateral 

39 
United States Participation in the United Nations – 2002 

national declaration provided to parties to the Nuclear Non–Proliferation 

Treaty (NPT) and through treaties creating regional nuclear weapon free 

zones, under which the nuclear weapon states have acceded to protocols 

containing such assurances to the parties. 

China, supported by Russia and Pakistan, continued to insist that the 

work program include negotiations on outer space arms control. The U.S. 

Government is against arms control restrictions that could infringe on its 

right to field assets in outer space. 

The 2002 session was the sixth year of deadlock over the CD’s work 

program. The U.S. keynote speech at the CD in the spring underlined the 

continuing U.S. commitment to multilateralism, but also warned that the 

CD urgently needed to overcome gridlock and establish its relevance as a 

negotiating forum. The primary proposal to break the impasse in the 

future, supported by the vast majority of CD members, focuses on commencing FMCT negotiations, with discussion–only mandates for outer 

space and nuclear disarmament. 

The CD is supported through the budget of the UN Department of Disarmament Affairs. The United States pays 22 percent of the approximately 

$4 million devoted to CD costs. 

UN First Committee (UNFC) 

The First Committee is the subsidiary body of the UN General Assembly that addresses international security and arms control. It is based in 

New York. The presidency of the First Committee rotates on an annual 

basis among UN members. During its five–week session each autumn, it 

typically considers 45 to 60 resolutions and decisions. During each session, the United States promotes key goals and objectives and counters 

proposals by others that would have negative effects on U.S. national 

security and arms control interests. 

In the 2002 session, the United States tabled resolutions on compliance 

with arms control agreements and U.S.–Russian strategic arms reductions, 

which were both adopted by consensus. Due in part to extensive U.S. lobbying, an Iraqi resolution on depleted uranium munitions was defeated 

outright in the First Committee (last year’s resolution had survived until 

the Plenary vote). It was the only resolution defeated 

One new agenda item was an Indian resolution calling for strengthened 

measures to prevent terrorism with weapons of mass destruction. A majority, including the United States, supported this resolution. 

The First Committee effectively put behind it the issue of the 1972 

Anti–Ballistic Missile Treaty, which had figured prominently in the 2001 

debate. The United States had officially withdrawn from the treaty with 

the former Soviet Union earlier in 2002. 

Because of concerns over enforceability and verifiability and other 

issues, the United States will not ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban 

Treaty. This position led to several U.S. no–votes on resolutions calling 

for the universal adherence and entry into force of the treaty. 

40 
Political and Security Affairs 

In all, the United States voted for or joined consensus on 30 resolutions, voted against 17, and abstained on five. The United States supported 

resolutions on wider adherence to the Biological Weapons Convention; 

implementation of the Small Arms and Light Weapons Protocol; support 

for a nuclear weapons free zone in Central Asia; implementation of a UN 

arms registry promoting transparency in armaments; and a number of procedural resolutions acknowledging reports to the General Assembly by 

arms control organizations. 

Specialized Issues 

Terrorism 

In 2002, international efforts to combat terrorism continued to be a 

focal point at the United Nations. As U.S. Ambassador to the United 

Nations John D. Negroponte said during the UN’s event to commemorate 

the September 11, 2001 attacks: 

The United Nations understood that the attacks on the United States 

were attacks on civilization everywhere. The General Assembly gave swift 

voice to its outrage; the Secretary–General spoke out forcefully; and the 

Security Council condemned acts of international terrorism as threats to 

international peace and security. The United States is grateful for this solidarity. We must make common cause against terror, and we have made 

common cause against terror. 

At the Ministerial meeting on September 11, 2002, the Security Council issued a Presidential Statement (S/PRST/2002/25) indicating its determination to combat terrorism until the principles and purposes of the 

United Nations could be fulfilled for all people. 

The United States deposited Instruments of Ratification for the International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings and the 

International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism on June 26. Having done this, it was now party to all 12 UN and UN 

specialized agency terrorism conventions and protocols. 

In October, the Sixth Committee (legal issues) debated Resolution 57/ 

27, “Measures to Eliminate International Terrorism.” This resolution 

strongly condemned all acts, methods, and practices of terrorism as criminal and unjustifiable, wherever and by whomsoever committed. It reaffirmed previous Declarations on Measures to Eliminate International 

Terrorism, and urged all states to become parties to the 12 international 

terrorism conventions. It stipulated that the Ad Hoc Committee should 

continue its work on the negotiation of a Comprehensive Convention on 

International Terrorism (CCIT) and on the negotiation of an International 

Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism. Upon the 

Sixth Committee’s recommendation, the General Assembly adopted Resolution 57/27 without a vote on November 8. 

The Sixth Committee Working Group engaged in a fifth round of 

negotiations on the CCIT on October 15 and 16. The states remained at an 

impasse on two issues: the scope of the offense and the non–application of 

41 
United States Participation in the United Nations – 2002 

the convention to state military forces. The U.S. position was to include 

within the scope of the offenses actions undertaken in the name of national 

liberation movements and to exclude state military forces from the scope 

of the convention. 

The United States continued its efforts to advance international 

counter–terrorism initiatives throughout the UN system. It focused its 

efforts not only in the General Assembly and its working groups, but also 

in the Security Council and two of its important committees, the Counter– 

Terrorism Committee (CTC) and the 1267 Sanctions Committee. The 

CTC, established under Resolution 1373 in September 2001, seeks to raise 

member states’ capacity to fight terrorism. The 1267 Committee, composed of all members of the UN Security Council, maintains and updates a 

consolidated list of terrorists associated with Usama bin Laden, the Taliban, or al–Qaida that are subject to sanctions under Resolutions 1267 and 

1390— travel restrictions, arms embargoes, and asset freezes. All member 

states are obligated to implement these sanctions. As of December, the 

Committee had over 330 names on its list and member states had frozen 

$120 million in assets. 

Three of the four Security Council resolutions on counter–terrorism 

adopted in 2002 addressed specific acts of terrorism. Security Council 

Resolution 1438, adopted unanimously, condemned the terrorist bombing 

attack in Bali. Resolution 1440, also adopted unanimously, condemned 

the taking of hostages in Moscow. Resolution 1450, adopted by a vote of 

14 to 1 (Syria), condemned the terrorist attack in Kenya and the attempted 

missile attack on Arkia Israeli Airlines departing Kenya. 

The fourth resolution, Resolution 1452, adopted unanimously, sets out 

procedures for UN member states to make limited exceptions to asset 

freezes for those on the 1267 Committee list. Exceptions to asset freezes 

can be used, among other things, to buy food and pay taxes, rent, and legal 

fees. 

The United States supports the work of the 1267 Committee and submitted more names for consideration to be added to its consolidated list 

than any other member state. Many member states have not submitted any 

names, and many member states lack the technical expertise or legal 

framework to implement sanctions effectively. The 1267 Committee’s 

Monitoring Group issued three reports that the United States found useful 

for improving the implementation of sanctions. These reports provided a 

frank assessment of the progress that had been made and areas for 

improvement in implementing the sanctions under Resolutions 1267 and 

1390. In October, 50 member states cosponsored the proposal to add to the 

1267 list Jemah Islamiyah, an organization thought to be responsible for 

the Bali bombings. This unprecedented level of support sent a powerful 

signal against terrorism in South East Asia. 

The United States also played an active role in the work of the CTC. In 

its first year, the CTC was able to review the capacity of more than 180 

states in seven critical areas: legislation, financial asset controls, customs, 

42 
Political and Security Affairs 

immigration, extradition, law enforcement and arms traffic. This information enabled the CTC to identify gaps in a state’s counter–terrorism capacity. It worked with those states to ensure they received assistance from 

organizations and states that could help them close the gaps. Chair Sir Jeremy Greenstock (United Kingdom) was very active in reaching out to 

regional, sub–regional, and functional international organizations to seek 

expertise and assistance in strengthening member states’ capacity to fight 

terrorism. 

Peacekeeping, Force Protection, and CIVPOL 

Peacekeeping 

In 2002, the United States continued to base its support for UN peacekeeping operations on such established criteria as national interests, clear 

objectives, a sound plan, acceptable risks and costs, and a realistic end– 

state and exit strategy. In recognition of these criteria, the United States 

supported the termination of the UN Transitional Administration in East 

Timor (UNTAET) following East Timor’s independence in May, as well 

as the transition to the new UN Mission of Support in East Timor 

(UNMISET). The United States also supported the closing of the UN Mission in Bosnia and Herzegovina (UNMIBH) and the Mission of Observers 

in Prevlaka (UNMOP) at the end of the year following the successful completion of their mandates. 

The total number of troops, military observers, and civilian police 

(CIVPOL) from all nations serving in UN missions fell from 47,108 to 

39,652 in 2002. These reductions were attributed to the closure of 

UNMIBH and UNMOP and the drawing down of troops in missions in 

Lebanon, Sierra Leone, and East Timor. As of December 31, there were a 

total of 1,799 military observers, 5,333 civilian police, and 32,520 troops 

involved in UN peacekeeping missions, including 26 U.S. military observers in Western Sahara, Kuwait, Ethiopia, Eritrea, Kosovo, Georgia, and 

the Middle East and 603 U.S. civilian police in Kosovo and East Timor. 

The United States continued to promote practical measures to improve 

the effectiveness and efficiency of UN peacekeeping operations. It supported proposals to improve the UN’s ability to assess conflict situations, 

to plan and manage peacekeeping operations, and to respond quickly to 

Security Council mandates. The United States also continued to encourage 

other member states to include peacekeeping in their national security 

strategies and to contribute forces to peacekeeping whenever appropriate. 

Costs of UN peacekeeping operations declined slightly in 2002. The 

United Nations assessed member states a total of $2.9 billion, of which the 

United States was assessed $795 million. Assessments increased for operations in Sierra Leone and the Democratic Republic of the Congo and also 

for the one–time cost for the Strategic Deployment Stock (see Part 4, 

Peacekeeping Reform). These increases in costs were offset by the end of 

operations in Bosnia and Herzegovina and the downsizing of operations in 

East Timor and Lebanon. 

43 
United States Participation in the United Nations – 2002 

Force Protection 

During 2002, there were no fatalities among U.S. military personnel 

serving in UN peacekeeping operations, and there were no injuries resulting from hostile action. In addition, no U.S. military personnel were captured or taken hostage. However, there were casualties among other 

national contingents participating in UN operations. 

When UN Security Council Resolution 1410 established UNMISET as 

a scaled–down successor mission to UNTAET in May, the United States 

decided not to deploy peacekeepers to replace three American officers 

who had served with UNTAET. The U.S. Government was concerned 

about the potential vulnerability of U.S. personnel to International Criminal Court (ICC) jurisdiction, and other demands on U.S. resources. 

ICC concerns arose again during debate on the renewal of UNMIBH. 

The United States vetoed a draft resolution on June 30 that would have 

extended UNMIBH’s mandate, because of the unresolved ICC issue. A 

number of short technical rollovers of the mission’s mandate kept 

UNMIBH going while the Security Council reviewed the matter. On July 

12, the Security Council adopted Resolution 1422, introduced by the 

United States, effectively providing for a twelve–month deferral from ICC 

investigation or prosecution of current or former officials, or personnel of 

states that are not party to the Rome Statute for actions or omissions while 

serving in UN–established or UN–authorized missions. The Security 

Council resolution also expressed an intention to renew this deferral in 

2003. 

With this assurance, the UNMIBH renewal resolution was adopted on 

the same day. Over the next several months, the United States pursued 

bilateral agreements under Article 98 of the Rome Statute to protect not 

only peacekeepers but other, broader categories of U.S. personnel and 

officials from ICC jurisdiction. 

In most instances, UN peacekeepers are covered by Status of Forces 

Agreements (SOFA) or Status of Mission Agreements (SOMA) negotiated between the United Nations and host governments. These agreements 

set the terms and conditions governing the relationship between a host 

government and the UN peacekeeping forces. In instances where a SOFA/ 

SOMA has not yet been negotiated, the terms and conditions of the standard SOFA/SOMA apply, per General Assembly Resolution 52/12B. Personnel acting in support of a UN operation, but who are not “blue– 

helmeted,” are generally considered to be “experts on mission” under the 

terms of the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United 

Nations. 

The U.S. Military Observer Group–Washington (USMOG–W) serves 

as the executive agent for force protection assessments of U.S. military 

observers in UN operations. During 2002, USMOG–W conducted force 

protection surveys of all peace operations in which U.S. military observers 

served under the operational control of the United Nations. To address an 

increased mine threat to troops involved in the UN Mission in Ethiopia 

44 
Political and Security Affairs 

and Eritrea’s (UNMEE) central and western sectors, USMOG–W ordered 

mine blast blankets for vehicles used by U.S. observers. The blankets were 

delivered even as UNMEE suffered another mine incident. UNMEE 

acquired armor–reinforced Scout vehicles for its other military observers. 

Two other UN peace operations reported increased threats to U.S. military observers during 2002. In the Middle East, the continuation of suicide bombing campaigns and political violence raised the collateral threat 

to U.S. military and other UN observers in the UN Truce Supervision 

Organization. In the UN Iraq–Kuwait Observation Mission, increased random shootings in Kuwait City and the coastal road threatened U.S. military observers during the conduct of their official functions. In response to 

these increased threats, U.S. military observers employed various passive 

protection measures, including such pre–deployment, anti–terrorist training as defensive driving and bomb identification, increased communications during movement, and the use of protective body armor. [Also see 

Part 4, Peacekeeping Reform.] 

CIVPOL 

International civilian police (CIVPOL) continued to play a critical role 

in peacekeeping while the international community struggled to meet 

worldwide demand for qualified CIVPOL officers. The United States continued efforts to enhance both domestic and international capacities for 

recruiting, training, and deploying CIVPOL to peacekeeping missions 

around the world. The United States contributed CIVPOL officers to UN 

missions in Bosnia–Herzegovina, Kosovo, and East Timor in 2002. The 

U.S. CIVPOL in Bosnia–Herzegovina were withdrawn, however, as 

UNMIBH came to a close on December 31. 

Sanctions 

The United States continued to support the imposition of UN sanctions in response to threats to international peace and security, where such 

sanctions can be enforceable and effective. The authority for these mandatory sanctions is Chapter VII, Article 41 of the UN Charter. The United 

States believes that use of sanctions, backed by the international community, can greatly restrict access to the arms and finances used to undermine 

international security, while denying political support to the leadership of 

sanctioned regimes. 

In 2002, UN sanctions were in effect in six cases. Iraq remained subject to comprehensive sanctions throughout the year in response to its failure to fully comply with its obligations under various UN Security 

Council resolutions, including failing to verifiably cooperate in disarming 

itself of weapons of mass destruction and long–range missile programs. 

Wide–ranging sanctions, including asset freezes and arms/travel bans, targeted Usama bin Laden, members of the Taliban and al–Qaida, and their 

supporters. UN sanctions also continued against Liberia, Somalia, and 

non–state groups in Rwanda and Sierra Leone. These sanctions included 

arms embargoes, travel bans, and limits on the exports of uncontrolled 

rough diamonds (also known as “conflict diamonds”). 

45 
United States Participation in the United Nations – 2002 

The United Nations lifted all sanctions on the National Union for the 

Total Independence of Angola in December 2002, following the restoration of peace in that country. UN sanctions on Libya, imposed for its role 

in the bombing and destruction of flights Pan Am 103 and UTA 772, have 

been suspended, but not lifted, since 1999 as Libya had not met its Security Council obligations, including paying appropriate compensation to 

victims’families and accepting responsibility for terrorism perpetrated by 

its officials. 

HIV/AIDS 

The United States was successful in including language in the August 

2002 report of the Special Committee on Peacekeeping Operations that 

encouraged the UN Department of Peacekeeping (DPKO) to review training procedures for increasing awareness and prevention of HIV/AIDS 

among UN peacekeepers. The report also encouraged efforts to measure 

the effectiveness of these procedures. 

The Center for South Asian Studies International Policy Institute of 

King’s College, University of London, conducted an assessment of HIV/ 

AIDS policies for UN peacekeepers in the UN Mission in Sierra Leone 

(UNAMSIL) and found numerous shortcomings. The study revealed a 

degree of confusion among commanding officers and senior medical personnel, with conflicting information sometimes provided by senior members of the same contingent. There was particular disagreement about the 

policy regarding troops found to be HIV–positive. Policies on confidentiality and permission for testing also differed among units. 

The study also found inadequate counseling and testing facilities at 

UNAMSIL. Eight of ten battalion–level medical facilities did not have 

HIV test kits, and none had post–exposure prevention testing and treatment packages for use in the event of possible accidental exposure. Problems with distribution of the HIV/AIDS awareness booklets and condoms 

were cited, and the varying degrees of literacy of the troops pointed to the 

need for more visual training materials. The report also noted that while 

HIV/AIDS awareness cards were well received, knowledge, attitude, and 

practice surveys were needed to assess the real impact. Finally, the assessment found that the HIV/AIDS Policy Officer needed support staff and a 

dedicated budget. The United States believed that the guidance provided 

valuable information and recommendations for future peacekeeping missions. 

Admitting these and other shortcomings, DPKO conducted a review of 

its HIV/AIDS policy. It prepared draft guidelines directing field missions 

to develop a comprehensive and integrated policy with emphasis on 

increasing awareness, providing voluntary counseling and testing, and 

improving availability and distribution of necessary resources. The draft 

document was circulating at the end of the year, with final approval anticipated early in 2003. The U.S. Government agreed with the recommendations of the draft guidelines. 

46 
Political and Security Affairs 

The Training and Evaluation Service of DPKO’s Military Division 

also prepared standard generic training and education modules on HIV/ 

AIDS for use by field missions. 

Four new posts for HIV/AIDS Policy Advisers were authorized for 

DPKO in 2002. Three posts were approved for UN missions in the Democratic Republic of Congo, East Timor, and Ethiopia/Eritrea. These advisers, serving in the offices of the Special Representative of the Secretary– 

General, are responsible for carrying out programs as set forth in the new 

guidelines. The fourth adviser post for DPKO was funded by the Joint UN 

Program on HIV/AIDS. DPKO recruited a qualified candidate to begin 

working early in 2003. 

Security Council Thematic Debates 

In 2002, the Security Council held nine thematic debates on a variety 

of topics, but with more of an emphasis on terrorism, compared with 12 in 

2001. The United States participated in all thematic debates, and joined 

the other members in agreeing to the Presidential Statements resulting 

from these debates. On the first anniversary of the September 11, 2001 

attacks, the Council held a high–level meeting and issued a Presidential 

Statement (S/PRST/2002/25) to indicate its determination to combat international terrorism. It also held three meetings between October and mid– 

December to condemn the bomb attacks in Bali (S/RES/1438), the Moscow hostage crisis (S/RES/1440), and the bomb attacks in Kenya (S/RES/ 

1450). This latter resolution conveyed condolences not only to Kenya, but 

for the first time, to Israel as a victim of a terrorist attack. 

On several issues such as Refugees and Food Aid, the debates 

involved a briefing followed by discussion. 

The following themes were discussed: 

• Threats to International Peace and Security Caused by Terrorist Acts. 

Open meetings were held in January and April, followed by a Presidential Statement (S/PRST/2002/10), which encouraged the Counter–

Terrorism Committee to continue its work and urged member states 

that had not submitted a report to the Committee to do so as soon as 

possible. Additional open meetings were held in June and October. 

• Acts of International Terrorism. This high–level meeting and Presidential Statement commemorated the anniversary of 9/11. 

• Protection of Civilians in Armed Conflict. Open meetings were held 

in March and December, each followed by a Presidential Statement 

(S/PRST/2002/6 and S/PRST/2002/41, respectively). S/PRST/2002/6

listed primary objectives for the Security Council to keep in mind 

when considering this issue. S/PRST/2002/41 reiterated the duty of 

the Security Council and states involved in conflict to protect the

rights of civilians. 

• Children and Armed Conflict. An open meeting was held in May, followed by a Presidential Statement (S/PRST/2002/12), which 

expressed concern over the impact of armed conflict on children. 

• Women and Peace and Security. Open meetings were held in July and 

October, followed by a Presidential Statement (S/PRST/2002/32), 

47 
United States Participation in the United Nations – 2002 

which reaffirmed the importance of full attention on the impact on

and the role of women in peacekeeping operations and post–conflict 

reconstruction. 

• Small Arms. Open meetings were held in October, followed by a 

Presidential Statement (S/PRST/2002/30), which expressed concern

at the harmful impact of small weapons on civilians during armed 

conflict and encouraged international cooperation to prevent, combat, 

and eradicate illicit brokering in small arms. 

• Refugees. An open meeting was held in February, during which Ruud 

Lubbers, the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, gave a briefing. 

• Food Aid in the Context of Conflict Settlement: Afghanistan and 

other Crisis Areas. An open meeting was held in April, which

included a briefing by Catherine Bertini, Executive Director of the 

World Food Program. 

• Africa’s Food Crisis as a Threat to Peace and Security. An open meeting was held in December, which included a briefing by James Morris, Executive Director of the World Food Program. 

Admission of New Members 

On September 10, 2002, the United Nations admitted two new members, the Swiss Confederation and the Democratic Republic of Timor– 

Leste (East Timor), bringing the number of member states to 191. As outlined in Chapter II, Article 4 of the UN Charter, membership is open to 

“peace–loving states which accept the obligations contained in the present 

Charter and, in the judgment of the Organization, are able and willing to 

carry out these obligations.” Admission requires “a decision of the General Assembly upon recommendation of the Security Council.” 

The Security Council unanimously endorsed the membership applications of both East Timor and Switzerland. On May 23, it adopted Resolution 1414, recommending to the General Assembly that East Timor be 

granted membership. On July 24, it adopted Resolution 1426, recommending membership for Switzerland. 

The General Assembly approved both applications during its 57th Session. Switzerland, long an observer state, was admitted with adoption by 

consensus of Resolution 57/1. East Timor was admitted with adoption by 

consensus of Resolution 57/3. 

Non–Self–Governing Territories 

Chapter XI of the UN Charter sets forth the responsibilities of member 

states for the “administration of territories whose peoples have not yet 

attained a full measure of self–government.” The status of these non–self– 

governing territories (NSGTs) is considered annually by two committees 

of the UN General Assembly: 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 the Special Political and Decolonization Committee (the Fourth Committee). The C–24 makes suggestions and recommendations to the Fourth 

Committee on the implementation of General Assembly Resolution 1514 

of 1960 (Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Coun48 
Political and Security Affairs 

tries and Peoples), on specific matters affecting the decolonization process, and on the activities of specialized agencies and other UN bodies in 

those territories. 

The United States is the administering power of three NSGTs: American Samoa, Guam, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. Since 1996, the United 

States and the United Kingdom have participated in an informal dialogue 

with the Chair of the Fourth Committee in an effort to arrive at a consensus “omnibus” resolution to address the 11 remaining NSGTs with which 

the C–24 is concerned. In 2002, as in previous years, this process enabled 

the United States to support the omnibus resolution, “Questions of American Samoa, Anguilla, Bermuda, the British Virgin Islands, the Cayman 

Islands, Guam, Montserrat, Pitcairn, St. Helena, the Turks and Caicos 

Islands, and the U.S. Virgin Islands.” 

However, the United States also voted against or abstained on a series 

of resolutions and one decision at the 57th UN General Assembly because 

of unacceptable references to land tenure, economic and military activities, and the responsibilities of administering powers. The United States 

voted “no” on these resolutions: Resolution 57/81, “Economic and Other 

Activities which Affect the Interests of the Peoples of NSGTs” [156 to 3 

(U.S.), with 3 abstentions]; Resolution 57/19, “Military Activities and 

Arrangements by Colonial Powers Under Their Administration” [106 to 

53 (U.S), with one abstention]; Resolution 57/19, “Dissemination of Information on Decolonization” [154 to 4 (U.S.), with 2 abstentions]; and Resolution 57/82, “Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of 

Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples” [139 to 3 (U.S.), with 

19 abstentions]. The United States abstained on Resolution 57/82, “Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial 

Countries and Peoples by the Specialized Agencies and International Institutions Associated with the UN” [111 to 0, with 51 abstentions (U.S.)], 

and Resolution 57/80, “Information from NSGTs Transmitted Under Article 73e of the Charter of the UN” [156 to 0, with 8 abstentions (U.S.)]. 

Article 73(e) of the UN Charter requires the administering powers of 

the NSGTs to “transmit regularly to the Secretary–General for information 

purposes, subject to such limitations as security and constitutional considerations may require, statistical and other information of a technical nature 

relating to economic, social, and educational conditions in the territories.” 

In 2002, the United States submitted a report covering years 2001–2005. 

Effects of Atomic Radiation 

The General Assembly established the UN Scientific Committee on 

the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) in 1955 to provide continuous review and evaluation of the effects of ionizing radiation on humans 

and their environment. Governments and international organizations 

around the world rely on UNSCEAR evaluations for estimating radiological risk, establishing protection and safety standards, and regulating radioactive materials. UNSCEAR’s work is of significant interest to many U.S. 

agencies, including the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the Environmen49 
United States Participation in the United Nations – 2002 

tal Protection Agency, the Department of Health and Human Services, and 

the Department of Energy. It is in the U.S. interest that UNSCEAR should 

continue to operate as an effective independent scientific body, especially 

with the increased awareness of the risks posed by radiological exposure 

and associated terrorist threats. 

The USCEAR Secretariat is composed of a small office staff in Vienna 

with a full–time scientist or scientific secretary. Since its transfer to 

Vienna in 1974, UNSCEAR has been administratively attached to the UN 

Environment Program (UNEP) in Nairobi, Kenya. The UNEP budget allocation for the biennium 2002–2003 for the UNSCEAR Secretariat was 

$674,000. This amount was a 50 percent decrease since 1994, and along 

with UNEP’s reduced administrative and financial support in recent years, 

placed UNSCEAR in budgetary difficulty. This budgetary shortfall forced 

the Scientific Committee and the Secretariat to cancel its annual meeting 

in April 2002. The 51st session was then scheduled for January 27–31, 

2003, so that 2003 funds could be coupled with 2002 funds to allow one 

full–scale meeting during the two–year period. 

The United States expressed concern that these drastic cuts in 

UNSCEAR’s budget significantly affected its ability to carry out its mission. The UNSCEAR yearly allotment for consultants, staff, and representatives dropped from $184,950 in 1994 to $91,400 in 2001. Funding for 

scientific consultants decreased from $84,250 in 1994–1995 to $26,000 in 

2000–2001. In addition, a 3 percent overall reduction mandated by the 

General Assembly for all agencies had an impact on UNSCEAR’s consultant services. 

UNSCEAR provided notice of the dire financial situation in its report 

to the General Assembly (A/57/46), and requested that the problem of 

inadequate funding be addressed. As a result, the General Assembly 

adopted Resolution 57/115, which “urges the UN Environment Program 

to review and strengthen the present funding” and “emphasizes the need 

for the Scientific Committee to hold regular sessions on an annual basis so 

that its report can reflect the latest developments and findings in the field 

of ionizing radiation.” The United States endorsed the General Assembly 

resolution, having stated before that the relationship and interaction 

between UNSCEAR and UNEP merited closer scrutiny and review. 

50 
Part 2 

Economic and 

Social Affairs 

Economic and Development Issues 

Financing for Development 

The March 2002 UN Conference on Financing for Development held 

in Monterrey, Mexico was the most important development conference in 

a decade. President Bush joined over 50 other heads of state and government and more than 200 ministers from around the world to discuss the 

best way to foster development. 

In the lead up to the Monterrey Conference, President Bush announced 

the creation of the Millennium Challenge Account to link additional U.S. 

development funding to countries that demonstrate sound political, economic, and social policies. The President made clear that “countries that 

live by these three broad standards— ruling justly, investing in their people, and encouraging economic freedom— will receive more aid from 

America. And, more importantly, over time, they will really no longer 

need it.” Both his announcement and his attendance at the conference 

demonstrated America’s strong commitment to fighting global poverty. 

The Monterrey Conference broke new ground in the UN’s development work. Through active U.S. leadership and close cooperation with 

others, the development discussion focused on factors that are fundamental to development: national responsibility coupled with international support, an enabling domestic environment that fosters private enterprise, and 

the mobilization of private resources. 

More specifically, the world leaders agreed for the first time that 

developing countries need: 

• good governance; 

• an investment–friendly environment; 

• private enterprise; 

• human capacity-building; 

• effective use of substantially–increased official development assistance; and 

• implementation of the Doha trade commitments. 

51 
United States Participation in the United Nations – 2002 

The U.S. delegation promoted active World Bank and International 

Monetary Fund (IMF) participation in the preparatory process, as well as 

in the Monterrey Conference and in the follow–up sessions. 

To ensure effective follow–up to the Monterrey Conference, the 

United States worked with a broad coalition of developed and developing 

countries during the 57th General Assembly to adopt two resolutions reinforcing the consensus achieved at Monterrey. Resolution 57/272 reiterated 

the key development roles of an enabling environment, private capital, and 

trade coupled with official development assistance. Resolution 57/273 was 

aimed at providing effective UN Secretariat support for implementing the 

consensus. 

The United States also mounted an effort to organize the General 

Assembly’s development agenda around Monterrey Consensus themes, in 

order to consolidate or eliminate a number of what the United States 

believed were repetitive and non–essential resolutions. While this reform 

effort did not gain immediate support, many members expressed a recognition of the problem. The General Assembly established a working group 

to examine the next session’s agenda and conference follow–up work. 

Finally, because of U.S. Government efforts and support from like– 

minded countries, the 2002 high–level meeting of the Economic and 

Social Council (ECOSOC) and Bretton Woods Institutions (the World 

Bank and the IMF) focused on the need for the United Nations and these 

institutions to stay engaged in the Monterrey follow–up process. 

World Summit for Sustainable Development (WSSD) 

The World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD), held in 

Johannesburg, South Africa in August 2002, was the largest gathering of 

world leaders since the 1992 UN Conference on Environment and Development (Rio Earth Summit). The WSSD marked an important milestone 

in sustainable development. Countries agreed to shift their efforts away 

from a traditional emphasis on setting standards and global targets toward 

a new approach that emphasized countries’ responsibilities and concrete 

actions to reach internationally–agreed development goals. The Johannesburg Declaration on Sustainable Development (the Summit’s plan for 

implementing its recommendations) and the WSSD Partnerships (the 

Summit’s outcome documents) underpinned this new sustainable development vision. The partnership documents stressed the importance of cooperative relationships among governments, the private sector, and civil 

society, and the need for sound domestic governance in order to achieve 

sustainable development. 

The Johannesburg Declaration on Sustainable Development and the 

Johannesburg Plan of Implementation addressed “three pillars” of sustainable development: economic growth, social development, and environmental protection. Both documents reflected U.S. priorities on 

development, such as those articulated by President Bush. The Johannesburg documents included trade and finance language that reinforced the 

Doha Development Agenda and advanced the Monterrey Consensus on 

52 
Economic and Social Affairs 

development financing. Moreover, the WSSD documents included some 

of the strongest endorsements of domestic good governance ever contained in a negotiated UN text. In carrying out the May 23, U.S. “Vision 

Statement on Sustainable Development,” the United States launched more 

than 20 partnerships at the WSSD, including four Presidential “Signature 

Partnerships” addressing water, energy, hunger, and forest issues. Other 

U.S. partnerships and initiatives launched at WSSD addressed issues such 

as marine ecosystems, safe water systems, infectious diseases, housing, 

and education. Beyond the political endorsements of the partnership concept, a total of about 300 new partnerships and initiatives were launched at 

the WSSD. 

UN Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD) 

In December 1992, the Economic and Social Council established the 

Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD) as a functional commission to follow up implementation of the Rio Earth Summit’s goals. Based 

at UN Headquarters in New York, it is composed of 53 UN or UN agency 

members, elected to three–year terms. It formally meets four weeks annually to consider specific sustainable development issues and promote 

implementation of internationally agreed development goals. From May 

2001 until the August 2002 WSSD, the CSD served as the preparatory 

committee for WSSD, organizing preparatory meetings and setting the 

agenda. 

The United States has been a member since the Commission’s inception. In the lead up to the WSSD, the United States worked closely with 

other UN members to develop a comprehensive agenda for the summit 

that would balance developing country interests (e.g., a focus on “means 

of implementation”) with those of developed countries (e.g., good governance and partnerships). 

UN General Assembly Resolutions 

In December 2002, the General Assembly adopted a resolution that 

endorsed the Johannesburg Declaration on Sustainable Development and 

the Johannesburg Plan of Implementation. The United States joined consensus on this resolution. The General Assembly’s resolution also adopted 

sustainable development as a key element for the overarching framework 

of UN activities. These measures included Conventions on Biological 

Diversity, Combating Desertification, Climate Change, and Conventions 

on mountains, water, the Caribbean Basin, and small–island developing 

states. The General Assembly also called for an organizational session of 

the CSD in April/May 2003 to establish a work program to monitor 

WSSD outcomes. 

World Food Summit: Five Years Later 

One hundred eighty–two countries attended the June 10–13, 2002 

“World Food Summit: Five Years Later” (WFS5YL) meeting in Rome. 

While 47 heads of state or government attended, most FAO members sent 

their Ministers of Agriculture. OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development) countries generally fielded large delegations 

53 
United States Participation in the United Nations – 2002 

with expertise in agriculture and development, with only two OECD countries, Spain and Italy, represented at the Head of Government level. U.S. 

Secretary of Agriculture Ann Veneman led the U.S. delegation, which 

included U.S. Agency for International Development Administrator 

Andrew Natsios and State Department Under Secretary for Economic, 

Business, and Agricultural Affairs Alan Larson. In addition to civil society 

and private–sector advisors, the delegation also included Congressman 

Tony Hall and Congresswoman Eva Clayton. 

Heads of Delegation opened the Summit by endorsing the WFS5YL 

Declaration, subtitled “International Alliance against Hunger.” Negotiations on the Declaration had concluded at the pre–summit June 6–9 FAO 

Committee on World Food Security. The Declaration recommits members 

to implementation of the original World Food Summit Declaration and 

Plan of Action. It makes strong references to rural development; the need 

to boost agricultural productivity; the importance of agricultural trade and 

science–based standards in trade; school food programs; generation of 

resources consistent with the Monterrey Consensus approach to development; and agricultural research and technology, including biotechnology. 

Operative Paragraph 10 of the Declaration invited the FAO Council, 

which is the executive organ of the FAO’s governing body, to establish an 

intergovernmental working group. The working group would begin meeting in 2003 for a period of two years to elaborate a set of voluntary guidelines to support member states’ efforts to achieve the progressive 

realization of the right to adequate food in the context of national food 

security, and report its progress to the FAO Committee on World Food 

Security. 

The United States submitted a reservation to this provision of the Declaration, which reads as follows: 

“The United States believes that the issue of adequate food can only be 

viewed in the context of the right to a standard of living adequate for 

health and well–being, as set forth in the Universal Declaration of Human 

Rights, which includes the opportunity to secure food, clothing, housing, 

medical care and necessary social services. Further, the United States 

believes that the attainment of the right to an adequate standard of living is 

a goal or aspiration to be realized progressively that does not give rise to 

any international obligation or any domestic legal entitlement, and does 

not diminish the responsibilities of national governments towards their citizens. Additionally, the United States understands the right of access to 

food to mean the opportunity to secure food, and not a guaranteed entitlement. Concerning Operative Paragraph 10, we are committed to concrete 

action to meet the objectives of the World Food Summit, and are concerned that sterile debate over ‘Voluntary Guidelines’would distract attention from the real work of reducing poverty and hunger.” 

The Italian Minister of Agriculture chaired a seminar on the right to 

food on the last day of the WFS5YL. Participants were invited to “discuss 

ways in which the right to adequate food and the fundamental right to be 

free from hunger can be implemented.” With the exception of the United 

54 
Economic and Social Affairs 

States, seminar participants, government representatives, and representatives of nongovernmental (NGOs) and civil society organizations all 

endorsed the Right to Food. The UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to 

Food, Jean Ziegler (Switzerland), concurred. Some regretted that the Declaration did not contain a “Code of Conduct,” but they applauded Operative Paragraph 10 of the Declaration. 

The U.S. plenary statement, delivered by Secretary Veneman, highlighted U.S. efforts to improve agricultural productivity and nutrition and 

combat famine, including through school feeding and emergency food aid. 

Special attention was paid to needs in southern Africa. The statement also 

stressed the devastating impact of HIV/AIDS on food security. The Secretary of Agriculture announced that the United States would host a ministerial science and technology conference in early 2003 to focus on how 

developing countries’food needs could be met through new food and agricultural technologies. 

The Declaration of the WFS5YL successfully incorporated new challenges and opportunities available for dealing with poverty and hunger in 

line with the World Food Summit targets for 2015. The WFS5YL provided a venue for introducing the U.S. agricultural productivity initiative, 

highlighting U.S. actions to prevent famine and improve nutrition, and 

presenting U.S. views on improving agricultural productivity through biotechnology. The United States was able to stage successful peripheral 

events and engage in productive bilateral meetings. The press focus on 

trade issues frequently upstaged the development message, but also provided U.S. principals an opportunity to respond to criticisms of the U.S. 

farm bill. 

UN Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD):

Role and Activities 

The United States regards trade and investment as engines for growth 

and vital avenues for development and has looked for ways to promote 

trade overseas. The United States actively pursued this policy goal in the 

UN Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) in 2002. The 

United States also continued its efforts to streamline the organization and 

to make its work less polemical and more practical. U.S. diplomats participated in substantive evaluations of UNCTAD’s programs, leading to the 

elimination of under–performing initiatives. 

UNCTAD mainly serves as a permanent forum for intergovernmental 

discussions on trade and development issues. In 2002, UNCTAD held several intergovernmental and expert–level sessions. Topics covered in 

expert–level discussions included multilateral cooperation, production 

diversification, competition law and policy, and international standards of 

accounting and reporting. Its Secretariat carries out research, data collection, and analysis to provide substantive input to such discussions. 

During a 2002 mid–term review, the United States worked successfully to reduce the number and length of intergovernmental meetings in 

favor of more practical experts meetings on significant trade and develop55 
United States Participation in the United Nations – 2002 

ment topics. The United States also worked closely with the European 

Union to reduce the number of negotiated documents. This reduction 

resulted in shorter, more practical discussions, as delegations no longer 

had to stake out politically–motivated negotiating positions. 

The United States urged UNCTAD to focus on providing practical 

assistance to developing countries in areas such as customs reform, trade 

augmentation, and investment promotion. The Advance Cargo Information System program, for example, helps developing countries create integrated multi–modal transport systems that facilitate trade and improve 

governance. Customs reforms are the centerpiece of the Automated System for Customs Data program, which is the leading customs computerized system in developing countries. 

Among UNCTAD’s achievements are its Investment Policy Reviews, 

which assess the progress countries have made toward adopting market– 

driven economic reforms. The reviews stress these reforms as the most 

important element of an investment promotion strategy. Reviews of African countries have highlighted the success of the U.S. Government’s 

Africa Growth and Opportunity Act (2000) in promoting both trade and 

investment. 

Based in Geneva, UNCTAD currently has 190 members. UNCTAD’s 

$85 million biennial budget is funded from the UN regular budget for 

which the United States is assessed 22 percent. UNCTAD’s technical 

assistance activities are funded separately through voluntary contributions. 

The current Secretary–General, Rubens Ricupero (Brazil), began his tenure in 1995 and is due to leave the post in 2004. 

International Trade Center (ITC) 

The United States pursues one of its key development assistance priorities— helping countries build their trading capacity— through its work 

with the International Trade Center (ITC). The ITC, headquartered in 

Geneva, works closely with its parent organizations, the World Trade 

Organization (WTO) and the UN Conference on Trade and Development 

(UNCTAD), to provide trade–related technical assistance for developing 

countries. The ITC is the most operational of the three organizations. It 

directly supports the enterprise sector in developing countries to expand 

exports and improve import operations through tools such as the Export 

Fitness Checker (software that helps a firm assess its export readiness) and 

the Marketplace (an online database that links potential buyers and sellers 

via the Internet). The ITC also works with developing country governments to assist them craft and implement trade development strategies, 

which facilitate their integration into multilateral trading systems. 

In addition, ITC supports national government efforts to design and 

implement trade development strategies. ITC also works with private–sector groups, such as chambers of commerce, to strengthen key trade support 

services. Finally, ITC collaborates with business communities to help 

56 
Economic and Social Affairs 

small and medium–sized enterprises become more competitive and aware 

of export opportunities. 

In 2002, the United States provided a $500,000 grant to the ITC to support its TradeMap project. TradeMap is a tool intended to help developing 

countries promote realistic marketing strategies and boost trade. 

The United States also supports many other ITC programs, such as the 

“World Tr@de Net Program” and the Joint Integrated Technical Assistance Program in Selected Least–Developed and Other African Countries. 

These programs assist developing countries and their business sectors to 

acquire the knowledge and expertise necessary to take advantage of global 

trading regimes. 

ITC’s 2002 expenditures were $38 million, about 45 percent of which 

was for substantive programs. Its 2002 staffing level was 134 employees 

(11 American citizens). The WTO and UNCTAD provided half of ITC’s 

funding. Voluntary contributions accounted for 41 percent, and the 

remaining 9 percent was provided by the UN Development Program and 

other sources. The United States did not contribute to the ITC’s voluntary 

fund. 

African Issues: NEPAD 

In September 2002, the UN Declaration on the New Economic Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD) took over from the UN New 

Agenda for the Development of Africa in the 1990s. NEPAD was an 

important victory for the United States because the new program incorporated language on peace, security, democracy, good governance, human 

rights, sound economic management, and the “African Peer Review 

Mechanism,” an innovative feature of NEPAD, which is intended to 

ensure that members of NEPAD fulfill the agreements to reform made in 

the Partnership. These agreements reflected an understanding that Africa’s 

future must be determined by Africans, and Africa’s leaders must hold 

themselves and each other accountable for their actions. These elements 

form the essential basis for an African–led agenda, which the United 

States believes is the foundation for successful development on the African continent. 

Development Activities: Bodies/Programs/Issues 

UN Development Program (UNDP) 

Under the leadership of Administrator Mark Malloch Brown (United 

Kingdom), the UN Development Program (UNDP) has become a key U.S. 

partner in multilateral efforts to promote democratic governance and poverty reduction. UNDP’s new direction, established through reforms begun 

in 1999, was further defined by three important international conferences 

of the new millennium— the Millennium Summit (2000), the Monterrey 

Conference on Financing for Development (2002) and the World Summit 

for Sustainable Development (WSSD) (2002). The UN’s development 

philosophy is shaped and executed by UNDP and fellow members of the 

57 
United States Participation in the United Nations – 2002 

UN Development Group (UNDG), which is comprised of the UN Children’s Fund, the UN Population Fund (UNFPA), and the World Food 

Program. It is based on international development goals (IDGs), including 

those contained in the Millennium Declaration. The United States continued to disagree with UNDG’s input–based approach toward the goal of 

fostering global partnerships for development, which asks for donor countries’contributions without regard to the responsibilities and actions of the 

receiving country. UNDG’s development goals are intended to reflect the 

commitment to good governance, partnership, and mutual responsibility 

of the Monterrey Consensus, and the call for public–private partnerships 

of the WSSD’s Plan of Implementation. 

UNDP’s activities center on six areas of sustainable human development: poverty eradication, democratic governance, crisis prevention and 

recovery, energy and the environment, information and communications 

technology, and HIV/AIDS. Good governance, institutional capacity 

building, and the advancement of women are the cross–cutting themes that 

bind the six focus areas. UNDP has offices in 130 countries and programs 

in 166, giving it a near–universal presence in the developing world. The 

UNDP manages and funds the UN Resident Coordinator System. The 

Resident Coordinator leads the UN country team and coordinates UN 

development and humanitarian field activities. UNDP also actively pursues partnerships with the World Bank, bilateral donors, the private sector, 

and civil society at the operational level. The UNDP is funded entirely 

through voluntary contributions. The United States has always been a 

member of the 36–state UNDP/UNFPA Executive Board. 

In his capacity as chair of the UN Development Group, the UNDP 

Administrator also has primary responsibility for implementing the 1997 

Secretary–General’s reforms, which demand that all UN operational agencies commit to coordinate their assistance with each other and, most 

importantly, with the development process of recipient countries. 

Key activities in 2002 included: 

• UNDP incorporated achievement of the IDGs into its work plan. By 

the end of 2004, country teams in every developing country will have 

produced a report containing information on progress made since the

baseline year of 1990 and an analysis of what is needed to achieve the 

Millennium Declaration goals by 2015. The reports will form the 

basis of the Secretary–General’s global report on the IDGs to the 58th

UN General Assembly (2003). Twenty countries had submitted 

reports by the end of 2002. 

• UNDP devotes 60 percent of its efforts to assisting governments in 

adopting democratic governance. In Nepal, for instance, it helped the 

government streamline the judicial system, making it less costly for

all citizens by reducing multiple tiers, improving legal drafting, and 

devising less costly dispute settlement mechanisms, such as local 

arbitration boards at the village level. In Senegal and other African

countries, UNDP worked with parliamentarians to put their Assembly 

documents online and set up Assembly Intranets. The project also 

enabled legislators to communicate with constituents. 

58 
Economic and Social Affairs 

• The Resident Coordinator in Zimbabwe, who also serves as the 

Humanitarian Coordinator and the UNDP Resident Representative, 

was at the center of efforts to avert a looming humanitarian crisis 

caused by poor economic decision–making. He attempted to place

Zimbabwe’s land reform on a firm legal basis and slow down precipitous reform implementation; initiated regional meetings on humanitarian needs; hosted a scientific conference on biotechnology and

food assistance; and provided a bi–weekly forum for donors and Zimbabwean Government officials to exchange information. 

• In Angola, UNDP undertook, along with Chevron Texaco Corporation and the Government of Angola, an initiative to support small 

business development. The CEO of Chevron Texaco commented that

the purpose behind the initiative was “to spur economic development, 

promote security, and to assist in securing better lives for the people 

in Angola.” 

In July 2002, the Arab Human Development Report became the first 

regional report issued under the UNDP aegis. The well–known annual 

Human Development Reports have become a valued reference on progress 

in human development. However, the Arab Human Development Report 

was far more than a statistical compendium. Prepared by some 30 Arab 

economists, sociologists, cultural experts, and other academicians, the 

report undertook to analyze why progress in human development had stagnated in the Arab states. While acknowledging progress in increasing life 

expectancy and decreasing infant mortality rates, the scholars found that 

lack of political, social, and intellectual freedom and the repression of 

women were major causes of the Arab region’s lack of progress. The 

report spurred broad debate and controversy in the region and has been 

widely cited in U.S. policy debates on the Middle East. 

In addition to the Arab Human Development Report, the United States 

welcomed UNDP’s annual human development report on “Deepening 

Democracy in a Fragmented World.” However, the United States objected 

strongly to some of the research performed by UNDP’s independent 

Office of Development Studies. This office published a book on Global 

Public Goods that was based on assumptions and analyses that have not 

been accepted by the United States or by the UN General Assembly. The 

United States also objected to research on trade, which called into question the relevance of international trade for the poorest nations. 

In the early 1990s, the United States generally provided more than 

$100 million annually to UNDP. In 1996, the U.S. contribution dropped to 

$52 million, but U.S. levels have increased since then as UN reforms took 

hold. The U.S. Government returned to its top donor rank in 2002 with a 

contribution of $95.6 million. In 2002, the total UNDP budget was $2.8 

billion, derived from contributions to the regular budget, cost–sharing 

arrangements, and trust funds. Its administrative expenditures, which 

included support to the UN operational activities and UN Volunteers, 

were $406 million or 14.4 percent of the total. 

UNDP employs 4,655 people, of whom 3,849 are in the field. Some 

11.7 percent of UNDP’s professional staff is American. The United States 

59 
United States Participation in the United Nations – 2002 

had urged UNDP to play a much larger role in coordinating all UN assistance activities in post–conflict situations in order to speed the transition 

from relief to development. 

The UNDP demonstrated its commitment to its coordination role in 

Afghanistan with a more robust Bureau for Crisis Prevention and Recovery (BCPR). It provided essential services and assistance, which no other 

multilateral or bilateral organization could have put into operation as 

quickly and efficiently. The BCPR helped create a verifiable civil servant 

roster and facilitated the payment of civil service salaries. It restored ministry buildings so that the government could function, and provided the 

logistics for the emergency Loya Jirga (Grand Council) that elected 

Hamid Karzai to lead the Interim Afghanistan Government until elections, 

which, under the Bonn agreement, would take place in June 2004. 

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 continues to provide emergency assistance for children 

and mothers affected by natural and human–made disasters in countries 

such as Afghanistan, Sudan, and Sierra Leone. UNICEF is also involved 

in development. Operating from approximately 5,600 posts in 162 developing countries, UNICEF programs address children’s health, sanitation, 

nutrition, basic education, and protection needs, wherever possible 

through low–cost interventions at the family and the community levels. 

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 2002, the United States was elected for another term to begin 

in 2003. 

In December 2001, after extensive consultations, the Executive Board 

approved a Medium Term Strategic Plan for 2002–2005. Five organizational priorities were identified: “immunization plus”; integrated early 

childhood development; girls’ education; fighting HIV/AIDS; and 

improved protection of children from violence, exploitation, abuse, and 

discrimination. In 2002, this plan, adapted for local conditions, guided 

country programming, partnerships with other UN entities and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), fund–raising (by the National Committees), 

monitoring, and advocacy. 

UNICEF and Executive Director Carol Bellamy (United States) continued high–profile advocacy on behalf of children, particularly “the most 

disadvantaged” (i.e., victims of conflict, extreme poverty, discrimination, 

abuse, exploitation, and those with disabilities). To raise awareness of the 

problems children face, UNICEF served as the substantive secretariat for 

the May 2002 UN General Assembly Special Session on Children (see the 

section on Human Rights). While the Fund considers the Convention on 

the Rights of the Child a fundamental framework, UNICEF officials 

avoided public debate over “child rights.” Communication with the United 

60 
Economic and Social Affairs 

States on policy issues was frequent. In addition, family strengthening was 

discussed as a cross–cutting issue. 

In 2002, Executive Director Bellamy increasingly emphasized outcomes and results–based programming and budgeting. Approximately 

one–third of UNICEF’s budget in 2002 supported humanitarian assistance 

for children in 35 countries torn by conflict, famine, flood, or earthquakes, 

such as in both Congo republics, the Ivory Coast, Ethiopia, Eritrea, Central America, Liberia, Rwanda, Somalia, southern Africa, North Korea, 

and Iraq. Because of its half–century history of dedication to children, 

UNICEF is sometimes able to establish programs in areas to which other 

UN agencies and NGOs are denied access. In humanitarian crises, 

UNICEF takes the lead in infant and maternal health care, supplemental 

nutrition, education, and water and sanitation. 

Among UNICEF’s achievements in 2002 were 2.3 million mosquito 

bed nets for malaria–endemic countries; 1 million Bangladeshi babies registered at birth so they can receive social services; 344,000 Bangladeshi 

child workers taught by 5,300 UNICEF–trained teachers and administrators; safe drinking water for 500,000 more Sudanese, due to UNICEF– 

supported wells, pumps, and hygiene education; iodine supplements for 91 

million infants to prevent mental retardation; voluntary and confidential 

testing, anti–retroviral drugs, and counseling on infant feeding for HIV/ 

AIDS–positive mothers in 47 countries; HIV/AIDS adolescent peer counseling programs in 71 countries; 575 million children vaccinated against 

polio; over 3,600 child soldiers reintegrated into communities in Sierra 

Leone; 790,000 Brazilian children in school rather than child labor, due to 

a stipend to families established through UNICEF advocacy; two cross– 

border agreements to halt child trafficking; and comprehensive data and 

analysis on the effects of economic transition on child health, nutrition, 

mortality, education, institutionalization, drug use, crime, punishment, and 

HIV/AIDS rates in 27 Baltic and Central European countries. 

In Afghanistan, UNICEF’s decades–long presence positioned the Fund 

to provide humanitarian assistance and reconstruction as soon as fighting 

ended and international staff were readmitted. Nearly 6 million children 

under age five were vaccinated against polio; a massive measles inoculation and Vitamin A supplementation campaign began; 27 tons of emergency supplies were provided after an earthquake in the north; and 3 

million children and their teachers were equipped with 6 million metric 

tons of pens, pencils, paper, slates, geometry kits, and textbooks. UNICEF 

worked closely with the Health and Education Ministries of the interim 

government to enhance their credibility and thus contributing to political 

stability. 

The United States consulted with UNICEF on policy and technical 

matters. Health and education specialists from UNICEF, the U.S. Agency 

for International Development (USAID), the Department of Health and 

Human Services (HHS), and American NGOs collaborated on child survival and development activities. UNICEF’s HIV/AIDS division met with 

61 
United States Participation in the United Nations – 2002 

USAID, State Department, and HHS experts to identify mutually supportive areas for research and programming on the prevention of mother–to– 

child transmission. UNICEF and the State Department worked closely on 

child protection issues, including sexual exploitation and trafficking. 

In 2002, the UNICEF budget totaled $1.27 billion, (including $253 

million for emergency assistance), provided through voluntary contributions. Of this amount, governments (including intergovernmental organizations) contributed $913 million. An additional $482 million came from 

nongovernmental/private–sector sources (including UN agencies). Income 

from other sources amounted to $59 million. UNICEF spent $79 million 

on administrative costs. UNICEF’s program budget is allocated to country 

programs according to three criteria: under–five mortality rate, income 

level (GNP per capita), and the size of the population under 18 years. 

The United States, the largest single donor, contributed $120 million to 

regular (core) resources in 2002. It provided an additional $127 million to 

“other resources” for projects earmarked by USAID, for work in mine 

awareness and trafficking, and for UNICEF emergency programs. Emergency assistance in the budget was provided by the USAID Office of U.S. 

Foreign Disaster Assistance and the State Department’s Bureau of Population, Migration, and Refugees. UNICEF employs 8,520 people, 377 of 

them Americans. 

Millennium Development Goals Campaign 

In September 2000, at the UN Millennium Summit, world leaders 

agreed to a set of time–bound and measurable goals and targets for eradicating extreme poverty and hunger; achieving universal primary education; promoting gender equality and empowering women; reducing child 

mortality; improving maternal health; combating HIV/AIDS, malaria, and 

other diseases; ensuring environmental sustainability; and developing a 

global partnership for development. These targets, plus a number of other 

targets with which UN member states have not agreed, were listed as the 

Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) in the UN Secretary–General’s 

2001 report, “Road Map Towards the Implementation of the UN Millennium Declaration.” The United Nations mounted a campaign to raise public awareness of the MDGs, and aims to build coalitions and mobilize 

worldwide political action on behalf of the MDGs. 

In March 2002, the President said, 

“America supports the international development goals in the UN Millennium Declaration, and believes that these goals are a shared responsibility 

of developed and developing countries. To make progress, we must 

encourage nations and leaders to walk the hard road of political, legal and 

economic reform, so all their people can benefit.” 

The Secretary–General has made the MDGs the centerpiece of the 

UN’s development effort. Secretary–General Annan has appointed UNDP 

Administrator Mark Malloch Brown (United Kingdom) to oversee the 

overall progress on achieving the MDGs. The UN also launched the MDG 

Campaign, headed by former Dutch Development Minister Eveline Her62 
Economic and Social Affairs 

fkens, to generate public awareness, and the Millennium Project, headed 

by Jeffery Sachs (United States), to generate donor resources. The World 

Bank and United Nations have used the MDGs to argue publicly that some 

$50 to $70 billion per year in additional official development assistance 

(ODA) is required to meet development goals. 

The United States has insisted that the ODA target is a product of the 

UN Secretariat and that the member states never negotiated and agreed to 

it. The United States questioned the methodologies used to develop this 

estimate of $50 billion, and pointed out that this line of reasoning unduly 

emphasized donor input instead of recipient performance and output, such 

as domestic institutions and policy environment and mobilization of private resources. 

Human Settlements 

In December 2001, the UN General Assembly converted the 58–member UN Commission on Human Settlements to a full program of the General Assembly, “the UN Human Settlements Program (UN–HABITAT).” 

UN–HABITAT’s work focuses on sustainable urban development and the 

role of cities as consumers of resources and producers of economic wealth 

and development. The Commission is also the UN focal point for efforts 

to achieve the Millennium Declaration goal of improving the lives of 100 

million slum dwellers by 2020. The creation of the new UN–HABITAT 

program marked a significant achievement in the U.S. reform agenda. The 

United States had pressed for a complete overhaul of the former Commission after the 1996 Habitat II Conference in Istanbul and had cut off voluntary contributions for the Commission. Following the complete 

restructuring of the organization by new management, the United States 

supported granting of program status and resumed modest voluntary contributions. 

UN–HABITAT is headquartered in Nairobi, Kenya. Its Governing 

Council meets every two years, with the next meeting scheduled for May 

2003. States are elected to the Governing Council on a regional basis for 

four–year terms. The United States has been a member of the Council 

since 1977 and, in 2002, was re–elected for another term. 

UN–HABITAT’s focus in 2002 positioned it more closely with U.S. 

foreign policy objectives related to economic development, democracy 

building (through decentralization of power through local authorities, 

good governance, gender equality, and the mobilization of domestic 

resources). Concerns about abstract issues like “housing rights” gave way 

to emphasis on results–oriented normative and operational activities. 

To assist developing countries in better management of urbanization, 

UN–HABITAT gathers data on cities and promotes best practices in a 

variety of 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. It conducts global campaigns 

to promote improved urban governance, and secure (housing) tenure 

(which is the right to use and occupy land) to facilitate the access of cur63 
United States Participation in the United Nations – 2002 

rent inhabitants to credit, micro–financing for shelter upgrades and income 

generation, and the right of women to equal inheritance of property. It 

does this through advocacy, toolkits, and technical cooperation on legislative and policy reform. 

UN–HABITAT’s campaign on urban governance promotes the understanding that the quality of urban governance is the single most important 

factor for the eradication of urban poverty and for building prosperous cities. It focuses on capacity–building through its training–of–trainers programs for local officials and community–based organizations. National 

and local campaigns are underway in Nigeria, Tanzania, Burkina Faso, 

Senegal, India, the Philippines, Nicaragua, Jamaica, Brazil, Cuba, Peru, 

and the Balkans. 

UN–HABITAT provides advice to local governments through policy 

papers on best practices and legislative reforms and a “good urban governance index,” which enables cities to assess and monitor progress on specific indicators of good governance. Good urban governance toolkits are 

being developed to support participatory urban decision–making, transparency in local government, and participatory budgeting. The campaign on 

urban governance also promotes the involvement of women in decision– 

making at all levels. 

In 2002, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development 

worked with UN–HABITAT’s Global Urban Observatory on the use of 

Geographic Information System (GIS) technology to collect and interpret 

data on urbanization. GIS technology is a major tool for policy analysis 

related to land–use planning and urban governance. GIS–based partnerships were also established between American universities and a number 

of city governments in developing countries to demonstrate model urban 

management practice and to develop computer training materials for use 

worldwide. 

Representatives from the U.S. Agency for International Development 

(USAID) attended the World Urban Forum (WUF), an international conference convened by UN–HABITAT in years the Governing Council does 

not meet. Academics, local and national government officials, and slum 

dwellers exchanged knowledge and best practices on decentralization of 

authority from national to local officials, the role of local authorities, and 

strategies for improving access to clean water and sanitation for the poor. 

In response to consensus decisions arrived at by the participants of the 

2002 WUF and the 2002 World Summit on Sustainable Development in 

Johannesburg, UN–HABITAT stepped up its Water for African Cities 

program, which seeks to reduce water depletion through better local management, and partnered with the Asian Development Bank to do the same 

in Asian cities. It also established a Water and Sanitation Trust Fund for 

such activities elsewhere. 

Under the leadership of Dr. Anna Tibaijuka (Tanzania), elected for a 

four–year term in 2002 after serving for two years, the program has consolidated its organizational structure around four strategic objectives in the 

64 
Economic and Social Affairs 

mid–term: shelter and sustainable human settlements development; monitoring the Habitat Agenda; regional and technical cooperation; and human 

settlements financing. The Program established enhanced cooperation 

with the UN Development Program and the other agencies of the UN 

Development Group in 2002. When called upon to lead the shelter sector 

in the reconstruction of Afghanistan, UN–HABITAT coordinated its 

efforts with UN humanitarian agencies, demonstrating its capabilities in 

post–conflict situations. 

In 2002, funding for UN–HABITAT’s work came from the UN’s regular budget ($6.2 million), technical cooperation projects ($132 million) 

executed by Habitat on behalf of other UN agencies, principally Habitat’s 

work in northern Iraq funded by the Oil–for–Food Program, and voluntary 

contributions by donor countries to the UN–Habitat Foundation ($9 million for core resources and $7 million for targeted projects). UN–HABITAT employs 172 professional staff at its headquarters and in regional, 

and liaison offices, of whom eight are American. 

Economic and Social Council High–Level Segment 

The Economic and Social Council’s 2002 High Level Segment had 

one theme: “The Contribution of Human Resources Development, Including in the Areas of Health and Education, to the Process of Development.” 

The United States actively participated in four roundtable discussions, 

each of which focused on a different aspect of human resources development, including progress towards the Millennium Development Goals in 

Africa, partnerships and roles, strengthening institutional capabilities for 

sustainable development, and policy coherence and financing. 

The Ministerial Declaration outcome document recognized the centrality of human resources development to economic capacity and the eradication of poverty. The Declaration focused on education and health, but also 

contained language on good governance, sound economic policies, peace 

and security, HIV/AIDS, gender equality, trade, and debt relief. U.S. 

efforts to add language on these issues were successful. 

Environment

UN Environment Program (UNEP)

The UN Environmental Program (UNEP), founded in 1972, is headquartered in Nairobi, Kenya and has six regional offices throughout the 

world in Europe, Africa, North America, Asia and the Pacific, Latin 

America and the Caribbean, and west Asia. UNEP’s responsibilities are to 

assess the state of the environment, to provide early warning of environmental threats, and to serve as the catalyst of the United Nations in promoting international cooperation and action in response to such threats. 

UNEP is led by Executive Director Klaus Toepfer (Germany), who was 

reappointed in 2002 to a second four–year term. UNEP’s Governing 

Council consists of 58 elected member states, including the United States. 

Members are elected by the UN General Assembly from four regional 

groupings to serve four–year terms. 

65 
United States Participation in the United Nations – 2002 

In February 2002, UNEP addressed several issues of concern to the 

United States at its annual Governing Council/Global Ministerial Environmental Forum (GC/GMEF), held in Cartagena, Colombia. These issues 

included improving the institutional structure for addressing environmental issues; international chemicals management; environmental monitoring, including post–conflict assessment; and environmental programs for 

the Palestinian occupied territories. The U.S. delegation, led by Assistant 

Secretary of State for Oceans, International Environmental and Scientific 

Affairs John Turner, succeeded in resolving the above issues in a manner 

consistent with U.S. policy goals. 

A key issue on the agenda for the Cartagena meeting was a review of 

the existing structure of international institutions dealing with the environment. Although UNEP has the lead in the UN system on environmental 

matters, many key issues, such as ozone depletion, climate change, and 

biodiversity, are handled mainly through separate international agreements covering these areas. A number of countries expressed concern that 

this structure was too decentralized and that new, overarching systems 

should be established, perhaps even a new World Environment Organization. The United States and many other countries argued against that 

approach, noting that the existing structure was effective and that creating 

a new institution could hamper the ability of the existing bodies to respond 

quickly to environmental developments. Instead, the United States proposed that the current institutional structure be made more efficient 

through better policy coordination among the different bodies and 

improved administrative arrangements, such as the co–location of the Secretariats of new, related international environmental agreements. These 

U.S. proposals were in large measure adopted. 

Participants at the Cartagena meeting also addressed UNEP’s future 

work program in the field of international chemicals management. 

UNEP’s work in this area has led to several important new global agreements strongly supported by the United States, including the 2001 Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants. Delegates agreed that 

UNEP would develop a Strategic Approach to International Chemicals 

Management to help prioritize its work in this area. This approach 

involves extensive, intergovernmental coordination to identify gaps and 

make recommendations for work in the field of international chemicals 

management. The development of this proposed strategic approach will be 

completed by 2005. 

The GC/GMEF instituted a voluntary indicative scale of contributions 

(VISC) in an effort to increase UNEP’s funding and make it more predictable. The United States was concerned that the use of indicative scales in 

the UN system may be used to imply that the voluntary contributions 

made by the United States to various organizations are insufficient. The 

final decision adopting the VISC included wording demanded by the 

United States, with support from many other countries, that governments 

could contribute to UNEP on “any other basis identified by a member 

state,” ignoring the VISC. 

66 
Economic and Social Affairs 

UNEP’s Post–Conflict Assessment Unit completed an analysis of the 

effects of depleted uranium projectiles in parts of the former Yugoslavia. 

The final report, which the United States and others endorsed, documented 

that use of the ordnance had not caused long–term environmental damage. 

This UN report was consistent with U.S. policy and was important in 

countering prevailing misconceptions on the health effects posed by 

depleted uranium. 

The United States and UNEP also signed a memorandum of understanding to continue sharing satellite data between the U.S. Geological 

Survey and UNEP’s Division of Early Warning and Assessment, whose 

mission is to integrate and analyze technical data to derive policy–relevant 

information on a range of scientific environmental matters. This arrangement, begun in 1991, protects life and property around the world by 

strengthening UNEP’s capacity to identify developing environmental 

problems, such as drought and desertification. In so doing, UNEP can alert 

governments to such dangers early and assist them in responding to problems. 

In addition to contributing to the key work UNEP does on chemicals 

and early warning and assessment, the United States also continued its 

strong support for UNEP’s work in other core programs, including the 

regional seas program, capacity building for domestic governance through 

the trade and environment programs, and the global program of action to 

combat land–based sources of marine pollution. 

In 2002, UNEP’s Environment Fund received unearmarked voluntary 

contributions of $64 million, supplemented by $80 million in earmarked 

contributions, of which $34 million was to support specific conventions 

and protocols. In 2002, UNEP had a total of 922 approved posts (500 were 

professional), of which 837 were filled (423 professional). Of the 423 

filled professional posts, 27, or 6.4 percent, were Americans. UNEP has 

trouble attracting and retaining strong American candidates because of 

Nairobi’s critical crime level, relatively unattractive salary levels, and 

inability of spouses to obtain employment. 

UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) 

The FCCC entered into force in March 1994, and there are currently 

188 parties. The United States ratified the treaty in 1992. The FCCC seeks 

to promote stabilization of atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse 

gases at levels that would prevent dangerous human interference with the 

climate system. FCCC parties adopted the Kyoto Protocol in December 

1997, which would have required developed nations to reduce their collective greenhouse gas emissions by approximately 5.2 percent below 1990 

levels during the period 2008–2012. President Bush announced in March 

2001 that the United States would not ratify the Kyoto Protocol to the 

FCCC because it exempted developing countries (including some of the 

world’s largest emitters of greenhouse gases) from binding emission targets and because it would cause serious harm to the U.S. economy. The 

67 
United States Participation in the United Nations – 2002 

United States would not interfere with the efforts of other countries implementing the Kyoto Protocol. 

At the Eighth Conference of the Parties in New Delhi, India, held 

October–November 2002, the United States worked closely with several 

countries to reach a consensus in adopting the Delhi Ministerial Declaration on Climate Change and Sustainable Development (“Delhi Ministerial”), which placed new emphasis on technology and adaptation to 

climate change. Also in 2002, the United States pledged to contribute 

$500 million over a four–year period to the Global Environmental Facility, a primary international mechanism for transferring clean energy technologies and other environmentally friendly technologies to the 

developing world. Continued participation by U.S. officials and financial 

support for the FCCC helps to advance specific Administration initiatives 

regarding technology transfer and capacity–building for developing countries and the enhancement of bilateral climate change cooperation. The 

United States contributed $4.7 million to the FCCC in 2002. 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was created 

in 1988 as a joint effort of the World Meteorological Organization and the 

UN Environment Program. The IPCC conducts periodic assessments of 

studies on the science of climate change, its potential impacts, and ways 

countries adapt and seek to mitigate climate change. In 2002, the IPCC 

elected a new chair, Dr. Rajendra Pachauri (India), and elected a prominent U.S. scientist, Dr. Susan Solomon (NOAA), to co–chair the committee addressing climate science. The IPCC also initiated consideration of 

the structure of the Fourth Assessment Report, which will be completed in 

2007. 

Continued participation by U.S. scientists and officials and financial 

support for the IPCC helps to advance specific Administration initiatives 

regarding climate change, science, and technology (including global 

observation systems), capture and storage of carbon, and climate modeling. In 2002, the United States contributed $2.7 million to the IPCC. 

Population 

In the UN system, population issues are considered by the Commission on Population and Development, as well as during any population 

conferences held throughout the year. The UN Population Fund provides 

assistance to governments to promote awareness of how population concerns affect many issues of concern to them. During 2002, the issues of 

reproductive rights and reproductive health were discussed at the Commission session and at the Asian and Pacific Population Conference. 

These issues were also raised in connection with the U.S. payment to the 

Population Fund. 

UN Commission on Population and Development (CPD) 

The UN Commission on Population and Development (CPD) studies 

and advises the UN Economic and Social Council on population changes, 

68 
Economic and Social Affairs 

including migration, and their effect on economic and social conditions. It 

also monitors, reviews, and assesses implementation of the Program of 

Action of the International Conference on Population and Development 

(ICPD), held in 1994, at the regional, national, and international levels. 

The CPD held its 35th session in New York April 1–5, 2002. The 47 

members debated the reports “Reproductive Rights” and “Reproductive 

Health with Special Reference to HIV/AIDS,” which constituted the central theme of the session. In its statement, the U.S. delegation emphasized 

the U.S. commitment to providing assistance to help achieve the principal 

goals that the ICPD adopted and aimed to attain by 2015. These goals 

included making reproductive health care accessible to all individuals of 

appropriate ages through the primary health care system; significantly 

reducing maternal mortality; and ensuring universal access to primary 

education. At the end of the proceedings, the United States joined consensus on a resolution that reaffirmed the ICPD Plan of Action and outcome 

documents of other conferences. At the same time, the United States 

entered a strong Explanation of Position. The EOP emphasized that the 

United States understood that the word “reaffirms,” as it relates to the outcome documents, did not constitute a reaffirmation of any language in 

those documents that could be construed as promoting the legalization of 

abortion or the expansion of legal abortion. 

UN Population Fund (UNFPA) 

The UN Population Fund (UNFPA) conducts population programs in 

160 countries. The United Nations works with multi–year programs, 

which usually last three or four years. When one program ends, the 36– 

member UNFPA Executive Board negotiates a new one with the host 

country. UNFPA works with decision–makers to raise awareness of the 

links among population trends and poverty, urbanization, HIV/AIDS, 

aging, environmental protection, migration, gender issues, and reproductive health. UNFPA implements its programs through four primary and 

mutually reinforcing strategies: advocacy; strengthening of national 

capacity; formulating and utilizing a suitable knowledge base; and promoting and coordinating institutional partnerships. The UN Secretary– 

General appointed Executive Director Thoraya Obaid (Saudi Arabia) in 

2001 for a four–year term. 

The United States withheld a $34 million contribution to UNFPA in 

2002 after concerns were raised that the UNFPA supported China’s coercive population program. 

In May, a three–member independent assessment team traveled to 

China at the request of the Secretary of State. This team found that, notwithstanding some relaxation in the 32 counties in which the UNFPA was 

involved, the Chinese Government’s population practices had “coercive 

elements in law and practice.” In light of the team’s finding and other 

information, including Chinese law, the State Department’s annual human 

rights reports, and briefings supplied by the UNFPA, the Secretary determined on July 21 that China’s coercive law and practices amounted to a 

69 
United States Participation in the United Nations – 2002 

“program of coercive abortion.” The Secretary also found that UNFPA’s 

“support and involvement in China’s population–planning activities 

allows the Chinese Government to implement more effectively its program of coercive abortion.” 

According to the Foreign Operations Appropriations Act, “none of the 

funds available in this Act...may be made available to any organization or 

program which...supports or participates in the management of a program 

of coercive abortion or involuntary sterilization.” As required by U.S. law, 

therefore, Secretary Powell determined that no U.S. funds could be provided to UNFPA at that time. On September 30, President Bush transferred the full $34 million that initially had been budgeted for UNFPA to 

the U.S. Agency for International Development’s Child Survival and 

Health Program Fund with the instruction that the funds be used to promote reproductive health. 

The United States is one of 36 members of the UN Development 

Program/UNFPA Executive Board and participates actively. For example, 

in 2002, the United States gave supportive statements at the Executive 

Board meetings regarding the implementation of a new multi–year funding strategy and the steps taken by UNFPA management to develop a culture of performance through results–based management. 

An important U.S. policy objective is advancement of the principal 

goals for 2015, adopted by the ICPD Program of Action, as mentioned 

above. UNFPA is the lead UN organization for implementing the recommendations of the ICPD’s five–year review (ICPD+5). 

UNFPA also collaborates with the Joint UN Program on HIV/AIDS 

and the World Health Organization to address the HIV/AIDS pandemic, a 

key U.S. national interest. Prevention of infection is the focus of these 

ongoing efforts. 

Some 131 countries (a record) contributed $256 million to UNFPA’s 

regular budget in calendar year 2002. Contributions were $13 million 

below the core income for 2001. The decrease was due to the U.S. decision to withhold the previously mentioned $34 million from the program, 

as well as cuts in contributions by two other major donors for economic 

reasons. UNFPA employs 927 staff. Of UNFPA’s professional staff, 5.5 

percent are American. 

Asian and Pacific Population Conference 

The theme of the Fifth Decennial Asian and Pacific Population Conference, held in Bangkok December 11–17, 2002, was “Population and 

Poverty in Asia and the Pacific.” Joint organizers of the Conference were 

the UN Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific and the 

UNFPA. 

After calling for recorded votes on two sections of the document, 

(“Reproductive Rights and Reproductive Health” and “Adolescent Reproductive Health”), the United States joined consensus in adopting the Plan 

of Action. The U.S. delegation also made a Statement of Reservation, in 

70 
Economic and Social Affairs 

response to language in the document that appeared to promote abortion 

and adolescent sexual activity. The United States also expressed reservations about language “reaffirming” the goals and objectives of the ICPD, 

due to concerns that this document could be interpreted as promoting 

abortion. 

Of the 33 voting countries (plus two abstentions), 29 made Explanations of Vote (EOVs). Nearly all stated explicitly that, in their view, neither the document nor the ICPD Program of Action promoted abortion or 

underage sexual activity, and that implementation of ICPD was the sovereign right of each country. Only two countries made EOVs without such 

clarification. 

Regional Commissions 

The United Nations has five regional economic commissions: 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. They 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, but many of their activities are financed by extrabudgetary grants from bilateral and multilateral donors. The United States is a 

member of ECE, ECLAC, and ESCAP. U.S. participation in regional 

commissions serves to advance and safeguard U.S. foreign policy and 

commercial interests. 

Economic Commission for Europe (ECE) 

The Economic Commission for Europe (ECE) was established in 1947 

to encourage economic cooperation within Europe and between Europe 

and other countries with close trade and business ties. At the end of 

December 2002, ECE membership consisted of 55 member nations, 

including the United States, Canada, Switzerland, Israel, and the Central 

Asian and Caucasian states of the former Soviet Union. 

The ECE is traditionally a “standards setting” and coordination body 

in many technical fields, such as in energy, environment, vehicle construction, road safety, timber, and perishable produce. ECE standards often are 

adopted around the world. To advance and safeguard U.S. national and 

business interests, the United States participates in ECE activities. Many 

U.S. Government agencies, such as the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Energy, and Transportation regularly participate in the Commission’s work. 

At the ECE’s 2002 annual session, held May 7–10 at its headquarters 

in Geneva, delegates focused on labor, the economic aspects of security, 

and strengthening of the ECE in light of the principles and priorities of the 

Millennium Declaration. 

71 
United States Participation in the United Nations – 2002 

ECE is led by Executive Secretary Brigita Schmognerova (Slovak 

Republic), appointed by the UN Secretary–General in 2002. The ECE 

receives biennial funding from the UN regular budget of approximately 

$37.41 million. Out of the total Secretariat staff of about 200 at ECE headquarters, Americans have 10 positions, seven of which are at the professional level. 

Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean 

(ECLAC) 

The Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean 

(ECLAC) was established in 1948 and has 41 member states. The United 

States is a full member with voting privileges. The Commission is headquartered in Santiago, Chile, with two sub–regional offices for Mexico 

and for the Caribbean. It also has offices in Bogota, Brasilia, Buenos 

Aires, Montevideo, and Washington, D.C. Executive Secretary Jose Antonio Ocampo (Colombia) has headed the organization since the start of his 

five–year term in January 1998. 

ECLAC’s mission is to improve coordination and cooperation among 

member states and international entities in an effort to advance social and 

economic development in the region. Although it previously advocated 

closed markets and state–run economies, ECLAC now supports trade liberalization and privatization. Its main products are sector studies and statistical compilations. Topics include projects on food and agriculture; 

industrial, scientific, and technological development; international trade; 

development financing, sustainable development; population; women and 

development; statistics and economic projections, transport; transnational 

corporations; and regional cooperation. 

As a member of the Tripartite Committee, along with the Organization 

of American States and the Inter–American Development Bank, ECLAC 

contributes to the Summit of the Americas process in five areas: the Free 

Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA), which is a U.S. priority; transportation; small enterprises; education; and women’s issues. In the FTAA process, ECLAC provides the FTAA working groups with analytical support, 

technical assistance, and studies as requested. 

ECLAC publications generally fall into two categories: original products prepared by respected scholars and work that complements rather 

than duplicates work being done elsewhere. ECLAC’s targeted distribution to key organizations helps maximize the impact of its publications. 

The United States regularly makes use of ECLAC’s annual economic and 

social overviews and statistical compilations. 

The theme for ECLAC’s 2002 biennial session, held May 6–10 in Brasilia, was “Globalization and Development.” Initially, a Secretariat report 

advocated “legal enforceability” of “rights” to food, housing, and other 

social goods, as well as “international social funds” to backstop this process. The U.S. delegation dissented, explaining that these concepts were 

contrary to U.S. policy that citizens have the right to access, rather than 

the absolute right, to housing, food, and other social goods. References to 

72 
Economic and Social Affairs 

such entitlements were subsequently dropped in Secretariat statements and 

in conference documentation prepared for consensus adoption. The U.S. 

delegation at the session focused on good governance, free trade, and 

opportunities presented by globalization. 

ECLAC receives annual funding from the UN regular budget of 

approximately $35 million. ECLAC also receives approximately $46 million each year in extrabudgetary contributions. The United States has 

never made a voluntary contribution to ECLAC. There are eight Americans out of a total of 197 professional staff members who work for the 

Secretariat. 

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 has its headquarters in Bangkok, 

Thailand. At the end of December 2002, it consisted of 52 member nations 

(including non–regional members France, the Netherlands, and the United 

Kingdom) and nine associate members. The United States is a full ESCAP 

member with voting privileges. 

ESCAP gives technical support to member governments regarding a 

wide array of socio–economic development issues. Activities include 

direct advisory services, training and sharing of regional experiences, and 

dissemination of knowledge and data through meetings, seminars, publications, and inter–country networks. 

Since his appointment in July 2000, Executive Secretary Dr. Kim 

Hak–Su (Republic of Korea) has focused ESCAP on poverty alleviation, a 

dominant concern for many countries in the region. The United States 

pushed for significant institutional reforms that Dr. Kim initiated and 

joined consensus on the resolution that outlined the new structure. Under 

Dr. Kim’s leadership, the Commission adopted this major reorganization 

plan in 2002, reducing the number of standing committees from six to 

three. The new structure will go into effect January 2003, with the following thematic committees: Poverty Reduction, Managing Globalization, 

and Emerging Social Issues. Under each committee, subcommittees were 

established to address particular topics. This reform is intended to streamline ESCAP’s focus. 

ESCAP received annual funding of approximately $26.7 million from 

the UN regular budget; the United States provided the standard 22 percent 

of the UN regular budget. ESCAP also received approximately $11.2 million in extrabudgetary contributions, including a voluntary U.S. contribution of $300,000 in 2002 for a regional narcotics demand reduction 

program. Of 175 professional positions in the ESCAP Secretariat, 11 are 

held by American citizens. 

73 
United States Participation in the United Nations – 2002 

Social Issues 

Aging/Commission for Social Development (CSocD) 

The global phenomenon of aging populations dominated the UN’s 

social development agenda in 2002. Two other matters also figured prominently in the 2002 agenda: preparations for the 10th anniversary of the 

Year of the Family (which will be in 2004), and exploration of the desirability of drafting a convention on the rights of persons with disabilities. 

Between February 11 and 21, the UN Commission for Social Development held its 40th annual meeting in New York, devoting itself to the 

issue of aging. The U.S. delegation worked hard to ensure that the agreed 

conclusions at the meeting were not merely conceptual, but results–oriented. The Commission’s 52 members could not agree on a consensus 

statement and, at the end of the session, the Chair summarized the meeting’s results. 

Between April 8 and 12, the United States, along with more than 80 

other countries, attended the Second World Assembly on Aging in 

Madrid. The U.S. delegation, led by the Department of Health and Human 

Services’ Assistant Secretary for Aging, Josefina Carbonell, was among 

those that successfully persuaded other delegations to recognize in the 

conference’s concluding document, the Madrid International Plan of 

Action, the primary role of governments in addressing the critical issue of 

aging. The Madrid plan of action provides a blueprint for the future, 

including both practical steps that nations can take to provide for the aged 

and principles upon which countries should build in formulating policies. 

However, most attendees declined to discuss the hard choices that governments face, such as later retirement, in meeting the challenges of rapidly 

aging populations. 

As a regional follow–up to the World Assembly in Madrid, the United 

States met September 11–13 in Berlin with the 54 other member states of 

the UN Economic Commission for Europe to develop a regional implementation strategy for the Madrid Plan of Action. The resulting regional 

plan was longer and less specific than the United States sought. It did, 

however, underscore the need for every nation to review pension systems 

and revise retirement laws. It also provided a basis for subsequent discussions at the national level, where the United States believes most of the 

work must be done. 

With the 10th anniversary of the first Year of the Family approaching 

in 2004, the 40th session of the Commission for Social Development recommended, with U.S. support because it believes that the family is a cornerstone of society, that the General Assembly adopt a resolution 

authorizing preparations to mark the date and stress the importance of 

families for social well–being across the globe. The Commission for 

Social Development recommended that the General Assembly endorse a 

concerted promotional, informational, and media campaign by governments and nongovernmental organizations at the national, regional, and 

74 
Economic and Social Affairs 

international levels to celebrate the family in society; devote one plenary 

meeting of the 59th UN General Assembly to observing the 10th anniversary; and ask the Secretary–General to continue facilitating international 

cooperation within the framework of the follow–up to the International 

Year of the Family. 

The final topic of note in 2002 was the possible creation of an international convention on the rights of persons with disabilities. In 2001, the 

General Assembly adopted a Mexico–sponsored resolution by consensus 

that established an ad hoc committee to draft a convention. The United 

States participated in the first such ad hoc committee meeting from July 

29 to August 9, in New York. On December 18, the General Assembly 

adopted by consensus Resolution 57/229, which called for a second meeting of the ad hoc committee in 2003. An international convention on the 

rights of persons with disabilities remained under discussion in the U.S. 

Administration at the end of the 2002. 

Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice 

The UN Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice 

(Crime Commission) is the principal intergovernmental policy–making 

body of the United Nations on criminal justice issues. The 40–member 

Crime Commission is a functional UN commission that falls under the 

Economic and Social Council’s (ECOSOC) Third Committee. The Commission meets yearly at the UN Office in Vienna to make policy decisions, 

some of which are then forwarded to ECOSOC or occasionally to the UN 

General Assembly for endorsement. 

The 11th session of the Crime Commission convened in Vienna, April 

16–25, 2002. The United States agreed to 16 resolutions on topics that 

included restorative justice, which assists crime victims in recovering 

from crime–induced trauma; crime prevention; trafficking in persons; kidnapping; trafficking in protected species of flora and fauna; and the 

exploitation of children. One of the resolutions called for improved international cooperation and technical assistance to combat terrorism, particularly the implementation of the UN’s counter–terrorism conventions. 

The Crime Commission also discussed the ongoing and future work of 

the UN Center for International Crime Prevention (Crime Prevention Center). All Commission members supported a resolution calling upon all UN 

member states to ratify and implement the UN Convention Against Transnational Organized Crime (TOC) and its three supplemental protocols as 

soon as possible. The optional protocols further codify the CICP’s role of 

providing technical assistance to member states. The United States has 

consistently supported the Center with technical expertise and substantial 

material support in this endeavor. 

The Commission also addressed expanding the small UN Office on 

Drugs and Crime Terrorism Prevention Branch. Shortly after the Commission meeting concluded, the United States provided $230,000 to the Office 

to support its efforts to facilitate member state’s implementation of 

counter–terrorism conventions in coordination with the Security Council’s 

75 
United States Participation in the United Nations – 2002 

Counter–Terrorism Committee in New York. By the end of 2002, these 

early efforts began to show results, including the establishment of implementation guidelines for host–nation officials states. 

Between 1997 and 2000, U.S. voluntary contributions to the Crime 

Center ranged between $500,000 and $1 million annually. In 2001, U.S. 

support increased substantially to $1.8 million, more than any other donor. 

Most of this amount was earmarked for the Center’s activities to promote 

ratification of the recently completed TOC and its supplemental protocols, 

and also to support ongoing negotiations of the UN Convention Against 

Corruption. In 2002, the U.S. contribution expanded on these assistance 

activities, providing $1.73 million to support these activities and technical 

assistance to member states to prevent and combat trafficking in persons. 

The UN Office on Drugs and Crime has 68 professionals in Vienna 

and the field, of which seven (approximately 10 percent) are American citizens. 

International Drug Control 

The International Narcotics Control Board (INCB) and the UN International Drug Control Program (UNDCP) advance U.S. counternarcotics 

objectives by helping UN member states implement key international 

agreements. These agreements include 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. Taken together, 

they prohibit cultivation of opium, cocaine, and marijuana; target drug 

traffickers and their proceeds; promote national drug abuse prevention and 

treatment campaigns; and regulate the production of precursor chemicals 

used to make illicit drugs. 

In 2002, the UN Secretary–General appointed Antonio Maria Costa 

(Italy) as the new Executive Director of the UNDCP. Costa took office in 

June 2002, following the resignation of Pino Arlacchi in December 2001 

and the interim stewardship of Steinar Bjornsson (Sweden). Costa quickly 

began to articulate a new vision for the UNDCP and its sister entity, the 

Center for International Crime Prevention (CICP). He established a task 

force to recommend a refocus of priorities, and operational and management reforms. He also sought to integrate administrative functions such as 

fund–raising and personnel, and suggested merging the CICP with the 

UNDCP. The United States succeeded in preventing the merger, but Costa 

was successful in changing the “umbrella” term for the UNDCP and the 

CICP from the UN Office of Drug Control and Crime Prevention to the 

UN Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC). 

The United States and Mr. Costa established a solid working relationship. He visited the United States several times in 2002 to consult with 

American officials. 

The UNOCD enhanced international cooperation during 2002 on legal 

advisory programs and issues such as money laundering and chemical 

76 
Economic and Social Affairs 

control. The UNODC helped UN member states increase their compliance 

with the UN drug control conventions by helping them to develop their 

national drug control plans and ensuring that appropriate laws were in 

place. The UNODC also continued its partnerships with other UN agencies, including the UN Development Program, the World Health Organization, the International Labor Organization, and the UN Educational, 

Scientific and Cultural Organization. 

For the biennium 2002–2003, UNODC’s total budget (programs, support, and agencies) was $166.4 million and its spending in 2002 totaled 

$83.2 million. UNODC had 287 professionals in Vienna and the field, of 

whom 19 (approximately 6.6 percent) were American citizens. 

Overall, U.S. funding of UN counternarcotics programs helped them to 

expand. The United States advocated UNODC’s approach to counternarcotics, which balanced alternative development programs and demand 

reduction with supply reduction. Supply reduction was achieved through 

law enforcement efforts to eradicate suppliers and prosecute traffickers. 

The United States was particularly encouraged by UNODC’s success in 

reducing the illicit opium and coca cultivation in Burma and Laos. 

In 2002, the UNODC spent the U.S. voluntary contribution of $13.9 

million on global drug control programs including prevention of money 

laundering ($1.5 million), precursor chemical control ($165,000 for the 

Data Bank Advisory–Precursor Control program), and legal advice on 

treaty implementation ($800,000). Major UNODC alternative development projects in Laos and the Wa territories of Burma ($700,000), and 

chemical control projects in South America ($300,000 for Bolivia and 

Colombia) and Central Asia, and judicial/prosecutorial training in Africa 

($300,000 in South Africa and Kenya), Latin America, and East Asia were 

funded. Funds were also used to open a drug office in Afghanistan. 

The 53–member UN Commission on Narcotic Drugs (CND), of which 

the United States has been a member since 1946, is the UN’s central policy–making body for dealing with drug–related matters. When it met in 

Vienna, Austria, in March 2002, the United States achieved its priority 

drug control objectives such as a resolution calling for strengthening international cooperation in the control of opium poppy cultivation. The resolution specifically called upon the UNODC to strengthen Afghanistan’s 

counternarcotics capacity, and to act as a coordinating mechanism for 

bilateral and multilateral counter–drug efforts. 

Also at the CND meeting, the UN Under Secretary–General for the 

Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS), Dileep Nair, urged implementation of the 2001 OIOS recommendations calling for management 

reforms of the CND, supported by the United States. Such reforms 

included expanding program evaluation to include member states and 

other stakeholders; establishing the Program and Project Committee, 

which reviews project proposals before they are submitted to donors; 

installing a new financial system, which allows member states access to 

77 
United States Participation in the United Nations – 2002 

current information through a restricted internet site; and mandating a 

results–based budget. 

The 2002 CND meeting included a debate on alternative development 

(which includes crop substitution programs, alternative livelihood programs, and infrastructure development) and eradication of illicit drug 

crops, which served as a follow–up to the 1998 UN General Assembly 

Special Session. The U.S. narcotics affairs director of the U.S. Embassy in 

La Paz, Bolivia, delivered remarks emphasizing the important linkage 

between alternative development, eradication, and law enforcement. He 

pointed to Afghanistan as a place where these linkages must be made. He 

also said that member states shared responsibilities and urged them to consider donating funds for alternative development projects, regardless of 

their size. 

The United States cosponsored a resolution requesting a UNODC 

report evaluating the status of the support budget and general–purpose 

funds, with options for securing assured funding. The United States supported and the CND adopted resolutions calling for aid for law enforcement efforts targeting amphetamine–type stimulant production; 

encouraging better international information exchange between member 

states and international organizations regarding drug abuse; regulating 

opiate demand and supply for medical and scientific needs; improving 

traveler’s access to internationally controlled drugs used for medical purposes; and holding a ministerial session in the 2003 meeting of the CND. 

The Commission also adopted resolutions on HIV/AIDS and drug abuse 

and drug–demand reduction that were consistent with U.S. objectives. 

The 13–member INCB is an independent quasi–judicial body charged 

with promoting and assisting governments to comply with the provisions 

of the international drug control treaties. The INCB meets periodically to 

monitor the implementation of the drug control treaties and the movement 

of narcotic and psychotropic substances around the world. In November 

2002, the INCB reviewed, and put in its annual report, the economic consequences of illicit crop cultivation and illicit drug trade. The Board concluded that drug trafficking does not contribute to sustainable economic 

development and prosperity. Though labor intensive, illicit crop cultivation and illicit drug production do not generate much additional employment while actually preventing long–term economic growth that leads to 

the destabilization of civil society. The review focused on opium poppy 

cultivation and drug trafficking in Afghanistan, using it as an example of 

how illicit drug trade can destabilize a country and hinder economic development. The Report concluded that sustainable and peaceful development 

in Afghanistan is not possible if the drug problem is not addressed. The 

Board reviewed operations of the international drug control system, presenting an analysis of the world situation in regard to illicit drugs, and set 

up working groups to identify and trace precursor chemicals for amphetamine–type stimulants. 

78 
Economic and Social Affairs 

Human Rights 

General Assembly Special Session on Children and the

Convention on the Rights of the Child 

Originally scheduled for September 2001, the UN General Assembly’s 

Special Session on Children convened in May 2002 with the UN Children’s Fund acting as organizer and Secretariat. The 1,700 delegates 

included 69 heads of state or government; 190 high–level delegations; representatives from over 2,400 nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) 

from 117 countries; leading figures in business, religion, the arts, and academia; cultural and sports celebrities; and for the first time at a U.N. conference, over 400 children who spoke on their personal experiences. 

With U.S. policy leadership, the Special Session on Children advanced 

several important U.S. foreign policy goals related to global health and 

economic and social development. The U.S. delegation drew attention to 

the Millennium Challenge Account, which aims to boost U.S. development aid to countries that govern justly, invest in their people, and promote economic freedom. They highlighted U.S. domestic and 

international programs for children and they worked to ensure language in 

the final conference document did not pose threats to sovereignty, the role 

of parents, U.S. state and local laws/practices, and the role of the family. 

Concerns arose regarding draft language on abortion and abortion counseling, reproductive health of adolescents, and the Convention on the 

Rights of the Child as the only standard for policies concerning children. 

Secretary of Health and Human Services Tommy Thompson and U.S. 

Agency for International Development (USAID) Administrator Andrew 

Natsios co–led the U.S. delegation. Officials from the Departments of 

Health and Human Services, Labor, Education, Justice, State, USAID, and 

the Environmental Protection Agency, as well as members of Congress, 

made presentations or participated in conference briefings and panel discussions on child survival, nutrition, malaria, improving educational quality, child labor, environmental health, juvenile justice, HIV/AIDS 

prevention, and trafficking. The delegation distributed copies of various 

U.S. Government reports, such as “USAID Child Survival and Disease 

Programs Fund–2001,” “Child Labor— the International Child Labor 

Program,” “No Child Left Behind,” and the “United States Government 

Report to the Second World Congress on the Commercial Sexual Exploitation of Children.” 

By the end of 2002, 191 countries had ratified the Convention on the 

Rights of the Child. The United States had signed the Convention in 1995 

but has not submitted it to the Senate for ratification due to serious political and legal concerns that it conflicts with U.S. policies on the central role 

of parents, sovereignty, and state and local law. Under the U.S. Constitution, activities covered by the Convention such as education, health, custody and visitation, adoption, and juvenile justice are handled primarily at 

the state and local level. Other provisions in the Convention, such as the 

79 
United States Participation in the United Nations – 2002 

degree to which children should participate in decisions affecting themselves or should have a “right” to independent action, are at odds with the 

emphasis the United States places on the duty of parents to protect and 

care for children. 

Since the United States has not ratified the Convention and has its own 

legal framework of local, state, and federal laws, the delegation could not 

accept references to the Convention on the Rights of the Child as the only 

standard for future domestic and international actions on behalf of children. Further, the United States believes that abstract conventions are less 

effective than concrete programs that focus on what children really need. 

In the end, the U.S. efforts were successful. “A World Fit for Children” 

recognizes the importance of the Convention for countries that are party to 

it, but does not portray it as the only normative basis for action. 

Another major issue involved references to reproductive health services which may have included abortion. The United States insisted on the 

deletion of references to reproductive health that could be seen as supporting or endorsing abortion or abortion counseling for children or adolescents. The United States pressed for greater attention in the final document 

to the Special Session “A World Fit for Children” to promoting abstinence 

for adolescents as a method of preventing unwanted pregnancies and the 

transmission of diseases, including HIV/AIDS. The United States was 

successful in achieving a text that emphasized the importance of the family, and which did not include language that would have broadened the 

definition of “family” beyond parameters generally accepted by the American people. 

“A World Fit for Children,” adopted by consensus, establishes for the 

next decade a global agenda of 21 specific targets to promote healthy 

lives; provide quality education; protect against abuse, exploitation, and 

violence; and combat HIV/AIDS. The targets are to be achieved in the 

context of supporting the family, ending discrimination, and reducing poverty. The document contains hortatory references to the two optional protocols to the Convention on the Rights of the Child to which states can 

accede without being party to the Convention. These protocols deal with 

children involved in armed conflict and the sale of children, child prostitution, and child pornography. The United States strongly supports both protocols, which were submitted to the Senate for ratification prior to the 

original date for the Special Session. The instruments of ratification for 

both protocols were deposited at the United Nations on December 23, 

2002. By the end of 2002, 46 countries were states parties to these protocols. 

The optional protocol on the sale of children, child pornography, and 

child prostitution was the first instrument of international law to define 

these terms legally. It represented a giant step forward in U.S. efforts to 

combat trafficking for forced commercial sexual exploitation. Over 

300,000 girls and boys were used in government or rebel forces as soldiers 

and an estimated 1 million were trafficked for coerced sexual exploitation 

80 
Economic and Social Affairs 

or labor. The protocol requires state parties to protect children up to the 

age of 18 and treats the actions of exploiters as criminal acts that merit 

serious punishment. It also promotes international law enforcement cooperation. 

The optional protocol on the involvement of children in armed conflict 

confirms that the minimum age for compulsory recruitment into a state 

party’s armed forces is 18 years. State parties must take “all feasible measures” to ensure that members of their armed forces who are under 18 

years old do not take a “direct part” in hostilities. The protocol also promotes international cooperation in the rehabilitation and social integration 

of persons who are victims of acts contrary to the provision of the protocol. 

The Security Council also took important action in 2002 regarding 

children in armed conflict. The Council adopted Resolution 1460, which 

identified countries in violation of international commitments, and 

required the Secretary–General to monitor and report to the Security 

Council on the situation of child soldiers in each country. 

Status of Women 

The UN Commission on the Status of Women (CSW) was established 

in June 1946 to report and make recommendations to the UN Economic 

and Social Council on promoting women’s rights to participate in the 

political process, and to have economic opportunity, social development, 

health, and education. Following the 1995 Fourth World Conference on 

Women, the General Assembly mandated that the Commission integrate 

into its program a follow–up process to the Conference by regularly 

reviewing the critical areas of concern in the Platform for Action and 

mainstreaming a gender perspective in UN activities. 

The CSW convened its 46th session in New York, March 4–15, 2002. 

The main items on the agenda were “Follow–up to the Fourth World Conference on Women and to the Special Session of the General Assembly 

entitled ‘Women 2000: Gender Equality, Development, and Peace for the 

Twenty–first Century’”; “Eradicating Poverty, Including Through the 

Empowerment of Women Throughout Their Life Cycle in a Globalizing 

World”; and “Environmental Management and Mitigation of Natural 

Disasters: a Gender Perspective.” 

The United States introduced a resolution at the CSW on the “situation 

of women and girls in Afghanistan” and cosponsored the resolutions on 

“mainstreaming a gender perspective into all policies and programs in the 

UN system” and “Release of women and children taken hostage, including 

those subsequently imprisoned, in armed conflicts.” All were adopted by 

consensus. 

The United States called for a vote on and voted against the resolution 

“The situation of and assistance to Palestinian women,” which called upon 

Israel to facilitate the return of all refugees and displaced Palestinian 

women and children to their homes and properties. The United States 

81 
United States Participation in the United Nations – 2002 

believed that the resolution addressed a number of issues, including refugees and Jerusalem, that the two parties had agreed to resolve between 

themselves in negotiating and did not want to pre–judge the outcome of 

those negotiations. 

Human Rights 

In a variety of UN forums, the United States continued to call for 

respect for human rights, and made efforts to expose violators throughout 

2002. In 2002, the UN Commission on Human Rights (UNCHR) adopted 

92 resolutions and 18 decisions. The Economic and Social Council 

(ECOSOC) adopted the UNCHR report and 44 draft decisions dealing 

with human rights issues. The UN General Assembly adopted more than 

70 human rights resolutions. The United States, although an observer in 

the UNCHR, worked closely with like–minded delegations to secure 

adoption of resolutions condemning human rights violations in specific 

countries of concern and fending off negative amendments. 

The UNCHR is the principal organ in the United Nations for achieving 

the UN Charter objective of promoting respect for human rights. It is composed of 53 members, each elected for three–year terms. 

The UNCHR held its annual session in Geneva, Switzerland, March 18 

–April 26. Although the United States lost its seat on the Commission for 

the 58th Session, it attended as a vocal observer and let its opinions be 

known. 

The Middle East was again a contentious issue during the session, with 

continued efforts to adopt unbalanced resolutions about Israel. Members 

of the UNCHR also differed on the focus of the Commission, with many 

pressing for continued emphasis on economic, social and cultural rights, 

rather than the traditional civil and political rights, which is the view supported by the United States. 

The controversy over resolutions targeting only Israeli actions magnified differences among the members of the UNCHR and created an environment hostile to consensus. The United States worked unceasingly to 

support balanced action on human rights abuses, no matter where the 

abuses occurred. Human rights violators headed off Commission condemnation by being elected to the Commission, with countries like Vietnam, 

Libya, and Cuba serving as members in 2002. 

The Secretary–General, in his 2002 report to the General Assembly, 

discussed the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights at 

length, and proposed changes to improve its efficiency and effectiveness; 

to rationalize the various tasks of the Office; and to strengthen support for 

human rights at the country level, improve special procedures, consolidate 

treaty body reporting, and improve overall management. The UN High 

Commissioner, Sergio Vieira de Mello (Brazil), accepted the challenge to 

reform the Office, and began implementing changes suggested in management studies. The United States welcomed these reform efforts, which are 

expected to continue. 

82 
Economic and Social Affairs 

In May 2002, ECOSOC, of which the UNCHR is a subsidiary body, 

held elections for UNCHR membership. Each regional group elects members and the United States urged members of its group, the Western European and Others Group (WEOG), to elect it to the UNCHR. The WEOG 

reached agreement on a slate that included the United States, with the 

three–year term to begin in January 2003. 

ECOSOC is responsible for economic and social issues, such as promoting higher standards of living, full employment and economic 

progress, identifying solutions to international economic and social problems, and encouraging respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. ECOSOC adopted the UNCHR report and 44 draft decisions that 

the UNCHR recommended for ECOSOC adoption. The United States 

voted no on 13 and abstained on two. The theme for the session was the 

centrality of development of human resources in economic development 

and eradication of poverty. 

During the 2002 session, the United States opposed adoption of the 

draft decision in the UNCHR report on the Draft Optional Protocol on the 

Convention Against Torture (DOPCAT) as a flawed and costly agreement 

that would not advance the important struggle against torture. The United 

States unequivocally condemns the practice of torture and is a state party 

to the Convention Against Torture. The Optional Protocol’s funding 

mechanism was also objectionable to the United States, in that funding for 

the Protocol would be taken from the regular budget, supported by all 

members, rather than funding it from the states party to the Protocol. The 

United States proposed an amendment addressing the issue, which was 

defeated by a vote of 15 (U.S.) to 29, with 8 abstentions. The DOPCAT 

was then adopted by ECOSOC by a vote of 35 to 8, with 10 (U.S.) abstentions. 

During the 2002 General Assembly, the United States also succeeded 

in working with other nations to adopt resolutions condemning human 

rights abuses in Iraq, Sudan, and Burma. The United States, nevertheless, 

failed to defeat a General Assembly resolution supporting the DOPCAT. 

The final vote on the resolution was 127 to 4 (U.S.), with 42 abstentions. 

The United States put its objection to the resolution into the record by 

delivering an explanation of its vote. 

Humanitarian Issues 

Afghanistan 

At the beginning of 2002, Afghanistan’s physical infrastructure lay in 

ruins and its social fabric in shreds after years of conflict. Over 7 million 

Afghans were internally displaced or had sought refuge outside of the 

country. At the UN donor’s conference in Tokyo in January, the United 

States pledged $297 million out of a total of $1.8 billion raised for aid to 

Afghanistan. By the end of the fiscal year in September, the United States 

had exceeded that pledge by approximately 90 percent, providing some 

$569 million in direct assistance and aid–in–kind. 

83 
United States Participation in the United Nations – 2002 

In cooperation with the United Nations and other donors in 2002, the 

United States identified four principal objectives for humanitarian assistance and reconstruction in Afghanistan: immediate humanitarian assistance; strengthening the capacity of the central authority to govern; 

revitalizing economic growth, particularly in the agricultural sector; and 

promoting high–visibility projects to improve the quality of life for as 

many Afghans as possible. 

In cooperation with the UN High Commissioner for Refugees 

(UNHCR) and the World Food Program (WFP), the United States provided approximately 70 percent of all food aid to Afghanistan from 

December 2001 through September 2002, valued at some $200 million. 

Some 530,000 tons of grain, primarily wheat, were delivered before the 

first heavy snows of winter. Programs that provided a fixed amount of 

food in exchange for work or for sending all school–age children in a family back to school helped improve food security in an economy in which 

prices for basic commodities fluctuated wildly. The United States also 

provided 8,700 tons of seed and 12,100 tons of fertilizer to the agricultural 

sector, which contributed to an 82 percent increase in production of wheat 

over 2001 levels. 

By year–end, approximately 3 million children had returned to school, 

30 percent of them girls. The United States supplied 15 million textbooks 

for grades one through 12, printed in the Dari and Pushtu languages, along 

with 30,000 teacher–training kits. This assistance was distributed in cooperation with the Afghan government and the UN Office for Project Services. 

To strengthen the central authority’s capacity to govern, the United 

States rebuilt Radio Kabul, later renamed Radio Afghanistan, during 

March and April. The United States supported the rehabilitation and renovation of 16 ministry buildings in Kabul, including the installation of electricity, heating, telephones, and computers. With U.S. funding, the Afghan 

Teachers College was rebuilt and recommissioned. 

The United States undertook the rebuilding of the Kabul–Kandahar 

section of Afghanistan’s main “ring road” in September. This road links 

the country together both economically and politically. The United States 

committed $80 million to this project and moved aggressively to begin the 

work. Additionally, the United States rebuilt approximately 4,400 miles of 

secondary and rural roads and over 550 miles of irrigation tunnels and 

canals. 

Elsewhere during the year, the United States rebuilt 72 hospitals and 

health clinics and 142 schools and daycare centers. 

The United States provided $67 million to the UNHCR during 2002 

for its work in Afghanistan, which was about 25 percent of the total 

amount received by that agency. UNHCR was the lead agency assisting in 

the repatriation and reintegration of approximately 2 million Afghan refugees. UNHCR also helped an estimated 600,000 internally displaced persons (IDP) return to their homes in 2002, far exceeding expectations. 

84 
Economic and Social Affairs 

Due to these greater–than–expected refugee and IDP returns, the 

resources of UN agencies such as UNHCR, the International Organization 

for Migration, and the WFP were strained to their limits throughout the 

year. Donor funding nevertheless resulted in a successful return and reintegration effort. Returnees received resettlement kits consisting of food 

and non–food items; and significant infrastructure repairs were undertaken, with emphasis on agriculture, education, and health care. Additionally, UNHCR and its implementing partners used funding from the United 

States and other donors to construct or rehabilitate approximately 40,000 

private residences in rural areas. 

By year–end, the number of persons dependent on some form of 

humanitarian relief had dropped by approximately 4 million, a clear success story for the UN’s efforts in Afghanistan, which was due in large part 

to the substantial financial and programmatic contributions of the United 

States. Some 5 million persons, nearly 20 percent of the Afghan population, remained unable to feed and shelter themselves, demonstrating the 

magnitude of the task remaining to the international community. 

Africa Famine 

The World Food Program (WFP) and the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) launched major emergency operations for the victims of 

food crises in southern Africa, Ethiopia, and Eritrea in 2002. These crises 

showed how chronic hunger can exacerbate emergencies and emphasized 

the importance of building people’s capacity to endure shocks by helping 

to create assets and support livelihoods. The WFP faced special demands 

in sub–Saharan Africa, where it fed 34 million people, almost 11 million 

more than in the previous year, accounting for 48 percent of its total 2002 

beneficiaries resources. On November 21, 2002, WFP launched the 

“Africa Hunger Alert” campaign to attract international attention and 

funds to the hunger crisis affecting the African continent, in which 38 million people were at risk of starvation, including 15 million in southern 

Africa and 11–15 million in Ethiopia and Eritrea. 

In March 2002, the UN’s Interagency Standing Committee, charged 

with improving coordination among the UN humanitarian and development agencies and nongovernmental organizations, agreed to examine 

food security in six of the worst–affected countries in southern Africa— 

Lesotho, Malawi, Mozambique, Swaziland, Zambia, and Zimbabwe. The 

WFP and FAO conducted joint assessment missions in April and May, 

which indicated that 12.8 million people were on the brink of starvation 

after one of the region’s worst agricultural disasters in decades. On July 

18, during the launch of the Southern Africa Regional Appeal, Secretary– 

General Kofi Annan named WFP’s Executive Director James Morris 

(United States) his Special Envoy for Humanitarian Needs in Southern 

Africa. 

James Morris played an important role in implementing a comprehensive response to the crisis. He collaborated extensively with governments, 

donors, and partners to ensure that contributions were speedily channeled 

85 
United States Participation in the United Nations – 2002 

to people in greatest need. As part of his advocacy for the region, Morris 

addressed the UN Security Council, the U.S. Congress, the European Parliament, the U.K. Parliament, and several meetings of the Humanitarian 

Liaison Working Group in Geneva and New York. 

He outlined the following four immediate triggers of the food crises in 

Africa: bad governance (as in Zimbabwe); political and ethnic violence (as 

in Sudan, Burundi, Cote d’Ivoire, and the Democratic Republic of the 

Congo); HIV/AIDS, which aggravated famine in southern Africa and decimated the rural labor force; and bad weather (dry spells or drought in Eritrea, Ethiopia, Malawi, Mozambique, Zambia, and Zimbabwe; heavy rain 

or floods in Lesotho and south and central Mozambique). 

In a statement to the Security Council on December 3, Morris recommended the following long–term measures to avoid or mitigate these food 

crises: stronger, more consistent, and broad–based funding for humanitarian aid; more investment in agriculture, and more donor aid targeted at 

agriculture; more investment in nutrition, education, and school feeding 

programs, especially for girls; freeing up of the private sector; and a trading system that encourages African and other developing country farmers 

to produce and export. 

In 2002, the United States delivered or pledged more than 499,113 

metric tons of food aid to southern Africa, at a total value of more than 

$276 million, making the U.S. Government the largest donor to WFP’s 

operations in southern Africa. Beginning July 2002, when the first signs of 

crop failure became apparent, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) provided approximately 430,000 metric tons of food to 

Ethiopia, valued at approximately $179 million. USAID emergency food 

assistance to Eritrea during the same time period totaled 44,000 metric 

tons, valued at $19 million. 

Biotechnology 

The food crisis in southern Africa was exacerbated by delays that arose 

when several southern African nations questioned the safety and longterm health risks associated with biotech–derived food from the United 

States. Initial concerns also focused on gene migration and local crop 

exports to Europe. 

The Governments of Malawi and Swaziland accepted unmilled U.S. 

corn. Zimbabwe accepted biotech–derived food assistance, provided it 

was milled before distribution. The Government of Mozambique, expressing concerns over the environmental effects of biotech food, allowed 

whole grain food aid to be transported across the country as long as shipments were covered. It also allowed distribution in country of milled food 

aid, but refused to accept the whole grain food aid that Zambia had also 

previously rejected. Lesotho accepted all relief food aid of biotech origin, 

but milled it before distribution due to lack of rural capacity. 

Throughout 2002, the Government of Zambia continued to refuse biotech–derived food assistance, citing as reasons for its decision Zambia’s 

lack of biotechnology and biosafety legislation, the potential risk of con86 
Economic and Social Affairs 

tamination of traditional crops, and threats to Zambia’s ability to export 

crops. Zambia initially allowed WFP to use whole grain biotech food aid 

for 130,000 refugees from Angola and the Democratic Republic of Congo, 

but later required that all biotech food aid be shipped beyond Zambia’s 

borders. USAID brought a delegation of Zambian scientists to the United 

States and Europe to review the science and regulation of biotechnology. 

The delegation’s report, influenced largely by an outdated British Medical 

Association report, advised against accepting the food aid. 

Throughout the crisis, James Morris spoke out often in support of biotech food, noting that it was eaten by millions of Americans and Canadians. 

On August 23, the United Nations issued a statement that said the 

WFP, the FAO, and the World Health Organization did not believe that 

the biotech food being provided as food aid in southern Africa was likely 

to present human health risk, and therefore these foods could be eaten. 

On September 19, on the margins of the 57th General Assembly, the 

United States arranged a panel discussion on biotechnology, co–hosted by 

the UN Development Program and the Partnership to Cut Hunger and 

Poverty in Africa. Focusing on food security and sustainable development, 

the internationally recognized panel members gave a balanced three–hour 

analysis that addressed concerns about the health and environmental 

safety of biotech food. 

World Food Program 

The World Food Program (WFP) is the UN system’s front–line multilateral food agency, mostly providing emergency food intervention, followed by recovery assistance and to a far lesser extent, related grant 

development assistance. Established in Rome in 1961 under UN and Food 

and Agriculture Organization (FAO) auspices, WFP uses commodities 

and cash to support social and economic development, protracted refugee 

and displaced persons projects, and most of all, to provide emergency food 

assistance in natural disasters or human–made crisis situations. 

In 2002, WFP assisted 72 million people in 82 countries suffering 

from hunger because of interrelated crises: natural disasters, conflict, 

extreme poverty, and the HIV/AIDS pandemic. WFP’s largest challenge 

was to respond rapidly to an unprecedented number of weather–related 

disasters that caused large–scale food insecurity throughout Africa while 

meeting the needs of ongoing operations worldwide. At the same time, 

emerging peace in some areas led to increased needs because populations 

previously isolated by war became accessible, as in Angola, Sri Lanka, 

and Sudan. [Note: Part 2, Africa Famine, includes more discussion.] 

WFP continued to meet needs in countries suffering from natural 

disasters and conflict, such as Afghanistan, Iraq, Central America, the 

Democratic People’s Republic of North Korea, and Sudan. Programs also 

included a number of long–standing operations to assist refugees and 

87 
United States Participation in the United Nations – 2002 

internally displaced persons, for example in Algeria, Colombia, Iran, and 

Nepal. 

Southern Africa was the first major food emergency in which high 

rates of HIV/AIDS played a significant role in exacerbating food insecurity and malnutrition. HIV/AIDS represents a new type of humanitarian 

emergency because it decimates the most productive members of society, 

reducing long–term agricultural productivity and exceeding community 

caring capabilities for orphans and the sick. WFP changed its programming approach to meet the special needs of HIV/AIDS–affected beneficiaries, including altering the nutritional value and composition of emergency 

rations to include more protein, minerals, and vitamins. WFP also 

improved its targeting to identify locations of high HIV prevalence and 

allow distributions to be adjusted accordingly. 

In 2002, over 15.6 million school children in 64 countries benefited 

from WFP school feeding activities. The U.S. Congress passed “The Farm 

Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002,” which authorized 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 school feeding and 

maternal and child nutrition projects in low–income, food–deficit countries that are committed to universal education. The legislation calls for 

the use of $100 million in Commodity Credit Corporation funds to launch 

the program in fiscal year 2003, with future funding coming from Congressional appropriations. 

WFP worked with the FAO and the International Fund for Agricultural 

Development to address longer–term and immediate food needs. Together 

they formulated a clear approach to reducing rural poverty and hunger— 

the “twin–track” approach— which was first launched at the International 

Conference on Financing for Development in 2002. This approach combines long–term agricultural development efforts and targeted programs, 

including food aid, to assist the hungry poor directly. 

WFP took steps to enhance organizational capacity and operational 

efficiency, including a commitment to reduce its indirect support cost rate, 

the rate that the WFP charges for costs incurred by WFP to fund program 

support. A number of long–term efforts to strengthen partnership agreements came to fruition, including a revised Memorandum of Understanding with the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees and a new 

Field Level Agreement with nongovernmental organizations. WFP’s role 

in providing inter–agency logistics services was also institutionalized 

when the UN Joint Logistics Center was officially placed under its custodianship. 

As in 2001, the majority of WFP’s beneficiaries were assisted through 

emergency operations. Contributions amounting to $1 billion met 76 percent of the projected food requirements of these operations. Contributions 

to protracted relief and recovery operations of $470 million made it possible to meet 96 percent of the requirements of these operations. 

88 
Economic and Social Affairs 

WFP has a regular staff of 2,684. Only 621 are at Rome headquarters; 

the remainder is in the field. James T. Morris (United States) became 

WFP’s tenth Executive Director in April 2002. Four months later, UN 

Secretary–General Kofi Annan appointed Mr. Morris as his Special Envoy 

on the humanitarian crisis in southern Africa, in addition to continuing his 

responsibilities as WFP head. The WFP’s governing body, the Executive 

Board, has 36 members, including the United States. 

WFP operates exclusively from voluntary contributions (commodities 

and cash) donated by governments. The nearly record level of contributions— $1.8 billion— enabled WFP to meet 75 percent of its 2002 food 

requirements. For the second year in a row, more than half of WFP’s 

resources (51.4 percent) came from the United States, with a contribution 

of $928 million. Although WFP welcomed the continuing strong contributions from the United States, much of its effort on resource mobilization 

was targeted to broaden support from other major donors and open up new 

channels for contributions. Considerable progress was made with contributions from the European Commission and the European Union member 

states, which exceeded 2001 levels by $200 million. Sixteen of the top 20 

donors increased their contributions, 11 of them by 20 percent compared 

to 2001. Contributions from non–traditional donors— emerging donor 

governments, the private sector, nongovernmental organizations, and 

intergovernmental organizations— totaled $34 million, or 2 percent, of 

total contributions. 

UN High Commissioner for Refugees 

Established in 1950, the UN High Commissioner for Refugees 

(UNHCR) has a mandate to lead and coordinate international efforts to 

protect refugees and end their plight as migrants. The total population of 

concern to UNHCR numbered 19.8 million refugees, returnees, and internally displaced persons worldwide, down from 21.8 million persons in 

2001. In 2002, UNHCR maintained offices in 120 countries, with a staff 

of 5,000. 

UNHCR’s Executive Committee (EXCOM), of which the United 

States is a member, approved a 2002 annual program budget of approximately $801.7 million. In addition to the annual program budget, the 

UNHCR later appealed for $228.1 million for supplementary programs to 

meet contingencies unforeseen at the beginning of the year, including the 

massive refugee returns to Afghanistan and Sierra Leone. 

UNHCR is funded almost exclusively through voluntary contributions, 

with 2 percent of its budget coming from the UN regular budget and 98 

percent from voluntary sources. The United States is the largest contributor to UNHCR, contributing over $259 million to UNHCR’s annual and 

supplemental programs. This amount constituted 31 percent of the contributions received, slightly higher than the U.S. average over the past 15 

years of 26.8 percent. With UNHCR facing funding shortfalls again in 

2002, the United States encouraged other donors to contribute their fair 

share and fully fund the program that they endorsed as EXCOM members. 

89 
United States Participation in the United Nations – 2002 

Nevertheless, as the year ended with a $100 million deficit, UNHCR 

reduced its activities. The State Department’s Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration, and refugee coordinators in the field monitor 

UNHCR operations. 

With U.S. approval, UNHCR focused in 2002 on Africa and Afghanistan. Over 2 million Afghan refugees returned home and reconstruction 

efforts were begun. In Africa, the peace process in Angola brought hope 

that many refugees and internally displaced persons could eventually go 

home. In Sierra Leone, a successful peace process led to some 190,000 

refugees returning home. 

In late fall 2002, with the increasing likelihood of war in Iraq, UNHCR 

prepared for possible refugee flows in cooperation with the State Department’s Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration officers and refugee coordinators based in the region. This involved inquiring as to 

UNHCR’s plans and programs to ensure that it was undertaking adequate 

preparations, raising necessary question or concerns, and providing 

UNHCR with funding to support its efforts. 

The United States is a leading advocate for the protection of refugees 

and, in 2002, after allegations that humanitarian workers had sexually 

exploited refugees, the United States pressed the UNHCR to take measures necessary to ensure that such practices did not occur. 

The United States and UNHCR continued to cooperate on resettlement 

not only as a solution for refugees who cannot return to their countries, but 

also for those facing danger and requiring a safe environment. In 2002, the 

United States only resettled 27,113 refugees, compared to approximately 

69,000 in 2001, because of post–September 11 security measures. 

Each fall, UNHCR’s EXCOM meets to discuss refugee protection and 

policy, and the managing and financing of programs. UNHCR also holds 

three Standing Committee meetings throughout the year, which the United 

States attended and participated in. In October 2002, for the first time in 

more than 25 years, the EXCOM elected the United States to be its Rapporteur, an EXCOM Bureau position (one of three Bureau positions along 

with the EXCOM chair and deputy chair), the responsibility of which is to 

supervise the negotiation of refugee protection issues for the Agenda for 

Protection. 

At the EXCOM, the U.S. plenary statement focused on ensuring adequate reintegration assistance and protection for returning Afghan refugees; the need to help refugees elsewhere around the world; UNHCR’s 

continued funding shortfall and the need for better burden–sharing; 

UNHCR’s need for improved budget management; better and broader 

standards for protecting refugees, especially women and children; food 

shortages; and U.S. appreciation for the contributions of refugee–hosting 

countries. 

In 2002, the United States and UNHCR negotiated a Framework for 

Cooperation whose priorities included increasing American staffing in the 

UNHCR; protecting refugees, especially women and children, against vio90 
Economic and Social Affairs 

lence; increased capacity–building of the UNHCR to resettle refugees in 

the United States; improving UNHCR’s management oversight and 

accountability; strengthening its mechanism to register refugees; and 

enhancing UNHCR’s readiness to cope with emergencies. 

UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the

Near East (UNRWA) 

Since the 1950s, the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) has been providing education, health, 

and social services to nearly 4 million Palestinian refugees and their 

descendants that live in the West Bank, Gaza, Jordan, Syria, and Lebanon. 

UNRWA, which is headed by Commissioner–General Peter Hansen 

(Denmark), has 23,000 employees, most of whom are local Palestinians. 

Of the 140 employees who are not Palestinians, 20 are American citizens. 

UNRWA spends about 53 percent of its regular budget on education, 

including schools and teachers. Approximately 18 percent of its regular 

budget is devoted to health services, and another 10 percent on relief and 

social services. UNRWA spends nearly 19 percent on operational services. 

The United States generously funds UNRWA to meet the humanitarian needs of Palestinian refugees. In fiscal year 2002, the United States 

contributed $119.68 million to UNRWA, which constituted almost 30 percent of UNRWA’s total 2002 donor funding of $404 million. The largest 

portion of the U.S. contribution was $88 million from Migration and Refugee Assistance funds to UNRWA’s General Fund to provide relief and 

social services, health care, and education to Palestinian refugees. The 

United States also contributed $1.4 million to UNRWA to help it carry out 

security monitoring of its facilities in Palestinian refugee camps in the 

West Bank and Gaza. The United States, through the State Department, 

provided another $20 million in Emergency Refugee and Migration Assistance funding for food and emergency short–term employment in response 

to UNRWA’s emergency appeal for the West Bank and Gaza, while the 

U.S. Agency for International Development gave an additional $10 million to the same emergency appeal. 

The United States believes that UNRWA has done a good job under 

very difficult circumstances in providing for the basic humanitarian needs 

of Palestinian refugees in all five fields of its operations. 

UN Disaster and Humanitarian Relief Activities 

In 2002, the United States successfully supported UN General Assembly resolutions that will strengthen, albeit modestly, national, and international capabilities to prevent and respond to natural disasters. 

In Resolution 57/256, the General Assembly endorsed the International Strategy on Disaster Reduction (ISDR), which will help nations to 

minimize natural disasters by adopting and enforcing better building 

codes, using disaster information management technology, and employing 

early warning and surveillance techniques. The United States strongly 

91 
United States Participation in the United Nations – 2002 

supported this resolution, noting that the overall effectiveness of the international system is only as good as the quality of each national system. The 

United States spoke of the need for more effective cooperation between 

the public and private sectors, along with using Global Information System technology in disaster planning, monitoring, and reporting on emerging hazards. Such risk reduction will save lives and property, especially in 

the most vulnerable nations, thereby increasing economic and political stability. 

Throughout the year, the United States continued to participate in the 

UN International Working Group on Disaster Reduction and to work 

closely with the ISDR Task Force on technology and scientific cooperation. 

The United States and other partners in the field of emergency rescue 

met in Geneva with selected UN agencies, including the Office for the 

Coordination of Humanitarian Assistance, to discuss expansion of the 

operations of expert search and rescue teams. In 1991, the United States 

worked to organize countries with expertise in this area together with 

earthquake–prone countries into an inter–governmental network known as 

the International Search and Rescue Group (INSARAG) to facilitate the 

exchange of information. The Geneva discussions in 2002 led to a Turkish–drafted resolution on urban search and rescue in the General Assembly [57/150], which was adopted by consensus. The resolution endorses 

the efforts of INSARAG to secure agreement from UN member states that 

would enable foreign expert rescue teams to enter countries quickly and 

with their own equipment to perform rescue operations. 

The United States supported several other resolutions in the General 

Assembly related to disaster preparedness and response. In each instance, 

the United States successfully balanced its own national interests with the 

concerns of other countries within the context of regional and global 

events. For example, Ecuador agreed to amend Resolution 57/255 that 

sought support for an El Nino research center in Guayaquil, Ecuador by 

accepting the U.S. request that the center strengthen its links with national, 

meteorological, and hydrological services in different parts of the world, 

in view of the fact that the El Nino phenomenon affects parts of the world 

beyond Latin America. In another example, the Mozambique Government, while calling for international assistance, agreed to recognize the 

necessity for local, national, and regional strategies to prevent and manage 

natural disasters in Resolution 57/104. 

NGO Committee 

Both the tone and pace of the 19–member Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) Committee on Nongovernmental Organizations (NGO 

Committee), which considers NGO applications for consultative status 

allowing NGOs to participate in ECOSOC and its subsidiary bodies 

through attendance at their meetings, improved in 2002 because it got a 

new chair and some new members. The United Nations welcomes the participation of NGOs in UN meetings because many NGOs bring expertise 

92 
Economic and Social Affairs 

to the meetings and participate at no cost to the United Nations. The 

United Nations maintains a vetting process to ensure that the NGOs seeking accreditation have expertise and have not acted contrary to the UN 

Charter, especially in promoting violence or terrorism. 

Many NGOs that promote human rights and criticize governments for 

failings in this area seek UN accreditation. Partly as a response to these 

NGOs, several countries, including Cuba, Iran, Sudan, and the People’s 

Republic of China, carefully scrutinized every facet of an applying NGO’s 

operations, down to minute searches of the organization’s websites. These 

countries looked for inconsistencies in an NGO’s publications, connections to irredentist groups, and other potential problems as a way of stalling the NGO’s application. Such continued scrutiny notwithstanding, an 

overall positive change began with the regular session in New York May 

13–30, 2002, and continued through the resumed 2002 session, held from 

January 8–24, 2003. 

The change in the chair and the composition of the committee with its 

concomitant shift toward more objective analysis of an NGO’s application 

resulted in a record number of approvals of consultative status. The Committee recommended 93 NGOs for accreditation in May, the highest number in four years. This trend continued at the resumed session, when the 

Committee recommended 89 NGOs for consultative status, up from 56 

during the same session the previous year. 

The Committee also changed some procedures, most notably by 

encouraging candidate NGOs to send representatives to New York to 

answer questions in person. This practice allowed NGO representatives to 

answer questions on the spot and allay most concerns about questionable 

geopolitical, financial, or management issues thus avoiding the time–consuming process of sending letters and waiting for written responses. Several of the 37 U.S. NGOs, including The Heritage Foundation, The 

National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), 

and the World Assembly of Muslim Youth, availed themselves of this 

opportunity, hoping to increase their chances of obtaining consultative status. 

For the most part, the United States worked with Committee members 

to reach consensus on approving applications. The U.S. delegation worked 

with friends and allies on the Committee to separate the solid, qualified 

NGOs from the unknown or questionable applicants. U.S. successes 

included the NAACP and The Woman’s Voice, International, which 

became accredited observers in 2002. The U.S. delegation also defended 

several NGOs, such as U.S.–based Freedom House and the Swiss NGO, 

UN Watch, against attempts by Cuba and Iran to strip them of accreditation because of critical statements attributed to those NGOs. The United 

States marshaled support for its position among members and defeated the 

efforts against these NGOs. 

The Committee agreed to create an outreach tool, called the UN NGO 

Informal Regional Network (IRENE), which would be funded entirely 

93 
United States Participation in the United Nations – 2002 

from voluntary contributions. IRENE’s purpose is to increase UN outreach efforts to NGOs from developing countries. Historically, NGOs 

from developed countries have dominated the list of applicants for consultative status, with American NGOs at the top of the list. The United States 

supported this effort to increase the direct participation in UN discussions 

by persons and NGOs from developing countries so that their practical 

experience could shape the UN policies designed to help the people in 

those countries. 

94 
Part 3 

Legal Developments 

Cloning 

In 2002, the United States continued to work in the United Nations to 

gain support for a ban on all forms of cloning of human embryos and to 

stop all international efforts that would permit human cloning. 

In 2001, the 56th UN General Assembly adopted a Franco–German 

resolution that tasked the ad hoc committee of the Sixth Committee (legal 

issues), which meets when the General Assembly is not in session, to 

devise the principles that might serve as the basis for an international convention to ban human reproductive cloning. The United States did not 

oppose the resolution, but did express skepticism about the wisdom of trying to draft any convention that aimed only at imposing a limited, instead 

of a comprehensive, ban on human reproductive cloning. 

In February 2002, the ad hoc committee met and, after hearing from 

government representatives and scientific experts, concluded that it 

needed additional time to consider the scope of any cloning ban. 

During 2002, three perspectives emerged on this subject. One group 

opposed all cloning of human embryos (a group that included the United 

States and many other nations). Another perspective supported a “two– 

step” process whereby states would conclude a convention to ban human 

cloning for reproductive purposes and then, perhaps, address human cloning for “therapeutic” purposes (the group supporting this included Germany and France). The third perspective comprised states completely 

opposed to, and determined to pursue, a ban on human cloning for “therapeutic” purposes. 

In September, the ad hoc committee of the Sixth Committee met to 

consider two different approaches to human cloning. The first approach 

would ban cloning in any form, for any purpose. The second approach 

would be to conclude a convention banning human cloning for reproductive, but not for “therapeutic,” purposes. 

Members of the ad hoc committee could not agree on a course of 

action. 

In November 2002, the Sixth Committee unanimously agreed to 

include in the provisional agenda for its next session, scheduled to occur 

95 
United States Participation in the United Nations – 2002 

between September and November 2003, an item entitled “International 

Convention Against Reproductive Cloning of Human Beings.” This step 

represented a compromise that would allow the ad hoc committee and the 

Sixth Committee to continue exploring options in the coming year for an 

international convention on cloning. 

UN Commission on International Trade Law 

(UNCITRAL) 

The UN Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL), 

established by UN General Assembly Resolution 2205 (XXI) in 1966, 

continued its technical work on commercial law reform, including the harmonization of national laws to promote trade and commerce in all geographic regions. Based on the report of the General Assembly’s Sixth 

Committee (legal issues), the UN General Assembly in November reaffirmed the Commission’s mandate as the core legal body within the UN 

system in the field of international trade law (Resolution 57/17). 

The Commission focuses largely on economic effects of trade laws, 

particularly potential benefits to developing and emerging states. It promotes economic reform through multilateral conventions, model national 

laws, UN legal guidelines, and technical assistance on trade and commercial law undertaken by the Secretariat on the basis of legal texts adopted 

by the Commission. The United States actively participates in the Commission, since its work products are generally effective and are beneficial 

to the U.S. private sector as well as to governmental interests (for example, the UNCITRAL Model Law on Electronic Commerce which was the 

basis of U.S. uniform state law, as well as federal legislation, on electronic 

transactions, and the UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross–Border Insolvency, which is expected to be enacted as new provisions of the U.S. 

Bankruptcy Code). 

Located at the UN Center in Vienna, the Commission usually holds 

several weeks of working group meetings on legal and economic topics 

provided by participating states, which are then reviewed at the annual 

plenary session. Private–sector and industry nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) with technical expertise in commercial law are invited to 

participate. U.S. private–sector associations are particularly active and the 

Department of State works closely with the U.S. bar and trade industry 

groups to assure representation of their interests in the international process. 

At its 38th Plenary Session in July, the Commission adopted the 

Model Law on International Commercial Conciliation with full U.S. support. Combined with the Model Law on Arbitration and the Model Rules 

on Commercial Arbitration and Conciliation, these statutes are the most 

widely used texts in the area of international commercial dispute resolution. The General Assembly in November recommended that all states 

96 
Legal Developments 

consider adoption of the Conciliation Model Law because it responds to a 

growing need from international businesses for more flexible methods to 

resolve disputes. It provides basic authorizing provisions and minimal 

standards for conciliation, and ensures confidentiality. Successful conciliation and mediation can lower the costs of dispute resolution, preserve 

underlying business relationships, and promote continued commerce 

between the parties. The United States supports this recommendation, and 

the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws will 

seek to implement it as part of the uniform state law system. 

The Commission continued oversight of legislative implementation of 

the UN Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards. The Working Group on Arbitration examined possible 

amendments to or interpretations of the convention with regard to interim 

measures of protection ordered by an arbitral tribunal and the form of an 

arbitral agreement. The United States supports these efforts to make international commercial arbitration more effective. 

The Commission began consideration of a draft convention on carriage 

of goods by sea prepared by the Secretariat and the Comite Maritime 

Internationale, an international NGO in Brussels. U.S. industry sectors 

that recognize the need to replace antiquated 1936 U.S. carriage of goods 

by sea laws supported this project. The Working Group on Transport Law 

met for four weeks; preliminary discussions covered the extent to which 

the convention should apply to inland carriage, defenses to liability and 

liability limits, and the extent to which parties could by contract derogate 

from the convention’s terms. Many countries expressed the view that U.S. 

adherence to the new instrument would be very important, but considerable gaps remain between U.S. views and U.S. commercial interests on the 

one hand and those of a number of U.S. major trading partners on the other 

hand. For example, unlike the United States, some countries seek a regulatory approach in this field of law and oppose U.S. proposals to allow contracting parties to derogate from the terms of the proposed convention. 

The views of U.S. interest groups were obtained through the Transport 

Law Working Group of the Secretary of State’s Advisory Committee on 

Private International Law, which in 2002 held three public meetings. 

The Working Group on Insolvency Law met twice to continue preparing guidelines on insolvency reform. The support of this project by such 

international financial institutions as the International Monetary Fund 

(IMF) and the Asian Development Bank reflects widespread recognition 

that an effective system for recycling economic assets is critical to financing commerce, especially in developing and emerging states, and to mitigating systemic risk. The project involved government experts, including 

judicial representatives, as well as experts in insolvency practice and the 

economic effects of insolvency law reform. 

97 
United States Participation in the United Nations – 2002 

The Working Group made sufficient progress and expects to approve 

the principles underlying the legislative guidelines in 2003. The final text 

is expected to include U.S. proposals on restructuring, corporate rescue 

and refinance, and “private ordering” to facilitate agreements between 

creditors and refinancing interests, particularly in developing and financially distressed countries, and faster access to rescue capital. Related proposals on sovereign debt were raised at the IMF. 

UNCITRAL has been working on a legislative guide to general 

secured interest financing laws since 2001, when the General Assembly 

adopted the Convention on Assignment of Receivables in International 

Trade. The initial scope covered financing of trade and inventory receivables largely connected to tangible goods. Excluded were security interests in stocks, bonds, and other assets, due to work on that topic at the 

International Institute for the Unification of Private Law. UNCITRAL also 

excluded intellectual property, pending examination of work underway at 

the World Intellectual Property Organization and other bodies. Because of 

the close relationship between this project and the UNCITRAL Legislative Guide on insolvency law reform, joint working papers have been prepared. 

Adoption of modern secured interest and finance law, already in place 

in the United States in the Uniform Commercial Code, would allow many 

countries access to private–sector capital markets, significantly reducing 

the financing gap that affects developing states and states in transition. 

Notwithstanding adoption of many of these principles in the 2001 Convention on Assignment of Receivables, the first meetings of the Working 

Group on Secured Finance left unresolved a number of key issues. The 

consensus reached by an UNCITRAL colloquium in 2002, which involved 

many private–sector associations and government experts, should encourage adoption of modern commercial law approaches by the Working 

Group. While such laws have already been adopted in the United States 

through the Uniform Commercial Code, they would represent a significant 

change in the laws of many countries, with uncertain outcomes upon 

adoption. 

UNCITRAL noted the continuing use of the 1996 Model Law on Electronic Commerce as a primary source for new legislation in many countries, including the United States. The Commission began work in 2002 on 

a draft convention on the formation of contracts in e–commerce. The 

Working Group in Electronic Commerce reviewed an initial draft prepared by the Secretariat, which drew on recent U.S. laws, including the 

Federal Electronic Signatures and Global Electronic Commerce Act and 

the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act, as well as laws and directives 

from the European Union and other states. Issues considered for the convention included whether to limit its scope to crossborder transactions; 

how to identify location of international parties in cases involving Internet 

or other computer systems; whether to exclude consumer transactions, 

98 
Legal Developments 

financial services, or transactions involving software or intellectual property; and the role of electronic agents and automated transactions. The 

Working Group also considered whether an “omnibus protocol” or other 

treaty device might be employed to upgrade a number of existing conventions and multilateral instruments to make them compatible with computer–based communications and developing commercial practices. The 

United States supported both efforts. 

Following the completion of the Legislative Guide on Privately 

Financed Infrastructure Projects (PFI) in 2001, the Commission began 

preparing model core legislative provisions, a project that was sought by 

many developing countries as well as private–sector participants. The 

Working Group on PFI substantially completed these in 2002. The Group 

had considered recommendations from a number of outside sources, 

including the Public–Private Infrastructure Advisory Facility, a multi– 

donor technical assistance organization that focused on developing country issues, and also incorporated current practices for long–term development projects that involved private–sector finance and management in 

partnership with public–sector regulation. The model provisions, which 

form the outline of a model law, address fundamental aspects of the legal 

order necessary for states that wish to attract private capital to finance 

major infrastructure projects such as public water systems, power plants, 

airports, and toll roads. The Working Group recommended that the model 

provisions be considered by the full Commission at its Plenary Session in 

2003 for incorporation into a future edition of the Legislative Guide. The 

United States expects to approve the proposal. 

The Secretariat continued its record of effective technical assistance on 

implementation of modern commercial law, primarily for developing and 

emerging countries. Its work in modernizing commercial law has facilitated transactions that are theoretically available through trade agreements 

or other trade liberalization, but are often too difficult to realize because of 

older domestic legal standards that are incompatible with modern commercial and finance laws in many countries. The United States supports 

that conclusion and the efforts by the Secretariat to encourage commercial 

law reform in many countries, within the limited resources that it has 

available for this purpose. 

The Commission continued its unique practice of publishing abstracts 

of decisions in all UN languages involving UNCITRAL conventions and 

other trade law texts on its CLOUT system. As authorized by the Commission, the Secretariat undertook initial work to expand the CLOUT system 

to include guidance for states which adopt UNCITRAL texts, including 

trends in judicial and arbitral decisions, a process in which U.S. experts 

are involved. The commission also continued to co–host, along with the 

Pace University Law School in New York, the annual moot arbitration 

competition on international private commercial law held in Vienna which 

in 2002 involved over 120 teams from 30 countries. 

99 
United States Participation in the United Nations – 2002 

The Commission considered, but did not decide, whether to undertake 

work on proposals regarding fraudulent use of commercial and financial 

documents, such as letters of credit, loan documents, payment orders, etc., 

increasingly related to wide use of computer–based documentation. The 

United States noted that the growing fraudulent use of commercial documents could undermine existing markets and especially impact developing 

states. The Commission agreed to consider a future study that will involve 

U.S. experts. Commission members recognized that undertaking activity 

in this field would go beyond the scope of the Commission’s usual work, 

and resource limitations were already a serious concern vis–à–vis funding 

for the Secretariat and Working Groups. 

In order to enhance the participation of more states, UNCITRAL 

requested an increase in its size, which is currently 36 member states, the 

level established in 1973. An increase of 24 more states was approved in 

UN General Assembly Resolution 57/19, based on a proposal by the General Assembly’s Sixth Committee, which stated that this would not set a 

precedent for other General Assembly bodies, a position agreed to by the 

United States. The election of additional member states will take place in 

2003, coinciding with the expected candidacy of the United States to 

retain its current membership. 

The Commission in 2002 almost doubled the number of active 

projects, while reducing the average length of working group meetings so 

as to accommodate the workload through existing conference resources. 

This resulted from a significant increase in requests by member states for 

work on commercial law reform, reflecting growing awareness that disparities in commercial law are often reflected in trade and financing gaps. 

The Commission sought an increase in its professional staffing level, 

which has remained at its original 1968 level despite significant work program increases over the last several decades. UNCITRAL headquarters 

now operates with a staff of approximately 12 professionals. Based on the 

demonstrated effectiveness of its work, and the Report of the UN Office of 

Internal Oversight, the United States supported requests for increased staff 

resources within the existing budgetary levels authorized for the United 

Nations. The salaries and expenses budget of the Commission is currently 

about $1.7 million, which does not include costs for office space and facilities. The latter are allocated in the budget for the UN Vienna International 

Center. The U.S. share is approximately $370,000. 

The Commission continued its practice of focusing on technical legal 

work, and avoiding political issues that make progress difficult in some 

UN General Assembly bodies. This is in part accomplished by tradition 

and by working towards a core consensus on issues, while not requiring 

unanimity and rarely invoking voting procedures. Technical discussions, 

facilitated by Secretariat studies and recommendations, are developed 

largely through input on legal and economic issues by participating states, 

100 
Legal Developments 

and supplemented by private–sector NGOs with established expertise in 

commercial law. NGO participation on technical matters in UNCITRAL is 

by special invitation, and has generally been consistent with U.S. interests. 

The United States also works actively on commercial law subjects with 

U.S.–based NGOs such as bar associations, trade and industry groups, and 

state law bodies, which assures consideration of U.S. private–sector objectives. 

Host Country Relations 

The United States continued throughout 2002 to participate in the 

work of the Committee on Relations with the Host Country [the United 

States]. The Committee provides a forum to discuss issues concerning the 

UN diplomatic community in New York City, such as the security of missions, the safety of their personnel, tax questions, legal and visa issues, 

and privileges and immunities. Established in 1971 by the General Assembly, the Committee is responsible for issues in connection with the implementation of the UN Headquarters Agreement and the Convention on the 

Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations. During 2002, the 19– 

member Committee met on four occasions. 

The Committee has long debated the subject of diplomatic parking in 

New York City, and asked the host country to design a parking program to 

reduce automobile congestion, and improve traffic flow and safety, while 

enabling the United Nations and its members to fulfill their duties. After 

extensive negotiations, the host country and the host city agreed in 2002 to 

a parking program that would be transparent, non–discriminatory, and 

consistent with international law. 

On September 4, the United States presented the new program to 

members for their consideration while responding to their comments and 

questions. The members decided to seek the UN Legal Counsel’s opinion. 

At the Committee’s next meeting on October 15, the UN Legal Counsel 

noted the importance of good relations between the host city and the diplomatic community. He urged members to implement the new program. 

On November 8, the General Assembly adopted without a vote the 

“Report of the Committee on Relations with the Host Country” (Resolution 57/22). The resolution reaffirmed the UN Headquarters Agreement, 

the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, and the Convention on 

the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations; noted the UN Legal 

Counsel’s opinion on the Diplomatic Parking Program and the host country’s commitment to maintaining appropriate conditions for the functioning of the delegations and missions accredited to the United Nations; 

requested that the host country remove travel controls previously imposed 

by the host country on certain missions and staff members of the Secretariat of certain nationalities as soon as possible; and expressed its expectation that the host country would ensure the issuance of entry visas on a 

101 
United States Participation in the United Nations – 2002 

timely basis. Finally, the resolution expressed the Committee’s appreciation for the efforts of the host country. 

International Court of Justice 

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) is the United Nations’ main 

judicial organ. The ICJ adjudicates cases submitted to it by states and 

gives advisory opinions to the General Assembly, the Security Council, or 

other UN organs and specialized agencies authorized by the General 

Assembly to request such opinions. 

Fifteen judges sit on the ICJ, no two of whom may be nationals of the 

same state. The UN General Assembly and the Security Council, voting 

separately, elect the Court’s judges from a list of persons nominated by 

national groups in the Permanent Court of Arbitration. Judges are elected 

for nine–year terms, with five judges elected every three years. 

As of December 31, 2002, the Court consisted of Gilbert Guillaume 

(France— President), Shi Jiuyong (China— Vice–President), Shigeru Oda 

(Japan), Raymond Ranjeva (Madagascar), Geza Herczegh (Hungary), 

Carl–August Fleischhauer (Germany), Abdul G. Koroma (Sierra Leone), 

Vladlen S. Vereshchetin (Russia), Rosalyn Higgins (United Kingdom), 

Gonzalo Parra–Aranguren (Venezuela), Pieter H. Kooijmans (Netherlands), Francisco Rezak (Brazil), Awn Shawkat Al–Khasawneh (Jordan), 

Thomas Buergenthal (United States), and Nabil Elaraby (Egypt). 

At the election in the fall of 2002, Judge Shi Jiuyong and Judge Abdul 

G. Koroma were re–elected to the Court, and Hisashi Owada (Japan), 

Bruno Simma (Germany), and Peter Tomka (Slovakia) were elected for 

the first time. 

In 2002, the United States litigated the following cases before the ICJ. 

Iran v. United States of America 

This case, which continued throughout 2002, dates back to 1992, 

when Iran sued the United States in the ICJ claiming that U.S. military 

actions against Iranian oil platforms in the Persian Gulf in 1986 and 1987, 

during the Iran–Iraq conflict, violated the U.S.–Iranian 1955 Treaty of 

Amity. The incidents cited by Iran followed attacks by Iranian military 

forces against U.S. naval and commercial vessels in the Gulf. 

The United States filed a Preliminary Objection to the Court’s jurisdiction that was considered at hearings in September 1996. In December 

1996, the ICJ decided that it did not have jurisdiction under two of the 

three treaty articles invoked by Iran, but that it had jurisdiction to consider 

a third treaty claim. 

On June 23, 1997, the United States filed its Counter–Memorial and a 

counter–claim. On March 10, 1998, the ICJ held that the counter–claim 

was “admissible” and directed the parties to submit further written pleadings on the merits. Following two requests for extensions, Iran filed its 

102 
Legal Developments 

Reply and defense to the U.S. counter–claim on March 10, 1999. The 

United States filed its Rejoinder on March 23, 2001. Iran subsequently 

requested and received authorization to submit an additional written 

pleading relating solely to the U.S. counter–claim, which it filed on September 24, 2001. In late 2002, the ICJ scheduled three weeks of oral proceedings in the case, to commence on February 17, 2003. 

Libya v. United States of America 

This case against the United States also dates back to 1992, when 

Libya brought suits against the United States and the United Kingdom 

charging violations of the 1971 Montreal (Air Sabotage) Convention. 

Libya claimed that the United States and the United Kingdom interfered 

with Libya’s alleged right under the Montreal Convention to try two persons accused by American and Scottish authorities of bombing Pan Am 

Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland on December 21, 1988. 

On June 20, 1995, the United States filed Preliminary Objections to the 

ICJ’s jurisdiction in the case; the United Kingdom also filed Preliminary 

Objections. October 13–22, 1997, the ICJ held hearings on both sets of 

Preliminary Objections. On February 27, 1998, the ICJ rejected some of 

the U.S. and British Preliminary Objections while holding that others 

could only be decided during the merits stage of the case. The ICJ ordered 

the United States to file its Memorial by December 31, 1998. 

On December 8, 1998, the United States asked the ICJ for a three– 

month extension, to determine whether Libya would respond to an Anglo– 

American initiative proposing creation of a Scottish court in the Netherlands to try the two suspects. On December 17, 1998, the ICJ extended the 

filing date for the U.S. and British Counter–Memorials until March 31, 

1999. The United States and the United Kingdom then both filed Counter– 

Memorials on that date. 

On April 5, 1999, the two suspects arrived in the Netherlands accompanied by the UN Legal Counsel. Dutch authorities detained the two suspects, who were then extradited to the custody of Scottish authorities for 

trial in a Scottish court set up in the Netherlands. 

In June 1999, the ICJ held a meeting with the parties to the cases to 

discuss further scheduling in the cases in light of the surrender of suspects 

for trial. The ICJ subsequently ordered Libya to file its Replies to the U.S. 

and U.K. Counter–Memorials by June 29, 2000. After Libya submitted the 

necessary filings, the ICJ ordered the United States and the United Kingdom to file their Rejoinders by August 3, 2001, which they did. The case 

continued through 2002, but without filings by any of the parties or action 

by the court. 

International Criminal Court (ICC) 

The International Criminal Court (ICC) is not a UN organization and 

on May 6, 2002, the United States informed the Secretary–General, in his 

103 
United States Participation in the United Nations – 2002 

capacity as treaty depositary, that it would not become a party to the Rome 

Statute of the ICC, which it regards as fundamentally flawed. In so doing, 

the United States nullified any legal effects resulting from its signature of 

the ICC treaty. The United States strongly objected to the ICC’s claim of 

jurisdiction over nationals of non–parties to the Rome Statute. The United 

States was also concerned about the potential for conflict with the UN 

Charter, which gives primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security to the Security Council. 

The ICC could have affected the participation of the United States in 

peacekeeping missions because peacekeepers from non–ICC states could 

be exposed to unnecessary legal jeopardy. To guard against this possibility, the United States secured the Security Council’s unanimous adoption 

of Resolution 1422 on July 12, which, under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, contains a request, binding under the Rome Statute, that the ICC neither investigate nor prosecute personnel and officials from states not party 

to the ICC for acts or omissions relating to UN–authorized peacekeeping 

operations for the following 12 months. Such a request by the Security 

Council is consistent with Article 16 of the Rome Statute. The resolution 

further mandates that no UN member state take any action inconsistent 

with that request. The Security Council expressed its intention to renew 

this request for a further 12–month period. The United States also began to 

pursue a global network of agreements with individual countries to protect 

all U.S. nationals from ICC jurisdiction. 

The United States continued to be a forceful advocate for accountability for war crimes and other grave violations of international law. U.S. 

policy aimed to encourage states to pursue justice within their sovereign 

institutions and, when appropriate, through ad hoc courts and other mechanisms established by the UN Security Council. 

International Law Commission (ILC) 

The International Law Commission (ILC), which first met in 1948, 

promotes the development and codification of international law. The ILC 

consists of 34 distinguished figures in international law serving in their 

individual capacities. The General Assembly elects the members every 

five years for five–year terms. One member of the ILC is an American, 

Robert Rosenstock, who began his third term in 2002 when he was elected 

ILC Chair. 

At its 54th session in 2002, the ILC continued to work on “reservations 

to treaties” by adopting 11 draft guidelines on the formation and communication of legal reservations and interpretive declarations. The ILC also 

adopted seven articles on “diplomatic protection.” 

The ILC continued to work on the following subjects: “unilateral acts 

of states”; “international liability for injurious consequences arising out of 

acts not prohibited by international law”— that is, international liability in 

the case of loss from transboundary harm arising out of hazardous activi104 
Legal Developments 

ties; “responsibility of international organizations”; “fragmentation of 

international law”— that is, difficulties arising from the diversification and 

expansion of international law; and “shared natural resources.” 

In 2002, the UN General Assembly’s Sixth Committee (legal issues), 

considered the annual Report of the International Law Commission. The 

United States representative to the Sixth Committee stated that the ILC 

“ha[d] continued its outstanding work on a wide variety of international 

law issues.” 

He made further procedural and substantive observations about the 

ILC’s work. He recommended that the ILC accelerate and complete its 

analysis of “reservations to treaties.” He stated that the United States 

opposed a proposal by a Special Rapporteur on “reservations to treaties” 

that would give a treaty depositary the authority to determine whether a 

signatory’s reservation is consistent with the object and purpose of the 

treaty. At the same time, he noted that reservations received by depositaries should be circulated to all of the parties. 

He stated the U.S. concern regarding “diplomatic protection,” that 

exceptions set forth in the ILC’s draft article 4 on “continuous nationality”— the customary international law principle that holds that a state is 

entitled to exercise diplomatic protection of a person who both was a 

national at the time of the injury and remains a national at the time of the 

presentation of the claim— do not comport with the rules of customary 

international law and, therefore, should be revised. 

With respect to “international liability for injurious consequences arising out of acts not prohibited by international law,” he declared the U.S. 

opposition to the creation of any global liability regime. Rather, changes 

in international liability regulation should proceed only following careful 

negotiations over discrete topics or regarding particular regions. 

He questioned the wisdom of approaching the subject “shared natural 

resources” in a sweeping manner. He thought a better use of ILC resources 

would be to study groundwater issues. It is anticipated that the ILC will 

consider his observations when it works on these topics in 2003. 

Strengthening the Role of the United Nations 

The Special Committee on the Charter of the United Nations and on 

the Strengthening of the Role of the Organization (Charter Committee) 

held its 27th annual session March 18–28. The General Assembly Sixth 

Committee (legal issues) debated and adopted in the fall a resolution 

adopting the report of the Committee’s work, and a resolution on its chief 

substantive agenda item concerning “Implementation of Charter Provisions Related to Assistance to Third States Affected by the Application of 

Sanctions.” That issue concerns, principally, Article 50 of the Charter 

which provides that a state, “which finds itself confronted with special 

economic problems” arising from the carrying out of UN sanctions (or 

105 
United States Participation in the United Nations – 2002 

other preventive or enforcement measures), shall have the right “to consult 

the Security Council with regard to a solution of those problems.” The 

General Assembly subsequently adopted the resolutions by consensus on 

November 19, 2002 (Resolutions 57/24 and 57/25, respectively). 

The Special Committee recommended to the General Assembly that it 

continue to consider the aforementioned sanctions assistance issue by 

commencing a substantive debate regarding all related Secretary–General 

reports pertaining to the matter, in particular the report on the results of the 

June 1998 ad hoc expert group meeting on methodological approaches to 

assessing the third–country effects of sanctions. The Special Committee 

also strongly encouraged the Secretary–General to expedite the submission of his further views on the issue, which would take into account, inter 

alia, the recent work of the Security Council’s ad hoc working group on 

sanctions. The United States reiterated its support for procedural measures 

aimed at ensuring that proper attention be paid to this issue by both the 

United Nations and other appropriate bodies. The United States stressed 

that international financial institutions would lead in addressing such economic problems, while opposing such proposals as calling for a UN trust 

fund, funded by assessed contributions, for such aggrieved third states. 

Other subjects considered by the Special Committee and supported by 

the United States as having practical merit included ways and means of 

improving the organization’s dispute prevention and settlement capabilities by enhancing mediation and other tools available to the Secretary– 

General, and improving the working methods and increasing the efficiency of the Special Committee itself. On the former subject, the United 

States was instrumental in steering the Committee toward consensus on a 

Sierra Leonean and U.K. proposal, which was subsequently adopted by 

the General Assembly as Resolution 57/26, on the Prevention and Peaceful Settlement of Disputes. On the latter subject, the United States was 

supportive of the Japan–led initiative to streamline the Special Committee’s work, particularly through a mechanism for deleting from the Committee’s meeting agenda long–standing, often politically–charged, 

proposals that were duplicative of matters being considered elsewhere in 

the organization and/or stood no chance of achieving consensus. In this 

regard, the United States once again took a lead role in the Special Committee in opposing, as unnecessary and inappropriate, continued efforts by 

some other delegations to foster new, generic criteria and guidelines aimed 

at establishing certain controls with respect to the imposition of sanctions, 

peacekeeping operations, the use of force, and General Assembly versus 

Security Council prerogatives. 

106 
Legal Developments 

War Crimes Tribunals 

International Criminal Tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and 

Rwanda 

In 2002, the United States continued to support the work of the International Criminal Tribunals for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) and 

Rwanda (ICTR) that try individuals accused of having committed genocide, crimes against humanity, and other violations of international 

humanitarian law in these two countries. The Security Council, with U.S. 

backing, established the ICTY in May 1993 and the ICTR in November 

1994 as organs of the Council to which they report regularly. 

From its inception through the end of 2002, the ICTY had indicted 124 

individuals, of which 41 persons were held in custody, 30 were convicted, 

five acquitted of all charges, eight were standing trial, and the rest fugitives from justice. At the ICTR, 81 individuals had been indicted from the 

tribunal’s inception through the end of 2002, and 62 were in custody, of 

which eight were convicted, one acquitted, and 22 were on trial. 

The United States has encouraged both tribunals to devise strategies 

that would enable them to complete all trials by 2008. In June 2002, Judge 

Claude Jorda, then–President of the ICTY, reported to the Security Council on achieving this objective. He recommended prosecuting the highest– 

level offenders and letting Bosnia, Yugoslavia, and Croatia prosecute the 

others. After his and Carla Del Ponte’s (the Chief Prosecutor of both Tribunals) remarks, the Security Council, with U.S. support, adopted a Presidential Statement on July 23, 2002, which endorsed the ICTY’s 

completion strategy. 

The United States continued to encourage ICTY and ICTR officials to 

streamline their organizations and complete the task before them. To 

address the case backlog and expedite ICTR proceedings, the United 

States supported Security Council Resolution 1431 of August 14, which 

authorized the tribunal to use a pool of 18 ad litem (temporary) judges, of 

which four could be used at any one time. 

The United States continued to press regional governments to cooperate fully with the ICTY by arresting and extraditing to The Hague indictees, such as Radovan Karadzic and Ratke Mladic, who lived in their 

territories. 

In June 2002, the United States expanded its Rewards for Justice 

Program, offering up to $5 million for information leading to the capture 

of those indicted by the ICTR. Apprehension of three leading suspects— 

including the arrest of General Bizimungu in Angola and of Colonel Renzaho, an accused mastermind of the Rwandan genocide, in the Democratic 

Republic of the Congo— followed. A significant rewards payment for the 

arrest of fugitives was also approved under the program for the Balkans in 

2002. 

107 
United States Participation in the United Nations – 2002 

In July 2002, Prosecutor Del Ponte informed the Security Council that 

Rwanda’s Government and victims associations had impeded the tribunal 

from receiving the testimony of witnesses, delaying important ICTR trials. 

U.S. officials have tried to improve communication among survivor support organizations, the ICTR, and Rwanda’s Government. 

Rwanda’s Government renewed its cooperation with the ICTR, 

enabling trials to resume in the fall of 2002. But in October, Prosecutor 

Del Ponte and Judge Jorda reported to the Security Council that cooperation of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, the Republika Srpska, and 

Croatia was inadequate. 

In December, the Security Council adopted a Presidential Statement, 

which noted the Prosecutor’s letter and Rwanda’s response, and a letter 

from then–ICTY President Jorda on the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia’s 

non–cooperation and its response. The Security Council reaffirmed its 

support of the ICTR and ICTY and recalled the obligation of every state to 

cooperate fully with the tribunals. 

Annual UN performance reports have noted that an excessive number 

of defense counsel changes have delayed ICTR trials. During 2002, the 

United States urged both the ICTR and ICTY to improve their efficiency 

and effectiveness and address cases in which the defense counsel splits its 

fee with defendants claiming indigence. In response, the tribunals adopted 

stricter codes of conduct regarding this fee–splitting and dismissed 

defense counsel who had done this. The United States commended these 

steps, but stated that more could be done. 

In a 2001 General Assembly session to improve the tribunals, the 

United States had recommended that the ICTR and ICTY hire on–site 

auditors and investigators. At the end of 2002, both tribunals had nearly 

completed arrangements to hire such personnel. 

The United States is the largest financial contributor to both the ICTY 

and ICTR. In calendar year 2002, U.S. assessed contributions for both tribunals totaled $52.2 million. 

Sierra Leone Special Court 

The Sierra Leone Special Court plays a fundamental role assisting 

Sierra Leone to achieve a lasting peace and national reconciliation after 

more than a decade of conflict. In 2000, the United States helped secure 

adoption of UN Security Council Resolution 1315, which requested the 

Secretary–General to enter into an agreement with the Government of 

Sierra Leone to establish an independent special court with jurisdiction 

over those who bear the greatest responsibility for violations of international humanitarian and Sierra Leonean law. The Special Court was envisaged as a UN/Sierra Leone independent, hybrid body rather than a 

subsidiary organ of the Security Council. 

On January 16, 2002, Under Secretary–General for Legal Affairs Hans 

Corell and Sierra Leone Attorney–General Solomon Berewa signed an 

108 
Legal Developments 

agreement between the United Nations and Sierra Leone establishing the 

Sierra Leone Special Court. As a key contributor to the Special Court, the 

United States participated in the Special Court Management Committee, 

which provides administrative oversight over the body. In January, the 

United States joined other representatives on the Management Committee 

traveling to Sierra Leone on a planning mission. 

On April 19, 2002, Secretary–General Annan announced the appointment of David Crane (United States) as the Special Court’s prosecutor. 

Mr. Crane and the Court’s Registrar, Robin Vincent (United Kingdom) 

arrived in Freetown in the summer of 2002, and began setting up the court 

and hiring staff. The Prosecutor’s office also began conducting investigations and meetings with Sierra Leoneans to explain the mission of the Special Court. A renowned forensic anthropologist, Dr. William Haglund, led 

a mission to Sierra Leone in September 2002 that completed an initial 

investigation of 30 mass graves. The team was scheduled to undertake two 

more missions in 2003. On December 2, 2002, the Court’s Registrar swore 

in eight Special Court judges— five appointed by the United Nations and 

three by the Government of Sierra Leone. These eight would serve in a 

trial chamber, comprised of two judges appointed by the Secretary–General and one by Sierra Leone; and an appellate chamber, comprised of 

three judges appointed by the Secretary–General and two by Sierra Leone. 

The United States contributed a total of $10 million in voluntary funding for the court’s first two years of operation, 2002 and 2003, and has 

pledged another $5 million 2004. 

In 2002, with U.S. support, the UN Office of the High Commissioner 

for Human Rights also established a Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) in Sierra Leone. The TRC, while not a court of law, was to 

collect testimony of victims and perpetrators, and hold hearings, with the 

intent of creating an impartial record of human rights violations, and 

thereby promote healing and national reconciliation. In 2002, the United 

States contributed $500,000 to the TRC. In mid–May, the names of the 

TRC Commissioners were announced; four were Sierra Leonean and three 

foreign. The TRC began its substantive work in December, taking statements in Bomaru, the village where the conflict started in March 1991. 

109 

Part 4 

Reform of the UN System 

Administrative and Management Reform 

After the release of the Secretary–General’s new round of reform proposals in fall 2002, the United States actively engaged the UN Secretariat 

and other member states to ensure that these administrative and management reforms would result in a more efficient and effective UN system. 

The Secretary–General signaled his continuing commitment to 

improvement in the UN by issuing a new round (Track III) of reform proposals with 36 action items. On December 20, the General Assembly 

adopted Resolution 57/300 by consensus, allowing the Secretary–General 

to implement most of his initiatives and requesting additional information 

regarding the others. 

Secretary–General Kofi Annan announced that the overarching theme 

of these proposals would be “doing what matters” most to member states. 

In this light, he indicated that the UN’s program of work, Medium–Term 

Plan, and budget would reflect the Millennium Development Goals as 

agreed upon by the member states. He sought to immediately implement 

those reforms that he could as chief administrative officer of the United 

Nations and to obtain UN General Assembly approval of the other action 

items that had budgetary implications. 

The reform proposals included a major review of the Department of 

Public Information, as well as the creation of regional information hub 

centers to improve the flow of information and achieve efficiency savings, 

such as by consolidating some offices. The Secretary–General also committed to implementing better evaluations of programs; establishing a 

more efficient, streamlined budget and programming process; and instituting management improvements to improve policy planning in the Department of Economic and Social Affairs, strengthening management in the 

Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, and facilitating 

earlier planning in the Department of General Assembly and Conference 

Management. 

The Secretary–General’s reform proposal identified major improvements in the planning and servicing of meetings (including increased use 

of information technology); ways to reinforce coordination among UN 

111 
United States Participation in the United Nations – 2002 

entities, such as through joint programming and integrated resources 

mobilization in field coordination; ways to streamline and strengthen the 

interaction between the United Nations and civil society based on a high– 

level panel’s recommendations; and methods that would improve the quality and performance of staff (such as by implementing flexible work hours 

and encouraging mobility). 

Although the United States supported the resolution giving the Secretary–General the authorization to pursue this newest set of management 

reforms, it believed close monitoring would be needed to ensure the 

reforms were implemented in a cost–effective manner. 

Peacekeeping Reform 

Implementation of peacekeeping reform measures continued in 2002. 

With staffing shortages in the Department of Peacekeeping Operations 

(DPKO) having been addressed and largely corrected during the previous 

two years, member states focused their attention on the problem of slow 

deployment times caused by procurement delays. To meet deployment 

goals of 30 days for a traditional mission and 90 days for a complex mission, as suggested by the Panel on UN Peace Operations in 2000 and subsequently endorsed by the Secretary–General and the Special Committee 

on Peacekeeping Operations, the General Assembly adopted Resolution 

56/292 on July 18, 2002. This resolution authorized funds in the amount of 

$141.5 million for the establishment of Strategic Deployment Stocks 

(SDS) at the UN Logistics Base in Brindisi, Italy. The Secretariat’s original proposal for the SDS had included enough equipment to outfit both a 

large, complex mission of approximately 10,000 troops, and a smaller, traditional mission of up to 5,000 troops. The United States recommended 

and found support for a more realistic proposal that authorized funding for 

only the large mission, until the concept proved effective. In its report, the 

Special Committee expressed the view that the SDS should be ready to 

support one complex mission by early 2003, with the possibility of 

expanding this capacity to include the smaller, traditional mission at a 

later date. 

Another issue addressed by the Special Committee was the methodology for reimbursing troop–contributing countries. Major troop contributors had been urging adoption of higher reimbursement rates and 

accelerated payments, with some calling for advance payment before 

deployment. The United States was successful in postponing consideration 

of this matter pending a review and development of new proposed reimbursement formulas by the Secretariat. The review was still in progress at 

the end of the year and the Special Committee anticipated further discussion of the issue at the second resumed session of the 57th General Assembly in May 2003. 

The General Assembly approved two key additional new posts for the 

DPKO in Resolution 56/293 on July 30, 2002. These were for a Director 

112 
Reform of the UN System 

of Change Management (D–2), and a Disarmament, Demobilization, and 

Reintegration Adviser (P–4). The Advisory Committee on Administrative 

and Budgetary Questions had recommended approval of these new posts 

in 2001, but the Fifth Committee had deferred consideration until 2002. 

The United States supported these proposed new posts based on the findings of a comprehensive review conducted in 2001. 

The Security Council continued efforts to improve dialogue and 

strengthen the three–way relationship among the Council, troop–contributing countries (TCC), and the Secretariat. At the urging of TCCs not 

completely satisfied with meetings and briefings conducted under the provisions of Security Council Resolution 1353 (2001), the President of the 

Council issued a note in January 2002 establishing a new mechanism for 

consultations with major troop contributors (those countries contributing 

at least a unit). This group had acknowledged the improvements of Resolution 1353, but felt it did not go far enough in providing a forum for 

informal and interactive dialogue. The United States initially opposed the 

establishment of another forum for consultations out of concern that additional meetings might impede the work of the Council, but eventually 

agreed to the new mechanism. Under this new format, the Security Council Working Group on Peacekeeping would conduct joint meetings with 

TCCs and the Secretariat. This mechanism was used in August to brief 

major TCCs on Sierra Leone. Participants expressed satisfaction with the 

briefing. 

At year’s end, recruiting for 184 new posts authorized for DPKO in 

2000 and 2001 was 98 percent complete with 180 filled. Of four new posts 

authorized for DPKO in 2002, all were filled. Of 39 peacekeeping–related 

posts approved for other UN departments in 2000 and 2001, recruiting 

was 95 percent complete with 37 positions filled. Efforts continued to 

recruit qualified personnel for all remaining vacant posts. As a result of 

the new posts approved since 2000, DPKO had reached an authorized 

staffing level of 577. 

Security Council Reform 

For the ninth year in a row, a meeting took place of the General 

Assembly’s “Open–Ended Working Group on the Question of the Equitable Representation on and Increase in the Membership of the Security 

Council and Other Matters related to the Security Council.” Once again, 

its members (with membership open to all UN members) failed to arrive at 

any consensus on the issues of Security Council expansion or changes to 

the Council’s working methods. The Working Group was to continue 

deliberations in 2003. 

The 57th General Assembly discussed the question of Security Council reform in an October plenary meeting. During that debate, the United 

States stressed that Security Council reform should be a means to enable 

the Council to better exercise its primary responsibility under the UN 

113 
United States Participation in the United Nations – 2002 

Charter for the maintenance of international peace and security. The 

United States also stated that the Council’s ultimate size and composition 

must be considered at the same time. Finally, the United States made clear 

that it would continue to oppose efforts to limit or eliminate the veto. 

114 
Part 5 

Administration and 

Budget 

UN Financial Situation 

The United Nations ended 2002 with member state arrears totaling 

$1.683 billion for assessments relating to the UN regular budget, the international war crimes tribunals, and peacekeeping operations. This was 

below the level of $2.106 billion in arrears that existed at the end of 2001. 

The United States accounted for $738 million, or 44 percent, of total member arrears in 2002. Most of the U.S. amount, $536 million, was related to 

UN peacekeeping operations. 

During 2002, the United States paid $988.5 million toward all its UN 

assessments, including $30 million in prior period arrears for UN peacekeeping. The $30 million represented the third and final installment of 

funds made available under the Helms–Biden legislation (1999). The 

United States previously had cleared $682 million in arrears under the legislation— $54 million for the UN regular budget and $628 million for 

peacekeeping. 

The U.S. payment pattern was affected by the delay in the U.S. appropriation process for fiscal year 2003. The delay reduced by approximately 

$24 million the amount that normally would have been paid to the UN regular budget during the calendar year. The United States paid $255.2 million in 2002, as compared to the expected level of $279.3 million. The 

balance will be paid in the first–half of calendar year 2003, or after completion of the fiscal year 2003 appropriation process. 

Following past practice, the General Assembly discussed the UN’s 

financial situation in the context of a presentation on UN finances made by 

Joseph Connor (United States), the UN Under Secretary–General for Management. The presentation affirmed the cautious optimism expressed in 

2001 regarding improvements in the UN’s financial situation. This optimism was based largely on the payment of arrears by the United States, in 

accordance with the provisions of the Helms–Biden legislation. 

At the same time, the Secretariat noted the negative impact on the 

UN’s cash flow as a result of delayed payments by many UN members of 

their current period assessments to the UN regular budget. As of September 30, 2002, 105 UN members had paid their regular budget assessments 

115 
United States Participation in the United Nations – 2002 

in full, compared with 122 UN members for the same period in 2001. The 

Secretariat projected that, as of December 31, 2002, the total amount owed 

would be $850 million. The delay in payments caused the United Nations 

in September to cross–borrow from dormant peacekeeping accounts in 

order to finance temporary shortfalls in the regular budget. 

Several UN members voiced concern about the UN’s practice of 

cross–borrowing, while most affirmed the premise that all member assessments should be paid in full, on time and without conditions. These positions were consistent with those made in the past. Some UN members (but 

not the United States, although it does not disagree) also urged the United 

Nations to continue efforts to reimburse troop–contributing countries, particularly developing countries, for costs relating to UN peacekeeping operations. 

The tone of the General Assembly’s discussion of the UN’s financial 

situation was non–controversial. This was in part due to the further payment of U.S. arrears and the Secretariat’s cautious optimism regarding the 

UN’s financial future. Consistent with past practice, the General Assembly did not adopt a resolution to reflect discussion of the issue. 

UN Budget 

In 2002, the General Assembly approved revised estimates for the UN 

regular budget for the biennium 2002–2003 and the level of the UN budget outline for the biennium 2004–2005. All resolutions on the budget 

were adopted by consensus. 

On June 27, 2002, the General Assembly, at its 56th resumed session, 

adopted Resolution 56/274–B under the agenda item titled, “Estimates in 

Respect of Matters of which the Security Council is Seized.” The United 

States supported this resolution. 

Resolution 56/274–B authorized the appropriations of $2.1 million for 

the continuation of the UN Tajikistan Office of Peace–building from June 

1, 2002, through May 31, 2003. The resolution also addressed funding 

issues relating to the newly established UN Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA). Specifically, it approved a charge of $34.3 million for 

UNAMA against the remaining balance of the provision for special political missions, as appropriated in December 2001 under Section 3 of the UN 

budget for 2002–2003 (Resolution 56/254). It also authorized an additional appropriation of $12.6 million for UNAMA in the UN 2002–2003 

budget. The effect of these additional appropriations resulted in an 

increase of $14.7 million in the UN budget for the biennium 2002–2003. 

On June 27, 2002, the General Assembly also adopted by consensus 

Resolution 56/286, which authorized an additional appropriation of $59.4 

million for strengthening safety and security measures at UN premises 

worldwide. In addition to the UN headquarters in New York, this appropriation addressed immediate safety and security concerns at facilities in 

116 
Administration and Budget 

Geneva, Vienna, Addis Ababa, Santiago, Bangkok, and Beirut. The 

United States supported Resolution 56/286 as an essential response by the 

United Nations to security concerns raised after September 11, 2001. 

The combined additional appropriations approved under these two resolutions amounted to $74.1 million. This raised the 2002–2003 UN budget 

to a revised level of $2.7 billion as compared to the level of $2.6 billion 

initially approved in December 2001. 

In December 2002, the UN budget for 2002–2003 was revised further 

to take account of estimates identified in the Secretary–General’s first 

report of budget performance for the biennium and additional requirements approved by the General Assembly at its 57th regular session. 

In Resolution 57/293 of December 20, the General Assembly approved 

by consensus a revised appropriation level for the biennium amounting to 

$2.9 billion, or an increase of $191.6 million over the level approved in 

June. The increase reflected new or enhanced requirements for several 

activities of interest to the United States. It included additional requirements for special political missions, as mandated by the Security Council; 

activities of an unforeseen or extraordinary nature for the maintenance of 

peace and security, as authorized by the Secretary–General; costs related 

to the extension of mandates for UN human rights activities in Central 

America and Burma (Myanmar); costs related to the work of the Security 

Council’s Counter–Terrorism Committee; and costs related to the 

strengthening of the Secretariat’s Terrorism Prevention Branch. 

The revised budget also reflected higher costs relating to technical factors such as inflation, exchange rates, staff vacancy rates and staff salary 

adjustments, based on the review of the International Civil Service Commission (ICSC). 

Working with other delegations, the United States was able to limit 

increases relating to the outcome of the ICSC review and the staff vacancy 

rates. The United States also was able to reduce the proposed subsidy level 

for a UN activity that derives most of its funding from voluntary contributions, and to reduce the level of honoraria paid to members of certain UN 

expert committees and bodies. The reduction helped to offset the added 

costs relating primarily to an initiative advocated by some UN members to 

restore the financing of free computer–hosting services from the 2002– 

2003 UN budget. 

The General Assembly also approved the UN program budget outline 

for the next biennium. As adopted by consensus on December 20, Resolution 57/280 invites the Secretary–General to prepare his proposed 2004– 

2005 budget on the basis of a preliminary estimate of $2.9 billion at 

revised 2002–2003 rates. It also establishes the level of the Contingency 

Fund at $21.6 million, or 0.75 percent, of the preliminary estimate. 

The resolution also notes that the General Assembly will consider an 

additional provision of $29.8 million in the Secretary–General’s proposed 

117 
United States Participation in the United Nations – 2002 

budget for costs relating to information technology and common services 

infrastructure. In terms of priorities, the resolution identifies eight priorities of a broad sectoral nature for the biennium 2004–2005: (1) maintenance of international peace and security; (2) promotion of sustained 

economic growth and sustainable development; (3) development of 

Africa; (4) promotion of human rights; (5) effective coordination of 

humanitarian assistance efforts; (6) promotion of justice and international 

law; (7) disarmament; and (8) drug control, crime prevention and efforts 

to combat international terrorism in all its forms and manifestations. 

In joining consensus on Resolution 57/280, the United States and other 

like–minded member states made clear to the Secretary–General an expectation that the proposed 2004–2005 budget should reflect the outcome of a 

thorough review of all UN activities by the respective program managers. 

Such a review would improve priority–setting in the UN system by providing concrete proposals to reduce or eliminate program activities that 

are obsolete or of marginal value. The effort also should lead to greater 

discipline in the UN budget process, a key U.S. objective in the United 

Nations. 

The Secretary–General’s proposed budget for 2004–2005, to be issued 

in spring 2003, will be followed by reviews by the UN’s Committee for 

Program and Coordination and by the expert Advisory Committee on 

Administrative and Budgetary Questions. The General Assembly, through 

the Fifth Committee (Administrative and Budgetary), will debate the proposed budget at its 58th session in autumn 2003. The budget will be 

approved in December 2003. 

Capital Master Plan 

The UN Capital Master Plan (CMP) represents a comprehensive proposal by the Secretary–General to refurbish and renovate the UN headquarters complex in New York. Completed in 1952, the complex does not 

meet current building codes for fire prevention and safety. It is energy 

inefficient, and it needs significant security upgrades. The Secretary–General’s most recent proposal for the CMP, as presented in UN document A/ 

57/285 (released August 2002), provides options for renovation through a 

comprehensive, phased plan. 

The CMP likely would cost over $1 billion and take five to six years to 

complete. Among the key issues raised in the CMP proposal are financial 

arrangements for the project, including the possibility of significant 

financing from the United States as host country; and a provisional offer 

from the UN Development Corporation (UNDC), a public–benefit corporation comprised of officials from the City and State of New York, to construct a new building adjacent to the existing complex using bond 

authority (which they would seek to make tax–free) for funding. The 

building would be used as swing–space during the renovations; it would 

118 
Administration and Budget 

also be used to consolidate those UN elements currently dispersed 

throughout Manhattan once renovations were complete. 

Both issues— overall CMP financing and the status of the UNDC 

offer— will be considered by the General Assembly in 2003. 

On December 20, 2002, the General Assembly adopted by consensus 

Resolution 57/292 (Part II), which concerned the Capital Master Plan. The 

resolution decides that the CMP will be implemented according to the initial baseline proposal of the Secretary–General’s report (A/57/285); the 

projected construction budget would be $1.05 billion, plus or minus 10 

percent; and the proposed starting date for the five–year construction plan 

would be October 2004. The resolution also authorizes the Secretary–General to proceed with the remaining phases of design development and construction documentation, and requests the Secretary–General to submit 

plans for additional conference facilities and other aspects relating to the 

CMP infrastructure to the 58th session of the General Assembly. 

In terms of budget appropriations, the resolution establishes a special 

account for the financing of the CMP, which is separate from the regular 

(assessed) UN budget. An amount of $25.5 million would be appropriated 

to the special account for the biennium 2002–2003, in accordance with the 

financing provisions of the UN regular scale of assessment. The appropriation will finance the design and related project management and management of pre–construction services for the baseline scope and certain 

options of the CMP. The U.S. share of the appropriation, $5.6 million, represents 22 percent of the total. 

The resolution authorizes the Secretary–General to enter into commitments of up to $26 million in 2004–2005 for the remaining work relating 

to design and management services. 

Finally, the resolution requests the Secretary–General to report to the 

General Assembly at its 58th session on the following: 

• The status of possible funding arrangements for the CMP, including a 

financial package to be provided by the host country; 

• The Secretary–General’s efforts to secure other contributions for the 

CMP from public and private sources; 

• The outcome of negotiations with the City and State of New York 

concerning the construction of a new building adjacent to the existing 

UN complex; and 

• The progress of the design work. 

In view of the uncertainties in 2002 regarding possible U.S. financial 

support for the CMP, including provision of an interest–free loan or other 

financing, and construction of a new building adjacent to the existing 

complex, the resolution includes language that would make non–binding 

many aspects of the approved text. Paragraph 32 of Resolution 56/292 

(Part II) states that, with the exception of the provisions regarding funding 

119 
United States Participation in the United Nations – 2002 

for design and management services over the current and next biennia 

($25.5 million and $26 million, respectively) and the requests regarding 

design specifications, none of the provisions would be binding in the event 

that the City and State of New York could not fulfill their commitments to 

the CMP, and if the host country did not offer a financial package to cover 

the costs of the baseline scope and related scope options, as described in 

paragraph 5 of the resolution. 

In the concluding paragraphs of the resolution, the General Assembly 

reverted to the issue of financial arrangements for the CMP at its 58th session and requested that the Secretary–General submit annual progress 

reports on the implementation of the CMP. 

Scale of Assessments 

In 2002, the United States joined consensus on two UN General 

Assembly resolutions that dealt with the scale of assessments. 

On September 27, the General Assembly adopted Resolution 57/4–A, 

restoring voting rights in the General Assembly for eight UN member 

states. These members had lost their voting rights under Article 19 of the 

UN Charter, after their arrears equaled or exceeded their assessment levels 

for the two previous years. The resolution temporarily restored the voting 

rights through June 30, 2003, for Comoros, Georgia, Guinea–Bissau, the 

Republic of Moldova, Sao Tome and Principe, Somalia, and Tajikistan as 

acknowledgment that their arrears were due to reasons beyond their control. Burundi’s voting rights were restored until June 2, 2003, or the start 

of the next substantial session of the UN’s Committee on Contributions. 

On December 20, the General Assembly adopted by consensus Resolution 57/4–B concerning adjustments to the UN regular scale of assessments for calendar year 2003. The resolution established the rates of 

assessment for two new member states, Switzerland at 1.274 percent and 

the Republic of Timor–Leste at 0.001 percent. The resolution reduced 

only the regular assessment rates for Argentina, from 1.14 percent to 0.96 

percent, and Afghanistan, from 0.004 percent to 0.001 percent. 

These ad hoc reductions for Afghanistan and Argentina had been recommended by the UN Committee on Contributions during its regular session in June. The Committee noted that the underlying economic data used 

in 2000 to determine Afghanistan’s assessment rate was flawed. Revised 

data was provided to the Committee for its June 2002 deliberations. The 

General Assembly concurred with the Committee’s finding and decided to 

reduce Afghanistan’s rate to 0.001 percent for 2003 only, the last year of 

the current (three–year) scale period. 

The Committee also recommended that, in accordance with Rule 160 

of the Rules of Procedure of the General Assembly, Argentina’s assessment rate for 2003 should be reduced to 0.96 percent. Argentina had 

requested a reduction based on its severe economic difficulties and the 

120 
Administration and Budget 

provisions of Rule 160, which allows for reductions if there has been substantial change in the UN member’s relative capacity to pay. There were 

divergent views both in the Committee on Contributions and in the General Assembly regarding the basis for Argentina’s request and the criteria 

by which Rule 160 should be used to make ad hoc adjustments to member 

assessment rates. In agreeing to the rate adjustment for Argentina, the 

General Assembly in Resolution 57/4–B also requested the Committee on 

Contributions to elaborate at a future General Assembly on the criteria 

used to make ad hoc adjustments in the rates of member assessments, 

including the application of Rule 160. The resolution noted that the ad hoc 

adjustments approved in the regular assessments for Argentina and 

Afghanistan should have no automatic implication for the apportionment 

of expenses for the UN specialized agencies or the International Atomic 

Energy Agency. 

In joining consensus on Resolution 57/4–A and Resolution 57/4–B, 

the United States followed the recommendations of the expert Committee 

on Contributions. The provisions of Resolution 57/4–B in particular 

resulted in a reduction in 2003 in the effective rates of most UN members, 

including the United States. The anomaly was caused by the accession of 

Switzerland and the Republic of Timor–Leste, which raised the overall 

UN scale to more than 100 percent. While the U.S. official rate remained 

at 22 percent, the effective rate payable in 2003 was reduced to approximately 21.7 percent. The same anomaly applied to most other UN members, except those affected by mathematical rounding. The situation 

automatically will correct itself upon adoption of the next UN scale, with 

effect in 2004, when the rates of all UN members will again sum to 100 

percent. 

The current regular scale of assessments will expire at the end of 2003. 

The next scale, to encompass the three–year period 2004–2006, will be 

considered and approved by the General Assembly during its 58th session 

in autumn 2003. 

Financing for Peacekeeping Operations 

Costs for UN peacekeeping operations declined slightly in 2002. The 

United Nations assessed member states a total of $2.9 billion, of which the 

United States was assessed $795 million. Assessments increased for operations in Sierra Leone and the Democratic Republic of the Congo and also 

from the one–time assessment for the Strategic Deployment Stock (discussed in Part 4, Peacekeeping Reform). These increases in costs were offset by the ending of operations in Bosnia and Herzegovina and in Prevlaka 

and by reducing operations in East Timor and Lebanon. 

In 2002, the United States began paying, at a reduced rate, its UN 

peacekeeping assessments for bills accrued since January 1, 2000. The 

reduction resulted from the successful renegotiation of the UN scale of 

assessments for the regular UN budget and peacekeeping operations pur121 
United States Participation in the United Nations – 2002 

suant to the Helms–Biden legislation. In December 2000, the United 

Nations adopted a scheme of assessments that reduced the U.S. regular 

rate of assessment to the target of 22 percent, which also reduced the 

peacekeeping rate of assessment (but not as low as the target of 25 percent). U.S. legislation, reflecting the new rates, was adopted in September 

2002, enabling the United States to pay its UN peacekeeping assessments 

from January 2001 (when the new rates had gone into effect) through 

December 2004. 

In 2002, the United States continued to press for reform of UN peacekeeping administration and financing in several related resolutions (see 

Part 4, Peacekeeping Reform). It also sought implementation of improvements to the UN’s capacity to manage and carry out UN peacekeeping 

operations. 

Committee for Program and Coordination (CPC) 

The Committee for Program and Coordination (CPC), comprised of 

34 members (including the United States) elected to regional seats, is the 

main subsidiary organ of the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) 

and the General Assembly for planning, programming, and coordination. 

The Committee reviews and recommends priorities among UN programs 

as defined in the Medium–Term Plan (MTP); guides the Secretariat on 

translating legislation into programs; develops evaluation procedures; 

assesses the results of current activities; and makes recommendations 

where duplication should be avoided. The CPC ensures that the MTP 

reflects the priorities of the membership and places them in a performance–based programmatic context. The CPC also makes recommendations to the General Assembly on the Secretary–General’s program budget 

outline and considers programs and activities of the UN system on a sectoral basis to recommend guidelines for the specialized agencies that take 

into account the need for system–wide coherence and coordination. The 

CPC held its 42nd session June 10–July 9 in New York. 

The MTP covers a four–year period, but is revised as necessary every 

two years to incorporate the program implications of the resolutions and 

decisions adopted by intergovernmental organs and international conferences since the adoption of the plan. In 2002, the Committee’s work was 

primarily dedicated to reviewing proposed changes to programs in the 

MTP for 2002–2005, considering the proposed UN Budget Outline for 

2004–2005, and reviewing several evaluation reports. 

The CPC adopted proposed changes to the programs in the MTP in its 

report to the Fifth Committee (Administrative and Budgetary). The Fifth 

Committee adopted the report and forwarded it on to the General Assembly, which then adopted the proposed recommendations on December 20 

as Resolution 57/282, Program Planning. All program plan proposals 

appeared to embrace results–based budgeting, to varying degrees of satisfaction of members. The United States, as well as others, believed that 

122 
Administration and Budget 

there was still a need to refine and strengthen the linkage between the indicators of achievement and expected accomplishments. Members also 

emphasized the need for measurability in the indicators of achievement. 

The Committee urged all program managers to fulfill their responsibilities 

in self–evaluation and monitoring, and suggested that this element be 

made a part of managers’ annual performance appraisals. The United 

States and others expressed disappointment that a large number of program managers in the Secretariat failed to carry out self–evaluations, as 

required by program planning regulations. 

In its discussions of the proposed $3.04 billion budget outline for 

2004–2005, the Committee took note of the proposed budget and recommended that the General Assembly give further consideration to all 

aspects of the outline. As has been the case in the past, the real debate 

about the budget outline took place in the Fifth Committee later in the session in 2003. 

Finally, the CPC considered program evaluation and coordination 

reports. Evaluation reports dealt with various efforts by the UN Secretariat 

and other UN agencies to enhance productivity and better respond to 

member states; methodologies to correct the geographical imbalance in 

hiring consultants; strengthening the role of evaluation findings in program design, delivery, and policy directives; and in–depth evaluation of 

sub–programs on the issues of General Assembly and ECOSOC support 

and coordination, legal affairs, the disarmament program, and electoral 

assistance. Discussion of the Annual Overview Report of the UN Systems 

Chief Executives Board for Coordination centered on the phrase “Millennium Development Goals,” which included one goal that had not been 

agreed upon by the intergovernmental approval process. The United States 

alone argued against use of that phrase and was successful in achieving the 

more moderate and factual wording, “development goals contained in the 

UN Millennium Declaration.” Regarding the UN system–wide Special 

Initiative for the Implementation of the UN New Agenda for the Development of Africa in the 1990s, the Committee emphasized the importance of 

applying lessons learned from the UN system–wide Special Initiative on 

Africa to the implementation of the New Economic Partnership for 

Africa’s Development. 

The CPC considered the Joint Inspection Unit (JIU) report, “Strengthening the Investigations Function in the UN System Organizations.” The 

United States expressed satisfaction with the report, but suggested that the 

JIU improve its work by incorporating into future reports the specific 

comments of the agencies inspected. 

The Committee’s overall productivity was superior to previous sessions of the CPC, primarily because the Secretariat held the meetings 

strictly to the prescribed time limits. The Committee therefore did not 

need to meet in August to review the budget outline, which is customary, 

123 
United States Participation in the United Nations – 2002 

thus saving the UN thousands of dollars in travel, per diem, and conference servicing costs. 

Audit Reports 

The Board of Auditors, based in New York, serves as the external, 

mainly financial, auditor of UN Secretariat 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 and may 

not serve consecutive terms. In 2002, the Board was composed of the 

Auditors–General of the Philippines, South Africa, and France. The Board 

submits annual or biennial reports to the Fifth Committee (Administrative 

and Budgetary) of the General Assembly depending on the financial periods of the organizations it is auditing. The Board’s budget for the 2002– 

2003 biennium was $13.4 million. 

In 2002, the Fifth Committee considered 15 Board of Auditors reports 

on the United Nations: International Trade Center/UN Conference on 

Trade and Development/World Trade Organization; UN University; UN 

Development Program; UN Children’s Fund; UN Relief and Works 

Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East; UN Institute for Training 

and Research; Voluntary Funds Administered by the UN High Commissioner for Refugees; Fund of the UN Environment Program; UN Population Fund; UN Habitat and Human Settlements; Fund of the UN 

International Drug Control Program; UN Office for Project Services; 

International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda; and the International Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. A sixteenth report reviewed the accounts of 

the UN Joint Staff Pension Fund, which was included in the report of that 

fund. The Fifth Committee adopted these reports by consensus and submitted them to the General Assembly. The Board generally issues audit 

reports every two years for the accounts, funds, and programs under its 

oversight. In contrast, the Board issues reports annually on the UN High 

Commissioner for Refugees and on UN peacekeeping operations. 

In these reports, the Board made recommendations to, among other 

things, improve the recording of pledges; close inactive trust funds; 

improve disclosure of liabilities; increase accountability at the UN Compensation Commission on Iraq (UNCC); enhance the general and application controls on UN management information systems; address the need 

for coordinated effort and investments in information and communication 

technology audits; improve the management and documentation of interagency services; and ensure compliance with administrative instructions 

with respect to consultants and individual contractors. 

In addition to continuously auditing the accounts and internal controls 

of the UN accounts, funds, and programs under its purview, the Board follows up on recommendations it has made in previous years. This is a routine part of its work program. 

124 
Administration and Budget 

For example, in the Board’s report on peacekeeping operations for the 

12–month period ended June 30, 2002, it reported on the implementation 

of its recommendations from the previous annual report. At the time of the 

most recent review, 15 (38 percent) of the Board’s recommendations from 

the 12–month period ended June 30, 2002, had been fully implemented, 

and 24 (62 percent) were undergoing implementation. 

In its 2002 report on the voluntary funds administered by the UN High 

Commissioner for Refugees, the Board stated that, of its recommendations 

made in the previous year’s report, eight (40 percent) had been implemented. When necessary, the Board reviews recommendations dating 

back more than one year to ensure that they are implemented. 

Regarding the UNCC, the United States was successful in the Fifth 

Committee in ensuring that audit issues and recommendations were placed 

into a separate report and submitted to the UNCC Governing Council in 

Geneva for consideration and action. Thus, recommendations on UNCC 

were not subject to approval by the UN General Assembly, but rather by 

the UNCC Governing Council, of which the United States is a member. 

With this change, the United States was able to join other member states in 

endorsing all of the Board’s audit recommendations. 

In Fifth Committee discussions, the United States welcomed the 

Board’s new format that employed charts to show the status of previous 

recommendations as well as major improvements in the timely submission 

of reports. Agreeing with the Board’s recommendations, the United States 

highlighted the fact that the United Nations must address any recommendations that remain unfulfilled, which cause continuing financial and management deficiencies. The United States also expressed concern over the 

lack of disclosure of relevant information to the Board; troubling inconsistencies in the accounting policies of some organizations; the number of 

organizations (at least five) in which income was exceeded by expenditures; and the apparently few and inconsistently applied guidelines on the 

use of consultants. 

The United States highlighted the importance of several of the Board’s 

recommendations on the War Crimes Tribunals for Rwanda and the 

former Yugoslavia, calling for the tribunals to finalize their strategies for 

the completion of their work, and for reform of the legal aid system to prevent abuses. The United States also noted that the tribunals should have 

on–site auditors and investigators as required by a budget resolution 

adopted in the previous General Assembly. 

The Fifth Committee transmitted to the General Assembly its recommendation to adopt the Board’s reports. In December, the General Assembly adopted the Board of Auditors reports by consensus with Resolution 

57/278. The resolution mandates that the audited organizations must 

implement the recommendations to improve their financial management 

and overall effectiveness. 

125 
United States Participation in the United Nations – 2002 

Joint Inspection Unit (JIU) 

The United States has long emphasized the importance of effective 

oversight in the United Nations. The Joint Inspection Unit (JIU), headquartered in Geneva, is the United Nations system–wide external oversight body. It is accountable to member states and has broad powers to 

conduct system–wide inspections, investigations, and evaluations on primarily programmatic and some financial matters. 

The JIU makes recommendations and proposes reforms aimed at 

improving management control and effectiveness and achieving greater 

coordination among UN system organizations. It is composed of 11 

inspectors, who are appointed by the General Assembly for five–year 

terms and who serve in their own personal capacities as financial, administrative, or legal experts. The JIU in 2002 was headed by Chair Armando 

Duque Gonzalez (Colombia). 

In 2002, the JIU produced 12 reports for issuance to governing bodies. 

Many of the reports are available on the JIU website at www.unsystem.org/jiu. The last report will not be published until 2003. These reports 

cover: 

• Involvement of Civil Society Organizations other than NGOs and the 

Private Sector in Technical Cooperation Activities (JIU/REP/2002/1); 

• The Results Approach in the United Nations: Implementing the UN 

Millennium Declaration (JIU/REP/2002/2); 

• Support Costs Related to Extrabudgetary Activities in Organizations 

of the UN System (JIU/REP/2002/3); 

• Extension of Water–Related Technical Cooperation Projects to End– 

Beneficiaries (case studies in two African countries) (JIU/REP/2002/ 

4); 

• Reform of the Administration of Justice in the UN System: Options 

for Higher Recourse Instances (JIU/REP/2002/5); 

• UN System Revenue–Producing Activities (JIU/REP/2002/6); 

• Review of UN Outsourcing Practices (JIU/REP/2002/7); 

• Review of Management and Administration in the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (JIU/REP/2002/8); 

• Study of the UN Integrated Management Information System (JIU/ 

REP/2002/9); 

• Evaluation of UN System Response in East Timor: Coordination and 

Effectiveness (JIU/REP/2002/10); 

• Review of Multilingualism in the United Nations (JIU/REP/2002/11); 

• Review of Use of Common Services in the United Nations (JIU/REP/ 

2002/12). 

126 
Administration and Budget 

The United States has long encouraged the JIU to improve its operations. Its overly complex reports are not always relevant to the needs of 

the UN organizations, and the recommendations in the reports often 

receive little attention from the organizations’legislative bodies, secretariats, and member states. 

During deliberations in the Fifth Committee (Administrative and Budgetary) in fall 2002, the United States encouraged the JIU to make future 

reports less broad and academic in nature and more focused on actionable 

means to improve productivity and efficiency. The JIU was also urged to 

improve coordination and share data with other external and internal oversight bodies so as to avoid duplication of activities. Other Fifth Committee 

members joined the United States in pressing the JIU for recommendations that are more specific and targeted. The JIU Chair stated that the 

Unit was working with other UN oversight bodies to ensure that future JIU 

reports avoided redundancy in subject matter and fit the Secretary–General’s plans for reform. 

The United States joined other member states in welcoming an important and beneficial change in the JIU, which was the implementation of a 

new tracking system for its recommendations. This system employs a 

matrix format to highlight the status of each recommendation, the unit and 

official responsible for implementation in the relevant organization, and 

the timetable for, and expected impact of, implementation. This new 

tracking system will make it easier for organizations and the JIU to see 

that there is appropriate follow–up on JIU recommendations. The tracking 

system, when combined with more relevant reports and more practical recommendations, should help JIU become a more effective oversight body. 

In December, based on the Fifth Committee’s recommendation, which 

included explicit mention of U.S. concerns, the General Assembly adopted 

by consensus Resolution 57/284 on the reports of the JIU. The General 

Assembly emphasized the importance of following up on JIU recommendations by all concerned organizations and highlighted the role of legislative bodies, their secretariats, and the JIU itself in making it an effective 

oversight body. 

M. Deborah Wynes (United States) was elected in December 2001 to a 

seat on the JIU, and began her term on January 1, 2003. 

JIU’s budget for the 2002–2003 biennium is $7 million. 

Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS) 

The Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS), based in New York, 

provides independent internal oversight of all UN activities administered 

by the Secretary–General. Under Secretary–General Dileep Nair (Singapore), head of OIOS, functions as the UN’s inspector general and 

reports directly to the Secretary–General. He is responsible for conducting 

audits, inspections, investigations, and evaluations of the UN Secretariat 

127 
United States Participation in the United Nations – 2002 

in New York, Geneva, Nairobi, and Vienna; the five regional UN commissions; peacekeeping and humanitarian missions; and various UN funds 

and programs. Mr. Nair’s term expires in 2005. In 2002, OIOS had 179 

staff members and a budget of $17.8 million. 

In 2002, OIOS continued to seek greater accountability, transparency, 

and efficiency in the United Nations. OIOS findings and recommendations 

go chiefly to the UN body in question, and are only available for UN–wide 

lesson sharing if adopted by UN General Assembly resolutions. According 

to its annual report covering the year ending June 30, 2002, OIOS made 

2,357 recommendations intended to improve internal controls and management performance. Of these, 51 percent had been implemented when 

the report was issued. OIOS also identified approximately $56 million in 

potential cost savings and recoveries. In the period covered by the report, 

the United Nations had total actual savings and recoveries of $27.6 million, based on OIOS recommendations from the previous reporting period. 

The $27.6 million figure is a record for total actual savings and recoveries 

for OIOS, and came in large part from its recommendations on set mission 

subsistence allowance rates in selected peacekeeping missions. OIOS 

reviewed rates in 10 special peacekeeping missions, and recommended 

cutting rates in seven of them. 

Priority oversight areas for OIOS were activities that presented the 

greatest risk of fraud, mismanagement, and waste. These were peacekeeping operations, humanitarian and related activities, human resources management, procurement, and the process of establishing new bodies. 

Specific OIOS activities and investigations in the period covered by its 

annual report sought to: 

• provide adequate oversight, by assigning resident auditors to major 

peacekeeping missions, the two war crimes tribunals, and activities 

related to the Iraq Oil–for–Food Program; 

• provide audit services for the $270 million UN High Commissioner 

for Refugees (UNHCR) Repatriation and Reintegration Program in 

Afghanistan and nearby countries; and 

• produce an investigative report on charges of sexual exploitation of 

refugees by UN humanitarian aid workers and peacekeepers in 

UNHCR–administered camps in West Africa which resulted in 

important improvements in the way UNHCR manages and staffs its 

camps, and the development of a UNHCR Code of Conduct. 

After three years, overall implementation of OIOS recommendations 

reached over 80 percent. However, Fifth Committee (Administrative and 

Budgetary) members were concerned that some OIOS recommendations 

were not fully implemented. For example: 

• an OIOS investigation into reports of sexual misconduct by police 

monitors in the UN Mission in Bosnia and Herzegovina (UNMIBH) 

128 
Administration and Budget 

found that senior managers had not followed up completely on key 

recommendations; and 

• problems first identified in a 1999 report regarding loss of UNHCR 

resources voluntarily contributed by UN member states to taxation 

continued. OIOS recommended that UNHCR redouble its efforts to 

obtain tax exemptions and refunds due under UN conventions. 

Throughout Fifth Committee deliberations and informal meetings on 

OIOS reports, the United States called for the expeditious implementation 

of OIOS recommendations. The United States requested a status report on 

UNMIBH to help ensure that all key recommendations were fully implemented. The United States also called for high–level attention in UNHCR 

to ensure that the organization would not continue to lose aid funds to taxation, in violation of UN conventions. The Fifth Committee is to follow up 

on these recommendations in 2003 when the next annual report will be 

discussed. 

The United States also urged the OIOS to position itself to provide 

independent oversight of the UN’s Capital Master Plan project. 

The Fifth Committee forwarded its recommendations to the General 

Assembly, which adopted by consensus Resolution 57/287 on the activities of OIOS in December 2002. 

International Civil Service Commission (ICSC) 

The International Civil Service Commission (ICSC), a 15–member 

body of recognized experts, is responsible for making recommendations 

on salaries, allowances, benefits, and other conditions of service (the 

“common system”) for employees of the United Nations and its specialized agencies. Lucretia Myers, Retired Senior Advisor, Retirement and 

Insurance, at the Office of Personnel Management, continued to be the 

U.S. member, beginning a new four–year term on January 1, 2002. 

The Commission met in Rome and New York for its 54th and 55th sessions, respectively. Much of ICSC’s time in 2002 was spent on reviewing 

the pay and benefits system with consideration given to, among other 

things, an updated classification system, broad–banding of grades with 

pay for performance, and a senior management system. The Fifth Committee (Administrative and Budgetary) considered the ICSC’s annual 

report during the main part of its 57th session. 

At the two sessions, the Commissioners discussed, debated, made 

decisions, and developed recommendations on a wide variety of topics. 

Based on these recommendations, the General Assembly took the following key actions: 

• Approved, for professional staff, an average 2.2 percent increase in 

the base/floor salary scale effective January 1, 2003 (see discussion 

below); 

• Reaffirmed the Commission’s central role in the regulation and coor129 
United States Participation in the United Nations – 2002 

dination of conditions of service of the UN common system; 

• Requested the Commission to review its decision that introduction of 

a Senior Management Service has merit and to look at whether the 

Senior Management Service should be dealt with in the framework of 

the review of the pay and benefits system, since the General Assembly intends to consider the question at its 58th session; 

• Requested the Commission to conduct a review of grade equivalency 

between the United Nations and the U.S. federal service in accordance with the new master standard during its review of the pay and 

benefits system; 

• Requested the Commission to continue to develop its study on mobility, including the links between it and career development; 

• Requested the Commission to reconsider its decision to increase hazard pay by 50 percent for locally recruited staff. (The United States 

maintained that the proposed increase was excessive.); 

• Approved varying increases, effective January 1, 2003, in seven currency areas, in maximum admissible expenditures allowed under the 

education grant system; also approved increases in the flat rates and 

additional amounts for reimbursement of boarding costs in excess of 

the maximum grant at designated duty stations; 

• Reaffirmed that the range of 110 to 120 for the margin between the 

net remuneration of officials in the professional and higher categories 

of the United Nations in New York and officials in comparable positions in the comparator civil service (which is the United States) 

should continue to apply, on the understanding that the margin would 

be maintained at the desirable midpoint of 115 over a period of time; 

• Requested the Commission to make recommendations for increasing 

the roles of performance and productivity in determining remuneration levels; 

• Requested the Commission, when reviewing the pay and benefits system, to take into consideration that performance management systems 

should be fair and transparent; 

• Requested the Commission to review the existing linkage between the 

base/floor salary scale and the mobility and hardship allowance; and 

• Endorsed the recommendations of the Commission that the children’s 

and secondary dependent’s allowance remain at current levels and 

that dependency allowances payable to eligible common system staff 

be reduced by the amount of any direct payments received from Governments in respect of dependents. 

In General Assembly salary discussions for staff in the professional 

and higher categories, the ICSC recommended an average increase of 5.6 

percent for all levels, with financial implications of nearly $85 million 

annually for the entire UN system. The United States successfully bro130 
Administration and Budget 

kered a compromise agreement of an average 2.2 percent increase which 

would apply to levels P–4 and above, most of which had been significantly underpaid for several years according to the accepted methodology, 

and which would result in a savings of $52 million over the ICSC proposal. 

The General Assembly adopted Resolution 57/285 on the Report of the 

International Civil Service Commission, without a vote, on December 20, 

2002. 

Human Resources Management 

In 2002, the United States continued to promote cost–effectiveness and 

efficiency throughout the UN system. The issue of human resource management reform received a great deal of attention, even though the UN 

General Assembly deferred consideration of this issue until the 58th General Assembly due to its full agenda. 

Attention focused on these reforms after the Secretary–General 

released a report outlining his new recommendations for UN reform. His 

proposals on human resources management covered such topics as mechanisms and incentives to encourage mobility, enlarging opportunities for 

General Service staff, helping staff balance professional and private lives, 

and rejuvenating the organization. 

In the report, the Secretary–General’s stated objective of human 

resources management reforms is to professionalize the Secretariat’s 

human resources management in order to make “the United Nations a 

more effective instrument” for pursuing the priorities adopted in the Millennium Assembly Declaration. 

The Secretary–General’s human resources management reform initiatives received support from various quarters, including the Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS). OIOS characterized as “significant 

achievements” the proposed reforms on mandatory mobility of staff, better 

and faster recruitment of staff, and efforts to secure broader geographic 

distribution of staff and gender balance at all levels. 

The Secretary–General’s recommended reform measures on human 

resources management, when fully implemented, are expected to have a 

major and positive impact on other organizations within the UN common 

system that generally follow the UN’s lead in this area. 

Throughout the formulation of these reform measures and the discussions that followed, the United States worked closely with the UN Secretariat and other state delegations to ensure full implementation of 

innovative and cost–effective human resource reform measures. 

Employment of Americans 

The U.S. Government places a high priority on recruiting and promoting Americans for positions throughout the UN system, with special 

131 
United States Participation in the United Nations – 2002 

emphasis on key, senior–level positions. To this end, the U.S. Department 

of State continued to assist qualified U.S. citizens in competing for professional positions in the United Nations and other international organizations (IOs). The Department’s UN Employment Information and 

Assistance Unit in the Bureau of International Organization Affairs, along 

with numerous other federal agencies, disseminated IO vacancy 

announcements to Americans worldwide. U.S. missions to the United 

Nations and other IOs in New York, Geneva, Montreal, Nairobi, Rome, 

and Vienna, as well as some embassies, supported this function through 

regular contacts with UN agency officials. 

As of December 31, the overall percentage of professional and senior 

positions in all UN agencies held by an American was 9.1 percent. 

UN Secretariat 

UN Secretariat: Peacekeeping 

UN Subsidiary Bodies 

UN Specialized Agencies and 

the International Atomic 

Energy Agency (IAEA) 

Total 

132 

Table 1

U.S. Representation in the UN

System

Professional and Senior Staff

Total U.S. 

Number 

U.S. 

Percent 

6,468 693 10.7% 

3,192 295 9.2% 

8,144 679 8.3% 

7,804 662 8.5% 

25,608 2,329 9.1% 
Administration and Budget 

The UN Secretariat and several of the specialized agencies have established “desirable ranges” of geographic representation among their staffs. 

Generally, these ranges are mainly based on their member states’ assessment levels and populations. Due to lowered U.S. assessments (from 25 

percent to 22 percent) in 2002, the geographic ranges for U.S. citizens 

have been reduced in the UN Secretariat, the UN Food and Agriculture 

Organization (FAO), the International Labor Organization (ILO), and the 

World Health Organization (WHO). The U.S. assessment rate remained at 

25 percent at the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO). Table 

2 lists those UN agencies that had geographic ranges in 2002, and the 

number and percent of Americans on–board as of December 31. 

Note: These figures represent only professional posts “subject to geographic distribution” that were funded from the UN agencies’ assessed 

budgets. 

Table 2

UN–related Agencies with Geographic Ranges for 

Employment

U.S. 

UN U.S. 2001 Total Desirable 

Agency Assessment Filled Range or Filled by Americans 

Quota 

Range Number Percent 

UN 22% 2,512 288–390 334 13.3% 

FAO 22% 1,025 162–216 129 12.6% 

ICAO 25% 223 27 13 5.8% 

ILO 22% 684 93–124 102 14.9% 

WHO 22% 1,272 174–237 159 12.5% 

During 2002, U.S. representation in three of these agencies declined 

while it increased in the UN Secretariat and in the ILO. As in other years, 

U.S. arrears may have affected the staffing decisions of these organizations. 

133 
United States Participation in the United Nations – 2002 

Other UN specialized agencies do not have official geographic ranges 

but are required to give due consideration to balancing their staff geographically. These include the International Maritime Organization 

(IMO), International Telecommunication Union (ITU), Universal Postal 

Union (UPU), and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO). Table 

3 lists these specialized agencies, as well as the IAEA, the U.S. contribution level, total professional posts filled, and the number and percent of 

Americans on–board as of December 31. 

Table 3

UN–related Agencies without Geographic 

Ranges for Employment

UN 

Agency 

U.S. 2001 

Assessment Professional Posts Filled 

U.S. U.S. Total Number Percent 

IMO 3.7% 84 4 4.8% 

ITU 8.4% 333 16 4.8% 

UPU 5.7% 89 5 5.6% 

WMO 21.5% 120 7 5.8% 

IAEA 25.8% 725 85 11.7% 

134 
Administration and Budget 

Table 4 includes staffing levels in other major UN bodies funded 

through voluntary contributions for which official geographic ranges do 

not apply. These agencies include the UN Development Program (UNDP), 

the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), UN Children’s Fund 

(UNICEF), UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the 

Near East (UNRWA), and the World Food Program (WFP). 

Table 4

UN Programs and Funds Receiving Voluntary 

Contributions With No Geographic 

Employment Ranges

U.S. 2001 

UN Voluntary 

Contribution to Agency Core/Regular 

Budget 

UNDP 14.1% 

UNHCR 31.6% 

UNICEF 20.0% 

UNRWA 26.0% 

WFP 51.4% 

International Professional Posts 

Filled 

Total U.S. 

Number 

U.S. 

Percent 

981 113 11.5% 

1,294 112 8.7% 

1,738 216 12.4% 

102 15 14.7% 

916 94 10.3% 

In 2002, Americans held the top position in three UN agencies: Carol 

Bellamy, Executive Director of UNICEF; Tom Leavey, Director–General 

of UPU; and James Morris, Executive Director of the WFP. Americans 

also held one of the second most senior posts in several agencies: the Deputy Director–General of FAO, the Deputy Director–General of IAEA, the 

Deputy Director–General/Executive Director of ILO, the Deputy Director–General of the Pan American Health Organization (PAHO), the Deputy High Commissioner of UNHCR, and the Deputy Commissioner 

General of UNRWA. 

Three Americans held the rank of Under Secretary–General (USG) at 

the UN Secretariat: the USG for Management and the Special Representatives of the Secretary–General for the UN Missions in Bosnia & Herzegovina and Western Sahara. Four others held Assistant Secretary–General 

positions. 

135 
United States Participation in the United Nations – 2002 

Throughout the year, UN agencies indicated that they would give special attention to recruiting qualified women. In 2002, American women 

represented over 45 percent of all Americans in professional and senior 

positions in the UN Secretariat, and 43 percent of Americans in such positions in all UN agencies. 

The U.S. Government has a long–standing policy of supporting UN 

agencies by assigning federal employees to them either on direct “transfer” (in which the employee is paid by the UN agency but retains reemployment rights with the U.S. agency), or on “detail” (in which the 

employee remains on the U.S. payroll, but serves at the UN agency). 

These assignments may last as long as eight years. During fiscal year 

2002, a total of 97 federal employees from 13 federal agencies were on 

such assignments to UN agencies, representing about 4.2 percent of the 

2,329 Americans who worked in professional positions in UN agencies 

during that year. Of the 53 employees on “detail” to UN agencies, the vast 

majority was from the Department of Health and Human Services— primarily from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on assignment 

to the WHO and to the PAHO. 

The United States also continued to fund a number of Junior Professional Officer (JPO) positions at UNHCR (20), FAO (3) and WFP (2). The 

United States considers the JPO program a valuable investment whereby 

American citizens are represented in international organizations. 

UN Joint Staff Pension Board 

In 2002, the United States played a major role in UN Joint Staff Pension Board deliberations in assuring pension fund reliability for UN workers. The Board is composed of representatives from three sectors: 

governing bodies of about 20 member organizations, executive heads of 

those organizations, and fund participants. It administers the UN Joint 

Staff Pension Fund and reports biennially to the General Assembly on 

Fund operations and investment activities. When necessary, it recommends amendments to regulations governing Fund activities. 

The Fund was established in 1949 and provides retirement, death, disability, and related benefits for UN staff members upon their cessation of 

service to the organizations. Susan McLurg, Minister Counselor for UN 

management and reform at the U.S. Mission to the United Nations, represented the UN General Assembly on the Board in 2002. 

During its 51st session in Rome in July, the Board discussed and 

issued recommendations on strengthening the Fund on actuarial matters; 

managing its investments; reviewing benefits provisions; and revising 

budget estimates for 2002–2003. The Board expressed appreciation for the 

Secretariat’s planned steps for achieving better services and efficiency. It 

also made recommendations concerning the size and composition of the 

Board and its Standing Committee. 

136 
Administration and Budget 

The Fifth Committee (Administrative and Budgetary) subsequently 

took up the Board’s recommendations, during which the United States 

played an active role. The U.S. position was to: 

• defer the implementation of a Board recommendation to enhance pension benefits, given the Fund’s lackluster investment performance. 

The Board had called for three improvements in pension benefits that 

were estimated to cost 0.54 percent of pensionable remuneration, 

which is one basis for determining pension benefits. The Committee 

agreed with the U.S. position that the recommended changes should 

be considered when the Fund’s actuarial valuation showed a clear 

upward trend; 

• prevent the expansion of the Board by three members. The Board recommended the expansion to reflect reported growth in Fund participants and to resolve other representational concerns. However, it was 

noted that some of the Board members lacked accreditation to the 

General Assembly. The Committee asked the Board to resolve the 

accreditation issue first, before it would consider the issue of expansion; 

• help overcome a stalemate in the Fifth Committee due to a disagreement between the Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS) and 

the Executive Head of the Fund. The results of an OIOS risk analysis 

of the Fund showed significantly higher risk than previously thought. 

The Executive Head questioned OIOS’ request for additional off– 

cycle resources for conducting the risk assessment. The United States 

urged both parties to resolve their differences and work in the best 

interests of the Fund. The Committee then endorsed a recommendation from the Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary 

Questions (ACABQ) that the Board of Auditors assess OIOS’capacity to conduct effective internal audits of the Fund; and 

• derail (with help from the European Union) a Thailand proposal to 

direct more of the Fund’s investment activities toward developing 

countries. The United States argued that the Fund was not a development program, and that it had a fiduciary responsibility to act in the 

best interest of its stakeholders. Thailand then agreed to reaffirm the 

Fund’s long–standing policy on diversification of investments. 

On December 20, after considering the Board’s report and related 

reports by the Secretary–General and ACABQ, the General Assembly 

adopted Resolution 57/286 by consensus. This resolution incorporated the 

Fifth Committee’s report dealing with pension fund administration, investment, composition, benefits, and oversight. 

Among other things, Resolution 57/286: 

• noted the decline in the Fund’s actuarial surplus from 4.25 percent of 

pensionable remuneration on December 31, 1999, to 2.92 percent on 

December 31, 2001; 

137 
United States Participation in the United Nations – 2002 

• approved changes in the benefit provisions and pension adjustment 

system that would take effect when the Fund showed a clear upward 

pattern of surpluses; 

• approved an increase in administrative costs for the biennium 2002– 

2003, from over $29.9 million to just over $30.0 million, to cover a 

recalculation of benefits after a judgment by the International Labor 

Organization Tribunal and a retroactive change in local salary scales; 

• requested the Board to further study the issue of representation on the 

Board, with a view to making it more equitable; 

• stressed the importance of the Secretary–General’s fiduciary responsibility and assured that investment of Fund assets would not be compromised under any circumstances; and 

• recognized the Fund’s policy of broad diversification of its investments by currency, types of assets classes, and geographical areas as 

the most reliable method of risk reduction. 

138 
Part 6 

Specialized Agencies and 

Other Bodies 

Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) 

The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), established in 1945, is 

a UN specialized agency that provides global data and expertise on agriculture and nutrition, fisheries, forestry, and other food and agriculture– 

related issues. FAO is the UN system’s largest autonomous agency, with 

headquarters in Rome, 78 country offices and 15 regional, sub–regional, 

and liaison offices, including one located in Washington, D.C. 

FAO’s highest policy–making body, the biennial General Conference, 

comprises all 183 FAO member countries plus the European Commission. 

The General Conference determines FAO policy and approves FAO’s regular program of work and budget. The 31st Conference, meeting in 

November 1999, re–elected Director–General Jacques Diouf (Senegal) to 

a second six–year term through December 2005. Each biennial Conference elects a 49–member Council that meets semi–annually to make recommendations to the General Conference on budget and policy issues. 

The North America region, which comprises the United States and Canada, is allocated two seats on the Council and one seat each on FAO’s 

Program, Finance, and Constitutional and Legal Matters (CCLM) Committees. The United States holds the North American seats on the Finance 

and Joint Staff Pension Committees through December 2003. Canada 

holds the North American seat on the CCLM and Program Committees 

through December 2003. 

The United States participated at the World Food Summit: Five Years 

Later meeting held at FAO headquarters June 10–13, 2002, to discuss 

progress towards attaining the 1996 World Food Summit target of reducing the world’s number of hungry and malnourished by half by 2015. The 

United States presented new initiatives to improve agriculture productivity 

as a significant contribution toward meeting that goal. U.S. Secretary of 

Agriculture Ann Veneman, leading the U.S. delegation, joined other ministers and heads of state and government in adopting a Declaration, “The 

International Alliance Against Hunger,” which reiterated the goals of the 

1996 World Food Summit and stated, inter alia, “we are committed to 

139 
United States Participation in the United Nations – 2002 

study, share, and facilitate the responsible use of biotechnology in 

addressing development needs.” The United States entered a reservation to 

paragraph 10 of the Declaration concerning the “Right to Food.” (See also 

Part 2, World Food Summit: Five Years Later.) 

In 2002, the United States and other major contributors continued to 

promote reforms at FAO. Their efforts ensured that a major reform issue, 

term limits, was placed on the 123rd Council agenda, initiating a process 

that is expected to lead to a revision to the FAO Basic Texts and the reinstatement of term limits for the Director–General position. On the 

Finance Committee, the United States actively encouraged accountable, 

results–based management (including sunsetting provisions) and efficient 

governance. In joint sessions of the Finance Committee with the Program 

Committee, the United States recalled problems encountered in implementation of FAO’s Special Program for Food Security (SPFS), and urged 

FAO to follow up on the recommendations of the 2002 evaluation of SPFS 

in order to ensure that SPFS projects were sustainable and well designed. 

The evaluation was undertaken both in response to the request of the Governing Bodies and to meet internal management needs. A team of nine 

senior external consultants undertook the evaluation. The evaluation recommended that FAO prioritize countries eligible for SPFS activities; that 

SPFS give greater priority to household food security; that the project 

design be improved in order to increase the impact and sustainability of 

SPFS–related activities; that, at the outset of every SPFS project, FAO 

explicitly design an exit strategy in terms of handing over responsibility to 

the recipient government; and that SPFS develop three complementary 

strategies, namely (a) increasing the effort devoted to food security mapping in order to facilitate the identification of food insecure areas, (b) 

introducing systematic, simple, and efficient monitoring systems to 

improve management, and (c) introducing South–South Cooperation programs. 

The United States worked successfully with FAO management and 

with other members to put in place management reforms, such as ensuring 

the independence of the internal oversight function and reducing the U.S. 

assessment to 22 percent consistent with Helms–Biden benchmarks. 

These reforms made possible the payment of $100 million in U.S. arrears 

to FAO in 2002. 

Improving governance and streamlining the organization continued to 

be a top priority for the United States. FAO’s Strategic Framework 2000– 

2015, the first ever approved for the organization, supported these efforts 

by calling for more efficient use of scarce resources, providing criteria for 

priority setting, and specifying FAO’s areas of comparative advantage. 

The United States continued to encourage the organization to hire 

more Americans in order to meet the desirable range of 16–22 percent for 

140 
Specialized Agencies and Other Bodies 

staff, subject to geographical distribution. Throughout 2002, American 

representation ranged between 12–13 percent of FAO staff in posts subject 

to geographic distribution. 

FAO fulfills an important function in providing comprehensive data 

for all agricultural commodities, forestry and fishery products, and related 

ecosystems. FAO “State of the World” compilations on food and agriculture, forests, fisheries and aquaculture, and food security represent the latest analyses on major areas within FAO’s competence. FAO also provides 

policy guidance, information, and technical assistance aimed at promoting 

food security, particularly for rural populations. 

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 (ICPM) 

of the International Plant Protection Convention. The work of these bodies 

aims to facilitate trade and protects consumers in developed and developing countries alike. The United States worked with other countries in the 

FAO policy–making bodies to ensure greater financial support for the 

ICPM from the overall FAO budget to enable it to complete at least four 

phytosanitary standards a year. The United States also supported the 2002 

evaluation of the FAO/WHO Codex Alimentarius Commission with a 

view to improving the work of Codex and assuring adequate financial support from the two agencies. The United States supported the FAO Voluntary Code of Conduct on Pesticides, which promotes safe agricultural 

chemical use, but the United States also expressed disappointment that the 

revised Code adopted by the 123rd Council did not command industry 

support due to concerns about data protection. 

In 2002, the United States chaired the sixth session of FAO’s Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture, which also met as 

the Interim Committee of the International Treaty on Plant Genetic 

Resources. On November 1, the United States signed the treaty, which 

aims to promote the conservation and sustainable use of plant genetic 

resources; it will enter into force once ratified or acceded to by 40 countries. 

FAO’s institutional knowledge of farming and natural resources and 

its agricultural and livestock response capabilities in pest outbreaks, natural disasters, and other emergencies are important assets for U.S. agricultural, economic, and humanitarian interests. Important examples are the 

FAO programs to monitor and control desert locusts and to eradicate 

Rinderpest, a highly infectious viral disease that can destroy entire populations of cattle and buffalo. In the aftermath of natural disasters and other 

crises, FAO is the agency within the UN system that provides seeds and 

tools to farming communities to help re–establish devastated agricultural 

141 
United States Participation in the United Nations – 2002 

production. The United States provided $9.7 million in voluntary contributions to FAO in 2002, primarily for emergency activities in Africa and 

Afghanistan. 

The United States played a strong leadership role in the development 

of four significant International Plans of Action for FAO that deal with 

conservation and management of sharks: widespread problems related to 

fishing overcapacity; mitigating the incidental catch of seabirds in long 

line fisheries; and deterrence, prevention, and elimination of illegal, 

unregulated, and unreported (IUU) fishing. In 2002, the United States contributed $400,000 to support the Code of Conduct on IUU fishing. The 

United States also participated in discussions in the FAO–sponsored 

Reykjavik Conference on Responsible Fisheries and supported the Reykjavik Declaration, which focuses on the need for effective fisheries management to encourage responsible fisheries. 

FAO is the UN Task Manager for forests and land degradation under 

Agenda 21, adopted at the UN Conference on Environment and Development in Rio de Janeiro in 1992. It participated in the World Summit on 

Sustainable Development in Johannesburg in August 2002. With a food 

crisis looming in southern Africa and the refusal of some countries to 

accept U.S. biotech–engineered food aid, the United States urged UN 

agencies to provide science–based information on the safety of such foods, 

which are consumed by Americans every day. The WHO Director–General joined the FAO Director–General in a UN statement in Johannesburg 

on August 27, which stated, “The consumption of foods containing Genetically Modified Organisms now being provided as food aid in southern 

Africa is not likely to present human health risk. Therefore, these foods 

may be eaten.” 

FAO also acts as chair of the new Collaborative Partnership on Forests 

that assists the UN Forum on Forests. The partnership facilitates national 

actions for sustainable forest management and coordinates forest related 

work by a number of international organizations, institutions, and treaties. 

The United States hosted the FAO North American Forestry Commission 

meeting in Kona, Hawaii, in October 2002. 

FAO is co–responsible with the UN Environment Program (UNEP) for 

implementation of the Rotterdam Convention on Prior Informed Consent 

for Certain Hazardous Chemicals and Pesticides in International Trade. 

FAO and UNEP provide the interim Secretariat for the Convention until it 

enters into force, 90 days after the 50th ratification. Twenty countries ratified the Convention in 2002, bringing the total number to 37 by the end of 

the year. 

In 2002, FAO was designated the Secretariat for the agricultural portion of the New Economic Partnership for African Development 

142 
Specialized Agencies and Other Bodies 

(NEPAD), consistent with NEPAD leaders’decision to use existing mechanisms rather than create new structures. The FAO drafted the FAO/ 

NEPAD joint Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Program 

report, which calls for investment of $240 billion in the agriculture sector 

between now and 2015. 

FAO is funded through contributions of its members, based on the UN 

regular assessment scale, and from extrabudgetary activities carried out 

with other international organizations, financial institutions, and bilateral 

donors. As of the end of 2002, it employed 3,526 staff (about 2,152 at its 

headquarters in Rome). FAO had 1,025 staff in posts subject to geographic 

distribution, of which 129, or about 13 percent, were American citizens. It 

has a biennial budget for the years 2002–2003 of $651.8 million, supplemented by more than approximately $300 million in annual extrabudgetary contributions from donor agencies and governments. The U.S. annual 

assessment of 22 percent amounts to $72.5 million. 

International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) 

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), established in 1957, 

serves U.S. national security, counter–terrorism, and nuclear non–proliferation interests. The international safeguards system implemented by the 

IAEA is intended to provide assurances that nuclear materials used in 

peaceful nuclear programs are not diverted to military or clandestine activities by states or sub–national groups. The IAEA’s work in physical protection helps ensure that nuclear material is protected in a manner 

consistent with internationally recognized guidelines and standards. Similarly, its work in nuclear safety provides assurance that nuclear activities 

are being conducted consistent with radiation protection requirements. 

In 2002, there were 134 member states in the IAEA, which is headquartered in Vienna, Austria. The 35–member Board of Governors (on 

which the United States has a de facto permanent seat) is responsible for 

directing and overseeing the Agency’s policies and program implementation. The Board meets quarterly in March, June, September, and November. The General Conference, attended by all members and held in 

September, carries out broad oversight of the IAEA’s work by approving 

the recommendations and decisions of the Board. The fourth Director– 

General of the IAEA, Mohammed ElBaradei (Egypt) assumed office on 

December 1, 1997, and was elected to a second four–year term in September 2001. 

In March, the Board of Governors approved the Nuclear Safety Action 

Plan, designed to combat nuclear terrorism in the wake of September 11, 

2001. The plan seeks to coordinate activities in eight areas that include 

physical protection, state systems of accounting and control, control of 

radioactive sources, and detection of illicit trafficking of materials. In 

143 
United States Participation in the United Nations – 2002 

2002, IAEA member states voluntarily contributed over $12 million to the 

Nuclear Safety Action Plan, including $8.7 million from the United States. 

As a depository state and party to the Nuclear Non–Proliferation 

Treaty (NPT) since 1970, the United States has provided long–standing 

diplomatic, financial, and technical support to IAEA’s safeguards mission. 

Under the NPT, non–nuclear weapon state (NNWS) parties are required to 

conclude comprehensive safeguards agreements with the IAEA. In addition, the IAEA applies safeguards to certain nuclear facilities in non–NPT 

states and in all five declared nuclear weapons states (United States, Russia, United Kingdom, France, and China) pursuant to their voluntary 

agreements with the IAEA. As of 2002, IAEA safeguards agreements with 

143 states and Taiwan were in force. However, safeguards agreements 

with 48 NNWS parties to the NPT either had not yet been concluded or 

brought into force (down from 52 at the end of 2001). Inspections continued at U.S. plutonium and high enriched uranium storage facilities, following a 1993 U.S. decision to offer IAEA safeguards at facilities storing 

nuclear material declared excess to defense needs. 

Since the early 1990s, the IAEA has worked on strengthening the safeguards system. A key tool for doing so is the Model Additional Protocol, 

approved by the Board of Governors in 1997, which requires states to provide a broader range of information and gives more access rights to 

Agency inspectors. Despite an increase in the number of states for which 

additional protocols were concluded (61 to 67) and the number of protocols in force (24 to 28) in 2002, progress remained slow. The United 

States signed an additional protocol in 1998, but has not yet ratified it due 

to routine procedural matters that take time to work through. Promoting 

universal adoption of the Model Additional Protocol is an important 

aspect of the Bush Administration’s nuclear non–proliferation policy. 

In 2002, the IAEA remained unable to verify the absence of undeclared nuclear material and activities in two states of proliferation concern, 

Iraq and North Korea (DPRK). After a four–year absence in Iraq, the 

IAEA resumed inspection activities on November 27, as called for in UN 

Security Council Resolution 1441. The IAEA worked in partnership with 

the UN Monitoring, Verification, and Inspection Commission 

(UNMOVIC) to set up a new inspection regime with enhanced authorities. 

However, Iraq refused to comply with the resolution’s demand for immediate, active, and unconditional cooperation in verifying its disarmament. 

In 2002, the United States led an initiative to streamline procedures for 

the export of goods into Iraq under the UN Oil–for–Food Program. This 

new export control system was implemented under UN Security Council 

Resolution 1409, adopted in May. It expedited authorization for the export 

and subsequent flow of all goods, except those prohibited under the arms 

embargo or contained on a list of dual–use (civilian and military) items. 

144 
Specialized Agencies and Other Bodies 

UNMOVIC and IAEA technical experts were responsible for identifying 

items to include on the Goods Review List, which would then be subject 

to Security Council review. In December, the Security Council adopted 

Resolution 1454, which made procedural changes to the process and clarified UNMOVIC and IAEA responsibilities in making their evaluations. 

The IAEA continued inspections to monitor the freeze of the DPRK’s 

plutonium production facilities under the terms of the Agreed Framework. 

Because the DPRK continued its refusal to permit full safeguards inspections, the IAEA remained unable to verify the correctness and completeness of the DPRK’s 1992 nuclear material declaration, or to provide any 

assurance that nuclear material had not been diverted to a weapons program. In response to DPRK’s admittance in October 2002 of an active 

nuclear program, the IAEA Board of Governors adopted a resolution on 

November 29 calling on the DPRK to comply with its safeguards obligations and to resolve questions about enrichment activities. In December, 

the DPRK removed IAEA seals on its frozen plutonium–production facilities and expelled IAEA inspectors. 

In 2002, IAEA inspections of declared Iranian nuclear–related facilities continued, on the basis of Iran’s full–scope safeguards agreement with 

the IAEA. Iran continued in 2002 to decline to sign an additional protocol. 

Iran’s declared facilities included the Bushehr–1 light water reactor under 

construction in Bushehr, the zero–power research reactor at the Tehran 

Nuclear Research Center, a uranium conversion plant under construction 

at Esfahan, and other facilities at the Esfahan Nuclear Technology Center. 

Iran also received significant nuclear assistance from the IAEA under the 

auspices of the IAEA’s Technical Cooperation (TC) Fund. 

In August 2002, an Iranian opposition group affiliated with the terrorist group MEK revealed to the press the existence of two clandestine Iranian nuclear–related facilities under construction: a gas centrifuge 

enrichment facility in Nantanz, and a heavy water production plant at 

Arak. As a result, IAEA Director–General ElBaradei requested to visit 

those facilities. Iran did not give ElBaradei permission to visit in 2002. 

The IAEA continued to provide guidance, technical support, and training programs in the areas of physical protection of material and prevention 

of nuclear terrorism in 2002. These activities included the presentation of 

the 17th International Training Course on Physical Protection of Nuclear 

Material and Facilities, as well as a regional training course in China and 

national training courses in Egypt and Brazil. The United States is a primary supporter in this area, having developed the training curricula and 

presented the courses on behalf of the Agency. Since this training began in 

the 1970s, over 800 physical protection professionals from around the 

world had participated by the end of 2002. 

145 
United States Participation in the United Nations – 2002 

Under the Agency’s International Physical Protection Advisory Service (IPPAS), member states may request that a multi–national team of 

physical protection experts provide an assessment of the regulatory framework and implementation of the physical protection regime in that country. A strong backer of the IPPAS, the United States participated in three 

of the four IPPAS missions conducted in 2002. Outside of IPPAS, the 

United States provided technical and financial support to member states in 

the design and implementation of upgrades or improvement to physical 

protection systems. 

Also in support of a strengthened international regime for the physical 

protection of nuclear materials and facilities, the IAEA spearheaded global 

efforts to develop an amendment to the Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material and Facilities. This amendment would expand 

the Convention’s scope to address the physical protection of nuclear materials in domestic use, storage and transport, and the protection of nuclear 

facilities from sabotage. The United States, an active participant in these 

discussions, strongly supported amending the Convention. 

Strengthening the global safety regime was another IAEA priority in 

2002. It continued its work of recent years to improve safety practices and 

standards, with particular focus on Eastern Europe, the former Soviet 

Union, and Asia. Responding to ongoing concern about the safety of 

research reactors, the IAEA initiated a range of measures toward the establishment of a comprehensive, internationally accepted safety regime for 

these reactors. Approximately 68 countries have reactors that are either 

operable, closed, or under construction, and are not subject to adequate 

regulatory control. In this regard, the United States worked closely with 

the IAEA to develop a Code of Conduct on the safety of research reactors. 

The United States also continued its support and participation in other 

IAEA nuclear safety activities in 2002. Many of these activities complemented ongoing bilateral nuclear safety assistance programs and were in 

support of existing Group of 7 Nuclear Safety Working Group policy and 

objectives. Through a $1.5 million extrabudgetary contribution to nuclear 

safety activities, the United States supported ongoing programs in the 

IAEA’s Nuclear Safety and Technical Cooperation Departments. 

To combat the terrorist threat posed by improperly controlled radioactive sources, the United States, in collaboration with the IAEA, developed 

a Plan of Activities on the Safety and Security of Sources aimed at regaining control over existing orphan sources and preventing other sources 

from becoming orphaned. The United States funded the plan with $1 million and provided a cost–free expert to support this program. In addition, 

the United States provided $7 million to the IAEA to help in their trilateral 

work with Russia and the IAEA to recover and secure radiological sources 

throughout the former Soviet states. 

146 
Specialized Agencies and Other Bodies 

The United States also recognized the need for a robust international 

response system for radiological emergencies, including procedures and 

hardware in place to address accidents and malicious uses of radioactive 

materials. The United States provided the IAEA $260,000 to begin 

addressing this concern. 

In 2002, the IAEA remained active in fostering international cooperation for the peaceful uses of nuclear technologies, and in transferring those 

technologies to developing countries. The United States contributed $18.3 

million to the IAEA Technical Cooperation Fund, demonstrating its commitment to Article IV of the Treaty on Non–Proliferation of Nuclear 

Weapons. In this regard, the IAEA continued its program of technical 

cooperation with over 90 of its 134 member states. The IAEA provides the 

training and equipment to seize the unique advantage of nuclear energy in 

many different fields, including human nutrition, agriculture, medicine, 

groundwater resources, insect eradication, safe management of nuclear 

energy facilities, and many others. Additionally, the United States contributed $1 million for extrabudgetary resources to landmine detection and 

insect eradication. 

Over the past four years, the IAEA has conducted a comprehensive 

review of its management structure and operations. The IAEA reorganized 

its departmental structure in 2002 to better fight the nuclear terror threat 

and continue its activities in accordance with the wishes of member states. 

Of particular importance was the introduction of “results–based programming and budgeting,” against which performance is measured at the end 

of the program and budget cycle accompanied by a proposed change to 

full biennial programming and budgeting. This was the first year of the 

newly installed biennial budget cycle; moreover, the 2002–2003 biennium 

is the first to incorporate the initial components of the results–based 

approach. As a result, the IAEA’s fiscal cycle is now synchronized with 

other UN organizations. 

The total IAEA regular budget for 2002 was $245 million, of which 

about $234 million was financed from member contributions. The U.S. 

regular assessment is approximately 25.8 percent of the IAEA regular 

budget. The United States remained the largest single contributor of voluntary support to the IAEA. The U.S. extrabudgetary contribution of $50 

million in 2002 went to support the Technical Cooperation Fund, technical 

assistance to safeguards, cost–free experts, in–country technical projects, 

U.S.–hosted training courses and fellowships, nuclear safety projects, and 

application of safeguards on nuclear material excess to defense needs in 

the United States. 

The IAEA spent over $70 million in regular budget funds on activities 

related to nuclear verification and material security in 2002. After nearly 

two decades of essentially zero real or nominal growth in the IAEA regu147 
United States Participation in the United Nations – 2002 

lar budget, the United States advocated an increase of roughly $30 million 

in the regular budget for safeguards to pay for increases in IAEA’s treatyrelated safeguards responsibilities. 

The IAEA has become heavily reliant on voluntary contributions to 

support many key programs, particularly safeguards. Of all safeguards 

expenditures, 23.8 percent came from extrabudgetary resources. The 

United States has championed a move to increase the regular budget base 

for safeguards at the IAEA and is urging other member states to agree to 

such increases. In line with this U.S. initiative, in December, the IAEA 

requested an increase for its 2004–2005 biennial program and budget, to 

be adopted in 2003. The United States continued to maintain its substantial extrabudgetary contributions, providing equipment and expertise to 

strengthen the safeguards system and upgrade the Nuclear Safety and 

Technical Cooperation efforts. 

The IAEA Secretariat employs over 2,200 professional and support 

staff. Americans hold 85 positions, or 11.5 percent, of the 725 positions 

that are subject to geographical distribution requirements. 

International Civil Aviation Organization 

(ICAO) 

Established in 1944 and a UN specialized agency since 1947, ICAO 

has fostered the safe and orderly growth of international civil aviation. It 

sets international standards and recommended practices for civil aviation, 

and provides technical assistance to enhance aviation safety and security 

worldwide. The U.S. public and private sectors have great interest in its 

work due to the U.S. leading role in civil aviation research, safety and 

security innovations, and aviation manufacturing and transport. ICAO has 

seven regional offices. St. Kitts and Nevis joined ICAO in 2002, bringing 

total membership to 188. 

The United States has consistently been elected to the ICAO Council, 

which had 33 members in 2002. 

ICAO held a high–level ministerial conference in February 2002 to 

enhance aviation security in light of September 11 threats. The ministerial 

conference endorsed the U.S. proposals to enhance security, including the 

hardening of cockpit doors, new flight crew procedures, and the establishment of a program to audit countries’ compliance with ICAO security 

standards. The ICAO Council adopted these recommendations on March 

21. ICAO conducted its first security audit in November. 

At the ministerial conference, several members presented a draft resolution condemning Israel’s reported destruction of Gaza International Airport. Members deferred action on the resolution until the next regular 

ICAO Council session, set in March 2002. The United States opposed the 

148 
Specialized Agencies and Other Bodies 

draft resolution because it was unbalanced, politicized ICAO’s work, concerned one of several issues subject to negotiations among the parties 

themselves, and was not a constructive use of the Council’s time. Despite 

the Council’s strong tradition of reaching consensus on resolutions, the 

United States called for a vote at the next session. The Council adopted the 

resolution by a vote of 24 to 2 (U.S.), with 7 abstentions. 

In 2002, ICAO’s Committee on Aviation Environmental Protection 

began work on guidelines for aircraft noise based on an ICAO resolution 

adopted on October 5, 2001. The United States sought this resolution, 

which called for an airport–by–airport balanced approach to managing 

noise. 

The European Union (EU) decided to repeal a discriminatory noise 

regulation in April, in part due to a U.S. challenge in 2000, and to replace 

it with a directive that reflects the consensus of the 2001 Assembly resolution. Belgium, however, subsequently promulgated a decree that was 

inconsistent with both the ICAO resolution and the new EU directive. On 

June 12, 2002, the United States notified ICAO of its desire to discontinue 

the proceedings against all of the EU parties except Belgium. The EU 

wanted the complaint dropped against all 15 EU members. Council President Kotaite, who had facilitated negotiations with the EU, was unable to 

resolve the dispute by the end of the year. 

ICAO in 2002 approved the expansion of the scope of its Universal 

Safety Oversight Audit Program to include air traffic services, airports, 

and accident investigation, in line with U.S. objectives. This program contributes to the safety of U.S. citizens traveling abroad. Audits were conducted on personnel licensing and airworthiness of aircraft. Future audits 

should show if countries provide adequate oversight for these activities. 

When deficiencies are found, ICAO will develop remedial action plans. 

The country that was audited is responsible for fixing the deficiencies. 

The Council on June 14 approved in principle the establishment of a 

war–risk insurance scheme to provide insurance beyond what is available 

commercially. It would be funded by premiums paid by participating airlines and backed by guarantees provided by participating countries. The 

program would begin once member states representing 51 percent of 

assessed contributions agreed to participate as guarantors of last resort. As 

of the end of 2002, ICAO had not received sufficient expressions of interest, nor had the United States decided whether to participate. 

Regarding liability, in 1999 a convention to replace the 1929 Warsaw 

Convention on liability for airline accidents was opened for signature in 

Montreal. The Montreal Convention represented a considerable improvement by eliminating arbitrary limitations on airline liability in the event of 

death or bodily injury of a passenger. It also expanded in most cases the 

149 
United States Participation in the United Nations – 2002 

basis for jurisdiction for claims by enabling lawsuits on behalf of U.S. 

accident victims abroad to be brought in the United States. As of the end 

of 2002, 71 countries and the European Union had signed the Convention, 

and 25 countries had ratified it. It enters into force 60 days after the 30th 

notice of ratification is received. The Montreal Convention was transmitted to the U.S. Senate for advice and consent to ratification in September 

2000, but the U.S. Senate had not scheduled a hearing to ratify it in 2002. 

A Preparatory Commission supervising the establishment of the international aircraft registry, as provided in the Convention on International 

Interest in Mobile Equipment and its Protocol on aircraft, held its first two 

meetings in Montreal in May and November. It established a working 

group, including the United States, to review the draft regulations of the 

registry. However, it was unable to begin the process of selecting a register because it had not received adequate voluntary contributions for the 

task. 

The Convention and Protocol had been adopted on November 16, 

2001, at a Diplomatic Conference in Cape Town, South Africa, under the 

joint auspices of ICAO and UNIDROIT (a non–UN organization that promotes private international law). They provide for an international registration system for aircraft that would reduce the risk associated with the 

sale of aircraft. The system would clarify and strengthen the rights of parties who have interest in the equipment (such as owners of the aircraft, 

financers of the building of the aircraft, lien holders, etc.), and lower the 

cost of financing, which should allow for lower interest rates and more 

sales. 

The United States strongly supports the Convention, but had not 

signed it by the end of the year. By December 31, 2002, 24 countries had 

signed the Convention and Protocol, but none had ratified the instruments. 

Only three ratifications are needed for the entry into force of the Convention and eight are needed for the entry into force of the Protocol. 

ICAO held the 13th plenary session of the Technical Advisory Group 

on Machine Readable Travel Documents in February. The Group accepted 

security standards for travel documents and abolished multi–applicant and 

non–photo visas from the standard, as sought by the United States. The 

United States played a significant role by chairing the Document Content 

and Format and Education Working Group and the Education and Promotion Working Group, and participating actively in the New Technologies 

Working Group. 

The ICAO Council on December 4 established the International Financial Facility for Aviation Safety (IFFAS) to provide assistance for developing countries to remedy aviation safety deficiencies identified by ICAO 

safety audits. The United States was concerned that ICAO was going 

150 
Specialized Agencies and Other Bodies 

beyond its traditional standards–setting role into an area in which it had 

little expertise, and insisted that IFFAS be funded by voluntary, rather 

than assessed, contributions. The United States did not contribute to 

IFFAS in 2002. 

ICAO assessments are based on both economic factors and relative 

importance in civil aviation, as measured by mileage flown, with a maximum rate of 25 percent. Member assessments for the 2002 ICAO budget 

amounted to $49.9 million, the U.S. share consisting of 25 percent or 

$12.5 million. In 2002, the U.S. Government provided $700,000 in voluntary financial contributions and several U.S. experts to ICAO programs 

worked as ICAO staff, including the safety oversight and aviation security 

programs. U.S. citizens were under–represented at ICAO in 2002, with 

Americans occupying only 13 of 223 professional positions subject to 

equitable geographical representation. At the end of 2002, ICAO staff 

totaled 739. 

International Fund for Agricultural Development 

(IFAD) 

The International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) was 

established in 1977 as a multilateral financial institution focused on promoting rural agricultural development in poorer countries. Nearly 75 percent of the world’s 1.2 billion poorest people live in rural areas, largely as 

small–scale producers and subsistence farmers. IFAD’s specific mandate 

is to increase their productivity and incomes, improve their nutritional levels, and help integrate them into larger markets by designing and funding 

innovative and appropriately scaled programs in such areas as rural institution building and micro–finance. IFAD is the only multilateral development bank (MDB) that devotes all of its resources to combating rural 

poverty. IFAD’s specific mandate is consistent with the U.S. Government’s efforts to reduce poverty and improve food security worldwide. 

The Fund’s highest authority is the Governing Council, on which all 

162 member states (including the United States) are represented. The President, elected by the Council, is the Fund’s chief executive officer. Lennart Bage (Sweden), the current President and the first President from a 

developed country, was elected in February 2001. 

The United States is IFAD’s largest shareholder, with 9.24 percent of 

the voting power, followed by Saudi Arabia with 5.76 percent, Germany 

with 4.03 percent and Japan with 4.01 percent. Since IFAD’s establishment, the United States has contributed a total of $587.7 million, 16.5 percent of cumulative contributions. 

To date, IFAD has financed 600 projects in 116 countries for total 

commitments of approximately $7.7 billion. These projects usually 

address such needs as agriculture and livestock development, micro–enter151 
United States Participation in the United Nations – 2002 

prise and rural finance, natural resource management, local capacity building, and gender mainstreaming. 

Commitments for new projects in 2002 totaled $405 million for 25 

loans averaging approximately $15 million each, and for 15 technical 

assistance grants. Examples of recent loans designed to increase growth, 

improve productivity, and reduce poverty through a variety of means 

include: 

• IFAD loaned $16 million to the Rwandan Government to maximize 

and diversify the income of poor farmers and develop export markets 

through sustainable production, and processing and marketing activities for coffee, tea, and new cash and export crops. 

• IFAD loaned $14 million to the Dominican Republic to support organizations of rural poor along the Dominican–Haitian border through a 

comprehensive economic and social development program. 

• IFAD loaned $12.7 million to Egypt to improve the welfare and 

reduce the poverty of 13,000 poor households through improved and 

sustainable natural resource management. 

• IFAD loaned $18.43 million to the Ugandan Government to fill gaps 

in the country’s rural micro–finance sector and facilitate expansion of 

sustainable financial services to underserved rural areas. 

Over two–thirds of IFAD loan commitments are on concessional terms 

(40–year maturity, 10–year grace period, service charge of 0.75 per 

annum). The remainder of the loans is provided on either intermediate 

terms (a blend of concessional and market–based terms, with a maturity of 

20 years), or on ordinary terms (market–based variable interest rate, and 

maturity of 15–18 years). 

IFAD leverages its limited resources through cofinancing from borrower governments, bilateral and other multilateral donors, and nongovernmental organizations. In fact, up to 30 percent of funding for IFAD 

projects has been mobilized from other financing sources. 

At the request of the U.S. Agency for International Development, the 

Treasury Department assumed lead–agency responsibility for IFAD in 

February 2000. The Treasury Department concluded negotiations on 

IFAD’s Sixth Replenishment (IFAD–6) in December 2002. The target 

level for donor contributions to the Sixth Replenishment was set at $560 

million. With its pledge of $45 million, the United States was the largest 

contributor to IFAD–6. 

At IFAD–6, the United States was successful in achieving the following key policy reform objectives consistent with the Administration’s 

overall goal of improving MDB performance: 

• Performance–Based Allocation System: IFAD will develop and 

152 
Specialized Agencies and Other Bodies 

implement a transparent performance–based system for allocating 

resources. 

• Results Measurement: IFAD will further improve its processes related 

to measuring and quantifying the results and impact of its projects. 

• Grants: IFAD’s grant program will be raised to 10 percent of its total 

annual work program beginning in 2004. This compares with a cumulative historical level of 5 percent of total assistance and recent levels 

of about 7 percent. 

• Independent Evaluation Unit: The agreement included key elements 

for structuring an independent evaluation unit. Among other elements, the unit’s head will be accountable to the Executive Board, 

which must approve his/her appointment or termination. All evaluation reports will be provided directly to the Executive Board without 

clearance by management, and the head cannot be re–employed by 

the institution after leaving the post. 

• External Evaluation: For the first time, an independent and external 

evaluation of IFAD will be initiated during 2004, which will examine 

all aspects of IFAD’s work critical to IFAD’s success. 

• Private Sector Strategy: IFAD will develop a strategy for achieving 

greater involvement of the private sector in IFAD programs through 

co–financing and other forms of partnership consistent with IFAD’s 

mission. 

• MDB Coordination: The agreement broadened the scope of IFAD’s 

partnership–building initiatives with bilateral and multilateral agencies. 

International Labor Organization (ILO) 

The International Labor Organization (ILO), founded in 1919 and 

based in Geneva, Switzerland, is the oldest UN specialized agency and the 

only one in which representatives of the private sector participate on an 

agreed basis. Representatives of workers’ and employers’ organizations 

are members of the ILO executive board, or Governing Body, and of 

national delegations to its supreme legislative body, the annual International Labor Conference (ILC). Juan Somavia (Chile) was elected Director–General of the International Labor Secretariat in 1998. His five–year 

term began in March 1999. The U.S. working relationship with the ILO in 

2002 was excellent. 

The ILO has 175 member states. As the Government of one of ten 

countries of “chief industrial importance,” the United States has a permanent seat on the ILO’s 56–member Governing Body. Representatives from 

the Department of Labor lead the U.S. delegation. In addition, an American worker (from the AFL–CIO) and an American employer (from the 

153 
United States Participation in the United Nations – 2002 

U.S. Council for International Business) each have won election in 2002 

to seats on the Governing Body; these terms expire in 2005. They speak 

and vote independently of the U.S. Government. 

The ILO’s mandate is to advance humane conditions of labor and 

social stability around the world by promoting democracy and human 

rights, employment and the alleviation of poverty, and protection of workers’ rights, including unions independent of states. The ILO seeks to 

define common standards of decency applying to workers among nations 

involved in international trade. The ILO serves U.S. business and labor by 

providing a forum for participation in the development of international 

labor standards. It contributes to the notion of fair trade by advocating for 

the universal application of core labor standards, as enunciated in the 

ILO’s Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work (1998) 

as well as the 1999 Convention on the Worst Forms of Child Labor No. 

182. 

The ILO is an important partner in the U.S. commitment to eliminate 

exploitative child labor. In 2002, 19 additional countries ratified ILO Convention No. 182, bringing the total to 132 countries. In 2002, the ILO 

devoted much effort to implement projects to abolish child labor and to 

delivering services to child workers and their families. 

The ILO International Program for the Elimination of Child Labor 

(IPEC), funded by significant voluntary contributions from the United 

States and other donors, achieved impressive results. In June 2001, IPEC 

launched a new initiative, the Time–Bound Program, to help El Salvador, 

Nepal, and Tanzania eliminate the worst forms of child labor, as defined in 

Convention 182, within a determined period of time, generally 5–10 years. 

The Program was further refined and expanded to an additional 10 countries during 2002. By joining with worker and employer organizations, 

nongovernmental organizations, and other international organizations, 

including the UN Children’s Fund, the ILO was able to lend its expertise 

to effective programs that remove children from the workplace, place 

them in schools, and provide their families with alternative, income–generating opportunities. The U.S. voluntary contribution to IPEC totaled 

approximately $45 million in 2002. 

Government, labor union, and employer delegations from the United 

States actively participated in Governing Body sessions in March and 

November 2002 and one day in June following the conclusion of the International Labor Conference, and in the 90th session of the ILC in June 

2002. Secretary of Labor Elaine Chao spoke to the 2002 ILC and 

described the Department of Labor’s compliance assistance initiative to 

strengthen enforcement of U.S. labor laws. She recommended that the ILO 

consider promoting this initiative internationally as an example of best 

practices. She also focused on the ILO’s efforts to eliminate the worst 

154 
Specialized Agencies and Other Bodies 

forms of child labor and endorsed the work of the ILO’s World Commission on the Social Dimension of Globalization. In 2002, the United States 

also negotiated with other delegations to achieve its goals and objectives 

in tripartite sectoral meetings focusing on Maritime Labor Standards, Public Emergency Services, Health Services, the Mining Industry, and the 

Declaration of Principles Concerning Multinational Enterprises and Social 

Policy, among others. 

At the March, June, and November Governing Body sessions and the 

June ILC, the United States focused on three important issues: 1) widespread violence against trade unionists in Colombia; 2) forced labor in 

Burma; and 3) the ILO’s role in mitigating the social effects arising out of 

globalization of the economy. 

In the ongoing effort to combat the widespread violence against trade 

unionists in Colombia, and in response to a June 2001 Governing Body 

directive, the November 2002 Governing Body reviewed the status of the 

special technical cooperation program for Colombia organized by the 

Director–General in 2001. The program, centered on projects financed primarily by the U.S. and Colombian Governments, seeks to protect threatened trade unionists; to encourage labor law reform; and to promote social 

dialogue among unions, employers organizations, and the government. 

Violence against trade unionists continued unabated in 2002. The new, 

democratically–elected Government of Colombia was inaugurated in 

August 2002. In line with U.S. objectives, the Governing Body at the 

November session agreed that the new Government of Colombia needed 

time to gain control of the situation, and it authorized the Director–General to provide additional assistance to the Government’s efforts by providing emergency funding to the special technical cooperation program. 

The Governing Body agreed to postpone further discussion on possible 

courses of action to mitigate the violence until the March 2003 session. 

Forced labor in Burma continued to dominate discussions at major 

meetings in 2002. The June ILC concluded that, despite some progress at 

the procedural level, forced labor remains a reality in Burma and those 

responsible for it continue to exact it with impunity. A 1998 Commission 

of Inquiry into forced labor recommended that Burma eliminate forced 

labor in law and practice, and punish the perpetrators. The United States 

supported these recommendations. By midyear, none of these recommendations had been met, nor had the Burmese authorities responded to the 

concrete suggestions of an ILO high–level mission in 2001 that they establish an ILO presence in Rangoon (although an interim liaison officer was 

appointed in May 2002), appoint an ombudsperson to receive complaints 

of forced labor, and resolve a case of seven villagers allegedly killed for 

complaining about forced labor. In October 2002, a permanent ILO presence was established in Rangoon. 

155 
United States Participation in the United Nations – 2002 

The November Governing Body session noted that the Government of 

Burma had failed to cooperate fully with the liaison officer during her first 

month in Rangoon and had failed to accept the Director–General’s offer to 

develop a coherent plan of action to eliminate forced labor. The Governing Body, with U.S. support, resolved that the Government of Burma must 

demonstrate concrete action to abolish forced labor before it would give 

serious consideration to putting Burma on the ILC agenda for the purpose 

of lifting the special constitutional measures it imposed in 2000 to secure 

Burma’s full implementation of ILO Convention No. 29. The Governing 

Body will resume the debate at the March 2003 session. 

In February 2002, the Director–General appointed the World Commission on Social Dimension of Globalization comprising 25 eminent persons 

to address the social dimensions of globalization. The Commission, co– 

chaired by Finnish President Tarja Halonen and Tanzanian President Benjamin Mkapa, is an independent body composed of prominent political 

figures, academics, trade unionists, and business leaders. Commission 

members from the United States included former Secretary of Labor Ann 

McLaughlin Korologos, AFL–CIO President John Sweeney, and Nobel 

laureate Joseph Stiglitz. The Commission will assess the impact of globalization on employment, working conditions, labor standards, poverty 

reduction, and economic growth and development. At the first meeting in 

March 2002, the commissioners decided they would need 18 months to 

complete their work. Their report will be presented to the ILC in June 

2004. 

The UN Staff College, located at the ILO International Training Center 

in Turin, Italy, completed its fifth year of operations and became an independent institution on January 1, 2002. It continued to share the Center’s 

premises on a cost basis for services provided while continuing to contribute to the ongoing process of system–wide UN reform by offering short, 

focused training in such areas as managing within existing resources. 

In 2002, the Training Center continued to offer training that fostered 

the ILO’s strategic objectives and to collaborate with the relevant technical sectors of the ILO in preparing its curricula. The training offered at the 

headquarters was expanded to the field, contributing to an increase in the 

number of participants in 2002. Also, the Center’s Distance Education and 

Learning Technology Applications (DELTA) made computer–based training available globally in a number of areas, including collective bargaining, local employment initiatives, and business development services. 

In 2002, the Center implemented methods for evaluating its program 

by assessing changes in participants’ knowledge, skills, and attitudes. 

Additionally, the Center developed methods for evaluating the impact of 

training on participants’ job performance, which provided feedback into 

the design of future training activities. A U.S. Department of Labor, 

156 
Specialized Agencies and Other Bodies 

Bureau of Labor Statistics representative is a member of the Board of 

Directors of the Center. This representative takes an active part in the program and budgetary direction of the Center. 

In 2002, the ILO’s regular budget was approximately $237 million. 

The U.S. assessment for the ILO was 84.5 million Swiss francs, or approximately US$56 million, representing 22 percent of the ILO’s regular budget funded by assessed contributions. In addition to the voluntary 

contributions to IPEC, in 2002 the United States also provided some $10 

million to promote the ILO’s Declaration on the Fundamental Principles 

and Rights at Work. The ILO has 629 professional posts, 102 of which are 

held by American citizens (14.9 percent, up from 14.4 percent in 2001). 

International Maritime Organization (IMO) 

The United States strongly supports the work of the International Maritime Organization (IMO). The IMO’s principal objectives are to foster 

international cooperation on technical matters affecting international shipping, to achieve the highest practicable standards for maritime safety, and 

to prevent marine pollution. The IMO develops conventions and treaties 

on international shipping, facilitates international maritime trade, and provides technical assistance in maritime matters to developing countries. It 

also develops standards and practices to protect against oil spills and pollution from hazardous and noxious cargo and ship waste, ballast, and 

emissions. 

The Republic of Moldova and the Republic of San Marino joined IMO 

in 2002, bringing its total membership to 162 full members and two associate members (Hong Kong and Macao). 

The IMO Council governs the IMO. The United States has always 

been elected to the Council, which was expanded from 32 to 40 members 

in 2002. 

At U.S. urging, maritime security moved to the top of IMO’s agenda 

following the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the United States. 

Intensive efforts, including two meetings funded by the United States, culminated in a Diplomatic Conference held at IMO headquarters December 

9–13, 2002, which approved amendments to the International Convention 

for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS) to enhance maritime security. The 

United States proposed most of the adopted amendments, including accelerating the timetable for the installation of shipboard automatic identification systems; requiring ships and port facilities to develop and maintain 

security plans, and to designate security officers to ensure that the plans 

are implemented; requiring ships to carry documents on their recent activities and on who owns and controls them; requiring ships to have a shipto-shore system to alert authorities to security incidents; and allowing an 

inspection and compliance regime to allow port states to verify that ships 

157 
United States Participation in the United Nations – 2002 

comply with IMO security regulations, and to take appropriate measures 

in response to any deficiencies found. 

At the Diplomatic Conference, an international Code for the Security 

of Ships and of Port Facilities (ISPS) was also adopted. This Code spells 

out the responsibilities of governments, ports, companies, and ships to 

designate security officers and develop security assessments and plans. 

The SOLAS amendments and the ISPS Code are expected to enter into 

force on July 1, 2004, in the absence of explicit objections from at least 

one–third of contracting states representing at least one–half of registered 

world tonnage. 

At the October 22–28, 2002, IMO Legal Committee meeting, the 

United States introduced draft amendments to the 1988 Convention for the 

Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Maritime Navigation 

(SUA) and the 1988 Protocol for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts 

Against the Safety of Fixed Platforms Located on the Continental Shelf. 

The SUA Convention and its protocol are two of the 12 international conventions and protocols relating to terrorism that members are called on in 

UN Security Council Resolution 1373 to become parties to “as soon as 

possible.” As of December 2002, the United States and 77 other countries 

were parties to the SUA Convention, and the United States and 70 other 

states were parties to its protocol. 

The SUA amendments were designed to facilitate, strengthen, and 

expand international cooperation and coordination in combating criminal 

activity, including terrorist acts. While there was a general consensus that 

the SUA Convention and Protocol needed updating, members of the Legal 

Committee did not agree on specific details of the U.S. proposals. The 

Legal Committee will continue work on the subject in order to reach 

agreement on amendments to be approved at a future Diplomatic Conference. 

At the December 2–13 session, the IMO’s Maritime Safety Committee 

adopted a number of amendments to SOLAS to improve bulk carrier 

safety, including requiring bulk carriers to be fitted with alarms and monitoring systems to detect water ingress. The measures are expected to enter 

into force on July 1, 2004, under the SOLAS simplified amendment provisions. 

The United States signed the International Convention on the Control 

of Harmful Anti–fouling Systems on Ships on December 17. The Convention, which was adopted in 2001, restricts the use of anti–fouling paints, 

which are intended to prevent the buildup of sea life such as algae and 

mollusks on ship bottoms. The paints have harmful effects on marine life 

and the marine environment, and can possibly enter the food chain. The 

Convention will enter into force 12 months after the date on which at least 

158 
Specialized Agencies and Other Bodies 

25 states, representing at least 25 percent of world tonnage, have either 

ratified or acceded to it. 

Liability limits for ship passengers and their luggage were raised and 

insurance to cover passengers was made compulsory in a Protocol amending the 1974 Athens Convention Relating to the Carriage of Passengers 

and their Luggage by Sea, adopted at a Diplomatic Conference held at 

IMO headquarters from October 21–November 1, 2002. The amendments 

will enter into force 12 months after being accepted by 10 countries. The 

United States is not a party to the Athens Convention because its domestic 

liability limits were substantially higher than those in the existing Convention. The increased liability limits and compulsory insurance coverage 

would, however, benefit U.S. citizen passengers. 

In March 2002, significant amendments to the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution by Ships (MARPOL) entered into 

force. These amendments accelerate the phase–out date for single hull 

tankers, with all single–hull tankers phased out by 2015. The MARPOL 

regime is now much more closely aligned to the U.S. phase–out schedule 

contained in the U.S. Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA 90). The United 

States provided information about OPA 90 for the development of revised 

MARPOL regulations, although the United States did not accept the revisions because important differences remained between MARPOL and 

OPA 90. The sinking of the tanker Prestige off the coast of Spain in 

November 2002 brought renewed calls for more IMO action on the matter. 

In October, the IMO’s Marine Environment Protection Committee 

approved the designation of the waters in the vicinity of the Florida Keys 

and its offshore coral reefs as a Particularly Sensitive Sea Area (PSSA). 

The PSSA designation limits ship activity in a fragile ecosystem. The 

United States agreed to this designation even though it will have to pay 

monitoring and enforcement costs, because it expects savings from a 

reduction in accidents. 

As a significant participant in international maritime trade, the United 

States reaps great benefits from the work of the IMO while paying only 

about $1.2 million, or 4 percent, of the IMO’s 19.5 million pound sterling 

(about US$29.3 million) 2002 budget. Assessments are based chiefly on 

registered shipping tonnage; major open–registry countries (those that register vessels that do not necessarily have connection, through ownership or 

officers, to that particular country) are among the largest contributors. 

Panama, Liberia, Cyprus, and the Bahamas are some of the major open– 

registry states that have large IMO assessments. 

At the end of 2002, the IMO had a total of 272 staff at its London 

headquarters and regional offices in Kenya, Ghana, and Cote d’Ivoire. 

159 
United States Participation in the United Nations – 2002 

U.S. citizens held four of the 84 professional staff positions subject to geographical representation. 

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 address the operation of international telecommunication networks and services. There are presently 189 member states and 

over 600 private–sector members in the ITU. The ITU conducts its high– 

level work primarily in plenipotentiary conferences, held every four years, 

to which all ITU members are invited. The technical and analytical work 

is done in smaller groups that meet more frequently. 

At the September/October 2002 Plenipotentiary Conference in Marrakesh, Morocco, ITU member states elected five senior officers (Secretary–General, Deputy Secretary–General, and the heads of the 

Radiocommunication, Telecommunication Standardization, and Telecommunication Development Sectors) to four–year terms. Yoshio Utsumi 

(Japan) was re–elected to a second term as Secretary–General. 

Unlike most other UN agencies, the ITU is funded by a system of contributory units (CU) rather than assessed contributions. France, Germany, 

Japan, and the United States, as members in the highest category of contribution, contributed 30 CU each in 2002. At the 2002 Plenipotentiary Conference, the delegates adopted a proposal to cap the value of each CU at 

330,000 Swiss francs— or US$211,987, $25,387 higher than the value in 

the previous four years of zero nominal CU growth. 

Under this proposal, during the first biennial budget period of the quadrennium (2004–2005), the CU will be computed at 315,000 Swiss francs. 

The CU may be computed at 330,000 Swiss francs for the second biennial 

budget of the quadrennium, unless the ITU Council decides to adjust the 

CU value for the second biennial budget. If the CU were to be raised for 

the second biennial budget, the U.S. contribution for the 2004–2005 biennial budget will be US$12.141 million, and $12.719 million for the 2006– 

2007 biennium, for a total quadrennial contribution of $24.860 million 

(using the 2002 average exchange rate of Swiss francs 1.5567 = $1.00). 

This represents 8.39 percent of the total contributions to the ITU. 

For this reason, the United States and several other like–minded governments opposed raising the CU beyond the zero nominal growth level, 

arguing that governments and private–sector firms alike were in a tight 

financial situation. They called for better financial reporting so that more 

informed decisions could be made on such things as cost recovery for specific services to member states and others. The United States called for a 

vote on the proposal to increase the CU to prevent its adoption and to register the U.S. objection to the increase. The vote to fix the provisional 

160 
Specialized Agencies and Other Bodies 

upper limit of the contributory unit at the current zero nominal growth 

limit of 315,000 Swiss francs was 63 (U.S.) to 56, with 4 abstentions. 

A key issue at the 2002 Plenipotentiary Conference was the ITU budget, which was reduced by 10 percent when member states announced 

CU’s fell short of ITU projections. Several member states justified their 

decisions to reduce the number of CU’s they would pay on the lack of ITU 

financial reporting transparency, specifically on cost recovery for services, 

and a failure of the ITU to deliver services on a timely basis. Often noted 

in this regard was the substantial backlog in the Satellite Network Filing 

Office. The United States worked with the Standing Committee on 

Finance to find ways for the ITU to absorb this reduction in the ITU 

Financial Plan, with particular attention to ITU’s ability to meet its core 

responsibilities to member states. At the end of the Plenipotentiary Conference, member states completed a Financial Plan that gave ITU management direction in how to implement the lower budget. 

The 46–member ITU Council, of which the United States is a member, 

is elected at plenipotentiary conferences, and is comprised of representatives from five regions— the Americas, Western Europe, Eastern Europe, 

Africa, and Asia. The Council meets annually between plenipotentiary 

conferences to address management and other issues. In 2001, the Council 

forwarded to the UN General Assembly a proposal for a global conference 

on telecommunications and information, the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS). The United States opposed such a summit as a 

matter of policy, to limit the proliferation of global conferences. But the 

United States was unsuccessful in the face of widespread member state 

support in the ITU and similar support in the General Assembly. The General Assembly named the ITU as the lead in preparing for the Summit. The 

WSIS Executive Secretariat was set up within the ITU’s structure, even 

though WSIS’ Executive Secretariat is nominally an independent body. 

The Summit was to be funded by voluntary contributions, which did not 

reach expected levels in 2002. The United States did not make a contribution. 

To ensure adequate resources to hold the WSIS, in April, the ITU 

Council designated that ITU funds could be loaned to the WSIS Secretariat from ITU’s TELECOM working capital surplus funds, to be repaid as 

voluntary contributions for WSIS preparations and the Summit itself came 

in from donor countries, private–sector companies, and nongovernmental 

organizations. Any excess funds contributed would be transferred to the 

WSIS Secretariat. 

The WSIS will be held in two phases: first, in Geneva in December 

2003, then in Tunis in November 2005. The first WSIS Preparatory Committee meeting was held in July 2002, with at least two more to follow in 

161 
United States Participation in the United Nations – 2002 

2003. The United States is a member of the WSIS Bureau, which oversees 

procedural matters and coordinates the preparatory process. 

From 1999–2001, the United States played a central role in ITU’s 

Working Group on Reform (WGR), established pursuant to Resolution 74 

adopted at the 1998 Plenipotentiary Conference. The WGR focused on 

improving management practices, particularly financial management. It 

finished its work and presented its findings in 2001. The Council adopted 

some recommendations immediately, and forwarded others to the 2002 

Plenipotentiary Conference for action, including modifications to the ITU 

Constitution and Convention. At the 2002 Plenipotentiary Conference, the 

ITU membership opted to keep its basic structure intact, but recognized 

the need for streamlining and rationalizing and reduced the ITU’s budget. 

The United States believed that substantial improvement was needed 

in ITU financial management, including the quality and level of detail in 

its budget proposals, accounting practices, and reports to member states. 

Of particular concern was the continued and growing use of cost recovery 

for core ITU services such as the processing of Satellite Network Filings 

(required to avoid frequency interference among communications satellites in geostationary orbits). 

Thus, the United States, supported by a significant number of like– 

minded governments, called for a Group of Specialists to be formed to 

review the ITU’s management and financial practices. This group, chaired 

by the United States and to begin meeting in January 2003, will report its 

initial findings to the ITU Council in May 2003. Management and financial practices bear directly on all current and proposed cost recovery activities. The United States opposed expanding the use of cost recovery until 

ITU could demonstrate that its fees correspond to identifiable and auditable costs. 

The United States has interest in all areas of ITU endeavor. The U.S. 

private sector is notably engaged in the T Sector, and these standardization 

activities of the ITU are indispensable to U.S. Government and commercial interests to ensure world–wide compatibility and interoperability of 

global networks. However, it is the R Sector’s World Radiocommunication Conferences (WRCs), treaty–level meetings that occur every two to 

three years, that are most immediately central to U.S. national interests 

and U.S. membership in the ITU. These conferences allocate scarce 

resources, such as frequency bands and orbital slots, to member states, 

which in turn make decisions with respect to their use for radio and other 

services, by government and private industry (primarily in telecommunications). The WRC last met in 2000, in Istanbul, Turkey, and will next 

meet in Geneva in June/July 2003. 

162 
Specialized Agencies and Other Bodies 

The D Sector, too, provides opportunities for U.S. participation, both 

from the government and the private sector, as it focuses on telecommunications in the developing world. In March 2002, the ITU held its quadrennial World Telecommunication Development Conference in Istanbul. The 

Conference produced a four–year Action Plan that will guide the work of 

the D Sector membership, and of the ITU Development Bureau leadership 

and staff. This Conference provided an opportunity for developed and 

developing countries to work together to improve telecommunications and 

boost economic growth in developing, and especially least developed, 

countries. The Sector hoped to offset the 10 percent ITU budget reduction 

by increasing private–sector participation in, and funding for, national and 

regional workshops to build public–private partnerships aimed at developing infrastructure and improving teledensity. 

The United States urged that sustainable development of telecommunication infrastructure and delivery of the benefits of information technology to developing nations would be best achieved through free market 

mechanisms operating in an environment of transparent and accountable 

national governance. The United States argued that private investment, the 

largest source of financing for development, would be attracted most to 

those developing countries that foster free markets, democratic institutions, and transparent and predictable regulatory regimes. 

For 2002, out of 333 ITU personnel positions subject to geographic 

distribution, Americans occupied 16, or 4.8 percent of the total. 

UN Educational, Scientific, and Cultural 

Organization (UNESCO) 

The UN Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization 

(UNESCO) was established in 1945 with the primary objective of contributing to international peace and security by promoting collaboration 

among nations in education, science, culture, and communications. As 

penned by American poet Archibald MacLeish in UNESCO’s constitution, “since wars begin in the minds of men it is in the mind of men that 

peace must be constructed.” 

UNESCO’S key programs seek to promote the free flow of ideas; 

expansion of education; understanding of democratic principles; exchange 

of scientific knowledge; and promotion of cross cultural understanding. 

UNESCO also implements programs designed to protect the cultural and 

natural heritage of humankind. In 2002, UNESCO launched the first free 

newspaper in Afghanistan, The Kabul Weekly. In Afghanistan, UNESCO 

also trained journalists, provided aid to the ministries of Education, Higher 

Education, and Information and Culture, and formed the High Commission for Education. In the Middle East, UNESCO launched an International Center for Synchrotron Light for Experimental Science and 

163 
United States Participation in the United Nations – 2002 

Applications. The project was designed to promote basic sciences in the 

region, facilitate training, and forge a new relationship between science 

and society, while creating cooperation across borders and between peoples. 

UNESCO is headquartered in Paris, France, and it pursues activities in 

most of its 188 member states (as of December 2002) and through 57 field 

offices in collaboration with National Commissions. The United States 

withdrew from UNESCO in 1984 citing problems with trends in 

UNESCO’s policies, ideological bias, opposition to media freedom from 

state influence, and management. Since then the United States has maintained an Observer presence, which in 2002 was staffed with one American Foreign Service Officer and two locally engaged staff. 

On September 12, 2002, President Bush announced to the UN General 

Assembly that the United States would rejoin UNESCO as “a symbol of 

our commitment to human dignity... This organization has been reformed 

and America will participate fully in its mission to advance human rights 

and tolerance and learning.” For the U.S. Observer Mission to UNESCO, 

the final quarter of 2002 was therefore dedicated to planning the U.S. 

return and assessing the administrative and policy concerns for a successful return on October 1, 2003. 

Until President Bush’s announcement, the overall goal of U.S. participation in UNESCO’s activities during 2002 was to work, in a manner consistent with Observer status, to protect and promote U.S. interests. As a 

non–member state, the United States paid no assessed contribution in fiscal year 2002, but provided approximately $1.25 million in extrabudgetary 

contributions to select UNESCO programs. These funds served to finance 

activities of the World Heritage Center, the International Oceanographic 

Commission, the International Hydrological Program, and selected activities to promote conservation, science, cultural preservation, good management, and education for HIV/AIDS prevention. 

U.S. representatives attended as observers the 164th and 165th sessions of UNESCO’s Executive Board, the 35th Session of the Executive 

Council of the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission, the 26th 

session of the World Heritage Committee, and a number of other 

UNESCO meetings on education, science, and culture. In addition, U.S. 

representatives attended the final consultation on the elaboration of the 

Recommendation on Multilingualism in Cyberspace, where acceptable 

language was negotiated. Discussions regarding an international instrument designed to preserve “intangible cultural heritage” made little 

progress, given a lack of agreement regarding the definition of intangible 

cultural heritage and the type of instrument desired for its protection. 

164 
Specialized Agencies and Other Bodies 

Advances were made in the Executive Board meetings towards defining a new UNESCO strategy for human rights, reviewing a draft recommendation on genetic data collection, as well as refining the ongoing 

reforms of the organization and its governing bodies. In the area of science 

and communications, the United States supported the International Oceanographic Commission clarification of its mandate in relation to the advisory body on the law of the sea, while the International Program for the 

Development of Communication advanced the draft Recommendation on 

Multilingualism in Cyberspace at its last intergovernmental meeting. 

The 30th anniversary of the World Heritage Convention was marked 

by a series of thematic meetings in Italy in November 2002, which the 

U.S. Observer attended, to discuss aspects of the convention that may 

need refinement— notably, geographic representation on the list of world 

heritage sites and the enhancement of the convention’s implementation. 

Participants at the June 2002 World Heritage Committee meeting in 

Budapest decided to hold an extraordinary session of the committee in 

March 2003. The purpose will be to put to rest a number of these outstanding issues through the revision of the operational guidelines and the rules 

of procedure. 

Regarding the eventual U.S. return to this organization, at the October 

2002 Executive Board meeting, Director–General Koichiro Matsuura 

(Japan) stated that the U.S. assessment would be 22 percent. UNESCO’s 

2002–2003 biennium budget is $544 million. As an Observer, the United 

States was not entitled to any staff positions based on geographic distribution in 2002, yet American citizens occupied 20 (or 1.1 percent) of 

UNESCO’s 1,856 positions. 

Universal Postal Union (UPU) 

The Universal Postal Union (UPU), with headquarters in Bern, Switzerland, exists to facilitate international communications through the efficient operation of postal services across national borders. The United 

States has been a member of the UPU since its founding (as the General 

Postal Union) in 1874. The UPU has 189 member states. Thomas E. 

Leavey (United States) is the Director–General. Currently, he is the only 

American elected head of a UN system agency. 

During 2002, U.S. delegations attended the annual meetings of the 40– 

member Postal Operations Council (POC) in April, and the 41–member 

Council of Administration in November, both at UPU headquarters in 

Bern, as well as the UPU’s 2002 Strategy Conference held in Geneva in 

October. The U.S. Postal Service (USPS) also participated in numerous 

UPU working groups during the year, sharing U.S. expertise on issues 

such as postal security (including anthrax detection and handling of potentially dangerous mail), postal development, quality of service, express 

165 
United States Participation in the United Nations – 2002 

mail, direct marketing, and financing arrangements, including UPU “terminal dues” (the process by which one country pays another for the delivery of mail). 

Pursuant to 1998 legislation giving the Department of State primary 

responsibility for U.S. policy with respect to the UPU, State representatives headed the U.S. delegation to the Strategy Conference and the annual 

meeting of the Council of Administration, and participated in numerous 

other UPU meetings. Officers of U.S. Postal Service and the U.S. Postal 

Rate Commission were part of the U.S. delegations. The Department of 

State also included representatives of private–sector mailers and express 

carriers on U.S. delegations in an effort to increase their exposure to and 

participation in the work of the UPU. 

As in the past, the United States was the only country to broaden its 

delegations in this way. It was expected that at future meetings, U.S. private–sector stakeholders would take advantage of the new opportunities to 

participate directly in UPU meetings rather than as members of a government delegation and sit behind their own placards. In contrast, under 

Department of State rules, private–sector advisors on U.S. delegations 

may not speak or negotiate. 

U.S. Postal Service and Department of State officers participated in a 

meeting of the Consultative and Executive Council of the Postal Union of 

the Americas, Spain and Portugal (PUASP), held in March 2002 at 

PUASP headquarters in Montevideo, Uruguay. Both agencies also sent 

representatives to a meeting of the Caribbean Postal Union, held in Georgetown, Guyana, in July 2002. At both meetings, the U.S. delegation provided explanations of the studies of terminal dues and Extra–Territorial 

Offices of Exchange (ETOEs), which are being pursued within the UPU. 

The delegation also urged these two postal unions to open their doors to 

private–sector stakeholders in the manner that UPU had done. 

UPU reported that more than 720 individuals, including 50 private– 

sector postal stakeholders, attended the UPU Strategy Conference in 

Geneva in October. The Strategy Conference provided a forum for presentations on future directions of international postal operations, including 

the continued dynamism of the postal and delivery sectors. Deputy U.S. 

Postmaster General John Nolan told the conference of changes being 

made to transform USPS into a more effective organization, and he 

described efforts that USPS had made to deal with the problem of anthrax 

found in the mail. In a post–mortem review of the conference held by the 

Council of Administration the following week, the U.S. delegation 

acknowledged wide–spread praise of the meeting but expressed concern 

that too many speakers had been crowded into the short three–day time 

frame, that there had been too little opportunity for audience participation, 

and that the presentations seemed to have been skewed toward high–tech166 
Specialized Agencies and Other Bodies 

nology developments that were basically irrelevant to postal realities in 

most developing countries. The U.S. delegation urged that UPU decisionmakers think hard before repeating another such event between the 2004 

and 2008 UPU Congresses. 

The major procedural event of the year was the initiation of the practice of private–sector participation in UPU meetings. In 2001, the UPU 

Council of Administration had decided to open up the UPU governing 

body meetings to representatives of the private sector— the express carriers, mailers, postal equipment manufacturers, trade unions, and other 

postal stakeholders. This opening of the UPU had been promoted by U.S. 

delegations in reform discussions conducted since 1999. This new policy 

went into effect at the meeting of the Postal Operations Council in April 

2002, when members of the private–sector Advisory Group, including 

representatives of air courier companies and mass mailers, were seated for 

the first time with member–country delegates and permitted to speak. 

Members of the Advisory Group were also invited to the Strategy Conference and the meeting of the Council of Administration, and were welcomed at many of the UPU project teams and working groups. 

U.S. representatives played a major role in meetings of the Advisory 

Group and its steering committee during the year, including leading the 

negotiations for a set of rules of procedure for the new Consultative Committee, which will serve as the permanent replacement for the Advisory 

Group, once approved by the UPU Congress in 2004. The Council of 

Administration approved these rules. Although there was some disappointment that more private–sector agencies did not take advantage of the 

new openings for participation in UPU meetings, U.S. officials continued 

to encourage all interested parties in the private sector to utilize this new 

opportunity for private organizations to become more familiar with UPU 

operations and to offer their advice. 

In the POC, the Council of Administration, and in numerous project 

teams and working groups, the United States continued to promote greater 

attention in the UPU to the dynamic changes in the global postal market, 

including the growing roles of electronic mail, the Internet, the express 

carriers, and the growing alliances between public and private postal operators and between the posts of different countries. 

The main substantive issue addressed during 2002 was the system of 

terminal dues payments between the postal systems of industrialized countries for delivery of international mail. The UPU Congress in 1999 had 

established a system of payments covering the years 2001–2003. However, it had asked the POC to determine the system for payments between 

industrialized countries for 2004 and 2005, and to develop proposals for a 

global system, covering all countries, from 2006 and onward. 

167 
United States Participation in the United Nations – 2002 

A Terminal Dues Action Group (TDAG), created by the POC, had 

studied these issues since the 1999 Congress and presented to the POC in 

April 2002 a set of options for the system to be used by industrialized 

countries in 2004 and 2005. Over a two–week period, more than 50 hours 

of formal discussions were held, marked by animated debate and numerous rounds of secret–ballot votes. The ultimate decision was to leave the 

system for 2004 and 2005 basically unchanged from that of 2001–2003. 

Under this system, one industrialized country pays another industrialized 

country rates based on 60 per cent of the domestic postage rate for the 

recipient country. TDAG considered proposals for raising that percentage, 

as well as for changing the base against which the percentage is applied, in 

order to better cover costs in the recipient countries, but these were 

defeated. The POC did approve, however, a “quality of service link,” to be 

introduced in industrialized countries in 2005. This will allow recipient 

countries to receive a higher rate of terminal dues if they participate and if 

they meet approved delivery targets. 

Countries were sharply divided on the terminal dues rates. Representatives of what some considered “high–cost” countries argued that they were 

not being fairly compensated for mail delivery under the existing system, 

and that their mailers of outbound international mail were being forced to 

subsidize the costs of delivery of inbound international mail. In contrast, 

lower–cost countries argued strongly against any increase, saying that 

their costs already were covered by the current system, that mail volume 

was declining because of the growing use of email and other electronic 

substitutes, and that higher costs would drive mailers away from the posts. 

A number of developing countries said they feared that if the POC 

approved a system of higher rates, that system would also be applied to 

developing countries beginning in 2006 and they would be unable to 

afford to send international mail. 

The United States position, determined by the Department of State 

after consultation with U.S. postal stakeholders, was that it was important 

for terminal dues to increase and more closely approximate actual costs. 

However, the United States believed that a gradual increase was most 

likely to attract the votes of the developing countries and was also more 

fair to the extensive U.S. mailing industry, which already was paying outbound postal rates that basically covered costs and would have to pay substantially more under a sharp increase in terminal dues. Accordingly, the 

United States favored an increase, but a gradual one. 

In the decision process, a favorable vote of 21 of the 40 members of 

the POC was required to establish the system for 2004 and 2005, but 25 of 

the 40 POC members were from developing countries, and most of them 

opposed any increase. Thus, after multiple secret–ballot votes, both the 

sharp increase and the gradual increase were rejected, and the Terminal 

168 
Specialized Agencies and Other Bodies 

Dues Action Group turned its attention to development of the global system that will be presented to the UPU Congress in 2004 for implementation in 2006. 

In other substantive action, the two UPU Councils studied and discussed: 

• the growing phenomenon of Extra–Territorial Offices of Exchange 

(ETOEs), in which a postal administration of one country establishes 

a mail exchange office in another country in order to compete with 

the host country’s postal service. Instead of paying full domestic postage, some ETOEs seek the benefit of lower UPU terminal dues rates, 

although the UPU rates were intended for use only in mail dispatches 

from the ETOE’s home country to meet universal service obligations 

and not for mail from an exchange office located elsewhere; 

• Article 43 of the UPU Convention, which addresses the practice of 

“ABA remail,” in which mailers in one country (A) send bulk mail to 

another country (B) for posting back to their own country (A) for the 

purpose of utilizing the lower UPU terminal dues rates applicable to 

mail coming from Country B; 

• UPU negotiations with the World Customs Organization over revisions to two postal customs declaration forms. The objective was to 

develop new forms that would permit more thorough customs analysis of mail but not impede or complicate the flow of international 

mail; 

• UPU relations with the World Trade Organization (WTO), in particular the relationship between the UPU terminal dues system and 

WTO’s General Agreement on Trade in Services; and 

• growing concern about security of the post, including the anthrax 

mailings in the United States, and the need to protect the post and its 

customers. 

The Council of Administration in November discussed a number of 

administrative and financial issues and approved, with U.S. support, a new 

budget for 2003–2004 at the same level as the budget for the preceding 

biennium. This “zero nominal growth” two–year budget is for 71.4 million 

Swiss francs over two years, or about US$48 million. The budget is 

divided among UPU member countries not by a scale of assessment, as in 

most other UN system agencies, but according to “contribution units” that 

each country volunteers to pay. The United States pays 50 contribution 

units, which amounts to approximately 5.7 percent of the UPU budget. 

The cost to the United States is about $1.3 million per year, paid by the 

Department of State. There are no U.S. arrears to UPU. In addition, the 

U.S. Postal Service made extrabudgetary contributions to UPU in 2002 

169 
United States Participation in the United Nations – 2002 

amounting to $361,500, including the salary of a postal security consultant 

seconded to the UPU staff. 

The UPU staff operating under the regular budget is comprised of 58 

professionals. At the end of 2002, four (6.9 percent) of these professionals 

were American citizens, including the UPU Director–General, the chef de 

cabinet, and the director of economic and regulatory affairs. Two other 

Americans are employed with extrabudgetary resources. 

During the year, the Department of State continued to broaden the 

amount of information about UPU made available to the public. Reports 

on the results of UPU meetings were published on the Department of State 

website. Also published were advance notices of public briefings offered 

by the Department of State and reports on those briefings. The Department 

convened a public briefing in June 2002 to provide explanation of the 

decisions of the Postal Operations Council. 

World Health Organization (WHO) and Other 

International Health Organizations 

The World Health Organization (WHO), based in Geneva, was established in 1948 with the objective of “the attainment by all peoples of the 

highest possible level of health.” In 2002, WHO worked to achieve this 

goal in close partnership with its 192 member states and two associate 

members, hundreds of intergovernmental agencies and nongovernmental 

organizations, and over 1,000 leading health–related institutions designated as “WHO collaborating centers.” 

During 2002, the United States sent representatives to meetings of the 

World Health Assembly, the WHO Executive Board, regional committees 

for the Americas, the Western Pacific, Africa, and Europe, and the Governing Council of the International Agency for Research on Cancer. The 

United States also participated in meetings of the management committees 

of WHO’s major voluntarily funded programs: the intergovernmental 

negotiation body on a Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, and 

the governing body of the Joint UN Program on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS), 

which is cosponsored by WHO and seven other agencies. 

Under Director–General Gro Harlem Brundtland (Norway), WHO 

continued an advocacy approach on specific health issues. She emphasized that health should be at the center of the development agenda, a 

point supported by the work of the WHO Commission on Macroeconomics and Health, which made the case for promoting the health of the poor 

at global and community levels to bridge the poverty gap. Dr. Brundtland 

also emphasized that WHO advocacy and authority on health issues must 

be rooted in scientific evidence and that collecting and providing such evidence should be WHO’s core tasks. 

170 
Specialized Agencies and Other Bodies 

In August 2002, Dr. Brundtland announced she would not seek a second term after her term expires in July 2003. WHO member states, including the United States, praised the Director–General for her 

accomplishments, for elevating health as a major international policy concern, for raising the profile of WHO internationally, and for innovative 

approaches and partnerships to tackle specific health issues. Nine candidates, none from the United States, had been put forward to succeed her as 

Director–General when the nomination period closed in November. 

WHO committed itself to supporting the new Global Fund to Fight 

AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria, in particular by advising countries in 

preparation of proposals to submit to the Fund. An agreement with the 

Global Fund was signed whereby WHO will provide administrative services to the Fund. 

The 2002 World Health Assembly gave extended attention to HIV/ 

AIDS and the new Global Fund, as well as to WHO’s role in helping to 

achieve health–related Millennium Development Goals. The United States 

worked closely on a resolution proposed by Brazil on “Ensuring accessibility of essential medicines,” and amended contentious provisions referring to differential pricing and the impact of trade agreements on drug 

access. The Assembly adopted the resolution by consensus. U.S. differences with WHO emerged on the inherent premises of WHO work in the 

area of prescription drug access, particularly on how WHO addresses 

intellectual property rights and the relationship between access and trade 

agreements. The Assembly reviewed WHO activities to significantly 

accelerate work on HIV/AIDS. 

The United States succeeded in having the Assembly adopt a resolution by consensus authorizing the retention of declared smallpox virus 

stocks in the United States and Russia for research to develop vaccines 

and drug tools that would protect against the possible deliberate use of the 

virus by terrorists. The Assembly also adopted a resolution on bioterrorism that focused on strengthening WHO’s global surveillance of infectious diseases, water quality, and food safety activities, and improving the 

guidance WHO gives on public health measures to deal with deliberate 

use of infectious agents. 

The presence of Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) 

Tommy Thompson at a ministerial–level Assembly roundtable on “Risks 

to Health” reflected the emphasis accorded to the issue in 2002. At the 

ministerial in May, the Assembly adopted substantive resolutions on mental health; patient safety; aging and health; dengue fever; and diet, physical activity, and health, among others. 

The United States worked with WHO in 2002 in support of a process 

underway to revise the International Health Regulations, and stressed that 

171 
United States Participation in the United Nations – 2002 

eventual revisions will need to carefully balance the need to provide maximum protection against the spread of diseases with minimum interference 

with world trade. 

A resolution, entitled “The need for increased representation of developing countries in the Secretariat and in Advisory Panels and Committee,” 

was forced through the World Health Assembly by vote in 2002. Sponsored by a relatively small group of developing countries, it sought to 

change the basis and criteria on which appointments to the Secretariat are 

made. The United States worked with a number of countries in opposing 

the resolution as inconsistent with the WHO Constitution, and with 

WHO’s reputation for professional and scientific expertise. Though divisive, the resolution did not appear to lead to any significant changes in 

WHO staff appointments. 

As has happened each year since 1997, the 2002 Assembly took no 

action on a proposal to add an agenda item to discuss the possibility of 

observer status for Taiwan, put forward by several countries that have diplomatic relations with Taiwan. In the lead up to the Assembly, Taiwan 

increased its lobbying of WHO member states for support of its bid for 

this status. HHS Secretary Thompson expressed the U.S. Government’s 

support for Taiwan’s observer status in a speech at a private–sector reception. 

Although there is no provision in the WHO Constitution or the Assembly’s Rules of Procedures regarding the conferring of observer status, it is 

understood that observers can be admitted only if a majority of the members present and voting at the Assembly approve the proposal. In 2002, the 

General Committee debated the issue and ultimately recommended 

against inclusion of this new agenda item. In the Assembly plenary, under 

a previously agreed scenario aimed at avoiding a one–sided vote, several 

states spoke on each side of the issue, after which the Assembly president 

said it appeared the plenary had agreed with the recommendation that 

there would be no new agenda item. There was no vote. 

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.” A number of Arab states introduced a 

resolution focusing on very harsh condemnation of Israel. Spain, on behalf 

of European Union (EU) countries, sought to amend the draft, but the Palestinian negotiators ultimately rejected any changes. The United States 

called for a roll–call vote on the resolution because the text was loaded 

with tendentious language. The Assembly adopted the resolution by a vote 

of 48 to 8 (U.S.), with 69 abstentions (including EU member states). A 

large number of countries chose to be absent, and the resolution was 

adopted by a considerably narrower margin of victory than in the past. 

172 
Specialized Agencies and Other Bodies 

The United States stated that the resolution followed a pattern of blaming Israel harshly for Palestinian health problems, while ignoring that 

Israelis have suffered as a result of Palestinian actions. Moreover, the resolution further inflamed emotions and judgment on questions that Israelis 

and Palestinians had to negotiate between them. After the vote, a number 

of countries stated their regret that such political issues were being put 

before the Assembly. 

Negotiations continued during 2002 on a Framework Convention on 

Tobacco Control (FCTC) scheduled for completion by 2003. The United 

States was active at sessions of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Body in 

March and October. In July, the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and 

Firearms (ATF) sponsored a meeting at UN Headquarters in New York on 

tobacco smuggling to consider best practices for law enforcement, tax, and 

customs authorities to better counter the illicit tobacco trade. The results 

of the ATF conference were the basis for continuing negotiations in October, during which real progress was made on the FCTC text. The Convention would be opened for signatures at the World Health Assembly in May 

2003. 

With regard to WHOs financial report for 2000–2001, the organization 

noted some positive trends: the increased rate of collection of assessed and 

extrabudgetary contributions, improved program implementation, 

increased focus on monitoring and evaluation, and a reduction in internal 

borrowing. Overall, the External Auditor gave WHO high marks on its 

financial report for 2000–2001. 

In 2002, the United States provided $93.6 million to the WHO regular 

budget, reflecting the first year of a reduced U.S. assessment from 25 percent to 22 percent. In 2002, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), HHS, and the Department of State provided 

approximately $61.3 million to WHO in extrabudgetary resources. 

The United States also continued working with WHO on various management issues to facilitate payment of arrears under the Helms–Biden 

legislation. The Secretary certified that the legislative conditions for management reform had been met, which would enable the United States to 

pay WHO $33.4 million in arrears in 2003. 

Among WHO staff, there were more American citizens in professional 

posts than citizens of any other country. In 2002, WHO had 1,272 posts 

subject to geographic distribution with U.S. citizens in 159 posts, or 12.5 

percent. However, U.S. citizens remained underrepresented. At year’s 

end, Americans held the senior posts of Executive Director of the communicable diseases cluster, Legal Counsel, Director of Internal Audit and 

Oversight, and Director of the Division of Personnel. The total WHO staff 

173 
United States Participation in the United Nations – 2002 

on fixed–term or career service appointments was 3,632. In addition, there 

were 4,590 staff on short–term contracts. 

Pan American Health Organization (PAHO) 

In related international health matters, the Pan American Health Organization (PAHO) celebrated its centennial in 2002. Formed in 1902 as the 

Pan American Sanitary Bureau, PAHO is the world’s oldest intergovernmental health organization. The culminating event was an Anniversary 

symposium and a commemoration gala on December 2 at the Willard 

Hotel in Washington, D.C., in the same ballroom and on the very day as 

100 years prior. UN Secretary–General Kofi Annan was the keynote 

speaker. 

PAHO’s quadrennial Pan American Sanitary Conference convened at 

PAHO headquarters in Washington, D.C., on September 23–27. U.S. officials, including HHS Secretary Thompson, were active in that meeting, as 

they had been in meetings of the PAHO Executive Committee in June and 

the Subcommittee on Planning and Programming in March. The Conference elected Dr. Mirta Roses (Argentina), Associate Director of PAHO, as 

PAHO’s new Director, with a five–year term commencing in February 

2003. 

The conference discussed and adopted resolutions on pressing health 

issues, including HIV/AIDS, vaccines and immunization, chronic diseases, childhood illness, maternal health, and other issues. Representatives 

of all 38 PAHO member states participated, mostly at the ministerial level. 

The PAHO strategic plan for 2003–2007, a fundamental planning tool for 

technical cooperation, was adopted. Member states agreed that PAHO 

must have flexibility to take into account the vision of the new Director. 

The conference reviewed the status of the HIV/AIDS epidemic in the 

Americas and improvements in prevention and control. Brazil proposed 

that PAHO begin feasibility studies on the creation of a center for generic 

drugs. The United States worked to scale back the proposal. Conference 

participants agreed that PAHO would explore mechanisms to build 

national capacity for the quality control of generic drugs. 

Also considered at the conference was Argentina’s six years in arrears 

and its non–compliance with the payment plan it agreed to follow in 

2000— making it the only country in the region in such a position. 

Although Argentina’s vote was already suspended, the majority of countries supported restoring its voting privileges, in part out of recognition of 

the country’s economic crisis. The United States noted that PAHO members had extended repeated grace to Argentina in recent years and it was 

time to abide by PAHO’s Constitution. With few supporters for that position, the United States did not press the matter to a vote. 

174 
Specialized Agencies and Other Bodies 

The United States pays 59.44 percent of the PAHO budget, based on 

the scale of the Organization of American States, with adjustments for 

membership. The U.S. assessment for 2002 was $55.9 million. In 2002, 

PAHO had a total staff of 924, of which 470 were professional posts. Of 

those, 77 were U.S. citizens, or 16.4 percent. 

International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) 

The Governing Council of the International Agency for Research on 

Cancer (IARC), a subsidiary of WHO with 15 member states, met at 

IARC headquarters in Lyon, France, on May 9–10. The Council discussed 

IARC’s program of work in cancer prevention, its collaborative research 

efforts (the U.S. National Cancer Institute is a major partner), and its 

medium–term strategic vision. IARC works with networks of cancer registries to provide data on cancer prevalence, incidence, survival, and mortality. It also focuses on the causes of human cancer, such as life–style 

factors, chronic infections, and exposures. 

IARC Director, Dr. Paul Kleihues (Germany), is serving his second 

five–year term as Director, which is to expire at the end of 2003. Under 

the Governing Council’s auspices, a formal search committee was formed 

in 2002 to identify candidates for a new IARC Director, and to make recommendations on terms and conditions of service. The United States is a 

member of the search committee. 

The IARC financial report for 2000–2001 showed a total program 

implementation rate of 99.7 percent. Dr. Kleihues reported that 94 percent 

of payments were received in the year assessed, and that $17.5 million in 

extrabudgetary funds for specified research activities had been received, 

an increase of 23 percent over the previous biennium. IARC has a total 

staff of 133, of which there are 49 professional posts. Of those, four are 

held by U.S. citizens, or 8.2 percent. 

Joint UN Program on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS) 

The Joint UN Program on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS) began formal operations on January 1, 1996. Cosponsors are 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, and the World Bank. 

UNAIDS also has cooperation agreements with the Food and Agriculture 

Organization and the UN High Commissioner for Refugees. UNAIDS 

works in countries dealing with the HIV/AIDS epidemic, primarily 

through its country–coordination theme groups that seek to mobilize all 

sectors to address AIDS. 

Dr. Peter Piot (Belgium), Executive Director of UNAIDS, reported in 

December that there were 42 million people living with HIV/AIDS world175 
United States Participation in the United Nations – 2002 

wide. During 2002, there were 5 million new HIV infections and 3.1 million deaths. 

In 2002, UNAIDS worked to support the first year of operations of the 

new Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria. Along with 

WHO, UNAIDS serves as an ex officio member of the Board of the Fund. 

UNAIDS worked particularly at the country level to advise countries, 

where requested, in the preparation of proposals for funding by the Global 

Fund. 

The UNAIDS Program Coordinating Board (PCB) has 22 member 

states, as well as the eight UNAIDS cosponsors, and five nongovernmental organizations. 

The PCB met from May 29–31 in Geneva. It stressed that the Declaration of Commitment put forth by the 2001 UN General Assembly Special 

Session on HIV/AIDS, with its time–specific and measurable targets, 

should guide the response to the epidemic at global, national, and community levels. It emphasized the need for mobilization of far greater amounts 

of funding from all sources, for strengthening human resources capacity to 

scale–up HIV/AIDS activities in countries, and for integrating HIV/AIDS 

programs into broader poverty reduction and development initiatives. 

The PCB reviewed the final report on a five–year evaluation of 

UNAIDS, undertaken to examine whether UNAIDS had met expectations 

since 1996 in increasing attention to issues associated with the spread of 

HIV. It made recommendations on strategic changes in UNAIDS role, 

especially improving its country offices, and strengthening interagency 

collaboration in response to the challenge. 

The UNAIDS Budget for 2002–2003 is $190 million, which includes 

the AIDS budgets of its cosponsor UN agencies (except for the World 

Bank). The UNAIDS Secretariat has a budget of $55 million. The United 

States continued to be UNAIDS’major donor, providing about 26 percent 

of its annual all–voluntary budget, primarily through the U.S. Agency for 

International Development. In 2002, UNAIDS had a total staff of 177, of 

which 126 were professionals. Of those, 10 posts, including that of Deputy 

Executive Director, were held by U.S. citizens, or 7.9 percent. 

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 

176 
Specialized Agencies and Other Bodies 

offices around the world, including in New York, Washington, D.C., and 

Brussels, Belgium. There are 179 members of the WIPO Convention. 

WIPO administers various treaties that deal with the legal and administrative aspects of intellectual property, which includes industrial property and copyrights. The two principal treaties are the Paris and Berne 

Conventions (with 164 and 150 members, respectively). WIPO also 

administers 20 multilateral “unions” (the treaty administering organs). 

At the WIPO General Assembly meeting in September 2002, more 

than 100 member states expressed support for re–election in 2003 of the 

Director–General Kamil Idris (Sudan) for a second term. Group B, including the United States, withheld formal support at that time, since nominations were open until December. The Assembly adopted an accelerated 

procedure to complete the election process several months in advance of 

the September 2003 WIPO General Assembly. A 1998 amendment of the 

WIPO Convention limiting the Director–General to two consecutive six– 

year terms has not yet come into force. Though a major proponent of the 

amendment, the United States has not yet ratified it. 

The General Assembly of WIPO Unions, of which the United States is 

a member, was held in Geneva from September 23–October 1, 2002. The 

General Assembly authorized the Director–General to move forward with 

the process of streamlining and simplifying WIPO’s governance and constitutional structure to reinforce the transparency, efficiency, and effectiveness of the organization. These changes included the abolition of the 

WIPO Conference, the formal adoption of a system based on a single 

(“unitary”) budgetary contribution to WIPO, instead of individual government contributions to each of the treaty unions to which they belong, and 

changes in contribution classes. The relevant WIPO–administered treaties 

are to be amended to make provision for holding ordinary sessions of the 

WIPO Assembly annually, rather than biennially. Currently, the Assembly 

meets each year, in alternating ordinary and extraordinary sessions. 

The inaugural sessions of the WIPO Copyright Treaty (WCT) Assembly and the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty (WPPT) Assembly took place in 2002 following the entry into force of the WCT on 

March 6 and the WPPT on May 20. These treaties address protection of 

intellectual property in the digital world. At their first meeting, the Assemblies unanimously adopted decisions relating to their rules of procedure, 

election of officers, and future work. 

WIPO members decided to consolidate the organization’s work on 

enforcement of intellectual property rights into a single Advisory Committee on Enforcement that will cover both industrial property and copyright 

and related rights. The mandate of the Committee’s work is technical 

assistance and coordination, to focus on broad–based cooperation with rel177 
United States Participation in the United Nations – 2002 

evant organizations as well as the private sector. It will also undertake 

public education initiatives, and national and regional technical assistance 

programs. The United States supported formation of this committee, and 

agreed that its agenda should focus on outreach and training. 

The Assembly of the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) Union 

approved a number of measures designed to further streamline and simplify the international patent application filing system under the treaty, 

which facilitates the process of obtaining patents in up to 118 countries. 

The United States supports these measures since the treaty facilitates and 

extends international protection of intellectual property. These measures 

include an enhanced international search and preliminary examination 

system, the introduction of a new system of designating countries in which 

patents are sought, and a fee reduction for international applications filed 

in electronic form. WIPO member states also noted progress in PCT automation projects, which are expected to generate lower costs for applicants 

and more efficient services. The United States expressed its concern about 

the cost and duration of the automation projects, since they had been in 

process for several years and should have concluded. 

The 2002 WIPO Assembly approved the Program Performance Report 

for the 2000–2001 biennium. This report informed member states of 

WIPO’s achievements against criteria established in the program and budget. For the first time, WIPO admitted four national nongovernmental 

organizations as observers, including the American Intellectual Property 

Law Association. The United States, which supports broad participation of 

all stakeholders in appropriate activities of international organizations, 

welcomed this move. 

The Assembly also approved the continuation of construction of a new 

administrative building in Geneva, to begin in early 2003 at the location of 

its current headquarters. Expanded premises would enable WIPO leadership to consolidate staff now working in rented space in nine buildings 

into a single, multi–building complex. 

The 2001 Assembly, concerned over a report on cost estimate overruns 

on construction to expand WIPO’s office building and meeting center, had 

commissioned WIPO’s external auditors (the Swiss Federal Audit 

Agency) to conduct a full technical evaluation of the project. The audit 

was to focus on WIPO’s management and financial justification for the 

proposed new meeting facilities. The External Auditor reported to the 

2002 WIPO Assembly that inadequate initial planning and costing had led 

to a doubling of the original 1998 estimates. The Assembly instructed the 

WIPO Secretariat to adjust the plan to provide a maximum number of 

workplaces and to incorporate extensive technical adjustments suggested 

by the auditor. The Assembly then authorized the start of construction, 

which is likely to last until 2007. The United States, which originally 

178 
Specialized Agencies and Other Bodies 

called for this audit at the 2001 WIPO Assembly to explain how costs 

could have been so poorly estimated, welcomed the report and called for 

WIPO to report regularly to members on construction progress and costs. 

Oversight of WIPO’s financial and budgetary issues is conducted by 

the Program and Budget Committee, to which the United States belongs. 

Historically, WIPO has consistently run a revenue surplus from patent and 

trademark filing fees. The United States has advocated and has obtained 

regular reductions of filing fees since 1996, making them more affordable, 

especially for small and medium–sized enterprises and individuals, consistent with the costs of processing applications, and less likely to lead to 

accumulated but unnecessary cash reserves. 

Fees for services generate approximately 90 percent of WIPO’s budget. WIPO member states have required the Secretariat to consolidate all 

budgets for the 2002–2003 biennium, to provide clearer tracking of financial flows. The 2001 Assembly approved a new 2002–2003 WIPO biennial budget that keeps member state assessments at existing levels. The 

proposed 2002–2003 budget increased by 19.9 percent over the revised 

2000–2001 level, primarily due to projected increases in PCT filing volumes. 

This increase prompted the United States once again to call for better 

methods to project more accurately the expected filing volumes and revenue. Accurate identification of costs should help justify continued 

decreases in filing fees. The U.S. share of the assessed WIPO budget is 

6.59 percent, or $897,000 (at an average 2002 exchange rate of 1.4709 

Swiss francs = USD 1.000). The U.S. assessed contribution represents less 

than 1 percent of WIPO’s total revenue. Approximately 34 percent of 

WIPO’s revenue comes from filing fees paid by U.S. nationals, the largest 

group of WIPO supporters. 

In 2002, out of 334 posts subject to geographic distribution, 21 were 

filled by Americans, or 6.3 percent. 

World Meteorological Organization (WMO) 

The World Meteorological Organization (WMO) facilitates international cooperation in making meteorological, hydrological, and other 

related observations by promoting the standardization, quality control, and 

rapid exchange of meteorological observations and uniform publication of 

observations and statistics. It promotes flood forecasting and climate studies, and encourages research and training in various meteorological sciences to further the application of meteorology to aviation, shipping, 

hydrology, and agriculture. 

The WMO membership comprises 179 countries, including the United 

States, and six member territories, all of which maintain their own meteorological services. The six WMO regional groups meet every four years to 

179 
United States Participation in the United Nations – 2002 

coordinate operational meteorological and hydrological activities within 

their region, and to examine questions referred to them by the Executive 

Council. The WMO Secretariat is based in Geneva, and serves as the 

administrative, documentation, and information center for the organization. It had 262 employees at the end of 2002, of which nine were Americans out of the 120 professional–level staff subject to geographical 

distribution. The Secretariat is headed by Secretary–General G.O.P. Obasi 

(Nigeria), whose current four–year term expires at the end of 2003. 

The World Meteorological Congress (Cg), which is the supreme body 

of the WMO, meets every four years. It determines policies, approves the 

program and budget, and adopts regulations. The next WMO Congress 

will meet in Geneva in May 2003. 

The WMO’s Executive Council meets annually to prepare studies and 

recommendations for the WMO Cg, to supervise the implementation of 

Cg resolutions and regulations, to approve implementation of the budget, 

and to advise members on technical matters. It is comprised of 36 members, including the President and three Vice–Presidents. The Executive 

Council members are generally the heads of their national meteorological 

services. Directors of the U.S. National Weather Service have always been 

members of the Executive Council. It receives budget recommendations 

from the WMO Financial Advisory Committee, which is chaired by the 

WMO President and is made up of the eight selected member countries 

(usually the largest contributors, including the United States) and the presidents of the six WMO regional associations. 

The Executive Council met June 11–21, 2002, in Geneva, and included 

private–sector representation. It was unable to reach a consensus on a 

2004–2007 quadrennial budget and consequently recommended that the 

Secretary–General prepare budgets in the Swiss franc (SFr) 248.8–258.8 

million range (US$160–166 million at 2002 exchange rates) to present to 

the May 2003 Cg. The U.S. delegation had advocated for a zero nominal 

growth budget of SFr 248.8 million. (That represents zero nominal growth 

in assessments; zero nominal growth in expenditures would be SFr 252.3 

million, the difference reflecting savings in the WMO headquarters building fund.) 

The WMO’s programs include the World Weather Watch, climate 

forecasting, atmospheric research, environmental monitoring, meteorological applications, hydrological monitoring, flood forecasting, education 

and training, and technical cooperation. The United States uses the World 

Weather Watch Program, as well as the Voluntary Cooperation Program 

(VCP) and the Global Climate Observing System (GCOS) to help it forecast the weather. 

180 
Specialized Agencies and Other Bodies 

The World Weather Watch provides real–time worldwide weather data 

through the member–operated Global Telecommunication System. 

Observing platforms include four polar–orbiting and five geostationary 

satellites, about 10,000 land–based observation sites, approximately 7,000 

ship stations, and 300 moored and drifting buoys carrying automatic 

weather stations. 

The VCP supports member countries’implementation of WMO Scientific and Technical Programs. It provides, inter alia, equipment and services, including training, or financial contributions made on a voluntary 

basis by member countries. It has assisted developing countries undertake 

observations and may be an important vehicle in the future to help construct an integrated global observing system. 

The GCOS was established in 1992 to ensure that the observations and 

information needed to address climate–related issues are obtained and 

made available to all potential users. It is intended to be a long–term, user– 

driven operational system capable of providing the comprehensive observations required for monitoring the climate system; for detecting and 

attributing climate change; for assessing the impacts of climate variability 

and change; and for supporting research toward improved understanding, 

modeling, and prediction of the climate system. GCOS is particularly 

important in light of the President’s commitment to enhance and expand 

the global climate observing systems in order to reduce uncertainties 

related to global climate change. 

The WMO has eight technical commissions: (1) Aeronautical Meteorology, (2) Agricultural Meteorology, (3) Atmospheric Sciences, (4) Basic 

Systems, (5) Climate, (6) Hydrology, (7) Instruments and Methods of 

Observation, and, (8) Oceanography and Marine Meteorology. The latter 

is a joint commission with the UN Educational, Scientific, and Cultural 

Organization Intergovernmental Oceangraphic Commission. The commissions meet quadrennially, and in one case (Basic Systems) biennially. The 

Aeronautical Meteorology commission met September 16–20, 2002 in 

Montreal in conjunction with the Meteorology Division of the International Civil Aviation Organization. The Agricultural Meteorology, Atmospheric Sciences, Basic Systems, and the Instruments and Methods of 

Observation Commissions also met in 2002. To meet U.S. needs for data 

to predict the weather, including for specific purposes such as agriculture 

and aviation, the United States sent representatives to the commission 

meetings. 

The WMO does not prepare annual budgets, but its spending in 2002 

was roughly US$27 million, or one–quarter of the 2000–2003 quadrennial 

budget of SFr 248.8 million ($147 million at 2002 exchange rates). The 

U.S. assessment is 21.56 percent, making the annual U.S. assessment 

181 
United States Participation in the United Nations – 2002 

about $8 million. The United States also contributed $2 million in 2002 to 

WMO’s Voluntary Cooperation Program. 

182
Appendix 1 

Address by President 

George W. Bush 

Statement by President George W. Bush before the 57th regular session of the 

UN General Assembly on September 12, 2002. 

Mr. Secretary–General, Mr. President, distinguished delegates, and 

ladies and gentlemen: We meet one 

year and one day after a terrorist attack 

brought grief to my country, and 

brought grief to many citizens of our 

world. Yesterday, we remembered the 

innocent lives taken that terrible morning. Today, we turn to the urgent duty 

of protecting other lives, without illusion and without fear. 

We’ve accomplished much in the 

last year— in Afghanistan and 

beyond. We have much yet to do— in 

Afghanistan and beyond. Many 

nations represented here have joined in 

the fight against global terror, and the 

people of the United States are grateful. 

The United Nations was born in 

the hope that survived a world war— 

the hope of a world moving toward 

justice, escaping old patterns of conflict and fear. The founding members 

resolved that the peace of the world 

must never again be destroyed by the 

will and wickedness of any man. We 

created the United Nations Security 

Council, so that, unlike the League of 

Nations, our deliberations would be 

more than talk, our resolutions would 

be more than wishes. After generations of deceitful dictators and broken 

treaties and squandered lives, we dedicated ourselves to standards of human 

dignity shared by all, and to a system 

of security defended by all. 

Today, these standards, and this 

security, are challenged. Our commitment to human dignity is challenged 

by persistent poverty and raging disease. The suffering is great, and our 

responsibilities are clear. The United 

States is joining with the world to supply aid where it reaches people and 

lifts up lives, to extend trade and the 

prosperity it brings, and to bring medical care where it is desperately needed. 

As a symbol of our commitment to 

human dignity, the United States will 

return to UNESCO. This organization 

has been reformed and America will 

participate fully in its mission to 

advance human rights and tolerance 

and learning. 

Our common security is challenged by regional conflicts— ethnic 

and religious strife that is ancient, but 

not inevitable. In the Middle East, 

there can be no peace for either side 

without freedom for both sides. America stands committed to an independent and democratic Palestine, living 

side by side with Israel in peace and 

security. Like all other people, Palestinians deserve a government that 

serves their interests and listens to 

their voices. My nation will continue 

to encourage all parties to step up to 

their responsibilities as we seek a just 

183 
United States Participation in the United Nations – 2002 

and comprehensive settlement to the 

conflict. 

Above all, our principles and our 

security are challenged today by outlaw groups and regimes that accept no 

law of morality and have no limit to 

their violent ambitions. In the attacks 

on America a year ago, we saw the 

destructive intentions of our enemies. 

This threat hides within many nations, 

including my own. In cells and camps, 

terrorists are plotting further destruction, and building new bases for their 

war against civilization. And our 

greatest fear is that terrorists will find 

a shortcut to their mad ambitions when 

an outlaw regime supplies them with 

the technologies to kill on a massive 

scale. 

In one place— in one regime— we 

find all these dangers, in their most 

lethal and aggressive forms, exactly 

the kind of aggressive threat the 

United Nations was born to confront. 

Twelve years ago, Iraq invaded 

Kuwait without provocation. And the 

regime’s forces were poised to continue their march to seize other countries and their resources. Had Saddam 

Hussein been appeased instead of 

stopped, he would have endangered 

the peace and stability of the world. 

Yet this aggression was stopped— by 

the might of coalition forces and the 

will of the United Nations. 

To suspend hostilities, to spare 

himself, Iraq’s dictator accepted a 

series of commitments. The terms 

were clear, to him and to all. And he 

agreed to prove he is complying with 

every one of those obligations. 

He has proven instead only his 

contempt for the United Nations, and 

for all his pledges. By breaking every 

pledge— by his deceptions, and by his 

cruelties— Saddam Hussein has made 

the case against himself. 

In 1991, Security Council Resolution 688 demanded that the Iraqi 

regime cease at once the repression of 

its own people, including the systematic repression of minorities— which 

the Council said, threatened international peace and security in the region. 

This demand goes ignored. 

Last year, the UN Commission on 

Human Rights found that Iraq continues to commit extremely grave violations of human rights, and that the 

regime’s repression is all pervasive. 

Tens of thousands of political opponents and ordinary citizens have been 

subjected to arbitrary arrest and 

imprisonment, summary execution, 

and torture by beating and burning, 

electric shock, starvation, mutilation, 

and rape. Wives are tortured in front of 

their husbands, children in the presence of their parents— and all of these 

horrors concealed from the world by 

the apparatus of a totalitarian state. 

In 1991, the UN Security Council, 

through Resolutions 686 and 687, 

demanded that Iraq return all prisoners 

from Kuwait and other lands. Iraq’s 

regime agreed. It broke its promise. 

Last year, the Secretary–General’s 

high–level coordinator for this issue 

reported that Kuwait, Saudi, Indian, 

Syrian, Lebanese, Iranian, Egyptian, 

Bahraini, and Omani nationals remain 

unaccounted for— more than 600 people. One American pilot is among 

them. 

In 1991, the UN Security Council, 

through Resolution 687, demanded 

that Iraq renounce all involvement 

with terrorism, and permit no terrorist 

organizations to operate in Iraq. Iraq’s 

regime agreed. It broke this promise. 

In violation of Security Council Resolution 1373, Iraq continues to shelter 

and support terrorist organizations that 

direct violence against Iran, Israel, and 

Western governments. Iraqi dissidents 

abroad are targeted for murder. In 

1993, Iraq attempted to assassinate the 

Emir of Kuwait and a former American President. Iraq’s Government 

openly praised the attacks of September the 11th. And al Qaeda terrorists 

184 
Address by President George W. Bush 

escaped from Afghanistan and are 

known to be in Iraq. 

In 1991, the Iraqi regime agreed to 

destroy and stop developing all weapons of mass destruction and long– 

range missiles, and to prove to the 

world it has done so by complying 

with rigorous inspections. Iraq has 

broken every aspect of this fundamental pledge. 

From 1991 to 1995, the Iraqi 

regime said it had no biological weapons. After a senior official in its weapons program defected and exposed this 

lie, the regime admitted to producing 

tens of thousands of liters of anthrax 

and other deadly biological agents for 

use with Scud warheads, aerial bombs, 

and aircraft spray tanks. UN inspectors 

believe Iraq has produced two to four 

times the amount of biological agents 

it declared, and has failed to account 

for more than three metric tons of 

material that could be used to produce 

biological weapons. Right now, Iraq is 

expanding and improving facilities 

that were used for the production of 

biological weapons. 

United Nations’ inspections also 

revealed that Iraq likely maintains 

stockpiles of VX, mustard, and other 

chemical agents, and that the regime is 

rebuilding and expanding facilities 

capable of producing chemical weapons. 

And in 1995, after four years of 

deception, Iraq finally admitted it had 

a crash nuclear weapons program prior 

to the Gulf War. We know now, were 

it not for that war, the regime in Iraq 

would likely have possessed a nuclear 

weapon no later than 1993. 

Today, Iraq continues to withhold 

important information about its 

nuclear program— weapons design, 

procurement logs, experiment data, an 

accounting of nuclear materials, and 

documentation of foreign assistance. 

Iraq employs capable nuclear scientists and technicians. It retains physical infrastructure needed to build a 

nuclear weapon. Iraq has made several 

attempts to buy high–strength aluminum tubes used to enrich uranium for a 

nuclear weapon. Should Iraq acquire 

fissile material, it would be able to 

build a nuclear weapon within a year. 

and Iraq’s state–controlled media has 

reported numerous meetings between 

Saddam Hussein and his nuclear scientists, leaving little doubt about his continued appetite for these weapons. 

Iraq also possesses a force of 

Scud–type missiles with ranges 

beyond the 150 kilometers permitted 

by the UN. Work at testing and production facilities shows that Iraq is 

building more long–range missiles 

[so] that it can inflict mass death 

throughout the region. 

In 1990, after Iraq’s invasion of 

Kuwait, the world imposed economic 

sanctions on Iraq. Those sanctions 

were maintained after the war to compel the regime’s compliance with 

Security Council resolutions. In time, 

Iraq was allowed to used oil revenues 

to buy food. Saddam Hussein has subverted this program, working around 

the sanctions to buy missile technology and military materials. He blames 

the suffering of Iraq’s people on the 

United Nations, even as he uses his oil 

wealth to build lavish palaces for himself, and to buy arms for his country. 

By refusing to comply with his own 

agreements, he bears full guilt for the 

hunger and misery of innocent Iraqi 

citizens. 

In 1991, Iraq promised UN inspectors immediate and unrestricted access 

to verify Iraq’s commitment to rid 

itself of weapons of mass destruction 

and long–range missiles. Iraq broke 

this promise, spending seven years 

deceiving, evading, and harassing UN 

inspectors before ceasing cooperation 

entirely. Just months after the 1991 

cease–fire, the Security Council twice 

renewed its demand that the Iraqi 

regime cooperate fully with inspectors, condemning Iraq’s serious viola185 
United States Participation in the United Nations – 2002 

tions of its obligations. The Security 

Council again renewed that demand in 

1994, and twice more in 1996, deploring Iraq’s clear violations of its obligations. The Security Council renewed 

its demand three more times in 1997, 

citing flagrant violations; and three 

more times in 1998, calling Iraq’s 

behavior totally unacceptable. And in 

1999, the demand was renewed yet 

again. 

As we meet today, it’s been almost 

four years since the last UN inspectors 

set foot in Iraq, four years for the Iraqi 

regime to plan, and to build, and to test 

behind the cloak of secrecy. 

We know that Saddam Hussein 

pursued weapons of mass murder even 

when inspectors were in his country. 

Are we to assume that he stopped 

when they left? The history, logic, and 

the facts lead to one conclusion: Saddam Hussein’s regime is a grave and 

gathering danger. To suggest otherwise is to hope against the evidence. 

To assume this regime’s good faith is 

to bet the lives of millions and the 

peace of the world in a reckless gamble. And this is a risk we must not 

take. 

Delegates to the General Assembly, we have been more than patient. 

We’ve tried sanctions. We’ve tried the 

carrot of oil for food, and the stick of 

coalition military strikes. But Saddam 

Hussein has defied all these efforts and 

continues to develop weapons of mass 

destruction. The first time we may be 

completely certain he has a— nuclear 

weapons is when, God forbids, he uses 

one. We owe it to all our citizens to do 

everything in our power to prevent that 

day from coming. 

The conduct of the Iraqi regime is 

a threat to the authority of the United 

Nations, and a threat to peace. Iraq has 

answered a decade of UN demands 

with a decade of defiance. All the 

world now faces a test, and the United 

Nations a difficult and defining 

moment. Are Security Council resolutions to be honored and enforced, or 

cast aside without consequence? Will 

the United Nations serve the purpose 

of its founding, or will it be irrelevant? 

The United States helped found 

the United Nations. We want the 

United Nations to be effective, and 

respectful, and successful. We want 

the resolutions of the world’s most 

important multilateral body to be 

enforced. And right now those resolutions are being unilaterally subverted 

by the Iraqi regime. Our partnership of 

nations can meet the test before us, by 

making clear what we now expect of 

the Iraqi regime. 

If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it 

will immediately and unconditionally 

forswear, disclose, and remove or 

destroy all weapons of mass destruction, long–range missiles, and all 

related material. 

If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it 

will immediately end all support for 

terrorism and act to suppress it, as all 

states are required to do by UN Security Council resolutions. 

If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it 

will cease persecution of its civilian 

population, including Shi’a, Sunnis, 

Kurds, Turkomans, and others, again 

as required by Security Council resolutions. 

If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it 

will release or account for all Gulf 

War personnel whose fate is still 

unknown. It will return the remains of 

any who are deceased, return stolen 

property, accept liability for losses 

resulting from the invasion of Kuwait, 

and fully cooperate with international 

efforts to resolve these issues, as 

required by Security Council resolutions. 

If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it 

will immediately end all illicit trade 

outside the oil–for–food program. It 

will accept UN administration of funds 

from that program, to ensure that the 

money is used fairly and promptly for 

the benefit of the Iraqi people. 

186 
Address by President George W. Bush 

If all these steps are taken, it will 

signal a new openness and accountability in Iraq. And it could open the 

prospect of the United Nations helping 

to build a government that represents 

all Iraqis— a government based on 

respect for human rights, economic 

liberty, and internationally supervised 

elections. 

The United States has no quarrel 

with the Iraqi people; they’ve suffered 

too long in silent captivity. Liberty for 

the Iraqi people is a great moral cause, 

and a great strategic goal. The people 

of Iraq deserve it; the security of all 

nations requires it. Free societies do 

not intimidate through cruelty and 

conquest, and open societies do not 

threaten the world with mass murder. 

The United States supports political 

and economic liberty in a unified Iraq. 

We can harbor no illusions— and 

that’s important today to remember. 

Saddam Hussein attacked Iran in 1980 

and Kuwait in 1990. He’s fired ballistic missiles at Iran and Saudi Arabia, 

Bahrain, and Israel. His regime once 

ordered the killing of every person 

between the ages of 15 and 70 in certain Kurdish villages in northern Iraq. 

He has gassed many Iranians, and 40 

Iraqi villages. 

My nation will work with the UN 

Security Council to meet our common 

challenge. If Iraq’s regime defies us 

again, the world must move deliberately, decisively to hold Iraq to 

account. We will work with the UN 

Security Council for the necessary resolutions. But the purposes of the 

United States should not be doubted. 

The Security Council resolutions will 

be enforced— the demands of peace 

and security will be met— or action 

will be unavoidable. And a regime that 

has lost its legitimacy will also lose its 

power. 

Events can turn in one of two 

ways: if we fail to act in the face of 

danger, the people of Iraq will continue to live in brutal submission. The 

regime will have new power to bully 

and dominate and conquer its neighbors, condemning the Middle East to 

more years of bloodshed and fear. The 

regime will remain unstable— the 

region will remain unstable, with little 

hope of freedom, and isolated from the 

progress of our times. With every step 

the Iraqi regime takes toward gaining 

and deploying the most terrible weapons, our own options to confront that 

regime will narrow. And if an emboldened regime were to supply these 

weapons to terrorist allies, then the 

attacks of September the 11th would 

be a prelude to far greater horrors. 

If we meet our responsibilities, if 

we overcome this danger, we can 

arrive at a very different future. The 

people of Iraq can shake off their captivity. They can one day join a democratic Afghanistan and a democratic 

Palestine, inspiring reforms throughout the Muslim world. These nations 

can show by their example that honest 

government, and respect for women, 

and the great Islamic tradition of learning can triumph in the Middle East and 

beyond. And we will show that the 

promise of the United Nations can be 

fulfilled in our time. 

Neither of these outcomes is certain. Both have been set before us. We 

must choose between a world of fear 

and a world of progress. We cannot 

stand by and do nothing while dangers 

gather. We must stand up for our security, and for the permanent rights and 

the hopes of mankind. By heritage and 

by choice, the United States of America will make that stand. And, delegates to the United Nations, you have 

the power to make that stand as well. 

Thank you very much. 

187 

Appendix 2 

Principal Organs of the 

United Nations 

General Assembly 

The General Assembly is composed of all 191 members of the United Nations. 

As of December 31, 2002, 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, 1971 

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 

Member Date of Admission 

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 

Comoros Nov. 12, 1975 

Congo Sept. 20, 1960 

Congo, Democratic 

Republic of 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 

189 
United States Participation in the United Nations – 2002 

Member Date of Admission 

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 

India Oct. 30, 1945 

Indonesia Sept. 28, 1950 

Iran Oct. 24, 1945 

Iraq Dec. 21, 1945 

Ireland Dec. 14, 1955 

Israel May 11, 1949 

Italy Dec. 14, 1955 

Jamaica Sept. 18, 1962 

Japan Dec. 18, 1956 

Jordan Dec. 14, 1955 

Kazakhstan March 2, 1992 

Kenya Dec. 16, 1963 

Kiribati, Republic of Sept. 14, 1999 

Korea, 

Democratic People’s 

Republic of 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 

Member Date of Admission 

Mali Sept. 28, 1960 

Malta Dec. 1, 1964 

Marshall Islands Sept. 17, 1991 

Mauritania Oct. 27, 1961 

Mauritius April 24, 1968 

Mexico Nov. 7, 1945 

Micronesia Sept. 17, 1991 

Moldova March 2, 1992 

Monaco May 28, 1993 

Mongolia Oct. 27, 1961 

Morocco Nov. 12, 1956 

Mozambique Sept. 16, 1975 

Myanmar (Burma) April 19, 1948 

Namibia April 23, 1990 

Nauru, Republic of Sept. 14, 1999 

Nepal Dec. 14, 1955 

Netherlands Dec. 10, 1945 

New Zealand Oct. 24, 1945 

Nicaragua Oct. 24, 1945 

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 

Seychelles Sept. 21, 1976 

190 
Principal Organs of the United Nations 

Member Date of Admission Member Date of Admission 

Sierra Leone Sept. 27, 1961 Tonga, Kingdom of Sept. 14, 1999 

Singapore Sept. 21, 1965 Trinidad and Tobago Sept. 18, 1962 

Slovak Republic Jan. 19, 1993 Tunisia Nov. 12, 1956 

Slovenia May 22, 1992 Turkey Oct. 24, 1945 

Solomon Islands Sept. 19, 1978 Tuvalu Sept. 5, 2000 

Somalia 

South Africa Nov. 7, 1945 Uganda Oct. 25, 1962 

Spain Dec. 14, 1955 Ukraine Oct. 24, 1945 

Sri Lanka Dec. 14, 1955 United Arab 

Sudan Nov. 12, 1956 Emirates Dec. 9, 1971 

Suriname Dec. 4, 1975 United Kingdom Oct. 24, 1945 

Sept. 20, 1960 Turkmenistan March 2, 1992 

Swaziland Sept. 24, 1968 United States Oct. 24, 1945

Sweden Nov. 19, 1946 Uruguay Dec. 18, 1945 Switzerland Sept. 10, 2002 Uzbekistan March 2, 1992 Syria Oct. 24, 1945 Vanuatu Sept. 15, 1981 Tajikistan March 2, 1992

Tanzania Dec. 14, 1961 Venezuela Nov. 15, 1945

Thailand Dec. 16, 1946 Vietnam Sept. 20, 1977 

The former Yemen Sept. 30, 1947 

Yugoslav Republic Yugoslavia Oct. 24, 1945 

of Macedonia April 8, 1993 Zambia Dec. 1, 1964 

Timor–Leste Sept. 27, 2002 Zimbabwe Aug. 25, 1980 

Togo Sept. 20, 1960 

The 56th regular session of the General Assembly, which had been suspended 

December 24, 2001, held resumed sessions during 2002. The session was formally 

closed on September 9. 

The General Assembly held its 27th special session in May 2002, devoted to 

“World Summit for Children.” The 10th emergency special session met in May 

and August to discuss illegal Israeli actions in Occupied East Jerusalem and the 

rest of the Occupied Palestinian territory. 

The 57th regular session of the General Assembly convened September 10, 

2002, and was suspended December 20, 2002. 

The Assembly elected Jan Kavan (Czech Republic) as President and the Chairs 

of the Delegations of Austria, Bahrain, Barbados, Chad, China, Ecuador, Egypt, 

Ethiopia, France, Gambia, Indonesia, Kazakhstan, Mexico, Portugal, Qatar, Russian Federation, Swaziland, Togo, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and 

Northern Ireland, the United States of America, and Vietnam 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)— Semakula 

Kiwanuka (Uganda) 

Second Committee (Economic and Financial)— Marco Antonio Suazo 

Fernandez (Honduras) 

191 
United States Participation in the United Nations – 2002 

Third Committee (Social, Humanitarian, and Cultural)— Christian 

Wenaweser (Liechtenstein) 

Fourth Committee (Special Political and Decolonization)— Graham 

Maitland (South Africa) 

Fifth Committee (Administrative and Budgetary)— Murari Raj Sharma 

(Nepal) 

Sixth Committee (Legal)— Arpad Prandler (Hungary) 

The General Committee (steering committee) is composed of the President, the 

21 Vice Presidents and the Chairs of the 6 Main Committees of the General 

Assembly. 

Security Council 

The Security Council is composed of 5 members designated in the Charter as 

permanent and 10 members elected by the General Assembly for 2–year terms 

ending December 31 of the year given in the heading: 

Permanent Members: China, France, Russian Federation, United Kingdom, 

United States 

2002: Columbia, Ireland, Mauritius, Norway, and Singapore 

2003: Bulgaria, Cameroon, Guinea, Mexico, and the Syrian Arab Republic 

On September 27, the Assembly elected Angola, Chile, Germany, Pakistan, 

and Spain as members of the Security Council for 2–year terms of office beginning 

January 1, 2003. 

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, 

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 

63rd session in October. 

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: 

2002: Angola, Austria, Bahrain, Benin, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Costa Rica, 

Croatia, Cuba, Fiji, France, Germany, Malta*, Japan, Mexico, Spain, Sudan, and 

Suriname 

2003: Andorra, Argentina, Brazil, Egypt, Ethiopia, Georgia, Iran (Islamic 

Republic of), Italy, Nepal, the Netherlands, Nigeria, Pakistan, Peru, the Republic 

of Korea, Romania, South Africa, Uganda, and the United States of America 

2004: Australia, Bhutan, Burundi, Chile, China, El Salvador, Finland, Ghana, 

Guatemala, Hungary, India, the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Qatar, the Russian Federation, Sweden, Ukraine, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and Zimbabwe 

The General Assembly elected Azerbaijan, Benin, Congo, Cuba, Ecuador, 

France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Jamaica, Japan, Kenya, Malaysia, 

192 
Principal Organs of the United Nations 

Mozambique, Nicaragua, Portugal, Saudi Arabia, and Senegal for 3–year terms 

beginning on January 1, 2002. All were elected on October 3. 

*Vice Greece. 

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 February 5 of the 

year shown in parentheses. The judges, as of December 31, 2002, listed in order of 

precedence, are: 

Gilbert Guillaume, France (2009), President 

Shi Jiuyong, China (2003), Vice President 

Shigeru Oda, Japan (2003) 

Raymond Ranjeva, Madagascar (2009) 

Geza Herczegh, Hungary (2003) 

Carl–August Fleischhauer, Germany (2003) 

Abdul Koroma, Sierra Leone (2003) 

Vladlen S. Vereshchetin, Russian Federation (2006) 

Rosalyn Higgins, United Kingdom (2009) 

Gonzalo Parra–Aranguren, Venezuela (2009) 

Pieter H. Kooijmans, Netherlands (2006) 

Francisco Rezek, Brazil (2006) 

Awn Shawkat Al–Khasawneh, Jordan (2009) 

Thomas Buergenthal, United States (2006) 

Nabil Elaraby, Egypt (2006) 

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 five–year renewable term. The 

Secretariat has a staff drawn from about 170 countries. At the end of 2002, the Secretariat had a staff of 15,308, including 1,853 Americans. (There was an additional 

7,173 staff in peacekeeping operations, including 663 Americans.) UN subsidiary 

bodies, specialized agencies, and the International Atomic Energy Agency employ 

an additional 39,383 people, including 1,953 Americans. 

Kofi Annan, Secretary–General (first term began January 1, 1997; reappointed 

to second term, beginning January 1, 2002) 

Louise Fréchette, Deputy Secretary–General 

Dileep Nair, Under Secretary–General, Office of Internal Oversight Services 

Hans Corell, Under Secretary–General, Office of Legal Affairs 

Sir Kieran Prendergast, Under Secretary–General, Department of Political 

Affairs 

Jayantha Dhanapala, Under Secretary–General, Department for Disarmament 

Affairs 

193 
United States Participation in the United Nations – 2002 

Jean–Marie Guehenno, Under Secretary–General, Department of Peacekeeping Operations 

Kenzo Oshima, Under Secretary–General, Office for the Coordination of 

Humanitarian Affairs 

Nitin Desai, Under Secretary–General, Department of Economic and Social 

Affairs 

Chen Jian, Under Secretary–General, Department for General Assembly 

Affairs and Conference Services 

Shashi Tharoor, Under Secretary–General, Department of Public Information 

Catherine Bertini, Under Secretary–General, Department of Management 

Antonio Maria Costa, Under Secretary–General, UN Office at Vienna 

Sergei A. Ordzhonikidze, Under Secretary–General, UN Office at Geneva 

Klaus Toepfer, Under Secretary–General, UN Office at Nairobi 

The Senior Management Group is a committee of senior UN managers that 

serves as the Secretary–General’s cabinet and the central policy planning body of 

the United Nations. It comprises Kofi Annan, Secretary–General (Chair), Louise 

Fréchette, Deputy Secretary–General, all of the Under Secretary–Generals, and the 

following: 

Carol Bellamy, Executive Director, UN Children’s Fund 

Anwarul Chowdhury, High Representative for Least Developed Countries, 

Landlocked and Small Island Developing States 

Ibrahim A. Gambari, Special Advisor in Africa 

Kim Hak–Su, Executive Secretary, Economic and Social Commission for Asia 

and Pacific 

Ruud Lubbers, High Commissioner for Refugees 

Mark Malloch Brown, Administrator, UN Development Program 

James T. Morris, Executive Director, World Food Program 

Thoraya Obaid, Executive Director, UN Population Fund 

Olara Otunnu, Children and Armed Conflict 

Rubens Ricupero, Secretary–General, UN Conference on Trade and Development 

Iqbal Riza, Chef de Cabinet 

Sergio Vieira de Mello, High Commissioner for Human Rights 

K. Y. Amoako, Executive Secretary, Economic Commission for Africa 

José Antonio Ocampo, Executive Secretary, Economic Commission for Latin 

America and the Caribbean 

Brigita Schmögnerová, Executive Secretary, Economic Commission for 

Europe 

Mervat M. Tallawy, Executive Secretary, Economic and Social Commission 

for Western Asia 

Anna K. Tibaijuka, Executive Director, UN-HABITAT 

194 
 Appendix 3 

United States 

Representatives 

Permanent Representative and Chief of Mission to the United Nations: John D. 

Negroponte 

Deputy Permanent Representative to the United Nations: James B. Cunningham 

Deputy Permanent Representative to the Security Council: James B. Cunningham 

Representative on the Economic and Social Council: Sichan Siv 

Alternate Representative for Special Political Affairs: Richard S. Williamson 

Representative for UN Management and Reform: Patrick F. Kennedy 

U.S. Representative to the European Office of the United Nations, Geneva: 

Kevin E. Moley 

U.S. Representative to International Organizations, Vienna: Kenneth C. Brill 

UN General Assembly 

57th regular session (New York, Sept. 10–Dec. 20) 

(http://www.un.org/ga/57/)

Representatives: John D. Negroponte1 (Chair); James B. Cunningham

Alternates: Patrick F. Kennedy; Sichan Siv; Richard S. Williamson

Subsidiary and Other Bodies 

UN Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation 

(http://www.unscear.org) 

Did not meet in 2002. 

Special Committee on the Charter of the United Nations and on the 

Strengthening of the Role of the Organization 

27th session (New York, March 18–28) 

Representative: Carolyn Willson 

Alternate: John Arbogast 

Committee on Conferences 

(http://www.un.org/Depts/DGAACS/committeonconf.html) 

Substantive session (New York, Sept. 9–13) 

1. The Secretary of State, Colin L. Powell, served as chair of the delegation, ex officio, 

during his presence at the session. 

195 
United States Participation in the United Nations – 2002 

Representatives: Patrick F. Kennedy; Howard Stoffer 

Alternate: Elizabeth A. Nakian 

Disarmament Commission 

(http://disarmament.un.org/undiscom.htm) 

Did not meet in 2002. 

Conference on Disarmament 

(http://disarmament.un.org/cd/)

First Part (Geneva, Jan. 21–March 29)

Representative: Eric M. Javits

Alternate: Sherwood McGinnis

Second Part (Geneva, May 13–June 28)

Representative: Eric M. Javits

Alternate: Sherwood McGinnis

Third Part (Geneva, July 29–Sep. 13)

Representative: Eric M. Javits

Alternate: Sherwood McGinnis

Committee on Information 

(http://www.un.org/ga/coi)

25th session (New York, April 28–May 9)

Representative: David Traystman

UN Commission on International Trade Law 

(http://www.uncitral.org) 

35th session (New York, June 17–28) 

Representative: Jeffrey D. Kovar 

Alternate: Harold S. Burman 

Committee on Peaceful Uses of Outer Space 

(http://www.oosa.unvienna.org/COPUOS/copuos.html)

45th session (Vienna, June 5–14)

Representative: Kenneth Hodgkins 

Alternate: Lynn F. H. Cline

Special Committee on Peacekeeping Operations 

(http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/dpko/ctte/CTTEE.htm) 

Meets intermittently in New York. 

Security Council 

(http://www.un.org/Docs/sc) 

Representative: John D. Negroponte 

Deputies: Maura Connelly; James B. Cunningham; Patrick F. Kennedy; Josiah 

Rosenblatt; Nicholas Rostow; Sichan Siv; Richard S. Williamson; Carolyn Willson 

196 
United States Representatives 

Trusteeship Council 

(http://www.un.org/documents/tc.htm) 

63rd session (New York, Oct. 31) 

Representative: Charles N. Rostow 

Economic and Social Council and Related Bodies 

(http://www.un.org/esa/coordination/ecosoc)

Organizational sessions: (New York, Feb. 12–15 and April 29–30)

Substantive session (New York, July 1–26; resumed Oct. 25)

Representatives: Paul O’Neill; Sichan Siv

Alternates: John W. Davison; John D. Negroponte

Functional Commissions 

Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice 

(http://www.unodc.org/crime_cicp_commission.html)

11th session (Vienna, April 16–25)

Representatives: Kenneth C. Brill; Elizabeth G. Verville

Alternates: John Bargeron; John Harris; Sarah Hart; Stephen Noble

Commission on Human Rights 

(http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu2/2/chr.htm)

58th session (Geneva, March 18–April 26)

Representative: Kevin E. Moley

Alternates: James B. Foley; Cheryl Sim

Commission on Narcotic Drugs 

(http://www.unodc.org/unodc/cnd.html)

45th session (Vienna, March 11–15)

Representative: Rand Beers

Alternate: Kenneth C. Brill

Commission on Population and Development 

(http://www.un.org/esa/population/cpd/cpd.htm) 

35th session (New York, April 1–5) 

Representatives: Jackie W. Sanders; Sichan Siv 

Alternate: Michael McKinley 

Commission for Social Development 

(http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/csd) 

40th session (New York, Feb. 11–21) 

Representative: Sichan Siv 

Alternate: John W. Davison 

Statistical Commission 

(http://unstats.un.org/unsd/statcom/commission.htm) 

33rd session (New York, March 5–8) 

Representative: Katherine K. Wallman 

Alternate: Suzann Evinger 

Commission on Science and Technology for Development 

Did not meet in 2002. 

197 
United States Participation in the United Nations – 2002 

Commission on the Status of Women 

(http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/csw)

46th session (New York, March 4–15)

Representative: Ellen Sauerbrey

Alternate: Sichan Siv

Commission on Sustainable Development 

(http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/csd.htm)

10th session (Johannesburg, Aug. 26–Sept. 4)

Ex Officio Head of Delegation: Colin L. Powell

Representatives: Paula J. Dobriansky; John F. Turner

Alternates: Claude A. Allen; Robert G. Card; James L. Connaughton; Linda J.

Fisher; Cameron R. Hume; Conrad C. Lautenbacher; Jonathan A. Margolis; Richard T. Miller; James R. Moseley; Andrew S. Natsios; Anthony F. Rock; Sichan 

Siv; Peter S. Watson; Christine T. Whitman 

Regional Economic Commissions 

Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific 

(http://www.unescap.org) 

58th session (Bangkok, May 16–22) 

Representative: Darryl N. Johnson 

Alternates: Seth Winnick; Joseph Yun 

Economic Commission for Europe 

(http://www.unece.org)

57th plenary session (Geneva, May 7–10)

Representative: Kevin E. Moley

Alternate: Michael Meigs

Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean 

(http://www.eclac.cl/default.asp?idioma=IN)

29th session (Brasilia, May 6–10)

Representative: James Darharm

Alternate: Gregory Frost

Standing Committees 

UN Human Settlements Program 

(http://www.unhabitat.org) 

Did not meet in 2002. 

Committee on Non–Governmental Organizations 

(http://www.un.org/esa/coordination/ngo)

Regular session (New York, May 13–24 and May 29–30) 

Representative: Sichan Siv

Alternates: John Davison; Peggy Kerry; Richard Williams; Ruth Wagoner

Committee for Program and Coordination 

42nd session (New York, June 10–July 5) 

Representatives: Patrick F. Kennedy; Howard Stoffer 

Alternates: Beryl Bentley–Anderson; Thomas Repasch 

198 
United States Representatives 

Related Subsidiary Bodies 

UN Children’s Fund (http://www.unicef.org)

Executive Board, annual session (New York, June 3–7)

Representative: William Brisben

Alternate: Claudia Serwer

UN Development Program (http://www.undp.org)

Executive Board, annual session (Geneva, June 17–28)

Representative: Sichan Siv

Alternate: Kelly Ryan

UN Environment Program (http://www.unep.org)

Governing Council

Did not meet in 2002.

Office of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees 

(http://www.unhcr.ch)

Executive Committee, 53rd session (Geneva, Sept. 30–Oct. 4)

Representative: Arthur E. Dewey

Alternates: Michael McKinley; Kevin E. Moley

UN Conference on Trade and Development (http://www.unctad.org) 

Conference did not meet in 2002. 

Trade and Development Board, 49th session (Geneva, Oct. 7–18) 

Representative: James B. Foley 

Specialized Agencies and Other Bodies 

Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) (http://www.fao.org) 

Did not meet in 2002. 

International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) (http://www.iaea.org) 

General Conference, 46th session (Vienna, Sept. 16–20) 

Representative: Kenneth C. Brill 

International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) 

(http://www.icao.org) 

Did not meet in 2002. 

International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) 

(http://www.ifad.org)

Governing Council, 25th session (Rome, Feb. 19–20)

Representative: William E. Schuerch

Alternate: Carolee Heileman

International Labor Organization (ILO) (http://www.ilo.org)

Conference, 90th session (Geneva, June 3–20)

Government Delegates: Elaine L. Chao; John S. Carpenter; Thomas B.Moorhead 

Alternates: Kevin E. Moley; H. Charles Spring 

International Maritime Organization (IMO) (http://www.imo.org) 

Did not meet in 2002. 

International Monetary Fund (IMF) (http://www.imf.org) 

U.S. Governor: John Snow 

199 
United States Participation in the United Nations – 2002 

Alternate: Alan Greenspan

International Telecommunication Union (ITU) (http://www.itu.int)

Plenipotentiary Conference (Marrekesh, Morocco, Sept. 21–Oct. 18)

Representative: David Gross

Alternate: Richard C. Beaird

Council (Marrekesh, Morocco, Sept. 21–22)

Representative: Richard C. Beaird

UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) 

(http://www.unesco.org) 

Did not meet in 2002. 

UN Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO) 

(http://www.unido.org)

The United States withdrew from UNIDO on December 31, 1996.

Universal Postal Union (UPU) (http://www.upu.int) 

Did not meet in 2002. 

World Bank Group (http://www.worldbank.org) 

International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD) 

U.S. Governor: John Snow 

Alternate: Alan Larson

U.S. Executive Director: Carole Brookins

Alternate: Todd Crawford

International Development Association (IDA) 

The U.S. Governor, Executive Director, and alternate 

were the same as those of the IBRD. 

International Finance Corporation (IFC) (www.ifc.org) 

The U.S. Governor, Executive Director, and alternate 

were the same as those of the IBRD. 

World Food Program (WFP) (http://www.wfp.org)

Annual Session (Rome, May 20–23)

Representative: William Garvelink

Alternates: Carolee Heileman; Lauren Landis; Jackie W. Sanders

World Health Organization (WHO) (http://www.who.int)

55th World Health Assembly (Geneva, May 13–18)

Representatives: Tommy G. Thompson; Kevin E. Moley

Alternates: Jack Chow, M.D.; William R. Steiger

World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) 

(http://www.wipo.org)

Governing Bodies (Geneva, Sept. 23–Oct. 4)

Representative: Jon Dudas

Alternate: Lois Boland

World Meteorological Organization (WMO) (http://www.wmo.ch) 

Did not meet in 2002. 

World Trade Organization (WTO) (http://www.wto.org) 

Ministerial Conference did not meet in 2002. 

200 
United States Representatives 

U.S. Permanent Representatives to the United Nations from 

1946 to 2001 

Edward R. Stettinius, Jr. (March 1946–June 1946)

Herschel V. Johnson (acting) (June 1946–January 1947)

Warren R. Austin (January 1947–January 1953)

Henry Cabot Lodge, Jr. (January 1953–September 1960)

James J. Wadsworth (September 1960–January 1961)

Adlai E. Stevenson (January 1961–July 1965)

Arthur J. Goldberg (July 1965–June 1968)

George W. Ball (June 1968–September 1968)

James Russell Wiggins (October 1968–January 1969)

Charles W. Yost (January 1969–February 1971)

George Bush (February 1971–January 1973)

John P. Scali (February 1973–June 1975)

Daniel P. Moynihan (June 1975–February 1976)

William W. Scranton (March 1976–January 1977)

Andrew Young (January 1977–April 1979)

Donald McHenry (April 1979–January 1981)

Jeane J. Kirkpatrick (February 1981–April 1985)

Vernon A. Walters (May 1985–January 1989)

Thomas R. Pickering (March 1989–May 1992)

Edward J. Perkins (May 1992–January 1993)

Madeleine K. Albright (February 1993–January 1997)

Bill Richardson (February 1997–September 1998)

A. Peter Burleigh, Chargé d’Affaires (September 1998–August 1999)

Richard C. Holbrooke (August 1999–January 2001)

James B. Cunningham, Chargé d’Affaires (January 2001–September 2001)

John D. Negroponte (September 2001–)

201 

 Appendix 4 

United Nations and 

Related Web Sites 

The following lists of web sites are provided as a service to the reader and 

nothing in these websites is deemed to represent the views of the U.S. Government 

unless otherwise stated. 

UN–Specific 

United Nations (http://www.un.org) 

Division for the Advancement of Women (http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw) 

Economic Commission for Africa (http://www.uneca.org) 

Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia (http://www.escwa.org.lb) 

Electronic Mine Information Network (http://www.mineaction.org) 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (http://www.ipcc.ch) 

International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (http://www.ictr.org) 

International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (http://www.un.org/ 

icty/index.html) 

International Research and Training Institute for the Advancement of Women 

(http://www.un–instraw.org) 

International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (http://www.unisdr.org) 

Joint UN Program on HIV/AIDS (http://www.unaids.org) 

Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (http://www.unhchr.ch/html/ 

hchr.htm) 

UN Development Fund for Women (http://www.unifem.org) 

UN Development Group (http://www.undg.org) 

UN Foundation (http://www.unfoundation.org) 

UN High Commissioner for Refugees/UN Refugee Agency (http://www.unhcr.ch) 

UN Internet Gateway to the Advancement and Empowerment of Women (http:// 

www.un.org/womenwatch/) 

UN Interregional Crime and Justice Research Institute (http://www.unicri.it) 

UN Office on Drugs and Crime (http://www.unodc.org) 

UN International Law Commission (http://www.un.org/law/ilc/index.htm) 

UN Office at Geneva (http://www.unog.ch) 

UN Office at Nairobi (http://www.unon.org) 

UN Office at Vienna (http://www.unvienna.org) 

203 
United States Participation in the United Nations – 2002 

UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (http://www.reliefweb.int/ocha_ol/) 

UN Secretary–General (http://www.un.org/news/ossg/sg/index.shtml) 

UN Volunteers (http://www.unv.org) 

International Organizations 

African Development Bank (http://www.afdb.org) 

African Union (http://www.africa–union.org) 

Amnesty International (http://www.amnesty.org) 

Asian Development Bank (http://www.adb.org) 

CARE International (http://www.care.org) 

Caribbean Community (http://www.caricom.org) 

Comprehensive Nuclear–Test–Ban Treaty Organization (http://www.ctbto.org) 

Council of Europe (http://www.coe.int) 

Economic Community of West African States (http://www.ecowas.int) 

European Union (http://europa.eu.int) 

Free–Trade Area of the Americas (http://www.ftaa–alca.org) 

Global Disaster Information Network (http://www.gdin.org) 

Global Fund for Women (http://www.globalfundforwomen.org) 

Greenpeace (http://www.greenpeace.org) 

Group of 77 (http://www.g77.org) 

Habitat for Humanity International (http://www.habitat.org) 

Human Rights Watch (http://www.hrw.org) 

Inter Parliamentary Union (http://www.ipu.org) 

International Committee of the Red Cross (http://www.icrc.org) 

International Court of Justice (http://www.icj-cij.org) 

International Foundation of the Red Cross and Red Crescent (http://www.ifrc.org) 

International Institute for the Unification of Private Law (UNIDROIT) (http:// 

www.unidroit.org) 

International Monetary Fund (http://www.imf.org) 

International Organization for Migration (http://www.iom.int) 

International Seabed Authority (http://www.isa.org.jm) 

International Tribunal of the Law of the Sea (http://www.itlos.org) 

Interpol (http://www.interpol.int) 

League of Arab States (http://www.arableagueonline.org/arableague/index_en.jsp) 

NATO (http://www.nato.int) 

Natural Resources Defense Council (http://www.nrdc.org) 

Non–Aligned Movement (http://www.nam.gov.za) 

North American Free Trade Agreement Secretariat (NAFTA) (http://www.nafta– 

sec–alena.org) 

Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (http://www.oecd.org) 

204 
United Nations and Related Websites 

Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (http://www.osce.org)

Organization of African Unity (see African Union)

Organization of American States (http://www.oas.org)

Organization of the Islamic Conference (http://www.oicun.org)

Pan American Health Organization (http://www.paho.org)

ReliefWeb (http://www.reliefweb.int)

Southern African Development Community (http://mbendi.co.za/orsadc.htm)

World Bank (http://www.worldbank.org)

World Conservation Union (http://www.iucn.org)

World Wildlife Fund (http://www.wwf.org)

World Tourism Organization (http://www.world–tourism.org)

Specialized U.S. Government Agency Sites 

CIA (http://www.cia.gov) 

FBI (http://www.fbi.gov) 

List of Chiefs of State and Cabinet Members of Governments (http://www.cia.gov/ 

cia/publications/chiefs/index.html) 

State Department (http://www.state.gov) 

U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) (http://www.usaid.gov) 

White House (http://www.whitehouse.gov) 

IO Missions 

Geneva (http://www.us–mission.ch/index.html)

New York (http://www.un.int/usa)

Rome (http://www.usembassy.it/usunrome)

Vienna (http://www.usun–vienna.usia.co.at)

Conferences 

2nd UN Conference on Human Settlements [HABITAT II; Istanbul, Turkey; June 

1996] (http://www.un.org/Conferences/habitat) 

3rd UN Conference on the Least Developed Countries (Brussels, Belgium; May 

2001] (http://www.unctad.org/conference/index.html) 

2nd World Assembly on Ageing [Madrid, Spain; April 2002] (http://www.un.org/ 

ageing/coverage) 

UN Conference on the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its 

Aspects [New York, NY; July 2001] (http://disarmament.un.org/cab/smallarms) 

UN Fourth World Conference on Women [Beijing, China; September 1995] (http:/ 

/www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/beijing/) 

UN International Conference on Financing for Development [Monterrey, Mexico; 

March 2002] (http://www.un.org/esa/ffd/) 

UN International Conference on Population and Development (ICPD) (http:// 

www.iisd.ca/linkages/cairo.html) 

UN World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia, and 

205 
United States Participation in the United Nations – 2002 

Related Intolerance [Durban, South Africa; Aug./Sept. 2001] (http:// 

www.un.org/WCAR/coverage.htm) 

UN World Summit for Social Development [Copenhagen 1995] (http:// 

www.iisd.ca/linkages/wssd.html) 

UN World Summit on Sustainable Development [Johannesburg, South Africa; 

Aug./Sept. 2002] (http://www.johannesburgsummit.org) 

World Food Summit: Five Years Later [Rome, Italy; June 2002] (http:// 

www.fao.org/worldfoodsummit/english/index.html) 

Conventions 

2nd Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 

[aiming at the abolition of the death penalty] (http://www.unhchr.ch/html/ 

menu3/b/a_opt2.htm) 

Biological Weapons Convention (http://disarmament.un.org/wmd/bwc/ 

index.html) 

Chemical Weapons Convention (http://disarmament.un.org/wmd/cwc/index.html) 

Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (http://disarmament.un.org/wmd/ctbt/ 

index.html) 

Convention against Discrimination in Education (http://www.unhchr.ch/html/ 

menu3/b/d_c_educ.htm) 

Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or 

Punishment (http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/h_cat39.htm) 

Convention Concerning Discrimination in Respect of Employment and Occupation (http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/d_ilo111.htm) 

Convention Concerning Employment Policy (http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/ 

b/k_ilo122.htm) 

Convention Concerning Employment Promotion and Protection against Unemployment (http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/k_ilo168.htm) 

Convention Concerning Equal Remuneration for Men and Women Workers for 

Work of Equal Value (http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/d_ilo100.htm) 

Convention Concerning Forced Labor (http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/ 

31.htm) 

Convention Concerning Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to 

Organize (http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/j_ilo87.htm) 

Convention Concerning Indigenous and Tribal Peoples in Independent Countries 

(http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/62.htm) 

Convention Concerning the Abolition of Forced Labor (http://www.unhchr.ch/ 

html/menu3/b/32.htm) 

Convention Concerning Protection and Facilities to be Afforded to Workers’Representatives in the Undertaking (http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/ 

j_ilo135.htm) 

Convention Concerning Protection of the Right to Organize and Procedures for 

Determining Conditions of Employment in the Public Service (http:// 

www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/j_ilo151.htm 

Convention Concerning the Application of the Principles of Right to Organize and 

206 
United Nations and Related Websites 

to Bargain Collectively (http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/j_ilo98.htm) 

Convention Concerning the Promotion of Collective Borrowing (http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/k_ilo154.htm) 

Convention for the Suppression of the Traffic in Persons and of the Exploitation of 

the Prostitution of Others (http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/33.htm) 

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 on Biological Diversity (http://www.biodiv.org/convention/articles.asp) 

Convention on Consent to Marriage, Minimum Age for Marriage, and Registration 

of Marriages (http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/63.htm) 

Convention on Fishing and Conservation of the Living Resources of the High Seas 

(http://www.oceanlaw.net/texts/summaries/genevafish.htm) 

Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species and Wild Fauna and 

Flora [CITES] (http://www.cites.org) 

Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional 

Weapons Which May be Deemed to be Excessively Injurious or to Have Indiscriminate Effects [with Protocols I, II, and III] (http://www.unog.ch/frames/ 

disarm/distreat/excessiv.pdf) 

Convention on Psychotropic Substances [1971] (http://www.incb.org/e/conv/ 

1971/) 

Convention on the Continental Shelf (http://www.un.org/law/ilc/texts/contsh.htm) 

Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women 

[CEDAW] (http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/cedaw/index.html) 

Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination [CERD] 

(http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/d_icerd.htm) 

Convention on the High Seas (http://www.un.org/law/ilc/texts/hseas.htm) 

Convention on the International Right of Correction (http://www.unhchr.ch/html/ 

menu3/b/i_ilocor.htm) 

Convention on the Marking of Plastic Explosives for the Purpose of Detection 

(http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/ 

terrorism_convention_plastic_explosives.html) 

Convention the Nationality of Married Women (http://www.unhchr.ch/html/ 

menu3/b/78.htm) 

Convention on the Non–Applicability of Statutory Limitations to War Crimes and 

crimes against Humanity (http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/p_limit.htm) 

Convention on the Offences and Certain Other Acts Committed on Board Aircraft 

(http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/terrorism_convention_aircraft.html) 

207 
United States Participation in the United Nations – 2002 

Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material (http://www.unodc.org/ 

unodc/en/terrorism_convention_nuclear_material.html) 

Convention on the Political Rights of Women (http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/ 

b/22.htm) 

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 Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (http:// 

www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/p_genoci.htm) 

Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations (http:// 

www.unog.ch/archives/un_priv.htm) 

Convention on the Prohibition of Military or any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques (http://www.opcw.org/html/db/cwc/more/ 

enmod.html) 

Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, and Stockpiling of 

Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on Their Destruction 

[1972] (http://www.opcw.org/html/db/cwc/more/biotox.html) 

Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling, and 

Use of Chemical Weapons and on Their Destruction (http://fas.harvard.edu/ 

~hsp/chemical.html) 

Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production, and Transfer of 

Anti–Personnel Mines and on Their Destruction [Mine Ban Convention] 

(http://disarmament.un.org/MineBan.nsf) 

Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness (http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/ 

b/o_reduce.htm) 

Convention on the Rights of the Child (http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu2/6/crc/ 

treaties/crc.htm) 

Convention on the Safety of United Nations and Associated Personnel (http:// 

www.un.org/law/cod/safety.htm) 

Convention on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone (http:// 

sedac.ciesin.org/pidb/texts/territorial.contiguous.zone.1958.html) 

Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees (http://www.unhchr.ch/html/ 

menu3/b/o_c_ref.htm) 

Convention Relating to the Status of Stateless Persons (http://www.unhchr.ch/ 

html/menu3/b/o_c_sp.htm) 

Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and 

Sick in Armed Forces in the Field (http://193.194.138.190/html/menu3/b/ 

q_geneva1.htm) 

Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War 

(http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/92.htm) 

Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War (http:// 

www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm) 

International Convention against Apartheid in Sports (http://www.unhchr.ch/html/ 

menu3/b/12.htm) 

208 
United Nations and Related Websites 

International Convention against the Recruitment, Use, Financing, and Training of 

Mercenaries (http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/instree/1989a.htm) 

International Convention against the Taking of Hostages (http://www.unodc.org/ 

unodc/en/terrorism_convention_hostages.html) 

International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings (http:// 

www.unodc.org/unodc/en/terrorism_convention_terrorist_bombing.html) 

International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism (http:// 

www.unodc.org/unodc/en/resolution_2000–02–25_1.html) 

International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers 

and Members of Their Families (http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/ 

m_mwctoc.htm) 

International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of 

Apartheid (http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/11.htm) 

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (http://www.unhchr.ch/html/ 

menu3/b/a_ccpr.htm) 

International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights (http:// 

www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/a_cescr.htm) 

Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer (http:// 

www.opcw.org/html/db/cwc/more/ozone_montreal.html) 

Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/opt_cedaw.htm) 

Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the Involvement 

of Children in Armed Conflict (http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu2/6/crc/treaties/opac.htm) 

Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the child on the Sale of Children, Child Prostitution, and Child Pornography (http://www.unhchr.ch/html/ 

menu2/6/crc/treaties/opsc.htm) 

Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 

(http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/a_opt.htm) 

Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to 

the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts [Protocol I] (http:// 

www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/93.htm) 

Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to 

the Protection of Victims of Non–International Armed Conflicts [Protocol II] 

(http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/94.htm) 

Protocol Amending the Slavery Convention (http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/ 

f2psc.htm) 

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 for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts of Violence at Airports Serving 

International Civil Aviation (http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/ 

terrorism_convention_airports.html) 

Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees (http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/ 

o_p_ref.htm) 

209 
United States Participation in the United Nations – 2002 

Rio Declaration on Environment and Development [Agenda 21] (http:// 

www.un.org/esa/sustdev/documents/agenda21/) 

Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (http://www.un.org/law/icc/) 

Rotterdam Convention on the Prior Informed Consent Procedure for Certain Hazardous Chemicals and Pesticides in International Trade [PIC Convention] 

(http://www.pic.int/) 

Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs [1961] (http://www.incb.org/e/conv/1961/) 

Slavery Convention (http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/f2sc.htm) 

Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (http://www.pops.int) 

Supplementary Convention on the Abolition of Slavery, the Slave trade, and Institutions and Practices Similar to Slavery (http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/ 

30.htm) 

Treaty on the Non–Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (http://disarmament.un.org/ 

wmd/npt/index.html) 

UN Convention against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances [1988] (http://www.incb.org/e/conv/1988/) 

UN Convention against Transnational Organized Crime [Firearms Protocol] and 

its protocols (http://www.odccp.org/crime_cicp_signatures.html) 

UN Convention on the Law of the Sea [and other related Agreements] (http:// 

www.un.org/Depts/los/convention_agreements/ 

convention_overview_convention.htm) 

UN Convention to Combat Desertification (http://www.unccd.int/main.php) 

UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (http://unfccc.int) 

Universal Declaration of Human Rights (http://www.unhchr.ch/udhr/index.htm) 

Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer [1985] (http:// 

www.opcw.org/html/db/cwc/more/ozone_vienna.html) 

Vienna Convention on Consular Relations and Optional Protocols [1963] (http:// 

www.un.org/law/ilc/texts/consul.htm) 

Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations [1961] (http://www.un.org/law/ilc/ 

texts/dipfra.htm) 

Vienna Convention on Succession of States in Respect of Treaties (http:// 

www.un.org/law/ilc/texts/treasucc.htm) 

Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (http://www.un.org/law/ilc/texts/treaties.htm) 

Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties between States and International Organizations or between International Organizations [1986] (http://www.un.org/ 

law/ilc/texts/trbtstat.htm) 

210 
Index 

Index 

A 

Afghanistan 9–14

Afghan National Army 11–12 

al–Qaida 10

counternarcotics 11

UN Office on Drugs and

Crime 11

criminal justice system 12

disarmament, demobilization,

and repatriation 13

emergency Loya Jirga 12

human rights 14

humanitarian aid 83–85 

education 84

food 84

government 84

internally displaced persons

84

reconstruction 84–85 

refugees 84

International Security Assistance Force 11

national security institutions 13

Operation Enduring Freedom 

12–13 

reconstruction 13–14 

refugees 84, 89

refugee returns 89

sanctions 10

scale of assessments 120

Taliban 10

Transitional Islamic State of Afghanistan 12

UN Assistance Mission in Afghanistan 10

program secretariats 10–11 

UN Children’s Fund 61

Africa 

food assistance 85–87 

biotechnology 86–87 

health risks 86

aging see Social Development, UN

Commission for

Al–Khasawneh, Awn Shawkat 102

al–Qaida 10, 42, 45

American Samoa 49

ANA see Afghan National Army

under Afghanistan

Angola 15–16 

National Union for the Total Independence of Angola 15–16 

peace process 15

sanctions 15

Anti–Ballistic Missile Treaty, see 

disarmament 

UN First Committee 

Arab–Israeli Situation 5–8 

Israel 5–8 

Jenin refugee camp 6, 7

Palestine 6–8 

peace process 7–8 

permanent status 7

terrorism 6–7 

arbitration see International Trade 

Law, UN Commission on

Argentina 120–121, 174

Asian and Pacific Population Conference see population

Asian Development Bank 97

Atomic Radiation, UN Scientific

Committee on the Effects of 49–

50

financial situation 50

UN Environment Program 50

aviation security see International 

Civil Aviation Organization 

B 

Bage, Lennart 151

Baker III, James A. 26, 27

Bellamy, Carol 60, 135

Bemba, Jean–Pierre 17

Berewa, Solomon 108

biotechnology

Africa 86–87 

food assistance 86–87, 142

World Food Summit: Five

Years Later 55

bioterrorism 171

Bjornsson, Steinar 76

Blix, Hans 3, 4

211
United States Participation in the United Nations – 2002 

BONUCA see UN Peace–Building

Support Office in the Central African Republic under Central African Republic

Bosnia and Herzegovina 35–36 

International Police Task Force 

35, 36 

State Border Service 35–36 

UN Mission in Bosnia and 

Herzegovina 35–36 

International Criminal Court 

44 

trafficking in persons 36 

Bougainville 27–28 

peace process 27–28 

UN Political Office in Bougainville 27–28 

Bozizé, Francois 17 

Brahimi, Lakhdar 10 

Brundtland, Gro Harlem 170 

budget, UN 116–118

safety and security measures 

116–117 

UN Assistance Mission in Afghanistan 116 

Buergenthal, Thomas 102 

Burma 28–29 

counternarcotics 29 

forced labor 28–29, 155–156 

International Labor Organization 28–29, 155–156 

human rights 28, 83 

Shan Human Rights Foundation 28 

National League for Democracy 

28 

Burundi 16 

peace process 16 

C–24 see Committee of 24 under 

non–self–governing territories 

Cambodia 29–30 

human rights 29 

tribunal 29–30 

Capital Master Plan 118–120

budget appropriations 119 

financial arrangements 118–120 

UN Development Corporation

118, 119 

Carbonell, Josefina 74 

carriage of goods by sea see International Trade Law, UN Commission on 

CBMs see confidence building 

measures under 

disarmament 

UN Disarmament Commission 

CCIT see Comprehensive Convention on International Terrorism 

under terrorism 

CD see Conference on Disarmament under disarmament 

Center for International Crime Prevention, UN see UN Center for 

International Crime Prevention 

under 

crime prevention and criminal 

justice 

drug control 

Central African Republic 16–17 

Libreville Accord 17 

UN Peace–Building Support 

Office in the Central African 

Republic 16–17 

Chao, Elaine 154 

Charter Committee see Special 

Committee on the Charter of the 

United Nations and on the 

Strengthening of the Role of the 

Organization under strengthening

the role of the United Nations 

children 79–81 

child labor 154–155 

Convention on the Rights of the 

Child 80 

optional protocols 80–81 

children in armed conflict 81 

sale of children, child pornography, and child prostitution 80–81 

reproductive health services 80 

UN Children’s Fund 60–62 

humanitarian aid 61–62 

Afghanistan 61 

UN General Assembly’s Special

Session on Children 79–80 

CICP see UN Center for International Crime Prevention under 

212 

C 
Index 

crime prevention and criminal

justice 

drug control 

Cisse, Lamine 17 

Clayton, Eva 54 

Climate Change, Intergovernmental Panel on see Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 

under 

environment 

climate change 

Climate Change, UN Framework

Convention on see UN Framework Convention on Climate 

Change under 

environment 

climate change 

cloning 95–96 

human embryos 95 

international convention to ban 

human reproductive cloning 

95–96 

therapeutic purposes 95 

CMP see Capital Master Plan 

CND see UN Commission on Narcotic Drugs under 

drug control 

reform 

Colombia 155 

violence against trade unionists 

155 

Commission on Population and

Development, UN see UN Commission on Population and Development under population

Committee for Program and Coordination 122–124 

evaluation reports 123 

Medium–Term Plan 122 

results–based budgeting 122– 

123 

Committee of 24 see non–self– 

governing territories

Committee on Relations with the 

Host Country see host country relations 

Compensation Commission on 

Iraq, UN see UN Compensation 

Commission on Iraq under 

oversight 

audit reports 

Comprehensive Convention on International Terrorism see terrorism 

Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty 

see disarmament 

UN First Committee 

Conference on Disarmament see 

disarmament 

confidence building measures see 

disarmament 

UN Disarmament Commission 

Congo, Democratic Republic of 

the 17–19 

human rights 18 

Lusaka Accords 17, 18 

natural resources 19 

peace process 18–19 

Inter–Congolese Dialogue 18 

South Africa 18–19 

UN Mission in the Democratic 

Republic of the Congo 17–18, 

19 

Connor, Joseph 115 

consultative status see NGO participation in the Economic and Social Council 

Contributions, UN Committee on 

see UN Committee on Contributions under scale of assessments 

Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material and Facilities see 

International Atomic Energy

Agency 

physical protection of material 

Convention on the Rights of the

Child see 

children 

human rights 

children 

Corell, Hans 108 

counternarcotics 29 

Afghanistan 11 

Burma 29 

drug control 77 

Counter–Terrorism Committee see 

terrorism 

213 
United States Participation in the United Nations – 2002 

CPC see Committee for Program

and Coordination 

CPD see UN Commission on Population and Development under 

population 

Crane, David 109 

Crime Commission see UN Commission on Crime Prevention and 

Criminal Justice under crime prevention and criminal justice

crime prevention and criminal justice 75–76 

terrorism 75–76 

UN Center for International 

Crime Prevention 75 

UN Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice 

75–76 

UN Convention Against Transnational Organized Crime 75 

Crime Prevention, UN Center for 

International see UN Center for 

International Crime Prevention 

under 

crime prevention and criminal

justice 

drug control 

Croatia 36 

Prevlaka Peninsula 36 

UN Mission of Observers in 

Prevlaka 36 

CSD see UN Commission on Sustainable Development under sustainable development

CSW see UN Commission on the 

Status of Women under women 

CTC see Counter–Terrorism Committee under terrorism 

Cuba 37, 82 

Helms–Burton Act 37 

human rights 37 

Cyprus 31–32 

reunification 31–32 

UN Peacekeeping Force in Cyprus 31, 32 

D 

de Lavarene, Celhia 36 

de Mello, Sergio Vieira 82 

de Soto, Alvaro 31 

Del Ponte, Carla 107, 108 

Delhi Ministerial Declaration on 

Climate Change and Sustainable 

Development see 

environment 

climate change 

UN Framework Convention 

on Climate Change 

Department of Peacekeeping Operations, UN see UN Department of 

Peacekeeping Operations under 

HIV/AIDS 

reform 

peacekeeping 

development 62–63

Africa 57 

New Economic Partnership

for Africa’s Development 57 

UN New Agenda for the Development of Africa 57 

Millennium Development Goals 

62–63 

Millennium Development Goals

Campaign 62–63 

UN Development Program 57–

60 

Arab Human Development

Report 59 

Bureau for Crisis Prevention 

and Recovery 60 

international development goals 58 

Millennium Declaration 58 

sustainable human development 58 

UN Development Group 58 

UN Children’s Fund 58 

UN Population Fund 58 

World Food Program 58 

Development Corporation, UN see 

UN Development Corporation 

under Capital Master Plan

Dinka, Berhanu 16 

Diouf, Jacques 139 

diplomatic parking see host country relations 

diplomatic protection see International Law Commission 

disabilities, international convention on the rights of persons with 

see international convention on 

the rights of persons with disabil214 
Index 

ities under Social Development,

UN Commission for 

disarmament 38–41 

Conference on Disarmament 

39–40 

Fissile Material Cutoff Treaty

39, 40

Nuclear Non–Proliferation

Treaty 40

outer space arms control 40

UN Disarmament Commission 

38–39 

confidence building measures

38–39 

UN First Committee 40–41 

Anti–Ballistic Missile Treaty

40

Comprehensive Test Ban

Treaty 40

depleted uranium munitions

40

terrorism 40

disarmament, demobilization, and

repatriation

Afghanistan 13

Sierra Leone 24

disaster and humanitarian relief activities 91–92 

International Strategy on Disaster Reduction 91–92 

preparedness and response 92

urban search and rescue 92

dispute resolution see International 

Trade Law, UN Commission on 

DOPCAT see Draft Optional Protocol on the Convention Against 

Torture under human rights 

DPKO see UN Department of

Peacekeeping Operations under 

HIV/AIDS 

reform 

peacekeeping 

DPRK see North Korea and also 

International Atomic Energy 

Agency

Draft Optional Protocol on the 

Convention Against Torture see 

human rights

drug control 76–78

counternarcotics 77

International Narcotics Control

Board 76, 78

UN Center for International

Crime Prevention 76

UN Commission on Narcotic 

Drugs 77–78 

alternative development projects 78

reform 77

UN International Drug Control

Program 76

UN Office on Drugs and Crime 

11, 76–78 

E 

East Timor 30–31, 48, 120

International Criminal Court 31

scale of assessments 120

U.S. Support Group East Timor

31

UN Mission of Support in East 

Timor 30–31 

UN Serious Crimes Unit 31

UN Transitional Administration 

in East Timor 30–31 

ECE see Economic Commission 

for Europe 

ECLAC see Economic Commission for Latin America and the 

Caribbean 

e–commerce see convention on e– 

commerce under International 

Trade Law, UN Commission on 

Economic and Social Commission

for Asia and the Pacific 73

reform 73

Economic Commission for Europe 

71–72 

Economic Commission for Latin

America and the Caribbean 72–

73

right to food, housing, social

goods 72

Egypt 9

Elaraby, Nabil 102

ElBaradei, Mohammed 3, 4, 143,

145

employment of Americans 131–

136

215
United States Participation in the United Nations – 2002 

assigning federal employees to

UN agencies 136

geographic representation 133

Junior Professional Officer 136

environment 65–68 

climate change 67–68 

Intergovernmental Panel on

Climate Change 68

Kyoto Protocol 67–68 

UN Framework Convention 

on Climate Change 67–68 

Delhi Ministerial Declaration on Climate Change and

Sustainable Development

68

greenhouse gases 67

UN Environment Program 50,

65–67

Governing Council/Global

Environmental Ministerial 

Forum 66

international chemicals

management 66

voluntary indicative scale of

contributions 66

World Environment Organization 66

Post–Conflict Assessment

Unit 67

Environment Program, UN see UN 

Environment Program under 

Atomic Radiation, UN Scientific Committee on the Effects of 

environment 

Eritrea 20

disputed border

Boundary Commission 20

UN Mission in Ethiopia and Eritrea 20

ESCAP see Economic and Social 

Commission for Asia and the Pacific and also reform 

Ethiopia 20

disputed border

Boundary Commission 20

UN Mission in Ethiopia and Eritrea 20

F 

Family, Year of the see Year of the 

Family under Social Development, UN Commission for 

FAO see Food and Agriculture Organization and also reform 

Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 see food assistance 

FCTC see Framework Convention 

on Tobacco Control under World 

Health Organization

fee–splitting see 

war crimes tribunals 

International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda 

financial situation of the United

Nations 115–116

cross–borrowing 116

reimbursement of troop–contributing countries 116

financing for development 51–53

conference follow–up 52

global poverty 51

International Monetary Fund 52

Millennium Challenge Account

51

UN Conference on Financing

for Development 51–52 

World Bank 52

Fissile Material Cutoff Treaty see 

disarmament 

Conference on Disarmament 

Fleischhauer, Carl–August 102

FMCT see Fissile Material Cutoff

Treaty under disarmament

Conference on Disarmament

Food and Agriculture Organization

139–143

biotech food aid 142

food safety and plant health 141

New Economic Partnership for

Africa’s Development 142–

143

reform 140

results–based management 140

Special Program for Food Security 140

sharks, conservation and management of 142

216
Index 

sustainable forest management

142 

World Food Summit: Five 

Years Later 139–140 

food assistance 85–89, 151–153 

Africa 85–87 

biotechnology 86–87 

health risks 86 

biotechnology 142 

Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 88 

HIV/AIDS 88 

World Food Program 87–89 

school feeding activities 88 

force protection 44–45

International Criminal Court 44 

Middle East 45 

Status of Forces Agreements 44 

Status of Mission Agreements 

44 

U.S. Military Observer Group–

Washington 44 

UN Mission in Bosnia and 

Herzegovina 44 

UN Mission in Ethiopia and Eritrea 44–45 

UN Transitional Administration 

in East Timor 44 

forced labor see 

Burma 

International Labor Organization 

Fourth World Conference on 

Women see women 

Framework Convention on Climate Change, UN see UN Framework Convention on Climate 

Change under 

environment 

climate change 

Framework Convention on Tobacco Control see World Health Organization 

fraud see fraudulent use of commercial and financial documents 

under International Trade Law, 

UN Commission on and also 

fraud, mismanagement, and waste 

under 

oversight 

Office of Internal Oversight

Services 100 

Freedom House 93 

Frente Popular para la Liberacion

de Saguia el–Hamra y Rio de Oro 

26, 27 

G 

Gbeho, James Victor 21 

GC/GMEF see Governing Council/Global Environmental Ministerial Forum under 

environment 

UN Environment Program 

GCOS see Global Climate Observing System under World Meteorological Organization 

Georgia 32–33

cessation of hostilities 32–33 

UN Observer Mission in Georgia 32, 33 

Global Climate Observing System 

see World Meteorological Organization 

Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria see 

HIV/AIDS 

World Health Organization 

Golan Heights 9

Gonzalez, Armando Duque 126

Goods Review List see Iraq

Governing Council/Global Environmental Ministerial Forum see 

environment 

Greece 31–32 

UN Peacekeeping Force in Cyprus 31, 32 

Greenstock, Jeremy 43

GRL see Goods Review List under

Iraq

Guam 49

Guatemala 37–38

human rights 37–38 

UN Verification Mission in 

Guatemala 37–38 

Guillaume, Gilbert 102 

Guinea–Bissau 20–21 

217 
United States Participation in the United Nations – 2002 

UN Peace–building Support Office in Guinea–Bissau 20

Gusmao, Xanana 30

H 

Haglund, William 109

Hall, Tony 54

Halonen, Tarja 156

Hansen, Peter 91

Helms–Biden legislation see

peacekeeping 

financing for 

Helms–Burton Act see Cuba

Herczegh, Geza 102

Herfkens, Eveline 62

Heritage Foundation 93

Higgins, Rosalyn 102

HIV/AIDS 46–47, 88, 171, 174,

175–176

food assistance 88

Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria 176

Joint UN Program on HIV/ 

AIDS 175–176 

UN Department of Peacekeeping Operations 46–47 

increasing awareness and prevention of 46

UN Mission in Sierra Leone 46

Hizbollah 8, 9

host country relations 101–102

Committee on Relations with

the Host Country 101–102

diplomatic parking 101

housing 63–65

UN Human Settlements Program 63–65 

urbanization 63–64 

urban governance 64

human resources management 128,

131

reform 131

Office of Internal Oversight

Services 131

human rights 79–83

Afghanistan 14

Burma 28, 83

Cambodia 29

children 79–81 

Convention on the Rights of

the Child 80

optional protocols 80–81

children in armed conflict

81

sale of children, child pornography, and child prostitution 80–81

reproductive health services

80

UN General Assembly’s 

Special Session on Children 

79–80 

Congo, Democratic Republic of

the 18

Cuba 37

Draft Optional Protocol on the

Convention Against Torture 83

Guatemala 37–38 

Iraq 5, 83

Israel 82

Middle East 82

Sudan 26, 83

Truth and Reconciliation Commission 109

UN Commission on Human

Rights 5, 18, 26, 28, 29, 37,

82–83

UN High Commissioner for Human Rights 

reform 82

women 81–82 

Human Settlements Program, UN

see housing

humanitarian aid 26

Afghanistan 83–85

education 84

food 84

government 84

internally displaced persons

84

reconstruction 84–85

refugees 84

Sudan 26

UN Children’s Fund 61–62 

Afghanistan 61

218
Index 

I 

IAEA see International Atomic 

Energy Agency and also 

Iraq 

inspections 

IARC see International Agency for 

Research on Cancer under World 

Health Organization

ICAO see International Civil Aviation Organization 

ICC see International Criminal 

Court and also 

Bosnia and Herzegovina 

UN Mission in Bosnia and 

Herzegovina 

East Timor 

force protection 

ICD see Inter–Congolese Dialogue

under 

Congo, Democratic Republic of 

the 

peace process 

ICJ see International Court of Justice 

ICSC see International Civil Service Commission 

ICTR see International Criminal 

Tribunal for Rwanda under 

oversight 

audit reports 

war crimes tribunals 

ICTY see International Criminal 

Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia under 

oversight 

audit reports 

war crimes tribunals 

IDGs see international development goals and also under 

development 

UN Development Program 

Idris, Kamil 177 

IFAD see International Fund for 

Agricultural Development

IFFAS see International Financial 

Facility for Aviation Safety under 

International Civil Aviation Organization 

ILC see International Law Commission 

ILO see International Labor Organization and also under 

Burma 

forced labor 

IMF see International Monetary 

Fund and also financing for development 

IMO see International Maritime 

Organization

India 14–15 

Jammu 14 

Kashmir 14, 15 

Lahore Declaration 14 

Simla Accord 14 

UN Military Observer Group in

India and Pakistan 14–15 

insolvency reform see International Trade Law, UN Commission 

on 

intellectual property rights, enforcement of see World Intellectual Property Organization 

intellectual property, technology 

see World Intellectual Property 

Organization 

Inter–Congolese Dialogue see 

Congo, Democratic Republic of 

the 

peace process 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change see 

environment 

climate change 

International Agency for Research 

on Cancer see World Health Organization

International Atomic Energy 

Agency 143–148 

combating nuclear terrorism 

143–144 

Iran 

inspections 145 

Iraq 3, 4, 144 

import of goods 144–145 

inspections 144 

UN Monitoring, Verification,

and Inspection Commission

144 

non–nuclear weapon state 144 

North Korea 145 

219 
United States Participation in the United Nations – 2002 

nuclear safety activities 146 

peaceful uses of nuclear technology 147 

physical protection of material

145–146 

amendment to the Convention 

on the Physical Protection of

Nuclear Material and Facilities 146 

results–based budgeting 147 

safeguards 144–145 

agreements 144 

Model Additional Protocol 

144 

International Civil Aviation Organization 148–151 

aviation security 148 

international aircraft registration 

150 

International Financial Facility 

for Aviation Safety 150–151 

Israel 148–149 

liability for airline accidents 

149–150 

noise management 149 

security standards for travel 

documents 150 

Universal Safety Oversight Audit Program 149 

war–risk insurance 149 

International Civil Service Commission 129–131 

professional staff salary increase 129, 130–131 

international Code for the Security 

of Ships and of Port Facilities see 

International Maritime Organization 

maritime security 

International Convention for the 

Safety of Life at Sea see 

International Maritime Organization 

maritime security 

International Convention for the 

Suppression of Acts of Nuclear

Terrorism see terrorism 

International Court of Justice 102– 

103 

Iran v. United States of America 

102–103 

Iranian oil platforms 102 

Iran–Iraq conflict 102 

U.S.–Iranian 1955 Treaty of

Amity 102 

Libya v. United States of America 103 

Montreal (Air Sabotage) Convention 103 

Pan Am Flight 103 103 

United Kingdom 103 

Permanent Court of Arbitration 

102 

International Criminal Court 44, 

103–104 

Article 16 104 

East Timor 31 

force protection 44 

UN Mission in Bosnia and 

Herzegovina 44 

global U.S. agreements 104 

jurisdiction 104 

Rome Statute 104 

International Criminal Tribunal for 

Rwanda see 

oversight 

audit reports 

war crimes tribunals 

International Criminal Tribunal for 

the former Yugoslavia see 

oversight 

audit reports 

war crimes tribunals 

international development goals 58 

International Financial Facility for 

Aviation Safety see International 

Civil Aviation Organization 

International Fund for Agricultural 

Development 151–153

food assistance 151–153 

poverty 151–152 

International Labor Organization

153–157 

child labor 154–155 

Colombia 155 

forced labor 28–29, 155–156 

Burma 28–29, 155–156 

220 
Index 

impact of globalization on labor

156

International Training Center

156–157 

UN Staff College 156

International Law Commission

104–105

diplomatic protection 105

reservations to treaties 104, 105

International Maritime Organization 157–160

liability limits 159

limits to ship activity 159

maritime safety 158–159 

anti–fouling paints 158–159

bulk carrier safety 158

maritime security 157–158

amendments to the International Convention for the 

Safety of Life at Sea 157–

158

international Code for the Security of Ships and of Port

Facilities 158

prevention of pollution by ships

159

terrorism 158

International Monetary Fund 52,

97

International Narcotics Control 

Board see drug control 

International Police Task Force see 

Bosnia and Herzegovina

International Security Assistance 

Force see Afghanistan 

International Strategy on Disaster

Reduction see disaster and humanitarian relief activities 

International Telecommunication 

Union 160–163 

funding 160–161 

global conference on telecommunications and information 

161–162 

World Summit on the Information Society 161–162

reform 162

financial management 162

telecommunications in the developing world 163

World Radiocommunication

Conferences 162

International Trade Center 56–57

trading capacity assistance 56

UN Conference on Trade and

Development 56

World Trade Organization 56

International Trade Law, UN Commission on 96–101 

arbitration 96–97 

carriage of goods by sea 97

convention on e–commerce 98–

99

dispute resolution 96–97 

fraudulent use of commercial

and financial documents 100

general secured interest financing laws 98

increase in size 100

insolvency reform 97–98 

privately financed infrastructure

projects 99

technical assistance on implementation of modern commercial law 99

International Training Center see 

International Labor Organization 

Investment Policy Reviews see 

Trade and Development, UN 

Conference on 

IPCC see Intergovernmental Panel

on Climate Change under 

environment 

climate change 

IPTF see International Police Task 

Force under Bosnia and Herzegovina 

Iran 145

Iraq 3–5

Goods Review List 4

human rights 5, 83

UN Commission on Human

Rights 5

import of goods 144–145

inspections 3, 4, 144

International Atomic Energy

Agency 3, 4, 144

221
United States Participation in the United Nations – 2002 

UN Monitoring, Verification,

and Inspection Commission

3, 4, 144 

Kuwait 

archives 4, 5 

war missing 5 

material breach of Security 

Council resolutions 3–4 

Oil–for–Food 4 

refugees 5, 90 

sanctions 4, 45 

UN Iraq/Kuwait Observer Mission 5 

demilitarized zone 5 

IRENE see UN NGO Informal Regional Network under NGO participation in the Economic and 

Social Council 

ISAF see International Security

Assistance Force under Afghanistan 

ISDR see International Strategy on

Disaster Reduction under disaster 

and humanitarian relief activities 

ISPS see international Code for the 

Security of Ships and of Port Facilities under 

International Maritime Organization 

maritime security 

Israel 5–8 

Gaza International Airport 148– 

149 

health of Palestinians 172–173 

Hizbollah 9 

permanent status 7 

terrorism 6–7 

UN Commission on Human 

Rights 82 

UN Disengagement Observer 

Force 9 

UN Interim Force in Lebanon 8 

UN Truce Supervision Organization 9 

ITC see International Trade Center 

ITU see International Telecommunication Union and also reform 

J 

Jehangir, Asma 18 

Jemah Islamiyah 42

Jenin refugee camp see 

Arab–Israeli Situation 

refugees 

JIU see Joint Inspection Unit under 

oversight 

Johannesburg Declaration on Sustainable Development see 

sustainable development 

World Summit on Sustainable 

Development 

Johannesburg Plan of Implementation see 

sustainable development 

World Summit for Sustainable Development 

Joint Inspection Unit see oversight 

Joint Staff Pension Board, UN 

136–138 

expansion 137 

Office of Internal Oversight Services 137 

UN Joint Staff Pension Fund 

136–138 

investment in developing countries 137 

Joint UN Program on HIV/AIDS 

see HIV/AIDS

Jorda, Claude 107, 108 

Jordan 9 

JPO see Junior Professional Officer under employment of Americans 

Junior Professional Officer see employment of Americans 

K 

Kabbah, Ahmad Tejan 23

Karadzic, Radovan 107

Karzai, Hamid 12, 60

Kim, Hak–Su 73

Kleihues, Paul 175

Klein, Jacques Paul 35

KOCB, see Kosovo Organized

Crime Bureau under

Kosovo

police and justice 

Koenigs, Thomas 38

Kolingba, Andre 16 

222 
Index 

Kooijmans, Pieter H. 102

Korologos, Ann McLaughlin 156 

Koroma, Abdul G. 102 

Kosovo 33–35 

democratization and constitution building 34–35 

elections 34 

Provisional Institutions of 

Self–Government 34–35 

police and justice 34 

Kosovo Organized Crime Bureau 34 

Kosovo Police Service 34 

reconstruction and economic 

development 35 

Kosovo Trust Agency 35 

UN Interim Administration 

Mission in Kosovo 33–35 

democratic self–government

33–35 

KPS see Kosovo Police Service 

under 

Kosovo 

police and justice 

KTA see Kosovo Trust Agency under 

Kosovo 

reconstruction and economic 

development 

Kuwait 5 

refugees 5 

UN Iraq/Kuwait Observer Mission 5 

demilitarized zone 5 

Kyoto Protocol see 

environment 

climate change 

Laden, Usama bin 10, 42, 45 

Leavey, Thomas E. 135, 165

Lebanon 8, 9 

Hizbollah 8 

UN Disengagement Observer 

Force 9 

UN Interim Force in Lebanon 8 

UN Truce Supervision Organization 9 

Leuprecht, Peter 29 

Liberia 21–22 

Liberians United for Reconciliation and Democracy 22 

peace process 22 

Revolutionary United Front 21 

sanctions 21–22, 45 

UN Office in Liberia 22 

Libreville Accord see Central African Republic 

Libya 22, 82

sanctions 22 

terrorism 22 

Lome Peace Agreement see Sierra 

Leone 

LURD see Liberians United for 

Reconciliation and Democracy

under Liberia 

Lusaka Accords see 

Congo, Democratic Republic of

the 

Rwanda 

Lusaka Agreement see Lusaka Accords under 

Congo, Democratic Republic of 

the 

Rwanda 

M 

Madrid International Plan of Action see 

Social Development, UN Commission for 

aging 

Second World Assembly on

Aging 

Malloch Brown, Mark 57, 62 

maritime safety see International 

Maritime Organization

maritime security see International 

Maritime Organization 

McLurg, Susan 136

MDGs see Millennium Development Goals under 

development 

reform 

administrative and management 

Medium–Term Plan see Committee for Program and Coordination 

Middle East 82 

Arab–Israeli Situation 5–8 

223 

L 
United States Participation in the United Nations – 2002 

force protection 45

human rights 82

Israeli actions 82

Millennium Challenge Account 

see financing for development

Millennium Declaration see 

development 

UN Development Program 

Millennium Development Goals 

Campaign see development

Millennium Development Goals 

see 

development 

reform 

administrative and management 

MINUGUA see UN Verification 

Mission in Guatemala under Guatemala 

MINURSO see UN Mission for the 

Referendum in Western Sahara 

under Western Sahara 

Mkapa, Benjamin 156

Mladic, Ratke 107

Moldova, Republic of 157

Montreal (Air Sabotage) Convention 103

MONUC see UN Mission in the 

Democratic Republic of the Congo under Congo, Democratic Republic of the 

Morris, James 85, 87, 89, 135

MTP see Medium–Term Plan under Committee for Program and 

Coordination 

Mugabarabona, Alain 16

Myers, Lucretia 129

N 

NAACP see National Association 

for the Advancement of Colored 

People and also under NGO participation in the Economic and 

Social Council 

Nair, Dileep 77, 127

Narcotic Drugs, UN Commission 

on see UN Commission on Narcotic Drugs under 

drug control 

reform 

Narcotics Control Board, International see International Narcotics 

Control Board under drug control 

National Association for the Advancement of Colored People 93

National League for Democracy 28

National Union for the Total Independence of Angola 15–16 

Natsios, Andrew 54, 79

Ndayikengurukiya, Jean–Bosco 16

Negroponte, John 4

NEPAD see New Economic Partnership for Africa’s Development

and also under 

development 

Africa 

Food and Agriculture Organization 

New Economic Partnership for Africa’s Development 57, 142–143

and also see 

development 

Africa 

new members

East Timor 48

Switzerland 48

NGO participation in the Economic and Social Council 92–94 

consultative status 92–93 

consultative status approval 93

Freedom House 93

Heritage Foundation 93

National Association for the Advancement of Colored People

93

NGO Committee 92–93 

UN NGO Informal Regional

Network 93–94 

UN Watch 93

Woman’s Voice, International

93

World Assembly of Muslim

Youth 93

Nhasse, Alamara Ntchia 21

Niasse, Mustapha 18

Nkurunziza, Pierre 16

NLD see National League for Democracy and also under Burma 

224
Index 

NNWS see non–nuclear weapon 

state under International Atomic 

Energy Agency 

Nolan, John 166 

non–self–governing territories 48– 

49 

American Samoa 49 

Committee of 24 48 

Guam 49 

U.S. Virgin Islands 49 

North Korea 145 

NPT see Nuclear Non–Proliferation Treaty under disarmament 

Conference on Disarmament 

NSGTs see non–self–governing

territories 

Nuclear Non–Proliferation Treaty 

see disarmament 

Conference on Disarmament 

O 

Obasi, G.O.P. 180

Ocampo, Jose Antonio 72

Oda, Shigeru 102

OEF see Operation Enduring Freedom under Afghanistan

Office of Internal Oversight Services see 

human resources management 

reform 

Joint Staff Pension Board, UN 

oversight 

Sierra Leone 

refugees 

Oil–for–Food see Iraq 

OIOS see Office of Internal Oversight Services under 

human resources management 

reform 

Joint Staff Pension Board, UN 

oversight 

Sierra Leone 

refugees 

OLS see Operation Lifeline Sudan 

under 

Sudan 

humanitarian aid 

Ona, Francis 27 

Open–Ended Working Group on

the Question of the Equitable 

Representation on and Increase in 

the Membership of the Security

Council and Other Matters related 

to the Security Council see 

reform 

Security Council 

Operation Enduring Freedom see 

Afghanistan 

Operation Lifeline Sudan see 

Sudan 

humanitarian aid 

Organized Crime, UN Convention

Against Transnational see UN 

Convention Against Transnational Organized Crime under crime 

prevention and criminal justice 

Orzhonikidze, Sergei 39 

outer space arms control see disarmament 

Conference on Disarmament 

oversight 124–129 

audit reports 124–125 

International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda 125 

International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia 125 

UN Compensation Commission on Iraq 124, 125 

Joint Inspection Unit 126–127 

reform 126, 127 

Office of Internal Oversight Services 127–129, 137 

fraud, mismanagement, and

waste 128 

human resources manage­ ment 128 

humanitarian and related activities 128 

peacekeeping operations 128 

process of establishing new

bodies 128 

procurement 128 

UN High Commissioner for

Refugees 128 

UN Mission in Bosnia and 

Herzegovina 128–129 

Owada, Hisashi 102 

P 

Pachauri, Rajendra 68 

225 
United States Participation in the United Nations – 2002 

PAHO see Pan American Health 

Organization

Pakistan 14–15

Jammu 14

Kashmir 14, 15

Lahore Declaration 14

Simla Accord 14

UN Military Observer Group in 

India and Pakistan 14–15 

Palestine 6–8, 91

health 173

permanent status 7

terrorism 6–7 

UN Relief and Works Agency

for Palestine Refugees in the

Near East 91

Palestine Refugees in the Near 

East, UN Relief and Works Agency for see UN Relief and Works 

Agency for Palestine Refugees in 

the Near East under 

Palestine 

refugees 

Pan Am Flight 103 see 

International Court of Justice 

Libya v. United States of

America 

Pan American Health Organization

174–175 

arrears 

Argentina 174

HIV/AIDS 174

Pan American Sanitary Conference 174

Parra–Aranguren, Gonzalo 102

Patassee, Ange–Felix 16

Patent Cooperation Treaty see 

World Intellectual Property Organization 

PCT see Patent Cooperation Treaty 

under World Intellectual Property 

Organization 

peace process

Angola 15

Arab–Israeli Situation 7–8 

Bougainville 27–28 

Burundi 16

Congo, Democratic Republic of

the 18–19 

South Africa 18–19 

Israel–Syria Disengagement

Agreement 9

Liberia 22

Somalia 25

UN Disengagement Observer

Force 9

UN Interim Force in Lebanon 8,

9

UN Truce Supervision Organization 8–9 

peaceful uses of nuclear technology see International Atomic Energy Agency

peacekeeping 43

civilian police 43

reductions 43

costs 43

effectiveness and efficiency 43

financing for 121–122 

Helms–Biden legislation 122

oversight 128

UN Mission in Bosnia and 

Herzegovina 43, 128–129 

termination 43

UN Mission of Observers in

Prevlaka 43

termination 43

UN Mission of Support in East

Timor 43

UN Transitional Administration

in East Timor 43

peacekeeping reform see reform 

Pension Fund, UN Joint Staff see 

UN Joint Staff Pension Fund under Joint Staff Pension Board, 

UN 

Permanent Court of Arbitration

102

Pinheiro, Paulo Sergio 28

Piot, Peter 175

PISG see Provisional Institutions 

of Self–Government under Kosovo 

democratization and constitution building 

POLISARIO see Frente Popular 

para la Liberacion de Saguia el– 

Hamra y Rio de Oro also under 

226
Index 

Western Sahara 

population 68–71 

Asian and Pacific Population

Conference 70–71 

UN Commission on Population 

and Development 68–69 

population changes 68–69

reproduction 69

UN Population Fund 69–70

Postal Union of the Americas, 

Spain and Portugal see Universal 

Postal Union 

Post–Conflict Assessment Unit see 

environment 

UN Environment Program 

poverty 151–152

Powell, Colin 6, 8

Prevlaka Peninsula 36

Croatia 36

Federal Republic of Yugoslavia

36

UN Mission of Observers in

Prevlaka 36

procurement oversight 128

Provisional Institutions of Self–

Government see Kosovo

democratization and constitution building

PUASP see Postal Union of the 

Americas, Spain and Portugal under Universal Postal Union 

R 

Ranjeva, Raymond 102

Razali, Ismail 28

reform 111–114 

administrative and management

111–112 

coordination among UN entities 111–112 

information 111

meetings, planning and servicing of 111

Millennium Development Goals 111

staff 112

Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific 73

Food and Agriculture Organization 140

human resources management

131

International Telecommunication Union 162

Joint Inspection Unit 126, 127

peacekeeping 112–113 

deployment times 112

Strategic Deployment Stocks

112

troop–contributing countries 112, 113

reimbursement 112

UN Department of Peacekeeping Operations 112, 113

Security Council 113–114

Open–Ended Working Group

on the Question of the Equitable Representation on and

Increase in the Membership

of the Security Council and

Other Matters related to the 

Security Council 113

UN Commission on Narcotic

Drugs 77

UN Conference on Trade and 

Development 55–56 

UN High Commissioner for Human Rights 82

World Intellectual Property Organization 177

refugees 6, 89–91

Afghanistan 84

Jenin camp 6

Sierra Leone 24–25 

UN High Commissioner for

Refugees 5, 24–25, 84, 89–91,

128

Iraq 90

refugee returns 89

Afghanistan 89

Sierra Leone 89

resettlement 90

UN Relief and Works Agency

for Palestine Refugees in the

Near East 91

reservations to treaties see International Law Commission 

results–based budgeting 122–123 

Committee for Program and Coordination 122–123 

227
United States Participation in the United Nations – 2002 

International Atomic Energy

Agency 147 

results–based management

Food and Agriculture Organization 140 

Revolutionary United Front 21, 23 

Rewards for Justice Program see 

war crimes tribunals 

International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda 

Rezak, Francisco 102

Ricupero, Rubens 56

right to food see World Food Summit: Five Years Later

Roed–Larsen, Terje 8

Rome Statute see International

Criminal Court

Rosenstock, Robert 104

Roses, Mirta 174

RUF see Revolutionary United

Front and also

Liberia

Sierra Leone 

Rwanda 22–23 

Lusaka Accords 22 

sanctions 23, 45 

Rwanda, International Criminal 

Tribunal for see International 

Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda 

under 

oversight 

audit reports 

war crimes tribunals 

S 

Sachs, Jeffery 63

safeguards see International Atomic Energy Agency

San Marino, Republic of 157

sanctions 42, 45–46

al–Qaida 10, 45 

Angola 15 

Iraq 4, 45 

Jemah Islamiyah 42 

Liberia 21–22, 45 

Libya 22 

Rwanda 23, 45 

Sanctions Committee 42 

Sierra Leone 45 

Somalia 25, 45 

Taliban 10, 45 

sanctions assistance, see strengthening the role of the United Nations 

Sanctions Committee see 

sanctions 

terrorism 

Sankoh, Foday Saybana 23 

Savimbi, Jonas 15 

SBS see State Border Service under Bosnia and Herzegovina 

scale of assessments 120–121 

Article 19 120 

East Timor 120 

Switzerland 120 

UN Committee on Contributions 120–121 

Afghanistan 120 

Argentina 120–121 

Schmognerova, Brigita 72

SCU see UN Serious Crimes Unit 

under East Timor 

SDS see Strategic Deployment

Stocks under 

reform 

peacekeeping 

Second World Assembly on Aging 

see 

Social Development, UN Commission for 

aging 

Security Council Counter–Terrorism Committee, see terrorism 

Security Council reform see reform 

Settlement Plan see Western Sahara 

Shan Human Rights Foundation 28 

sharks, conservation and management of see Food and Agriculture 

Organization 

Shi, Jiuyong 102

SHRF see Shan Human Rights 

Foundation and also 

Burma 

human rights 

Sierra Leone 23–25 

diamonds 25 

228 
Index 

disarmament, demobilization, 

and reintegration 24 

elections 23–24 

Lome Peace Agreement 23 

refugees 24–25 

Office of Internal Oversight

Services 24 

refugee returns 89 

sexual abuse of 24–25 

Revolutionary United Front 23 

sanctions 45 

Truth and Reconciliation Commission 109 

UN Mission in Sierra Leone 23– 

25, 46 

Sierra Leone Special Court see war 

crimes tribunals 

Simma, Bruno 102 

smallpox virus stocks see World 

Health Organization

Social Development, UN Commission for 74 

aging 74 

Second World Assembly on

Aging 74 

Madrid International Plan of 

Action 74 

international convention on the 

rights of persons with disabilities 75 

Year of the Family 74–75 

SOFA see Status of Forces Agreements under force protection 

SOLAS see International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea 

under 

International Maritime Organization 

maritime security 

Solomon, Susan 68 

SOMA see Status of Mission 

Agreements under force protection 

Somalia 25 

peace process 25 

sanctions 25, 45 

Somavia, Juan 153 

South Africa 

helping the peace process in the 

Democratic Republic of the 

Congo 18–19 

Special Committee on the Charter 

of the United Nations and on the 

Strengthening of the Role of the 

Organization see strengthening 

the role of the United Nations 

Special Committee on the Situation with Regard to the Implementation of the Declaration on 

the Granting of Independence to 

Colonial Countries and Peoples 

see 

non–self–governing territories 

Committee of 24 

Special Program for Food Security 

see 

Food and Agriculture Organization 

results–based management 

Speicher, Michael 5 

SPFS see Special Program for 

Food Security under 

Food and Agriculture Organization 

results–based management 

State Border Service see Bosnia 

and Herzegovina

Status of Forces Agreements see 

force protection 

Status of Mission Agreements see 

force protection 

Steiner, Michael 33 

Stiglitz, Joseph 156

STOP see Special Trafficking Operation Program under 

Bosnia and Herzegovina 

UN Mission in Bosnia and 

Herzegovina 

Strategic Deployment Stocks see 

reform 

peacekeeping 

strengthening the role of the United

Nations 105–106 

sanctions assistance 105–106 

Special Committee on the Charter of the United Nations and 

on the Strengthening of the 

Role of the Organization 105– 

106 

Sudan 25–26 

human rights 26, 83 

229 
United States Participation in the United Nations – 2002 

humanitarian aid 26 

Operation Lifeline Sudan 26 

sustainable development 52–53

conventions 

biological diversity 53

Caribbean Basin 53

climate change 53

combating desertification 53

mountains 53

small–island developing states 53

water 53

financing for development 53

U.S. partnerships 53

UN Commission on Sustainable

Development 53

World Summit for Sustainable

Development 52–53

Johannesburg Declaration on

Sustainable Development 52

Johannesburg Plan of Implementation 52

WSSD Partnerships 52

sustainable forest management see 

Food and Agriculture Organization 

Sweeney, John 156

Swing, William 27 

Switzerland 48, 120 

Syria 9

UN Disengagement Observer 

Force 9 

UN Truce Supervision Organization 9 

T 

Tagliavini, Heidi 32

Taiwan 172

Taliban 10, 42, 45

Taylor, Charles 21

TCC see troop–contributing countries under 

financial situation of the United 

Nations 

reform 

peacekeeping 

terrorism 41–43, 75–76 

al–Qaida 42 

Arab–Israeli Situation 6–7 

Comprehensive Convention on 

International Terrorism 41 

counter–terrorism 42–43 

Counter–Terrorism Committee 

42 

disarmament 

UN First Committee 40 

International Atomic Energy 

Agency 143–144 

International Convention for the 

Suppression of Acts of Nuclear 

Terrorism 41 

International Maritime Organization 158 

international terrorism conventions 41 

Laden, Usama bin 42 

Libya 22 

Measures to Eliminate International Terrorism 41 

sanctions 42 

Jemah Islamiyah 42 

Sanctions Committee 42 

Taliban 42 

Thompson, Tommy 79, 171, 172, 

174 

Tibaijuka, Anna 64

TISA see Transitional Islamic 

State of Afghanistan under Afghanistan

TOC see UN Convention Against 

Transnational Organized Crime 

under crime prevention and criminal justice 

Toepfer, Klaus 65 

Tomka, Peter 102 

Torture, Draft Optional Protocol 

on the Convention Against see 

Draft Optional Protocol on the

Convention Against Torture under human rights 

Trade and Development, UN Conference on 55–56 

Investment Policy Reviews 56 

reform 55–56 

Transitional Islamic State of Afghanistan see Afghanistan 

TRC see Truth and Reconciliation 

Commission and also under 

human rights 

230 
Index 

Sierra Leone 

Truth and Reconciliation Commission 109 

Turk, Danilo 27 

Turkey 31–32 

UN Peacekeeping Force in Cyprus 31, 32 

Turner, John 66 

U 

U.S. agricultural productivity initiative see World Food Summit: 

Five Years Later 

U.S. Military Observer Group– 

Washington see force protection 

U.S. Support Group East Timor see East Timor 

U.S. Virgin Islands 49 

UN Assistance Mission in Afghanistan see 

Afghanistan 

budget, UN 

UN Center for International Crime 

Prevention see 

crime prevention and criminal

justice 

drug control 

UN Children’s Fund see 

Afghanistan 

children 

development 

UN Development Program 

UN Development Group 

humanitarian aid 

UN Commission for Social Development see Social Development,

UN Commission for 

UN Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice see crime prevention and criminal 

justice 

UN Commission on Human Rights 

see 

human rights 

Iraq 

Israel 

UN Commission on International 

Trade Law see International 

Trade Law, UN Commission on 

UN Commission on Narcotic 

Drugs see 

drug control 

reform 

UN Commission on Population

and Development see population 

UN Commission on Sustainable 

Development see sustainable development 

UN Commission on the Status of 

Women see women 

UN Committee on Contributions 

see scale of assessments 

UN Compensation Commission on

Iraq see 

oversight 

audit reports 

UN Conference on Financing for 

Development see financing for

development 

UN Conference on Trade and Development see Trade and Development, UN Conference on and 

also 

International Trade Center 

reform 

UN Convention Against Transnational Organized Crime see crime 

prevention and criminal justice 

UN Department of Peacekeeping 

Operations see 

HIV/AIDS 

reform 

peacekeeping 

UN Development Corporation see 

Capital Master Plan 

UN Development Group see 

development 

UN Development Program 

UN Development Program see development 

UN Disarmament Commission see 

disarmament 

UN Disengagement Observer 

Force 9 

Golan Heights 9 

Hizbollah 9 

Israel 9 

Israel–Syria Disengagement 

Agreement 9 

Lebanon 9 

231 
United States Participation in the United Nations – 2002 

peace process 9 

Syria 9 

UN Educational, Scientific, and 

Cultural Organization 163–165

U.S. re–entry 164 

UN Environment Program see 

Atomic Radiation, UN Scientific Committee on the Effects of 

environment 

UN First Committee see disarmament 

UN Framework Convention on 

Climate Change see 

environment 

climate change 

UN General Assembly’s Special 

Session on Children see 

children 

human rights 

children 

UN High Commissioner for Refugees see 

oversight 

Office of Internal Oversight

Services 

refugees 

UN Human Settlements Program 

see housing 

UN Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo see Kosovo 

UN Interim Force in Lebanon 8 

Israel 8 

Lebanon 8 

peace process 8, 9 

UN International Drug Control 

Program see drug control

UN Iraq/Kuwait Observer Mission 

see 

Iraq 

Kuwait 

UN Joint Staff Pension Fund see 

Joint Staff Pension Board, UN 

UN Military Observer Group in India and Pakistan see 

India 

Pakistan 

UN Mission for the Referendum in 

Western Sahara see Western Sahara 

UN Mission in Bosnia and Herzegovina see 

Bosnia and Herzegovina 

force protection 

oversight 

Office of Internal Oversight

Services 

peacekeeping 

UN Mission in Ethiopia and Eritrea 

see 

Ethiopia 

Eritrea 

force protection 

UN Mission in Sierra Leone see 

HIV/AIDS 

Sierra Leone 

UN Mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo see Congo, 

Democratic Republic of the 

UN Mission of Observers in Prevlaka see 

Croatia 

peacekeeping 

Prevlaka Peninsula 

Yugoslavia, Federal Republic of 

UN Mission of Support in East

Timor see 

East Timor 

peacekeeping 

UN Monitoring, Verification, and 

Inspection Commission see 

Iraq 

inspections 

International Atomic Energy

Agency 

Iraq 

UN New Agenda for the Development of Africa see 

development 

Africa 

UN NGO Informal Regional Network see NGO participation in 

the Economic and Social Council 

UN Observer Mission in Georgia 

see Georgia 

UN Office in Liberia see Liberia 

UN Office on Drugs and Crime see Afghanistan 

counternarcotics 

232 
Index 

drug control 

UN Peace–building Support Office 

in Guinea–Bissau see Guinea– 

Bissau 

UN Peace–Building Support Office in the Central African Republic see Central African Republic 

UN Peacekeeping Force in Cyprus 

see 

Cyprus 

Greece 

Turkey 

UN Political Office in Bougainville see Bougainville 

UN Population Fund see 

development 

UN Development Program 

UN Development Group 

population 

UN Relief and Works Agency for 

Palestine Refugees in the Near

East see 

Palestine 

refugees 

UN Scientific Committee on the 

Effects of Atomic Radiation see 

Atomic Radiation, UN Scientific 

Committee on the Effects of 

UN Secretariat 193–194 

Senior Management Group 194 

Under Secretaries–General 

193–194 

UN Serious Crimes Unit see East 

Timor 

UN Staff College see International 

Labor Organization

UN Transitional Administration in 

East Timor see 

East Timor 

force protection 

peacekeeping 

UN Truce Supervision Organization 8–9 

Egypt 9 

Israel 9 

Jordan 9 

Lebanon 9 

peace process 8–9 

Syria 9 

UN Verification Mission in Guatemala see Guatemala 

UN Watch 93 

UNAIDS see Joint UN Program on

HIV/AIDS under HIV/AIDS 

UNAMA see UN Assistance Mission in Afghanistan under 

Afghanistan 

budget, UN 

UNAMSIL see UN Mission in Sierra Leone under 

HIV/AIDS 

Sierra Leone 

UNCC see UN Compensation 

Commission on Iraq under 

oversight 

audit reports 

UNCHR see UN Commission on 

Human Rights under 

human rights 

Iraq 

Israel 

UNCITRAL see International 

Trade Law, UN Commission on 

UNCTAD see Trade and Development, UN Conference on and also 

International Trade Center 

reform 

UNDC see UN Development Corporation under Capital Master 

Plan or see UN Disarmament 

Commission under disarmament 

UNDCP see UN International 

Drug Control Program under 

drug control

UNDG see UN Development 

Group under 

development 

UN Development Program 

UNDOF see UN Disengagement

Observer Force and also under 

Israel 

Lebanon 

peace process 

Syria 

UNDP see UN Development Program under development 

UNEP see UN Environment Program under 

Atomic Radiation, UN Scientif233 
United States Participation in the United Nations – 2002 

ic Committee on the Effects of 

environment 

UNESCO see UN Educational, 

Scientific, and Cultural Organization 

UNFC see UN First Committee under disarmament 

UNFCCC see UN Framework 

Convention on Climate Change 

under 

environment 

climate change 

UNFICYP see UN Peacekeeping 

Force in Cyprus under 

Cyprus 

Greece 

Turkey 

UNFPA see UN Population Fund 

under 

development 

UN Development Program 

UN Development Group 

population 

UN–HABITAT see UN Human 

Settlements Program under housing 

UNHCR see UN High Commissioner for Refugees under 

oversight 

Office of Internal Oversight

Services 

refugees 

UNICEF see UN Children’s Fund 

under 

Afghanistan 

children 

development 

UN Development Program 

UN Development Group 

humanitarian aid 

UNIFIL see UN Interim Force in 

Lebanon and also under 

Israel 

Lebanon 

peace process 

UNIKOM see UN Iraq/Kuwait

Observer Mission under 

Iraq 

Kuwait 

UNITA see National Union for the 

Total Independence of Angola

and also Angola 

United Kingdom 103 

Universal Postal Union 165–170 

Postal Union of the Americas, 

Spain and Portugal 166 

private–sector participation 167 

Strategy Conference 166–167 

terminal dues payments 167– 

169 

Universal Safety Oversight Audit 

Program see International Civil 

Aviation Organization

UNMEE see UN Mission in Ethiopia and Eritrea under 

Eritrea 

Ethiopia 

force protection 

UNMIBH see UN Mission in Bosnia and Herzegovina under 

Bosnia and Herzegovina 

force protection 

oversight 

Office of Internal Oversight

Services 

peacekeeping 

UNMIK see UN Interim Administration in Kosovo under Kosovo 

UNMISET see UN Mission of 

Support in East Timor under 

East Timor 

peacekeeping 

UNMOGIP see UN Military Observer Group in India and Pakistan under 

India 

Pakistan 

UNMOP see UN Mission of Observers in Prevlaka under 

Croatia 

peacekeeping 

Prevlaka Peninsula 

Yugoslavia, Federal Republic of 

UNMOVIC see UN Monitoring,

Verification, and Inspection 

Commission under 

Iraq 

234 
Index 

inspections 

International Atomic Energy

Agency 

Iraq 

UNODC see UN Office on Drugs 

and Crime under 

Afghanistan 

counternarcotics 

drug control 

UNOGBIS see UN Peace–building

Support Office in Guinea–Bissau 

under Guinea–Bissau 

UNOL see UN Office in Liberia 

under Liberia 

UNOMIG see UN Observer Mission in Georgia under Georgia

UNPOB see UN Political Office in 

Bougainville under Bougainville 

UNRWA see UN Relief and 

Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East under 

Palestine 

refugees 

UNSCEAR see Atomic Radiation, 

UN Scientific Committee on the 

Effects of 

UNTAET see UN Transitional Administration in East Timor under 

East Timor 

force protection 

peacekeeping 

UNTSO see UN Truce Supervision 

Organization and also under 

Israel 

Lebanon 

peace process 

Syria 

UPU see Universal Postal Union 

urban search and rescue see disaster and humanitarian relief activities 

USGET see U.S. Support Group

East Timor under East Timor 

USMOG–W see U.S. Military Observer Group–Washington under 

force protection 

Utsumi, Yoshio 160 

V 

VCP see Voluntary Cooperation 

Program under World Meteorological Organization 

Veneman, Ann 54, 139 

Vereshchetin, Vladlen S. 102 

Vietnam 82 

Vincent, Robin 109 

VISC see voluntary indicative 

scale of contributions under 

environment 

UN Environment Program 

Governing Council/Global 

Environmental Ministerial 

Forum 

Voluntary Cooperation Program 

see World Meteorological Organization 

Vorontsov, Yuli 4, 5 

W 

war crimes tribunals 107–109 

International Criminal Tribunal 

for Rwanda 107–108 

completion strategy 107 

fee–splitting 108 

Rewards for Justice Program

107 

International Criminal Tribunal 

for the former Yugoslavia 

107–108 

completion strategy 107 

Sierra Leone Special Court 108– 

109 

war–risk insurance see International Civil Aviation Organization

Western Sahara 26–27 

Frente Popular para la Liberacion de Saguia el–Hamra y Rio

de Oro 26, 27 

Settlement Plan 26–27 

UN Mission for the Referendum 

in Western Sahara 26, 27 

WFP see World Food Program under 

development 

UN Development Program 

UN Development Group 

food assistance 

WFS5YL Declaration see World 

Food Summit: Five Years Later 

235 
United States Participation in the United Nations – 2002 

and also under Food and Agriculture Organization 

WHO see World Health Organization 

WIPO see World Intellectual Property Organization and also under 

reform 

WMO see World Meteorological 

Organization 

Woman’s Voice, International 93 

women 81–82 

Fourth World Conference on 

Women 81 

human rights 81–82 

Palestinian women, aid to 81–82 

UN Commission on the Status 

of Women 81 

World Assembly of Muslim Youth 

93 

World Bank 52 

World Environment Organization 

see 

environment 

UN Environment Program 

Governing Council/Global 

Environmental Ministerial 

Forum 

World Food Program see 

development 

UN Development Program 

UN Development Group 

food assistance 

World Food Summit: Five Years 

Later 53–55, 139–140 

right to food 54–55 

U.S. agricultural productivity 

initiative 55 

WFS5YL Declaration 54 

World Health Organization 170– 

173 

bioterrorism 171 

Framework Convention on Tobacco Control 173 

Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria 171 

health of Palestinians 172–173 

HIV/AIDS 171 

International Agency for Research on Cancer 175 

smallpox virus stocks 171 

Taiwan 172 

observer status 172 

World Intellectual Property Organization 176–179 

construction of new administrative building 178 

audit 178–179 

enforcement of intellectual 

property rights 177–178 

Patent Cooperation Treaty 178 

reform 177 

revenue surplus 179 

technology and intellectual 

property 177 

World Meteorological Organization 179–182 

budget 180, 181–182 

Global Climate Observing System 180, 181 

Voluntary Cooperation Program 

180, 181 

World Weather Watch 181 

World Radiocommunication Conferences see International Telecommunication Union 

World Summit for Sustainable Development see sustainable development

World Summit on the Information 

Society see 

International Telecommunication Union 

global conference on telecommunications and information 

World Trade Organization 56 

WRC see World Radiocommunication Conferences under International Telecommunication 

Union 

WSIS see World Summit on the Information Society under 

International Telecommunication Union 

global conference on telecommunications and information 

WSSD Partnerships see 

sustainable development 

236 
Index 

World Summit for Sustainable Development 

WSSD see World Summit for Sustainable Development under sustainable development 

WTO see World Trade Center and 

under International Trade Center 

Wynes, M. Deborah 127 

Y 

Yala, Kumba 21 

Year of the Family see Social Development, UN Commission for 

Yugoslavia, Federal Republic of 

Prevlaka Peninsula 36 

UN Mission of Observers in 

Prevlaka 36 

Yugoslavia, former 33–36

Yugoslavia, International Criminal 

Tribunal for the former see International Criminal Tribunal for the 

former Yugoslavia under 

oversight 

audit reports 

war crimes tribunals 

Z 

Ziegler, Jean 55

Zinni, Anthony 6 

Zuma, Jacob 16 

237