U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

64–870PDF 2011

REFORMING THE UNITED NATIONS:

LESSONS LEARNED

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

MARCH 3, 2011

Serial No. 112–4

Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.foreignaffairs.house.gov/

(II)

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida, Chairman 

CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey 

DAN BURTON, Indiana 

ELTON GALLEGLY, California 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

DONALD A. MANZULLO, Illinois 

EDWARD R. ROYCE, California 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

RON PAUL, Texas 

MIKE PENCE, Indiana 

JOE WILSON, South Carolina 

CONNIE MACK, Florida 

JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas 

TED POE, Texas 

GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida 

JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio 

BILL JOHNSON, Ohio 

DAVID RIVERA, Florida 

MIKE KELLY, Pennsylvania 

TIM GRIFFIN, Arkansas 

TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania 

JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina 

ANN MARIE BUERKLE, New York 

RENEE ELLMERS, North Carolina 

VACANT 

HOWARD L. BERMAN, California 

GARY L. ACKERMAN, New York 

ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American 

Samoa 

DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York 

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia 

THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida 

DENNIS CARDOZA, California 

BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky 

BRIAN HIGGINS, New York 

ALLYSON SCHWARTZ, Pennsylvania 

CHRISTOPHER S. MURPHY, Connecticut 

FREDERICA WILSON, Florida 

KAREN BASS, California 

WILLIAM KEATING, Massachusetts 

DAVID CICILLINE, Rhode Island 

YLEEM D.S. POBLETE, Staff Director 

RICHARD J. KESSLER, Democratic Staff Director 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Page

WITNESSES 

The Honorable Mark D. Wallace, president and chief executive officer, United 

Against Nuclear Iran (former United States Representative to the United 

Nations for Management and Reform) ............................................................... 11

The Honorable Terry Miller, director of the Center for International Trade 

and Economics, The Heritage Foundation (former United States Representative to the United Nations Economic and Social Council, United States 

observer at the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization, and deputy assistant secretary of state for economic and global 

issues) .................................................................................................................... 22

Mr. Ted Piccone, Brookings Institution, senior fellow and deputy director 

for foreign policy ................................................................................................... 32

LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING 

The Honorable Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, a Representative in Congress from the 

State of Florida, and chairman, Committee on Foreign Affairs: Prepared 

statement .............................................................................................................. 4

The Honorable Mark D. Wallace: Prepared statement ........................................ 13

The Honorable Terry Miller: Prepared statement ................................................ 24

Mr. Ted Piccone: Prepared statement .................................................................... 34

APPENDIX 

Hearing notice .......................................................................................................... 72

Hearing minutes ...................................................................................................... 73

The Honorable Howard L. Berman, a Representative in Congress from the 

State of California: Material submitted for the record ..................................... 75

Questions submitted for the record by the Honorable Ileana Ros-Lehtinen 

and responses from: 

The Honorable Terry Miller ................................................................................ 76

The Honorable Mark D. Wallace ........................................................................ 80

(1)

REFORMING THE UNITED NATIONS: LESSONS 

LEARNED 

THURSDAY, MARCH 3, 2011

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS, Washington, DC. 

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 o’clock a.m., in 

room 2172 Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Ileana RosLehtinen (chairman of the committee) presiding. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. The committee will come to order. 

After recognizing myself and the ranking member, my good friend 

Mr. Berman, for 7 minutes each for our opening statements, we 

will then proceed to hear from our witnesses. 

The Chair would ask our witnesses to keep their oral summaries 

of their written testimony to no more than 5 minutes each. I am 

getting quite a reputation for being ruthless with this gavel, Mr. 

Chairman. I will have to be kinder. 

Following their testimonies, members will be recognized to question witnesses under the 5-minute rule. Without objection, the witnesses’ prepared statements will be made part of the record. And 

members may have 5 days to insert statements and questions for 

the record subject to the length limitation of the rules. The chair 

now recognizes herself for 7 minutes. 

Today, we consider lessons learned from past U.N. reform attempts, to ensure that present and future efforts are based on what 

works. What a concept. 

Lesson One: Money talks. The biggest problem with the U.N. is 

that those who call the shots don’t have to pay the bills. Most U.N. 

member nations pay next to nothing in assessed contributions, but 

work together to adopt U.N. programming decisions and budgets, 

passing the costs on to big contributors, like the U.S. The U.S. goes 

along and pays all contributions that the U.N. assesses to us: 22 

percent of the U.N. regular budget, plus billions more every year. 

The current administration has unconditionally repaid our U.N. 

arrears. When the U.N. bureaucracy and other member countries 

know that we will pay in full, no matter what, they have zero incentive to reform. 

Almost every productive U.S. reform effort has been based on 

withholding our contributions unless and until needed reforms are 

implemented. In the 1980s, for example, Congress adopted an 

amendment to withhold funding until the U.N. changed how budgets are voted on. That effort showed some success until the amendment expired. The threat was no longer credible and the U.N. returned to business as usual. 

2

In 1989, Arafat pushed for the PLO to gain full membership in 

the U.N. agencies, meaning the PLO would be essentially recognized as a state without making peace with Israel. The PLO strategy looked unstoppable until the George H.W. Bush administration 

made clear the U.S. would cut off funding to any U.N. entity that 

upgraded the status of the PLO. 

The PLO’s effort was stopped in its tracks. While Arafat is gone, 

his successors are up to the same tricks today. The U.S. response 

must be just as strong. 

In the ’90s, when the U.N. regular and peacekeeping budgets 

were skyrocketing, Congress enacted the Helms-Biden agreement. 

The U.S. withheld our dues and conditioned repayment on key reforms. When the U.N. saw that we meant business, they agreed to 

change, and that saved U.S. taxpayer funds. Smart withholding 

worked. 

Withholding alone is insufficient to produce lasting reform. That 

is why we must demand that funding for the U.N. budget and U.N. 

entities move from an assessed to a voluntary basis. That way, 

Americans, not U.N. bureaucrats or other member countries, will 

determine how much taxpayer dollars are spent on the U.N., and 

where they go. 

We should pay for U.N. programs and activities that advance our 

interests and our values. If other countries want different things to 

be funded, they can pay for it. The voluntary model works for 

UNICEF and other U.N. entities. It can work for the U.N. as a 

whole. 

Lesson Two: Principled, credible, consistent U.S. leadership matters. The U.S. is not just another member nation at the U.N. American leadership is what our allies expect from us, and what our enemies fear. We should not be afraid to block consensus and stand 

up for our values and interests, even if that means standing alone, 

though we should lobby other responsible nations to join us. 

Last week, the working group reviewing the U.N. Human Rights 

Council came out with an outcome document that made no structural reforms needed to turn the Council from a rogues’ gallery to 

a useful entity. Even as the U.S. criticized the review process, calling it a ‘‘race to the bottom,’’ we did not demand a vote, allowing 

it to be adopted by consensus. Such indecisiveness undermines our 

credibility with our allies, and weakens our ability to advance our 

goals at the U.N. 

Lesson Three: Require real reforms, and don’t settle for cosmetic 

changes. In 2006, the U.N. finally abolished the shameful U.N. 

Commission on Human Rights, which had fallen so far that it had 

been chaired by Qadhafi’s Libyan regime. Instead of replacing the 

Commission with a body based on real membership standards, the 

U.N. created a Human Rights Council that is as bad, if not worse, 

than its predecessor. Even the New York Times rejected the U.S. 

joining the Council, calling it ‘‘an ugly sham, offering cover to an 

unacceptable status quo.’’

The majority of the Council’s members, including China, Cuba, 

Russia, and Saudi Arabia, are not free nations. The Council even 

has a permanent agenda item criticizing Israel. The Council is expected to adopt several more anti-Israel resolutions at the current 

March session. 

3

When the Council does periodically adopt resolutions criticizing 

real human rights abuses, they are usually too little and too late. 

Why did it take the massacre of hundreds of people in the streets 

for the U.N. to throw Libya off the Council? Why was Qadhafi’s regime permitted to join the Council to begin with? 

Now that the 5-year review of the Council has indicated no real 

reforms will be forthcoming, the U.S. should finally leave the Council and explore alternative forums to advance human rights. 

Lesson Four: Don’t compare apples and oranges. Some of the 

U.N.’s defenders like to cite some good U.N. activities to gain support for funding bad ones. However, we are not here to play ‘‘Let’s 

Make a Deal.’’ Each U.N. office, activity, program, and sub-program 

must be justified on its own merits and funded voluntarily. 

UNICEF aid to starving children cannot excuse UNRWA having 

members of Hamas on its payroll. 

To incorporate lessons learned, I will soon introduce a revised 

version of the United Nations Transparency, Accountability, and 

Reform Act, which I first introduced in 2007. Its fundamental principle will be ‘‘Reform first. Pay later.’’ I hope that my colleagues 

will join me in lending strong, bipartisan support to this bill. 

And I am now pleased to recognize our distinguished ranking 

member, Mr. Berman, for his opening remarks. 

[The prepared statement of Chairman Ros-Lehtinen follows:]

4


64870d_1.eps
5


64870d_2.eps
6

Mr. BERMAN. Well, thank you much, Madam Chairman. I appreciate you calling this hearing and our witnesses for agreeing to appear before the committee. We may have a slightly different perspective on this issue. 

As I noted at our previous hearing on this subject, the flaws, 

shortcomings, and outrages of the United Nations, both past and 

present, are numerous and sometimes flagrant. The Human Rights 

Council’s obsession with and biased treatment of Israel, the failure 

to adequately resource the Office of Internal Oversight Services, 

contracting scandals, and lax management standards, which have 

allowed taxpayer dollars to be squandered, that should anger members of this committee, Republican and Democratic alike. But these 

problems, while serious, don’t even begin to tell the whole story. 

Any honest assessment of the United Nations would have to conclude that the organization, very far from perfect, plays an important and often essential role in supporting U.S. foreign policy and 

national security interests. 

From UNDP’s work organizing the recent referendum in Sudan 

to the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugee’s efforts to protect and 

resettle refugees fleeing from the violence in Libya, to the Security 

Council resolution imposing tougher sanctions on Iran, the U.N. 

serves as a force multiplier for U.S. interests. 

So what should we do to address the U.N.’s shortcomings? Some 

continue to propose withholding dues as a way to leverage change 

at the U.N. But the fact is previous attempts to withhold dues simply haven’t produced necessary reforms and certainly not on the 

scale of those achieved over the past 6 years through constructive 

engagement, like the creation of the U.N. Ethics Office or the Independent Audit Advisory Committee. Instead, withholdings severely 


64870d_3.eps
7

weakened our diplomatic standing and made it much more difficult 

to achieve positive change. 

For just that reason, the George W. Bush administration strongly 

opposed a bill authored by our late colleague Henry Hyde that 

would have resulted in new withholdings. In a Statement of Administration Policy dated June 16th, 2005, they said the legislation 

would ‘‘detract from and undermine’’ their efforts to pursue U.N. 

reform. Apparently, even the threat of withholding isn’t enough for 

many in this body. 

Two weeks ago, when the House debated the Republican continuing resolution, 177 Members voted for an amendment to prohibit the use of any funds to pay our assessed dues. In effect, that 

was a vote to withdraw from the U.N. I wasn’t aware that the slogan ‘‘Get the U.S. out of the U.N.’’ was still such a popular one in 

this country. 

Others have argued that all of our contributions to the U.N. 

should be voluntary. I note with some irony that the advocates of 

this approach are often the same ones who then support slashing 

our voluntary contributions to U.N. agencies. So is this just a 

guise, another guise, for withdrawal? 

Unilaterally moving to a system of all voluntary contributions 

would violate our international treaty obligations. I am pleased we 

have two former senior-level Bush administration officials appearing before the committee today. In their prepared testimony, both 

of them are highly critical of the rapid growth in U.N. budgets, 

which began at just about the time President Bush took office. 

Let me offer two possible explanations for this growth. First, the 

U.N. budget, like our Federal budget, grew rapidly in the years 

after 9/11, as the U.N. was asked by the Bush administration to 

assume more responsibilities in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other countries. 

And, second, during the previous administration, we also saw the 

largest proliferation of peacekeeping missions in the U.N.’s history, 

all of them approved by the United States in the previous administration and the other permanent members of the Security Council. 

These are some important issues worth examining, in contrast to 

the old allegations about UNDP operations in North Korea. Those 

allegations were examined in excruciating detail by the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, as well as a U.S.-backed 

independent panel. While both investigations concluded that UNDP 

should improve management and accountability, neither found evidence to support spectacular allegations that the organization funneled vast sums of money to the regime in Pyongyang. 

By recycling discredited old rumors, we diminish our own credibility and miss a valuable opportunity to work in a constructive 

way to repair what we all agree is a flawed system. Madam Chairman, since we are here to discuss the subject of U.N. reform, I 

thought it would be appropriate to reflect for a moment on the 

U.N.’s response to the political upheaval in the Middle East. 

Two days ago, we heard from Secretary Clinton about the response of the U.S. and the international community to the crisis in 

Libya. In fact, she had just arrived back in Washington from Geneva, where she addressed the Human Rights Council at the opening 

of its March session. 

8

As we all know, the anti-Israel vitriol that all too often emanates 

from the Council and the membership of serious human rights offenders on the Council has been a deep stain on the U.N.’s reputation. That said, the Council’s unprecedented special session last 

Friday on Libya, along with the General Assembly’s unanimous decision to remove Libya from the Council, demonstrates that the administration’s strategy of engagement in Geneva has borne fruit. 

I am also very encouraged by Secretary Clinton’s determination 

to put Iran’s reprehensible human rights record on the Council 

agenda for this month. It is worth noting that even Hillel Neur of 

the U.N. Watch, one of the strongest and most informed critics of 

the Human Rights Council and a witness called by the Majority at 

our previous hearing, does not support withdrawing from or withholding dues to the Council. 

I look forward to hearing from our witnesses on ways we can constructively promote reform at the United Nations, recognizing the 

importance of the institution to U.S. foreign policy and national security. 

Thank you, Madam Chairman. And I yield back the balance of 

my time. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you so much, Mr. Berman. 

I now would like to give an opportunity to the members to make 

a 1-minute opening statement. We will begin with Mr. Chabot, the 

chairman of the Middle East Subcommittee. 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

And some of the things that I have heard this morning I agree 

with, both from the ranking member and the chairman of the committee, particularly with respect to the U.N. Human Rights Council. 

What a morally bankrupt organization it has become when you 

have some of the world’s worst actors that are on there, Libya 

being one example and many others. And I think that is what is 

most outrageous to so many members of this committee. And I 

would hope that we can look into that at some length and with 

some particularity because I think it is just an outrage. The types 

of organizations, countries, individuals that are being represented 

there. And the U.S. is to some degree by being on there giving 

some sort of moral support to what has happened there. And I 

think we shouldn’t be in that position. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chabot. 

Mr. Cicilline? Thank you for coming to the event last night. 

Mr. CICILLINE. Thank you. Congratulations. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you. 

Mr. CICILLINE. Good morning. Thank you very much for being 

here. And I am anxious to get to the questions, but I just want to 

say that I know of no example of an organization or an institution 

that has been successfully reformed or improved by disengaging in 

the work of performing or improving it. 

And while I think I certainly am new to this issue, we heard lots 

of testimony last time we discussed the United Nations about some 

reforms which must take place. And I think we all have a right to 

expect that and to demand it, but, in addition to that, to work aggressively to make it happen. 

9

It strikes me that the best way to do that is to remain actively 

engaged in the United Nations as a full participant. And my concern is that anything that would suggest that we should disengage 

by not supporting it with adequate funding would make our voices 

much less strong at the table and would undermine, really, our 

credibility and our ability to actively press for just the reforms we 

all want. 

So I look forward to hearing your testimony and having the opportunity to ask some questions on this. Thank you, Madam Chair 

Schmidt of Ohio? Thank you. 

Congressman Carnahan? 

Mr. CARNAHAN. Thank you, Madam Chair, for having this hearing. I think it is very timely and especially because it comes at a 

time, a little more than 2 years into the Obama administration’s 

reform efforts. 

Efforts have been underway in various forms for many years and 

actually through many administrations. Some have been successful, and some have not. I would note that we still have progress 

that needs to be made through the U.N. system. 

I urge the administration to continue these efforts. I have long 

believed that the best way to achieve meaningful reform is to meet 

our financial obligations, demand accountability, and pursue a policy of constructive engagement. 

We have a better chance of achieving lasting, sustainable 

progress by being at the table, in the tent, and not on the outside. 

And I think we have years of experience to prove that. 

Just one example of a recent success with the creation of U.N. 

Women. They combined many different agencies into one that I 

think could be a powerful development tool. 

So I am pleased that we are here today to talk about this and 

how we can pursue that policy of constructive engagement at the 

U.N. Thank you. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you. 

Congressman Smith of New Jersey? 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. 

I want to welcome our distinguished witnesses and thank them 

for their service. You know, the U.N. has such great potential. And 

so often it squanders it, both by what it allows its treaty bodies to 

do and by what the Human Rights Council, in particular, has done. 

I remember year in and year out going and visiting Geneva during the Human Rights Commission gatherings. And they were usually hate fests toward Israel. Unfortunately, the Human Rights 

Council, with all the fanfare about how it was supposed to be the 

agent of reform, has fallen far short of any of those expectations. 

And many of us who said it then have been proven right. And I, 

frankly, wish we had been proven demonstrably wrong. 

Rogue states sit on that Council. Periodic reviews become exercises in futility. So much more has to be done. The Human Rights 

Council ought to be the premier body for human rights enforcement, compliance—bringing the spotlight in scrutiny—and it has 

not. And that is with great sadness I say that. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you. 

Mr. Ackerman in New York? 

10

Mr. ACKERMAN. I disagree very strongly very often with some of 

the things the U.N. says and does and often doesn’t do. But I remain even more concerned that we not withdraw into a cocoon, 

bury our heads in the sand and become an isolationist nation of 

know nothings. I think in the interests of our own concerns in the 

world, we should recall that if we are not at the table, we are on 

the menu. 

Thank you. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you, Mr. Ackerman. 

Mr. Fortenberry of Nebraska? 

Mr. FORTENBERRY. Thank you, Madam Chair, for holding this 

hearing. 

Just briefly let me say I think it is important for the United 

States to actively and eagerly participate in multilateral institutions, in spite of the effrontery we often have to endure in many 

of them. 

The U.N. serves some essential roles in providing international 

stability, particularly in terms of humanitarian outreach and 

peacekeeping forces. Other aspects of it just create a hotbed for political rhetoric that is not constructive at all. So I think as we move 

forward, we can also keep in mind there are other multilateral institutions that can serve to provide a platform for international dialogue and problem-solving that could potentially replace certain aspects of the U.N.’s role currently. 

Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you, Mr. Fortenberry. 

Ms. Buerkle and Judge Poe, do you have any statement that you 

would like to make? 

Ms. BUERKLE. Madam Chair, I will yield my time. Thank you. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you. 

So we will continue to now welcome today’s witnesses: The Honorable Mark D. Wallace, president and chief executive officer of 

United Against Nuclear Iran. Ambassador Wallace has served in a 

number of senior positions in the executive branch, including most 

recently as U.S. Representative to the United Nations for Management and Reform from the years 2006 to 2008. He has also served 

as principal legal adviser to the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the Bureau of Immigration and Citizenship 

Services and as general counsel of the INS and the Federal Emergency Management Agency. 

I might add, most importantly, that Ambassador Wallace is a fellow alum of the University of Miami. Go ’Canes. 

The Honorable Terry Miller—welcome, Ambassador—is the director of the Center for International Trade and Economics at the 

Heritage Foundation and is the editor of the foundation’s Annual 

Index of Economic Freedom. 

Ambassador Miller is a veteran of the U.S. Foreign Service and 

has served in a number of senior positions in the executive branch. 

From 2006 to ’07, Ambassador Miller served as the U.S. Representative to the U.N. Economic and Social Council. He served as the 

deputy assistant secretary of state for the Bureau of International 

Organization Affairs from the years 2003 to 2006, after serving as 

the director of a number of other bureau offices for several years. 

11

Ambassador Miller has also headed the U.S. observer mission at 

UNESCO from ’86 to ’90 and served on delegations to U.N. meetings that are permanent mission to the U.N. in New York from ’79 

to ’86. We welcome you. 

And Mr. Ted Piccone is a senior fellow and deputy director for 

foreign policy at the Brookings Institution. From 2001 to 2008, Mr. 

Piccone served as executive director and co-founder of the Democracy Coalition Project. 

He is a veteran of Capitol Hill and the executive branch. From 

’98 to 2001, he was associate director of the State Department’s 

Policy Planning staff. From ’96 to ’98, he was director for InterAmerican Affairs at the National Security Council. He also served 

as a policy adviser in the Office of the Secretary of Defense from 

’93 to ’96. 

The Chair thanks all of our witnesses and would remind them 

to keep their oral testimony to no more than 5 minutes each. Without objection, the witnesses’ written testimony will be inserted into 

the record at this time. 

So we will begin with Ambassador Wallace. 

Thank you, sir. 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE MARK D. WALLACE, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, UNITED AGAINST 

NUCLEAR IRAN (FORMER UNITED STATES REPRESENTATIVE TO THE UNITED NATIONS FOR MANAGEMENT AND REFORM) 

Ambassador WALLACE. Thank you, Madam Chairman and distinguished members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity 

to appear before you today to discuss the United Nations reform. 

Thank you for your continued interest and dedication in the area. 

I would like to introduce two people, Mark Groombridge and 

David Ibsen, who are behind me, who did great work in this area 

at the U.S. mission to the U.N., also Clarke Cooper. I am sure 

there are other refugees from the U.S. mission, but there are many 

fine people who worked on this, in this portfolio and have done 

great work. I want to acknowledge them for their help. 

Fortunately, I can continue to work with two of them in our effort at United Against Nuclear Iran. A more efficient and effective 

U.N. can better serve both the interests of the United States and 

the international community. The United Nations continues to do 

important work in a number of areas, but it is an institution which 

after six decades critically needs reform and remains deeply flawed. 

My remarks today are intended to provoke discussion on how to 

make the United Nations a more efficient and effective institution. 

Too often people who suggest ways to reform the U.N. are viewed 

as having an agenda to undermine the United Nations. 

My remarks should be reviewed firmly in the context of someone 

who is trying to make the U.N. a more effective and transparent 

institution that is accountable to member states. With that in 

mind, I hope to share some of my experiences and lessons learned 

during my time at the U.S. mission. 

To help set the stage for our talk today, I will briefly highlight 

a few important experiences and areas: First, mandate review. 

Mandates are a U.N. euphemism for almost all budget-based 

12

things that the U.N. does. The reform related to mandate review 

was simply to conduct a thorough review of existing mandates and 

evaluate the degree to which they aligned with modern priorities. 

In 60 years, the U.N. added thousands of such mandates but 

never materially evaluated or eliminated any. The U.N., like all bureaucracies, has a strong tendency to expand to over 9,000 mandates, the vast majority of which had budgetary implications and 

that were often outdated and duplicative. 

By attempting to do everything, the United Nations was eroding 

its ability to accomplish anything. Unfortunately, mandate review 

failed. And only some 400 out of the 9,000 mandates were even discussed. And none of them had been repealed, combined, or modified. 

This redundancy and bureaucratic disarray is fueled in opaque 

culture at the United Nations that can lead to disastrous consequences. A lack of transparency and accountability manifests 

itself in ways that are at times far more subversive than duplicative reports and blooming budgets. For example, we discovered the 

United Nations developed a program for a Cash for Kim scandal. 

We, along with the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, had come to learn that North Korea had perverted the 

UNDP for its own benefit. 

The U.N. Transparency and Accountability Initiative was a key 

effort that we designed to combat that opaque culture by promoting 

eight specific management reforms within the U.N.’s funds, programs, and specialized agencies. These arms of the U.N. lacked 

even the most basic management reform mechanisms. 

In creating UNTAI, we were hardly placing an unreasonable burden on the U.N. We were merely calling on the U.N. to adopt a 

basic set of management and oversight tools that would be found 

in any responsible public or private sector organization in the 

twenty-first century. 

Finally, the United States should strongly consider voluntarily 

funding the U.N. funds, programs, and specialized agencies to promote competitive efficiencies, a better U.N. I believe the transparency is the foundation of accountability. To not have transparency or accountability in the U.N. is simply an invitation for another ‘‘Oil-for-Food’’ or ‘‘Cash for Kim’’ scandal. These scandals not 

only compromised the reputation and viability of the U.N., but they 

also compromised our national security interest. Our taxpayer 

money must go to its intended purposes. That is our responsibility 

to taxpayer. 

In closing, I would again like to thank you, Madam Chairman 

and the members of the committee, for hosting this hearing and allowing me to testify today. The stakes of today’s discussion in my 

opinion go well beyond the $6.3 billion given by the United States 

to the United Nations in Fiscal Year 2009. 

Thank you for your time. I will be happy to answer any questions 

that you all have. I look forward to the comments and insights of 

my colleagues on this panel. 

I will keep talking a minute or 2 longer. [Laughter.] 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. I apologize. I had some constituents——

Ambassador WALLACE. Sorry, Madam Chairman. 

13

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN [continuing]. Who flew in for the meeting, but I had one ear on what you were saying. Plus, I read your 

written testimony. Thank you so much. 

Ambassador WALLACE. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ambassador Wallace follows:]


64870a_1.eps
14


64870a_2.eps
15


64870a_3.eps
16


64870a_4.eps
17


64870a_5.eps
18


64870a_6.eps
19


64870a_7.eps
20


64870a_8.eps
21


64870a_9.eps
22

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Ambassador Miller, the floor is yours. 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE TERRY MILLER, DIRECTOR 

OF THE CENTER FOR INTERNATIONAL TRADE AND ECONOMICS, THE HERITAGE FOUNDATION (FORMER UNITED 

STATES REPRESENTATIVE TO THE UNITED NATIONS ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COUNCIL, UNITED STATES OBSERVER 

AT THE UNITED NATIONS EDUCATIONAL, SCIENTIFIC, AND 

CULTURAL ORGANIZATION, AND DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF STATE FOR ECONOMIC AND GLOBAL ISSUES) 

Ambassador MILLER. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman 

and distinguished members of the committee for the opportunity to 

discuss this important issue with you today. 

As we speak, citizens are dying in the streets of Libya. But the 

United Nations Human Rights Council has on its agenda the adoption of a report praising the government of Muammar Qadhafi for 

its—and I quote—‘‘commitment to upholding human rights.’’ How 

absurd. 

Now, it would be easy to hold up the Human Rights Council as 

a prime example of why reform is urgently needed in the United 

Nations, but the story is actually worse than that. In fact, the 

Human Rights Council is one of the most recent products of U.N. 

reform, touted as the crowning achievement of the 2005 World 

Summit. 

Unfortunately, the new Council operates in a fashion almost 

identical to its predecessor, the same focus on Israel, the same 

membership dominated by countries with poor human rights 

records. The reform changed little, but that didn’t matter to most 

U.N. members nor to the Obama administration, which decided to 

join the Council anyway. 

Efforts to reform the U.N. are almost as old as the U.N. itself. 

As early as 1947, the Senate was citing—and I quote again here—

‘‘Serious problems of overlap, duplication of effort, weak coordination, proliferating mandates and programs, and overly generous 

compensation of staff.’’ Not much has changed. U.N. reform has 

never been easy, and only rarely has it been successful. 

Over the years, U.N. reform efforts have been plagued by disagreements and confusion about the basic nature and purpose of 

the organization. They have been hampered by the complexity of 

the issues with which the U.N. system deals, and they have been 

frustrated by structural flaws in U.N. governance, decision-making, 

and budgeting. The U.S. has occasionally tried more robust methods to achieve reform with some success. 

One strategy implemented with congressional cooperation has 

been to use America’s financial leverage as the largest contributor 

to the U.N. budget to press for reform. The Kassebaum/Solomon 

amendment and the Helms/Biden Act both used budget leverage to 

achieve reforms. Later, during the Oil-for-Food scandal, just the 

threat of withholding was sufficient to inspire some new accountability in the organization. 

But perhaps the most robust and effective approach to forcing reform was the withdrawal of the U.S. from membership in UNESCO 

at the end of 1984. This immediately cost that organization 25 perVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Apr 08, 2011 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\FULL\030311\64870 HFA PsN: SHIRL
23

cent of its operating revenue and forced major reforms and reductions in programming. 

Priority UNESCO activities in areas such as oceanography and 

world’s heritage continued to enjoy U.S. financial support on a voluntary basis. Interestingly, the organization also improved its political orientation in an effort, which was ultimately successful, to regain U.S. membership. This reform was a 20-year effort. 

A similar strategy of withdrawal from the ILO was much shorter 

and, frankly, didn’t work. Yet another U.S. withdrawal, this time 

from UNIDO, has lasted from 1996 to the present and reportedly 

has had a positive impact on streamlining UNIDO’s priorities and 

actions. 

What lessons can we take away from all of this? I have two. 

First, the U.N. system is fundamentally flawed in ways that hamper its efficiency and effectiveness. There will be no quick fixes Second, massive pressure and sustained commitment will be required 

to generate positive change. 

Madam Chairman, the pursuit of significant U.N. reform has 

often been a lonely endeavor for U.S. diplomats, but we may be entering an era in which other governments under severe budgetary 

pressures at home are willing to join us in a more robust examination of the cost and benefits of various U.N. activities. 

Just this week, the United Kingdom has announced that, as a result of such review, it will stop funding four U.N. agencies it has 

determined to be ineffective. That is the kind of exercise that the 

U.S. Government needs to undertake if it is to properly exercise its 

fiduciary responsibilities to the American public. 

History shows that such activities have been effective only when 

there was strong congressional leadership and oversight. I am, 

therefore, grateful and encouraged by your attention to this issue. 

Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Ambassador Miller follows:]

24


64870b_1.eps
25


64870b_2.eps
26


64870b_3.eps
27


64870b_4.eps
28


64870b_5.eps
29


64870b_6.eps
30


64870b_7.eps
31


64870b_8.eps
32

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Piccone? 

STATEMENT OF MR. TED PICCONE, BROOKINGS INSTITUTION, 

SENIOR FELLOW AND DEPUTY DIRECTOR FOR FOREIGN 

POLICY 

Mr. PICCONE. Thank you, Madam Chairman and Congressman 

Berman, for inviting me to be part of this hearing. 

I want to focus my remarks on why constructive U.S. engagement of the United Nations, especially on issues of human rights, 

serves our interests. Ever since Eleanor Roosevelt led the campaign 

for adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the 

U.S. has played a leading role in creating an international human 

rights system that has had a real impact for victims of abuse. 

Regarding the Human Rights Council, I agree that a lot of what 

goes on in Geneva is downright offensive, starting with how its 

members handle Israel. The Human Rights Council, however, is a 

reality. Therefore, we must not abandon the field to adversaries 

like Cuba, Algeria, and China. This would be an unconscionable act 

of betrayal of rights defenders and victims around the world, who 

depend on the U.N. and U.S. leadership. 

We know from past experience that walking away doesn’t work. 

During negotiations to create the Council in 2005, the U.S. chose 

a combative approach in getting just three other states to join us. 

Meanwhile, we withdrew from the Council in its critical formative 

years, leaving a vacuum that was quickly filled by such countries 

as Pakistan and Egypt. 

Israel was left without a traditional ally as it faced five special 

sessions while the U.S. was absent. Since we joined the Council, 

Israel has been the subject of only one special session. 

The recent action on Libya is another example of the impact constructive U.S. engagement has had in turning things around. U.S. 

leadership helped pave the way to condemn Qadhafi’s actions and 

demand Libya be removed from the Council, an unprecedented step 

now adopted by the General Assembly in record time. 

The lesson learned is clear. Cutting and running only allows our 

adversaries more room to control the results while direct participation protects our interests and those of our allies. Let me highlight 

a few specific areas how the U.S. is making a difference. 

On country scrutiny, since it was elected to the Council, the U.S. 

has actually increased this kind of scrutiny. In addition to Libya, 

the Council has convened special sessions on Cote d’Ivoire, Guinea 

and Kyrgyzstan, thanks to U.S. leadership. The United States has 

led efforts to ensure that Sudan stays on the Council’s agenda and 

won renewed mandates on North Korea, Burma, and Cambodia. 

Building on this success, Secretary Clinton announced this week 

the U.S. is spearheading efforts this session to establish a special 

rapporteur on Iran as well as a commission of inquiry on abuses 

committed by the regime in Burma. 

Another tool that the Council has is the special procedures. 

These are the independent experts, who go out in the field and investigate human rights issues. My own research, which I request 

be submitted for the record, on how these mechanisms work yielded concrete evidence of their positive impacts. 

33

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Without objection. 

[NOTE: The research of Mr. Piccone is not reprinted here but is 

available in committee records or on the Internet at: http://

www.brookings.edu/reports/2010/10lhumanlrightslpiccone.aspx 

(accessed 3/30/11).] 

Mr. PICCONE. Thank you. 

They have influence because they are independent, they serve in 

an unpaid personal capacity, but they work under the U.N. flag. 

Front-line activists tell me they rely on these experts to get heard 

at the highest levels of power. 

One of the main hurdles they face, however, is the increasing 

pressure from certain states to constrain them. The U.S. has 

played a critical role in successfully pushing back against these attempts. 

On membership, while it is unfortunate that rights-abusing 

states are elected to the Council, there is another more positive 

side of the story. In every case when elections have been competitive, rights abusers have lost: Venezuela, Iran, Belarus, Sri Lanka, 

Azerbaijan. Year after year, these states have been defeated in the 

elections. And last year, thanks to a vigorous but quiet U.S. campaign, Iran was forced to withdraw as a candidate for election to 

the Council. It is critical that the U.S. remains engaged in this effort and that competitive slates become the norm. 

The real problem with the Council is not its structure or its processes but the lack of political will. One way to address this problem 

is to lean on our democratic allies, Brazil, India, South Africa, Indonesia, to carry their weight on the Council. The U.S. is pressuring these states to do better. And we are starting to see some 

results. It would also be helpful if Members of Congress could 

weigh in directly with their counterparts in these countries to encourage better performance. 

I can think, though, of no more powerful tool for cleaning up the 

Council than the unprecedented action this week to remove Libya 

from the Council. This is an historic step, a shot across the bow. 

There are other issues, like universal periodic review, which I 

hope to get to in the questions and answers. We have an important 

new initiative on freedom of association that the U.S. led the 

charge on. 

On Israel, the U.S. works very hard to defend Israel against the 

bias of the Council. It is not logical that we should conclude that 

the U.S. should disengage. Indeed, Israel itself has not jumped to 

that conclusion. Israel is very actively engaged. 

In the short 5 years since the Council was created, we have seen 

two styles of leadership, one approach where we withdraw, the 

other where we are engaged. It is making a difference. Progress 

will be slow, but we need to stay in the fight and continue to demand respect for the universal values we call our own. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Piccone follows:]

34


64870c_1.eps
35


64870c_2.eps
36


64870c_3.eps
37


64870c_4.eps
38


64870c_5.eps
39


64870c_6.eps
40


64870c_7.eps
41


64870c_8.eps
42

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you very much. Excellent testimony. 

And we will begin our round of questioning. I will cede my time 

to Ms. Ellmers of North Carolina. 

Mrs. ELLMERS. Thank you, Madam Chairman. And thank you to 

our distinguished panel today. 

You know, I had in mind a question having to do with Mr. Robert Appleton, who actually was with us a few weeks back, who was 

fired from the U.N. after he was exposing some corruption, but I 

don’t want to just stop there. I want to get to the root of the issue. 

Back in North Carolina, many of my constituents are just outraged at the level of corruption and lack of accountability in the 

U.N. And, with all due respect, Mr. Piccone, you are pointing out 

some of the vital jobs and situations where the U.N. is probably on 

the ground doing some wonderful work, but in comparison to the 

level of corruption, the political chess games that go on, it is hard 

for us in North Carolina to see our way to not being able to create 

or build a school. And, yet, we are pouring billions of dollars into 

countries who have dictators, terrible situations. And that just 

doesn’t boil down to the American household budget. 

So my question to you is, as Americans, are we nothing more 

than enablers? What would be the most effective way that we can 

reform the U.N. straightforward, pulling out, pulling back on our 

funding? Would that wake up the U.N. so that we can get the true 

reform that we need? And I will ask all of our members that question. Thank you. Starting with you, Mr. Wallace? 

Ambassador WALLACE. Thank you for the question. Just a quick 

comment on Bob Appleton. I think those of us who served in the 

department at that time when Bob served at the U.N. I think 

would only have high praise for Bob. He had a very difficult task 

in conducting investigations, which any good organization needs 

when there are accusations of corruption. And he ferreted out some 

problems. 

I think one of the great challenges for a thoughtful diligent investigator like Bob, who is as apolitical in my opinion as they come, 

just a solid guy, is that when you find wrongdoing and you bring 

a complaint or charge against an individual in the U.N. system, 

that individual has a country that they are from. And frequently 

because U.N. is home to so many former civil servants from various 

countries, it becomes a bit of gamesmanship between member 

states seeking to protect their nationals from allegations of wrongdoing. And when you are good at your job and find corruption and 

it affects enough individuals from enough member states, you incur 

the wrath of the member states. So it is a challenge. 

I do think that the issue of the U.N.—and I think that it is really 

important that we thoughtfully engage and see the good part and 

the bad part. I obviously was a Republican appointee. My job was 

to try to engage in the reform of the U.N. Whenever you try to reform something, you have to identify weaknesses. So you are by 

definition a critic. 

U.N. does perform some valuable tasks: Peacekeeping, one. I 

think some of the sanctions resolutions are very important. There 

are other important things that it does, too. But I think we have 

to impose some twenty-first century levels of management transVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Apr 08, 2011 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\FULL\030311\64870 HFA PsN: SHIRL
43

parency and accountability on this organization just similar to 

what we do in a nonpartisan way here in the United States, whether it is our NGOs, our not-for-profits, even our Government institutions. 

That is why when we rolled out the United Nations Transparency and Accountability Initiative, we wanted to overlay and try 

to have true transparency in operations the way we do in our Government, where you can get in close to it and then with that transparency holding the U.N. and its related funds programs and specialized agencies accountable to member states. 

I think that is a reasonable thing to ask of somebody, of an entity that we give money to. And I don’t believe that anybody in this 

room in a private discussion would look at any of these reforms 

that we are talking about and say that they are unreasonable or 

somehow Republican or Democrat. It is just not the case. These are 

reasonable things that we should demand and expect of our international colleagues. 

Mrs. ELLMERS. Thank you. 

Ambassador MILLER. Thank you very much for this question. 

You talk about corruption. This really goes to the heart of the 

issue. The U.N. is a membership body, 192 member states right 

now. And each of these states brings with them their own values 

and their own habits. And many of the states in the world, sadly, 

are horribly afflicted with corruption. 

Corruption is a daily fact of life in these states. Many of them 

don’t respect human rights. Many of them are not democracies. 

And when they come to the U.N., they bring these values with 

them. So that afflicts the organization. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you, Mr. Ambassador. We will 

continue with that, I am sure, in some of the other questions. 

Sorry. Ran out of time. 

Now, please, to yield to our ranking member, Mr. Berman, for 

his 5 minutes. 

Mr. BERMAN. Well, thank you, Madam Chairman. Ambassador 

Wallace, I particularly liked what I thought was an eloquent critique of the piling on of mandates that the U.N. has adopted over 

the course of years and need to reform it. 

For a while, I thought you were talking about the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, same kind of problem. We pass stuff. We don’t 

review it. We end up not really looking at what today’s priorities 

are and addressing them. And I support that effort at the U.N. as 

well as in reviewing our foreign assistance legislation. 

Ambassador Miller, two things. One is you made note of—and it 

would be humorous if it weren’t so depressing to look at the universal periodic review document for Libya. But I am happy to tell 

you that based on my conversations with the State Department 

yesterday, that has been shelved. There is something that goes 

even too far for the Human Rights Council. 

But I do want to call you on one other thing. I think it was your 

testimony that left the impression that the Helms/Biden language 

produced reform at the U.N., but your written testimony I think is 

more accurate on this account. 

That deferral of payment of dues, that withdrawal, which is apparently the model for legislation we will be considering soon, was 

44

probably helpful in achieving the lower assessed rate, but it produced no lasting reforms. And I quote from no less an authority 

than Ambassador Miller, ‘‘Sadly, neither Helms/Biden withholding 

nor even the long UNESCO withdrawal can be shown to have had 

much long-term impact on the efficiency, effectiveness, or even the 

integrity of the U.N. system.’’

I would argue that these withholdings don’t accomplish the kind 

of reform that a sustained engagement would. And for that purpose, I would like to give the rest of my time to Mr. Piccone, who 

never got to answer Congresswoman Ellmers’ question and to perhaps address that and points you would like to make with reaction 

to the testimony of the first two witnesses. 

Mr. PICCONE. Thank you, Mr. Berman. 

I would want to start by noting that when we think about the 

investment that we are making and what this costs, in fact, the 

U.S. contribution to the U.N. amounts to only 1⁄10 of 1 percent of 

the Federal budget. And what are we getting for that? 

We are getting a tremendous amount of services that are the 

force multipliers we have talked about before and feeding people 

and supporting elections, vaccinating children, keeping the peace, 

sheltering refugees. This is a good return for our dollar because we 

care about those kinds of issues around the world. And we have an 

important role to play. 

As you also know, in terms of peacekeeping operations, it would 

cost the United States eight times as much as the U.N. to respond, 

for example, to the earthquake disaster in Haiti. We are sharing 

the burden of responsibilities that we have adopted as the leading 

state of the world. And by sharing that burden, we are returning 

good investment for the U.S. taxpayer. And I think that is important. 

The other point to make in terms of reform more generally is 

that the U.N. is slowly changing in some important ways in terms 

of management reform. Thanks to Ambassador Wallace, Ambassador Miller, and the work of many other diplomats over many 

years, we have pushed internally, because we have been constructively engaged, for internal oversight reforms, whistleblower protections, new Office of Ethics run by an American. On and on there 

are lists of things that show that we are starting to grasp the real 

details, modernize the institution, and get some control over the 

situation. 

At the end, there does need to be some review and control of 

mandates. They are out of control. But the real money is in the 

peacekeeping. I mean, that is what a lot of our contribution goes 

to. And I think on general terms, we get a good return on the dollar for our peacekeeping operations. 

Thank you. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you very much. 

Now I would like to recognize Mr. Chabot, the chairman of the 

Subcommittee on Middle East and South Asia, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. CHABOT. I thank the chairman. 

Ambassador Miller, just under a year ago, Secretary Clinton announced that the U.S. would be joining the U.N. Human Rights 

Council. As we all know, the Council was created back in 2006 out 

45

of the ashes of the Commission on Human Rights when after years 

of failed reforms the international community simply gave up. 

Unlike its predecessor, the new Human Rights Council was supposed to embody the principles laid out in the U.N. General Assembly resolution 62–51. Now, that resolution states, and I quote, 

‘‘When electing members of the Council, member states shall take 

into account the candidates’ contribution to the promotion and protection of human rights and their voluntary pledges and commitments made thereto.’’

Over half of the Council’s current members do not even meet 

Freedom House’s basic standards for freedom. They are members 

of the Council, but they can’t even be called free. Let’s face it. The 

Human Rights Council that exists today could not be further from 

the principles in this resolution. 

According to a recent NGO report, more than 80 percent of all 

the Human Rights Council’s condemnatory resolutions, 27 out of 

33, have been against Israel. Moreover, the Council failed to adopt 

any resolution, special session, or investigative mandate for numerous violators on Freedom House’s list of the 20 worst abusers in 

the whole world. 

Upon being elected to the Council, Ambassador Rice noted that 

she looked forward to working from within the Council with a 

broad cross-section of member states to strengthen and reform it. 

From where I sit, it seems to me that this was a mistake. I believe 

that by joining the Council, all we have done is lent our legitimacy 

to a Council that is so rotten it is an international joke. And our 

association soils our image. 

When speaking on Libya’s suspension from the Council, it noted 

that the General Assembly, by contrast, today has acted in the noblest traditions of the United Nations and made it clear that governments that turn their guns on their own people have no place 

on the Human Rights Council. 

Membership on the Human Rights Council should be earned 

through respect for human rights and not accorded to those who 

abuse them. This would be a nice sentiment if countries like Cuba 

and China weren’t on the Council, mocking its very existence. 

Why not withdraw our participation from the Council? And if 

not, what in your opinion should the U.S. be doing to reform this—

in my view—morally bankrupt institution? 

Ambassador MILLER. Thank you very much. And I agree completely with your sentiments. 

In terms of elections to the Council, it is important to note that 

though the lip services paid to the idea of competitive elections, 

most of the regions put forward agreed slates that are based just 

on rotation among the regions. So everyone has an equal chance to 

participate. 

The only region that dependably has competitive elections is the 

Western European and others’ grouping, which includes the United 

States and Western Europe. So they have competitive elections, but 

the other regions in general don’t. So that is how you get these serial violators of human rights on the Commission over and over 

again. 

I just want to make the point there is a tendency here in the discussion to draw a dichotomy between engagement, on the one 

46

hand, and these measures of power that the U.S. might enforce on 

the other two to try to increase reform. 

And when we use the budgetary card that we have, which has 

been given to us by the fact that we are a very big country and 

we pay a disproportionate share of the U.N. budget, that reflects 

our power in the world. And for us to play that card does not mean 

we are not engaged in the reform process. 

In fact, when we are negotiating on the basis of Helms/Biden or 

the Kassebaum/Solomon Act or when we withdrew from UNESCO, 

for example, we were more engaged with the U.N. as a result of 

those discussions or those actions than we were when we were just 

going along as a normal member, like all of the other 192 countries. These are tools with which we engage the reform debate and 

with which we exercise U.S. leadership and the reform process. 

So it is not a let’s disengage and say goodbye to the U.N., on the 

one hand, or let’s just accept the normal membership, just like 

every other small country in the world. The point is to exercise the 

power and influence of the U.S. in ways that reflect our values and 

our position in the world and our contribution to the activities of 

these organizations. 

Thank you. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you so much. Thank you. 

Mr. Deutch from Florida? 

Mr. DEUTCH. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank the panel for 

being here today. And, Ambassador Wallace, I would especially like 

to thank you for your leadership at United Against Nuclear Iran. 

And I would like to start with your work there and how that ties 

into this hearing. 

The Security Council has often given the United States a platform to advance its international interests. The passage of sanctions against Iran at the U.N. not only sent a message about the 

international community’s intolerance of the regime’s quest for nuclear weapons but provided a legal platform for other countries 

around the globe to enforce sanctions. 

In the wake of the IAEA reports last week that Iran is now looking at weaponization, is there a chance for tougher sanctions coming out of the Security Council? And if you could speak more broadly to the role of the United States at the U.N. in furthering those 

efforts? 

Ambassador WALLACE. Thank you for the question. I feel very 

strongly, obviously, about promoting economic pressure on Iran and 

trying to change the behavior of that regime as it relates to obtaining a nuclear weapon and treatment of its own people sponsoring 

terrorism and the like. 

I certainly hope there is an opportunity for additional sanctions 

of the Security Council. I think that your legislation, Iran Transparency and Accountability Act, that was introduced recently, 

which focuses on SEC disclosure of companies that do business in 

Iran; the recent statements by the Treasury Department listing additional individuals. And what we are seeing now occurring in Iran 

will hopefully spur action on the Security Council. 

I spoke to Ambassador Rice recently. I believe that there is hope 

for that. I think what we are seeing, there are obviously large 

dramas in populations around the Middle East and North Africa 

47

right now. And I hope the very important potential change that 

could occur in Iran is not being lost in that. I think that this, the 

United States Congress and the United States, can lead. I think 

European Union can lead as well by imposing rigorous sanctions, 

even beyond the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions Act that was 

passed last year. 

I think the next step would be to say to any company that is involved in doing business in Iran to the extent that they avail themselves of the U.S. capital markets, that they need to disclose in 

their financial statements whether or not they do business in Iran. 

It is time for every company that touches these U.S. capital markets to come clean about doing business in Iran. 

Mr. DEUTCH. Thank you, Ambassador Wallace. 

Mr. Piccone, when we, when this committee, had its last hearing 

on the U.N. a few weeks ago, we briefly touched on the idea of imposing standards for membership in the Human Rights Council. 

We need to look no further than this week’s action by the Council 

to suspend Libya as evidence why standards should be imposed. 

I would like you to speak to the ongoing efforts to create standards for membership to the Human Rights Council and why such 

standards were absent from the recommendation to the 5-year 

working group adopted on February 24th. 

And then if you could really try to flesh out what those standards 

would look like and then apply them to the current members of the 

Human Rights Council? 

Mr. PICCONE. I will do my best to answer that. There are some 

standards in the original creation of the Council. States need to 

make pledges showing that they are committed to upholding 

human rights and that they once elected will cooperate with the 

Council. 

And we know that many of those states do not cooperate with the 

Council. So that criterion should be enforced more directly. I mean, 

they should spell out ways of showing that this state is not cooperating with the Council and is, therefore, not eligible for membership. That is one idea. 

The other point to make is that the Libya case I think exactly 

proves that the membership criteria that exist are meaningful. It 

says, ‘‘States that commit gross and systemic abuses shall be removed from the Council in a two-thirds vote of the General Assembly.’’ We just saw that happen. That crossed an important new 

threshold and set a new precedent that I think may be used in the 

future and could deter others. 

Mr. DEUTCH. All right. Mr. Piccone, just in the remaining time 

that I have, if you could focus on the current members of the 

Human Rights Council and applying those standards, where should 

we turn next as we seek to enforce those standards? 

Mr. PICCONE. I think there are a number of states that we would 

want to focus on and say, ‘‘Hey, it is time to also hold this state 

accountable’’ and start a debate. 

I think it goes back to the competitive slates issue again. Unfortunately, WEOG has not run too many competitive slates. And the 

competitive slates we have seen in Asia and other countries——

Mr. DEUTCH. Which states? Where should we start on the 

Human Rights Council? 

48

Mr. PICCONE. Well, there are, you know a number of states. One 

case that is coming up is Syria. Syria wants to be a member of the 

Council. And we should make sure that they are not elected. 

Mr. DEUTCH. And the first state that we should focus on after 

Libya? 

Mr. PICCONE. I would have to come back to you and look at the 

list. Thank you. 

Mr. DEUTCH. We can try. Thank you. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you very much, Mr. Deutch. 

Congressman Chris Smith, Chairman of the Subcommittee on Africa, Global Health, and Human Rights? 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. 

Let me just ask you about the issue of mandates and the various 

U.N. agencies as well as the treaty bodies. I am very concerned 

that, although the U.N. agencies and treaty bodies are intended to 

work within their mandates—and it should be very specific because, certainly with regards to the treaties, it couldn’t be more 

specific—and be receptive to the input of a wide variety of nongovernmental organizations, the fact of the matter is that U.N. 

agencies and treaty bodies clearly favor certain ideologically driven 

NGOs in both funding and the opportunity to shape policy. 

For example, if you search the unfpa.org Web site, there are over 

1,000 references to the International Planned Parenthood Federation. Just last Friday at a U.N. event, UNFPA praised a Center for 

Reproductive Rights report and asked the attending ambassadors 

to read it, regardless of the fact that the center’s worldwide goal 

is to establish an unfettered right to abortion in every country of 

the world, including access to abortion by minors without parental 

notification or consent. 

We all know that U.N. agencies push their mandates, as they 

should, but they also almost like contract out and empower NGOs 

to do what the agencies are not permitted to do. They seem to exceed it and nobody holds them to account from time to time. 

My question is, how do we ensure that those NGOs who have a 

different point of view have access to the U.N. and can participate 

more robustly? They are absolutely marginalized. And I know that 

for a fact. Do you have any ideas on this, no matter where you 

come down on any of these other issues? 

I was at the U.N. population conference in Cairo. I was at the 

Beijing women’s conference. Even though there are prep coms and 

the like, we know who wrote the language. It was the NGOs that 

wrote the language for those conferences. 

What are your thoughts on that? How do we open this system 

up for more diversity and opinion? Yes, please? 

Ambassador WALLACE. I will be brief to allow Terry because 

Terry covered a lot of these issues. I think the first step—and perhaps this is a perilous thing to raise, but the very public debate 

that we are having about the budget of the United States Government that is going on right now is instructive. Why shouldn’t every 

one of these U.N. funds programs and specialized agencies publish 

their budgets online, put their procurement activities online to 

show where there money is going? Because then we can have a political debate whether or not we think it is right, wrong. 

49

And I am sure there will be divergent views. But the very first 

step that we should have is transparent budgeting, transparent 

procurement activities. And that is something that is reasonable to 

ask of these U.N. funds programs and specialized agencies if we 

are going to continue to fund them. That is a basic thing that we 

should all be able to agree upon here today. 

Terry? 

Ambassador MILLER. Yes. Thank you very much. 

This is a very serious problem. And I think at the heart of it is 

the lack of democratic accountability anywhere in the system. 

What happens is that these various agencies and activities get captured by special interests. And those special interests, then, have 

enormous, exert enormous, influence over the work program and 

the ideological agenda that are pursued in these agencies. 

And I think we are going to have to find a way to insist that if, 

in fact, we are going to involve NGOs in the activities of the U.N., 

I think that is a good thing in general. It must be an absolutely 

evenhanded, open, and transparent purpose. We probably need 

more NGOs, not fewer. And we need more evenhanded treatment 

of them in the process. 

What we have now are many—Planned Parenthood you mentioned is one—that have an extraordinary amount of influence because of their historical cooperation and the funding that they receive. 

I think we probably need to look at the funding issue very carefully because many of these NGOs actually receive funding from 

the U.N. system. And then they, in turn, exert influence back on 

the programs. So it would be easy to imagine a kind of corrupt 

cycle involving funding there. 

So we need the transparency, as Mark said. We need the absolute openness in the system. And then we need some way to make 

the activities of these specialists in the system accountable, at least 

to member states, if not in the true sense of democratic accountability that we enjoy here in the U.S. 

Mr. PICCONE. I am all for more civil society involvement with the 

U.N. because it is the U.N. NGO committee that needs reform. I 

know from personal experience what it means to go up against that 

committee. I was denied credentials. We appealed it to ECOSOC 

and won, thanks to countries like U.S. and Israel and others that 

defended us. That is what we need to do more of. 

Mr. SMITH. I appreciate it, Madam——

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you so much, Mr. Smith. Thank 

you. 

Mr. Cicilline? 

Mr. CICILLINE. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

This hearing comes at a particular interesting time, I think, as 

we are engaged in an increasingly complicated and interconnected 

world. And we see examples of this springing up all over the world. 

I think the testimony today reveals that everyone agrees that the 

single greatest source for reform and improvement of the U.N. is 

the United States. And so I think our challenge is, how do we determine a greater and more forceful role for the United States in 

this important institution? 

50

Clearly we should not tolerate in any way fraud, waste, corruption of any kind. And the efforts to ferret that out should continue 

relentlessly. But what I would like to ask about specifically is the 

Human Rights Council because since the United States joined that 

Council in 2009, some things have happened. 

Our membership on the Council has allowed us to better support 

Israel and to reduce the imbalance that has been referenced today 

and the Council’s work. The efforts of the United States and other 

nations derailed Iran’s candidacy for a seat on the Council. U.S. 

diplomats overcame objections by countries such as China and 

Cuba and succeeded in persuading the Council to establish a new 

monitor for implementation on the rights of assembly and association and to hold governments accountable that do not uphold fundamental freedoms. 

The Council also created a new mechanism to fight discrimination against women and to provide expertise to governments that 

seek advice on improving the opportunities available to women and 

girls. And the Council also extended the mandate of the Human 

Rights Monitor in Sudan, overcoming the really strong objections 

of the Sudanese and other African countries. 

And so it would seem to an outside observer that our presence 

on the Council has, in fact, improved the operations of the Council. 

And my question is whether or not you think any of those things 

would have happened if the United States had not actively participated in the Council. And specifically would you speak about the 

efforts of American diplomats in preventing Iran from becoming a 

member of the Council? We will start with Mr. Piccone, please. 

Mr. PICCONE. Thank you very much. I think you have given a 

good list of some of the accomplishments. I would note that on 

country scrutiny, this goes on not just with the condemnatory resolutions and special sessions, but the universal periodic review process means every single country is being reviewed. 

And there is a year-round process. The special rapporteurs bring 

country reports to the table. And they are debated and discussed. 

All countries are facing this but particularly countries that the old 

commission never really addressed before in the past. I think that 

is critical. 

Another way that U.S. leadership has made a difference is we 

have a new U.S. Ambassador who is full-time engaged with the 

Council, Eileen Chamberlain Donahoe. And I hope that the committee gets to hear from her because she is an outstanding example 

of what U.S. leadership can do. 

She has made a big difference in the kind of hand-to-hand combat that has to go on not only in Geneva but in capitals. And working with the team both in Washington and New York, we have a 

much more concerted effort going on. So when there are problems 

that we face in Geneva, a phone call is made by senior officials to 

capitals to get them to change their positions. And it is really starting to make a difference. 

And, as I said before, with some of those kind of middle-tier 

states that sit on the fence or abstain, we are starting to see some 

progress with those states. And I think, thanks to the kind of role 

that the U.S. is playing, we need to remain engaged in that kind 

of spirit of, you know, we recognize, we are realistic about the 

51

faults and the problems of the Council, but we can fight from within. 

I think if we leave, we are really abandoning the field. And we 

are abandoning our friends on the front lines who need us to be 

the voice of reason at the Council. 

Thank you. 

Mr. CICILLINE. Thank you. I yield back. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you. 

Mr. Griffin, Subcommittee on Europe and Eurasia vice chair? 

Mr. GRIFFIN. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Mr. Wallace, great to have you here today. I have known you for 

a long time. And I appreciate your testimony. I have a few questions about Iran. I want to explore a little bit about what my colleague was just discussing. 

With regard to the sanctions that have been implemented, it 

seems that Iran has tried to mitigate the sanctions and mitigate 

the impact of the sanctions by trying to accomplish some things 

through the U.N., such as membership, as we just heard, on the 

Human Rights Council. 

Can you comment generally about Iran and its work within the 

U.N. and maybe other examples of it trying to leverage its position 

in the U.N. to mitigate some of the international sanctions and 

problems that it has had? 

Ambassador WALLACE. Thank you for the question. It is great to 

see you up there, Congressman. 

I think that it is important in discussing exactly what membership in the U.N. means. Why should a sanctioned U.N. member 

country, like Iran or North Korea, be allowed to run for leadership 

positions in the U.N. when they are defying the very rules ostensibly of the membership organization? 

I mean, Iran, North Korea, and others are subject to rigorous 

sanctions and are defying those sanctions. And I think that it 

would be a reasonable thing to assert that if you were defying the 

rules, if I were defying the rules of this committee, I am sure I 

would not be allowed to testify before this committee. I think that 

is a reasonable thing to assert. 

Sanctions are like a game of Whack-a-Mole. The targeted sanctions are the best sanctions. When they are targeted on individuals 

or on specific areas, they are the best. In the wake of the comprehensive Iran Sanctions Act, focusing on refined petroleum, Iran 

moved the cheese. They tried to enhance their refined petroleum 

capacity. 

I think that the goal that we must take in Iran sanctions, whether it be at the U.N. or in this Congress, is to try to find a mechanism to make it such that any company and companies that do 

business in Iran are as pariah or treated as pariahs, as a pariah 

regime. 

I think you have seen that happen because of the great work of 

this body. Members on both sides of the aisle have done great 

things with legislation, the work of the U.N. sanctions resolutions 

and the Security Council have been very, very valuable in that regard. The European Union has passed sanctions rules. We can do 

much more and, as I mentioned previously with Congressman 

Deutch and others who are supporting legislation, to make it so 

52

that any company that is doing business with Iran has to come 

clean. 

For too long when we started United Against Nuclear Iran 3 

years ago, we were really troubled because there was no place to 

go to find the list of companies and entities that were doing business in Iran. We have tried to compile that list. 

With your help, we can make it be so that any company, wherever they are based around the world, if they avail themselves of 

the U.S. capital markets, that they have to disclose in their regulatory filings whether or not they are in Iran. That will be precise 

information that our diplomats at the U.N., our diplomats in the 

European Union can then take and focus that sanction work on 

that information that is disclosed in our regulatory filings. And I 

know that this committee and various members on both sides of 

the aisle are very much focused in that area. 

One thing on the Human Rights Council, there are only two options. The United States lends its imprimatur to a U.N. body that 

is bad or we try to go in and make it better. That is a thoughtful 

debate. 

I disagree with my colleague, respectfully, on this. The Bush administration didn’t want to lend its imprimatur to the Human 

Rights Council because they thought it was fundamentally flawed. 

The Obama administration has said that it wanted to engage and 

show leadership. I believe that they have shown the leadership. 

They are doing a good job of making sure that the Human Rights 

Council functions sort of in a way that it should, but I don’t know 

that it is affecting human rights around the world. I know it is affecting human rights on the Human Rights Council, but I don’t 

know if it is doing anything else around the world. 

And I think that there is a real question of a difficult decision. 

The Durban Review Conference on Racism, the Bush administration took the position that we should not fund it and we should not 

support it. The Obama administration ended up walking out and 

leaving that conference, leaving it. That was abandoning the field 

under that analysis. 

I think both sides are actually reasonable positions. And they are 

difficult things. The question is, do you lend your imprimatur of 

the great power of the United States, the one hegemon in the world 

and the one that we are all so devoted to, or do you go in and try 

to reform it in the inside? The case is that the Bush administration, the Obama administration have done both on both sides. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Carnahan, ranking member of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations? 

Mr. CARNAHAN. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

And, again, we appreciate the witnesses here today. I really 

wanted to focus on a couple of areas and start with Mr. Piccone. 

We have had a lot of discussion here today about engagement or 

not, funding or not, you know, voluntary or not. Can you quantify 

some of the achievements that you see from being engaged and, 

you know, fulfilling our obligations versus times when we have 

taken another course and how you see that, how you can really 

quantify that difference? 

53

Mr. PICCONE. Sure. As I tried to point out in my remarks, I think 

when we look at the creation of the Council, there was a time when 

the U.S. did take a combative approach that really sought to cross 

the agenda of the summit in 2005, sought to push things through 

in a way that did not bring allies around. So in the end, we were 

isolated. I think that is not the way to go about it. 

I think a more engaged process has got us the kinds of results 

we are starting to see, starting to see, in Geneva. There is a lot 

more work that needs to be done. But whether it is the number of 

special sessions that are focused on other countries, where real 

problems are occurring—and I would have to say that in terms of 

impact on the ground—and I have done a lot of research on this 

issue—the Human Rights Council does have impact on the ground, 

particularly through these independent experts. 

I mean, these independent experts get in and see political prisoners. They see journalists who have been charged on outrageous 

claims of deformation. And they are getting them out of jail. They 

have gone to visit prisons and helped women and children in prisons get food and health care. And there are cases and cases that 

I document in my report where the U.N. Council’s instruments are 

actually on the ground in the field making a difference. 

And we don’t hear about those stories very much. But they are 

happening. And I think the U.S. support to not just the Council but 

there is a wider system of work that the Office of the High Commissioner, the International Criminal Court and its other tribunals, their field offices that OHCHR runs. I mean, these are the 

kinds of arms and eyes and ears that we are out there in the field 

helping people who need help. And I think that is the kind of results that we get when we are engaged and paying our dues. 

I think when we say that we should move to voluntary funding, 

what worries me about that is that it is kind of an a la carte cherry 

picking what we want, but I think we are going to end up having 

to pay more. 

I mean, if you look about our missions in Iraq and Afghanistan, 

I mean, we are investing, you know, billions of dollars. It is important that we leave behind the kinds of institutions that work. I 

mean, we have to respect the sacrifice of our own soldiers in leaving something behind. The U.N. is in there with the kind of political missions that are making a difference in the ground in those 

as well. 

So if we didn’t have that kind of instrument, I think we would 

end up paying a lot of the costs ourselves. This is a way to share 

the burden with our allies, with others on things that we need to 

get done. 

Mr. CARNAHAN. Thank you. 

And, Ambassador Wallace, I wanted to ask you. In ’05, when the 

Hyde U.N. Reform Act came up, I voted against that, but also the 

Bush administration said at the time that the bill could detract 

from and undermine our efforts to reform the U.N. Do you agree 

with that kind of approach in this debate we are having here 

today? 

Ambassador WALLACE. Again, not to tread imperilous ground, if 

this committee were considering a U.S. Government budget that 

54

was a 25 percent increase from last year, nobody here could vote 

for that. You would be voted out of office in my opinion. 

When I was considering the budget and we were negotiating the 

budget, it was a 25 percent increase from one budget to the next 

exclusive of the peacekeeping missions, which I agree when we are 

so heavily invested in these peacekeeping missions, we have an obligation to pay. But a 25 percent increase, that is outside of the 

norms of any state around the world or any international organization. 

In terms of withholding, at the risk of saying a bad word, I have 

a slightly nuanced approach. I think that it is very reasonable, 

Madam Chairman, to impose the things that you seek to impose in 

your model legislation. These are basic things that no one in this 

room in private should be able to disagree with and say to a U.N. 

agency or an international organization, ‘‘You need to do these very 

basic transparency and accountability measures, like having your 

budgets online, having an ethics office, having financial disclosure, 

very basic things. And if you don’t do those, we are going to seriously consider not paying our dues in the future.’’

I don’t like not putting agencies on notice now of what we expect 

of them and then withholding. I don’t think that is appropriate. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you. 

Ambassador WALLACE. I think we should let them know. 

Mr. CARNAHAN. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you so much. Thank you, Mr. 

Carnahan. 

Ms. Buerkle of New York, Subcommittee on Terrorism, Nonproliferation, and Trade vice chair? Thank you. 

Ms. BUERKLE. Thank you, Madam Chairman and thank you to 

our guests here this morning. 

My first question is a simple ‘‘Yes’’/‘‘No’’ to the three of you. You 

know that Congress has just looked at the health care bill. And we 

looked at it. It was so complicated, so costly. Many argued it was 

not in the best interest of the American people. And so, rather than 

trying to fix what was there, we opted to repeal it. We voted to repeal it. And we will replace it with true health care reform. 

So my question to the three of you today—and I had this thought 

as my colleague Steve Chabot was speaking—is the U.N. fixable or 

should we do as he said and just withdraw? I will start with Ambassador Wallace. 

Ambassador WALLACE. I think it is our obligation to try to fix the 

U.N. 

Ms. BUERKLE. Ambassador Miller? 

Ambassador MILLER. I think it is probably not fixable without 

huge effort and undertaking by the United States, maybe a charter 

reform conference, something like that. This piecemeal reform we 

undertake is not having much of an impact. 

Ms. BUERKLE. Thank you. 

And Mr. Piccone? 

Mr. PICCONE. I think the U.N. is fixable with a tremendous 

amount of effort and constant, constant regular attention by this 

committee and by the Congress and by, you know, our really top 

diplomats in New York who are on the case. 

55

Ms. BUERKLE. And so in response to your responses, would you 

be willing to lay out for us what you would consider to be effective 

reform that would truly get our participation in the U.N. to a point 

where the American people and the Members of Congress are comfortable with that? 

Ambassador WALLACE. I think you have it before you. I think 

that the U.N. Transparency and Accountability Act that the chairman described is really important. There are eight areas of reform 

that we laid out, budgets online identifying procurement activities, 

financial disclosure policies, ethics offices, oversight bodies, adoption of IPSAS, International Public Sector Accounting Standards. 

These are basic things. 

The first thing that we have to do is understand what is happening in the U.N. And because of these exploding mandates that 

I think are unlike anything in the world, even though I understand 

the comparison by Mr. Berman and I think it is a good one and 

I appreciate it—I really do—I think that these exploding mandates 

are a different level of bureaucratic expansion than anywhere else 

in the world. And the first thing that we have to do is understand 

what every one of these U.N. funds programs, specialized agencies, 

and the Secretariat are doing. 

The Secretariat has actually made some progress in the area. I 

mean, in terms of these eight areas, these eight areas really mostly 

apply in my opinion to the funds programs and specialized agencies, which is very, very important. 

As soon as we identify and have transparency and understand 

what is happening in those agencies, then I think we can impose 

and have a thoughtful policy debate about what we like and what 

we don’t like. 

Ms. BUERKLE. Thank you. 

Go ahead. I have a question for Mr. Piccone that I want to end 

up with. Go ahead. Go ahead, Ambassador Miller. 

Ambassador MILLER. Thank you very much. I agree completely 

with Ambassador Wallace, but I wanted to add two things to essential elements. One is you absolutely need to somehow attack the 

one country, one vote decision-making process in the U.N. That is 

a corrupting process that doesn’t reflect the realities of power in 

the world or the realities of levels of contribution to the organization. 

The other thing is you need to move to a system where much 

more of the funding is on a voluntary basis, where only the core 

activities of maintenance of the Secretariat are done on an assessed 

basis. And that should probably be evenly shared among the membership. And then the additional activities could be funded voluntarily. 

Ms. BUERKLE. Thank you. 

And my next question, Mr. Piccone, is for you because in your 

opening remarks, you mentioned that it is better for us to be a participant because we can affect change from the inside much easier 

than from the outside. And we heard that from the administration 

in 2009 as well. 

And I should say you also mentioned our participation. And how 

we are helping is real. Can you give me some specifics that the 

56

United States in our participation—what we are doing to help decrease the anti-Israel bias in the U.N.? 

Mr. PICCONE. There is a long record and a good one that shows 

that the U.S. has defended Israel throughout, not only in Geneva 

but in New York as well. 

I mean, I think the point about the special sessions having gone 

from five to one since the U.S. has been on the Council, that is one 

example. The U.S. stands with Israel in voting against those biased 

resolutions and demands that those corrections happen wherever 

possible. 

The U.S. has supported Israel in various ways in New York as 

well. I mean, the Durban protest is an example where the U.S. can 

walk away selectively. I think there is a time and place where you 

have to say that this isn’t working. But up until that point, we 

need to be fighting. You know, sometimes it is tedious and difficult, 

but——

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you so much. 

Mr. Ackerman, the ranking member of the Subcommittee on 

Middle East and South Asia? 

Mr. ACKERMAN. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

I am glad I came. I just heard a new thought. The U.N. is very 

complicated. Just repeal and replace it. You know, nobody I knew 

ever really liked the kid who, when he didn’t get his way, would 

just take his ball and go home. I don’t know if that is what we do 

with the U.N., take our money and leave. How does that make anything any better? 

I think part of the problem is that some of my colleagues are too 

young. They don’t remember the cowboy movies. About 46 or -7 

minutes into the movie, there was always a runaway stagecoach. 

And the good guy, you knew who he was because he always had 

the white hat, and it never fell off. And he would be riding, risking 

life and limb to catch up, and he would jump on the runaway lead 

horse of the runaway stagecoach so that he could help steer it in 

the right direction. 

If you have got a runaway, you can’t fix it unless you help drive. 

I don’t know, if we walk away from the U.N. because we don’t like 

a decision that it makes, that it helps us any. Maybe we should 

just set up a different U.N. with those countries that agree with 

us all the time. Then you could have two U.N.s. Or maybe you 

could join both, so you walk out of one, one day and come to a pretty good consensus with the people that you are with, and maybe 

just go over to the other one the next day. I don’t know how that 

works to make the world a better place. How does that help us? 

I mean, everybody brings up Israel in this context. I haven’t 

heard the Israelis tell us to quit the U.N. I don’t know of a country 

on the planet that was happier when the United States of America 

was at the United Nations the other day and vetoed an important 

resolution that would have condemned it and further isolated it in 

a very dangerous world. 

I don’t know how we speak for the Israelis and say we shouldn’t 

be in the U.N. because of them. I mean, don’t put that on them. 

I don’t think they would be ashamed to tell us we should quit the 

U.N. It doesn’t seem to me that they have quit the U.N. It seems 

to me that they sit at pretty raucous tables. And sometimes they 

57

plead with the other guys, they disagree with to come back to the 

table, or sit at the table, so they could discuss the differences. 

Much has been made about some of the wacky people or countries that get to sit on this Council. You know, these ambassadors 

and countries are selected by their own people. They are the judge 

of their own qualifications, whether they think they meet the 

standards or not. I mean, every once in a while some of us come 

to a conclusion that there are some pretty crazy people that get 

elected around here, nobody in this room for sure. 

But, you know, when crazy people have a crazy notion and I 

don’t agree with it, should my side just get up and leave the room 

because we know what the vote is going to be? Or should we stay 

here and fight for what we believe in to try to change people’s 

minds and make the points that we have to make? I think that is 

what is at stake here, our credibility to stay in the game, not cut 

and run, as I think is the phrase of the day, which in my mind, 

Mr. Piccone used. 

How does it help us, or if you are here to defend Israel, tell me, 

you know? I can appreciate that. But how does it help anybody if 

we just walk away? Anybody? 

Ambassador WALLACE. Well, sure. Just quickly. I think that you 

made a very eloquent statement. The Bush administration, we 

didn’t want to support funding for Durban, but we were open to attending. The Obama administration walked out of Durban and refused to attend. I don’t believe that was cutting and running. It 

was——

Mr. ACKERMAN. I have been to Mets games like that where I got 

up and left. 

Ambassador WALLACE. But they didn’t——

Mr. ACKERMAN. You have to——

Ambassador WALLACE. I think that is a fair point, sir, but I 

think it is a thoughtful debate whether you lend the imprimatur 

of the United States or you attend. And it is not black and white. 

The Obama administration said that you couldn’t salvage a conference on racism by all member states because it was so antiIsrael. The Bush administration said you couldn’t salvage the 

Human Rights Council. 

Mr. ACKERMAN. Yes, but that is——

Ambassador WALLACE. I think they are both right. 

Mr. ACKERMAN. That is a ‘‘pick and choose.’’ That is not an ‘‘I am 

never going to attend the meeting.’’

Ambassador WALLACE. Because both administrations did it. 

Ambassador MILLER. Yes, but, sir, nobody here is talking about 

cutting and running. We are all, all of us, trying to talk about ways 

to increase the influence of the United States in these international 

discussion and debates. 

Ambassador WALLACE. You do it long distance. 

Ambassador MILLER. And you use a variety of tools that you 

have available to you to do that. Sometimes that means you engage 

in the process, as Mr. Piccone is talking about. Sometimes you 

might walk away on a temporary basis, like I was talking about 

and experienced with UNESCO. Sometimes you fund fully. Sometimes you might withhold. 

The point is to use a variety of tools, every tool available to you. 

58

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you so much. 

Mr. Rohrabacher, the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations chairman? 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. 192 nations in the General Assembly. How 

many of them are democratic nations and free countries out of the 

192? Half? A little less than half but right around half? 

Mr. PICCONE. If you call them electoral democracies, it is over 

100. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Okay. So about half, really, because if it is 

over 192. So I would like to remind my good friend from New York 

that all of these representatives in the U.N. that we are talking 

about, they were not selected by their people to represent them 

anywhere to control their countries or to represent what is right 

and wrong in an international body. 

What you have is an organization in which half of the members, 

voting members in the General Assembly, not only are brutalizing 

their own people and don’t represent their own people in the 

United Nations but they don’t represent their own people at home 

as well. 

So we have a fatally flawed concept where we are saying that we 

are going to look for a global policy based on a relationship with 

an organization in which half the members are actually gangsters, 

thugs, and lunatics, who do not even reflect their own people and 

their own peoples’ interest, much less the interest of a better world. 

Six billion dollars is what we spend in the United Nations. Is 

that correct? Around $6.3 billion I understand is the figure? Now, 

the point was made earlier that if we were to use our own troops 

somewhere else, rather than a U.N. operation, that it would cost 

eight times as much for a United States military force as it would 

for U.N. troops. 

I understand that we do not get credit for when American troops 

are actually put into use supporting a U.N. operation, that we do 

not get credit in terms of that being part of our assessment credit, 

but other countries do. Is that right? I believe it is. So we will let 

you——

Mr. PICCONE. I don’t know the answer other than to note that 

I think there are less than 100 U.S. military personnel in peacekeeping operations. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Right now. That is correct, right now. 

Ambassador WALLACE. That is correct. It is small, a relatively 

small number. I don’t know the answer to that specifically. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Okay. 

Ambassador WALLACE. One of the things that Ambassador Rice 

has done I think that has been very helpful is focusing on making 

our peacekeeping missions more effective and——

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Right. And, of course, when we talk about 

the United States and our commitment to peace overseas, never in 

the calculation is it put in how much we spend in countries like 

Afghanistan or Iraq or Kosovo, maybe Kosovo, maybe. I would suggest so now, of the 192 members of the General Assembly, about 

half of them are not legitimate governments. What about the Security Council? 

59

Is it true that the world’s worst human rights abuser has a veto 

power over anything the U.N. can do through the Security Council? 

I am referring to China, of course. 

Well, yes, it is, isn’t it? So what do we put in our faith and our 

money in? An organization that has such a dominant role being 

played by countries, by governments, by gangsters, by groups of 

people who have fundamentally a different approach to human 

rights and the human condition than we have in the United States 

of America. It is bound to fail. And it has been failing and has been 

a tremendous waste of our resources. 

I am not talking about retreating from the world. I am not talking about isolationism. I am talking about making sure that we do 

things in a way that is more likely to achieve our global objective, 

which is a more peaceful, a freer and more prosperous world. The United States, we are now spending $1.5 trillion more a year 

than we are taking in. We have got to find a way of not wasting 

that money. What we have heard today is a huge waste of that 

money. And there are ways we can spend less money and have a 

more positive impact on the world working with the democratic 

missions of the world, rather than putting ourselves at mercy of an 

organization dominated by crooks and gangsters and dictators. 

Thank you. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you, Mr. Rohrabacher. 

Mr. Connolly of Virginia? 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Thank you, Madam Chairman. And welcome to 

the panel. 

I would note, Ambassador Miller, that you in response to Mr. 

Ackerman said that, well, nobody is talking about withdrawing 

from the United Nations or gutting the institution. We are talking 

about improving it. I thought I just heard my colleague actually 

say precisely that. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Absolutely. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Ex post facto, I yielded to my colleague for confirmation. So your rhetoric sometimes has perhaps unintended consequences. 

Let me ask you, Ambassador Wallace or Ambassador Miller, did 

the Bush administration favor the withholding of U.N. dues? What 

was the official position of the previous administration on that 

issue? 

Ambassador WALLACE. They did not favor it. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. They did not favor it. And at the time Ambassador Bolton, our Ambassador to the United Nations, did he comment on that issue of withholding dues to the United Nations? 

Ambassador WALLACE. You know, I don’t remember precisely 

how John phrased it, but I am sure you did the research. I don’t 

have it here. I have been out of the government a couple of years. 

I don’t remember precisely. 

But I think your point is——

Mr. CONNOLLY. Ambassador Wallace, officially was it not true 

that our U.N. Ambassador, Mr. Bolton, in fact, went on record as 

saying he did not favor the withholding of U.S. dues to the United 

Nations? 

Ambassador WALLACE. I believe that Ambassador Bolton——

Mr. CONNOLLY. The——

60

Ambassador WALLACE. I should be able to finish if you want to 

ask me a question, respectfully. But I believe that he did say that 

if I remember correctly. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. I am sorry. I thought you said you didn’t know 

the answer. 

Ambassador WALLACE. Well, you are refreshing me. I am not trying to be contentious in any way. I know that when you are an ambassador, you reflect your instructions of your department. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Well, Mr. Wallace, I am not asking you——

Ambassador WALLACE. I believe that he personally believed——

Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Wallace, I am sorry. This is my time. I am 

not asking you to be an apologist for Mr. Bolton’s actions. I asked 

you a simple question. Did he or did he not favor the withholding 

of U.S. dues? 

You said you didn’t know the answer. I refreshed your memory. 

The answer is he did not. He went on record as saying it would 

be wrong and it would be harmful to U.S. interests for an institution, for an institution, that apparently does so many awful things 

and is no ineffectual and works so often against U.S. interests. 

That is a striking thing for somebody who was appointed to that 

job, not confirmed by the Senate at the time, who was perhaps one 

of its chief critics. 

I note that for the record. 

Ambassador WALLACE. I don’t think anybody in this room believes that John Bolton doesn’t support withholding. He does support withholding. I am sure at the time that he was Ambassador, 

he was following instructions. But Ambassador Bolton, no one in 

this room believes that he doesn’t support withholding. And that is 

his opinion. He should come testify to that. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Well, we would be glad to have him come and 

testify, but, again, the purpose of the question was to get on the 

record what was the official position of the Bush administration 

and its spokesperson, both here and at the United Nations. 

Mr. Piccone, the United Nations—I am listening to all of this—

has been an abject failure when it comes to U.N. foreign policy interests, has it not, in terms of peacekeeping operations, in terms 

of support for various and sundry resolutions that the United 

States would care about? It has pretty much been for its existence 

nothing but a thorn in the side of United States foreign policy. 

Would that be a fair statement? 

Mr. PICCONE. No, it has not been an abject failure. And I tried 

to point out ways in which it has helped us share the burden of 

things that we would need to do anyway to protect our core interests in international peace and security. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Any striking examples of where there has been 

a coincidence of U.S. foreign policy interest and United Nations action? 

Mr. PICCONE. Well, I have mentioned Iraq and Afghanistan, 

where the U.N. has come behind U.S. military operations to help 

lay the groundwork for sustainable peace and democracy in those 

countries. I have mentioned Haiti, where the U.N. came in. And, 

of course, as you know, over 100 U.N. officials and civil servants 

were killed in that earthquake, which shows that they were putting 

their lives on the line in cases where we need them to help in situVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Apr 08, 2011 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00064 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\FULL\030311\64870 HFA PsN: SHIRL
61

ations that are really important to our core interest. Those are just 

two examples. There are many, many more. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Ambassador Wallace, if I could sneak in one last 

question? The United Nations Security Council passed resolution 

1929, subjecting Iran to what had been called some of the perhaps 

strictest sanctions ever imposed by the United Nations. 

Those sanctions and that resolution were, in fact, praised by Secretary Gates, our Defense Secretary, as being a good example of 

multilateral cooperation against Iran. Do you share that view? 

Ambassador WALLACE. Let me repeat my testimony earlier. I am 

not sure if you were here at the time when I said that peacekeeping and sanctions are two important things that the U.N. does. 

It doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t strive to make the U.N. a better 

place and more reflective of our U.S. national security interests. Do 

you need me to say it again? I will. Peacekeeping——

Mr. CONNOLLY. No. 

Ambassador WALLACE [continuing]. Is important and sanctions 

are——

Mr. CONNOLLY. Ambassador Wallace, again, that is not my question. My question was, do you share Secretary Gates’ opinion that 

that resolution and those sanctions represent, in fact, a multilateral success of the United Nations? 

Ambassador WALLACE. Every sanctions resolution against Iran, 

North Korea, Burma I think is a good thing. So yes. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Thank you. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you so much. 

Mr. Kelly, Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific vice chair? 

Mr. KELLY. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Since there is some confusion as to what Ambassador Bolton actually says,—I am going to quote from his book, ‘‘Surrender is Not 

an Option,’’ I go to page 443—

‘‘Accordingly, I conclude that only one U.N. reform is worth the 

effort. And without it, nothing else will succeed. Voluntary contributions must be replaced, assessed contributions. If America 

insisted it would pay only for what works and that we get 

what we paid for, we would revolutionize life throughout the 

U.N. system. There is simply no doubt that eliminating the entitlement mentality caused by relying on assessed contributions would profoundly affect U.N. officials around the world.’’

So, rather than us trying to figure out what the Ambassador may 

have said or needing to refresh other people’s memory, let’s just go 

to his book and use that. 

Mr. Wallace, Ambassador Wallace, let me just ask you because 

I come from the private life, where competition means everything. 

And I know that a lot of what we do in the U.N., we look at it as 

does it have any worth or does it not have any worth? 

On page 6 of your written testimony, you talk about fostering 

competition. And you say that some U.N. agencies perform at a 

much higher standard from their counterparts and especially the 

World Food Programme. This is a voluntary program that is funded voluntarily. And it seems to have better efficiency, accountVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Apr 08, 2011 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00065 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\FULL\030311\64870 HFA PsN: SHIRL
62

ability, transparency. Everything works better than when it is up 

to competition. 

So recognizing that the largest contributor to the World Food 

Programme is the United States at $1.57 billion, or 40 percent, of 

its $3.82 billion budget, let me just ask you this. This fostering 

competition sounds like a good way to fix some of these things that 

we think and lessons that we have learned from the past history. 

How can we overcome some of the challenges to the competitive 

model? What could we do to bring this about in other facets of 

what we do with the U.N.? 

Ambassador WALLACE. I do believe and agree with the premise 

that that those U.N. funds, programs, and specialized agencies that 

are voluntarily funded have to compete for dollars in that competition makes them more accountable to member states. I think that 

is crystal clear. I think the World Food Programme is a classic example. 

I think that you should seek a voluntarily funding model certainly much more across the board than the funds programs and 

specialized agencies. It doesn’t mean that we should pull out or 

otherwise, but we should ask these funds programs and specialized 

agencies to conduct themselves in a manner that is twenty-first 

century, Republican, Democrat, NGO, not-for-profit, country, corporation. 

And some of the things that you all have outlined in the legislation in terms of suggesting reforms, those apply in my opinion to 

both voluntarily funded programs and those that are mandatorily 

funded. 

I think those reforms are good. I think, generally speaking, those 

that are voluntarily funded are more transparent and more accountable because they are competing and they have to satisfy you 

that they are doing a good job. They have to show where the money 

is going in a detailed manner. And that is more accountability. And 

that is what voluntarily funding does. 

I think, coupled with the Transparency and Accountability Initiative that you all have outlined that we supported, I think voluntary 

funding, funds programs, and specialized agencies are the way to 

go. 

Mr. KELLY. Okay. Thank you. Let me ask you that. What U.N. 

committees and agencies would you think were the prime candidates? What could we look at, any of the three of you, please? 

Ambassador MILLER. Every U.N. specialized agency is a candidate to have the majority of their budget put on a voluntary 

basis. I think it would be appropriate in many cases to have a very 

small component of the budgets of these agencies put on a permanent and assessed basis as a condition of membership. 

But when the agencies are actually undertaking activities in the 

world, when they are undertaking assistance activities, aid activities, when they are undertaking any kind of activities that involve 

going out and helping citizens around the world, any kind of engagement around the world and the same way peacekeeping activities tend to be funded in a different way, well, we ought to think 

about funding these activities of these specialized agencies that 

way as well by voluntary funding. 

63

Then, as Ambassador Wallace says, they have to compete. They 

have to be accountable for results. The problem with have with aid 

expenditures around the world is that we measure inputs. We 

measure how much we spend. There is no ability, really, at all, in 

an effective way to measure the results of those expenditures. You 

get that through the competitive process. 

Mr. KELLY. Yes. And I ask you, then. So some of the metrics that 

you use, I mean, how do we gauge the return on our investment? 

How do we gauge the success or how would we improve it? What 

kind of metrics could we use? 

Ambassador MILLER. It has got to be the results that you achieve 

in real terms in the world. One of the most serious problems with 

the U.N. is that we tend to judge its results by the promises that 

it makes in terms of addressing problems. We need to go out and 

actually measure, is development taking place? Is health improving? Is education taking place? 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you. 

Ambassador MILLER. Is peace happening anywhere in the world? 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you. 

Ms. Schwartz from Pennsylvania? 

Ms. SCHWARTZ. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I appreciate the 

opportunity to inquire. 

Actually, while it seems that there is a disagreement, there actually is I think remarkable agreement that we ought to stay engaged with the U.N. I think Ambassador Miller sort of answered 

it slightly differently but did come to the conclusion the last time 

around that we ought to stay engaged. 

And I think that I wanted to appreciate the Ambassador Wallace’s mention that when you focus on the problems and the concerns and the reforms that have been made, which was part of your 

mission, they are only talking about the problems and the concerns. And there are forms that have to be done and some of the 

things we neglected to talk about and some of the things that were 

just mentioned that are keenly important that the U.N. does that 

really help us in our mission to be safer or more secure in a world 

community. 

So I think maybe that is something we ought to focus on, what 

do we get for the dollars and what does the U.N. do that we actually find extremely valuable to our own U.S. interests and to recognize the U.N. is not the only way we engage in the world community. I believe it is an important one, but it is not the only one. It 

doesn’t preclude us from many other both unilateral and multilateral discussions of interest to the United States. 

So the U.N. is one tool. And I think all of you pointed out quite 

keenly that the issues of peacekeeping and political missions that 

we engage in in the sanctions are extremely important to have our 

allies around the world agree with us and be able to move forward 

in a more multilateral way than not. 

And recently, of course, the U.N. Security Council taking a very 

swift action on Libya was really—we talked about Iran already and 

Libya as well—something that I think many of us were very proud 

to see happen. And I have to say certainly our engagement in the 

U.N., well, it might not have happened at all without us being engaged. 

64

You are all nodding. So I will put that on the record. They are 

all nodding yes, which is a good thing. 

And I do want to recognize that because I think a unanimous 

adopted resolution that condemns and demands an end to violence 

in Libya is really important in posing those tough sanctions. Iran 

and Libya are very important to us. 

I mean, given what is going on, we talk about many places 

around the world but the real threats around the world, the real 

uncertainties. And, of course, the current violence in Libya is of 

deep concern to all of us. It is a very volatile part of the world unexpectedly in some ways. I think many would recognize that the 

last couple of months have really changed the dynamic so much: 

Tunisia, Egypt, Libya. You could say maybe Jordan, maybe elsewhere. 

So I wanted to really ask the question about the role in both 

again on peacekeeping but, really, also more on the political mission going forward and the role that we will play but could also 

play, the U.N. could play, in helping to make sure that those countries, particularly Egypt, for example, move ahead with democratic 

reforms and democratic institution building. It has been a concern 

of many of ours. 

So I do want to reserve a minute for the ranking member. So just 

really quickly, Mr. Piccone, if you would start there, that would be 

very helpful because I think helping them get it right but not having interfered too broadly is extremely important to safety and security in the region and for us. 

Mr. PICCONE. I would point out that in the case of what is going 

on in North Africa, you already have U.N. agencies on the ground 

that are feeding and sheltering refugees crossing the border from 

Libya into Tunisia and Egypt. 

I would also note that, you know, when political change happens, 

you start to see results. So Tunisia, which has always been a very 

difficult member of the Council, is now inviting the Council experts 

to come. And they want a field office to advise them on how they 

can move forward on building democratic institutions. 

This is just one example of the role that the U.N. can play in 

parts of the world where, frankly, when we come in and do it on 

our own, it is not as easily swallowed by some of these states. But 

when the U.N. comes in under a blue U.N. flag, people say, ‘‘Oh, 

I can accept this.’’ This is how we can have influence. 

Ms. SCHWARTZ. Okay. I appreciate that statement. 

And I did want to yield the rest of my remaining time to the 

ranking member. Mr. Berman wanted to——

Mr. BERMAN. I thank the gentlelady very much for yielding. And 

it is right in line with what she was saying. 

Ambassador Wallace, I very much appreciate your discussion of 

this in the context of nuance. I am actually, I have to admit, surprised by not because of you but just, you know, all the polarization. 

The reason I think it is better not to withhold, to achieve the 

transparency in budgeting, the transparency in procurement, the 

member state access to audits, which are absolutely right, every 

one of them, is our closest allies if we start withholding, we need 

them to achieve these things. 

65

I am convinced from my conversations that if we play that withholding game, we will lose them in this effort. And that is why I 

think withholding is a mistake. 

Thank you. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you, Mr. Berman. Thank you, 

Ms. Schwartz. 

Mr. Manzullo, the chairman of the Subcommittee on Asia and 

the Pacific, is recognized. 

Mr. MANZULLO. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

I have a question I would like to ask. Do you believe that international treaties that are based upon U.N. organizations should 

trump domestic laws in different countries? 

Mr. PICCONE. No. We have a process under our law where our 

Senate ratifies treaties. And, therefore, it does become part of our 

law. And, therefore, there is some commitment we have made to 

abide by——

Mr. MANZULLO. So, then, you——

Mr. PICCONE. So we have a treaty requirement and, for example——

Mr. MANZULLO. So, then, you would allow the United States Senate, without any input from the House of Representatives, to adopt 

the treaty or the convention of rights of the child to trump U.S. 

law? 

Mr. PICCONE. I am not familiar enough with the details of that 

particular convention, but that is the role that our Constitution 

gives to ratify. 

Mr. MANZULLO. I understand that, but what is going on is the 

UNICEF has come up with this treaty on convention of the rights 

to the child that says if a nation adopts it, it is for the purpose of 

recognizing the best interest of the child, and I quote, ‘‘in the 

child’s evolving capacities’’ as the umbrella principle under riding 

the exercise of all rights in the convention. It would actually go on 

to overturn recent Supreme Court decisions on who has the ultimate decision to make in raising the family. That is the Troxel 

case. 

Ambassador Miller? 

Ambassador MILLER. Thank you, Mr. Manzullo. I am very familiar with that convention and was actively involved in some of the 

negotiating processes for it and believe very strongly that the 

United States should not ratify it, but because many portions of it 

are in fundamental conflict not only with our basic values and principles but with our principles of the Federal system because many 

of the things that are covered by that convention are actually handled at the state and local level and U.S. law and practice. 

I think were the Senate to ratify that convention, were the 

Obama administration to decide they wanted to join, the Senate 

ratified, I think it would be the subject of court cases and judicial 

action for years in the United States. 

Mr. MANZULLO. But would you agree then, that now, here is an 

international organization to which the United States has the biggest share of dues? Taking that dues money and coming up with 

an international treaty that, if adopted by the Senate, would trump 

all law in this country with regard to the raising of children? 

66

I mean, is that a correct use of U.S. taxpayers’ money to have 

an international organization determine how children should be 

raised? 

Ambassador MILLER. I think it is a complete distortion of anything that we would ever want to achieve. And it is really important to understand that when we try to partner with these other 

countries around the world, you have to look at who your partners 

are in that case. And these are countries, many of which do not 

share our values. So I think we need to exercise the utmost caution 

when we are talking about——

Mr. MANZULLO. Okay. Mr. Piccone? 

Ambassador MILLER [continuing]. Social issues or——

Mr. MANZULLO. Do you believe that is okay to have——

Mr. PICCONE. I think the U.N. isn’t forcing us to do anything and 

can’t force us to do anything,——

Mr. MANZULLO. They are involved in this. 

Mr. PICCONE [continuing]. Signing a treaty in this case. If there 

is objection to signing the treaty, we don’t sign it or if maybe in 

another treaty where we express reservations and we make it clear 

certain——

Mr. MANZULLO. But, I mean, this is——

Mr. PICCONE [continuing]. Provisions we do not——

Mr. MANZULLO. The U.N. is doing this in terms of a treaty. This 

bypasses not only traditional state law, but any Federal law that 

may have to do with raising a child in favor of something called 

the ‘‘evolving capacities’’ of a child. 

It just bothers me that taxpayers’ money should be used to give 

to organizations where people sit around and spend that type of 

money to come up with things like this, this convention on the 

rights of a child. 

Mr. PICCONE. I would just say that if you look at the array of 

human rights treaties that have been negotiated and ultimately 

ratified by this country and many other countries, that we have 

succeeded in putting forward American values as universal values. 

There are exceptions. 

Mr. MANZULLO. So you can defend the expenditure of U.N. 

money on a study like this, in a treaty presented before the United 

States? 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you, Mr. Manzullo. We will continue that——

Mr. MANZULLO. Can he give an answer? Can he say ‘‘Yes’’ or 

‘‘No,’’ which? 

Mr. PICCONE. I took it as a rhetorical question. 

Mr. MANZULLO. I don’t ask rhetorical questions. 

Mr. PICCONE. I would say, you know, minimal, minimal resources. This is a universal organization. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you. We will continue that conversation. 

Mr. MANZULLO. Thank you. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Payne of New Jersey, the ranking 

member on the Subcommittee on Africa, Global Health, and 

Human Rights? 

Mr. PAYNE. Thank you very much. 

67

How many countries have not ratified the treaty—I am not familiar with it—the treaty, the one that Mr. Manzullo is talking 

about? Do you know? 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Manzullo, hold on. If we could 

start the time again because he is referring to the countries of the 

treaty? 

Mr. PAYNE. Yes. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. We will start the time again. Mr. 

Payne is recognized. 

Mr. PAYNE. Great. Thank you. Thank you very much. 

I certainly support the United States rejoining or joining the 

Human Rights Council. Mr. Piccone, could you tell me the differences of the changes made by the Human Rights Council from 

its inception, how you were voted on? It was done by blocks of 

countries or so forth? And what changes were made in the new 

one? 

Mr. PICCONE. Under the old Commission, it was a clean slate for 

each region. And then you had an open-ended appointment, in effect. Now states have to run in competitive elections. And the competitive elections have led to defeat of some bad states. So that 

process works. 

You are also term-limited. So states cannot serve for more than 

two consecutive terms. So Cuba, China, they will rotate off the 

Council. They shouldn’t have been elected in the first place. I totally agree they should not have been elected in the first place, but 

they will rotate off. And it is critical that good states then run. And 

that is what the U.S. has been trying to do. 

I think the universal periodic review is a new mechanism that 

for the first time allows every state to be reviewed. We used to 

have huge fights in Geneva over just getting China to be reviewed. 

And there would be no action motions. And we often lost. I think 

we won once on that. 

And now China is being reviewed, publicly webcast. And this allows Chinese civil society to actually create a record and submit 

their own criticisms of the Chinese Government in the U.N. forum. 

That is unprecedented. That is also another example of something 

that is new. 

Mr. PAYNE. And also the U.S. ran and did pretty well, right, in 

this new round since we entered? 

Mr. PICCONE. Yes, I think the U.S. leadership, as I mentioned in 

my testimony, has made a big difference in focusing more on country scrutiny away from Israel with cases like Cote d’Ivoire, cases 

that I didn’t mention, like Democratic Republic of Congo. After the 

crisis of the rapes in that country, a session was called for that 

case, et cetera. 

Mr. PAYNE. Right. Yes. I think that it made no sense for us not 

to participate at the beginning. You know, here you have the most 

powerful nation in the world and we say we are not going to sit 

down there because they are going to say bad things about us, 

rather than being in the room and saying, ‘‘Wait a minute. You 

don’t talk about me like that. Let me tell you about yourself.’’ In 

other words, to me it made absolutely no sense. 

And I am glad that this administration had the courage to say, 

‘‘Let’s participate in it. Let’s go there and let’s argue our position. 

68

Let’s take Amman when they are off the board on Israel or any 

other area that they are making mistakes on.’’ And so I am glad 

to see us participate. 

I think there still has to be a lot of reform. But I do believe that 

we are on the right track. 

The question of the U.S. dues being withheld, I think that really 

also doesn’t make too much sense. As you know, when the U.N. 

started, we procured about 50 percent because the world was in 

shambles. When it came to actual dues, we were down to 33 percent was what it was fixed on. As you know, from the 33 percent 

that we have been paying for U.N. dues, the general assessment, 

we have reduced ourselves by one-third. As you may know, we are 

down to 22 percent, just a little bit above, say, Japan, for example. 

So the fact that I think we are getting increasingly much more 

bang for the buck because we, too, have said that we will not ever 

let a U.S. troop be boots on the ground peacekeeping. So the rest 

of the world, you bring the troops. And we will pay our assessment, 

but we are not going to get in harm’s way. 

So I think that in Haiti and in other places, where we would possibly have had troops, the U.N. is covering that for us. So I think 

that there are tremendous amounts of positive things that are happening as a result of the U.N. being around. And I think that it 

is going to play a key role in the Middle East, where we can set 

up, as you mentioned, we can set up U.N. offices to do democracy 

building, rather than the U.S. going in, because that would just be 

what other countries would use against us. 

So, as you can see, I am a pretty strong supporter of the U.N., 

feeling that it has a lot of flaws, but I think it has improved and 

we still have to keep the pressure on them to make them improve 

more. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you very much, Mr. Payne. 

And I would like to recognize our ranking member, Mr. Berman, 

for a unanimous request. 

Mr. BERMAN. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. 

And I would like unanimous consent to present a letter into the 

record of this hearing from the Foreign Minister of Israel to the 

Secretary of State regarding the U.S. efforts in UNESCO to prevent the adoption of five anti-Israel resolutions. 

It is relevant to the conversation that Ms. Buerkle had with Mr. 

Piccone earlier. And, for that, I would like to include this letter in 

the record, if I could. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you. And I would just like to 

point out that we did return to UNESCO after being out for so 

many years. And they saw the light. It is so wonderful. 

Mr. BERMAN. Well, I don’t know if they saw all of the light, but 

they are——

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Well, they have seen some light. 

Mr. BERMAN. But they——

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. But they like withdrawing. 

Mr. BERMAN. They are a lot better than they were,——

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Yes. Okay. 

Mr. BERMAN [continuing]. Anybody, than they were in 1988. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. All right. Thank you. 

69

And for the last word, I will yield 5 minutes to Mr. Burton, the 

chairman of the Subcommittee on Europe and Eurasia. 

Mr. BURTON. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

First of all, my good friend Mr. Berman, the ranking member, indicated that—and I think Mr. Payne did as well—we shouldn’t be 

cutting the U.N.’s funds. Great Britain and the House of Commons—let’s see; it was Mr. Mitchell—said that they were going to 

cut 50 million in pounds by cutting development funding to 4 

United Nations organizations, United Nations Industrial Development Organization, U.N. Habitat, U.N. Agency for International 

Labor Organizations, and the U.N. International Strategy to Disaster Reduction. 

Mr. BERMAN. Would the gentleman yield? 

Mr. BURTON. No. I am sorry. I will if I have time at the end because——

Mr. BERMAN. Okay. 

Mr. BURTON [continuing]. I love you, man. [Laughter.] 

Let me just tell you that I listen to this kind of discussion. And 

I have been here for 28 years. I know I look a lot younger, but I 

have been here for a long time. And I have to tell you I get so frustrated sometimes when I listen to this stuff. You know? 

We shouldn’t be passing any treaty or anything that cedes our 

constitutional authority to anybody but especially the U.N. And I 

will do everything in my power as long as I am in this place to stop 

any of our rights that are given to us by our forefathers I the Constitution to any agency in the world, especially the United Nations. 

And the next thing I would like to say is my good friend Mr. 

Payne said, ‘‘Well, we don’t pay much more than the Japanese do.’’ 

Well, the Japanese pay 16 percent of the budget. We pay 22 percent. And I would say that is a pretty big difference. 

But, nevertheless, we should I think hold the U.N. accountable. 

We spend over 25 percent of the budget for defensive actions 

around the world, for the United Nations military forces. 

When we talk about Haiti, the U.N. does do some things, but we spend a lot of money down in Haiti. We spent $6.3 billion so far. 

So we are doing more than our share if we didn’t give the U.N. a 

thing. 

Now, what I would like to know, I am not a big fan of the U.N. 

I mean, you might have gathered that. I think that, you know, they 

end up opposing us on so many things. And since the Korean War, 

I can’t think of very many areas where the U.N. has been supportive of what the United States wants. And so, you know, if 

somebody is constantly kicking you in the fact, I don’t see any reason to give them a whole lot of money. But, nevertheless, I realize 

where we are. 

Now let me just ask a quick question of you folks. And you can 

give me the answers within the time frame. How many U.N. agencies and offices and officials publicly disclose their budgets and finances? 

And, second, are all U.N. agency audits and investigations available to donor states? U.N. entities are subject to the transparency 

that we expect from publicly held companies here in the United 

States. I can remember when they were spending tremendous 

amounts of money, double, triple what an accountant would make 

70

in New York. They are giving their kids college money. They are 

paying for their houses. They are paying for their cars. They are 

paying for everything with our tax dollars. And I would like to 

know if there is any transparency in those areas. And I will yield 

to any of you. 

Ambassador WALLACE. In that order, not enough, no, and no. 

Mr. BURTON. I love your succinctness. 

Ambassador WALLACE. But I want to give one caveat. I think in 

this time when we have such tight budget dollars, we have to have 

the thoughtful discussion about the benefits of our ODA dollars 

and what it gets to, the end users or intended beneficiaries, or donations as we contribute to international organizations. 

Let me read you one quote, ‘‘Approximately 75 percent of the 

budget resources are related to salaries and common staff costs,’’ 

75 percent. That wasn’t me. That was my friends from the G–77 

in China in the budget discussion in 2008 and 2009. 

One of the reforms that we should seek to have, which is the cutting edge of not-for-profit giving and international aid, is to have 

a cap on administrative overhead and costs. I think we should narrow that down so only 5 to 10 percent goes to overhead, administrative, and costs. That is a better deal. 

Let’s have a thoughtful discussion about that. And let’s move 

these funds programs, specialized agencies to lower their overhead 

from upwards of 50 to 75 percent down to a more appropriate 5 

percent. 

Right now our ODA when we give it directly to the field is, arguably, a much better deal. Why should we be paying overhead? We 

should be paying directly to the field. Our dollars should go to help 

people around the world, not to pay overhead. 

Mr. BURTON. Go ahead, Mr. Miller. 

Mr. PICCONE. Well, I——

Mr. BURTON. I can’t read. I don’t have my glasses on. 

Ambassador? 

Ambassador MILLER. One of the most frustrating things that 

happened when Ambassador Wallace and I were in New York was 

we would go into a meeting of UNDP, for example, and ask for a 

financial document or information about how much was spent on 

a given area. How much was spent in North Korea, for example? 

And that information was never forthcoming. There was a systematic effort to prevent us from obtaining the information that we 

needed in order to exercise proper oversight. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you so much. 

This was a wonderful set of panelists, good witnesses, good interaction from our members. And the committee is now adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:11 p.m., the committee was adjourned.] 

(71)

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

72


64870n.eps
73


64870m_1.eps
74


64870m_2.eps
75

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY THE HONORABLE HOWARD L. BERMAN, A

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA


64870e.eps
76


64870g_1.eps
77


64870g_2.eps
78


64870g_3.eps
79


64870g_4.eps
80

WRITTEN RESPONSES FROM THE HONORABLE MARK D. WALLACE TO QUESTIONS

SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY THE HONORABLE ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN


64870f_1.eps
81


64870f_2.eps
82


64870f_3.eps
83


64870f_4.eps
84

Æ


64870f_5.eps