U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

71–537 DTP WASHINGTON : 2001

S. HRG. 107–15

A REPORT ON THE UNITED NATIONS REFORMS

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

JANUARY 9, 2001

Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Relations

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/senate

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS

JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR., Delaware, Chairman

PAUL S. SARBANES, Maryland

CHRISTOPHER J. DODD, Connecticut

JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts

RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin

PAUL D. WELLSTONE, Minnesota

BARBARA BOXER, California

ROBERT G. TORRICELLI, New Jersey

JESSE HELMS, North Carolina

RICHARD G. LUGAR, Indiana

CHUCK HAGEL, Nebraska

GORDON H. SMITH, Oregon

CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming

BILL FRIST, Tennessee

LINCOLN D. CHAFEE, Rhode Island

SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas

EDWIN K. HALL, Democratic Staff Director

STEPHEN E. BIEGUN, Minority Staff Director

(II)

CONTENTS

Page

Biden, Hon. Joseph R., Jr., U.S. Senator from Delaware, opening statement ... 3

Helms, Hon. Jesse, U.S. Senator from North Carolina, opening statement ....... 5

Holbrooke, Hon. Richard C., U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations ............... 5

Prepared statement (includes charts) ............................................................. 15

Responses to additional questions for the record submitted by Senator

Gordon Smith ................................................................................................ 43

(III)

(1)

A REPORT ON THE UNITED NATIONS

REFORMS

WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 9, 2001

U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS, Washington, DC.

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:30 a.m. in room

SD–423, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Joseph Biden, Jr.

presiding.

Present: Senators Biden, Kerry, Feingold, Helms, Lugar and

Hagel.

Senator BIDEN. The hearing will come to order. It’s been 6 years

since I could say that. And it will be 6 seconds that I get to say

it. For the press and the public listening, this is a bit of a—how

can I say it?—a bit of a Senate parliamentary excess here. But

technically, I am for another 10 or 12 days or 8 days chairman of

this committee. But I am not the chairman. I do not claim the right

to be the chairman. And I am going to shortly turn back this whole

hearing to the real chairman of the committee, Senator Helms.

Today, the Committee on Foreign Relations is going to review the

status of reform in the United Nations. Nearly 4 years ago under

the leadership of Senator Helms, I started down a legislative road

with him that culminated in what was called the Helms-Biden legislation. That was approved in the fall of 1999. Folks on the left

did not like it. And folks on the right did not like it. And nobody

seemed to like it very much but Senator Helms and me.

This legislation was premised on two key assumptions. First,

that it is in the interest of the United States to have a United Nations that works.

And second, that the United Nations was in need of reform. The

legislation that was finally approved held out the promise that

nearly one billion dollars in arrears of back dues and peacekeeping

costs would be paid to the United Nations if certain reforms were

achieved. I want to make it clear we did not agree on what the arrears are. We have a figure that is lower than—is viewed by some

in the United Nations as so-called contested arrears which will, I

believe, never be paid by the United States—the contested piece.

But I made it clear that I would have preferred the funds to be

provided without conditions and then fought for the conditions

which I strongly believe are necessary.

And I have also made it equally clear and plain that in my judgment the Senate was not going to provide funds unless there were

strings attached, unless it was conditional. And a number of distinguished Ambassadors to the United Nations—some of their counVerDate 11-MAY-2000 15:37 May 30, 2001 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 71537 SFRELA1 PsN: SFRELA1
2

tries are here today. And I realized that was a bitter pill to swallow

and I understand it. We appreciate it. We know how difficult it is.

But in my view, it was an absolutely necessary pre-condition for us

to get things back on track here in the U.S. Senate.

Two of the major changes called for were lowering the assessment rates that the United States pays the U.N. regular budget

and for the assessment rates for peacekeeping operations.

In the case of peacekeeping, the rates had not been reviewed

since the early 1970’s. Senator Helms and I believe that these reforms though tough were necessary and would help put the U.N.

on a better financial footing by spreading the burden more equitably and quite frankly help tremendously here in generating continued support and even in some quarters enthusiasm for our participation in the United Nations.

And from what I have heard, it looks like we got almost everything that was asked for. Eighteen months ago during his confirmation hearings before this committee, Ambassador Holbrooke

promised that U.N. reform would be his highest sustained priority.

I might note parenthetically—and I am not being facetious when

I say this—I truly believe had this very close election turned out

differently, and I am not complaining about the way it turned out,

had it turned out differently, I am confident we would have Mr.

Holbrooke, Ambassador Holbrooke, sitting at that very table tomorrow as the nominee for Secretary of State in a different administration.

But Ambassador Holbrooke promised that U.N. reform would be

his highest sustained priority when this committee confirmed him.

There were many naysayers, both here in Washington and in New

York, who said it cannot be done.

Well, he has done it. And a large share of the credit for this accomplishment goes to Ambassador Holbrooke and the able team

which he is going to introduce after the real chairman finishes his

opening statement who had the full support of the President and

Secretary Albright in this process.

The result is this. Fiscal discipline continues at the U.N. And I

want to make it clear to the Ambassador, I do not believe that the

only reason why there has been improvement at the U.N. is anything the United States has done. I think had we not said a single

thing in Helms-Biden, you would have undertaken a number of

these initiatives unrelated to our share or the dues paying share.

So I do not want to sound presumptuous like we are sitting here

and we are the only ones who thought there was a need for reform

at the United Nations.

But fiscal discipline continues. A results based budget is starting

to take hold, and the Brahimi report reforms, when implemented,

meaning the peacekeeping operations, are going to be improved

from the ground up.

Equally important, these reforms and the payment of our arrears

should bring an end to the debate in this country about the utility

of the United Nations. It will ensure in my view that the United

States remain fully engaged in the United Nations.

For that, Ambassador Holbrooke, you have my thanks and my

congratulations for a job superbly done.

[The prepared statement of Senator Biden follows:]

3

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR.

Today the Committee on Foreign Relations will review the status of reform at the

United Nations.

Nearly four years ago, Senator Helms and I started down a legislative road that

culminated in the ‘‘Helms-Biden’’ legislation that was approved in the fall of 1999.

This legislation was premised on two key assumptions—

• first, that it is in the interests of the United States to have a United Nations

that works;

• second, that the United Nations was in need of reform.

The legislation that was finally approved held out the promise that nearly one billion dollars in arrears—or back dues—would be paid to the United Nations if certain reforms were achieved.

I have made it clear that I would have preferred the funds be provided without

conditions, but I have also made it equally plain that in my judgment the Senate

was not going to provide the funds unless there were strings attached.

Two of the major changes called for were the lowering of the assessment rates

that the United States pays for the UN’s regular budget and for peacekeeping operations. In the case of peacekeeping, these rates had not been reviewed since the

early 1970’s. Senator Helms and I believed that these reforms, though tough, were necessary

and would help put the UN on a better financial footing by spreading the burden

of funding more equitably. And from what I’ve heard, it looks like we got almost

everything we asked for.

Eighteen months ago, during his confirmation hearings before this Committee,

Ambassador Holbrooke promised that UN reform would be his ‘‘highest sustained

priority.’’ Many naysayers, both here in Washington and in New York, said ‘‘it can’t

be done.’’ Well, it has been done. And a large share of the credit for this accomplishment

must go to Ambassador Holbrooke and his team, who had the full support of the

President and Secretary Albright.

The result is this: fiscal discipline continues at the UN, ‘‘Results-Based Budgeting’’ is starting to take hold, and the ‘‘Brahimi Report’’ reforms, when implemented, mean that peacekeeping operations are going to be improved from the

ground up.

Equally important, these reforms—and the payment of our arrears—should bring

an end to the debate in this country about the utility of the United Nations. It will

ensure that the United States will remain fully engaged with the UN.

For that, Ambassador Holbrooke, you have my thanks and congratulations for a

job superbly done.

At this time I would also like to welcome to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee the distinguished UN Ambassadors that Ambassador Holbrooke has invited

as his guests.

Senator BIDEN. At this time now I would like to before we—I do

not think I should do this. I think the chairman should. I would

like to do one thing. And if you will excuse me from standing, I

want to return this committee to the status it will be for at least

another 2 years and turn the hearing back over and the gavel over

to the real chairman of this committee, Senator Helms.

Senator HELMS. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate

your calling this hearing. And as you say, we meet today to receive

a final status report from Ambassador Holbrooke, whom we all admire and to whom we are all grateful.

Even Americans who have never heard of you should be grateful

to you because you have made a big difference.

Two weeks ago, Ambassador Holbrooke succeeded at cajoling— and with maybe a little brow beating—some of our friends at the

United Nations into implementing several of the key reforms that

lie at the heart of the so-called Helms-Biden U.N. legislation.

And by the way, parenthetically, my interest in this began with

another Senator who is no longer a Senator, Nancy Kassebaum,

who is no longer Nancy Kassebaum. She is Mrs. Howard Baker.

4

1 Accessed through the U.S. Government Printing Office Web site at: www.access.gpo.gov/congress/senate/senate//.html

But anyway, Nancy and I talked about a number of things. And

one thing led to another. Then Senator Biden and I got busy and

we met and here we are.

We are grateful to you. Ambassador Holbrooke, when this deal

is fully implemented, it will knock at least $170 million off the

amount that the United Nations bills the American taxpayers.

More than that, through this debate, we have forced the United

Nations to make much needed reforms. And we have protected the

American taxpayer from unknown increases that might have happened and been contemplated by the United Nations and its supporters.

And I will never forget a day or two after Kofi Annan became

Secretary General. He came down here and visited with us. And

nobody could have been more cordial and more cooperative than he

was. And he made several commitments. We did not ask him to

commit, but we asked him to agree to certain benchmarks.

In any case, Mr. Ambassador, we are all proud of you and we are

pleased to have you here for this one last time as the U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations.

Now, as the U.N. has met with us most of the way down the

road, I am prepared to do the same. Now, releasing the biggest

payment of money under the Helms-Biden law actually required a

reduction to 25 percent in the amount that the United States pays

for United Nations peacekeeping.

Now, the U.N. missed that target. But on the basis of what was

achieved, I am prepared to support a technical change in that law

to permit the so-called Year Two payment. That is to say $582 million to be released.

Let me be clear. I do not concede the principles that the United

States is at all obligated to pay more than 25 percent of the peacekeeping budget of the United Nations. That cap was enacted into

a separate law 6 years ago with the signature of President Clinton.

But I do believe that we must acknowledge that the important

progress that has been made at the U.N. and the Congress should

respond to it.

Now then, this hearing and the achievements it will highlight

represent a close of an important year in the history of U.S. and

U.N. relations. Just a year ago this month, the Foreign Relations

Committee went up to New York on an historic visit with the

United Nations, the first time that a committee had ever ventured

as a group to visit an international institution.

Now, the U.N. Security Council reciprocated this past March

with a visit to Capitol Hill. And the proceedings of that historic dialog have just been published in a book.1 And to paraphrase Ambassador Holbrooke, copies are on sale outside the hearing room.

Seriously, they are free and available on the table at the back of

the room.

Now, I note that we are joined today by several Ambassadors.

You saw them. We welcome them. It is testimony to their esteem

for Ambassador Holbrooke that they are here today to support this

5

package. So welcome, Mr. Ambassador. We look forward to hearing

from you. We are proud of you. And you may proceed.

[The opening statement of Senator Helms follows:]

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR JESSE HELMS

Mr. Chairman, thank you for calling this hearing. We meet today to receive a

final status report from Ambassador Holbrooke on the reforms he has achieved at

the United Nations.

Two weeks ago, Ambassador Holbrooke succeeded in cajoling and generally browbeating our friends at the United Nations into implementing several of the key reforms that lie at the heart of the Helms-Biden U.N. legislation.

Ambassador Holbrooke, when this deal is fully implemented it will knock at least

$170 million from the amount that the United Nations bills the American taxpayer.

More than that, through this debate we have forced the United Nations to make

much-needed reforms, and we have protected the American taxpayer from unknown

increases that would have certainly been contemplated by the United Nations and

its supporters.

This was no simple task and, Ambassador Holbrooke, we are all proud of you and

pleased to have you here for what will be one last time as U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations.

As the U.N. has met us most of the way down the road, I am prepared to do the

same.

As you know, Mr. Ambassador, releasing the biggest payment of money under the

Helms-Biden law actually required a reduction to 25 percent in the amount that the

U.S. pays for United Nations peacekeeping. The U.N. missed that target. However,

on the basis of what was achieved I am prepared to support a technical change to

that law to permit the so-called ‘‘Year Two’’ payment, $582 million, to be released.

Let me be clear, I do not concede the principle that the U.S. is at all obligated

to pay more than 25 percent of the peacekeeping budget. That cap was enacted into

a separate law six years ago with the signature of President Clinton. But, I do believe that we must acknowledge the important progress that has taken place up at

the U.N., and the Congress should respond.

This hearing, and the achievements it will highlight, represents the close of an

important year in the history of U.S.-U.N. relations. Just a year ago this month,

the Foreign Relations Committee traveled to New York for an historic visit to the

United Nations—the first time that the Committee had ever ventured as a group

to visit an international institution. And the U.N. Security Council reciprocated last

March, with a visit to Capitol Hill.

The proceedings of that historic dialog have just been published and to paraphrase Ambassador Holbrooke, copies are on sale outside the hearing room. Seriously, they are free and available on the table at the back of this room.

I note that we are joined today by several Ambassadors serving on the U.N. Security Council with Ambassador Holbrooke. It is testimony to their esteem for him

that they are here today to support this package.

So, welcome Mr. Ambassador. We look forward to hearing from you.

STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD C. HOLBROOKE, U.S.

AMBASSADOR TO THE UNITED NATIONS

Ambassador HOLBROOKE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you,

Mr. Chairman. I am deeply moved to have been asked to come back

here again in my last 10 days in this job.

This is my eighth time I have appeared before your committee

in 17 months. And since it is my last opportunity to appear before

you in my current position, I want to begin by thanking all of the

five Senators who are here, Senator Helms, Senator Biden, Senator

Lugar, Senator Feingold, Senator Hagel and your colleagues for

your incredible support. Four of the five of you have been to New

York, more than once in most cases. The fifth of you has been in

constant contact with me and we have been friends for over 20

years. And I thank all of you for your support and your visits and

your friendship, and your advice and your encouragement.

6

And I am very gratified and honored by the comments that the

two of you have just made. But whatever we are here to report on

to you today is a shared achievement.

This was in my 38 years in the government the most unusual example of cooperation between the two co-equal branches of government. I was nominated by the executive branch, controlled by one

party, confirmed by the legislative branch, controlled by the other,

and given a mandate by the legislative branch, and full support by

President Clinton, Secretary Albright, Sandy Berger and others.

But the real heavy lifting here was day-by-day management of this

process. Every one of the five of you spoke to ambassadors on our

behalf, wrote letters, helped us and I hope that this historic collaboration, which also included members of other committees but

was centered right here in this room, will continue. I have so recommended to the Secretary designate, Colin Powell. And I believe

it’s a model for what should be done. I also urge you to continue

the exchange of visits that you began exactly a year ago this

month.

Mr. Chairman, I brought with me two groups of people who deserve an introduction. And with your permission, I would like first

my team to stand as a team because whatever we have accomplished could not have been done without them.

In strict protocol rank, my own team—who have never come

down as a group before and who have worked around the clock,

many of them going up to a week without sleep—are Ambassador

Jim Cunningham——

Senator HELMS. If you will stand up, please.

Ambassador HOLBROOKE. Jim is my deputy, a career diplomat,

and I am proud to say General Powell has asked him to remain as

charge ́ starting next week; Ambassador Don Hays who you confirmed as our management Ambassador and did such a fantastic

job; Suzanne Nossel, who I do not think slept for the last 2 months;

Mary Ellen Glynn, our splendid press officer who you all know; Bob

Orr who you have seen more of than anyone else because he is the

head of our Washington office; my other deputy Melanie Atwooll

who has done the charts that I am about to share with you; Deborah Isser who has worked on the charts and done such great work;

and Derek Chollet who is based here in Washington and works on

the text of what we do.

In this group, you can stay standing for the rest of the session

if you wish.

I cannot tell you how honored I am to have had this team. And

I look forward to their continuing to support your work.

In our efforts, we built very much on the hard work of my predecessors, particularly Madeleine Albright, Bill Richardson and Tom

Pickering and many others. President Clinton, Secretary Albright,

Sandy Berger and others were heavily engaged in this effort. And

so were all our ambassadors around the world who worked in capitals and I am grateful to them.

In addition, Mr. Chairman, as you have already mentioned, we

have here six ambassadors. We would have seven except that Sir

Jeremy Greenstock, the British Ambassador to the United Nations

called me from the FDR Drive and said that his Rolls Royce had

7

broken down. And I think he should get an American car myself,

but he sends his regrets.

If I could ask the ambassadors to also rise. First, Ambassador

Sato of Japan, my oldest friend in the U.N. system, an indispensable participant in this effort and a very significant beneficiary of

Helms-Biden. Because Japan, the second largest contributor to the

United Nations, is also going down in its contribution. So I think

that they should make you, Mr. Chairman, an honorary member of

the Japanese Diet.

Senator HELMS. I accept.

Ambassador HOLBROOKE. This is the first time in history that

Japan’s contribution has gone down since they entered the U.N.

And that is a direct result of the fact that your reforms and the

principles you put forward apply to Japan as well. And they deserve to go down.

And now the five Ambassadors who like to call themselves the

victims. And I am very grateful to them for coming her today. Ambassador Son from Korea. Under extraordinarily difficult circumstances, Korea made the largest single increase of any country

in dollar terms, spread out over a number of years, and we are very

grateful to Korea.

Ambassador Penny Wensley, whom you all know personally, the

former Chair of the Fifth Committee and an extraordinarily effective representative of Australia.

Ambassador Dumisani Kumalo, our dear friend from South Africa whose contribution has also been lowered as was entirely appropriate given the changed economic circumstances in South Africa.

We strongly supported that.

Ambassador Arnoldo Listre from Argentina whose country also

stepped up to the plate and is making a significant increase in its

contributions to the U.N.

And Ambassador Valdivieso, Alfonso Valdivieso from Colombia

who chaired the Rio Group which put forward the compromises

which led to the breakthrough on peacekeeping, and nothing was

more difficult. And I am very grateful to Alphonso for his extraordinary efforts on behalf of the group. And I am sorry that other

ambassadors could not come, but they had prior commitments. But

I am very grateful to our six colleagues.

Senator HELMS. I will reiterate to them what we said here, that

we are delighted that they came and want you to come again,

maybe have lunch with us. Thank you very much for being here.

Ambassador HOLBROOKE. Mr. Chairman, when I began my tenure in New York, our situation was somewhat tenuous. The United

States owed more than a billion dollars to the U.N. We had lost

our seat on the budget committee. We were within weeks of losing

our vote in the General Assembly and being suspended. And it was

weakening our overall foreign policy. Because the U.N. is not simply floating off on another planet. It is a core part of the way international relations are adjusted. And whether we like it or not, we

have to deal with it. The arrears issue had colored many aspects

of our foreign policy.

In the past 16 months, we have made a lot of progress in transforming this acrimonious relationship. We have met almost all of

8

2The charts referred to during Ambassador Holbrooke’s oral presentation are included with

his prepared statement beginning on page 20.

the benchmarks you set out for us. The U.N. is more streamlined,

more efficient and somewhat more effective.

But I want to say right at the outset that it is still a mess in

many areas. But it is a much, much better organization. And more

important than any specifics to me is the fact that we have set the

path for reform. And my distinguished colleagues behind me, both

the Americans and the ambassadors, are all people committed to

reform. And I think you have launched a process which will continue and get the support of the next administration. We have

helped bring the U.N. back to the vision of its founding fathers,

Franklin Roosevelt and Winston Churchill.

Seventeen months ago, I made some pledges to you under oath.

And they were basically that I would do my best and I was very

specific. I want to review first the score card very briefly on the

non-financial issues. If I could—I think Suzanne Nossel can point

to the chart 2 here. I do not know if everyone in the audience can

see.

But on the political side, we improved the peacekeeping process

greatly, Mr. Chairman. And we will be sending a peacekeeping

force—international, no Americans—to Ethiopia Eritrea in a few

weeks. We put very complex missions on the ground in East Timor

and Kosova, and the Lebanese transition was undertaken under

the most dangerous circumstances effectively.

Still, we had our problems. Notably Sierra Leone. We pledged to

you a year and a half ago that we would put more emphasis on Africa. We have done so. We not only devoted a month, our presidency month, to Africa, but the whole year. We put into place regimes on diamond certification, embargoes and the war crimes tribunal to deal with the situation in Sierra Leone. We have improved

our crisis response in Africa and we have strengthened our efforts

to avoid another genocide in Burundi.

Still, I would be misleading you if I said that any of us are satisfied with the African situation. That will be one of the great challenges of the next administration. The best we can say is we prevented the situation from getting worse. I am particularly disappointed that we were not able to get the Lusaka peace process

moving forward in the Congo. But I would draw your attention to

the fact that also we authorized a larger peacekeeping force in both

Sierra Leone and the Congo; because of our doubts, the U.N. did

not deploy that force yet. That is not only a financial saving, it is

a prudent course. So we did not just go willy nilly into areas.

On AIDS, we had a unique breakthrough. The first AIDS and

health resolutions in history. And you were present at part of that

discussion, Mr. Chairman. We are very proud of the fact that we

had the first Security Council resolution ever on AIDS. And my

last day as U.N. Ambassador, January 19, next Friday, we will

have an open session updating the battle against AIDS as a symbol.

Because in the opinion of many of us, myself included—and I

know Senator Frist, who has been to New York twice and had a

huge impact up there, would not disagree with this—the AIDS

9

issue—not just in Africa—is possibly the most serious issue we confront.

Senator Feingold accompanied me on a ten nation trip to Africa

in 1999 which was for me—I cannot speak for Senator Feingold— but for me a seminal trip in my own intellectual development and

set the course for much that has followed. And I hope that this

committee will continue to show its leadership on that. And I commend you, sir, and your colleagues for the sponsorship of the resolutions last year on this issue.

On Israel, I pledged to you we would get Israel into a regional

group. Now, all my predecessors have done this for 40 years. And

we are proud, Mr. Chairman, that we can be the first team to come

to you and say mission accomplished.

Israel is in the Western European and Others Group after 40

years in the wilderness. And this dramatically strengthened

Israel’s position in the U.N. just on the eve of the crisis which has

now enveloped the region. Some of the ambassadors seated behind

us, particularly Ambassador Wensley, because she is in that group,

assisted in this effort. And it was historically important.

And as you can see, it led to Israel’s decision to voluntarily increase its contribution to the U.N. So that was a singular achievement that we pledged to you.

We also have successfully fought off some very unattractive resolutions in the Middle East put forward by people whose sole purpose is to use the U.N. as a theater. And we do not think the U.N.

should be a theater. We think it should be a forum for conflict resolution.

Now, we do not always succeed. Sometimes the General Assembly or some fringe group takes a shot at Israel and we do not have

the votes to prevent it. But never before have the opponents of

Israel found such continual extremely aggressive counter pressures. And even the votes they win, they have won by much smaller margins. And we will fight—I believe that we should fight every

one of these resolutions on its merits.

We did not have to use the veto yet. Because we have been able

to handle it without the veto. And I hope that will continue. But

as I said repeatedly, I think we should use the veto whenever necessary to protect our national interests. But Israel has come out

ahead here.

Finally, we have made a major effort in trying to break through

on definitions of refugees to include internally displaced persons.

We have very happily welcomed Yugoslavia into the U.N. Notice,

Mr. Chairman, I do not say readmitted. This is a new country. It

is not a successor state to Tito’s Yugoslavia. We kept them out for

9 years. We are delighted that President Kostunica’s government

applied under U.N. resolutions from 1992–93 and we welcome

them in. And I am delighted with that achievement.

And finally, we kept Sudan off the Security Council. Many of you

were involved directly in that, Senator Feingold, Senator Helms

particularly and Senator Frist. Had Sudan joined the Security

Council, it would have been a disaster. And we have kept the sanctions regimes in place in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Now, Mr. Chairman, with that, I want to move onto the reform

issue because I know our time is short.

10

On reform, I pledged to you, as you and Senator Helms said, that

this would be our highest sustained priority. And I would simply

like to report to you on the commitments I made to you on June

22, 1999.

For 17 months, your legislation has been our road map. As you

directed, we held the line on U.N. budget discipline. There has

been no growth in the U.N. regular budget since 1994. That is a

remarkable statement, but it is true.

But much more needs to be done. The Office of Public Information must be cut. It still has over 800 people. And I believe that

is inappropriate. I know the Secretary General agrees with me on

this. And that should be one of our next major campaigns.

Second, as you directed us, we regained the American seat on the

Budget Committee. This was not easy to do, but we got back on it.

Third, we made progress on all sorts of management reforms,

many of which are contained as benchmarks in the Helms-Biden

legislation. Last year, as you asked us to work on, the General Assembly adopted results-based budgeting, which will eliminate unnecessary expenditures, and ensure that programs fulfill their

mandates. That was one of your Helms-Biden criteria.

We also strengthened the implementation of the code of conduct,

an issue you mentioned in your opening remarks, and other criteria, another set of the benchmarks in Helms-Biden.

We have a personnel evaluation system in place as called for in

Helms-Biden. We have the GAO study of U.N. allowances begun as

called for in Helms-Biden. And we have a human resource reform

movement underway, not in your legislation, but added to it.

On peacekeeping, Mr. Chairman, beyond what you called for. We

have the first Assistant Secretary General for peacekeeping who is

an American ever. I insisted on this because it was my analysis

that you, your committee, would need a point of contact within the

Secretariat who you knew. Secretary General Annan supported

this. The head of peacekeeping as you know is a Frenchman, a very

fine officer, civilian. His deputy now—one of his two deputies—will

be Michael Sheehan, who most of you know, former Assistant Secretary of State, former Army officer, well known to both the Clinton administration and to the incoming administration. And I am

very pleased and I urge you to work directly with Michael

Sheehan.

We have also as you mentioned implemented the Brahimi report.

So that is a great step forward. Now, that is only partial implementation. I would say 35 percent of that report has been implemented.

So I hope the next administration will keep the pressure on that.

And does that cover that chart? Well, obviously the most important issue is the financial benchmarks. And we will turn to those

now.

On the financial benchmarks, I would say, while Suzanne is getting the charts, that I had over 300 meetings one-on-one with my

fellow ambassadors in New York. Ambassador Hays and his extraordinarily dedicated team had over 500 additional ones. We

made thousands of phone calls. And the effort went way beyond the

confines of New York.

In addition to the efforts of you and your colleagues, Senator

Helms, President Clinton, Sandy Berger, Madeleine Albright, Tom

11

Pickering, Larry Summers, Charlene Barshefsky, and many others,

including every Assistant Secretary for the regions, was involved.

And our ambassadors overseas received over 800 instructions

from us—800 instructions—by cable. Plus God knows how many

phone calls—telling them to go in and fight. Some of the ambassadors behind us can tell you the backlash of that. But the ambassadors who are not here are the ones who can really tell you.

So I want to commend everyone, and especially again this committee for the letters that you sent.

These efforts concluded the morning of Saturday, December 23

when the General Assembly gaveled through a unanimous resolution with the benchmarks.

The final crescendo was very dramatic. Two hundred ambassadors and their delegates sleeping on the floor of the Fifth Committee. It looked like a kind of a very high class homeless shelter

on the upper East Side while they waited for instructions, last

minute drama with several of the countries. But we got it done. We

got it done. And it was remarkably tiring, exhausting, and in the

end, I think, productive.

Now, what happened? Well, what happened on that morning of

December—it says December 22 here, but it really was the 23d.

The U.S. budget assessment and the regular budget went from 25

percent down to 22 percent. That is the first drop since 1972. The

last time this went down was under my distinguished predecessors,

Ambassador to the United Nations, George Bush, 28 years since

our assessment went down. And I will show you the historical

chart in a minute.

Second, our peacekeeping budget was revised for the first time

in history. It was put into place by Henry Kissinger and his colleagues in 1973 and never revised. And there was no provision for

revision. So first we had to get agreement simply to talk about it.

And to revise it was incredibly difficult. And some of the ambassadors sitting here today, Argentina for example, really came

through. It’s not easy for Argentina and Korea to do what they did.

But they are in the process of progressively giving up a discount

they have had for 27 years. And without them, it could not have

been done.

This reduction is partially in effect now and goes fully into effect

in 5 months. Therefore, as a result of this, the peacekeeping rate

for the U.S. would have been 31.5 percent this year. Instead, it has

dropped immediately by over four points and will drop additionally

on July 1 and continue to drop. And I will show you that chart in

a minute.

We will be in the 25 percent range as called for by 2004. I am

well aware of the fact that your committee wanted this on January

1 of this year. I apologize for not achieving it. We came very close

and I am enormously gratified at your opening statement, Mr.

Chairman, of what you just said about the second tranche—excuse

me, I am not supposed to use a French word here. I will not use

the word tranche again—the second phase of the Helms-Biden. But

I will show the chart in a minute.

Now, 29 countries have accepted increases from 50 percent to

500 percent in their peacekeeping assessments. An extraordinary

12

thing. And I think we should acknowledge them individually at the

appropriate time.

The U.S. savings as a result of this, Mr. Chairman, are imme- diately this year over $100 million and rising to at least $170 million within the next 2 years. The U.S. saving is $100 million immediately. I think $110 million, rising to $170 million. It’s hard to get

precise figures because of some variables, but it is a very substantial nine digit amount already. And there will be additional savings

along the line.

Mr. Chairman, I mentioned the historical record. It is very important. In 1946, we were half the world’s GNP and we paid just

under 40 percent of the budget. In 1957, we went down to 33 percent of the budget. In 1972, under Ambassador George Bush’s leadership, we went down to 25 percent and then for 28 years, we

never moved. That was the longest period of time without a reduction. That period is over. We achieved the key benchmark of

Helms-Biden.

Specifically, we went from 25 percent to 22 percent as I just said.

The second chart here is rather complicated, but I would like to put

it on the record.

We had used the 6-year base for financial progress which meant

the lagging indicators were just too long. The economic data was

out of date. We would have preferred a 3-year base—you did not

instruct us on this. We just did the best we could. We would have

preferred a 3-year benchmark, because it is so complicated and various countries are effected in different ways. For example, 3 years

helps one European Union country and 6 years helps another.

We came up with a compromise of averaging 3 years and 6 years.

This tiny detail was brutally fought over and almost took us down.

So I wanted to put on the record that we have a 4.5 year financial

base.

Now, another thing that is very important, we are going to review every 6 years. And we also have built in for the first time ever

review of the peacekeeping scale.

Before we get to this chart, I should say one word about Ted

Turner’s contribution here. Because it has gotten a lot of publicity.

What Ted Turner did, Mr. Chairman, was quite remarkable. He

understood that the revision downward from 25 percent to 22 percent of the regular budget was necessary. But by the time we got

to the end of last year, almost all the major countries in the world

like the United States had locked in their budgets for 2001. And

countries like Germany and Argentina and Brazil and Korea, all of

which wanted to help, had already passed their national budgets.

So when Mr. Turner understood this, he volunteered to make up

the difference for 1 year in accordance with the law. And if your

committee, particularly the two of you, agreed to it, as a transitional year of grace, it was absolutely critical what he offered. The

result is that we are at 22 percent. But the effect of this can be

deferred by the member States until next year.

I want to thank Mr. Turner publicly for his gesture. This is not

part of his billion dollar fund to the United Nations. That is separate and it is not part of the $250 million that he and Senator Sam

Nunn announced yesterday. It is a separate gift. And I do want to

acknowledge it here.

13

Now, Mr. Chairman, this may be the most important chart for

future consideration. And it is here to explain what we did on

peacekeeping.

Last year, we paid 30.28 percent. If we had not done HelmsBiden, we would be now assessed 30.38 percent. And, of course,

since we pay 25 percent, we just keep mounting up the arrears. I

said a moment ago, we paid 30.28 percent. I misspoke. We were assessed 30.28 percent. We paid 25 percent. We would have been assessed 30.38 percent this year. Instead, we will be assessed 28.14

percent for the first half of the year, 27.5 percent for the second

half, declining to 26.5 percent in 2002, 26 percent and a little bit

by 2003, and then by 1904, we will be in the 25’s. That is a very

good projection. Things can change. Switzerland intends to join the

U.N. next year. They will pick up 1 percent of the budget. Sixtenths of 1 percent of that contribution will be reducing us. So that

will help additionally and so on.

Senator BIDEN. Mr. Chairman, could I ask for a clarification? If

not now, later, can you tell us how much money this means? What

this means in dollars?

Ambassador HOLBROOKE. Yes. Well, I already addressed that,

Senator. The savings to the United States this year will be over

$100 million, and by the year after next or earlier, at least $170

million. These are low ball figures because the benchmark is the

regular budget.

Senator BIDEN. I apologize if you covered it. I am sorry. I had

to take that phone call.

Ambassador HOLBROOKE. Now, this is the country-by-country

judgment, Mr. Chairman. I would like to start on the right hand

side with the blue arrows. Two countries reduced their peacekeeping assessments, only two.

One was South Africa. And I want to stress—because Ambassador Kumalo has made the trip from New York today and he is

one of the leaders of the U.N. system—that we always agreed with

South Africa that they should be allowed to get a discount on

peacekeeping.

I want to praise South Africa. Since the end of apartheid, South

Africa has voluntarily continued to accept full dues even though

their economic situation has changed and AIDS has become a terrible scourge. When they asked for relief, we endorsed it. But at

our request, they waited until the end of the year even though they

could have gotten this as early as March or April. And I want to

thank them.

The Czech Republic was a different situation. On the last day,

they asked for a drop. We did not agree with that decision at all,

but—and I know that you assisted us in the intervention—but we

accepted it because they had different economic circumstances.

Now, all the countries with red arrows went up. The first group

deserves special mention—Cyprus, Estonia, Hungary, Israel,

Korea, Malta, Slovenia—because they are going to give up their entire discount. This was essentially fairly voluntary on their parts.

In some cases like Korea, they have asked for several years. And

that is entirely appropriate. Again, I underscore that in dollar

terms, Korea is taking the largest increase of any country. Korea’s

history and the United Nations history are inextricably bound from

14

1950 on. Korea still reports regularly to the U.N. There is a U.N.

command in Korea leftover from the war. And I think Korea deserves special attention as the model of U.N. participation.

The second group, Brunei, Kuwait, Qatar, Singapore and UAE

did not wish to accept loss of their entire discount, but gave up almost all of it.

And then the others accordingly. And you can see them on the

chart. And I would like to enter it into the record. We are almost

finished with the charts, Mr. Chairman. I apologize for the length

of the presentation.

Now, I want to single out two countries that have been much in

the news on this issue, China and Russia. Because I think it needs

to be noted that, contrary to expectations, both countries played an

enormously contributory role. In percentage terms, not in dollar

terms, but in percentage terms, China and Russia made the largest

increases. China will have a 54 percent increase in its regular

budget and over a 60 percent increase in its peacekeeping budget.

Now, I know that many people say they should have taken a

larger increase and that is certainly an understandable point of

view. But given the fact that consensus is the watch word in the

U.N. and the consensus was put into place by the Reagan administration to protect our national interests and China is a permanent

member of the Security Council, I think it is important for us to

acknowledge this fact. And I hereby want to state that the Chinese

support for this was a critical—indeed indispensable—component.

Russia is an even more extraordinary example. As you will see

from this chart, because of its economic situation, Russia would

have made a decline all the way from the top of the first bar—1.08

percent in the regular budget—they would have dropped to .64 of

1 percent in the regular budget.

Mr. Chairman, there is no way we could have implemented

Helms-Biden—no way—if Russia had taken that drop. And they

had every right to because it was the system.

Russia—looking at the situation—agreed not only to stand firm,

but actually to increase to 1.2 percent. So from one point of view,

the Russians can tell you—and I wouldn’t dispute it, they doubled

what they would have been assessed in regular budget. I am not

here to defend or criticize countries, but merely to give you my end

of tour report.

On the peacekeeping, the same thing. They could have gone from

1.3 to .81 of 1 percent. Instead, they voluntarily increased to 1.5

percent. And I want to report that to you because it is important.

Mr. Chairman, that concludes the chart. The rest of my statement, I would like to introduce into the record and thank you for

your kind remarks. And especially what you said about the second

phase of the money. I consider that historically important and

genuinely newsworthy. And I believe we can now say mission substantially accomplished. We need to do a lot more reform of the

U.N. It needs to be improved. But when I use the word m-e-s-s earlier, I did not mean to castigate the efforts of our great Secretary

General who you and I share high regard for, but simply to say

that we need to strengthen Kofi Annan’s hand. We need to continue to try to improve a bureaucracy which is still sluggish and

not adequately responsive. We need to clean up peacekeeping. We

15

need to attack the Office of Public Information and its over-padded

structure.

But you, all of you, all five of you, and your colleagues have set

the path. And I am enormously grateful to you.

Just to close on the final note, Helms-Biden will save the U.S.

taxpayers well over $100 million this year. And that number will

increase continually. And a progressive downward trend in peacekeeping after 27 years frozen under a system that was outmoded

from the day it was put into place is now in place.

It has been a great honor to work with you and in a certain

sense work for you. And I thank you for this very moving opportunity to report to you as we come to the end. Thank you, sir.

[The prepared statement of Ambassador Holbrooke follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD C. HOLBROOKE

Thank you, Mr. Chairman (Senator Biden), and thank you, Mr. Chairman (Senator Helms) for the opportunity to appear before you today. This is the 8th time

I have appeared before this committee in the past 17 months. Since this will be my

last opportunity to appear before you in my current position, let me say at the outset how grateful I am for your support, advice, encouragement and friendship.

The partnership we have built is highly unusual, but it has been highly productive—it has stretched across party lines and bridged the two co-equal branches.

Through our many meetings, through the frequent and extremely important visits

to New York made by most members of this Committee, as well as other Members

of the Senate and House and their staffs, and through the two historic meetings between this Committee and the UN Security Council, we have helped create a new

spirit of goodwill and partnership between the United States and the United Nations.

Together, we have forged a new beginning for one of the most important relationships in American foreign policy. The lesson is clear: open and continuous exchange

between the Congress and the United Nations has immense value—not only to foster a climate of trust and understanding, but in serving America’s national interests. I urge you to continue it.

I am here today, at your kind invitation, to give you a final report as Ambassador

to the United Nations. I have brought with me the members of my team who have

been indispensable to our accomplishments: Ambassador Jim Cunningham, Ambassador Don Hays, Suzanne Nossel, Mary Ellen Glynn, Bob Orr, Melanie Attwooll,

Deborah Isser and Derek Chollet. In this effort, we have built on the hard work of

my predecessors: especially Tom Pickering, Madeleine Albright, and Bill Richardson

and many others. President Clinton and Secretary Albright and their teams have

played a central and indispensable role. I am also extremely pleased that with us

here today are some of the most important Ambassadors to the UN. I am grateful

and honored at their presence here, which dramatizes the fact that the UN reform

just achieved was a collective effort.

Mr. Chairman, I am happy to report to you that today, America’s relationship

with the United Nations is far stronger than it was two years ago. To be sure, there

is much more work to do. I wish my successors all the best, and commit to doing

whatever I can as private citizen to help them make the U.S.-UN relationship

stronger. But it is worth reflecting on how far we have come.

When I began my tenure in New York in September 1999, things were very bleak:

The United States owed more than $1 billion to the UN, we had lost our seat on

the UN’s budget committee, our voting rights in the General Assembly were on the

verge of being suspended, and many UN member states were openly disdainful of

the United States. The arrears issue colored every aspect of our involvement at the

UN, making it impossible for the U.S. to play its rightful leadership role.

In the past sixteen months, we have made significant progress in transforming

this acrimonious relationship. We have met most of the critical benchmarks outlined

by the Helms-Biden legislation. The UN is more streamlined, efficient and effective.

We have helped make its financing more fair and equitable. We have worked to restore confidence and trust between the U.S. and the UN. And we have helped bring

the UN back towards the values instilled in it by its founding fathers, FDR and

Churchill, half-a-century ago.

There were several tasks that I pledged to you 17 months ago. Allow me to outline

our progress in more detail. My staff has produced several charts to illustrate our

16

record; I’d like to review some of these with you and, with your permission, enter

them into the record. I will review first the scorecard on political issues, before moving to the progress we have made on reform.

First, peacekeeping. Despite all the good things the UN does around the world— through the work of UNHCR, UNICEF, WHO, UNDP and others—the UN was created 56 years ago primarily to keep the peace. And no matter how vital the work

of the specialized agencies is, the UN will ultimately be judged by its performance

in peacekeeping. In my confirmation hearings, I said this would be a priority.

In every one of my appearances before this committee, I have said that UN peacekeeping is in a state of crisis. The UN’s record in the succeeding months has been

mixed at best—there has been progress in Kosovo, East Timor, Southern Lebanon

and Ethiopia-Eritrea, but there have been alarming setbacks in places like Sierra

Leone and no real progress yet in the Congo. We have worked hard to bring about

an awareness throughout the entire UN community that the organization can and

must get peacekeeping right. We have insisted on more clearly defined, betterplanned, and more realistic peacekeeping missions, and have demanded that when

the UN puts troops in the field, they get the support they need.

The Secretary General appointed an expert panel, led by Algerian Ambassador

Lakhdar Brahimi, who conducted a rigorous, thorough, no-holds-barred review of all

aspects of peacekeeping operations. His report, released in August 2000, jump-started efforts to make more realistic mandates, restructure the UN’s Department of

Peacekeeping Operations, beef up the staff, enhance the leadership, and streamline

planning and deployment capabilities. With the support of the entire membership,

the first phase of reforms was endorsed by the Security Council and gaveled through

the General Assembly, moving at a pace heretofore unseen in UN corridors. While

the problems plaguing UN peacekeeping are not yet fully solved—as illustrated by

the unacceptable problems in Sierra Leone—its performance is improving, and the

organization is on its way toward a peacekeeping system that is even more efficient

and effective. I am especially pleased that, at our insistence, one of the senior deputy positions in DPKO will now be filled by an American—one who is well-known

to you, Michael Sheehan.

Second, Africa. As I pledged in my testimony in June 1999, from my first day in

New York, Africa has been one of my highest priorities.

During the past year, the UN Security Council focused more attention on a broad

array of challenges in Africa than at any other period in the organization’s history.

This started with the Month of Africa during the American Presidency of the Security Council a year ago. And in May of last year, I led the first-ever Security Council

mission to Sub-Saharan Africa. Our sustained focus on the problems facing Sierra

Leone, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Ethiopia-Eritrea, Burundi and elsewhere,

while not always yielding immediate results, have begun to point the way toward

possibilities for enhancing regional conflict resolution capabilities while forging a

better defined, more effective role for UN intervention.

Third, the HIV/AIDS pandemic. Exactly a year ago the UN Security Council held

its first ever session devoted to a health issue, spotlighting the crisis and prompting

strengthened commitments from numerous quarters toward combating that epidemic. Vice President Gore chaired this truly historic session. This effort culminated

in the unprecedented adoption of Resolution 1308, which exclusively focused on the

HIV/AIDS pandemic and resulted in the inclusion of an AIDS-related provision in

all Security Council resolutions on peacekeeping.

Fourth, Israel in WEOG. In my June 1999 confirmation hearings, I told this committee that it was outrageous that Israel was the only country left out of a regional

group and that I would set out to correct this immediately. Israel’s exclusion was

one of the UN’s ugly anachronisms; it was a terrible reminder of the UN my predecessor Pat Moynihan once called ‘‘a dangerous place.’’ Many of my colleagues in New

York, and many of my predecessors, advised me to leave this one alone: Israel would

never get into a regional group, they said, and I should save my energy for fights

I could win. Well, Mr. Chairman, these doubters were wrong.

In September of this year Israel was invited to join the Western European and

other Group, the group the U.S. is part of. As a result of this breakthrough, Israel

is now on more equal footing in its participation at the UN and is eligible for election to a range of UN bodies. As the recent crisis in the Middle East threatened

to spin out of control, we defended Israel’s interests against numerous attempts to

insert the UN into an inappropriate role in the crisis.

We also achieved accomplishments in several other areas. On the issue of internally displaced persons—a matter of deep personal concern to me—our efforts succeeded in prompting UN agencies to reorganize and reform their activities to improve operational response to the humanitarian needs of these people and other

war-affected civilians. We have urged our colleagues to recognize these people for

17

what they are—internal refugees—and erase the artificial distinctions between

those fleeing conflict who cross borders and those who don’t.

After Slobodan Milosevic’s overthrow in Belgrade, we helped bring Yugoslavia into

the UN on an equal basis with the other Yugoslav successor states. We have pushed

for the imposition of sanctions on the Taliban regime in Afghanistan and the maintenance of the strict sanctions regimes on Iraq and Sudan. We maintained the integrity of the Security Council by assuring that a terrorist nation, Sudan, was kept off

the Council even though it was the official candidate of the OAU and would ordinarily have gotten the slot.

But, Mr. Chairman, by far our most significant achievement is the one that I

pledged to you would be my highest sustained priority: reform of the United Nations.

As I already mentioned, we pushed the UN to address the significant shortcomings in UN peacekeeping. At U.S. insistence, the UN faced the fact that absent

deep structural reforms, peacekeeping operations would continue to succumb to poor

management, inadequate resources, insufficient planning and other vulnerabilities

in the field.

But peacekeeping reform was just one part of our effort. I pledged to implement

the law of the land—the Helms-Biden reform legislation. On June 22, 1999, I said

to you that I ‘‘would do everything possible to see this crucial package of reforms

implemented.’’ For seventeen months, Helms-Biden has been our roadmap. So today,

I want to touch on the range of steps forward we have taken in the area of reform,

ending with an explanation of the significant breakthrough achieved in reforming

the scales of assessment.

As you directed, we held the line on UN budget discipline. The biennial budget

adopted from 2000-01 was based on zero-growth, fixing in place our policy through

the end of this year. But much more needs to be done, especially in cutting the Department of Public Information sharply.

As directed by Congress, we regained the American seat on the UN’s Advisory

Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions, the key body charged with

making recommendations on UN management and resource utilization.

We also made progress on a series of management reforms, many of which relate

to the benchmarks contained in Tranche III of the Helms-Biden legislation. At the

end of last year the General Assembly agreed to adopt results-based budgeting,

which will strengthen it by eliminating unnecessary expenditures, and ensuring

that programs fulfill their mandates. The UN has also strengthened implementation

of its code of conduct, keeping detailed records of compliance. It has made substantial strides in the area of personnel evaluation, doing away with a pro forma system

and adopting more rigorous standards. A private consulting firm has begun a study

of the UN allowance system that will culminate in further recommendations for reform. Finally, at our insistence, the Secretariat has introduced a major package of

human resource reforms designed to refresh the UN’s talent pool and allow more

career mobility.

All of these steps are important, and we had to work hard to get them. But without question, our highest priority—and most difficult goal—was reforming the UN’s

scales of assessment for the regular budget and peacekeeping.

The task was not easy. For many poorer nations, the very idea of a reduction in

the assessment ceiling at a time of prosperity in the U.S. was understandably

anathema. There was great resistance to what some saw as an U.S. diktal, and

many swore to defeat our efforts in the General Assembly.

Achieving reform of the scales has been one of the most arduous and complex negotiating assignments I have ever confronted. It took an enormous amount of work.

In the last year alone, I had more than 300 meetings with my fellow UN Ambassadors on reform—seeing delegations on this topic literally every working day—and

Ambassador Hays and his extraordinarily dedicated team had well over 500. We

made literally thousands of phone calls. But this effort went well beyond the confines of US-UN—it was a true full-court press throughout the U.S. government.

President Clinton, Secretary Albright, Sandy Berger, Tom Pickering, Bill Cohen,

Larry Summers, Charlene Barshefsky and others were intensely involved. Every regional Assistant Secretary of State was ultimately engaged. And our Ambassadors

overseas were indispensable in pressing our case in capitals: in the last year, we

sent over 800 demarche cables to our posts abroad on this subject—an average of

five per post. And finally, as I mentioned earlier, this achievement would have been

impossible without the sustained engagement of the U.S. Congress. Members of this

Committee sent letters praising those who aided our efforts, and appealing to others

for their support. This Committee’s role was highlighted in my mind by the historic

‘‘home-and-home’’ visits between this Committee and the UN Security Council. The

18

letters and phone calls of many of you, especially Senators Helms and Biden, were

heard loud and clear.

Mr. Chairman, these efforts concluded the morning of Saturday, December 23,

when the President of the General Assembly gaveled through resolutions enacting

reforms of both the regular budget and the peacekeeping scales.

Our months of negotiation ended in dramatic crescendo. Allow me to take a moment to give you a flavor of the intense endgame we endured. After months of buildup, by early December the negotiating teams were working literally around the

clock, plugging numbers into spreadsheets, urgently calling and cabling key capitals,

devising technical fixes, wordsmithing resolution language, and going head to head

with the remaining recalcitrants in an effort to close in on a deal. We maintained

a daily log with up-to-the-minute data on the positions of all 189 Member States,

who their decisionmakers were, their bottom lines, and what it would take to bring

them around. There were continual curveballs thrown our way, with some countries

backing away from firm commitments, others failing to deliver on what they promised, and others waking up slowly to the implications of agreements previously

reached, and then seeking to re-negotiate. The final forty-eight hours were described

by one ambassador as a cross between a slumber party and a torture chamber as

exhausted delegates and ambassadors camped out around the clock in a UN conference room trying to iron out final wrinkles so the resolution could be gaveled

through. Mr. Chairman, it was a remarkable end, both exhilarating and exhausting.

I hope to never have to suffer through it again.

To assure that the official record is as accurate as possible, I want to run through

the key features of the reform package in some detail.

On the regular budget, most importantly, the U.S achieved a reduction in the ceiling from 25% to 22%, the first such change since 1973. Whereas in 1973 the ceiling

reduction was accomplished through the accession of several new UN members who

made up the difference, this year we had to secure agreement among the existing

membership to absorb increases that would compensate for our reduction.

We succeeded. We also made the scale more up-to-date, reflecting the changes in

the new global economy. This will allow the scale to better reflect the economic

might of large developing countries like China, Brazil, Korea and Singapore, while

ensuring that the ceiling reduction does not impact the poorest countries who lack

the means to pay more. The membership also agreed to keep the agreed methodology in place for six years, avoiding a wasteful and protracted debate in 2003.

The reforms of the peacekeeping scale are even more complex. The ad hoc scale,

created in 1973 to fund a single mission in the Sinai but locked in place ever since,

assigned countries to one of four groups based on a one-time political deal. Virtually

the entire membership retained the 80% and 90% discounts they were first assigned

in 1973. This was simply nonsensical. We set about to build agreement on a new

formula that would incorporate neutral economic thresholds, allowing countries to

move up and down as their economic circumstances warranted. It was also clear to

us that the gap between countries assessed at 20% and those paying 100% of their

regular budget shares was simply too great, with the result that few countries

would willingly agree to shift groups.

Under the historic new scale we have created five intermediate groups, allowing

countries to transition gradually to higher brackets of payment. The scale will be

updated every three years to reflect economic changes, hopefully ensuring that we

never again wind up in an outdated financial straitjacket. As soon as the revised

scale goes into effect, in July 2001, the U.S. rate will decline to 27.58%, a reduction

of nearly 4 percentage points from where we would have been absent a new scale,

or over $100 million in U.S. assessments. The U.S. rate will continue to progressively decline, and we expect that it will reach 25% by roughly 2006 or 2007.

It is essential that the Committee understand why the new peacekeeping scale

does not incorporate a 25% rate for the U.S. commencing in 2001, as called for by

Helms-Biden. All year my team and I have had just one focus: reaching 22% for the

regular budget and 25% for peacekeeping. While we got to 22% on the regular budget, we could not quite get to 25% on peacekeeping. It turned out to be impossible,

although we are well launched in this direction. Here is why:

Quite simply, we could not make the numbers work—at least not right away. The

regular budget ceiling reduction will cost the UN membership about $34 million annually. This we achieved with immense difficulty—and Ted Turner’s visionary onetime gift of $34 million, which allows other countries to defer the consequences for

one year in order to adjust their own national budgets. But a reduction in the U.S.

rate from its projected level of 31.4% for in 2001 to 25% would have involved redistributing nearly $200 million annually (under a $3 billion peacekeeping budget).

Under the UN’s ad hoc peacekeeping assessment system, which gave 80%-90% discounts to most of the membership, and because of the doubling of the peacekeeping

19

budget in the past few years, this would have involved assessment increases of close

to 1000% for dozens of countries in a single year. Getting agreement from so many

to accept such large increases right away was impossible. Their budgetary authorities—parliaments like the U.S. Congress—simply would not agree to absorb these

jumps immediately. By late December, their 2001 budgets had already been set.

While many countries were prepared to pay more, they repeatedly made clear that

they would need time to make the adjustments.

While the new scale is not perfect, it represents a major step forward. Russia,

China, Singapore, Korea and dozens of other Member States will pay far more than

they would have under the old system, while the U.S. and Japan—the two largest

contributors—will pay less. And I want to stress that the burdens on those that cannot afford to pay more will not be increased.

During the past year we focused on achieving the assessment reductions. With

this issue pending, we were unable to attain a full and final settlement of all categories of arrears. Even so, we were able to make progress in pinning down one important area of arrears, those relating to the UN’s tax equalization fund. We have

reached an understanding—confirmed by an exchange of letters—with the UN on

the origin of those arrears and hope that the problem can be worked out in the near

future. This will represent a substantial step towards dealing with the so-called

‘‘contested arrears’’ issue.

The U.S. delegation always made clear to our colleagues in New York that absent

achievement of the full letter of the Helms-Biden benchmarks, we could not be assured of the ability to pay down any U.S. arrears. Despite that, in light of the tremendous effort we have put into the reform effort—and the considerable progress

we have made—we respectfully hope that Congress will decide to release the $582

million appropriated under Tranche II of the Helms-Biden legislation, and to lift the

cap on our payments for UN peacekeeping. We also suggest that several technical

fixes that may be necessary to enable achievement of the Tranche III benchmarks.

I will not go into detail on the third point here, but instead ask that the Committee

delegate to staff the task of meeting with State Department officials to go over these

points.

Mr. Chairman, payment of $582 million in U.S. arrears to the UN would signal

dramatically to the membership and the world that the ongoing saga of U.S. arrears

is well on its way toward being solved. It would provide President-elect Bush and

Secretary-designate Powell a solid ground on which to develop their relationship

with the UN. Likewise, lifting the cap on U.S. contributions to peacekeeping will

prevent my successor from facing the awkward situation of knowing that every time

he or she votes for a new peacekeeping mission, he or she is adding new U.S. arrears. To my mind, because of the goodwill that has built this year, these two vital

gestures would start an irreversible course that will ultimately lead to a full and

final settlement of the arrears controversy.

Mr. Chairman, with only ten days left in my tenure, I leave it to you and the

next Administration to build on this new spirit of cooperation and goodwill between

Washington and New York. I am confident that we can succeed in making the U.S.-

UN relationship even stronger; in both the next Administration and this Committee,

the future is in very capable hands.

I leave my position as confident as ever that the United Nations remains absolutely indispensable to American foreign policy. It is, as they might say on Wall

Street, ‘‘net-net’’ for American interests. But at the same time, I am even more convinced that the UN is deeply flawed, and that we must fix it to save it. I know that

the distinguished Secretary General of the UN, my good friend Kofi Annan, shares

this view. If you release the $582 million in Tranche II and accept the assessments

in the new peacekeeping scale, I am convinced it will not only strengthen the hand

of the incoming Administration, but will also help Secretary General Annan in continuing the reform process. I urge you, and other Members of the Congress, to complete this success. Mr. Chairman, working together, we have made considerable

strides in doing our part. Together, we have made the UN a better place, one that

serves the people of the world more efficiently and effectively. I am grateful to you

and President Clinton for affording me the opportunity to play a part in this historic

achievement.

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

Senator HELMS. Mr. Ambassador, I thank you. And I take this

occasion to thank the Chairman, Mr. Biden. It has been fun working with him, but there are things yet to be done.

It has been suggested that since we probably are going to have

some other Senators who have been tied up with other meetings

that we start off with a round of 5 minutes. Senator Biden.

Senator BIDEN. No, you go ahead.

Senator HELMS. Mr. Ambassador, under the 6-year assessment

scale for peacekeeping finalized last month, how firm do you think

your predictions are of U.S. peacekeeping dues continuing to decrease below the 26.5 percent rate that was locked in for 2003?

Ambassador HOLBROOKE. Well, if you are asking me to give a

guess, a predictive guess, for 2004, I would say they are substantially better than 50/50. But I cannot say 100 percent. We have

based the figure for 2004 on the assumption Switzerland will join

the United Nations. They have given us a written letter to that effect which I am happy to produce and introduce into the record.

Plus, the progressivity that is built-in. Plus, the commitments

made by countries.

I believe, Mr. Chairman, that we can actually do better than

that. But the key variable is American leadership. You said at the

outset, as did Senator Biden, that it might not have been done

without the current team in New York which is seated behind me.

A lot of the things we did people said could not be done. We did

them working with you.

The answer to your question is will the next administration

make reform its highest priority as we did? We pledged it to you

and we kept our word. If they continue this pressure, they can do

better than our charts.

Countries like Mexico, Brazil and Chile and Russia and China all

have the capability to continue rising. But it depends on their economy. You see the criteria are keyed to per capita income to some

extent. So if some countries have collapsed economies, it may effect

them. But it also is key to American commitment.

Senator HELMS. Do you think we will reach 25 percent in a couple of years?

Ambassador HOLBROOKE. We think we will be in the 25 and

change range 3 years from today if Switzerland joins, if the economies remain relatively stable and if the next administration makes

it a sustained priority. Yes, sir.

Senator HELMS. You mentioned Ted Turner’s $34 million gift. Is

that setting a precedent of any kind?

Ambassador HOLBROOKE. Well, it is unprecedented. So in one

sense, it did set a precedent. I need to make clear that Turner’s gift

was very skillfully presented. He did not give the U.N. $34 million.

He made available to the U.S. Government, with your prior concurrence, $34 million contingent on a deal for a one time only payment. I do not think it should be a precedent. I do not think it is

something you want to see repeated. I do not think going to the private well for this kind of thing is a great idea. But in this case,

as a bridging gift, I think it was very important.

Senator HELMS. I guess what I am asking you, Turner’s contribution was calculated to be from a member State, is that correct? It

was to the United States.

30

Ambassador HOLBROOKE. There is a creative ambiguity here. He

gave the money to the United States State Department. The State

Department will give it to the U.N. It will be credited to the United

States. But as a condition of the deal, we will be billed at 22 percent.

By the way, you talk about unprecedented. I would simply remind people that in 1946 or 1947, the Rockefellers bought the land

on the East River and gave it to the United States to give to the

U.N. So there is a very important historic precedent. The reason

the U.N. is in New York, in the United States, is because of that

private act of generosity. And there have been other similar acts

along the line. But this is the first time there was a budget intervention. And I would hope that it is never necessary again. But it

made a difference.

Senator HELMS. Senator Biden.

Senator BIDEN. I think that is an important point to make. And

I would like to ask at this point to enter into the record, there is

legislation that exists relative to the conditions upon which gifts

can and cannot be accepted.

And section 25 of the State Department Basic Authorities Act

which as the name implies provides essential legal authority under

which the Department operates—provides the Secretary of State to

accept ‘‘gifts for the benefit of the Department or for the carrying

out of its functions’’.

Then it goes on. There are a number of other sections. But the

bottom line is nobody can set a condition on a gift in terms of what

we do. They can set conditions that are conditions based on what

it achieves. So the condition here is that we are at 22 percent benefiting us. But we could not set a condition saying, and by the way,

if you name the building whatever.

And so I too would like to thank Mr. Turner coming along at a

propitious moment to allow this to be nailed down.

I want to ask a little bit more about—because I guess for the 3-

minutes or so I have remaining, I have spent an awful lot of time

with you. And I have had the privilege—and I again thank the ambassadors for allowing me the privilege of speaking, as you did, Mr.

Chairman, before the Security Council. And then so many of them

assembling to hear me out in private meetings as well as semi-public meetings. And I want to thank them.

So I pretty well know this deal. I would like you to talk a little

bit more about some things that I think are quite frankly almost

as extraordinary that have occurred. We were not on certain committees. We were not positioned in certain ways. The U.N. instituted a results based budget several years ago. I would like you to

tell me about that, the Brahimi report. Tell me about some of the

institutional reforms that are being taken not conditional—not conditional reforms in terms of our dollars, but to try to lay out what

I think is an emerging positive picture of a United Nations doing

really what Senator Helms and I want to see done. There are a lot

of other conditions we could have laid in there if we were setting

conditions. But the bottom line is we want this like every major

corporation in the world, every government in the world, reforming

to fit the 21st century. Tell us about some of the other things beyond those two benchmarks.

31

Ambassador HOLBROOKE. Well, Senator, on the results-based

budgeting that was in Helms-Biden, you said we went beyond it in

some areas like Israel and the WEOG. That was not in HelmsBiden.

Senator BIDEN. What does WEOG mean?

Ambassador HOLBROOKE. Sorry, excuse me. Getting Israel into a

regional group was not in your benchmarks, but I pledged to you

we would seek it. I believe that it was important for many reasons.

It improved U.S. support for the U.N. It strengthened Israel. And

Israel then voluntarily gave up its discount. The results-based

budgeting was in Helms-Biden.

Your benchmarks, your conditions, were very clear. No borrowing

authority. Done. Supremacy of U.S. Constitution. Done. No U.N.

sovereignty. Done. These were from the first phase. No U.N. taxation. Done. No standing Army. Done. No interest fees. Done. No

U.S. real property rights. Done.

In the second set of conditions, U.N. assessment rate to 22 percent. Done. Four and a half year base. Done. Peacekeeping assessment ceiling. Done. And so on and so forth. Personnel issues, 80

percent done. Code of conduct. Done. Personnel evaluation system.

Done. Payroll audits, 80 percent done. Full compliance by this summer. Some of this goes beyond your benchmark. Some is in it. Allowance reports. The study has been initiated by the U.S. Government. The GAO reports to your committee have shown a steady improvement in management by the way. We kept the zero nominal

growth in the budget. And we got back in the Budget Committee.

Senator BIDEN. Speak for the last 30 seconds about what that

means to be on the Budget Committee. As a matter of fact, is the

chairperson of that committee one of the ambassadors here?

Ambassador HOLBROOKE. Unfortunately, Ambassador Rosenthal

from the Fifth Committee could not come today. But Ambassador

Wensley was the head of the Budget Committee last year when we

achieved the first set of benchmarks. And she remains—— Senator BIDEN. Tell us what that committee does and why that

is important.

Ambassador HOLBROOKE. I do not even know what they do. They

spend all night sitting in that room. I am just teasing. Penny who

went without sleep for 2 weeks. That is the Budget Committee of

the U.N. Now, there are two parts to it. There is the so-called

ACABQ, the small group that you have to be voted on.

And there is the Fifth Committee which is a committee of the

whole. We are all on Fifth Committee and that is the one Ambassador Wensley headed and Ambassador Rosenthal now heads. The

committee that you are referring to, the so-called advisory committee of the United Nations, the ACABQ, is a highly questionable

organization in my view. I do not like the way it functions. But we

were not on it.

And you said in your legislation if you do not get back on it, no

money. And I thought you were absolutely right. How can the largest contributor not be on it? How did we get off it? I do not have

any idea how we were voted off it. But it happened in 1996. And

in 1999, we got back on it.

I think that is a very important point. I thank you. I have gone

over my time limit.

32

Senator HELMS. Do not feel inhibited by the red light of the

timer. It does not apply to you. It applies to us. Did you finish your

final thought?

Ambassador HOLBROOKE. Yes, sir.

Senator HELMS. Thank you. Senator Lugar.

Senator LUGAR. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I join my

colleagues, Ambassador Holbrooke, in applauding the remarkable

achievement by you and your team during the 17 months and especially the presentation you made this morning. I think it’s an extraordinary historical achievement. And I applaud the Chairman

and Senator Biden for going to the U.N. and for inviting U.N. Ambassadors to come here, as been mentioned, in March. That was

very important for our understanding and we hope for theirs. And

I would also applaud Ted Turner for his contribution. I had the

privilege of being with him yesterday. I understand his motivation

from his own testimony and his enthusiasm for the United Nations.

It was fortuitous that he was in the same hotel as you were having

another meeting when the opportunity arose.

Ambassador HOLBROOKE. It was not an accident, Senator.

Senator LUGAR. Let me just say, however, my analysis of what

you have achieved leads to two pieces of legislation or maybe one

piece that incorporates amendments to the Helms-Biden legislation. As I understand, we will need to pass a resolution or a piece

of legislation to release the funds. That is the $582 million—because the peacekeeping assessment rate that Ambassador

Holbrooke negotiated for this year is just over 28 percent rather

than the 25 percent required by law. So, as a result, that amendment would be required.

And then second, the committee would need to pass an amendment to adjust the 25 percent appropriations cap for U.N. peacekeeping that was set in 1994. My understanding is if we do not do

this, if we do not revise that cap, we will incur new arrears. And

then we begin the process all over again.

My direct question to you, Ambassador Holbrooke is my understanding of the two items of legislation that I have just enunciated

correct? And second, what will be the consequence if this committee

and this Senate and this Congress does not adopt an amendment

to Helms-Biden that incorporates those two articles?

Ambassador HOLBROOKE. First of all, Senator Lugar, your statements are completely correct with one slight amendment. You said

28 percent. This is the transitional 6 months. Our real fixed rate

is already down to 27.5 percent.

Senator LUGAR. Fair enough.

Ambassador HOLBROOKE. And so we did over 50 percent immediately. And it will decline. And back to Senator Helms’ question,

how certain am I of the out year 2004? I am more certain of that

I think than we can be of many of our CBO projections here in the

Senate, Mr. Chairman.

Senator LUGAR. My point was that because it was not 25 percent,

you need the first part.

Ambassador HOLBROOKE. Well, I think on the first part of your

question—first of all, I agree with everything you said. Second, I

cannot stress to you how important it is to me and my U.N. colleagues, the ambassadors here, to have heard you and Chairman

33

Helms this morning say that you were moved to release the second

amount of money. That I am sure that they are going to be racing

for the phones as soon as they get out of here because that is great

news. And I believe that it will dramatically strengthen American

national interests. I am not talking about the U.N. I am talking

about United States national interest. And that money has already

been appropriated. So we are not giving the U.N. any new money.

We are saving ourselves $170 million and releasing money that is

already been set aside.

Now, on your question about the rest of it, on the 25 percent cap,

I know there are differences of opinion here. And I think it is very

important the next administration look at this carefully. What you

have said is very important and it needs to be underscored. Despite

everything else we are doing, we will start to buildup some new arrears. And the arrears will be precisely the difference between 25

percent and whatever the blue bar is at the time. And so the arrears will start to grow again at a much, much smaller rate. And

under a controlled situation. But they will mount.

And it is, therefore, my personal view—and here I can speak only

for myself because I will be a former government official in a few

days. And I want to answer you in the spirit of this extraordinary

collaboration between myself and this committee. And with all respect to Senator Dole, whom I greatly respect and admire. It is my

considered view that you should re-examine that cap.

With all due respect, you have achieved your goal by putting it

down. And I do not believe that the U.S. national interest is served

by leaving it on and letting the arrearages begin to accrue again.

The 25 percent was a symbol to the U.N. that we did not like the

waste and sloppiness.

But it was also in a certain extent an arbitrary number. And

with this scale sliding to 25 percent as the chairman indicated, I

believe that you should act—and as Senator Helms said, this is not

part of Helms-Biden. This was in the—if my memory is correct, sir,

this was in the CJS appropriation. But I may be wrong on that.

Is that right, Barbara? It was in the CJS appropriation.

I am getting a negative head shake here from Ed Hall. So if I

misstated, please forgive me, sir. But it is my understanding that

it was a separate piece of legislation. Now I am getting an affirmative nod from Mr. Hall. So I feel better.

It was put into place in 1994 if I am not mistaken. It served its

purpose. With particular reference to the generous remarks of Senator Biden earlier and with all deference to General Powell who

will have to address this on behalf of the new administration, I believe that the United States national interest would be strengthened if the cap were removed and there was some adjustment

made so that we did not just simply keep adding to arrears. Every

time we voted for peacekeeping resolutions, when it was in our national interest. We supported the troops in East Timor. We supported the troops in Kosova, on the Lebanese Heights. And each

time we did that, we were increasing our arrears. And I hope that

is responsive to Senator Lugar’s key question.

Senator BIDEN. Mr. Chairman, with your permission may I ask

for a clarification? Because as I understand it, Ambassador

Holbrooke, there are two issues. One is getting a release of the secVerDate 11-MAY-2000 15:37 May 30, 2001 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 71537 SFRELA1 PsN: SFRELA1
34

ond phase of the money that has been appropriated which is the

$500 million plus dollars.

In order to do that, Senator Helms, as I understand it said today,

that he is willing to allow that to go forward. The only legislative

thing we have to deal with that—and I would ask Steve Biegun to

correct me—our chief of staff of the committee here—is that we

would have to amend Helms-Biden, not the Dole provision, but

Helms-Biden, to allow that money to be released.

Now, there is a second issue. While we are getting the 25 percent, we will be accruing arrearages again because we are not

going to pay above 25 percent as long as Dole is still law.

Ambassador HOLBROOKE. And it is in the 1994 State Authorization bill.

Senator BIDEN. Right. So that is the law for 1994. That is something that I do not know what the chairman intends. But my guess

is the new administration will have to go back and assess whether

or not new State Department legislation that will be coming up,

whether they want to keep that cap or not keep the cap, on that

issue. But the cap stays.

We are not saying we are going to move—if I am correct—to release the Dole cap. That stays in place. The only thing I understand that we are saying—at least we meaning the chairman and

me—is that we would amend Helms-Biden to release the second

phase of the money. And so the cap is a separate piece of legislation.

All that mens is we release the second amount of money that because the conditions have been substantially met for the second—

as the foreign policy types say—the second tranche. Am I correct

in that?

Ambassador HOLBROOKE. There is one thing you said I am not

sure is quite right. You do not need to address the cap to release

the money.

Senator BIDEN. No, I agree. I am not saying that. That is a separate issue. But we have to address the cap to deal with arrearages

in the future, correct? If we wish to.

Ambassador HOLBROOKE. That is an issue for you and the next

administration to decide. I just wanted to respond to Senator

Lugar’s question.

Senator HELMS. We can let you expand your answer if we get

into a sticky point. But I think this is important. There are two

laws in place as I understand it. Law One: Helms-Biden. We have

agreed to let Year Two money be released even though the U.N.

will not hit 25 percent until 2004. That is right, is it not?

Ambassador HOLBROOKE. Yes, sir.

Senator HELMS. Law Two: 25 percent limit on U.S. contributions

to peacekeeping. This is a separate law that we have not agreed

to.

Ambassador HOLBROOKE. That is right.

Senator HELMS. Now, this can be debated later if Senators wish

to do it, but it is not going to have immediate effect as far as I am

concerned.

Senator BIDEN. Right. That is all I was trying to say. You said

it better and quicker.

35

Senator LUGAR. Mr. Chairman, may I just interject with a quick

comment?

Senator HELMS. Yes, sir.

Senator LUGAR. As I understand your negotiations in good faith

as you proceeded with the other countries, they anticipated the cap

was going to be released.

Ambassador HOLBROOKE. They sure hoped so.

Senator LUGAR. Well, I think it was more than a hope.

Ambassador HOLBROOKE. We never made a commitment because

that is your constitutional responsibility.

Senator LUGAR. We have this argument among ourselves. And I

appreciate the distinction made in the two laws. But I would hope

that the chairman and the ranking member would sponsor an

amendment to the bill and get this squared away. I think failure

to do that courts a lot of difficulty which is unnecessary.

That is why I have tried to make the point as markedly as I

could. I think both things need to be done. And I appreciate that

one fix may be done. And I think the other change ought to proceed. I would certainly support the chairman and the ranking

member if they were to offer such an amendment.

Ambassador HOLBROOKE. And I simply want to repeat my answer to you which is speaking as a soon to be private citizen, I believe that what you are discussing would be in the national interest. But I completely agree on the legislative record that Senator

Helms is making a critical differentiation between what he has

said and this issue. And I would further say that in terms of the

United Nations, no commitments were made, not even hinted at.

But I don’t have any question that all 189 other members of the

U.N. would hope that you would reconsider. And I think the next

administration and you must decide how to proceed on this.

Senator HELMS. The point is we cannot and should not make any

changes except by the Senate taking action in due course.

Senator Feingold.

Senator FEINGOLD. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Ambassador Holbrooke, I enjoyed our chance to talk yesterday about

this achievement and I want to congratulate you. It is remarkable.

I would not have thought that this was possible a year ago when

we met at the U.N. as the chairman talked about. I am very impressed. I can only imagine how difficult winning some of these

concessions was. And I also want to welcome the ambassadors visiting us today. I appreciate your presence here and your cooperation with all of us in this effort. It is really something I am looking

forward to sharing with my constituents back home.

And in that spirit, I want to thank both of the Chairmen here.

Because there is no question you both put tremendous personal effort into this, both here and also at the U.N. making this a more

accountable and more efficient and more equitably funded organization. And I have had a chance to witness first hand both of your

efforts on occasion. And I think it is a real model for all of us to

follow as members of this committee.

I also want to take this opportunity to say a bit more about Ambassador Holbrooke. His accomplishments go well beyond this

achievement on U.N. dues. He has been remarkably effective in

many areas from Africa to Indonesia to the global AIDS crisis.

36

Ambassador Holbrooke, you have seized on some very difficult

and often neglected issues. You recognize that these issues do have

serious national interest consequences for our country as well as

for the countries effected. I have greatly enjoyed watching you

work. And I want to join in the complements to your staff. I have

rarely worked with a better group of people. And I say that on behalf of myself and my own staff. It has been a great pleasure.

Negotiating changes in the assessment scale at the United Nations, while certainly not glamorous, will be a very big part of your

legacy. And it is my hope that your efforts will allow the United

States and U.N. relations to move forward in a positive and cooperative manner.

I would like to just join in the conversation that was occurring

a few minutes ago initiated by Senator Lugar. I like to think I

came here a few years ago very intent on having some success on

the issue of making sure our public dollars are well spent.

And part of this had to do with the U.N. And part of it had to

do with, I think, a sometimes very tough stance that was taken by

the chairman. And I commend him for it. And I think the burden

sharing element of this is critical. So I think all of that is a plus.

But I would weigh in on the side of Senator Lugar’s comments.

Of course, within the proper legislative process, we should eliminate this cap. This is such a wonderful achievement that you, Senator Helms, deserve the lion’s share of the credit for. I think everyone, even the toughest fiscal critic in this country, would say that

you have achieved this victory and that we should try to eliminate

that piece. Of course, Senator Biden as well.

Chairman BIDEN. I would not have done it unless he made me.

Senator FEINGOLD. So, let me simply weigh in and then offer my

help, as did Senator Lugar, if that is the direction the chairman

chooses to go.

Ambassador Holbrooke, just briefly say a little bit about what

this whole process might mean in terms of the discussion in some

quarters to revise the structure and membership of the Security

Council. Would this impact on that issue at all?

Ambassador HOLBROOKE. I do not think the two issues are related, Senator Feingold. But let me first say—I mean, it is a very

important issue, Security Council reform. Some of the countries sit

behind me, most notably Japan. For Japan it is a burning issue.

And in April of last year, we adjusted our position to make possible

a larger number of members of the Security Council provided it

would not reduce efficiency.

There are so many cross-cutting elements in the U.N. Germany,

Italy, Pakistan, India, Brazil, Argentina, Mexico, Chile, Nigeria,

Egypt, Algeria, South Africa, all have different views on this. And

I have just begun to scratch the surface of the large countries.

Then you get to the smaller countries. Many countries like Canada

and the Netherlands want a larger Security Council, but no more

permanent members.

So you have different views. And the next administration will

have to address this. I share Senator Helms’ view that the Security

Council integrity should be our paramount concern and that the

veto we and the United Kingdom, France, China and Russia have

is vital to our national interest.

37

On your personal comments, I want to thank you for the kind

words you said about me and repeat again how seminal our trip

was to Africa. And I also want to commend Senator Frist for his

efforts on Africa, although he is not here today. He was our most

frequent visitor to New York of all Members of the Senate, and our

most engaged ambassador on African issues in terms of visits. Senator Feingold and I spent the most time together overseas and it

really did make a difference.

On your remarks, Senator Feingold, about Senator Helms, you

really expressed it better than I did. I think that—I know that

some people think that the U.N. is not in the U.S. national interest. And they think we ought to just do everything we can to get

rid of it. They have a misunderstanding about it.

For all its warts and flaws, the U.N. serves our national interests. But those warts and flaws need to be dealt with. And I think

that long after I am gone from this job, I hope that you will continue the effort to seek reform.

Now, we can argue about the reforms. I support Senator Lugar’s

proposals on the cap, but that is a separate issue. Today we mark

an historic moment. Because with your declaration in the opening

statement, we have crossed a great bridge. We really have. And I

was inadequate in my statement about your personal role at the

outset, Mr. Chairman. And I just want to echo what Senator Feingold has said.

We may have done something difficult in New York, but you are

the one who told us to go do it. And it was your mandate and your

pressure and your personal efforts in coming to New York and inviting the Security Council here that really were the breakthrough.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator HELMS. Senator Hagel.

Senator HAGEL. Mr. Chairman, thank you. Ambassador

Holbrooke, I wish to associate myself with the heaping on of accolades in recognition and praise and thanks to you and your team

for what you have accomplished. It has been remarkable. It has

been in the national interest of this country. And it has been in the

interest of the United Nations and our allies. And we recognize

that. I think America recognizes that, realizing we have much to

do.

I wish to also recognize and thank, as my colleagues have done

this morning, your colleagues from the United Nations that you

have brought with you this morning. Thank you for your leadership

and cooperation. And we look forward to working with you over the

next few years as well.

I know that you will feel a great loss in Ambassador Holbrooke

being gone, but his aura and spirit will be with us. And I suspect

he will not just fade away like old soldiers do.

You said, Ambassador Holbrooke, just a moment ago that the

United Nations is a very critically important component of our

world. And I want to address that for a moment and give you a

chance to embroider upon that. I think it may well be possible that

the United Nations today is more important and more relevant

than it was when it was formed over 50 years ago.

Like any institution, we recognize that institutions must adapt

and adjust with the challenges of our time. And that means conVerDate 11-MAY-2000 15:37 May 30, 2001 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 71537 SFRELA1 PsN: SFRELA1
38

stant reform. That means constant management. That means constant effort to make an institution important and relevant.

And with that—and I know you are hesitant, Mr. Ambassador,

to ever give advice to anyone, especially an incoming administration, but drawing from your vast reservoir of foreign policy experience, I would be very interested in hearing from you what you believe in its most global term, what is America’s greatest challenge

to its national interest over the next few years?

Ambassador HOLBROOKE. Well, thank you first of all for your

kind words, Senator Hagel, and your efforts and your visits to New

York and your personal support of me and our shared common experiences going back to a distant Southeast Asian arena when we

were younger.

I have had very good direct and private talks with General Powell. And he knows my views in detail on these issues. And I would

not presume to characterize his views or our responses. But I have

been a friend of his for a long time. I am very enthusiastic about

his appointment. And he will have my full support as well as my

continued friendship. I think it is a superb choice for Secretary of

State.

Two points about the U.N. and the largest challenges facing us.

The U.N.—I keep saying it is flawed, but indispensable. But it is

not the center of American foreign policy. It is part of our foreign

policy, but not its center.

Some problems can be dealt with in the U.N. framework and

solved. Others can be dealt with in the U.N. framework and helpfully. And others should not go near the U.N.

I do not believe, for example, that the U.N. is the place to resolve

the Middle East problem. It cannot do it. The U.N. is too much

used for theater for a forum. And I have begged people, including

Chairman Arafat when he came to New York, to keep the U.N. not

as the place you start to discuss the Mid-East, but as the place you

ratify agreements reached elsewhere.

On the other hand, you asked about the most important problems in the world. I have often said, and I will say again tonight

at the Harvard AIDS Awareness Leadership Awards Dinner where

I will be speaking tonight, that I believe that AIDS is the biggest

problem we face in the world today. That is why I particularly

wanted to thank Senator Helms for his historic co-sponsorship last

year, and that of Senator Boxer and Senator Gordon Smith and the

rest of you, of Senator Kerry’s legislation on that.

If that problem is not checked, it will undermine the social, economic and political fabric of society, not just in Africa, not just in

South Asia, but everywhere. And the cost will be immense. It is not

only the worst health crisis in 600 years. It is more than a health

crisis.

So I remain of the view that with all other problems, the nuclear

proliferation problem, that Senator Lugar, excuse me—that Senator Lugar, Sam Nunn and Ted Turner were meeting on yesterday,

and all the other issues, like terrorism, I put that at the top of the

list.

Some areas the U.N. can do better in. Some they should be kept

out of. But we have three choices with the U.N. Abandon it. In

which case we will lose more than we gain. Leave it alone. In

39

which case it will be an inefficient organization. Or reform it as

Helms-Biden legislation set out to do.

And for me that is an easy choice. Since the U.N. exists, weakening it weakens us. And I would hope to strengthen it. And again,

Senator Hagel, I thank you for your friendship and support. I know

that is an inadequate answer to a very broad sweeping question.

But I think there are just some issues the U.N. should not try to

address. And there are some issues the U.N. should be the centerpiece of. And the No. 1 issue for the U.N. to get right going forward

is peacekeeping.

Where they succeeded like Mozambique and Namibia, and I

think they will succeed in East Timor, they get gold stars. Where

they failed, Somalia, Rwanda and Bosnia, the rest of the world

ends up either with an insoluble mess—and I might add Sudan

which was the last hearing I came before you—and we cannot afford those messes. And peacekeeping we have only started to address with Brahimi and other issues. So in the U.N. narrow context, I would focus on peacekeeping.

Senator HAGEL. Thank you.

Senator HELMS. Senator Kerry.

Senator KERRY. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. I apologize

for not being able to be here for the whole time. First of all, Mr.

Chairman, thank you for your personal efforts to try to help create

a structure that works. I think this committee can take some pride.

Perhaps the methodology may have ruffled some, but I think the

purpose was an important one and I think it has resulted in some

changes.

Second, let me welcome you, Mr. Ambassador and join—I have

not been here for all the comments, but I trust they have been as

laudatory as I would hope—as they should be. I think you really

deserve enormous credit for your persistence or tenacity.

I was reading different accounts of how you approached this.

Some diplomats, I gather, had different ways of characterizing it.

But you certainly got the job done. And I must say what a tough

job to bring that many countries together and that many different

disparate interests where the extraordinary pressures financially

that every country faces to get people to voluntarily step up the

way they have is quite remarkable. And I think the example of

Russia, for instance, who obviously is in no economic condition to

be doing this. But I think for international reasons and for personal political reasons, the decision they made is really quite extraordinary.

So all and all, this is a significant achievement and I think it is

a great credit to your persistence and the vision with which you approach this. But I also say, Mr. Chairman, to you, you sort of set

the stage, together with Senator Biden and the committee.

I hope it is something that we will certainly accept and ratify,

recognizing the difficulties of achieving it and recognizing the difficulties that exist from many of these countries.

A number of the questions I have wanted to ask I have been advised by staff have been asked. So I will get briefed on those later.

Let me ask you if I can, Mr. Ambassador, as you sort of wrap

up here, would you share with us overall how you think the U.N.—

maybe this was also asked obliquely or you answered a little bit—

40

but how is the U.N. doing in your judgment with respect to this

issue of reform that has been a concern of this committee and of

others for some period of time? And what do you think are the

prospects over the next few years for a continuation of those reform

efforts?

Ambassador HOLBROOKE. Before I answer that, Senator Kerry,

let me thank you for your personal comments. And with the chairman’s permission, I would like to embarrass Senator Kerry. Because I have mentioned my splendid team. And one of the members

of that team who is not here today is Senator Kerry’s sister, Peggy

Kerry, who is a very cherished and important member of our team

and was heavily involved in all these efforts. And I promised John

I would never mention that, but I am going out the door and he

cannot stop me now. So I just want to put that on the record since

I have so many of my team here today. Peggy Kerry has been with

me from the beginning and has played a huge role in our efforts.

Senator Kerry, on reform, the job is not finished. It will never be

finished in an organization as diffuse and disparate as the United

Nations which represents 189 member States. You know, to get

these resolutions through, we had to have Libya and Cuba and

Iraq keep silent? They could have wrecked the process. Some countries cut separate deals for themselves at the last minute which we

had to go along with. They did not hurt our long-term interest, but

they show the problem. There are people in the U.N. system that

want to fight for individual things.

I will give you an example. In the Brahimi report, they called for

a third Assistant Secretary General for peacekeeping. Now, that is

a completely rational proposal. It was defeated at the last minute

in a closed session for completely irrational reasons by junior members of the Advisory Committee on the Budget. But we agreed that

it would be taken up again in May.

Now, an organization of 500 people, which is the Peacekeeping

Office, needs more than two deputies. And you need to separate out

police, military, logistics, planning and operations. And they do not

have an adequate structure.

On the other hand, we got the American position for one of the

other two deputies which is far more important in the short-run.

Because this committee will now have a point of contact in the

Peacekeeping Office. And you were out of the room when I mentioned who this will be, but it is a person you know personally—

Mike Sheehan. So to have Mike Sheehan, who has worked with

your committee on terrorism for so long, up there in New York inside the Secretariat will be of enormous value.

Now, I do not think that anyone who has the honor to be U.S.

Ambassador to the U.N. should cease to make reform his or her

highest sustained priority, Mr. Chairman. Helms-Biden is in the

process of being fulfilled. And you have made an historic step forward this morning. But I hope my successor, whoever he or she

may be, will—in the spirit of Senator Kerry’s comments—will continue to make reform the highest priority.

Ambassador Cunningham and Ambassador Hays and their team

who are seated behind me can continue the road map. We really—

we know a lot more about this than we have time to go into this

morning.

41

They can show you ideas. The ambassadors seated behind them

have talked about this with us. And I urge you and whoever becomes the chairman of the U.N. subcommittee to make this a continued effort. I think it is quite right.

Now, we can argue over the details. And while you were out of

the room, Senator Kerry, we had a colloquy with Senator Lugar

about the cap on peacekeeping. And that has to be dealt with as

a separate issue. But the idea that reform should now be accomplished, we have reformed, and now let us go back to business as

usual, I would emphatically reject. And I would say to you and

Senator Helms and your colleagues, keep reform on the front burner.

Senator HELMS. Well, Mr. Ambassador, we have reached that

point.

Senator KERRY. Could I ask one other question if you are about

to end?

Senator HELMS. Certainly.

Senator KERRY. Just very quickly. Would you share with us, Mr.

Ambassador, your perceptions. I think it would be helpful for the

committee. And you can give us a pretty unvarnished view of this.

How are we doing in your perception? As you have talked to so

many of these——

Ambassador HOLBROOKE. You mean in the U.N.?

Senator KERRY. Well, in the U.N. and globally. I mean, as you

would leave, what is your assessment of how the United States is

perceived? And I understand that some people here do not care

that much about it or are not that worried about it. But I think

it does effect—and you might share with us the ways in which it

effects what we get done and how we get it done.

Ambassador HOLBROOKE. Well, I think the United States is in

better shape at the U.N. now than we were 2 years ago. I think

we have left a base for our successors to strengthen it further.

Let me share with you a very personal observation. When I got

to New York, I was told by my colleagues and some of my predecessors about how sensitive people are to American arrogance and

American overbearingness. I have never said this publicly before.

But your question stimulates it.

And what I discovered was that since people assume the United

States is overbearing and arrogant anyway, it is better just to say

what the U.S. view is, but say it politely.

The fact that we have six ambassadors, seven if Sir Jeremy’s

Rolls Royce had not broken down on the FDR Drive—— Senator KERRY. If he was driving a Chevy, we might have a shot.

Ambassador HOLBROOKE. Absolutely. We are going to give him a

chit for an American car. The fact that we have six or seven ambassadors here today from every region of the world, including Ambassador Listre of Argentina who said teasingly are the victims of

Helms-Biden—I think that was a very generous and ironic way of

saying that Argentina has made a big contribution. The fact that

they have come here today to show support for Helms-Biden, to

show support for reform, and to show appreciation of the United

States, is a remarkable statement.

On issue after issue, we were told it is hopeless. Israel and the

regional group, keeping Sudan off the Security Council, getting us

42

back on the Budget Committee, we just kept saying, well, let us

talk about it.

I know your reference earlier was to my alleged style in the negotiations. But in fact, Don Hays did most of the yelling, not me,

you see. But I got blamed for it.

The fact is that we did not yell. We just stated our goal and

worked with people. You cannot achieve things by yelling. And one

of the things that one of my colleagues said to me was very interesting. Several ambassadors said that no previous American Ambassador had ever called on them. I made personal trips to the Embassies of Antigua and Barbuda, Barbados, the Salomon Islands,

Papua and New Guinea, Gabon, a lot of smaller countries that had

never had a one-on-one with the American Ambassador before.

I pledged to Senator Helms that would be my priority. Don Hays

and his team saw everyone. We made a point of going over there.

We treated everyone with respect. And finally, we reached the level

of momentum where countries like Cuba, Lybia and Iraq who had

historically wrecked anything the United States did, just because

it was American, realized that the other countries did not want it.

One of the most important people in this who is with us today

is Ambassador Kumalo from South Africa. Because he not only represented one of the great countries in the world, he was also the

chairman of the Non-Aligned Movement Caucus.

And when Ambassador Kumalo in his capacity as head of the

Non-Aligned Movement started saying to other members of the

Non-Aligned Movement, let us stop the garbage. Let us stop the

trash talk and just get this done. It made a huge impression.

Ambassador Valdivieso who is here from Colombia who headed

the Rio Group did the same thing in that special group.

So I would leave with you the statement that America should be

unafraid to say its views, but in a polite way. The charge of arrogance was simply not true or we would not have these ambassadors

with us today.

But we were persistent. And sometimes to the point of being regarded as a little bit obnoxious, but not arrogant. And we got the

job done. And I think that can be a model. We did not win every

case, but we got a high enough percentage so that we are sitting

here today. And we would not be having this hearing if it was otherwise I suspect, Mr. Chairman.

Senator KERRY. Well, Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. And

I think we ought to thank those ambassadors who have taken the

time to come down here and particularly thank all of them for their

cooperative efforts in this. I think it will help us to strengthen the

U.N. in the long run. And I think we owe them a great deal of gratitude.

Senator HELMS. Mr. Ambassador, when I left home this morning,

my best friend for 59 years, God help us, said to give Grandpa

Holbrooke her best wishes.

Ambassador HOLBROOKE. Thank you.

Senator HELMS. She said, ‘‘You are going to miss him.’’ Joe Biden

just leaned over and said, ‘‘We are going to miss this guy.’’ And

that is about as good a tribute as one could ask for from a Senate

committee.

43

You are going to get some questions in writing from Senators

who are not able to be here. And they, as I, will thank you for the

job you have done. Since we started out, nobody could have been

more bipartisan than you. You have been thoughtful. You have

been innovative. You have been very kind all the way. And I have

enjoyed my relationship with you. And I think all Senators on this

committee, all Senators period, did too.

And in any case, gentlemen, I am going to do something again

I guess that has never been done. But I want us to stand and give

this gentleman a round of applause and include in it every one of

the visiting ambassadors.

Senator BIDEN. That is a first.

[Standing ovation]

Senator BIDEN. Mr. Chairman, before we leave, not only is that

a first, but I want to tell the Ambassador’s staff it is fortunate he

is leaving. Otherwise, he would be insufferable from this point on.

Senator HELMS. There being no further business to come before

the committee, we stand in recess.

[Whereupon, at 12:35 p.m. the hearing was adjourned.]

ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

RESPONSES OF AMBASSADOR HOLBROOKE TO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FOR THE

RECORD SUBMITTED BY SENATOR GORDON SMITH

SECURITY COUNCIL RESOLUTIONS

Question. For many years, the annual series of biased and one-sided resolutions

in condemnation of our ally, Israel, in the General Assembly has been tolerated by

the United States because it has been viewed as a ritual ‘‘blowing off steam’’ or ‘‘venting of frustrations’’ by Arab nations frustrated by Israel’s position in the Middle East. Calling such thinking a ‘‘completely nonsensical rationalization,’’ you stated, ‘‘What the United Nations then becomes is kerosene on the fire, because the

Arabs report to their media that the world has condemned Israel. People get even

more fired up, and the solution gets further away, and the institution gets hurt.’’ You follow these comments by advocating a ‘‘frontal assault’’ on the conventional

wisdom about these biased resolutions, stating, ‘‘We need to shine floodlights on it

and bring it out into the open in order to prevent the United Nations from being

abused.’’ Like in the General Assembly, there is often an ‘‘automatic majority’’ against

Israel in the Security Council, but the U.S. has the ability in this forum to unilaterally block initiatives that are harmful to the cause of peace and the security of our

ally, Israel.

Ambassador Holbrooke, I would like for you to elaborate on these comments, for

the benefit of the administration in-transition, one that is sure to be faced with the

same efforts to corner Israel in the United Nations, like in years’ past.

With the knowledge that your comments today will be read by your successor,

how would you advise our future Ambassador to use the veto power of the United

States against the numerous one-sided crusades against Israel in the Security Council, to prevent this forum from also being used as ‘‘kerosene on the fire?’’

Answer. No country should doubt that we will use the veto when necessary to prevent ill-advised and harmful actions proposed in the Council regarding Israel and

the Middle East situation. Four of the last five vetoes the U.S. has had to cast have

involved Israel. But no country—least of all the U.S.—enjoys the rancor and lost

comity that exercising a veto brings. Based on the serious efforts this administration

undertook to make real progress in the Middle East peace process—including sustained engagement with both Israeli and Palestinian leadership—we have seen

some reduction in the inclination of Council members to suggest one-sided actions

that would undermine peace efforts. The best example may be the recent effort by

some to gain Council agreement to establish an international observer force to the

West Bank and Gaza Strip, without the agreement of both sides. While such an approach could have real value in the context of a joint agreement between the afVerDate 11-MAY-2000 15:37 May 30, 2001 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 71537 SFRELA1 PsN: SFRELA1
44

fected parties, it would have been ill-advised and unhelpful for the Council to call

for its initiation in the absence of a peace agreement. Accordingly, we were able to

persuade others on the Council to join us in preventing the resolution from obtaining the minimum number of votes necessary to pass. That was a good outcome—

far better than a veto—and I trust the next administration will continue efforts,

both in the region and in the Council, to ensure that one-sided proposals in the

Council—the sortthat make us consider a veto—become rare to the point of extinction.

GENERAL ASSEMBLY RESOLUTIONS

Question. To move to an area where the United States can have less immediate

but important impact, I’d like to discuss with you the UN General Assembly and

the previously mentioned anti-Israel resolutions that are approved annually at the

expense of our interests in the Middle East.

As you make clear, we must change our attitude toward these resolutions—rather

than simply voting against them, we must take a concerted effort to stop these antiIsrael resolutions altogether, lest we return, as you warn, to the days of ‘‘Zionism

equals racism.’’

How can your successor work to, as you put it, prevent the abuse of the UN at

the hands of Arab nations? How can the U.S. stop this exploitation of the United

Nations?

Answer. The most important thing we or the next administration can do is to end

any lingering sense that blatantly anti-Israel actions by the General Assembly are

harmless steam-venting efforts. Even purely rhetorical actions have consequences,

both in threatening what will surely remain an active pursuit for peace in the region, as well as the working environment in the UN.

Certainly the next administration can assist this with an active pursuit of real

peace in the region.

But it also will help to confront responsible GA members openly about anti-Israel

bias and demand they reconsider. Our effort to get Israel into a regional group at

the UN is such an example. Israel’s exclusion from any group—where a country becomes eligible for election to UN bodies—was one of the UN’s ugly anachronisms.

The Department and I worked hard with a number of countries to turn around the

prevailing attitude that it was too hard to do the right thing, or that doing the right

thing would anger the Arabs. Changing expectations worked: Israel was invited in

May to join the Western European and Other Group, the group in which the U.S.

participates.

Æ