International Organizations United States. Congress. House. Committee on Forei.

The United Nations at fifty : hearing before the Subcommittee on International Security, International Organizations, and Human Rights of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, House of Representatives, One Hundred Third Congress, second session, October 24, 1994 online

. (page 1 of 10)
Online LibraryInternational Organizations United States. Congress. House. Committee on ForeiThe United Nations at fifty : hearing before the Subcommittee on International Security, International Organizations, and Human Rights of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, House of Representatives, One Hundred Third Congress, second session, October 24, 1994 → online text (page 1 of 10)
Font size
QR-code for this ebook


^ / THE UNITED NATIO NS AT nFTY

Y4.F 76/1: UN 35/100



The United Nations at Fifty, 103-2...

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON

INTERNATIONAL SECURITY, INTERNATIONAL

ORGANIZATIONS AND HUMAN RIGHTS

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED THIRD CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION



OCTOBER 24, 1994



Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs




FEB 2 1









U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
84-790 CC WASHINGTON : 1994



For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office
Superintendent of Documents. Congressional Sales Office, Washington, DC 20402
ISBN 0-16-046500-1



y THE UNITED NATIONS AT FIFTY



Y 4.F 76/1: UN 35/100



The United Nations at Fifty* 103-2...

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON

INTERNATIONAL SECURITY, INTERNATIONAL

ORGANIZATIONS AND HUMAN RIGHTS

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED THIRD CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION



OCTOBER 24, 1994



Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs







U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
84-790 CC WASHINGTON : 1994

For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office
Superintendent of Documents. Congressional Sales Office. Washington. DC 20402
ISBN 0-16-046500-1



COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS



LEE H

SAM GEJDENSON, Connecticut

TOM LANTOS, California

ROBERT G. TORRICELLI, New Jersey

HOWARD L. BERMAN, California

GARY L. ACKERMAN, New York

HARRY JOHNSTON, Florida

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York

ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American

Samoa
JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota
CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York
MATTHEW G. MARTINEZ, California
ROBERT A. BORSKI, Pennsylvania
DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey
ROBERT E. ANDREWS, New Jersey
ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey
SHERROD BROWN, Ohio
CYNTHIA A. MCKINNEY, Georgia
MARIA CANTWELL, Washington
ALCEE L. HASTINGS, Florida
ERIC FINGERHUT, Ohio
PETER DEUTSCH, Florida
ALBERT RUSSELL WYNN, Maryland
DON EDWARDS, California
FRANK McCLOSKEY, Indiana
THOMAS C. SAWYER, Ohio
LEWIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois

Michael H. Van Dusen, Chief of Staff
JO WEBER, Staff Associate



HAMILTON, Indiana, Chairman

BENJAMIN A. GILMAN, New York
WILLIAM F. GOODLING, Pennsylvania
JAMES A. LEACH, Iowa
TOBY ROTH, Wisconsin
OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, Maine
HENRY J. HYDE, Illinois
DOUG BEREUTER, Nebraska
CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey
DAN BURTON, Indiana
JAN MEYERS, Kansas
ELTON GALLEGLY, California
ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida
CASS BALLENGER, North Carolina
DANA ROHRABACHER, California
DAVID A. LEVY, New York
DONALD A. MANZULLO, Illinois
LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART, Florida
EDWARD R. ROYCE, California



International Security, International Organizations and Human Rights

TOM LANTOS, California, Chairman
HOWARD L. BERMAN, California DOUG BEREUTER, Nebraska

GARY L. ACKERMAN, New York OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, Maine

MATTHEW G. MARTINEZ, California CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey

FRANK McCLOSKEY, Indiana DAN BURTON, Indiana

THOMAS C. SAWYER, Ohio

ROBERT Kjng, Staff Director

MICHAEL ENNIS, Republican Professional Staff Member

BETH L. POISSON, Professional Staff Member

THEODORE M. HlRSCH, Professional Staff Member

ANDREA L. NELSON, Professional Staff Member



(ID



CONTENTS



WITNESSES

Page

The Honorable George P. Shultz, former U.S. Secretary of State, and distin-
guished fellow, the Hoover Institution 8

Mr. Ernst B. Haas, professor of government, University of California, Berke-
ley 24

Mr. Edwin M. Smith, professor of law and international relations, The Law

Center, University of Southern California 27

Mr. Tad Daley, doctoral fellow, the RAND Graduate School of Policy Studies,

and executive director, Campaign for a New U.N. Charter 29

APPENDIX

Prepared statements and biographical sketches:

Hon. George P. Shultz (biographical sketch only) 49

Ernst B. Haas 50

Edwin M. Smith 59

Tad Daley 63



(III)



THE UNITED NATIONS AT FIFTY



MONDAY, OCTOBER 24, 1994

House of Representatives,
Committee on Foreign Affairs,
Subcommittee on International Security,
International Organizations and Human Rights,

Washington, D.C.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10 a.m., The Board
Chamber, San Francisco City Hall, San Francisco, California, Hon.
Tom Lantos (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

Mr. Lantos. The Subcommittee on International Security, Inter-
national Organizations, and Human Rights will come to order.

The subcommittee today will consider the topic, "The United Na-
tions at 50," and we will examine the past of this organization and
consider its future as it reaches the half-century mark.

The time and place of our hearing today are most significant.
Today, October 24, as I am sure all of you know, is U.N. Day. It
was on this day in 1945 that the Charter of the United Nations for-
mally came into force and the United Nations officially came into
existence.

This is the beginning of the 50th year of the United Nations. The
place of our hearing is equally significant. San Francisco is the
birthplace of the United Nations. Here in this city 50 years ago, the
organizing conference which led to the establishment of the United
Nations took place. In fact, it was just across the street from where
we are meeting today in the War Memorial Opera House that the
organizing meetings were held in June of 1945.

Today, as we commemorate the 50th anniversary of the estab-
lishment of the United Nations, it is highly appropriate that the
Congress examine the future of the U.N. and the relationship be-
tween the United States and the United Nations in light of the
U.N.'s first half-century.

When the United Nations was established in 1945, there were
great — and probably unrealistic — expectations about the role that
the U.N. could play in making the world a safer and better place.
Initially those high expectations were dashed upon the hard reali-
ties of the cold war, and the U.N. had over four decades of Soviet
vetoes and obstructionism. I do not want to emphasize only the
negative. Since 1945, the U.N. has made enormous contributions to
peace, to commerce, to development, and to the rule of law. But
clearly, the U.N. did not live up to the initial expectations that
were so high in 1945.

With the end of the cold war less than 5 years ago — and our dis-
tinguished opening witness deserves a great deal of credit for end-

(l)



ing that cold war — we have again had great expectations for the
United Nations. America and Russia have cooperated through the
U.N. on a great number of foreign policy issues in ways that would
have been inconceivable during the cold war.

Again, however, these high expectations for the U.N. in the post-
cold war era have been dashed — this time because of fundamental
structural weaknesses in the U.N. itself, and by virtue of the fact
that the United Nations is a very difficult reality. It does not func-
tion unless its member states allow it to function, unless its mem-
ber states are provided with the resources with which to function,
unless the member states have the political will to permit it to op-
erate.

The U.N. does not have its own resources. It must go begging to
various nations seeking funds, personnel and other resources for
every major individual new project.

Secondly, the U.N. organization is so weak and ineffective that
it cannot handle the problems that we expect it to deal with. These
failures in the last few years have been particularly evident in So-
malia, Rwanda, Bosnia and elsewhere.

In the post-cold war world, the relationship between the United
States and the United Nations, which has never been an easy one,
has become more strained in recent times as the United States has
differed publicly with the U.N. over mismanaged operations in So-
malia and Bosnia and as U.S. assessments for peacekeeping oper-
ations have come under increasing scrutiny by the Congress and by
the administration. At the same time, with the dramatic changes
in the world, we have higher expectations of the role of the United
Nations in this post-cold war era.

Our former Attorney General and former Governor of Pennsylva-
nia, Richard Thornburgh, expressed this paradox well in a report
on U.N. reform that he presented to this subcommittee last year.
And I am quoting:

"Today's United Nations faces totally unprecedented challenges
and opportunities. With the end of the cold war, the organization
has shifted its focus from passively refereeing ideological dif-
ferences to actively addressing pressing challenges in peacekeeping,
humanitarian endeavors, economic and social development and
human rights. In the 1990's, the United Nations has, in fact, been
empowered to return to the very mission intended by those who
adopted its charter in 1945.

"While this is an exciting era at the United Nations, it must be
acknowledged that the organization today truly stands at a cross-
roads as to whether or not it can effectively adapt to these chang-
ing times. It must be added that many doubt that it can do so."

It seems to me that the United Nations is facing a serious di-
lemma. On the one hand, the United States would like to see the
U.N. assume greater responsibilities in order to alleviate some of
the pressure on us to maintain international order, since we are
the only remaining superpower with a global military reach.

On the other hand, there is great doubt among the American
people and among many of my colleagues in the Congress about
whether the U.N. is capable of fundamental reform and organiza-
tional restructuring that is essential for it to function effectively
and coherently in order to carry on its new role.



One serious problem is that the post-cold war world is a more
complex and difficult place than was the old polarized one. While
no one laments the passing of the former Soviet Union, the end of
the bipolar world has given way to a world fractured by ethnic, re-
ligious and racial hatreds that have unleashed their own virulent
forms of conflict and misery. The international community is ex-
pecting the United Nations to mediate conflicts around the world,
as well as to deal with the resulting millions of displaced and
wounded victims. This would be a tall order for any organization
to fill.

There have been important successes for the United Nations,
even if expectations have been higher than achievements — in El
Salvador, the U.N. helped to end the civil war by overseeing demo-
bilization of the warring forces and implementation of the peace
agreement; in Cambodia the U.N. conducted elections that drew
more than 90 percent participation; and earlier this year in South
Africa, the presence of U.N. observers contributed to the legitimacy
of the first all-race elections in that country. In addition, some U.N.
specialized agencies such as the U.N. High Commissioner for Refu-
gees provide not only hope but literally a lifeline for millions
around the globe.

Nevertheless, the U.N. has stumbled in places such as Somalia
and Rwanda, and, of course, in the former Yugoslavia. We Ameri-
cans view U.N. peacekeeping with growing wariness. It is likely to
remain an irritant in U.S. -U.N. relations for a long time to come.

There are very serious questions in the area of peacekeeping —
the rising number of peacekeeping operations and their mounting
cost, the role of regional security organizations such as NATO, and
tradeoffs between unilateral and multilateral intervention, and
problems of command and control of complex peacekeeping oper-
ations.

There are also fundamental organizational and management
questions. After half a century, should the Security Council be ex-
panded to include additional permanent members, such as Ger-
many, Japan, India, Nigeria, Brazil or others?

What can be done to assure greater efficiency of operation and
control of U.N. costs?

The U.N. is establishing an American -style Inspector General at
the insistence of our Congress, but will the U.N. organization see
that this innovation in fact accomplishes the improved operations
we are hoping for?

The basic problem, of course, of the United Nations is that it is
functioning at a period in history when change is accelerating at
an alarming rate. What we need really is preventive diplomacy and
early intervention.

The U.N., in all of its history had only two collective actions
against aggression — In 1950, in Korea, which was possible because
the Soviet Union at the moment boycotted the U.N. protesting the
presence of Nationalist China in China's seat in the U.N., and in
Kuwait in 1991.

The number, scope, and complexity of peacekeeping missions is
clearly way beyond the current U.N. capabilities and resources.
Some are advocating a permanent volunteer force. The financial



problems of the U.N. alone are staggering. The organization owes
§1.7 billion and has less than $400 million in the bank.

It is also owed over $3 billion by its member states and is operat-
ing at a monthly cost of $400 million. There have been many new
and creative proposals for financing its activities. The Australian
Foreign Minister proposed that foreign exchange transactions,
taxed at the rate of l/1000ths of 1 percent, would bring in $30 bil-
lion.

Others are proposing the placement of taxes on international air-
line tickets. But whatever the recommendations for structural
change — putting the financial foundation on a solid footing — we
have an enormous job ahead of us next year or so in restructuring
the United Nations.

Today, we are extremely fortunate to have a very distinguished
panel of expert witnesses who will address these and other ques-
tions regarding the United Nations.

Before introducing our opening witness, Secretary Shultz, I
would like to turn to my good friend from Nebraska, Ranking Re-
publican on the subcommittee, Congressman Bereuter; and I want
to welcome him to San Francisco.

Mr. BEREUTER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I am pleased to participate in the field hearing of the Committee
on Foreign Affairs, held for both historic and substantive reasons,
in the city where the United Nations was established. For me, it
is a little bit of a homecoming, as I once lived here as well.

It is clear that Americans approach the 50th anniversary of the
founding of the United Nations with a certain degree of mixed feel-
ings. On the one hand, virtually everyone recognizes that the U.N.
performs some extraordinarily important work. From the response
to aggression against South Korea in the 1950's, to Kuwait in the
1990's, the United Nations was the mechanism through which the
United States organized a collective response to international ag-
gression.

The U.N. election observers have been on hand in places like
South Africa, Cambodia, and El Salvador. UNICEF, the World
Health Organization, and the World Food Program feed and pro-
vide basic health services to literally tens of millions of suffering
individuals.

The U.N. Development Program has been the leading agency in
focusing on women in developing countries. Time and again, the
United Nations has proven itself to be invaluable.

At the same time, Americans tend to look with caution at some
of the more grandiose schemes that have recently come from the
mouths of U.N. bureaucrats. Americans are, for example, skeptical
of notions of a U.N. Army, and surveys demonstrate that virtually
every American agrees that when U.S. troops are serving as peace-
keepers, they should never be placed under the command of a for-
eign commander.

In recent years, we have seen U.N. bureaucrats make dangerous
calculations regarding peacekeeping and peace enforcement, and
we have seen Secretary General Boutros-Ghali's aspirations of na-
tion building come crashing down. And, there are great concerns
about an increasingly inefficient, wasteful and arrogant U.N. bu-
reaucracy that seems answerable to no one.



When we look at the evolving role of the United Nations, there
is a tendency to focus now on peacekeeping activities. This is, I
think, understandable. Over the last few years, the number of blue
helmets have increased from less than 10,000 to over 90,000.

Peacekeeping is certainly an important part of the U.N. story.
But this is an appropriate occasion to pose some basic questions
about the institutional structure of the United Nations, and we
have some people who are experts to help us do that.

For example, can a General Assembly function effectively with
184 members, each with a single vote? Does it have too little im-
pact vis-a-vis the Security Council? Is it fair to expect the United
States to provide over 30 percent of the U.N. costs? I know in my
brief service there as a delegate to the 42nd General Assembly, I
came away very depressed with how difficult it was to accomplish
things.

Is the Security Council an outmoded instrument? And should we
expand the number of permanent Members of the Security Council?
We all know, as the Chairman said, that Germany, Japan, Nigeria,
Indonesia, India, Brazil, and other would-be permanent members
are, in effect, lobbying to change the Security Council makeup. Is
it time for fundamental changes?

How does the United Nations move away from its current pat-
tern of bloc voting with the Latin American nations, African na-
tions, and others frequently voting as a single bloc? This has led
to a situation where improper behavior by certain countries is con-
doned because various voting blocs unite to prevent a response.

And what does the United Nations do about countries that have
ceased to function as member states? What do we do when a mem-
ber becomes a "failed state"?

The history of the United Nations has been one of expanding sov-
ereignty to all corners of the globe. Is it time to focus on the re-
sponsibilities that go with sovereignty? I believe, Mr. Chairman,
these are fundamental questions.

During the 103d Congress, under your able leadership, this sub-
committee has devoted considerable time looking at many of these
questions. I take some satisfaction noting that this subcommittee's
investigations have played an important part in pushing for the es-
tablishment of a U.N. Inspector General with some true authority
to root out corruption.

I would also note that this subcommittee was among the first
voices raised in support of reducing U.N. annual peacekeeping con-
tributions to 25 percent of the U.N. budget, down from the current
31.7 percent.

Under the leadership of Tom Lantos, we have pursued these is-
sues because it is in the interests of the United States that we do
pursue them. I would note we have made these efforts on a biparti-
san basis. In so doing, we have attempted to make the United Na-
tions stronger and work more effectively.

So much remains to be done. I believe America needs to continu-
ously reevaluate and redefine its relationship with the United Na-
tions. Meetings such as the hearing we hold today will undoubtedly
help the Congress to understand the evolving nature of the United
Nations and it should help the Committee on Foreign Affairs to
more effectively conduct oversight in this important area.



Mr. Chairman, I congratulate you on assembling an outstanding
panel of witnesses. I would especially like to welcome Secretary
Shultz, a distinguished American. I look forward to hearing the tes-
timony of all our witnesses here today, and I thank you for your
initiative in holding this hearing. '

Mr. Lantos. Thank you very much, Congressman Bereuter.

Before introducing my good friend and colleague from San Fran-
cisco, let me just say that a great deal of the credit for the biparti-
san character of this operation goes very strongly to you and to the
Republican staff. And I want to take this opportunity to thank
Mike Ennis of the Republican staff, Beth Poisson of the Democratic
staff, and, of course, the Subcommittee Staff Director, Dr. Robert
King, for their outstanding work throughout the term, and also in
the preparation of this meeting.

It gives me extraordinary pleasure to introduce my very good
friend, my neighbor, Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi. Nancy Pelosi,
in a very short period of time, has become one of the most effective
leaders in the Congress of the United States and on an enormous
spectrum of issues. Her persistence, her intelligence, her integrity,
and her leadership qualities have made a mark on national policy.
I am delighted that she has joined the subcommittee for this hear-
ing.

Ms. Pelosi. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for your very
kind words.

As one who is your colleague in representing San Francisco in
the Congress of the United States, may I say what a source of
pride it is to all of us in San Francisco, indeed you bring honor to
the State delegation, the California delegation in your role in Con-
gress, particularly today as Chair of the International Security,
International Organizations and Human Rights Subcommittee on
the Foreign Affairs Committee.

I want to, as your colleague in representing San Francisco, join
you in welcoming Congressman Bereuter and associate myself with
your remarks about him. Although I do not serve on your commit-
tee, I have served with him on the Banking Committee and note
that bipartisan cooperation is the hallmark of his service in Con-
gress.

As I mentioned, I don't serve on this committee, I do serve on
the Foreign Operations Committee of the Subcommittee of Appro-
priations, and our committee does not move until we hear from
your committee. So, indeed, we are very interested in what policy-
makers, the authorizers have to say. That is why this hearing is
very important today, because the U.N., of course, has a gigantic
role in promoting the principles, as they have been presented to us
in the Foreign Operations Committee by the Clinton administra-
tion, to promote sustainable development and all the accompanying
population issues that go with that — to promote peace, to promote
human rights, to provide humanitarian assistance, to assist in eco-
nomic growth, and as Mr. Bereuter and our Chairman have men-
tioned, in relationship to women's involvement in development,
even issues like AIDS, which we are so familiar with here, have
now a strong international piece, and the U.N. can play a strong
role in attacking that problem as well.



Mr. Secretary, I want to take a special point of personal privilege
to welcome you to San Francisco, joining our Chairman, Mr. Lan-
tos. We are indeed fortunate that you are a resource to us locally
here, as you are a resource nationally and internationally. But it
is an honor for us any day of the week that you are in San Fran-
cisco and give us the benefit of your thinking.

Again, I want to acknowledge Mr. Lantos' role and his leadership
on international issues in the Congress. Not only as Chair of this
subcommittee, but also as co-Chair with Mr. Porter of the Human
Rights Caucus, because of his personal experience, because of his
personal commitment, because of his immense knowledge on the
subject, and because of his boundless energy in attacking any viola-
tions of human rights and assault on human worth and dignity
throughout the world, he is a true champion and a true hero.

Most recently, he demonstrated this week in his very rigorous
opposition to Proposition 187. While that may not be pertinent to
the restructuring of the U.N., it is certainly relevant to the fun-
damental belief that we all have in the dignity and worth in every
person. And any chance I get I want to say how proud San Francis-
cans are that we are represented by Tom Lantos in the Congress
and the fine work he does there and the leadership he provides on
these very important issues.

I certainly associate myself with the questions presented by my
colleagues concerning the United Nations. I, too, am concerned
about the structuring and makeup of the Security Council.

Mr. Secretary, I may say, this summer I have traveled in East-
ern and Central Europe and the former Republics of the Soviet
Union, and what was interesting to me is when I asked some lead-
ers in those countries whether they would welcome the participa-
tion of international organizations in addressing issues of racial ha-
tred and violations of human rights, et cetera, in some cases, they
were enthusiastic in this response of yes.

And in other cases, they would say, why don't we just settle that
ourselves? I found that frightening, especially since some of these
places did not have a fine record of settling those in a peaceful
way.

In any event, this hearing is very important. The future of the
U.N. is very important. And I very much look forward to hearing
Secretary Shultz's remarks, as well as those of the other distin-


1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Online LibraryInternational Organizations United States. Congress. House. Committee on ForeiThe United Nations at fifty : hearing before the Subcommittee on International Security, International Organizations, and Human Rights of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, House of Representatives, One Hundred Third Congress, second session, October 24, 1994 → online text (page 1 of 10)