House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee Joint Hearings
2 February 2017
on UN Security Council Resolution 2334 regarding Israeli Settlements (23 December 2016)
Statement for the record
by Hugh Dugan
Visiting Distinguished Scholar and Adjunct Professor, The School of Diplomacy and International Relations, Seton Hall University, and member of the United States Delegation to the United Nations as senior adviser to eleven United States Permanent Representatives and as US Delegate accredited to the United Nations (1989-2015)
In the wake of the Security Council’s condemnation of Israeli settlements, efforts underway to reform the Organization through possible defunding triggers are under discussion. The objective is to ensure that US participation in the multilateral UN Organization promotes US interests, goals and objectives mutually shared with its allies for the maintenance of international peace and security, economic and social prosperity, and respect for human rights. Without collaboration in New York to ensure the United States’ purposeful participation and championing of the UN Charter, the Organization would move closer to the brink of irrelevance.
Reasserting US Interests
Each UN member state protects its foreign affairs interests throughout the United Nations Organization and the United States is no different. US interests include having the means to participate effectively with others through reliable intergovernmental mechanisms. Such institutions must be responsibly managed for readiness capacity in order to facilitate dialogue, decisions, and program delivery all in the interest of a stable, liberal international order. These interests are those of taxpayers not only at home, but worldwide. The United States has the weight and leadership necessary with others to steward the United Nations Organization to meet these national interests, to the benefit of the US taxpayer and to those of its allies. On the heels of the UN’s recent controversial resolution condemning Israeli settlements, the Trump Administration and the 115th Session of Congress must take the opportunity to script and staff the United States accordingly for its ongoing role as best critic and best friend of the United Nations Organization.
Indeed, the United Nations in the throes of WWII agreed to create the United Nations Organization to service a conference of states, not a typical conference, but a permanent conference with no end date. An international treaty signed in 1945 adopted the UN Charter creating a purpose-built organization to surpass the failed League of Nations as a convening forum to consider and resolve diplomatically international tensions so as to prevent the scourge of world war from occurring yet again in our lifetime.
Due in great part to the genius design of the Security Council veto keeping the major powers at the table instead of at war, for over 71 years the Organization has served as a forum in which countries represent their interests in the context of international cooperation, report back to their capitals on the progress of such multilateral efforts to advocate the principles and purposes of the UN Charter; and enter into negotiations to forge norms of behavior, provide capacity for technical cooperation among states, request discussion papers, authorize operations; and share in the day-to-day stewardship of the Organization itself to provide the capacity and resources to pursue these functions.
Against this, Representative Iliana Ros-Lehtinen stated succinctly in November 2015, “As the UN General Assembly continues its 70th session, we are reminded again that this broken institution is in dire need of reform. Repressive and corrupt regimes like Cuba, Iran, Russia, China, Syria, and North Korea have effectively taken the United Nations hostage, shielding each other from accountability and justice while doing serious harm to the UN’s stated objectives. The Palestinian Authority continues to exploit the UN system to pursue unilateral statehood outside of direct negotiations with Israel, an effort that not only circumvents the rule of law and the Palestinians’ international agreements and obligations but is counterproductive to the peace process itself. Some of the world’s most authoritarian states have commandeered the Human Rights Council in order to deflect attention away from their human rights violations and have done lasting damage to the cause of human rights in the process. With over 250,000 dead in Syria and Assad continuing to use barrel bombs and chemical warfare against his own people, the Human Rights Council has maintained its anti-Israel bias, passing almost twice as many resolutions against the democratic Jewish State as it has against Assad in recent years.”
In that vein, there has been a disturbing momentum in the United Nations toward providing an imprimatur of legality, a “soft-law” identity, to issues and outputs on its agenda. The Obama Administration opted for its phone and its pen over the heads of the US Senate by taking the Iran Deal to the United Nations Security Council for adoption as if it were properly ratified. Such “executive order” type actions cannot bind as if law, and they leave vulnerable whatever agreement was struck in good faith with other member states. The Paris Climate Change accord and other such developments may be easily vulnerable to reinterpretation by subsequent Administrations. Any reform of the UN Organization would include an acknowledgement of its possibilities and a strong reminder of its limits.
The Security Council’s anti-Israel resolution #2334 of 23 December 2016 drew criticism from many corners feeling betrayal on this issue. There was also a betrayal of sorts within the club-like bargaining den of the Security Council. There has evolved the political dynamic among UN member states that from time to time a topic such as this can dependably expect that the US will veto, thereby enabling others to take that cover and thereby position themselves among each other for their secondary political purposes. This is the drill, in full expectation that at the end of the day the right thing will have been done by an isolated US potentially scorned by them in public but appreciated by them away from the cameras. France and UK could not have been too happy, as this unexpected turn of events means that they might have to crawl from their safe spaces to fight future fights, take some arrows, and perhaps carry the burden of leadership to act bravely to the public hissing and booing of those who nonetheless quietly depend upon that leadership for a predictable outcome.
Others testifying today are better placed to analyze the substance of resolution 2334. Here it is useful to point out that it re-awoke attention to the UN as a place in need of reform. Certainly, the frustration felt in many corners was that a highly politicized topic was given the appearance of international legitimacy. Disgust was registered across the political aisle that the Security Council, apparently prey to such political manipulation, must be broken and in need of reform – the first step of which would be repudiation of Security Council Resolution 2334. While this frustration is understandable, it is worsened by the competing frustration that the lame duck Obama Administration was the source of this, yet another, self-inflicted wound. It may be worth remembering the quote of former US Ambassador Richard Holbrooke that blaming the UN Organization for such a failing would be similar to criticizing Madison Square Garden when the Knicks lose a basketball game there.
Resolution 2334 indeed did spark the attention of both the president-elect and Congress on the eve of its 115th session to the UN as a target for ongoing reform. So, what might the US do in New York to recruit others to the task of improving the strategic management of the UN Organization, a routinely underserved priority?
First and foremost, key Congressional figures are already raising attention through statements and draft legislation indicating possible withholding on US payments to the Organization. This maneuver, having been used in previous years at the UN, focuses the attention in way that subtleties, cajoling and earnest advocacy never could. Most recently it delivered successful Helms-Biden legislation in 2001 for various UN reform measures.
Next what is needed in short order is a plan of action for the US Delegation to bring to the UN chessboard. Meanwhile the US Delegation must up its game to play smarter, not only harder, something which newly arrived US Ambassador Nikki Haley is already addressing. And yes, the chessboard itself requires improvements and modernization, going far beyond any single political issue or episode. Today’s hearings can direct the firestorm of attention fueled by Res #2334 toward a UN reform program of action for an effective and efficient Organization in our interests and those of our allies. The world is moving more quickly and unpredictably than ever, and the Organization must prioritize and bring its best efforts to bear on the key purposes of the UN.
“Reform is a process, not an event” was the oft-heard view of UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan in the last major era of UN reform around 2000. Indeed, reform is best stated as the ongoing strategic assessment and responsible management of resources. The problem soon arises as to when is reform showing results?
The United Nations Organization, as a going concern, does not have the benefit of competitor UN Organizations, so it is in a market of one. Therefore, there is no bevy of Wall Street analysts assessing its valuation, strengths, weaknesses, potential, “stock price”, or buy/sell indicators as would exist for major competitive industries. How does one then fairly assess the Organization’s performance? How much peace did we buy today?
As this is indeed a riddle of sorts, the elementary answer would be in assessing the Organization’s power to convene participants to its purposes. If it did not serve their interests, it would see no business. Its power to convene remains strong, in parallel with its power to keep participants at the table once they come together. The League of Nations failed in both respects. At stake is whether the Organization’s power to convene can be maintained as divisiveness is on the rise in the world. For this, real reform is needed.
Real reform of the UN Organization means a dedicated lifestyle-change within the UN Secretariat, not merely a crash diet before a beach vacation. While respecting good works and intentions, real reform would focus on the Organization’s deeper, longer-term inefficiencies, ineptitudes, and wrong approaches. “We the peoples” and their 193 governments deserve from the Organization results-based budgeting, crisp program planning, managerial efficiency and effectiveness, clear monitoring, and evaluations that are thorough and constructive for the peoples’ further considerations.
Real reform also entails, dare we say, a reform of the expectations so easily inflated by those drawn to the high principles and purposes of the UN Charter. The public and their governments must reform their perceptions of the UN to align more closely to the original intent of the UN Charter – most importantly the maintenance of international peace and security which drove the creation of the Organization. The increasing mandating of UN peace operations to theaters that are not strictly “international”, rather local, domestic, or perhaps regional, has resulted most often in frustrating and at times worsened situations. The expectation that what works between countries can work in less defined theaters of conflict may need revising.
US action toward reforming the UN Organization takes time and effort by both Congress and the White House, and the US Mission to the UN will surely encounter resistance and inertia as was the case in past reform efforts. However, as we know the sunlight needed by the important is always overshadowed by the urgent, and this is very much the case at UN Headquarters in New York. Instead of a daily focus on ensuring an Organization fit for purpose, high-profile votes in its Security Council, landmark efforts on development issues, and controversy in its General Assembly always shake and bake the headlines. Proposing UN departmental reorganizations, calculating dues receivable, and untangling personnel practices are the tedious chores often bypassed. They are readily relegated to mid-career experts by their diplomatic superiors who prefer to be spectacled in political optics, not encased in watch repair work.
Back home, the required depth of knowledge, skill, and ability to undertake a determined program for dedicated, ongoing reform-minded stewardship by the United States is usually in short supply, given competing demands and priorities. The needed investment of political capital for this historically has rendered a small political return on investment on the Hill or with constituents. So, pushing for better US participation multilaterally through reforming the UN Organization is clearly a labor of love by those in Washington willing to become slightly less-politician and slightly more-statesman.
We have witnessed a cycle every fifteen years or so bringing forth such leadership. Senator Nancy Kassebaum lead this effort in the mid-1980s and Senators Biden and Helms did so in 2000. Today this House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee – strengthened by the tireless, year-on-year advocacy of Chairman Chris Smith – Representative Iliana Ros-Lehtinen, and Senate colleagues Ted Cruz and Lindsay Graham among others, are poised to provide leadership to review the UN Charter and assess its current machinery headquartered in New York for relevance and capacity. When keen attention has been focused on these questions, good resources have been developed, and they usually stand the test of time. Former Congressman James Leach headed up a Commission on the UN and its report, although thirty years old, is a fine example which merits a close read.
Representative Ros-Lehtinen has long argued for, among other things, gradually shifting the funding mechanism for the United Nations from assessed to voluntary contributions in order to make the organization more effective and accountable to its objectives. Former Ambassador to the UN John Bolton has put forward similar proposals. The rationale for defunding — or partial defunding – are part and parcel of such “smart withholding”. The effort is to incentivize transparency, accountability, and reform within the UN Organization; we can stop rewarding the bad behavior that has led to the UN’s current state of dysfunction and ensure it gets back to working on its Charter goals.
Proposed legislation in this vein would usefully target the particular areas for reform and identify within each specific measures toward full US participation in mutually resourcing the Organization. Such an inventory of measures would be the subject of a much more detailed, considered report than this. Generally speaking, however, particular areas would include the following:
· Reforms that can be undertaken immediately within the UN Secretary General’s existing authorities as chief administrative officer, such as spending measures and personnel patterns;
· Reforms to be decided by the membership, such as setting the agenda, budgeting, setting the Organization’s strategic map, selection process of the Secretary-General; membership criteria, elections to UN subsidiary membership bodies, and working methods of the Security Council and other bodies;
· Reform on the institutional design and UN bureaucracy, which is a shared responsibility of the membership and the Secretary-General.
Several specific reforms were proposed in a recent paper “Eleven Priorities on International Organizations for the Trump Administration” (Heritage Foundation Issue brief #4628 of 17 November 2016). Among its points, it calls on continuing recent initiatives to
· Rein in excessive salaries for UN employees that were 29.9 percent higher than equivalent US civil servant salaries in Washington in 2016,
· Oppose increases in the UN regular budget,
· Revive a mandatory review of all UN mandates,
· Promote changes to address excessive US assessments,
· Condemn and create consequences for cases of sexual exploitation and abuse by UN peacekeepers;
· Secure commitments from existing and new troop-contributing countries to meet existing and future demands.
Adding to these are more proposals for reform:
· Promote higher standards for conduct by UN peacekeepers,
· Improve the Security Council’s methods of work for more rigorous programing and evaluation of peacekeeping operations before mandating or renewing a mandate so as to keep the operations as time-focused as possible,
· Negotiate the UN’s assessment to the US for peacekeeping operations down to the 25 percent cap that is in US law,
· Remind the UN Organization that US law now includes a whistleblower protection withholding of 15% of US contributions,
· Make fully independent the UN Office of Internal Oversight Services,
· Request an audit of the methods, performance, and outputs of the UN Human Rights Council against the criteria establishing it as the replacement to the UN Human Rights Commission,
· Mandate an inventory of the UN’s implementation and ongoing relevance of previously agreed UN reform agreements, particularly those wrought by the Helms-Biden legislation in 2000 that lead to the release of nearly $1 billion in US withholdings,
· Institute sunset clauses on all resolutions, particularly those which authorize extra-budgetary resources,
· Reform the methodology of dues payments from each country to the Organization. This would require negotiations in 2018 to adjust the UN Organization’s scales of assessments (the percentage amount it charges each member state) from the US dollar market exchange rate methodology to a purchasing power parity methodology, the same as used by the World Bank in comparing economies, resulting in a lowering of US dues and a raising of that paid by others.
As a closing thought, the fact that the UN Organization can provide the world with immediate “readiness” in a breaking crisis alone could justify our investment and stewardship attention in driving reform. It is in the US interest that there be a forum where we can help forge, within hours, internationally legitimate agreements and authoritative actions over threats to international peace and security – as was the case in the fast-breaking Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. The Organization’s response was a shining moment in its history. It may be that such an investment blooms very rarely, or so it seems. Some of the best and most expensive investments made are in things we may never “use” but whose mere existence identifies our capacity and changes the equation internationally in our favor.
Finally, each UN member state protects its foreign affairs interests throughout the United Nations Organization, and the United States is no different. US interests include having the means to participate effectively with others through reliable intergovernmental mechanisms. Such institutions must be responsibly managed for readiness capacity in order to facilitate dialogue, decisions, and program delivery all in the interest of a stable, liberal international order. These interests are those of taxpayers not only at home, but worldwide. The US has the weight and leadership necessary with others to steward the United Nations Organization to meet these national interests, to the benefit of the US taxpayer and to those of its allies. On the heels of the UN’s recent controversial resolution condemning Israeli settlements, the Trump Administration and the 115th Session of Congress must take the opportunity to script and staff the United States accordingly for its ongoing role as best critic and best friend of the United Nations Organization.