With a new Secretary General comes new opportunities for the United States to strengthen its commitment to the United Nations. The next UNF Insights column outlines some of the openings that this transitional period presents and argues that American foreign policy would be best served by seizing this new multilateralist moment. Click here for the PDF.

The next installment of UNF Insights explores some problems associated with using what economists call "Purchasing Power Parity" (PPP) to assess what each member state must pay in dues to the United Nations. Readers of The Economist might recognize the term from the magazine's periodic "Big Mac Index," which uses the price of a McDonalds hamburger to compare economies around the world. In short, PPP is a way to measure comparative standards of living by comparing the price of a "basket of goods" in one place (i.e. a Big Mac in Bengal) to the same "basket of goods" elsewhere (i.e. a Big Mac in Bologna.)

When applied to the price of a hamburger, PPP gives harmless anecdotal evidence about the relative strength of economies. But if used to calculate UN dues - as some key member states have argued - it would have debilitating consequences for UN operations. To find out why, click here for my short essay on the topic.

IHT: "The next secretary-general of the United Nations pledged Tuesday to restore trust in the world body and enact reforms, speaking on the 61st anniversary of the organization's founding. Ban Ki-moon, South Korea's foreign minister who will assume the top U.N. job in January, said the organization cannot forge united global political will in an atmosphere of mistrust.

"As secretary-general, I will leave no stone unturned in my endeavor to dispel the bitter atmosphere and shore up the trust and confidence among all stakeholders," Ban told a luncheon marking the U.N. anniversary. "This will begin with winning the trust of all in myself and my leadership as secretary-general."

"Senate Democrats unleashed a sharp volley of criticism of President Bush's foreign policy yesterday, arguing that John R. Bolton has done more harm than good as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations and does not deserve an extended term. If Bolton's style were less divisive, they said, he might have achieved more reforms at the United Nations and tougher sanctions against Hezbollah and North Korea." [Full story]

Bloggers weigh in:

FDL
Washington Note
Think Progress

Writing in Bloomberg News, Amity Shlaes argues that the opposition to Ambassador Bolton's re-nomination is born from a conviction that he does not possess the right temperament for the job. "Doesn't play well with others," writes Shlaes. "That's the charge against John Bolton.... Other UN diplomats don't like him. They complain about him the way preschool teachers complain about an irritating child -- too loud, too pushy."

With respect to Ms. Shlaes, Bolton's temperament is not the issue here. Among the many reasons to question the wisdom and utility of Bolton's re-nomination, the fact that he does not possess the social graces typical of other diplomats in Turtle Bay is beside the point. Rather, questions about Bolton's nomination are grounded in profoundly substantive critiques of his one year tenure as Ambassador.

In issue after issue, Ambassador Bolton has undermined many of the interests he purports to serve. And in no subject is this clearer than UN reform. Ambassador Bolton is arguably among the most vocal proponents of reform in Turtle Bay. But as Barbara Crossette pointed out in Foreign Policy, Bolton too often stakes maximalist positions on relatively minor issues, thereby sacrificing larger reform to his own idiosyncrasies. For example, by opposing the mere mention of Millennium Development Goals in the 2005 World Summit outcome document, Bolton sent months of negotiation in a tailspin just weeks before the summit in September. (Bolton only dropped the issue once Secretary Rice smoothed things over in a conference call with Kofi Annan and an irate UK foreign minister Jack Straw.) In the end, the final document was a watered down version of many of the goals the United States-and other proponents of reform-hoped to achieve.

Similarly, Bolton often fails to signal America's bottom line at critical points of negotiation. During discussions over the structure and mandate of the new Human Rights Council, our best allies at the UN were bending over backwards to accommodate the administration's concerns. However, Bolton failed to articulate America's red lines during crucial meetings prior to the vote on the council. As a result, Bolton failed to achieve a proposal that the United States could support.

Bolton's preference for brinksmanship is also damaging to America's long term interests at the United Nations. There was a near crisis stemming from a budget stand-off in June, and this became a diplomatic disaster for the United States. For one, this tactic backfired and strengthened the hand of the opponents to reform who successfully stalled much progress on reform in a General Assembly vote in May. Further, it isolated the United States, contributing to the steady erosion of American influence in Turtle Bay.

Bolton has been unable to achieve many of his stated goals on reform. But he has contributed to an atmosphere at the United Nations is becoming increasingly contentious and polarized. It is these substantive critiques, not questions about his temperament, which Senators must consider as they vote on his nomination.

"The United States will drop its insistence that rich nations withhold funds from the U.N. budget next month unless management reforms are enacted, U.S. Ambassador John Bolton said on Friday." [Full story]

UPDATE: From the Better World Campaign: The Partnership for a Secure America, a bi-partisan group of former high ranking foreign policy officials, ran an advertisement in The New York Times calling for strong U.S. leadership at the UN to build consensus on reforms and for continued funding of the organization at this critical time, addressing the vital role the UN is playing to confront global problems and in foster peace. See the advertisement. (pdf)

In case you missed these:

Strained relations between U.N., U.S. are bad for everyone

"During the late 1990s, congressional conservatives led by Sen. Jesse Helms, R-N.C., vowed to starve the U.N. unless it acceded to a long list of "reforms." In September 2002, President Bush asserted that the United Nations would become "irrelevant" should it fail to join the U.S. in disarming Iraq. You have to wonder why the U.N. is still in business. The short answer is: Because the United States can't do without it.

John Bolton's latest teapot tempest

"The U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, John Bolton, last week petulantly aimed a blast of verbal buckshot at U.N. Deputy Secretary-General Mark Malloch Brown. In his blast, he grotesquely distorted what the U.N. official had actually asserted in public criticisms of the Bush administration and some Republican-friendly media."

Sebastian Mallaby: "Last month President Bush issued a rare apology. "Saying 'Bring it on,' kind of tough talk, you know, that sent the wrong signal," he confessed. "I think in certain parts of the world it was misinterpreted."

Well done, Mr. President, you've understood that bluster can backfire. Now how about sharing this insight with your ambassador to the United Nations?"

In his recent testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Ambassador Bolton announced that the U.S. is "prepared to consider" a 90-day extension of the spending cap that threatens to disrupt invaluable UN operations at the end of this month.

However, he also acknowledged that "it hasn't met with a lot of support," and that "it's an indication ... that we're not trying to force this to an issue on the 30th [of June]."

Ambassador Bolton hits the nail on the head. It is clear to nearly every party involved that such a proposal is very unlikely to be accepted. Member States would not want to engage in this complicated debate as the 2006 U.S. Congressional campaigns hit the home stretch or in the same time frame as the annual General Assembly meeting, where nations will also be hotly debating the selection of the next Secretary-General. Doing so would only make matters more contentious in what is already a highly charged environment. Some have even suggested that this proposal is just what the Ambassador said it was, "an indication," a non-starter intended to make the U.S. appear more amenable to compromise while painting the G-77 into a corner.

For quite a while (and again at the recent Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing) Senators on both sides of the aisle have pressed the U.S. mission on what would be a far more effective and responsible strategy - clearly delineating the reforms that would satisfy those who fought for the budget cap. Unfortunately the Administration has yet to do so.

The battle is pitched at the United Nations. Now is the time for reasoned diplomacy and clearly delineated goals, if we are to avoid a head-on collision that threatens to paralyze the UN, a situation that benefits no nation.

"The United Nations must become more effective in tackling global terrorism, Tony Blair has said. He said that new worldwide threats mean that the international community must act "earlier and more effectively", and that a UN debate is needed on how that can happen.

"The whole point about the international community today is that these problems are urgent, they need to be tackled. If they're not tackled, the consequences are very quickly felt around the world. And you have got to have institutions that are capable of taking them on and tackling them and getting action taken."

His comments at a White House press conference come ahead of a speech in which the Prime Minister will urge the reform of international institutions such as the UN and the International Monetary Fund to take account of the new politics of globalization.

At a joint press conference, Mr Blair told reporters: "What we want to do is make sure that the UN is an effective instrument to multi-lateral action." [Read more]

"In 2005, the United Nations delivered 1,200 reports on issues from Guinea-Bissau to the rights of women in the developing world. Its human rights office alone produced 44,000 pages of documents which in turn had to be translated into six official languages.

Such a huge volume of information, and the bureaucracy needed to produce it, threatens to overwhelm the United Nations, Secretary-General Kofi Annan said in a study released Thursday. The 191 member states must fund the things they ask for, and stop demanding so much if the world body is to live up to the ideals and promises of its founders, he said." [More]

"The United Nations will soon have a re-minted human rights body to monitor abuses worldwide after the full membership voted in favour of its creation yesterday ... The notion of a reformed council was proposed by Kofi Annan, the secretary general, last year and endorsed by the UN's 60th anniversary summit in September." More

Secretary-General Kofi Annan
©UN Photo/Mark Garten

"Aiming to keep step with the shift at the United Nations from bureaucratic tasks to life-saving work in the field, Secretary-General Kofi Annan today presented proposals for a far-reaching overhaul ranging from setting up a 2,500-strong core of mobile peacekeeping professionals to multimillion dollar investments in training and technology.

His far-reaching report, "Investing in the United Nations: For a Stronger Organization Worldwide," focuses on ensuring efficiency and accountability in a way that reflects the fact that more than 70 per cent of the $10 billion annual budget now relates to peacekeeping and other field operations, up from around 50 per cent of a $4.5 billion budget ten years ago." [Read more]

Rikomatic: "Nobel Prize Laureates support UN Human Rights Council"

Steve Clemons: "Bolton has Been Trying to Kill the Human Rights Council from the Beginning"

Paper Chase: "US Rejects Proposed UN Human Rights Council Reform"

Thomas Paine's Corner: "Human Rights Hypocrisy"

Opinio Juris: "U.S. Will Oppose New U.N. Human Rights Council"

TEXT:

We the undersigned Nobel Peace Prize Laureates and representatives of Nobel Peace Prize Laureate organizations urge the creation of a representative and effective UN Human Rights Council.

In virtually every armed conflict since the formation of the United Nations, gross human rights violations have preceded armed conflict. The stripping of rights and recognition of a people sets the stage for genocide and ethnic cleansing. In all continents, human rights violations have provided powerful fuel for the escalation of violence.

The body entrusted with setting and maintaining the international standards for human rights among the UN Member States is the United Nations Commission on Human Rights. While the Commission has a proud history, beginning with the issuance of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, today it has become ineffective. In some instances, it has been led and influenced by gross human rights violators themselves, resulting in the decline in credibility of one of the pillars of the United Nations.

We support the bold remedy and new Human Rights Council proposed by Secretary General Kofi Annan last year, and endorsed by world leaders at the September 2005 World Summit.

The new Council as described in the recent text submitted by the President of the General Assembly will be more responsive to human rights violations and fairer in its review of human rights practices. It will also preserve and build on the strengths of the existing Commission on Human Rights.

We are approaching a critical point in history where we can reinvigorate the UN's role in the promotion and protection of fundamental human rights. Please join us in our support for this important initiative.

Sincerely,

Minister Jose Ramos-Horta, Timor Leste, 1996 Nobel Peace Prize Laureate
President Jimmy Carter, United States of America, 2002 Nobel Peace Prize Laureate
Archbishop Desmond Tutu, South Africa, 1984 Nobel Peace Prize Laureate
President Oscar Arias Sanchez, Costa Rica, 1987 Nobel Peace Prize Laureate
Bishop Carlos Filipe Ximenes Belo, Timor Leste, 1996 Nobel Peace Prize Laureate
Dr. Norman E. Borlaug, United States of America, 1970 Nobel Peace Prize Laureate
President Kim Dae-jung, Republic of Korea, 2000 Nobel Peace Prize Laureate
Mr. Adolfo Perez Esquivel, Argentina, 1980 Nobel Peace Prize Laureate
MP John Hume, United Kingdom, 1998 Nobel Peace Prize Laureate
Mrs. Mairead Maguire, United Kingdom, 1976 Nobel Peace Prize Laureate
MP David Trimble, United Kingdom, 1998 Nobel Peace Prize Laureate
Ms. Jody Williams, United States of America, 1997 Nobel Peace Prize Laureate

TIMOTHY E. WIRTH
President, United Nations Foundation

Letter to the Editor, Washington Post

"Contrary to the Jan. 9 editorial "Globalization's Deficit," efforts to reform the United Nations have progressed significantly since last year's World Summit. The United Nations has created a Peacebuilding Commission to guide and support nation-building efforts in post-conflict areas, and a Democracy Fund that had been advocated by the Bush administration. Negotiations for a Human Rights Council are proceeding. Management reforms have been implemented, including the creation of an Ethics Office to administer new whistleblower and financial disclosure policies for U.N. staff.

Other changes include a more transparent hiring process and creation of an independent audit board to oversee management practices. Finally, the 2006-07 U.N. budget is tied to the completion of reform initiatives.

The United Nations is making a difference on global challenges. For example, it provided invaluable support to the United States in laying the groundwork for a political transition in Iraq, most recently by providing assistance for the December elections and acknowledging their legitimacy. The Security Council also is investigating Syria's involvement in the assassination of Rafiq Hariri and helping to free the Lebanese from Syrian control.

Like the world, the United Nations is imperfect, but it is being reinvented to meet the challenges of the 21st century."

"Outlining his major priorities for 2006, his last year as United Nations Secretary-General, Kofi Annan said today that alongside efforts to promote peace and security and combat poverty and disease he was determined to follow through on his wide-ranging agenda of reform and renewal of the world body.

"If there's one thing I would like to hand over to my successor when I leave office next year, is that it should be a UN that is fit for the many varied tasks and challenges we are asked to take on today," Mr. Annan told an end-of-year press conference at UN Headquarters in New York, stressing that a strong programme to do that was already embraced by Member States at the 2005 World Summit." [Read more]

"Receiving the final report of the Independent Inquiry Committee (IIC) into maladministration and corruption in the United Nations-run Iraqi Oil-for-Food Programme, Secretary-General Kofi Annan today called on Member States to take action against illegal practises by companies under their jurisdiction and to prevent recurrences.

At the same time he reiterated his commitment to "vital" reform of the UN management structure in response to criticism in earlier IIC reports that found failures in actions by the UN Secretariat in regard to the now defunct $64-billion Programme which allowed Saddam Hussein's sanctions-bound regime to sell oil to buy essential supplies." [More]

"U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan appealed Wednesday to world leaders marking the 60th anniversary of the United Nations to help restore confidence in the world body and to act together to meet the challenges of the new century.

Addressing more than 150 presidents, prime ministers and monarchs, Annan said a document they will adopt at the end of the three-day summit was "a good start" but not "the sweeping and fundamental reform" he proposed. He called for urgent action on the tough, unresolved issues.

"Because one thing has emerged clearly from this process on which we embarked two years ago: whatever our differences, in our interdependent world, we stand or fall together," Annan said." [Read more]

"World leaders explore ways to revitalize the United Nations at a summit on Wednesday but their blueprint falls short of Secretary-General Kofi Annan's vision of freedom from want, persecution and war. [Full story]

Washington-"Today marks a turning point from focusing on the problems of the Oil-for-Food Program (OFFP) to moving ahead with UN reform. The exhaustive Independent Inquiry Committee's (IIC) report tells us both what went right and wrong with the program. Clearly, the UN made mistakes in the operation of the OFFP. The organization will learn from these lessons and by implementing recommendations offered by the IIC, as it has already begun to do, help ensure that these problems are not repeated in the future." [Read More]

Just a reminder that you can get the latest on the Oil-for-Food inquiry at oilforfoodfacts.org

United Nations Foundation President Senator Timothy E. Wirth issued the following statement regarding the House of Representatives' passage of the United Nations Reform Act of 2005 by a vote of 221 to 184:

"I am disappointed by today's vote in the House of Representatives in favor of the so-called United Nations Reform Act. Although this bill does contain reform measures that will help make the UN more effective and accountable, many of which the UN has already initiated, it also includes counterproductive provisions that would automatically withhold U.S. payment of dues to the UN and undermine meaningful reform. The U.S. has gone down this flawed path before, incurring more than a billion dollars in arrears to the UN, impairing the ability of the UN to do its job and making other countries less willing to work with the U.S. We should not make this mistake again."

FULL STATEMENT

State Dept. On-The-Record Briefing on UN Reform
R. Nicholas Burns, Under Secretary For Political Affairs

UNDER SECRETARY BURNS: "The United Nations is engaged in one of the most important debates, one of the most critical debates in the history, the 60-year history of the organization because what is at stake is the need for this institution to undertake fundamental reforms and to strengthen itself. And this debate lies at the heart of the future of the UN. Secretary General Kofi Annan has been leading it. And now the United States is prepared to help lead the effort to strengthen the UN, so that it can meet the challenges that are at the core of our 21st century world." [Read full transcript]

News:

White House rejects withholding U.S. dues from U.N.

White House Nixes Withholding U.N. Dues

Opinion:

Mr. Hyde: Dangerous Quackery

Reneging on U.N. Dues Would Only Damage U.S.

U.N. Reform: Wrong Message Sent

U.S. Dues and Don'ts at the United Nations

Eight former UN Ambassadors have written a letter to Congressional Leaders urging them not to withhold UN dues. A copy of the letter appears in newspapers around the country.

Key Points to Remember about UN Reform Act of 2005:

• Would automatically stop payment of our annual dues to the United Nations


• At the inception of the United Nations, the U.S. made a legally binding promise to pay our share of UN dues.


• The U.S. is the biggest financial contributor to the United Nations, paying about 22 percent of the annual $2 billion general budget. Withholding dues would be a major roadblock to important UN reform programs.


• Bush Administration officials have voiced opposition to this legislation (see below)

If passed, the UN Reform Act of 2005 would:

• Break our promise to other nations of the world and to the UN.


• Limit the ability of our diplomats to achieve changes within the UN because it would undercut U.S. credibility.


• Lead to a huge debt to the UN and inhibit our ability to lead within the institution.

If passed, the UN Reform Act of 2005 would endanger UN peacekeeping efforts by:

• Reinstating a 25 percent cap on U.S. contributions to UN peacekeeping missions despite the fact that Congress has voted since 2001 to pay our currently assessed share, which is now at 27.1 percent.


• Instituting a shortfall in funds needed to sustain troops on the ground


• Jeopardizing the newly authorized peacekeeping mission in Darfur, Sudan.

BUSH ADMINISTRATION: OPPOSED TO WITHHOLDING UN DUES

Below you will find a list of quotes from news reports and committee transcripts that highlight the Bush Administration's opposition to the process of holding back payment of our UN dues.

PRESIDENT BUSH:

• It [Legislation proposing withholding UN dues] could also put Hyde's committee on a collision course with President Bush, who has told U.N. officials in the past that he doesn't believe in withholding dues. [Associated Press, May 20, 2005]

BUSH ADMINISTRATION:

• The Bush administration opposed the bill [The UN Reform Act of 2005] on grounds that the United States is obliged to pay its U.N. assessment. [Associated Press, June 8, 2005]

ADMINISTRATION OFFICIALS:

• Mark P. Lagon, Ph.D. Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau Of International Organization Affairs, Department Of State:
  "Question from Rep. Delahunt: Okay. So let me be clear because I think it's important that we do be clear and that we don't equivocate. But it's the position of the administration that the United States should pay its appropriate dues to the United Nations? Not a maybe, not a percentage, but you pay its full dues to the United Nations.
  Answer from Mr. Lagon: It's an obligation we have signed onto". [House International Relations Committee Transcript, 5/19/05]

• Patrick Kennedy, Ambassador to the UN for Management and Reform, U.S. Mission to the UN:
  "I cannot recommend, cannot recommend withholding [dues] because it is potentially too blunt an instrument."
  "I need to be able to say that my legislature is very interested in improvements but sanctions when I'm negotiating improvements the sanction of withholding [dues] is too blunt an instrument because it is not targeted enough."
  "...if I'm withholding then it doesn't achieve our [the U.S. mission/State Department and Congress] joint goals of improving operations and improving the ability of the United Nations to serve as a tool that assists us in achieving our national security goals."
  [Hearing of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations March 2, 2005. "United Nations Operations: Integrity and Accountability]

• Kim Holmes, Assistant Secretary Of State, Bureau of International Organization Affairs:
  "I think that we have gone to the U.N. We've asked it to do a lot of things in Iraq and Afghanistan. And there's things that we want from the U.N.. And certainly, peacekeeping in Africa, this is areas where we also want participation. And so we want to be able to go in and say that it's for the good of the United Nations that these changes occur and not make us the issue about funding. Now, as I said, two or three years from now, I can't predict. I'll be gone by that point, and I don't know what the situation will be. I'm just talking about what I know now and what I think would be helpful in the coming year. I think in the coming year that full funding would help us do a better job of making the case for reform." [House Appropriations Committee: Science, State, Justice And Commerce And Related Agencies Subcommittee Hearing on Fiscal Year 2006 Bureau Of International Organization Affairs Appropriations, April 21, 2005]

"Eight former U.S. ambassadors to the United Nations sent a letter on Tuesday urging congressional leaders to reject a bill that would link reform of the world body to payment of American dues, warning that the legislation could actually strengthen opponents of reform." More...

The Brookings Institution, June 14, 2005
Ann Florini, Senior Fellow, Foreign Policy Studies

"The extraordinary energy Congress has put into the fight over whether John Bolton should become the US ambassador to the United Nations may be wasted if a bill now before the House becomes law. The UN Reform Act of 2005, drafted by House International Relations Committee chair Henry Hyde, could ensure that neither Bolton nor any other US ambassador could do much to make the UN an effective instrument for US interests." Read the Editorial

From the UN Foundation website: "United Nations Foundation (UN Foundation) President and former U.S. Senator Timothy E. Wirth testified before the House International Relations Committee at a hearing today on UN reform. Senator Wirth outlined five key points which will be essential to a constructive reform process that achieves meaningful and lasting results. He also urged Congress to support UN reform without the threat of withholding UN dues, an action which most often is cost-ineffective and counterproductive."

"Deputy Secretary-General Louise Frechette unveiled a series of reforms undertaken by the United Nations in response to criticisms of UN management from entities appointed by Secretary-General Kofi Annan and from the world body's own staff.

"Unprecedented challenges" faced by the UN have shown that the world body must immediately reform those areas that are in the Secretariat's purview and are not dependent on approval from Member States, said detailed background information distributed prior to a press briefing by Ms. Frechette." Full Story

THE SECRETARY-GENERAL
--
COMMENCEMENT ADDRESS
AT THE UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA:
A FUTURE "IN LARGER FREEDOM"

Philadelphia, 16 May 2005

Madam President, thank you for those kind words, and thank you on behalf of all my fellow honorees for the degrees you have bestowed on us today.

Fellow Graduates, my wife Nane and I are deeply honoured to join you and your proud families on this happy day. We offer each one of you our warmest congratulations.

But I must admit that I am a bit apprehensive, because I know you are all looking at me and thinking: "There's no way he's going to be as good as Bono!" And you're right: the lead singer of U2 is a hard act to follow.

Fellow Graduates,

You have had a precious opportunity at this great university. You have explored the realm of ideas -- ideas about what is true and false, what is right and wrong, what works and what does not.

As you graduate, a new phase of your life begins. The time has come to put ideas into practice. Indeed, the story of your lives will be the story of your struggle to be true to the ideas you believe in.

It is the same for individual nations, and for our world.

As Bono said last year, the United States of America is not just a country - it is an idea. It is the idea described in the Declaration of Independence, which Benjamin Franklin and others signed here in Philadelphia -- that all human beings are created equal, and have inalienable rights.

The United Nations is an idea, too. It is not just a building, or a piece of international machinery. It embodies a conviction on the part of people everywhere that we live on a small planet, and that our safety, our prosperity, our rights - indeed, our freedoms - are indivisible.

Your grandparents' generation learned this hard lesson. I hope some of them are here with you today to share in this proud moment. In the 1920s and 1930s, many in this country thought that Europe's problems were for Europeans to solve, and that dangers in Asia did not matter to the United States. Pearl Harbour proved that idea wrong in practice, while the horrors of the Holocaust proved it utterly wrong as a matter of ethical responsibility.

You, the class of 2005, have learned this lesson anew in your own time. You have seen how a poor and misgoverned country -- Afghanistan -- became an incubator of terrorism, with devastating consequences here in the United States. And you have seen on your television screens some of the terrible indignities suffered by your fellow human beings from war, terrorism, tyranny, injustice, hunger, poverty, ignorance and disease.

When they were about your age, your grandparents, along with their allies in many other nations, made great sacrifices to defend freedom and restore world peace. They called their alliance "the United Nations". Their victory in 1945 led to the establishment of the United Nations as a standing organization for global security.

The United Nations Charter is one of the milestone documents in the history of human freedom. It speaks of the equal rights of men and women, and of nations large and small; and of a world of social progress and better standards of life "in larger freedom".

To understand what those words "in larger freedom" mean, we should recall the vision of President Franklin D. Roosevelt, who did more than any other person to bring the United Nations into being. He spoke of a world in which all human beings would enjoy political and religious freedom, as well as what he called "freedom from want" and "freedom from fear".

In other words, democracy, peace and a decent standard of living should be the birthright of every person. And thus, human rights, security and development, taken together, make up the idea of "larger freedom".

After all, a young man your age who has AIDS, who cannot read or write, and who lives on the brink of starvation is not truly free - even if he can vote to choose his rulers. Equally, a young woman your age who lives in the daily shadow of civil war, or who has no say in how her country is run, is not truly free - even if she has enough money to feed herself and her family.

The United Nations exists to help relieve this kind of suffering, and to help address its root causes.

That is why, every day, courageous and committed men and women are serving under the blue flag of the United Nations -- in war zones, in humanitarian emergencies, and in poor communities all over the world.

They are diplomats, negotiating access to civilians or ceasefires among warring factions. They are soldiers and police, shielding ordinary men, women and children from violence, and helping to implement peace agreements. They are aid workers arranging food deliveries and protecting refugees; human rights experts helping to strengthen the rule of law; economists and agronomists advising communities how to produce more food and distribute it better.

They are in the front line of larger freedom. I hope that some of you will join them, and that all of you will recognize the value of their work.

They are working today to offer hope to the people of Haiti, Kosovo, Liberia, Sierra Leone, Cote d'Ivoire, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Sudan, and a host of other countries.

They are assisting the political transition in Iraq, where the UN helped draft the legal framework for last January's elections and to train thousands of workers for polling day.

They are in Afghanistan, in the occupied Palestinian territory, and in Lebanon, helping to conduct elections, and to promote stable and inclusive political institutions and long-term peace.

They are saving lives from famine and disease in Darfur, while working with the African Union to protect people from the appalling crimes that have been committed there, and to find a lasting political solution to the conflict.

On the other side of the Indian Ocean, they are assisting devastated regions in ten nations recover and rebuild after the tsunami last December.

These men and women who serve the United Nations are carrying out mandates given to them by the sovereign States that make up the Organization's membership, whether in the Security Council or the General Assembly. They are doing work that no single country either can, or wants to, do on its own.

They could do very little of this work without the enormous diplomatic and financial contribution of the United States. Nor could they do it without the contributions of many other countries, particularly those who provide the troops - nearly 70,000 of them - who are deployed in some 18 UN peacekeeping operations on four continents.

But I am far from complacent about the United Nations today.

Just as America has had to struggle, throughout its history, to move ever closer to the ideals declared by its founders, so too the United Nations is a work in progress. If we are to keep alive the idea that gave birth to the Organization, and pass it on healthy and strong to your generation, we must make sure that the UN moves with the times.

That is why I have put before the Member States, for their decision, a blueprint called "In larger freedom" for a truly overhauled United Nations, set up to meet the challenges of the 21st century.

The United Nations must live up to the highest standards of integrity and accountability - and I am committed to ensuring that it does.

But the major reform decisions rest with the Member States. The reform agenda includes a clear stand against terrorism, a tighter regime to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons, more support for democracies, and better peacekeeping and humanitarian capacities. It also calls for an urgent boost in resources from rich nations to cut world poverty in half in the next ten years, and a new human rights body at the United Nations to focus on the implementation of all human rights in all countries.

These changes would not solve all the world's problems. Nor would they make the United Nations perfect. But they would make the UN much more effective in advancing the cause of larger freedom around the world.

World leaders are going to meet in New York in four months time to take up these proposals. If they can work together to make far-reaching reforms, they will help bequeath to your generation a United Nations that can carry forward the ideals for which your grandparents sacrificed so much six decades ago.

And I trust that, when it is your turn to lead, you will improve on what my generation has done. Do not think you can look away from the injustice, the suffering, or the lack of true freedom that is the lot of so many people in our world today. Your future depends on their future. The cause of larger freedom should be your cause. As I look at you today, with all your talent, your diversity, your commitment, and your optimism, I have no doubt that you will do your part to help make it come about.

Congratulations, and good luck to you all.

Insight (PDF file) from the President of the United Nations Foundation on the role of the UNF: "We focus substantively on children's health, with the World Health Organization and UNICEF. Some major partners of ours in that area include Rotary on polio and the Red Cross and the Center for Disease Control on measles; and we are also working on an emerging malaria issue. We work on AIDS and reproductive health issues with UNAIDS and UNFPA, focused in particular on the ability of people to protect themselves and on women's empowerment. We work on a range of environmental issues with UNDP and UNEP, and with a special focus on energy, security, and climate issues through our own Energy Future Coalition. You all may have seen a recent initiative of Frank Gaffney, Jim Woolsey, Boyden Gray and others focused on security and energy. That is an initiative that came out of these efforts. And we have a variety of initiatives on human rights and governance."

By UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan. From Foreign Affairs, May/June 2005:

"Ask a New York investment banker who walks past Ground Zero every day on her way to work what today's biggest threat is. Then ask an illiterate 12-year-old orphan in Malawi who lost his parents to AIDS. You will get two very different answers. Invite an Indonesian fisherman mourning the loss of his entire family and the destruction of his village from the recent, devastating tsunami to tell you what he fears most. Then ask a villager in Darfur, stalked by murderous militias and fearful of bombing raids. Their answers, too, are likely to diverge.

Different perceptions of what is a threat are often the biggest obstacles to international cooperation. But I believe that in the twenty-first century they should not be allowed to lead the world's governments to pursue very different priorities or to work at cross-purposes. Today's threats are deeply interconnected, and they feed off of one another." Full Article

REUTERS: "U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan said on Thursday the United States and Britain bore part of the blame in the Iraq oil-for-food debacle by allowing unsupervised oil exports that Saddam Hussein exploited.

Annan, addressing a seminar on the United Nations and the media, said most of the money Saddam earned was by oil sold to Jordan and Turkey outside of the $67 billion U.N. program."

From Reuters: "Launched some 60 years ago, the commission is the U.N.'s main mechanism for monitoring respect for human rights around the world. But critics say in-fighting and its inability to act firmly in the face of clear abuse have eroded its authority.

Annan has called for the commission, at present made up of representatives from 53 countries nominated by regional groupings, to be replaced by a smaller Human Rights Council, whose members would be elected by the U.N. General Assembly."

From today's WH press briefing:

QUESTION: Scott, two questions. First, Paul Volcker's report on the oil-for-food scandal at the U.N. is out. And while it shows that Secretary General Annan was not directly implicated in this scandal, it suggests strongly that he was at the very least negligent in his oversight of it and obtuse about the role his own son, Kojo, played in the fraud. Should he stay or should he go?

MCCLELLAN: Well, first of all, let me back up. We've always felt it was important for there to a full investigation of the allegations of corruption and fraud in the oil-for-food program. We appreciate the work that the Volcker Commission is doing. We look forward to seeing the final results. This is another report that they are putting forward today.

There needs to be a full accounting. We have always said that it needs to be an open, transparent and full investigation. And so we appreciate the work that's been going on by the Volcker investigation. We have just received a copy of the report today. It's just been made available today. We're going to carefully study that report and look at what it says.

It's also important that we continue to move forward on reforms at the United Nations to make sure that it is addressing the challenges that we face in the most effective way and that things like this are prevented from happening in the future.

QUESTION: One of the things in this report is that Kofi Annan's own chief of staff shredded documents relating to the oil-for-food scandal the day after they were requested. With that kind of event, with that kind of activity in the secretary general's office, can he continue to lead this organization?

MCCLELLAN: This is a very serious matter, and we have stated that repeatedly. Congress has been looking into it as well. We continue to support the United Nations. We continue to support Secretary General Annan in his work at the United Nations. We will carefully study the report that Mr. Volcker has put forward today. We'll also look forward to seeing the final results of his investigation. And we'll also look forward to seeing whatever else Congress uncovers as well.

QUESTION: What sort of confidence do you have in the job that Annan is doing?

MCCLELLAN: Like I said, we continue to support the work of the secretary general. And we'll continue to work with him and the United Nations on the many challenges that we face. In terms of this report, again, it's just been available today. And we're going to have to take a look at it, and we'll study it closely.

STATEMENT BY TIMOTHY E. WIRTH, PRESIDENT OF THE UN FOUNDATION, ON TODAY'S INTERIM REPORT ISSUED BY THE INDEPENDENT INQUIRY COMMITTEE ON THE OIL-FOR-FOOD PROGRAM

"Today's report from the Independent Inquiry Committee (IIC) brings us a step closer to getting to the bottom of the problems with the Oil-For-Food Program (OFFP) and the steps needed to fix them. The UN has kept its promise to fully and fairly investigate OFFP and let the chips fall where they may. Today's report makes important findings regarding the Secretary-General, his son, and his former chief-of-staff among others. But the report also makes clear that, despite some significant shortcomings on the part of the Secretary-General, the investigation did not find that he engaged in any wrongdoing.

Now the most important priority for the UN and the U.S. is to work together to reform and strengthen the institution and ensure it is prepared to help confront the 21st Century challenges of terrorism, weapons of mass destruction, infectious disease, poverty and more. The Secretary-General's recent report provides an excellent start on these UN reforms and we encourage the Bush Administration and the Congress to support these efforts."

New York, 29 March 2005 - Statement by the Secretary-General on the second interim report of the Independent Inquiry Committee

I have this morning received from Mr. Paul Volcker and his colleagues the second interim report of their independent inquiry into allegations concerning the United Nations oil-for-food programme in Iraq. I thank them once again for their investigation.

As I had always hoped and firmly believed, the Inquiry has cleared me of any wrongdoing. On the key issue of the award of the contract to inspect humanitarian goods entering Iraq under the oil-for-food programme, the report states clearly that "there is no evidence that the selection of Cotecna in 1998 was subject to any affirmative or improper influence of the Secretary-General in the bidding or selection process."

I will meet the press later today to make a fuller statement on the findings contained in the report, and to answer questions.

View Report (pdf)

Transcript

U.S. Department of State
Daily Press Briefing
Adam Ereli, Deputy Spokesman
Washington, DC
March 28, 2005

QUESTION: Oil-for-Food. This week, a new Volcker report is expected and I'm wondering, in light of the fact that this scandal has clearly been a blight on the UN during Mr. Annan's time as Secretary General, if you believe that he has been sufficiently damaged by this that he can't carry through the reforms that the U.S. is looking for.

MR. ERELI: Let's wait until the next Volcker report comes out. The fact of the matter is that we've said that it's important that all the facts be known, and when all the facts be known that appropriate accountability be taken. Secretary General Annan has been a firm believer in that and so let's just -- let's see what happens and see what we find out and make our assessments on that basis.

QUESTION: But putting aside the question of accountability, do you believe that, given how the Oil-for-Food scandal has damaged his office, frankly, that he can -- he is somebody who can carry through the reforms that the U.S. has called for?

MR. ERELI: I don't have any judgment to share with you on that.

QUESTION: Does he retain Secretary's full confidence?

MR. ERELI: No change.

QUESTION: Well, it's interesting because we went through this several months ago, as you recall, and the State Department for days and days and days refused to give any indication that it had confidence in Secretary General Annan. And now it's interesting that you're not -- you're again not doing that. People read into that you guys were sort of waiting for the winds to blow and for him to fall. I mean, do you want to leave that inference in people's minds?

MR. ERELI: Let me put it this way. The United States and Secretary General Annan share a common desire to get to the bottom of the Oil-for-Food scandal and to take steps necessary to ensure that those responsible are held accountable and that the UN reform itself in a way that would prevent something like this from happening again. Secretary General Annan has been, I think, a forceful and decisive leader in this process. We're working closely with him and we all want to get to the bottom of it. And, you know, as far as our views on Secretary General Annan's stewardship of the UN, they remain what they were when we most recently stated them. There's no change to report.

QUESTION: But why can't you simply say yes to the question of whether he's capable of carrying out the reforms --

MR. ERELI: Because I don't like -- I'm not going to pronounce whether he's capable -- it's not for me to say whether Secretary General Annan is capable or not.

I'm here to tell you that we are working with him, we are supporting him in his efforts to get to the bottom of this, to have accountability and that he is the Secretary General of the United Nations. He has our confidence. We are working with him. Period.

QUESTION: But this --

MR. ERELI: End of story.

QUESTION: But when the Ambassador -- was it Ambassador Danforth, I believe -- came out -- when the last report came out, they said that he was capable of continuing the reforms. And so you believe that he's still capable?

MR. ERELI: I have -- yes. He just released his report. We welcomed his report. We said we're going to work with him on reform. We have an active agenda with the UN and with Secretary General Annan and we look forward to moving forward on that agenda.

"In an effort to increase the relevance of, and confidence in, the United Nations, which was created 60 years ago to prevent a repetition of World War II, Secretary-General Kofi Annan on March 21 presented several proposals for reform of the world body to reflect the changed nature of global conflicts since 1945. The title of his 63-page report is "In Larger Freedom: Towards Development, Security and Human Rights for All."

In the biggest reinterpretation, he asks the Security Council, in place of the traditional sacrosanctity of national sovereignty, to deem mass murder, repression and ethnic cleansing to be threats to international peace and security that the international community has the right to intervene to stop -- and to adopt a set of principles to ensure that such intervention takes place only when there is no other option.

In another bold step, he proposes a succinct definition of terrorism and the creation of an international convention against it, along with strengthened controls on weapons to stop terrorists from getting their hands on them.

In case you think that's easy, remember that diplomats have been tying themselves in knots over a definition of terrorism since even before Sept. 11, 2001." Full Article (Subscription or free Site Pass required)

"Secretary General Kofi Annan has begun that [reform] process by calling on member states to approve a wide range of reforms at a special General Assembly meeting this September. We strongly endorse Mr. Annan's agenda, especially his call for developed countries to establish timetables for living up to their promises to commit 0.7 percent of their gross national incomes to development aid by 2015 (the United States now contributes 0.18 percent) and for poor countries to come up with strategies for putting this aid to effective use." Read More

[CNN'S JOHN] KING: United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan is calling for a broad reform of the United Nations, including expanding the Security Council and increasing its emphasis on development, security and human rights.

Joining me to discuss Annan's proposals and more is the former secretary of state and the former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, Madeleine Albright. She's now with the Albright Group.

Madam Secretary, thank you for joining us. Let's start from one of the big issues, at least from the United States' perspective, or the Bush administration's perspective, in these U.N. reforms. Kofi Annan says he wants to find a more polite way, if you will, for the U.N. to debate and to have an actual mechanism, if there is a question, as there was in Iraq, of whether the United Nations should endorse military force. Can he make that work?

MADELEINE ALBRIGHT, FORMER SECRETARY OF STATE: I think it's difficult. I'm very much in favor of the things that the secretary- general has suggested and the fact that he really has come out with a full reform package.

He did a lot of work in getting opinions from this high level panel, and he's talked to a lot of people. And so I think he's come forward with a full package.

But the hardest issue is always about the use of force. And the Security Council is supposed to deal with issues that are threats to peace and security. And I think, for the most part, it would be good if we were able to come to some general agreement about it.

But ultimately, the United States will act unilaterally if it has to. We used to say multilaterally if you can, unilaterally if you must. But I am all for having a discussion about this. I think it's a very...

KING: Is it a waste of time, though, to try to create a mechanism, like a rules of Congress in which you debate force, or is it just as it's always going to be, if somebody disagrees, move on?

ALBRIGHT: No, but I think it's a useful thing to have a debate about what is an appropriate use of force, especially when the issue of preemption comes up. I think that the U.N. and international law has made very clear that if there has been a crossing of a border or a real attack, in time, that everybody has a right to use force.

The thing that has made this so much more complicated is the Bush doctrine of preemption, which is really based on having accurate intelligence. And so that is much of what is going to be debated, I think, internationally. And it doesn't hurt, I think, to have a debate about an issue that's that important.

KING: As you know, there are many who think that Kofi Annan is part of the problem. And there are ongoing investigations into the oil-for-food program. Paul Volcker, a distinguished American, to further his reporting on that.

Some say that, fairly or unfairly, that Kofi Annan is the leader of a house that is a mess. And that if there is going to be change and reform, he should go, as well. Fair? You know politics as well as diplomacy.

ALBRIGHT: Well, I don't think it's fair. I have the highest respect for him. I was very glad when he was elected secretary- general in the first instance. We had a lot to do with that. I think he's very fine.

This oil-for-food thing is a tragedy. But I think that he is taking this very seriously and not only suggesting reforms that would affect the nation states, who are actually the parts of the United Nations, but also reforms as far as the secretariat is concerned.

And I think he's in a good position to push the reforms through. But in the end, as he said in his speech to the General Assembly, the countries themselves have to make some very tough decisions. And I think we should give them a chance to fill out his term.

Statement by Senator Timothy E. Wirth, President of the United Nations Foundation, on the "In Larger Freedom" Report Issued by Secretary-General Kofi Annan

WASHINGTON-Former Senator Timothy E. Wirth, President of the United Nations Foundation, issued the following statement regarding the release of "In Larger Freedom: Towards Security, Development and Human Rights for All" - a report issued today by Secretary-General Kofi Annan:

"Secretary-General Kofi Annan has called on global leaders to strengthen their collective ability to tackle the most critical security and social challenges. Annan's report provides a unique opportunity for the United States to work with the UN and play a leadership role in addressing issues of terrorism, poverty, human rights and the environment. At the same time, the report identifies steps that will help make the UN itself a more effective and efficient organization. The serious challenges addressed by the Secretary-General's report cannot be met by any one nation acting alone. As a global leader, the U.S. is well positioned to help the UN and the world community to address these fundamental challenges and make the world body a stronger organization."

View the Full Report

THE SECRETARY-GENERAL
STATEMENT TO THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY
New York, 21 March 2005

Mr. President,
Excellencies,

Thank you for allo