Hearing of the State, Foreign Operations and Related Programs Subcommittee of the House Committee on Appropriations-International Peacekeeping Affairs and International Organizations

Statement

Hearing of the State, Foreign Operations and Related Programs Subcommittee of the House Committee on Appropriations-International Peacekeeping Affairs and International Organizations

REP. LOWEY: The Subcommittee on State, Foreign Operations and Related Programs will come to order.

I'm pleased to welcome Ms. Kristen Silverberg, assistant secretary of State for international organization affairs.

But before turning to the details of the budget request, I want to reiterate my strong support for the important and indispensable work of the United Nations. We have an obligation as a leader in the community of nations to strengthen the economic security and humanitarian agencies of the U.N.

Assistant Secretary Silverberg, I know how important the international organizations and peacekeeping budget is in meeting our international obligations and advancing the foreign policy and national security of the United States.

Today's hearing focuses on the fiscal year 2009 budget request of ($)3.026 billion in assessed contributions and ($)276.9 million in voluntary contributions to the United Nations and other international organizations. This request is a decrease of ($)171.5 million from the fiscal year 2008 request, including the supplemental request. And it is at least $700 million short of the total projected dues for the United States.

I'm concerned that at a time when the United States is asking the U.N. to step up its peacekeeping and assistance activities in high- threat environments such as Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon and Sudan, the administration is reluctant to provide the increased resources these activities require.

I am further troubled when I hear our ambassador to the United Nations, Zalmay Khalilzad, say any increased costs of these special political initiatives should be offset by savings in other parts of the U.N. budget. In effect, you're asking the U.N. to fund programs in Iraq and Afghanistan by cutting programs in other parts of the world, such as in Africa and Latin America.

Furthermore, the administration has criticized the U.N. for its use of supplemental budgets rather than building all costs into its regular base budget plan. Shall I count the number of supplemental requests we have received from the administration? In fact, in fiscal year 2008, the administration requested its assessed contributions to the U.N. missions in Iraq and Afghanistan as part of the 2008 supplemental request and not the base budget. How can you criticize the U.N.'s budgeting approach as piecemeal when you're doing the very same thing?

Now, clearly, there must be greater efficiencies in the U.N. budget, and I certainly welcome and I applaud the administration's continuing pressure for management reforms. I think it's absolutely essential for the U.N. to maintain its credibility.

I'm also concerned that the U.N. spends a disproportionate amount of time, energy and resources looking for ways to bash Israel instead of resolving critical security, humanitarian and human rights challenges around the world. This is particularly true of the U.N. Human Rights Council, and I'm disappointed that the U.N. regular budget continues to fund this discredited institution.

With respect to Iran, the U.N. has -- with U.S. prodding -- taken strong measures to sanction Iran's pursuit of the nuclear capability that is in violation of international treaties and protocols. It will be import to ensure that the sanctions imposed by the U.N. Security Council Resolution 1803 are indeed enforced.

Ms. Silverberg, I hope you will address in your testimony the level of arrears the United States has amassed on our U.N. dues and the administration's strategy for addressing them.

I would also like to hear your assessment of the U.N. Capital Master Plan, the project to renovate the U.N. headquarters in New York. Given the number of New Yorkers and other Americans who work at the U.N. headquarters as well as the thousands of tourists that visit every year, I am concerned about whether adequate security upgrades are in the plan.

I would also like an update on the cost implications and the status of the United States' commitments to the renovation budget.

In the area of peacekeeping, the president's request once again underfunds the considerable needs. Unless you are expecting the emergence of peace worldwide, I would like to know how much would be necessary in supplemental appropriations to meet the current projected costs.

We can agree that U.N. peacekeeping operations should be closed down as soon as it makes sense to do so, but do you really expect the situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, south Sudan, Liberia and Lebanon to be so dramatically better nine months from now as to justify budget reductions for these missions of 25 to 30 percent? I find this hard to believe.

With respect to the U.N. mission in Darfur, deployment of the U.N.-AU hybrid force continues to be painfully slow and the peacekeeping force remains woefully under-equipped, particularly to protect civilians. What are we doing to help the mission secure the hardware, transport helicopters, attack helicopters, transport vehicles to adequately cover the vast amount of territory it has been assigned? We have been told that troop contributions to the force have been somewhat easier to come by, but what is the capability of these troops? Are they trained and equipped to be more effective than their predecessors in the AMIS force? Will support to them be sustained even after they are deployed?

Finally, in your testimony, I hope you can address the proposed reductions to voluntary international agencies, such as UNDP, UNIFEM, UNICEF. Given clear congressional support in the fiscal year 2008 act for their important work, I fail to see how you can justify cutting the UNDP core budget by 23 percent and UNIFEM by 73 percent.

Assistant Secretary Silverberg, I look forward to hearing your remarks and discussing these concerns in greater detail, but before we move to your testimony, let me turn to Mr. Wolf, the ranking member, for his opening statement.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

REP. LOWEY: Thank you. Secretary Silverberg, the passage of the third Security Council resolution sanctioning Iraq -- Iran is a positive step. However, U.N. sanctions will only be as effective as their enforcement. Resolution 1737 established a committee to oversee the implementation of sanctions. Can you give us the status of the sanctions committee? Has it done anything?

MS. SILVERBERG: This is an important issue. Through our three sanctions resolutions we've set up different categories, different types of sanctions. So financial asset freezes on individuals involved in proliferation programs, sometimes on companies, including Iranian financial institutions, called on member states to ensure that proliferation-sensitive materials aren't transferred either inadvertently or on purpose to the Iranian government and other things along those lines. As you say, all of those are only effective if members take the decisions both within their domestic legal authorities and in cooperation with each other to enforce them. And we've taken a number of steps to make sure that happens.

One is to work bilaterally with countries. That includes countries -- the major investors in Iran, in Europe and other places, to deal with the major financial centers in the UAE, in Dubai in particular, and to deal with our partners on the Security Council, Russia and China in particular, to make sure that we have their full support for exhausting the limits of their authorities both within the Security Council resolutions and, particularly in the case of the European Union, even beyond what's required in the sanctions.

As you know, U.S. policy goes well beyond what's mandated by the Security Council, and what we've said to the Europeans is that we would like to see the EU takes similar steps within the U.N. in cooperation with the sanctions committee. We've tried to work on making sure that there's both political will and capacity in member states to implement the sanctions, and I think we've dealt with two different kinds of problems.

One is the countries that either don't report to the U.N. on their compliance with the resolutions because of lack of will; there are also some member states who have said that the reporting obligations or the ability to ensure that they have domestic -- (inaudible) -- capacity is that they're (pressed ?) basically in capacity.

We support some governments bilaterally to make sure that they -- (inaudible) -- the resources in place to meet their obligations, but we think there's still a lot to do on that end. But as you point out, this is going to be an ongoing challenge.

REP. LOWEY: Well, what happens if the nation violates the Security Council resolution, such as Syria's violation on the ban on arms imports from Iran? Can the sanctions committee investigate violations? Can they take actions against violators? Maybe you could give me examples if they ever have.

MS. SILVERBERG: Well, I should say as an aside that our concern regarding Syria's violations of its Security Council obligations relate not only to the resolutions affecting Iran but resolutions affecting Lebanon, affecting Iraq; we really have a broad concern about Syria's willingness to comply with its international legal obligations. With each of the sanctions regimes, there's slightly different rules. (Inaudible) -- all of them can investigate failure to and perceived failure to adhere to Security Council obligations. In the case of egregious violations, we would consider that or even go to the council for additional follow-up action. And it's something essentially that we have to rally the international community to pressure governments to comply, which is the approach we've taken with respect to Syria.

REP. LOWEY: So that they can investigate -- but the question is, do they? And what is the result of those investigations?

MS. SILVERBERG: I think one difficulty we have with sanctions committees is they generally operate based on consensus, whereas in the full council of course we sometimes, not often but sometimes, take things to a vote knowing full well it won't be a unanimous decision; in the sanctions committee it has to be unanimous. And the difficulty we have, of course, is with these (15 ?) numbers of very disparate views securing decisions. So I think we think of the primary focus for ensuring compliance with Security Council resolutions to be the council itself rather than the committee.

REP. LOWEY: Well, I'm going to turn it over to Mr. Wolf, but it's clearly disappointing to us because it's evident that if you're going to have successful sanctions in Iran, you're going to need the compliance of China -- both political and certainly in specific actions -- and Russia and the European Union, and that doesn't seem to be evident.

So let me turn it to -- over to Mr. Wolf.

I'll be calling on members based on seniority of the members that were present when the hearing was called to order, and I will alternate as usual between majority and minority, and we're going to keep it to five minutes per round.

Mr. Wolf.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

REP. LOWEY: I just want to make two points, because I think certainly on the latter point the gentleman is absolutely right. However, there are many issues that we would certainly have to consider in this discussion. If a country has a corrupt government, and there is no way that the current leadership in that government is making responsible decisions and the people are starving, there's need of education, there's need of health care, I think this is an important issue that we should discuss in terms of do you cut off aid when a government is irresponsible and there are tremendous needs to move that government towards democracy or responsible decisions, shall we say, when there is such tremendous need there.

The first point that you mentioned I would like to emphasize again, because there's absolutely no reason why the Department of State cannot be more efficient in reporting to us. I would say there have been several -- I'm not even sure if I can count them on one hand -- there are several reports that have been outstanding despite constant reminders. So I don't think there is any kind of legitimate explanation for not responding to the gentleman with a report in a timely manner. So the second issue I think we would have an important discussion in the committee.

REP. WOLF: If the gentlelady would yield, though, even in the first issue, it boils down to basically tough love. I would help all the poor people. I mean, I'm not -- but if you only have so much, and many times -- I remember during the '80s when we took away MFN from Romania, the argument by the business community was if you take away MFN from Romania you will hurt the Romanian people. Well, every time I went to Romania, the Romanian people wanted us to take MFN away because they wanted to do something to the government to force the government to change. And sometimes -- and I think they have a good point -- but I think the other side is sometimes by doing this, you push a government and there may be some pain, but the average person in Romania said there will be some pain, but we're prepared to go through this pain to force our government to do -- to respect human rights and administrate them.

And -- so, but yeah, I -- it's -- you know, it's an issue that everyone's talked about but not much has been done.

But I yield back.

REP. LOWEY: I yield to my good friend Mr. Jackson.

I would just like to say to the gentleman that I think this is a very important issue. I thank you for brining it up. But I do think that each decision should be made independently. And I think this committee has a responsibility, certainly, to take every point you've made into consideration. But I think as an aid package is reviewed, it should be part of the response, just not an automatic response.

So let me turn to Mr. Jackson.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

REP. LOWEY: And I want to thank the gentleman for bringing up that very important issue. If you talk to experts on Pakistan, one in particular who grew up in Pakistan, they will talk about the increase in madrassas that are really teaching the most extreme form of Sufi and other forms of extremism that are all funded by the Saudis. So I thank you for bringing up this issue, and I think it certainly should be the focus of discussions that we have. Thank you.

Ms. Lee.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

REP. LOWEY: Thank you. We're expecting votes shortly, but I think what we will do is begin a second round. Depending upon when the votes come and how many, we'll either adjourn or continue, and we'll make that judgment when the bells go off.

I'd like to ask you a question about UNFPA. The world just marked the 20th anniversary of the safe motherhood movement, yet we're still losing far too many women needlessly due to complications during pregnancy and childbirth.

The United Nations Population Fund is the leading U.N. agency addressing maternal health and family planning, yet the United States has withheld lifesaving funds from this agency for the past six years. Specifically, the administration has indicated that funding for UNFPA programs around the world are being withheld due to an ongoing concern with UNFPA's small demonstration program in China that is designed to promote a voluntary approach to family planning.

I'd be interested, from your perspective, what is the best way to promote volunteerism and human rights-based approach to family planning in China? Is the United States working bilaterally to encourage China to support a human rights-based approach to family planning?

What role do you think the United Nations should have in addressing concerns about China's family planning program? And what impacts does the withholding of funds have on UNFPA's programs in Africa and Asia?

MS. SILVERBERG: Okay, as you know, Congress has had for many years a provision - the Kemp-Kasten provision -- which prohibits the administration from providing funding for any organization that participates -- supports or participates in the management of a program of coercive abortion.

So the provision doesn't ask the administration to look at what the impact of the participation is, it doesn't ask it to look at the merits of the organization at large. It really just asks one question, which is, is this an organization that is supporting or participating in the management of our program of coercive abortion?

REP. LOWEY: By the way, you should be aware, and I don't want to put you on the spot, but several years ago the administration appointed a commission of three people who came back and reported to us after visiting China, looking at these programs, that they were not forced abortion and that they -- Kemp-Kasten certainly wasn't in violation, but I don't want to put you on the spot on that one.

MS. SILVERBERG: As I recall, the report of the commission, it said that the UNFPA was not, quote, "knowingly participating in a program of coercive abortion," and again, that's not what Kemp-Kasten says; it says supports or participates.

And so it really raises two questions, which is, one, is there a program of coercive abortion, and in our view, there clearly is. The Chinese government in many counties continues to impose excessive -- sometimes equivalent to a year's annual salary -- penalty on couples that have an additional child. And then the second question was whether UNFPA was supporting or participating in the management of this program, and again, we thought it was clear that they were both through their financial and technical assistance to the Chinese Family Planning Commission.

REP. LOWEY: It wasn't clear to the three commissioners, but I understand your comments.

MS. SILVERBERG: Yeah. So the -- this process, the next annual report to Congress on the administration's position for this year is with PRM, and I understand it's under way now. But I will say that we've raised a couple ways that would -- a couple things that would permit UNFPA to receive full funding from Congress. One would obviously be a change to the underlying Chinese Family Planning Program, and we hope -- we very much hope that that's under way, that that's something the Chinese government will consider.

And the second is for UNFPA to change its relationship with the Chinese government, and so we've proposed -- a number of years ago we proposed, for example, that UNFPA only do business in the counties where we don't see these coercive practices, or conversely for the Chinese government to defend its practices in the places where UNFPA wants to do business.

So we've tried to look for ways that would allow UNFPA funding without violating what we think is a very, very legitimate and serious policy judgment that we need to stay far away from any kind of support for coercive abortions.

REP. LOWEY: Well, Mr. Kirk may remember, several years ago -- (laughs) -- in fact, I believe Mr. Kirk drafted the amendment --

REP. KIRK: (Off mike.)

REP. LOWEY: (Laughs.) Well, that wasn't the case, and I just think it's important for the record that many of us did work in a very careful manner to craft an amendment whereby it would not function in areas where abortion was legal (if I corrected ?) and it was still opposed by the administration. But I don't want to prolong this discussion.

I don't recall, Mr. Kirk, if you were part of that meeting when the commissioners came back and reported to us all three of them, but it would be nice if we took consistent positions. And we deal with the administration and China when they don't support a whole range of issues and values that we advocate.

But we'll move on, because my time is up, and I'll turn to Mr. Wolf, who I'm sure will have a question on another issue.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

REP. LOWEY: Thank you. Just in time.

I'll ask one more question, and then anybody that has additional questions can submit them for the record.

It is well demonstrated that the lack of a strong, well-resourced women's entity at the United Nations -- one that would have policymaking and operational responsibilities as well as an effective presence at country level led by an undersecretary-general -- has impeded the advancement of gender equality and the empowerment of women. A number of countries have strongly expressed support to strengthen gender equity equality architecture within the U.N. system, including Canada, Liberia, MERCOSUR, Mexico, Switzerland, Norway, EU, Philippines, Australia and New Zealand.

I just wonder, number one, will the United States be added to this list, and how do you justify the 73 percent cut in the administration request for UNIFEM?

MS. SILVERBERG: Thank you. We strongly support a strengthened women's mechanism at the U.N. The one thing we've cautioned with all of our allies on that is that we don't lead to something that undermines our mainstreaming effort. You know, women's issues can't be the function just of one undersecretary-general. Every part of the U.N. system has a core responsibility for dealing with women. You can't take humanitarian aid for the World Food Program if you can't deal with the women who are the fundamental providers of meals to their kids. You can't deal with development programs at UNDP unless you deal with the fact that most new entrepreneurs in developing countries are female.

And so what we've said is we need to strengthen the mechanism but without doing anything that suggests to other parts of the U.N. system that they don't have a job on women.

On UNIFEM -- I don't disagree at all with your strong support for that organization. I share it. In an obviously very tight budget situation and for our '09 request -- requested our '08 request -- but I just said to Congresswomen Lee we absolutely think that this is a good organization.

REP. LOWEY: You know, it's interesting, I think most of us in this committee strongly support the United Nations and the functions of the United Nations, yet over and over again we've talked about the fact that we're way behind -- ($)2.8 billion in dues -- way behind in arrears, yet we're spending $12 billion a month in Iraq, and it's estimated that the war's going to cost about $3 trillion. So I would strongly suggest that the administration re-evaluate a cut in peacekeeping, lack of fulfilling our responsibilities when it comes to dues, and certainly when it comes to important organizations such as this; there are great concerns.

Now, since Mr. Kirk just came back and I was about to close the hearing -- if you have an urgent question --

REP. KIRK: One last issue.

REP. LOWEY: We will let you defer for a few minutes, Mr. Kirk -- not defer -- I will defer -- (laughs) -- the closing while I defer to Mr. --

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

REP. LOWEY: Thank you.

And Assistant Secretary Silverberg, I thank you again for your time.

This concludes today's hearing on the administration's FY 2009 budget request for international organizations and peacekeeping activities, and the Subcommittee of State Foreign Operations and Related Programs stands adjourned. I thank you.

Source