[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E1390-E1391]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

THE UNITED NATION'S INVALUABLE ROLE IN A POSSIBLE RESOLUTION TO IRAQ

______

HON. CHARLES B. RANGEL

of new york

in the house of representatives

Wednesday, July 12, 2006

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to remind my colleagues about
the importance of the role of the much maligned United Nations. As
Richard Holbrooke, a former U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. wrote in a
column which appeared in the Washington Post on June 28, 2006 that the
United Nations still serves U.S. foreign policy interests. It is
imperative that the U.S. supports and asserts leadership on the issues
before the U.N.
On June 15, 2006, two days after he returned from Iraq, President
Bush sent two personal emissaries (Philip Zelikow, the counselor of the
State Department, and the Deputy Treasury Secretary Robert Kimmitt) to
meet with U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan and his deputy Mark Malloch
Brown to discuss the coming introduction of the Iraq Compact, which
requires the Iraqi government to implement a series of economic and
political reforms in exchange for increased international aid. This
meeting received surprisingly little public attention. Perhaps there is
something in Mr. Brown's allegation that U.N. achievements are
downplayed in America.
President Bush requested Mr. Annan's assistance in organizing
international meetings that would lead to this agreement. On the same
day, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki called Mr. Annan to make an
identical request, a further confirmation that the U.S. needs the
United Nations.
The U.N. has been treated carelessly by the current administration.
The U.N. is facing a major budgetary crisis due to (mainly) U.S.'s
insistence on a six-month budget cycle, as opposed to a two-year one.
Congress is deadlocked on the issue of allocating funds to rebuild the
U.N. headquarters complex in New York. The U.N. signature building, the
38-story East River office tower, is widely acknowledged to be the
major building in New York most vulnerable to a terrorist attack. Yet
the Department of Homeland Security has just cut New York's anti-terror
fund nearly by half claiming that the security infrastructure in New
York is firmly in place. If that is so, then why does the Secret
Service close down FDR Drive that runs beneath the U.N. building every
time there is a Presidential visit?
Mr. Speaker, I hope that our asking for help in resolving the Iraq
question is the first of many issues on which we will work with the
United Nations instead of undermining its position. Mr. Brown has
already agreed to travel to Baghdad for preliminary meetings that will
culminate in a high-level multilateral conference in the region later
this year.
Our lesson is clear. We need the United Nations. Instead of weakening
the U.N., we should strengthen it. A strong active United Nations would
be invaluable in representing U.S. foreign policy interests aboard as
well as resolving conflicts and leading negotiations in regions like
Iran, Darfur, Afghanistan, Kosovo, etc.
Ladies and Gentlemen of the Congress, I rise to enter into the
Record, the opinion-editorial titled Turning to the U.N., Again, by
Richard Holbrooke, published on June 28, 2006 in the Washington Post.

Turning to the U.N., Again

(By Richard Holbrooke)

In a little-noticed announcement in President Bush's news
conference on June 14, the day he returned from Iraq, he said
that he would send two personal emissaries to New York to
consult with U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan on the
political and economic future of Iraq. The next day, still
with remarkably little public attention, Philip Zelikow,

[[Page E1391]]

the counselor of the State Department, and Deputy Treasury
Secretary Robert Kimmitt met with Annan and his deputy, Mark
Malloch Brown, at the secretary general's Sutton Place
residence. There was no one else present.
The two presidential envoys asked Annan to use his unique
``convening powers'' to help organize international meetings
that would lead (by this fall, the Americans hope) to the
unveiling of a new ``Iraq Compact''--an agreement between the
Iraqi government and major international donors that would
commit Baghdad to a series of political and economic reforms
in return for substantially more international aid. (Iraqi
Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki called Annan the same day to
make an identical request.)
This is a good idea--and quite similar to suggestions from
many administration critics. With the battle for Baghdad
raging, it remains to be seen whether an Iraq Compact will
work--or even get off the ground--but it is certainly an
important step in the right direction for Iraq and for
American policy.
For Annan and the United Nations, Bush's request poses an
ironic and difficult challenge. On the one hand, the
administration is asking for help on the worst problem it
faces, acknowledging, however belatedly and reluctantly, that
once again, the United Nations is not only relevant but at
times indispensable to the United States. On the other hand,
the resentment among the majority of U.N. member states over
the way the institution has been treated recently,
especially by Washington's current U.N. ambassador, makes
any effort to get the United Nations to help the United
States far more difficult.
How to treat the United Nations has been a particular
dilemma for President Bush, since opponents of the
organization form an important part of the administration's
core constituency. Internal disagreements over the past five
years about whether to support it or abandon it, to use it or
bypass it, have both weakened the organization and led to
reduced U.S. influence even as more and more intractable
issues are thrown into its hands.
The United Nations is facing major budgetary problems
caused primarily by American insistence on a six-month budget
cycle instead of the normal two-year cycle. It must deal with
growing shortfalls in the U.S. contribution to peacekeeping
funding, despite Washington's calls for more peacekeepers in
Darfur and elsewhere. And it is confronted by a deadlock over
rebuilding the headquarters complex in New York--a deadlock
whose main cause is the administration's failure to push
Congress for proper funding. (This is particularly difficult
to understand, since the U.N. signature building, its 38-
story East River office tower--built in 1950 and never
subject to modem safety codes--is widely acknowledged to be
the major building in New York most vulnerable to a terrorist
attack. For example, when the president visits it, the Secret
Service closes down FDR Drive beneath it--but what about the
rest of the time?)
Still, even though Annan and the world body have been
diminished by Washington, he and his colleagues simply cannot
refuse to help on the Iraq matter; it is their responsibility
as international civil servants to go where the problems are
worst and then to do their best. And, on the basis of private
talks with Annan, Malloch Brown and administration officials,
I have no doubt that they intend to do just that. In fact,
Malloch Brown has already agreed to travel to Baghdad very
soon for preliminary meetings that the United Nations and the
United States hope will culminate later this year in a high-
level conference in the region. As Annan moves into his last
six months as secretary general, this would be the right way
to end a turbulent decade in that office--with a genuine
contribution to the cause of peace in Iraq.
It is, however, impossible not to note the irony and the
implications of what has happened in the past two weeks
between Washington and the United Nations. Once again, an
administration that has underfunded, undersupported and
undermined the United Nations has turned to it, almost in
desperation, for help.
The lesson should be clear: Despite the enormously self-
destructive actions of many other member states, especially
the group of developing nations called the G-77, the United
Nations still serves U.S. foreign policy interests in many
important ways. Not only Iraq but also Iran, Darfur,
Afghanistan and the difficult negotiations just started over
Kosovo's final status--all issues of vital importance to the
United States--have now ended up in the United Nations. To
weaken this institution further, as has happened in recent
years, serves no clear American national security interest.
To strengthen it would make it more valuable to the United
States and to every nation that seeks conflict resolution,
stability and economic progress. With the maneuvering over
the selection of Annan's successor underway, it is time for
Washington--and this must include Congress--to put behind it
a sorry period of confusion and offer the United Nations more
support, both financial and political, in return for the
things it needs in Iraq and elsewhere.

____________________