News Home

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: Amy Auth
202-225-2071

Earlier this summer in San Francisco, representatives from around the globe gathered to celebrate the 60th anniversary of the signing of the United Nations charter. I, for one, was not celebrating. The U.N.’s charter includes some lofty goals, but when the rubber meets the road, the organization has failed miserably to put these ideals into practice – especially in recent years.

President George Bush made the right decision when he tapped John Bolton to serve as U.N. Ambassador. Ambassador Bolton’s experience at the State Department exposing the A.Q. Kahn arms network in Pakistan and in persuading Libya to abandon its arms program will be invaluable in shaping the U.N’.s role in battling the spread of Weapons of Mass Destruction around the world.

Following a precedent set when President George Washington made a recess appointment to the U.S. Supreme Court and carried on through President Bill Clinton’s 140 recess appointments, President Bush ended six months of partisan stalemate in the Senate and cleared the path to begin the serious work of confronting the U.N.’s problems. When Ambassador Bolton calls for reform and accountability in the U.N., there will be no doubt he speaks with the full authority of the Bush Administration.

Today, corruption is so rampant in the United Nations that I can barely keep track of it all. Billions of dollars were diverted from the Oil-for-Food program involving Saddam Hussein's Iraq. In addition, The U.N. counts some of the world’s leading human rights violators and state sponsors of terrorism among its membership and even taps many of them to be in leadership positions. U.N. peacekeepers raped and sexually abused children in Bosnia, Congo, Sierra Leone, and elsewhere. And the organization virtually ignored the genocide taking place in Darfur, Sudan.

A culture of concealment exists that makes oversight of the U.N.’s finances virtually impossible. And a casual attitude toward conflict-of-interest rules undermines trust in the organization’s basic governance.

The status quo at the United Nations is unacceptable. American tax dollars can no longer be funneled through the U.N.'s inefficient bureaucracy, where they are at the mercy of international actors who are accountable to no one.
As a founding member of the U.N. and a permanent member of the U.N. Security Council, our country has a duty to insist on a higher standard. And as a Members of Congress, I have a duty to ensure accountability of each and every American taxpayer dollar that is funneled into the U.N.

I am happy to report that I joined my colleagues in the House of Representatives for passing the Henry J. Hyde United Nations Reform Act of 2005, a comprehensive U.N. reform package developed to address the organization’s serious failings. This bill goes far towards reforming the United Nations so that it can fulfill its mission of promoting peace and democracy.

This bill includes 39 separate, certifiable reforms that the U.N. must implement or else it will face a 50-percent withholding of funds from us for its budget.

The reforms specified in the legislation are applauded by critics as sensible and necessary. They include a code of conduct for peacekeepers, an independent auditing agent inside the U.N., a rationalization of the U.N.'s budget that eliminates duplicative priorities and tougher criteria for serving on U.N. human rights bodies.

Observers, including many within the U.N. itself, acknowledge the need for these and other wide-ranging reforms -- and many proposals have been put forward to address them. The key difference between those proposals and our legislation is that our bill contains an enforcement mechanism. It makes U.S. financial contributions to the U.N. budget contingent upon actual reforms being put into place. The competing proposals have no such provision, and rely on simply a slap on the wrist to persuade the U.N. to make changes.

History shows us that when Congress uses the power of the purse, the U.N. acts. It is unfortunate, but true that sometimes it requires financial ultimatums for the U.N. to move itself to act in its own best interest and the best interest of the world community that it serves.

###