Paul Sarbanes

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. On whom?

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I bring to the Senator's attention a statement that was adopted on April 15 of this year by 23 political parties in Azerbaijan that are members of the movement for electoral reform and democratic elections. These are the major opposition parties in Azerbaijan. Listen to this: The existing Government of Azerbaijan, having usurped powers as a result of a plot in 1993, created an antidemocratic regime in the country, violated human rights and freedoms, performed brutal repressive policies against political parties and opposition forces, pursued and jailed hundreds of citizens for political reasons, falsified presidential elections, remained indifferent to the assassination of deputies of the people, brought social economic conditions of the population down to a deep precipice, illegally redirected credits from foreign countries for their own purposes, failed to achieve significant improvements in the oil industry, created conditions for the session of some already-signed oil contracts, misappropriated industrial enterprises and violated the labor rights of hundreds of thousands of citizens, substantially destroyed the industrial potential of the country, brought agriculture to a disastrous state, created conditions where a selected group of individuals accumulate state property in their hands but conceal it under the name of reforms, raise corruption and bribery to historically high levels and, thus, brought many sectors of the life of the country to a state of catastrophe. Then they talk later--I am not going to quote it all--about the cruel pressure of the Government against the free and independent mass media, how citizens were illegally arrested for participating in election rallies and sentenced to jail terms. Imagine the courage it took to make this statement. And now the Congress of the United States is going to come along and repeal section 907? What message does that send to these brave people who are challenging their own authoritarian government on its practices? The Senator is absolutely right. It would send absolutely the wrong message; would it not?

Mr. SARBANES. The Minsk group is trying to resolve that issue. The war began because Azerbaijan moved into an aggressive mode. Does the Senator dispute that?

Mr. SARBANES. I listened to my colleague with interest. First of all, I find it intriguing he finds himself so supportive of the administration in this instance. Let me ask my colleague this question. Does he know of any administration that would not want to be given, by the Congress, a total waiver authority?

Mr. SARBANES. I think we will have eliminated the last prod that we have to try to get them to settle the war and enter into a more normal, peaceful trading and commercial relationship with Armenia. It is an irony that this amendment, this Silk Road Act, is supposedly to encourage commerce and trade amongst the countries in the region but that it has a repeal of 907 for one of the countries that is imposing a blockade on such trade and commerce with its neighbor. It makes absolutely no sense. It runs counter to the announced objective of the legislation and of the amendment. We have a situation where we have a cease-fire, we have a Minsk process in action. We have a proposal submitted by the three cochairs. Azerbaijan rejected it. An effort is being made to revisit that, to try to move that situation forward. I think to come in with this amendment at this time is certainly not going to help the peace process.

Mr. SARBANES. The Senator is absolutely right. The really discouraging thing was that the Minsk people made the proposal. That is the United States, France, and Russia, speaking on behalf of the OSCE. And Azerbaijan rejected participating in that process. Had Azerbaijan accepted it and Armenia rejected it, I can imagine people would say, Azerbaijan is trying to make the peace process work, Armenia is blocking it, and we ought to go ahead and enter into this normal relationship with Azerbaijan. But that was not the case. Second--I will detail it later--to some extent I am reluctant to detail the human rights performance, because one does not like to come on the floor of the Senate and go into a lengthy exposition of that issue. We want people to improve. When we do these human rights reports, we try to not, as it were, overload them. But now when you offer an amendment that is going to take out the last limitation we have on aid, it seems to me at a minimum it warrants a very careful examination of the human rights performance within Azerbaijan. I am frank to tell you I think, once we undertake to do that, most Members are going to have increasingly growing questions about the nature of this regime and about whether we should be trying now to repeal any limitations on providing assistance which could serve as a way to try to get a better performance. I have gone on for some time. I see my colleague from Michigan has been on the floor waiting patiently. I will come back, obviously, and revisit this issue; particularly, if necessary, to get into this human rights discussion. As you know, each year the State Department puts out a country report on human rights practices. This one is for 1998. This is in accordance with legislation enacted by the Congress. There is a lengthy section in here on Azerbaijan, which I think Members certainly ought to have in mind as they consider whether we should adopt the amendment offered by the Senator from Kansas which repeals section 907 of existing law. I want it to be very clearly understood, the amendment that has been offered makes a very significant change in existing law, and the second-degree amendment offered by the chairman of the committee would take out the provision that is most offensive in that regard, and that is the proposal of the Senator from Kansas to in effect give up an open waiver on section 907, thereby in effect providing for its repeal. I yield the floor.

Mr. SARBANES. The Senator is absolutely right. This body has responded in the past. The argument was, well, if you just give some carrot, you would see some change in behavior. When we first started out with 907, it was much more restrictive. Over the passage of time, these various exceptions have been put into the law. But we have retained a more limited number of restrictions. To move them now altogether--I mean the ball game is over with. Why should Azerbaijan be concerned to settle anything? Some say, well this somehow is a sanction. What we are talking about here is whether U.S. direct foreign assistance will be made available. Foreign assistance is not an entitlement. I want to repeat that. Foreign assistance is not an entitlement. I hope people aren't going to get up on the floor and say: Well, somehow there is some kind of entitlement and, therefore, Azerbaijan is entitled to get foreign assistance. The placing of conditions upon foreign aid is both reasonable and appropriate for policy as well as budgetary reasons. It is a standard procedure. Conditions should not be considered sanctions. They ensure that U.S. aid serves U.S. interests. I doubt seriously, if Members would stop and really focus on it, that there would be any Member of this body who would suggest that we should give foreign aid regardless of the recipient's policies and actions; that somehow they have an entitlement claim to foreign assistance, and, therefore, there can be no conditions, or no restrictions placed on it, and regardless of what the recipient's policies and actions are, we need to provide that assistance. Let me turn to Azerbaijan's performance in the peace process, because there is a peace process underway. Conceivably, if Armenia was blocking the peace process and Azerbaijan was cooperating with it, one could come along and say: Well, we have to make some accommodation to Azerbaijan because they are now working with the peace process. It is exactly the opposite. That peace process has been stalled since November when Azerbaijan, the very country that this amendment now seeks to free of any limitations on American foreign assistance, when Azerbaijan unilaterally rejected a compromise proposal put forward by the cochairs of the OSCE's so-called Minsk Group--Russia, France, and the United States. The OSCE has established a Minsk Group that is chaired by Russia, France, and the United States as cochairs, and they have been trying to develop a peace process to resolve this matter between Armenia, Nagorno-Karabakh, and Azerbaijan. In November of 1998, the Minsk Group called for a common state of Azerbaijan and Nagorno-Karabakh. The so-called common state approach was accepted by Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh as the basis for negotiations among the parties in spite of the serious reservations which were held by Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh. This is a proposal that the Minsk Group put to the parties in order to advance the peace process. Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh, with concerns, nevertheless, accepted this development as a way of going forward with the direct negotiations. Azerbaijan summarily rejected the peace plan, threatened to overturn the cease-fire, which has been in effect, and then complained about the delay in finding a resolution to the conflict, and recently--from reliable reports--Azerbaijan has provoked a series of armed incidents along the cease-fire line. Furthermore, in addition to rejecting the peace plan, Azerbaijan objected to Armenia's proposals to foster regional cooperation through open borders and restoration of rail and road links in the Caucasus. Armenia's proposal was set out at the Transport Corridor Europe Caucasus and Asia Conference held in Azerbaijan in September of 1998, but Azerbaijan refused to recognize any of these rights or obligations insofar as they applied to Armenia. I want to underscore not only this recalcitrance but this absolute repudiation of the peace process, of this effort by the Minsk Group-- headed by France, Russia, and the United States, the three cochairs--to try to develop a peace process to resolve this situation in the Caucasus. Azerbaijan has refused to participate. Do not forget how the war started. After years of denying the people of Nagorno-Karabakh their constitutional rights and freedom, the government of Azerbaijan undertook a massive military offensive against Nagorno-Karabakh in the winter of 1993 to 1994. Although Azerbaijan launched the attacks, they encountered a better organized defense and were forced to negotiate a cease-fire, which has been in effect since May of 1994. As I indicated earlier, they threatened to overturn that cease-fire recently when they rejected the proposal of the Minsk Group. In the face of this behavior, it is now proposed by an amendment to lift the remaining few limitations on direct American foreign assistance to Azerbaijan. Obviously, Azerbaijan wants a completely normal relationship with the United States, but in a ``prod'' for them to rectify this situation and to give us a more stable, peaceful environment, that remains one of the prods we ought not give away. The waiving of section 907 of the Freedom Support Act would reward the party that has been intransigent in peace negotiations and has actually thwarted legitimate aspirations for democracy and justice in the region. I intend later to go into some detail with respect to the human rights practices in Azerbaijan, taken, of course, from the human rights report of the Department of State, the annual report that is made on human rights conditions in various countries around the world. I know there are others who want to speak, so I don't propose to do that right now. If we are seriously entertaining the prospect of changing this law, lifting the remaining limitations that are provided by section 907, obviously one of the things we must do is examine the human rights practices of the country that is going to be freed from these limitations. Let me read one paragraph from the State Department report, in lieu of a more complete exposition of this situation, which is what I hope to do later. This will give some sense of the problem. Azerbaijan is a republic with a presidential form of government. Heydar Aliyev, who assumed presidential powers after the overthrow of his democratically elected predecessor in 1993, was reelected in October in a controversial election marred by numerous, serious irregularities, violations of the election law, and lack of transparency in the vote counting process at the district and national levels. President Aliyev and his supporters, many from his home region of Nakhchivan, continue to dominate the Government and the multiparty 125- member Parliament chosen in the flawed 1995 elections. The Constitution, adopted in a 1995 referendum, established a system of government based on a division of powers between a strong presidency, a legislature with the power to approve the budget and impeach the President, and a judiciary with limited independence. The judiciary does not function independently of the executive branch and is corrupt and inefficient. Later the report goes on to detail numerous human rights abuses on the part of the police, the ministry of internal affairs, and the ministry of national security. As this debate progresses, I will seek to develop those points in order to make it clear that certainly the human rights record doesn't warrant eliminating the limitation. Certainly, the support of the peace process doesn't warrant what this amendment proposes to do. Certainly, the nature of the blockade which they have imposed, which goes to humanitarian goods and services as well as everything else, doesn't warrant lifting the amendment. The amendment, obviously, raises very difficult questions. It represents a major departure in substance in terms of our policy. I know the chairman has an amendment which will knock out this provision as it affects section 907. I am very supportive of that. I hope that will carry. In any event, I am very much opposed to the amendment. I am frank to say I don't think we should be dealing with this amendment on an appropriations bill.

Mr. SARBANES. Certainly.

Mr. SARBANES. Will the Senator yield for a question on that point?

Mr. SARBANES. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. SARBANES. Absolutely. Because the Senator gives the administration a blank check. No administration is going to spurn that. Every administration, if you offer them a blank check, is going to take it. They would be fools not to. Obviously they are supportive. You are, in effect, giving them all the authority. The Congress made a judgment in this matter, and it has consistently held to that judgment over the years, and I don't think Congress should go back on that judgment.

Mr. SARBANES. I want to ask the Senator from Kansas a question, if he would yield for a question.

Mr. SARBANES. Let's do it step by step. Does the Senator dispute that Azerbaijan began the war by moving into an aggressive mode?

Mr. SARBANES. Were any other countries encompassed within your Silk Road strategy that are imposing a blockade on their neighbors the way Azerbaijan is on Armenia?

Mr. SARBANES. Who?

Mr. SARBANES. The argument the Senator made about trying to move forward was responded to by the committee in the past with the Exim exception, with the OPIC exception, with the encouraging democracy exception, all of the provisions that provide some aid. Now the Senator wants to lift any limitations altogether. I think any chance of getting this situation resolved will simply be gone. I know the pressures that exist. The Silk Road strategy involves tremendous oil interests. We ought to put that out on the table, I guess. Someone ought to lay that out as an important consideration. But it ought not to result in overturning what has been an established policy in the way we are trying to do it today, particularly in a situation when, last fall, we thought we would be able to move this peace process. Had Azerbaijan participated in the peace process last fall, we would have been able to move forward. They refused to do so.

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, in light of the comments of the Senator from Texas, I want to reemphasize something I said earlier. Section 907 is not a sanction. There is no provision currently in place that prevents American companies from trading or doing commerce in Azerbaijan. The only thing section 907 limits is it doesn't allow foreign assistance direct from the U.S. Government to Azerbaijan unless Azerbaijan--listen to this --takes demonstrable steps to cease all blockades against Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh. So it is an absolute misrepresentation of the current situation to assert that this is a sanction. There are no trade sanctions. In fact, as the chairman of the subcommittee indicated, there are a number of Government programs that are operating in Azerbaijan. The only thing not now permitted is direct foreign aid. There is not an entitlement to foreign aid. All we have said--I think, quite reasonably--is that you can't get any foreign aid unless you take demonstrable steps to cease all blockades against Armenia. That is what 907 provides. Why should we give them foreign aid and allow them to continue the blockade? We want the blockade to cease.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 1118

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I rise to pay tribute to Ambassador James Sasser, our former colleague from Tennessee, who served in this body as a distinguished chairman of the Senate Budget Committee. He is returning from his post in the People's Republic of China where he has been the U.S. Ambassador since 1995. He has done an outstanding job during a challenging period in our relations with China. Having had the honor to serve with Jim for 18 years in the Senate, I know him to be a man of great insight, intellect, and integrity, a highly respected public servant. While he served in the Senate, his interests and work covered a broad range of domestic and foreign policy issues. As Senate Budget Committee chairman, his keen grasp of financial and budgeting issues enabled him to handle that assignment with tremendous skill under very difficult circumstances. Jim constantly showed great resolve in addressing measures to reduce our deficit. He was instrumental in helping lead our country on to a path which is reflected in today's budget surplus. This dedication and commitment has characterized Jim's lifetime devotion to our country. His interests in public service began long before he was elected to the Senate. Jim's father, a public servant himself, instilled in Jim the principles of public service at an early age. He served as a role model for Jim and set him on a course which he has followed with great distinction. Throughout his career, Jim Sasser has demonstrated, both in spirit and in deed, his adherence to the ideals most important to this Nation. He is a shining example of how much one individual can contribute to our Nation's well-being. Jim's leadership has always been highly regarded and broadly respected. Throughout his tenure as Ambassador to China, Jim has been confronted with many difficult aspects of the relationship. Jim's work has emphasized the importance of keeping the lines of communication open by regularizing our contacts with the current Chinese leadership and ensuring that we remain engaged in our bilateral relationship. Jim's longstanding commitment to the promotion of democratic principles and values has played an important role in helping shape his service to our country. Jim Sasser has done a terrific job as our Ambassador to China, and I wish him well in all his future endeavors.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I believe I have an amendment at the desk. Am I correct?

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, the arrears package in this bill is a significant step toward meeting our international obligations. But I am deeply troubled by its failure to authorize the full amount that United States itself admits we owe, let alone what the U.N. claims we owe. Secondly, even making that money available, or any part of it, is very heavily conditioned in this legislation. In other words, we are saying to the U.N.: Yes, we are willing to pay some of what we owe, but in order to get any of this money, you will have to comply with a long list of conditions--several of which I think will be extremely difficult for them to meet. In any event, it is sort of a ``take it or leave it'' approach. This was not part of a negotiated agreement. We are going to approve the package and then present it to them. I think we may encounter a difficult reaction to this and see a continuing problem. Third, as I indicated, even with the accommodation made on the amendment earlier, we still create new arrears. So it is not as though we are able to say to the U.N. that this is the package we propose for arrears and, in the future, we are not going to let this situation arise again. In other words, we aren't really on board here to meet our continuing obligations to the organization, which in substantial measure has been responsive to American interests. Instead, we are going to continue to go into arrears, extending the problem which has brought us to the impasse we now confront. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Exhibit 1 U.S. Secretaries of State to Congress: U.S. Leadership Is at Risk Hon. Dennis J. Hastert, Speaker of the House. Hon. Trent Lott, Senate Majority Leader. Hon. Richard J. Gephardt, House Minority Leader. Hon. Thomas A. Daschle, Senate Minority Leader. March 16, 1999. Dear Congressional Leaders: As America's financial debt to the United Nations persists, we are deeply concerned that our great nation is squandering its moral authority, leadership, and influence in the world. It's simply unacceptable that the richest nation on earth is also the biggest debtor to the United Nations. We are writing to urge all Members of Congress to support full funding of the outstanding and current U.S. legal obligations to the United Nations and to alert Congress to the serious consequences if we fail to do so. U.S. leadership is at risk. Our ability to achieve vital foreign policy and security objectives is compromised. Our priceless reputation as the pre-eminent country committed to the rule of law is compromised. And, the critical work of the United Nations is threatened. As former Secretaries of State, we know first hand the importance of the United Nations and its agencies in securing global peace, stability and prosperity. And we appreciate that now more than ever, the U.S. must lead in the community of nations to turn back threats to peace and freedom, whether from war or hunger, terrorism or disease. We cannot lead if we ignore our basic international responsibilities. There are historic consequences to our continued failure to meet our obligations. The United States, one of the founding members of the United Nations could lose its vote in the UN General Assembly. Important reforms have occurred at the United Nations, many at America's urging: a no-growth budget from 1994-98 and an actual reduction of $123 million for 1998-99, creation of an office of inspector general which has identified more than $80 million in savings, more than 1,000 positions cut, and other cost-saving measures. Payment of U.S. arrears is critical to continuing this reform. We urge you: honor our international commitments and pay America's debt to the United Nations. Great nations pay their bills. Sincerely, Henry A. Kissinger. Alexander M. Haig, Jr. James A. Baker, III. Warren M. Christopher. Cyrus R. Vance. George P. Shultz. Lawrence S. Eagleburger.

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I thank the chairman of the committee. I now will speak on the bill, which presents some difficult issues. Despite the chairman's accommodation--which is a step forward that I appreciate--I still plan to vote against the bill, as I did in the committee. I say to the chairman that this decision has been made more difficult for me because this bill is now being named after Admiral Nance. I wish the substance of the bill were such that I could feel free to vote for it. Unfortunately, I do not. But I want to make it very clear that if I could have improved the substance enough, the fact that Admiral Nance's name is on this bill would have clearly moved me in the direction of voting for it. Hopefully, it will come back from conference in a somewhat better state, and I might be able to vote for it then. I wanted to say this at the outset because I, like so many Members of this body, had enormous respect and affection for Admiral Bud Nance and for his commitment to our Nation, both in war and in peace. I saw that commitment every day after he joined the chairman in the workings of our committee. His contributions were widely recognized and he will be greatly missed. This amendment, which we have now adjusted, was an effort to keep us from going further into arrears to the United Nations in the current year. Under the compromise, we will authorize the full amount this year for peacekeeping, but we still fall behind on the contributions to international organizations. The bigger problem connected with the legislation is the proposed package to settle our past arrears to the United Nations, which unfortunately, has two major shortcomings. First of all, the total figure does not reach the level which our Government admits we owe, missing it by a little under $100 million if one includes debt relief. My second objection is that the money we do authorize has been heavily conditioned. Let me just say at the outset that I believe important U.S. national interests are undermined by our continued failure to pay what we owe to the United Nations and its affiliated agencies. I know the chairman and the ranking member are trying to search for a solution to this problem. I respect their efforts. I just do not think they have gone far enough along this important path. By refusing to meet our legal obligations while continually issuing new demands, we are wasting our own influence, damaging our credibility and international respect, engendering resistance to the reforms we seek, and complicating the U.N.'s ability to perform its duties in a timely and effective manner. In my view, we should pay our arrears promptly, in full, and without additional conditions. Unfortunately, this legislation does not accomplish that objective. The United States acknowledges we owe $1.021 billion to the U.N. The U.N. says we owe $1.5 billion. This bill authorizes $819 million over 3 years, plus an additional $107 million in credit. Even the $819 million which is authorized will not be paid promptly and at once; it will be paid over a 3-year period. So we will still be almost $100 million short of our acknowledged obligations, far short of the U.N. figure, with no promise of ever paying it back. Unfortunately, that puts us in the position of a permanent default, particularly when one realizes that the authorization for the current year falls short. The amendment we just adopted helps to correct that on the peacekeeping side, but it still leaves us $23 million short on regular dues to the United Nations. Furthermore, the bill imposes a long list of arbitrary and burdensome conditions for paying even the reduced amount, to which I have just made reference. These conditions have not been negotiated with or agreed to by the United Nations. They are, in effect, unilaterally imposed by the United States. They are being imposed on past obligations, on money we had agreed to provide without such stipulations. The consequence of these arrears is that the U.N. has been unable to reimburse other countries for sending their troops on peacekeeping missions that the United States encouraged and endorsed. Other countries have put the lives of their own citizens on the line in order to accomplish mutually agreed objectives. The U.S. responsibility in most of those instances was to provide money to cover the missions they were performing for us and the entire world. Those missions have been accomplished. The bill has not been paid. In addition, despite my amendment, this legislation creates new arrearages to the U.N., so not only do we fail to pay all the money we owe in arrears, not only do we establish preconditions for this partial payment, but we begin to build up new debts by authorizing less than is needed. The agreement that was reached on the amendment addressed this in part. It provided the $235 million needed for assessed peacekeeping operations. The bill had $215 million. It still does not provide the full amount needed for assessed U.N. dues, falling short by $23 million. I must say, if any other country delinquent in its obligations showed up with the demands we have placed in this legislation, lacking the intention of paying its debts in full and short of its current dues, we would be extremely upset at what we would regard as its audacity. Surely our friends and allies will have the same reaction to our conduct. This approach runs counter to that reflected in the exercise of American leadership at the end of World War II, an approach that I think should characterize our policy toward the United Nations today. It is my strongly held view that the interests of the United States have been served by our Nation's active participation in the United Nations and the U.N. system. Especially now, with the end of the cold war, the U.N. has a genuine opportunity to function as it was intended at the end of World War II, without the constant Soviet veto in the Security Council that effectively neutralized it for so many years. The task facing us today is to assist the United Nations to adapt to the end of the cold war and the challenges of the new century. The need for the United Nations remains clear, for as then-Ambassador to the U.N. Madeleine Albright commented: The battle-hardened generation of Roosevelt, Churchill and de Gaulle viewed the U.N. as a practical response to an inherently contentious world; a necessity not because relations among States could ever be brought into perfect harmony, but because they cannot. This sense of realism seems absent from many of the current discussions of the United Nations. There has been a misperception that the U.N. can somehow dictate policies to the United States and force us to undertake actions that do not serve U.S. interests. This is simply not the case. Those who labored in San Francisco and elsewhere to create the United Nations some half a century ago insisted that the United Nations organization recognize the reality of great powers by granting significant authority to the Security Council. In the Council, the United States and other major powers were given the veto power, thereby ensuring that the U.N. could not undertake operations which the United States opposed. Every U.N. peacekeeping operation requires prior approval by the United States. Actually, by failing to meet our financial obligations, we are abdicating the powers available to us within the U.N. system. We are, for example, in danger of losing our vote in the General Assembly, a status generally reserved for the world's lawless and pariah states. Since the General Assembly works on the basis of consensus, we are depriving ourselves of the ability to press for needed reforms. The influence we held in the past by our leadership, reflected in the large number of senior posts awarded to U.S. nationals, is being eroded and subjected to challenge. As Ambassador Richardson explained in the course of his confirmation hearings to go to the U.N.--he, of course, is now Secretary of Energy-- I quote him: Growing resentment over our failure to pay our assessed dues and arrears has put our continued leadership and influence at risk. . . . [A]mong the members of the Geneva Group, composed of the U.N.'s largest contributors and a crucial source of support for U.N. reform, there is virtually no willingness to consider reductions in our dues for peacekeeping or the regular budget until we pay our arrears. If the United States fails to meet its financial commitments to the U.N. system, it will become increasingly difficult to set the U.N. priorities for the future and to ensure that qualified Americans serve in important U.N. posts. Let me just talk a bit about how an effective U.N. serves U.S. interests. I believe, of course, that U.S. leadership is essential to an effective U.N. Over the years, the U.N. has negotiated over 170 peaceful settlements across the globe--helping to end wars, uphold cease-fires, protect civilians, reintegrate refugees, oversee the conduct of free and fair elections, monitor troop withdrawals, and deter intercommunal violence. From Iraq to Bosnia and Kosovo, assembling coalitions to repel aggression and keep peace would have been impossible without assistance and support from the United Nations. In Haiti, the introduction of U.N. peacekeepers meant that U.S. troops could be extracted without condemning the country to chaos, while in Cyprus, the U.N. prevents an outbreak of hostilities that could lead to conflict between two NATO allies. The U.N. has not been able to handle every situation. Unfortunately, it has attracted the most attention in those instances when it has not able to provide a resolution. People then conclude that it is totally ineffective. I beg very strongly to disagree with that conclusion. As I have indicated, there have been numerous instances in which the U.N. has negotiated peaceful settlements. As a matter of fact, the Nobel Peace Prize has been awarded five times to the United Nations and its organizations. U.N. operations further serve U.S. interests by leveraging our resources and influence in order to achieve a much greater impact at lesser cost than we could unilaterally. I think those who constantly talk about the burdensharing theme--and I think it is an important theme; I have talked about it myself--need to recognize the U.N. has been, and can be, an even more important mechanism for burdensharing. One of the things that needs to be understood is that by working through the United Nations, we can often gain international endorsement for an American position. The U.S. position is then seen as representing the judgment of the entire international community and not solely the judgment of the United States. The mandate becomes a response by the entire international community and cannot be portrayed as the United States trying to impose its own point of view in the particular situation. There are many examples of how the U.N. serves U.S. interests at a reduced cost and with great effectiveness. The International Atomic Energy Agency, with our small annual contribution, has helped prevent nuclear proliferation by inspecting and monitoring nuclear reactors in facilities in 90 countries, many of which would not allow access to the United States alone. The World Health Organization, working in concert with USAID and other bilateral agencies, led a 13-year effort resulting in the complete eradication of smallpox, saving an estimated $1 billion a year in vaccination and monitoring, and helped to wipe out polio from the Western Hemisphere. Through its High Commissioner for Refugees, its Children's Fund, the Development Programme, the International Fund for Agricultural Development, and the World Food Programme, the U.N. has saved millions from famine and provided food, shelter, medical aid, education, and repatriation assistance to refugees around the world. The U.N. Environment Programme and the World Meteorological Organization have brought countries together to begin to address important environmental matters, to develop regional efforts to clean up pollution, and to predict and respond effectively to natural and manmade disasters. Thanks to organizations such as the Universal Postal Union, the International Telecommunications Union, the International Civil Aviation Organization, and the International Maritime Organization--all agencies of the United Nations--there are procedures to ensure the safety and reliability of worldwide travel and communications. By coordinating international sanctions against the apartheid regime in South Africa, the U.N. was instrumental in bringing an end to the apartheid system. Through the efforts of the United Nations, over 300 international treaties have been enacted which set standards of conduct and enable cooperation in areas ranging from arms control to human rights and civil liberties, protection of copyrights and trademarks, determining maritime jurisdiction and navigation on the high seas, preventing discrimination against women, conserving biological diversity, and combating desertification. Because of U.N. agencies, such as the International Labor Organization, and U.N.-brokered agreements, such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the American ideals of freedom, democracy, equality before the law, and the dignity of the individual have become internationally accepted, and the rights and protections that U.S. workers enjoy are being aggressively pursued in other countries. International trade and commerce would be hamstrung without the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, the World Trade Organization, and the regional development banks, not to mention the many agreements negotiated under their auspices. All of these grew from the U.N. system. I went on at some length about these matters because we do not often focus on them. A lot of the very positive work done by the U.N. is simply taken for granted, falling below the ``radar screen'' for most people. Many do not appreciate that it is the U.N. that is conducting all of these important activities, and they fail to understand how discomforted they would be in their lives if these activities were not carried out, which the United Nations has been doing, year in and year out. The U.N. has been a favorite target of criticism. Certainly there are activities and practices of the U.N. that have been wasteful or ineffective and that require reform. But I think the strategy of unilaterally withholding funds until all our demands are met is counterproductive, particularly in the current circumstance. Since his election in 1997, U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan--whose candidacy, of course, was strongly supported by the United States--has instituted a number of significant reforms, including a zero-growth budget, the cutting of administrative costs, the elimination of almost 1,000 positions, the creation of an independent inspector general, the consolidation of overlapping agencies, the establishment of more budget oversight, and tighter budget discipline. I know some think he has not gone as far as he should go, that he has not fully implemented all of these reforms, and there is some truth to that. But the fact remains, he is trying to run an organization that operates by consensus. He has set out the proper direction and the proper goals. He is doing his very best to move the agency along the right path. Frankly, I think the United States can be more helpful in the reform effort. We do this not by being the biggest delinquent in dues paying, which only brings resentment against our calls for change; we should pay our obligations in full so we can regain the credibility and respect needed to push for further reforms. It is both ironic and unfortunate that a nation that holds itself and its citizens to the highest standards of law should find itself in default of its international obligations. Our democracy is founded on the primacy of respect for the rule of law. We urge other nations to follow our example. It is often a tremendous challenge to get countries to respect the basic rights of their citizens and to act in accordance with international law. Yet we ourselves are not meeting those high standards as they relate to the United Nations. We undertook commitments under the U.N. Charter. We have a responsibility to make good on them if we want other countries to uphold their international agreements. The United States is the great power in the world today, and with that role come important responsibilities in how we exercise that power. I think we are failing here, with respect to our commitments to the U.N., to exercise those responsibilities in a manner that will strengthen our position and serve our Nation in the international community. We have not only a legal and moral obligation to pay our dues, but a practical interest in doing so as well. So while I respect the efforts that have been made in the committee, and while I recognize that I was a lonely voice for this position in the committee, I think that offering only a partial and a heavily conditioned repayment of the U.S. debt to the United Nations will not meet our obligations and will not enhance our interests. Seven former Secretaries of State have written an open letter to the Congress urging the United States to honor its international commitments and pay its debt to the United Nations. I think their letter is a powerful statement about the importance of U.S. leadership and the risk that nonpayment of our debt to the U.N. will pose for U.S. security and international influence. That letter was signed by former Secretaries Kissinger, Haig, Baker, Christopher, Vance, Shultz, and Eagleburger--Democrats and Republicans alike. I ask unanimous consent that their letter, which was sent to the Speaker of the House, the House minority leader, the Senate majority leader, and the Senate minority leader, be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

Mr. SARBANES. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.