UN Human rights expert Jean Ziegler
in Eritrea, 1976

To the sound of cheers, and by an overwhelming majority of 40 out of 47 votes, the UN Human Rights Council today elected Jean Ziegler, the co-founder of the “Muammar Khaddafi Human Rights Prize,” as an expert adviser representing the Western world. And for its new Palestine expert, the council chose Richard Falk, who, like Ziegler, accuses the U.S. of being responsible for many of the world’s ills and describes Israel in Nazi terminology.

“Even within the benighted UN Human Rights council, today was a dark day for human rights,” said Hillel Neuer, executive director of UN Watch, a Geneva-based human rights monitoring agency. “The very credibility of the UN human rights system is now at stake.”

Falk was approved by consensus. Canada afterward made a statement dissociating itself from the choice. The U.S., a non–voting observer, also took the floor to criticize Falk’s published writings.
Ziegler, criticized by many for his performance as former UN expert on the right to food, earned more votes than any of the other candidates.

Immediately after the vote, Swiss ambassador Blaise Godet left his seat, and, in front of all the diplomats in the plenary, walked over to warmly shake hands with the Cuban ambassador, both smiling as they congratulated each other. The Castro regime chairs the all-powerful Non-Aligned Movement.

“The Swiss Foreign Ministry has gone into the election of Ziegler with eyes wide open,” said Neuer. “The next time Ziegler praises Khaddafi, Castro or Holocaust denier Roger Garaudy, they will bear direct responsibility. Having invested so much lobbying and vote-trading to install him, it is no longer credible for them to try and wash their hands of Ziegler’s abuses, claiming — as they tried to do in recent years — not to have any connection with him. From this day forward we will demand and expect the Swiss Foreign Ministry’s condemnation of his abuses, every single time.”

UNITED NATIONS, October 29 — The UN itself may be engaged or complicit in extra-judicial executions, the UN’s special rapporteur on the topic has told Inner City Press. Concerns about the UN’s own practices were echoed by the rapporteur on the promotion and protection of ,human rights, while countering terrorism. On Friday, law professor Philip Alston told journalists that he limits his inquiries to execution cases that are not being effectively investigated by the responsible authorities. Inner City Press asked Prof. Aston if, given that the UN system does not discipline its peacekeepers but rather allows them to return to their home countries, he has made such inquiries with the UN. Yes, he said, “the UN has a long way to go,” adding that he intends to make further inquiries with the UN.

It emerged that he has already written to the UN’s mission in Haiti. Inner City Press raised to further example: allegations of torture and even executions by peacekeepers in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and the case of the shooting death of Kosovar protesters by Romanian peacekeepers using 13-year old rubber bullets. These peacekeepers returned to Romania, where neither they nor the officials who, with presumptive criminal negligence, supplied long-out-of-date rubber bullets, have faced any justice.
The UN rapporteur on torture, Manfred Nowak, had been quoted that “as long as the military in Nepal tortures, no (Nepalese) troops should be consulted for peacekeeping missions” of the UN. Inner City Press asked about the quote, and Nowak specified that he had made a finding of torture in Nepal, in 2005, and that the Department of Peacekeeping Operations (DKPO) should able stricter scrutiny to peacekeepers offered by countries engaged in torture. He said that he personally had spoken with a Nepali officer who served as a UN peacekeeper and also admitted to engaging in torture. Video here. Nowak said similar issues exist as to Jordan, in terms of torture, and cited the unresolved case of sexual abuse allegations against Moroccan peacekeepers in Cote d’Ivoire.

UN headquarters in Geneva: human rights are a two-way street
At Monday’s noon briefing, Inner City Press asked UN spokesperson Michele Montas if Nowak had spoken with, or would be listened to by, the UN’s DPKO. Ms. Montas said that Nowak as a special rapporteur directs his recommendations to the Human Rights Council. But is DPKO listening? A report emerged of more Fijian peacekeepers headed to Sudan. In light of previous UN statements about not accepting more Fijian peacekeepers until Fiji is returned to democracy, Inner City Press inquired into this as well. Ms. Montas responded that seven Fijians initially slated to serve the UN in Iraq had been kept in Fiji, based on “criminal” issues. Video here, from Minute 22:21. Whether this indicates DPKO listening to the issues raised by human rights experts like Nowak remains to be seen.
Finnish academic Martin Scheinin, the rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights while countering terrorism, also said that the UN could and should do more. Inner City Press asked about the UN having “cast its lot” with Somalia’s Transitional Federal Government, even as TFG figures began openly characterizing as “terrorists” women and children of clans which generally oppose the TFG. Scheinin said that while he is just beginning inquiry into Somalia, he is of the view that the UN Security Council, which calls on member states to respect human rights while implementing its resolution, should require the same of the UN itself. Video here. He also said that human rights should become a formal part of the work of the UN’s Counter Terrorism Committee, which for now is set to sun-set by the end of 2007. Scheinin predicted, like most including Slovak Ambassador Peter Burian, the Council’s liaison, that the CTC will be continued. But will it give more place to human rights? We’ll see.
UN rapporteur Paul Hunt, beyond meeting with pharmaceutical companies, was one of five rapporteurs who tried to go to Guantanamo Bay. Inner City Press asked about this; Hunt said that the U.S. invited three of the five, and disallowed two. While Hunt did not say it, he was one of the two who was disallowed. The five issued a scathing report, without having made the visit.
Following his last appearance before the UN General Assembly’s Third Committee, the outgoing rapporteur on the right to food, Jean Ziegler, told reporters that “bio-fuels are a crime against humanity.” Inner City Press asked if he knew the view of Ban Ki-moon. Ziegler said he had raised the issue to Ban at a lunch on the 8th floor of the UN’s Palais in Geneva, but could not ascertain Ban’s thoughts. Inner City Press asked Ban’s spokesperson, who said, “That is a controversial issue.”
Ziegler mentioned that North Korea had not allowed him to enter the country. Meanwhile the UN’s rapporteur for that country, Vitit Muntarbhorn, spoke again without having entered the country. He appeared to be trying to convince the Kim Jong-il government to let him in, by echoing claims by the World Food Program that access is being given, and that there is “no aid without access.” In fact, WFP staffers on the ground say different, click here for that.

But while pouring over the innumerable documents that exists, I came across one that clearly may inhibit us from performing our stated task.

Strategy on Assistance A/62/595

which was issued on December 26th, 2007. The working draft to be presented, well they state it best:

At its 9th meeting, on 19 December, the Working Group decided to
recommend for adoption by the General Assembly the draft resolution and the
United Nations Comprehensive Strategy on Assistance and Support to Victims of
Sexual Exploitation and Abuse by United Nations Staff and Related Personnel
contained in the annex thereto (see para. 14 below).

The UN which rarely substantiates any abuse by its representatives anyway, need a stated policy for those few bad apples (or is it the basket of rotten fruit). Some may read some sarcasm in that statement. Then you interpreted it correctly.

This is a slush fund.

Don’t get me wrong. I’m all for funding rape crisis centers and ensuring there are victims advocates. We need women on the ground that are properly trained to get statements from the victims. We need to ensure that doctors, nurses, and police are trained to preserve the evidence. You know… what they do in big bad America. But your not going to find that in here…..

Whatever happened to holding the criminal accountable. You know. Don’t do the crime if you can’t do the time. How about a victims fund that is funded by the criminals and not the taxpayers. How about child support.

This is a slush fund that is designed to silence the victim. So the UN can say we’ve got a zero tolerance policy towards abusing the people we’re suppose to protect. Say a lie often enough and it becomes the truth. Read it and get active. IN PDF

Support to Victims

The BBC uncovered allegations of the sexual abuse of children by UN peacekeepers in Haiti.

30 Nov 2006

Infowars.net | January 3, 2007
Steve Watson

The UN is to investigate itself again after it was revealed by the London Telegraph today that more than twenty different cases of child sex slavery involving UN staff have been reported in southern Sudan.

The Telegraph reports that it has learned of dozens of victims’ accounts claiming that some peacekeeping and civilian staff based in the town are regularly picking up young children in their UN vehicles and forcing them to have sex. The Telegraph states that it is thought that hundreds of children may have been abused.

The UN has up to 10,000 military personnel in the region, of all nationalities and the allegations involve peacekeepers, military police and civilian staff.

The Telegraph also states that the Sudanese government, which is deeply opposed to the deployment of UN troops to Darfur, has evidence of child sex slavery, including video footage of Bangladeshi UN workers allegedly having sex with three young girls.

Stating that such events are ultimately the work of “a few bad apples”, a UN spokesperson promised that they will be thoroughly investigated.

Over the past few years, however, there seems to have been a hell of a lot of rotting fruit in the UN barrel.

Last November a BBC Investigation found that children as young as 11 have been subjected to rape and prostitution by United Nations peacekeepers in Haiti and Liberia. A previous BBC investigation in Liberia discovered systematic abuse, involving food being given out to teenage refugees in return for sex. In both instances the UN promised to investigate.

In 2003 the AP reported that UN officials were identified as using a ship charted for ‘peacekeepers’ to traffick young girls from Thailand to East Timor as prostitutes.

In the same year it was also revealed that UN staff were guilty of raping women on a systematic scale in Sierra Leone.

Previous to this, in early 2002 a massive pedophilia scandal within the UN was uncovered involving sexual abuse against West African refugee children in Sierra Leone, Liberia and Guinea. UPI reported that Senior U.N. officials knew of the widespread pedophilia and not only did they not take action against the perpetrators, they covered up the atrocities.

It was later reported that after The UN’s’ investigating arm had cleared several U.N. workers of charges of sexual abuse against West African refugee children, it substantiated 10 new cases against aid workers.

Damning cases involving workers making home porn movies and so called weapons inspectors having bizarre sadomasochistic, pansexual and leather fetishes also emerged at this time.

In 2004 The New York Post reported that the UN was trying to block the publication of a book by three United Nations fieldworkers that detailed sex, drugs and corruption inside multiple U.N. missions. “Emergency Sex and Other Desperate Measures: A True Story from Hell on Earth” chronicles the experiences of a doctor, a human-rights official and a secretary in U.N. operations in Cambodia, Somalia, Haiti, Rwanda, Liberia and Bosnia. It also alleged that the UN knowingly hired freed criminals to serve as peacemakers.

We have also previously reported on the intimate involvement of Dyncorp, the contractors of the international police force, in such sex scandals. One Dyncorp employee, Kathryn Bolkovac, was sacked for detailing UN workers’ involvement in the sex trade in Bosnia. Bolkovac was sacked after disclosing that UN peacekeepers went to nightclubs where girls as young as 15 were forced to dance naked and have sex with customers, and that UN personnel and international aid workers were linked to prostitution rings in the Balkans.

Dyncorp was ordered to pay Kathryn Bolkovac £110,000 by an employment tribunal, yet both the British and the US governments as well as the UN continue to contract Dyncorp.

It was later revealed by the Chicago Tribune that Halliburton subsidiary KBR and Dyncorp lobbyists are working in tandem with the Pentagon to stall legislation that would specifically ban trafficking in humans for forced labor and prostitution by U.S. contractors.

On March 11th 2005, Representative Cynthia McKinney grilled Secretary Rumsfeld and General Myers on the Dyncorp scandal.

“Mr. Secretary, I watched President Bush deliver a moving speech at the United Nations in September 2003, in which he mentioned the crisis of the sex trade. The President called for the punishment of those involved in this horrible business. But at the very moment of that speech, Dyncorp was exposed for having been involved in the buying and selling of young women and children. While all of this was going on, Dyncorp kept the Pentagon contract to administer the smallpox and anthrax vaccines, and is now working on a plague vaccine through the Joint Vaccine Acquisition Program. Mr. Secretary, is it [the] policy of the U.S. Government to reward companies that traffic in women and little girls?”

The response and McKinney’s comeback was as follows.

Rumsfeld: “Thank you, Representative. First, the answer to your first question is, is, no, absolutely not, the policy of the United States Government is clear, unambiguous, and opposed to the activities that you described. The second question.”

McKinney: “Well how do you explain the fact that Dyncorp and its successor companies have received and continue to receive government contracts?”

Rumsfeld: “I would have to go and find the facts, but there are laws and rules and regulations with respect to government contracts, and there are times that corporations do things they should not do, in which case they tend to be suspended for some period; there are times then that the – under the laws and the rules and regulations for the – passed by the Congress and implemented by the Executive branch – that corporations can get off of – out of the penalty box if you will, and be permitted to engage in contracts with the government. They’re generally not barred in perpetuity.”

McKinney: “This contract – this company – was never in the penalty box.”

Rumsfeld: “I’m advised by DR. Chu that it was not the corporation that was engaged in the activities you characterized but I’m told it was an employee of the corporation, and it was some years ago in the Balkans that that took place.”

Rumsfeld’s effort to shift the blame away from the hierarchy at Dyncorp and onto the Dyncorp employees was a blatant attempt to hide the fact that human trafficking and sex slavery is a practice condoned by companies like Dyncorp and Halliburton subsidiaries like KBR.

Why should the UN be continually allowed to investigate itself and, those that it contracts, on these issues? The UN has an abysmal track record on this issue and a long history of covering up such cases. It is time for a thorough independent inquiry of the UN and its agencies and affiliates to be carried out.

I have a reason for referencing this letter. Many of the crimes of the UN have been “covered up”. Despite this, we are using the UN own reports to ensure the accuracy of our data base. In their 2004 study of the Congo A/59/661 the UN substantiated seven cases of abuse with young girls, out of seventy two.

So in response to this report, when we enter seven case files into our system, we’re not hyping the problem. On the contrary. We may be severely under estimating the severity of these crimes. Read on…

Letter to Chief of UN Peacekeeping Urges Follow-Through

July 23, 2007

Mr. Jean-Marie Guéhenno
Under-Secretary-General for Peacekeeping Operations
Department of Peacekeeping Operations
United Nations
New York, NY

Dear Mr. Guéhenno,

We welcome your recent announcement about the conclusion of the Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS) investigation into alleged gold smuggling and arms trading by Pakistani peacekeepers working with the UN peacekeeping force in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). We believe that such investigations are a useful part of the process of establishing accountability for peacekeepers alleged to have been involved in illegal acts.

We are, however, disappointed by the apparent narrowness of the report’s conclusions, the lack of transparency in the process, the slow progress of the investigation, and most important, the continuing lack of accountability. You told the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) on July 13 that this matter is “now closed.” Yet no individual has yet been held accountable despite findings by OIOS, the investigative arm of the United Nations, that illegal behavior by at least one Pakistani officer had occurred. Surely a report confirming illegal acts by UN peacekeepers is not the end of a process, but the beginning.

We hope that the UN will also raise with the DRC authorities the issue of possible involvement in this illegal behavior by Congolese army officers.

Since the report from OIOS is still unpublished, our concerns are based on press announcements made by you and other UN spokespersons on its content. Based on those statements, we fear that the conclusions reached by the OIOS investigation may not have taken into account all available information. We would welcome the full publication of the OIOS report to be able to better evaluate its conclusions. On two issues, we have particular concerns:

1. The limited number of peacekeepers reported to be involved in illegal acts. When Human Rights Watch first brought information about gold-smuggling by peacekeepers to the attention of the United Nations in December 2005, our findings indicated that a ring of Congolese army officers, Kenyan traders, and Pakistani peacekeepers was involved in smuggling millions of dollars of gold from Ituri. A separate BBC investigation reached a similar conclusion. According to our research, this ring carried out at least two major trades in late 2005 benefiting from significant facilitation from Pakistani peacekeepers including accommodation, transportation, security, and access to UN flights. We were therefore surprised that the report concluded that only one peacekeeper was involved in aiding and abetting these illegal acts. It is our view that the assistance provided by Pakistani peacekeepers went well beyond one individual.
2. Possible failure to take into account new information. The OIOS investigation looked into alleged weapons trading between Pakistani peacekeepers and the Nationalist and Integrationist Front (FNI) militia in Ituri. According to your press statement, the OIOS investigation found no evidence of such acts. Yet on May 25, senior commanders of the FNI who had been responsible for some of the worst massacres in recent years put out a press statement confirming that they had received weapons and ammunition from Pakistani peacekeepers in 2005. It is not clear whether this new information was considered by OIOS.

The alleged abuses by Pakistani peacekeepers are serious. They took place in an area of eastern Congo where war crimes and crimes against humanity were committed, with repeated atrocities by the militia groups in the area. For these groups, control of the lucrative gold mining areas was a key goal, as documented in the Human Rights Watch report The Curse of Gold (available online at http://hrw.org/reports/2005/drc0505/). In this context, gold trading and possible provision of arms and ammunition by UN peacekeepers to militia groups serves directly to stoke the violence that they are intended to prevent.

Pakistan denied the charges involving its peacekeepers without any further investigation. Pakistan is a major troop-contributing country, providing 10,000 troops to UN peacekeeping operations. While the UN is understandably appreciative of that contribution, the need for such troop contributions should not mean that the United Nations is silenced when abuses like this occur. Pakistan must be called upon to fulfill its obligations.

The slow process in carrying out this investigation and the continued lack of action raises important questions about how the UN investigates itself. We note in this connection that the allegations against the Pakistanis are just one of a series of allegations that have emerged in recent months. These include allegations of gold trading by Indian peacekeepers in North Kivu, the alleged killing of two Congolese detainees and the beating of others by Bangladeshi peacekeepers in Ituri in February 2005, and ongoing allegations of sexual exploitation, among others. As far as we are aware, nobody has been prosecuted in connection with most of these cases.

Human Rights Watch has repeatedly acknowledged the important and positive role played by MONUC, the peacekeeping force in the DRC, in recent years. We have forcefully urged that the force remain strong in Congo during the difficult transition process following elections in 2006. Peacekeepers worldwide play an essential and invaluable role. But the failure to address and punish crimes committed by UN peacekeepers does nothing to help keep the peace. On the contrary, it undermines peacekeeping efforts in Congo and elsewhere.

UN peacekeepers must be held to the highest standards. When illegal behavior occurs, whether in Congo or on other peacekeeping missions, it must be investigated promptly and with transparent procedures, and lead to appropriate disciplinary or legal action. We welcome your recent announcement to send a Management Audit Team to the DRC. We hope this team will consider how the UN can more efficiently and transparently investigate allegations of misconduct in the DRC mission, work with troop contributing countries to ensure that perpetrators are held to account, and implement improved management systems to prevent such abuses in the future.

In addition to improving accountability in the DRC mission, we further believe that the United Nations needs to improve its overall system of internal oversight. Investigation alone is not enough. The UN should follow through on the results of its own investigations. Until that happens, the problems will only continue to multiply. The United Nations must take strong action to ensure that crimes are duly punished. We hope you and your colleagues at OIOS will announce how you plan to improve investigations and ensure accountability for abuses in the future. This could include trials or courts martial in the country being serviced by a peacekeeping mission, both to facilitate the production of evidence and witnesses and to ensure that justice is served in the country where the crime was committed.

Yours sincerely,

Kenneth Roth
Executive Director

Steve Crawshaw
UN Advocacy Director

cc: Under-Secretary-General William Lacy Swing, Special Representative of the Secretary-General for the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Chief of Mission, MONUC;
Under-Secretary-General Inga-Britt Ahlenius, Office of Internal Oversight Services

Summarizing “Many of the 72 allegations originally reported to MONUC could
not be substantiated or even fully investigated because of their non-specific nature.
Nevertheless, OIOS was able to compile 20 case reports.

One case that was substantiated involved an international civilian post.
The remaining 19 cases involved peacekeepers from 3 contingents.
Of those, six cases were fully substantiated, and under-age girls were involved in all of them.

The final recommendation of this report included “the public naming and shaming of those found to have engaged in sexual exploitation and abuse; and the permanent exclusion from peacekeeping missions of those troops who engage in sexual exploitation and abuse
and of their contingents’ commanders (ID Rec. No. IV04/141/08).

We are endeavoring to help them with that recommendation

Reference case files 2004-1001 to 1007 with any information

2004 PDF by UN Oversight

Statement by the US Government Accounting Office
in response to a request from Senators Jesse Helms and Judd Gregg
November 8, 1996

Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO reviewed the United Nations’ ability to raise revenues outside of member assessments, focusing on:

(1) whether U.N. organizations receive substantial contributions from private sources;

(2) whether the United Nations has authority to implement revenue-raising options, including the imposition of taxes or fees within the jurisdictions of member states, and how the proposals would be processed in the U.N. system;

(3) the U.S. position on U.N. authority to impose taxes within the jurisdictions of member states; and

(4) U.N. proposals for raising revenues and the status of these proposals.

GAO found that:

(1) the United Nations receives very little financial support from private sources;

(2) because the United Nations is an organization of sovereign states with no independent power of its own, it has no authority to impose taxes within the jurisdictions of its member states;

(3) granting such authority would, at a minimum, require an amendment to the U.N. Charter which would require approval and ratification in accordance with the respective constitutional processes by two-thirds of the members of the General Assembly, including all permanent members of the Security Council;

(4) the official position of the U.S. government is that it would veto any proposal to amend the U.N. Charter for this purpose; and

(5) alternative revenue-raising ideas have been solicited within the U.N. system, and some U.N. member states, under the auspices of the Economic and Social Council, have studied various financing mechanisms, some of which involve the imposition of taxes within the jurisdictions of U.N. member states, but no formal proposals have been made.

BACKGROUND
The six principal components of the United Nations are the General Assembly, the Security Council, the Economic and Social Council, the Trusteeship Council,(1) the International Court of Justice, and the Secretariat. Numerous committees, commissions, programs, and other subsidiary bodies fall under the main components of the United Nations. For the 1994-95 biennium, the U.N. regular budget was $2.6 billion. In 1995, the U. S. assessment was $315 million.(2) In addition, the U.N. family of organizations includes numerous specialized agencies and other autonomous bodies, some of which have their own separate membership, system of governance, and financing structures. (See app. I.) We limited our review to the main components of the United Nations and the subsidiary bodies that receive funding through, or are directly controlled by, the main U.N. components.

RESULTS IN BRIEF
The United Nations receives only a small part of its financial support from private sources. U.N. operations are funded primarily from three sources: regular budget assessments, special assessments for peacekeeping missions, and voluntary contributions funded by member governments.(3) In addition, the United Nations receives some funding through contributions from nongovernmental entities, such as foundations or other private international organizations. Of the $5.9 billion voluntary contributions received in 1995, only $584 million came from nongovernmental sources. The United Nations also generates income from commercial sales of products such as U.N. publications or from gift shop operations and fees for services. In addition, the United Nations has on two occasions borrowed funds from member states.

Because the United Nations is an organization of sovereign states with no independent power of its own, it has no authority to impose taxes within the jurisdictions of its member states. Granting such authority would, at a minimum, require an amendment to the U.N. Charter. An amendment requires approval and ratification in accordance with the respective constitutional processes by two-thirds of the members of the General Assembly, including all permanent members of the Security Council.(4) The official position of the U.S. government is that it would veto any proposal to amend the U.N. Charter for this purpose. In early 1996, the United States and 77 other countries said that they would consider only voluntary funding approaches for the United Nations.

Alternative revenue-raising ideas have been solicited within the U.N. system. However, no formal proposals have been made. Some U.N. member states, under the auspices of the Economic and Social Council,(5) have studied various financing mechanisms, some of which involve the imposition of taxes within the jurisdictions of the U.N. member states. The financing mechanisms studied include levies on international air and maritime transport, telecommunications, trade, and international currency transactions. The United States has encouraged delegations to the United Nations to discuss alternative funding sources; however, it has opposed any suggestion that the United Nations be granted authority to impose taxes.

FUNDING FOR U.N. MAIN COMPONENTS AND THEIR SUBSIDIARY BODIES
In addition to member assessments that finance the regular budget of the United Nations, the main U.N. components and their subsidiary bodies(6) receive voluntary contributions from member governments and monies from nongovernmental entities such as businesses or foundations. It also obtains funds through a variety of other sources, such as sales of publications, gifts, and greeting cards; rental income; interest on trust funds; and gains from currency exchanges.(7)

While each U.N. agency accounts for funds received from such sources, the United Nations has no system wide consolidated list of voluntary contributions or other funds received. Voluntary contributions may fund an organization’s normal operations and/or be earmarked for specific programs or projects. U.N. financial systems are not harmonized, making it difficult to depict how voluntary funds are distributed. However, contributions to the U.N. Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), the U.N. Development Program (UNDP), the U.N. Population Fund, and the U.N. Children’s Fund (UNICEF), illustrate the diversity of U.N. organizations’ funding.

UNCTAD provides technical assistance on trade promotion issues primarily to developing countries. In 1994-95, UNCTAD received its $113.6 million regular budget from the U.N. Secretariat, and $43.8 million in extra budgetary support. In contrast, UNDP, the U.N. Population Fund, and UNICEF do not receive funding from the U.N. regular budget assessment but are funded by voluntary contributions from governments; nongovernmental organizations; and, in the case of UNICEF, partly through entrepreneurial endeavors.

UNDP’s regular program is funded by voluntary contributions from member countries. In addition, member countries and private and international organizations voluntarily contribute funds for specifically earmarked trust funds or for specific projects through cost-sharing agreements.(8) Both the Ford and Rockefeller Foundations, for example, have contributed to cost-sharing projects, as have the multilateral development banks and the European Union.

The U.N. Population Fund, whose 1994-95 budget was $586 million, is also funded by voluntary contributions, largely from donor governments. In addition, the Fund receives income by providing procurement services to governments. The Fund purchases contraceptives in bulk for recipient governments. In 1994-95, for example, the Fund earned about $3 million from these services. Like UNDP, the U.N. Population Fund receives funds through cost-sharing agreements with governments.

In addition to voluntary contributions from member governments, UNICEF generates substantial income from other sources. For example, in 1995 UNICEF received $655 million from governments to fund its programs and earned $308 million by selling greeting cards and conducting private sector fund-raising activities. In 1994, UNICEF sold 158 million cards. UNICEF also conducts direct mail campaigns and other fund-raising activities, such as collecting British Airways’ passengers’ unwanted foreign currency. Fund-raising activities are also conducted by national committees located in 37 countries.

THE UNITED NATIONS LACKS AUTHORITY TO TAX MEMBERS
Although its members are sovereign nations, the United Nations itself does not possess the attributes of sovereignty. The United Nations was created as a forum to mediate international disputes, maintain international peace, develop friendly relations among nations, promote social and economic progress, and foster respect for human rights. It is endowed by its members with certain powers necessary to discharge its functions. Those powers are limited to carrying out only those activities that are within the scope of its Charter.

Regarding financial matters, article 17 of the Charter vests the General Assembly with responsibility for the U.N. budget. Article 17 authorizes the General Assembly to “consider and approve the budget of the Organization.” It provides that the “expenses of the Organization shall be borne by the Members as apportioned by the General Assembly.” As noted by the International Court of Justice, “article 17 is the only article in the Charter which refers to budgetary authority or to the power to apportion expenses, or otherwise raise revenue.”(9)

Article 17 authorizes the General Assembly to approve a budget and to apportion expenses among members; it does not authorize the United Nations to independently raise revenue by imposing fees or taxes on international transactions. More important, a basic underlying principle of the U.N. Charter acknowledges the sovereignty of all nations and generally prohibits the United Nations from intervening in matters that are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state.(10) Consistent with this underlying principle, at least one U.S. court has ruled that the United Nations has no power to legislate within the realm of the municipal law of the United States.(11) The power to tax, an attribute of sovereignty, is clearly within the U.S. domestic jurisdiction and the United Nations cannot independently impose taxes on U.S. citizens.

Implementation of any of the suggested taxes or fees on international transactions would, at a minimum, require an amendment to the U.N. Charter. A U.N. Charter amendment requires approval and ratification by two-thirds of the members of the General Assembly in accordance with their respective constitutional processes, including all the permanent members of the Security Council.(12) To be effected, an amendment requires ratification by the United States, a permanent member of the Security Council. In the United States, ratification requires the advice and consent of the Senate, provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur.(13)

U.N. BORROWING
As discussed above, the U.N. ability to raise revenue is limited to measures authorized under article 17.(14) In addition to assessments and contributions, the General Assembly has authorized, in connection with its authority to consider and approve a budget, the United Nations to borrow funds to finance operations on at least two occasions. In both cases, the United States was the major lender and did not question the capacity or the authority of the United Nations to issue bonds or borrow money.(15)

In the 1940s, the General Assembly authorized the Secretary General to negotiate a loan agreement with the United States for construction of the U.N. headquarters.(16) The U.S. Congress authorized the President to enter into the loan agreement, which was brought into effect on August 11, 1948.(17) On the second occasion, in the 1960s, the General Assembly authorized the Secretary General to issue $200 million in bonds as part of a plan to alleviate a financial crisis.(18) The bonds were offered to members of the United Nations; specialized agencies; the International Atomic Energy Agency; and if the Secretary General determined, after consultation with the Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions, non-profit institutions or associations.(19) The U.S. Representative to the United Nations voted in favor of the bond issue and the Congress authorized appropriations in the amount of $100 million.(20) The Congress regarded the bond issue as an extraordinary remedy that was not intended to set a precedent for future financing.(21) The authorizing legislation specifically provided that it did not authorize the United States to participate in any future U.N. borrowings.(22)

OPTIONS FOR RAISING REVENUES
Various options to raise revenues have been discussed within the U.N. system, but none have been formally proposed by any U.N. official or member state. Options discussed included (1) the issuance of bonds and borrowing money, which the United Nations has used in the past; (2) an international lottery; (3) obtaining fees from a U.N.-issued credit card; (4) the imposition of levies on international transportation-related activities and financial transactions; (5) obtaining fees from a U.N.-established international currency exchange; or (6) the borrowing of funds from international financial institutions such as the World Bank. State Department officials note that the World Bank can lend only to sovereign governments, and since the United Nations is not a sovereign entity, this option is not viable.

According to State Department officials, the United Nations has not formally raised for discussion any of these options at economic summits. In May 1995, the U.N. Secretary General sent a letter to the Group of 7 (G-7) heads of state prior to the June 1995 meeting in Halifax, Nova Scotia.(23) The letter discussed the financial challenges facing the United Nations and the need to streamline operations and improve management. The Secretary General said in the letter that he would be relying on the General Assembly’s High-Level Open-Ended Working Group on the Financial Situation to identify options but without mentioning specific proposals. According to State Department officials, none of the proposals were on the agenda of the 1996 G-7 meeting held in Lyon, France. Many of the options lack broad international support. For example, in early 1996, the United States and 77 other countries said that they would consider only voluntary funding mechanisms for the United Nations.

U.S. POSITION ON INVOLUNTARY LEVIES
The official U.S. policy is that the United States opposes involuntary methods of raising additional revenue within the U.N. system. The U.S. Representative for U.N. Management and Reform stated at the High-Level Open-Ended Working Group on the Financial Situation of the United Nations in January 1996 that the United States does not support any involuntary funding approach to support the United Nations. Further, State Department officials said that the United Nations does not have the authority to impose or collect any form of tax, and the U. S. government would not consent to any proposal to grant such authority. In March 1996, the U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations stated that the United States supports addressing the U.N. financial situation with management reforms and encourages the United Nations to discuss alternative funding sources. She also stated that the United States would oppose any plan to finance U.N. activities by taxing member states. The U.S. veto power would prohibit implementation of any tax. According to State officials, no formal proposals to impose a tax on U.S. citizens have been made, and State has not assessed the impact of a tax on U.S. bilateral or multilateral agreements.

U.N. peacekeepers must be held accountable for their criminal acts if the U.N. is to be viewed as a force for peace and security around the world. In the past, peacekeepers who have been credibly accused of sexual misconduct or other crimes have, at worst, simply been repatriated to their home countries where they face no punishment. This is apparently all the U.N. is empowered to do.

The results are sadly predicable. An analysis done by the U.K. Independent newspaper in January found that while nearly 200 U.N. personnel have been repatriated for sex offenses over the past 3 years, none appear to have been prosecuted by their home countries.

That is simply unacceptable.

Text in it entirety Delivered June 13, 2007

Statement of Steven Groves
Bernard and Barbara Lomas Fellow
The Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom
The Heritage Foundation

Before the Subcommittee on International Organizations, Human Rights, and Oversight of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs of the United States House of Representatives

Delivered June 13, 2007

Introduction

Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for inviting me to testify this morning. With southern Lebanon in the near past and Darfur looming ahead, the issues relating to the utility and proper role of U.N. peacekeeping operations are certainly ripe for debate.

“Force Multipliers” and U.S. National Interests

At the outset, the term “force multiplier” should be dispensed with when assessing U.N. peacekeeping capabilities. “Force multiplier” is a military term defined as a capability that, when added to and employed by a combat force, significantly increases the combat potential of that force and thus enhances the probability of success. Force multipliers can be a technologically advanced weapons system, or simply holding the “high ground” during a military engagement.

The key term within the definition of force multiplier, however, is combat, which is why U.N. peacekeepers are not now and will not for the foreseeable future be a force multiplier for U.S. armed forces. U.N. peacekeepers have not shown the ability to reliably and adequately support U.S. operations in today’s combat environment.

Part of the reason why U.N. peacekeepers cannot qualify as force multipliers is that they usually operate under an unclear or insufficient use of force mandate. Inadequate use of force mandates have had disastrous consequences in the past, such as the decision by U.N. forces to stand down in the face of atrocities and massacres in Rwanda in 1994 and Srebrenica in 1995. U.N. peacekeepers that, for whatever reason, have failed to defend themselves have been taken as hostages by hostile forces, as occurred in Sarajevo in 1995 and Sierra Leone in 2000. When U.S. forces most needed the assistance of U.N. troops–in Somalia in 1993–their performance was less than stellar by most accounts. These incidents do not inspire much confidence in U.N. peacekeeping capabilities.

That being said, U.S. administrations have often relied upon U.N. peacekeepers to serve certain limited purposes around the world where the United States has interests, but has declined to intervene with its own armed forces. If the U.N. peacekeepers qualify as a force multiplier, it is under those circumstances. In sum, U.N. peacekeeping forces are not a “force multiplier” unless you define that phrase broadly enough to include any instance that U.N. peacekeeping forces would be utilized instead of U.S. forces, which could in turn be deployed elsewhere in the world.

In the final equation, the debate over the utility of U.N. peacekeepers does not turn on semantics. The real question to be answered is not whether U.N. peacekeepers could possibly be a “force multiplier” for U.S. armed forces, but rather whether and under what circumstances U.N. peacekeeping serves the vital, national interests of the United States.

What does or does not qualify as a vital, national interest of the United States is a subject of debate among experts in international relations and military affairs. What qualifies as a vital, national interest to the United States in the post-9/11 world may not have qualified in the pre-9/11 world, and vice versa. Suffice to say for purposes of the present hearing that the United States has benefited from the placement of U.N. forces in locations where the world may have otherwise called for U.S. military intervention, which has in turn allowed U.S. forces to deploy elsewhere in the world where our vital national interests are actually at stake.

The Status Quo is Unacceptable

But the analysis does not end there. Merely because in some limited circumstances U.N. peacekeeping serves U.S. interests, it does not necessarily follow that American taxpayers should be called upon to shoulder an increase in the level of U.S. contributions to U.N. peacekeeping operations, or that they should pay any peacekeeping “arrearages” allegedly owed. That conclusion assumes that the status quo of U.N. peacekeeping operations is acceptable.

There are many problems, however, with the current state of U.N. peacekeeping operations, all well-documented in reports such as those issued by the U.S. Government Accountability Office and the U.N. Office of Internal Oversight Services. The U.N. peacekeeping program has more than quadrupled in size since 1999 without a commensurate strengthening of its internal control mechanisms. An internal U.N. audit of one billion dollars worth of peacekeeping procurement contracts found that at least $265 million of those expenditures was subject to waste, fraud, or abuse.

Yet all other problems relating to peacekeeping operations pale in comparison to the main reason for not accepting the status quo–the persistence of sexual exploitation perpetrated by U.N. peacekeepers. The many instances of sexual exploitation are well known and need not be described in detail here, but suffice to say that the irony of those abuses should be lost on anybody. The fact that U.N. peacekeepers–who have been sent to protect the most destitute and desperate populations on Earth–should use their position of power to sexually exploit those who have already been victimized by their circumstances is beyond comprehension.

U.N. peacekeepers must be held accountable for their criminal acts if the U.N. is to be viewed as a force for peace and security around the world. In the past, peacekeepers who have been credibly accused of sexual misconduct or other crimes have, at worst, simply been repatriated to their home countries where they face no punishment. This is apparently all the U.N. is empowered to do. The results are sadly predicable. An analysis done by the U.K. Independent newspaper in January found that while nearly 200 U.N. personnel have been repatriated for sex offences over the past 3 years, none appear to have been prosecuted by their home countries.

That is simply unacceptable. At a minimum, any member state that contributes troops or personnel to a peacekeeping mission should be required to cooperate with investigations into abuse or misconduct leveled against those personnel. Such investigations may be carried out within the nation where the alleged crime occurred by local law enforcement, or if the capacity there is lacking, by U.N. authorities.

To combat sexual exploitation, the U.N. should implement mandatory, uniform standards of conduct for military as well as civilian peacekeeping personnel participating in U.N. missions. It is not enough (as is currently being proposed) to merely amend the existing “peacekeeper’s pocket guide,” which has clearly been ignored by offending peacekeepers for many years.

Rather than amend the pocket guide, the U.N. should amend the so-called “Status of Forces Agreements” that are entered into between the U.N. and each member state that contributes peacekeeping personnel to U.N. missions. Status of Forces Agreements memorialize the terms and conditions of the troop commitment. While these Agreements generally place the responsibility upon the troop-contributing countries to prosecute their own personnel for crimes committed during the peacekeeping mission, there are no enforcement mechanisms available to the U.N. to monitor that provision. Indeed, prosecutions for crimes committed by peacekeeping personnel when they return to their home countries are few and far between.

The U.N. must require that member states commit in their respective Status of Forces Agreements to investigate, try, and punish their personnel when credible evidence of wrongdoing exists. The Agreements should require member states to report on the status of prosecutions of personnel against whom credible allegations of misconduct were made. The member states must also commit to inform the U.N. of the outcome of such prosecutions. States that fail to fulfill those commitments should be barred from providing troops for peace operations. In addition, the U.N. must maintain a database of the names of all peacekeeping personnel who have been accused, charged, or convicted of crimes committed while employed in a peacekeeping mission so that the offender is not permitted to participate in future peacekeeping operations.

These new requirements will not guarantee that peacekeepers will not abuse local populations, but they should give strong incentives to contributing member states to take action against offenders, which is something they apparently have little interest in doing under the status quo.

Conclusion

In conclusion, it is premature to discuss whether and under what circumstances U.N. peacekeeping could serve as a “force multiplier” for U.S. armed forces or even whether peacekeepers could complement the vital national interests of the United States. It is certainly premature to discuss whether U.S. taxpayer dollars should be used to increase our contributions to peacekeeping activities or pay alleged “arrearages.” The United States cannot be seen as the underwriters of sexual abuse in the world’s most desperate, war-torn nations. Only after the U.N. Department of Peacekeeping Operations has been reformed in such a manner that it may perform its important duties at the highest level of professionalism should those matters be addressed.

Thank you.