Kuvend-eDSH
Aktiv pėr herė tė fundit: Aktiv pėr herė tė fundit : Kurrė
Nuk keni hyrė [Hyrje - Regjistrohu]


Version i printueshėm | Dėrgo pėr njė shok
Nėnshkruaj | Shtoni tek preferencat
Autori: Subjekti: Reformimi i OKB-se
burimuji

Postuar mė 19-4-2005 nė 21:34 Edit Post Reply With Quote
Reformimi i OKB-se

UNITED STATES INSTITUTE OF PEACE
April 18, 2005

UN Reform Achievable Say Task Force Co-Chairs

WASHINGTON – Acknowledging that the job will be difficult, the co-chairs of the Task Force on the United Nations expressed confidence on Friday that the United Nations can be reformed. Following a meeting with UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and former Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell, said that several factors, in addition to the commitment of the U.S. Congress, have combined to put the previously elusive task of reforming the United Nations within reach. “It’s the United Nations itself, it’s the Secretary General, it’s many other member states that are saying the time is now for reform,” said Mitchell. This could be “a remarkable moment to get some significant things done, and the Institution is too important not to get it right,” added Gingrich, while also emphasizing that "there was no argument today about the fact that there are systems that just don't work, there are patterns that just aren't acceptable."

The two co-chairs and other members of the Congressionally-mandated Task Force met with the Secretary General at UN headquarters on Friday afternoon to discuss with him the several critical issues that are the focus of their mandated report. These include UN efforts to: avert and end war; prevent genocide; thwart terrorism; foster economic development; and increase the transparency and accountability of UN management. In remarks made after the meeting, they stressed that, at the request of Congress, the Task Force is looking at the United Nations from an American perspective. Mitchell added, however, that the group hopes to “make constructive recommendations that will serve the interests of the United Nations and the United States and, in so doing, serve the interests of others.”

Gingrich and Mitchell commended UN officials for their candor and cooperation. “We could not have asked for more candid, more open private discussions or a more serious commitment to getting the UN to work better…” said Gingrich.

The Task Force on the United Nations was directed by Congress in December 2004 to assess UN efforts to meet the goals of its charter and offer an actionable agenda for the United States to strengthen the world body. The bipartisan task force, which includes ten other prominent Americans from business, academia and the military, will issue its findings and recommendations in a report to Congress in June 2005.

At the request of Congress, the U.S. Institute of Peace is coordinating the Task Force with the support and participation of leading public policy organizations, including the American Enterprise Institute, the Brookings Institution, the Center for Strategic and International Studies, the Council on Foreign Relations, the Heritage Foundation, and the Hoover Institution.

For additional information, please contact Kay King, the Institute’s Director of Congressional and Public Affairs, at (202) 429-3832 or publicaffairs@usip.org or visit the Institute’s website at www.usip.org.

View User's Profile E-Mail User View All Posts By User U2U Member
burimuji

Postuar mė 8-7-2005 nė 01:16 Edit Post Reply With Quote
"http://www.usip.org/un/report/index.html"

1. American Interests and the United Nations Reform

A fundamental interest of the United States government is to ensure the safety of
the American people and of our democratic allies, and to preserve, protect, and
extend the nation’s commitment to liberty and prosperity. The United States took
the lead after World War II in establishing a network of global institutions aimed
at making America more secure by preventing another conflict and serving, in
President Roosevelt’s words, as a “Good Neighbor” by helping other people achieve
safety, health, prosperity, and freedom.

It was that generation’s belief that a better, more prosperous and freer world was a
better world for America. The United States and its fellow democracies established
the Bretton Woods institutions, the International Monetary Fund and the World
Bank, to reduce poverty and human suffering, stimulate economic growth and
opportunity, and prevent the sort of economic instability that had fueled conflict in
the past. The UN’s founders were “determined to save succeeding generations from
the scourge of war,” and to “reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights.”

Since then, three generations of Americans have demonstrated not only a strong
preference for sharing the costs, risks, and burdens of global leadership, but also
an acute recognition that action in coordination and cooperation with others is
often the only way to get the job done. Americans have a history of joining individual
interests into cooperative actions. In addition to leading the effort to found
the United Nations and sustaining and supporting the organization as its largest
contributor, Americans have worked to bring together nations and institutions to
improve security and the quality of life for Americans and for others. The terrorist
attacks of 9/11 have served to reinforce the interrelated nature of the world’s
problems. Today we are acutely aware that millions dying from hunger, disease, and
violence, and facing a future without hope, are not simply humanitarian concerns
but national security challenges as well.

Americans have always hoped that the United Nations would play a major role in
the pursuit of a better world. This bipartisan Task Force, established by the United
States Congress, has joined together to do what we can to help the United Nations
realize more fully the aims of its Charter, in the firm belief that an effective United
Nations is in America’s interests. We were asked to address this subject solely from
an American perspective. We have done so. We do not presume to speak to or for
others. The people of every other country will make their own decisions. However,
we believe that the hopes and aspirations that the American people have for the
United Nations are widely shared. In this regard, the Task Force notes that it undertakes
this effort at a time of growing consensus on the imperative for reform at the
United Nations, and in light of important reports on reform by the High-Level
Panel on Threats, Challenges, and Change, and the secretary-general’s own report,
In Larger Freedom.

As important stakeholders in the institution, Americans are vested in a United
Nations that embodies values of honesty, decency, and fair play. An honest, decent,
and just headquarters for effective multilateralism will serve the American people
well, not because they expect the United Nations to turn into a world government,

3. A m e r i c a n I n t e r e s t s a n d t h e U n i t e d N a t i o n s

but because it can serve as a valuable instrument for promoting democratic political
development, human rights, economic self-sufficiency, and the peaceful settlement
of differences.

From the perspective of the U.S. government, the United Nations has the potential
to carry out a number of critical roles that support our foreign policy interests,
goals, and values.

Legitimacy. For many of the world’s people, the United Nations has carried the
stamp of legitimacy and consensus. Americans have differing views about the
importance of a United Nations’ seal of approval. This partly reflects the reality that
the United Nations is one of many international options for a powerful nation such
as the United States. For many other nations, however, the United Nations is the
one place where they can debate with other countries, including the United States,
as equals.

Thus, in certain instances a decision by the United Nations, including the legally
binding decisions of the Security Council under Chapter VII, may be more acceptable
to other governments than pressure from any single nation or group of nations.
In this respect, the United Nations as a universal organization can help to bring about
changes in the actions or positions of a government that would otherwise be difficult
for that government to accept. Of course, the reverse can also be true, as was the case
in March 2003, when the Security Council failed to reach consensus over Iraq.

Diplomatic Offices. There are instances where the United Nations is able to step in
to mediate conflicts or broker disputes where a national government or governments
may not be able to do so as effectively. Similarly, where an outcome is perceived to
have received the endorsement of the United Nations, governments and international
organizations may be more willing to lend support to that outcome, whether
in the form of money, troops, or humanitarian support.

Special Expertise. The United Nations and related agencies and bodies possess a
range of expertise and capacity. This includes expertise in preparing transitional
states for elections and election monitoring, assisting the displaced and the world’s
refugees, providing and coordinating emergency humanitarian relief, preventing the
spread of disease, and improving the health and extending and improving the quality
of life of the world’s poor.

Leverage. When the United Nations and its institutions work effectively, with a
focus on the practical, the organization can be an effective “cost multiplier.” At its
best, the United Nations can obviate national rivalries to help achieve humanitarian
aims. Ideally, the United Nations can also facilitate burden sharing in instances
where the United States might otherwise have to bear the bulk of the burden.
The Challenge

The American public’s support for the ideals of the UN Charter is traditionally
strong, but their view of the institution has been shaken in recent years following
the Security Council’s failure to reach agreement on Iraq and revelations of UN

4 A m e r i c a n I n t e r e s t s a n d U N R e f o r m

mismanagement and scandal. The institution’s credibility has also suffered over time
by the overall performance of certain UN bodies, including, at times, the General
Assembly and the Human Rights Commission, and of such highly publicized meetings
as the 2001 UN World Conference against Racism in Durban, where illiberal
and antidemocratic interests prevailed.

Events of the past fifteen years have challenged the United Nations and its memberstates
to adapt to dramatically different dangers and demands: the problem of
failed states, the emergence of catastrophic terrorism, the need for effective action
to prevent genocide, and the promotion of democracy and the rule of law. In some
cases, UN bodies and institutions lack authority or effective machinery to deal with
these new dangers and challenges. Against this backdrop is the demand for greater
accountability, transparency and efficiency, and a corresponding shift in the UN’s
mission from convener of meetings to coordinator of action—from talk shop to
actor.

In proposing sweeping reform of the United Nations, the Task Force notes that the
United Nations is a body composed of individual nation-states. Regretfully, too
often member-states have found it convenient to lay the blame for failures solely
on the United Nations in cases where they themselves have blocked intervention
or opposed action by the United Nations. On stopping genocide, all too often
“the United Nations failed” should actually read “members of the United Nations
blocked or undermined action by the United Nations.”

That said, the United Nations shares the blame for inaction. Until and unless it
changes dramatically, the United Nations will remain an uncertain instrument for
action, both for the governments that comprise it and for those who look to it for
salvation.

• Genocide and war crimes are occurring in the Darfur region of Sudan. The
Security Council has passed several mild resolutions, however, neither the United
Nations as an institution nor its member-states individually have been successful
in stopping the killing. To the contrary, there has been a consistent effort to
avoid describing the mass murders honestly because that description would impel
actions many members want to avoid.

• Many UN peace operations, or UN civilian missions supported by “coalitions
of the willing” under national or regional command—from Namibia to Sierra
Leone, Cambodia to Macedonia to Kosovo—have helped to provide stability
and promote political and economic development. Nonetheless, there have also
been tragic failures. In some cases, such as Sierra Leone and East Timor, progress
in strengthening missions came only after rebels effectively challenged peace
agreements and peacekeepers, and local inhabitants were subjected to vicious
attacks resulting in large-scale loss of life. Moreover, mass killings in Rwanda and
Srebrenica, Bosnia took place while UN peacekeepers stood by. In both cases,
local populations had legitimate expectations of protection by the international
community.

5. A m e r i c a n I n t e r e s t s a n d t h e U n i t e d N at i o n s

• The relatively recent establishment of the Office of the High Commissioner for
Human Rights has elevated the importance of human rights. But the credibility
of the Human Rights Commission has eroded to the point that it has become
a blot on the reputation of the larger institution. In 2005, six of the fifty-three
countries sitting on the Human Rights Commission were listed by Freedom
House as the world’s “worst of the worst” abusers of human rights.

• Democracies and nations moving toward democracy represent a growing proportion
of the UN’s member-states, but they have yet to organize themselves effectively
within the United Nations system to promote common interests and
values. Democratic states sacrifice fundamental interests, such as human rights, in
favor of regional solidarity. The so-called Non-Aligned Movement, a product of
Cold War divisions, remains as a major impediment to economic development,
protection of human rights, and the promotion of democracy.

• Contrary to the equality of rights for all nations enshrined in the UN Charter,
Israel continues to be denied rights enjoyed by all other member-states, and
a level of systematic hostility against it is routinely expressed, organized, and
funded within the United Nations system.

• The United Nations has failed to undertake anything approaching the sweeping
reforms needed for effective operation of the institution.

Without fundamental reform, the United Nations’ reputation will suffer, reinforcing
incentives to bypass the UN in favor of other institutions, coalitions, or self-help.

The Remedies

The engine of UN reform is easily identified, but the mechanisms of making that
engine work are difficult, in large part because of the way member nations of the
organization have come to do business at the United Nations. This Task Force has
concluded that concerted leadership by the United States in helping unify action
by the world’s democracies is the essential mechanism needed to make the United
Nations more effective in meeting the challenges of today’s world. Implementing
true reform will require a 365-day-a-year effort to win key arguments and to organize
a broad coalition of democracies that conclude that the future of international
institutions depends on adopting reforms that implement the highest standards of
honesty, accountability, and transparency. This is a complex process because each
democracy has its own interests and its own traditions. Developing a habit of working
together on key issues will take substantial effort on the part of the United
States. However, the centrality of the rule of law, human rights, and economic
development can unite differing democracies.

Today, democracies and countries moving toward democracy make up an increasing
share of the 191 UN member-states. However, democracies are not organized to
cooperate effectively at the United Nations. The failure of Europe and the United
States to work closely together is a particular problem.

6. A m e r i c a n I n t e r e s t s a n d U N R e f o r m

Transatlantic friction anddivision create opportunities for those countries opposed
to change to thwart progress at the United Nations.

It is a primary conclusion of this Task Force that the challenges and problems faced
by the United Nations can be addressed, but only through consistent and concerted
action by the world’s genuine democracies. Effective and deep reform will result if
there is a coalition of democracies, the United States centrally among them, that
want to create a new accountable, transparent, honest, and effective United Nations.
A successful U.S. effort will also require bipartisanship in Washington’s approach to
the organization. Continued divisions between and within the parties will cripple
any serious U.S. government effort to bring about reform at the United Nations.
Moreover, the executive and legislative branches must be jointly involved in reform
efforts so that there is a unified American position toward the United Nations.
UN reform is necessary on a number of levels. First and foremost, it is only right
that American taxpayers—who foot 22 percent of the United Nations’ “regular”
budget and billions more in additional UN costs—demand a fully transparent,
accountable, and effective institution. Reform is also vital to the continued integrity
of the institution itself. While some institutions within the UN system are effective
and cost-efficient, many others are bureaucratic and lack effectiveness, accountability,
and transparency. On an operational level, the United Nations must change in
order to meet today’s challenges and the goals articulated in its Charter. Nowhere
is this more necessary than in crafting effective strategies for preventing and halting
genocide, mass killing, and major human rights abuses. The American people will
strongly support a United Nations that is effective in these areas—and will be unfavorably
disposed to a United Nations that again fails to deliver.

To make reform of the United Nations a reality, the Task Force calls on the president
of the United States, acting through the secretary of state and the national
security adviser, and working with the Congress, to propose a comprehensive reform
agenda for the United Nations.

This agenda should include five elements:

• Wide-ranging institutional reforms, without which other reforms will be more
difficult to implement.
• Concrete steps to make the United Nations a more effective instrument for fighting
terror and preventing weapons of mass destruction from falling into the wrong
hands.
• A strategy and specific measures for improving the capacity to stop genocide,
mass killings, and human rights violations, including immediate action on
Darfur.
• Greatly increased support as a global priority for the effort to bring developing
nations out of poverty, including government-to-government assistance and
private investment, with emphasis on the legal, political, and economic infrastructure
that will allow such aid investment to flourish.
• Building capacity to conduct peacekeeping operations.
The Task Force did not recommend reforms requiring revisions to the Charter.

Preventing Genocide and Human Rights Abuses

The United States has been an effective voice for the protection and promotion of
freedom and democracy throughout the world. Americans have paid for their freedom
and the freedom of others in blood and treasure through a long series of wars.
The United States government should affirm that every government has a responsibility
to protect its own citizens in accordance with the following principles:

• Sovereignty belongs to the people of a country, and governments have a responsibility
to protect their people. If a government fails in its primary responsibility
to protect the lives of those living within its jurisdiction from genocide, mass
killings, and massive and sustained human rights violations, it forfeits claims
to immunity from intervention (based on the principle of nonintervention in a
state’s internal affairs) if such intervention is designed to protect the at-risk population.
• In certain instances, a government’s abnegation of its responsibilities to its own
people is so severe that the collective responsibility of nations to take action
cannot be denied. The United Nations Security Council can and should act in
such cases. In the event the Security Council fails to act, its failure must not be
used as an excuse by concerned members to avoid protective measures.
The United States government should call on the United Nations Security Council
and General Assembly to affirm a responsibility of governments to protect their own
citizens. President Bush articulated such a pledge in a written notation on a document
describing the horror of the Rwandan genocide: “Not on my watch.” Future
presidents should affirm the “Not on my watch” pledge. The United States should
insist that states asserting an absolutist doctrine of nonintervention explain why
they are preventing action against the world’s genocidaires. Those engaged in mass
murder must understand that they will be identified and held accountable.
The Security Council. The Task Force did not reach agreement on the details of
any Security Council expansion but does consider it very important that any such
expansion enhance the effectiveness of the Security Council and not in any way
detract from the Council’s efficiency and ability to act in accordance with the UN
Charter. In addition, any reforms should extend to Israel, which is treated as a
second-class citizen at UN headquarters in New York, and excluded from a regional
grouping in Geneva.
Darfur. Since the Rwandan genocide of 1994 there has been no clearer case of a
calculated, government-sanctioned campaign of extermination than the one taking
place today in the Darfur region of Sudan. The Task Force concurs with President
Bush and former secretary of state Colin Powell, who have described what is taking
place in Darfur as “genocide.” A UN-sponsored International Commission of
Inquiry on Darfur concluded in January 2005 that the government of Sudan and
the janjaweed rebels had committed crimes against humanity and war crimes, the
gravity of which “may be no less serious and heinous than genocide.” Calls for UN
reform ring hollow while killings and war crimes continue with impunity in Darfur.
The United States government should make clear that responsibility for the genocide
in Darfur rests with the government in Khartoum. Palliative measures to halt
the immediate loss of life will not constitute a solution. In the long run, the only
secure protection for the Sudanese people is a democratic Sudan whose government
respects the rights of all its people.

The United States should assemble a package of assistance for the African Union
deployment in Darfur that will serve as a “force multiplier.” A logical place to plan
an assistance package would be North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). The
United States should assist in the establishment of a “no-fly” zone over Darfur.
We note that this assistance does not contemplate deploying American troops in a
combat role in Sudan. The United States government should insist that perpetrators
be held accountable for war crimes and crimes against humanity.

Human Rights. When world leaders met in 1944 at Dumbarton Oaks to hammer
out a charter for the United Nations, Franklin Roosevelt argued for including in it
a reference to individual human rights. Despite progress in the advance of human
rights around the world, the United Nations has not proven to be the effective
human rights champion that President Roosevelt had hoped it would be.

Indeed, so distorted has the 53-member Human Rights Commission become that
countries with appalling, even monstrous, human rights records—Sudan, Syria,
Zimbabwe, Libya, and Cuba, to name a few—could all be seated there. Today the
government of Sudan—even as it oversees the perpetration of genocide on its own
soil—is serving its second consecutive term on the commission!

The Task Force thus recommends that the Human Rights Commission be abolished.
All activities currently under way under mandate of the commission should
be terminated. This recommendation is in agreement with the secretary-general’s
own assessment. In its place, the United States government should support the
establishment of a Human Rights Council, a body ideally consisting of democracies
committed to upholding and promoting the highest standards in human rights
and coordinating its efforts with the Democracy Caucus and the UN Democracy
Fund. The United States should support strengthening the Office of the High
Commissioner of Human Rights.

In addition, the United Nations cannot pretend to be an arbiter of human rights
as long as Israel is discriminated against—excluded from a regional grouping at the
UN Office in Geneva and treated as a second-class citizen at UN Headquarters in
New York.

Development and Humanitarian Assistance

Addressing the needs of the developing world is not icing on the cake. It is a key
challenge for the one billion people in rich nations in their dealings with the more
than five billion in poor countries. Nearly fifteen million people die each year of
infectious and parasitic diseases. It behooves us to raise the priority given to
development, health, and education worldwide.

Over the past four years, the United States has greatly increased its commitment
to alleviating suffering and enhancing economic growth and development for the
40 percent of the world’s population who live in poverty. The United Nations has
played an important role in such efforts. Its development programs, however, must
refocus and acknowledge the preponderance of economic evidence demonstrating
that private investment, and the legal, economic, and political reforms necessary
for it to flourish, are far more important to advancing and accelerating sustained
economic growth and development than rendering development assistance through
government aid transfers. Provision of development aid is not a goal unto itself, but
a tool to help nations establish the conditions that can attract and make the best
use of investment and assistance. These conditions include a commitment to open
markets, good public administration, sound rule of law, and, more fundamentally,
the development of democratic institutions. In addition to governmental aid, the
United Nations and its specialized agencies must accept the principle that investment
flows coming from the private sector will be the key to sustaining economic
growth and lifting populations out of poverty.

The United States is the largest contributor to the United Nations and in absolute
terms the world’s largest donor of development assistance. U.S. development assistance
has nearly doubled over the past four years. Measured on a per capita basis,
the United States is either the largest or second largest donor behind Japan, depending
on how one does the bookkeeping. The United Nations has correctly perceived
that over the years, development assistance has often failed to achieve its primary
objective of reducing poverty and spurring economic growth and development.
In that spirit, the UN secretary-general has suggested that donor nations meet a
benchmark of 0.7 percent of GDP for development assistance. The Task Force did
not reach agreement on whether and under what conditions to endorse the 0.7
percent GDP goal. All agreed, however, that all developed nations must raise the
priority given to education, health, and economic opportunity in global affairs. In
this regard, the Task Force calls on the United Nations to develop better measures for
evaluating the effectiveness of assistance in recipient nations, and encourages countries
to adopt the policies necessary to achieve genuine economic growth and development.
The Task Force looks forward to the day when all developed nations in addition
to vital institutional reform, raise the priority given to education, health, and
economic opportunity.

Integrity, Transparency, Accountability, Effectiveness

The need for internal reform at the United Nations has never been more evident or
urgent. Management systems that are common throughout the world in both public
and private institutions are practically nonexistent at the United Nations. The
Oil-for-Food Program has been flawed by a combination of incompetence, gross
mismanagement, and alleged corruption and criminality. Lack of effective oversight
has besmirched the UN Secretariat, the UN secretary-general, and members of the
Security Council. The scope and magnitude of the program overtaxed the United
Nations’ flawed and fragile accountability mechanisms. Clearly, the United Nations
is at present ill-equipped to manage such a program, and before any such project is
again undertaken, significant reforms must be in place.

The Task Force concludes that substantial reforms of the UN’s oversight, management,
budget, and personnel systems are feasible. This report addresses those
reforms that are within the authority of the secretary-general to undertake and those
requiring action by member-states. In both cases, a successful reform program will
require serious and sustained diplomatic efforts in light of a long history of unimplemented
and inadequate changes.

The Task Force recommends a reform program that includes the following five
elements:

• Establishment of an authoritative Independent Oversight Board that will have
all the authority no less than that of an independent audit committee operating
under U.S. standards.
• Empowerment of the secretary-general to replace his or her top officials and the
creation of an effective Chief Operating Officer, and the creation of a modern
personnel system managed by a reformed human resources department that can
evaluate performance, provide promotional opportunities for deserving employees,
retire unneeded and underperforming employees, and recruit only highly
qualified employees.
• Establishment of effective policies on whistle-blower protection, ethical and
disclosure standards for top officials, and transparency.
• Effective sunset provisions for all programs and activities mandated by the
General Assembly.
• Identification of operational programs that can be made more effective through
providing their funding entirely by voluntary contributions.

Preventing and Ending Conflicts

United Nations peacekeeping is the most resource-intensive and, arguably, most
important UN activity. Over the course of the past two decades, the United Nations
has experienced major growth and transformation in peacekeeping activities.
Between 1948 and 1990, the United Nations initiated some eighteen peacekeeping
operations. Between 1990 and today, the Security Council, with the support
of the United States, has initiated more than forty peacekeeping operations. As of
late March 2005, there were nearly 70,000 international military and police forces
serving in seventeen UN peacekeeping missions, and the approved budget for the
period ending June 30, 2005, stood at nearly $4 billion (and was likely to rise
significantly for 2005–2006).

Although there have been many successful peacekeeping missions over the years,
current efforts are bedeviled by limited capacity, operational challenges, and inadequate
mandates. In recent years, UN peacekeepers have been asked to assume broad
responsibilities relating to peace stabilization and reconstruction in societies emerging
from conflict. UN peacekeepers and their civilian counterparts have been asked,
in essence, to help remake societies coming out of internal conflict—to help negotiate
peace agreements, reform security sectors, promote political reconciliation and
effective and democratic governance, and rebuild systems of justice. These missions
differ substantially from “traditional” UN peacekeeping missions and have created
new problems and challenges.

In addition, the credibility of UN peacekeeping has been badly damaged by revelations
of sexual exploitation and abuse in UN operations in the Congo and elsewhere.
Task Force members are deeply concerned about these revelations and believe
that reform effort must include an effective plan and system-wide commitment to
end abuses and ensure accountability.

The Task Force finds that the United Nations cannot hope to plan for or carry out
successful long-term peacekeeping operations while hobbled by the member state
micromanagement endemic to the larger institution. To address these concerns, the
Task Force recommends that the Department of Peacekeeping Operations (DPKO)
become a more independent program with distinct rules and regulations appropriate
for its operational responsibility for comprehensive peacekeeping missions.
The United Nations must also credibly demonstrate its commitment to ending
sexual exploitation and abuse by peacekeepers, including implementation of reform
measures designed to ensure uniform standards of conduct for all civilian and military
participants in peace operations. States that prove unwilling or unable to ensure
discipline among their troops should be barred from providing troops to peacekeeping
missions.

In addition to promoting the professionalization of peacekeeping, the United
Nations must develop doctrine and strategy for multidimensional peace operations
that thoroughly integrate the security dimension with associated economic and
political development requirements.

The Task Force opposes establishment of a standing UN military force, but
member-states must increase substantially the availability of capable, designated
forces, properly trained and equipped, for rapid deployment to peace operations
on a voluntary basis. In addition, the U.S. Department of Defense should prepare
options for additional means to support UN peace operations with logistics, capacity-
building assistance, and other means. Finally, the Bush administration should
continue and step up training efforts for African troops through the Global Peace
Operations Initiative announced at last year’s Group of Eight (G-8) Summit.

Preventing Catastrophic Terrorism

Terrorism and the proliferation of nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons are
deadly threats that have come together in the twenty-first century to create the
world’s worst nightmare. They have become the most acute security challenge
facing the United States and the international community. A fundamental judgment
of the Task Force is that countering proliferation and terrorism effectively is
significantly enhanced by broad international cooperation. Although such cooperation
will at times be pursued most efficiently and appropriately outside the UN
system—through unilateral actions or ad hoc, or more formal, interstate coalitions—
the United Nations and related organizations will often be very useful, given
the wide scope of their membership and the special authorities and capabilities at
their disposal.

To that end, the Task Force recommends that the Security Council play a more
assertive role in ensuring effective verification and enforcement of nonproliferation
obligations. The United States should press within the Council for improving
the effectiveness of the Security Council’s Counterterrorism Committee under UN
Security Council Resolution 1373. Of greatest political consequence, it should
publicly list state sponsors of terror and list those countries failing to make adequate
efforts to stanch terrorism emanating from their soil or to share information they
may possess about terrorist organizations and individuals.

The Task Force has concluded that the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)
must take a more dogged, probing approach to safeguards and increase its focus on
threats from nonstate actors. IAEA board members should urge that the agency’s
relatively new function of investigating nuclear trafficking networks be expanded,
both as a means of monitoring members’ compliance with their safeguards agreements
and as a contribution to stopping such networks from providing sensitive
equipment or technology to terrorist groups. The United States and other board
members must strongly encourage the agency to assign higher priority to nuclear
security. Finally, the agency and its board should help develop a plan designed
to discourage the spread of enrichment and reprocessing facilities under national
control.

On the critical subject of the nuclear fuel cycle and the Nuclear Nonproliferation
Treaty (NPT), the United States should continue to promote President Bush’s
proposal that nuclear suppliers not assist in the development of new uranium
enrichment or plutonium reprocessing facilities in any country that does not already
have them. The United States should also consider what, if any, additional steps
might enhance the prospects of this U.S. plan, including a multiple-year global
moratorium on the construction of new facilities in all countries, in order to create
greater short-term leverage against potential proliferators.

Definition of Terrorism. The UN General Assembly should move expeditiously
to adopt a definition of terrorism along the lines recommended by the High-
Level Panel and endorsed by the secretary-general. On the basis of that definition,
the General Assembly should proceed immediately to conclude a comprehensive
convention on terrorism. The definition of terrorism should cover the actions of
individuals or irregular organizations, rather than armies, because the latter are
bound by the rules of war and need not be covered by additional language prohibiting
terrorism.

Maximizing the Chances of Success. To advance a comprehensive reform strategy,
the Task Force recommends working within the United Nations to strengthen the
Democracy Caucus as an operational entity capable of organizing concerted political
action to counter gross violations of human rights and to save lives. In addition, the
Task Force recommends creating or strengthening alternative channels of influence
outside the institution, such as the Community of Democracies.

Conclusion

During the Cold War, faced with the very real threat of nuclear war and an aggressive
Soviet Union, Congress and the Executive Branch sustained collective security
measures for forty-four years with remarkable stability despite many domestic and
international challenges.

Now, faced with a very complex world in which people are starving to death,
murdered, tortured, and brutalized, in which weapons of mass destruction are
proliferating dangerously and possibly to terrorists, there is an urgent need for
sustained, consistent American leadership. Confronting these threats is a matter of
national security.

Without a renewed and effective United Nations, the challenges will be greater. The
United Nations was established to meet the challenges of a very different world.
New, adapted, and reformed institutions, authorities, and mechanisms are needed if
the United Nations is to meet today’s challenges. Such reform is necessary and desirable.
With a President and a Congress united in their desire to advance our national
interests, the United Nations can rise to meet these new challenges and the lofty
goals of its Charter.

Task Force Recommendations

The subsequent chapters of the Task Force report contain specific recommendations
for reform regarding the substantive and organizational issues they address.
Following is a summary listing of those recommendations, keyed to the areas and
issues addressed in the subsequent sections of the report.
Saving Lives, Safeguarding Human Rights, and Ending Genocide
Darfur, Sudan
❚ The United States should take and/or support immediate initiatives as outlined
in this report to halt the genocide in Darfur, Sudan, including the assembly of
a U.S. coordinated package of assistance for the African Union (AU) deployment
in Darfur that will serve as a force multiplier.
❚ The U.S. government should make clear that responsibility for the genocide in
Darfur rests with the government in Khartoum.
❚ The United States should welcome the role of the African Union in Darfur and
assist in its development as an effective regional organization that can play a
growing role in dealing with crises on the African continent.
❚ The United States should make every effort to enhance AU capabilities in two
main areas: (a) ensuring that it is adequate to the task of providing security in
Darfur and protecting civilians, and (b) building on AU capabilities going forward.
❚ At the UN Security Council, the United States should pursue a mandate for
the AU-led force that provides for the protection of civilians and authorizes the
deployment of a sufficiently large military force to achieve that end.
❚ The United States should assist in establishment of a “no-fly” zone over Darfur.
❚ The United States should assist in increasing the number of troops in the AU
mission.
❚ The U.S. government should embrace the short-term strategic goal in Darfur
of ending the ability of the militias to control the countryside so that security
is adequate for civilians to return from refugee and IDP (internally displaced
persons) camps to their villages and resume everyday life.
❚ Perpetrators must be held accountable for war crimes and crimes against
humanity.
❚ Press neighboring governments to cooperate with efforts to stop the killing in
Darfur and not to interfere with international efforts under threat of sanction.
❚ Encourage the pursuit of a general peace agreement in Western Sudan/Darfur.
❚ Support and encourage democratic reform in Sudan.
Human Rights
❚ The United Nations and member-states should agree that the most pressing
human rights task today is the monitoring, promotion and enforcement of
human rights and, in particular, the stopping of genocide and mass killing.
❚ The UN Human Rights Commission should be abolished.
❚ A Human Rights Council ideally composed of democracies and dedicated to
monitoring, promoting, and enforcing human rights should be created. The
council should coordinate its work with the Democracy Caucus and the UN
UN Democracy Fund.
❚ The U.S. Permanent Mission to the United Nations should include an official
of ambassador rank whose responsibility will be to promote the efficacy of the
Democracy Caucus within the United Nations and to promote the extension of
democratic rights more broadly among member-states.
❚ The U.S. Government should support authority for the High Commissioner for
Human Rights to appoint an advisory council to exchange information, develop
best practices, promote human rights, and publicize offenses.
❚ The U.S. Government should support the work of national and regional courts,
as well as tribunals authorized by the Security Council, as well as truth and
reconciliation commissions, in identifying those responsible for mass atrocities
and prosecuting, and punishing them as appropriate.

Responsibility to Protect Your Own Citizens

❚ The U.S. government should affirm that every sovereign government has a
“responsibility to protect” its citizens and those within its jurisdiction from
genocide, mass killing, and massive and sustained human rights violations.
❚ The United States should endorse and call on the UN Security Council and
General Assembly to affirm a responsibility of every sovereign government to
protect its own citizens and those within its borders from genocide, mass killing,
and massive and sustained human rights violations.
❚ Future presidents should affirm the “Not on my watch” pledge, articulated
by President Bush in a notation on a document describing the horror of the
Rwanda genocide.
❚ The urgent task required of all United Nation member-states, which the United
States should lead, is to determine available capabilities and coordinate them so
they can be brought rapidly to the fore in a crisis.
❚ The United States should be prepared to lead the Security Council in finding
the most effective action across the full range of legal, economic, political, and
military tools.
❚ The United States should take the lead in assisting the United Nations and
other institutions in identifying potential assets and creating or improving
mechanisms for coordination.
❚ The United States must insist that in cases in which the Security Council is
unable to take effective action in response to massive human rights abuses
and/or genocide, regional organizations and member-states may act where their
action is demonstrably for humanitarian purposes.
❚ Support inclusion of language in all Chapter VII Security Council resolutions
calling on member-states, regional organizations, and any other parties to
voluntarily assess the relevant capabilities they can contribute to enforcement
of the resolutions.
❚ Undertake a review of assistance programs to assess what bilateral action the
United States can take that will enhance the capabilities of regional and other
international organizations to prevent or halt genocide, mass killings, and
massive and sustained human rights violations.
❚ The U.S. government should reiterate that punishing offenders is no substitute
for timely intervention to prevent their crimes and protect their potential
victims.

Rapid Reaction Capability

❚ The United Nations must create a rapid reaction capability among UN memberstates
that can identify and act on threats before they fully develop. The Task
Force, however, opposes the establishment of a standing UN military force.
❚ The United States should support the principle that those nations closest to a
crisis have a special regional responsibility to do what they can to ameliorate the
crisis.
❚ The United States should also provide assistance aimed at the development of
regional capacity in advance of a crisis.
❚ Support discretionary authority of the High Commissioner for Human Rights
(HCHR) and the Special Advisor for the Prevention of Genocide (SAPG) to
report directly to the Security Council.
❚ Ensure that the office of the HCHR and SAPG have adequate resources to
rapidly investigate at the first indication of trouble.
❚ Support linkage of early information on potential genocide, mass killing, and
massive and sustained human rights violations situations to early preventiveaction.
In Need of Repair: Reforming the United Nations
General Recommendations
❚ The United Nations, most importantly, needs to create an Independent
Oversight Board (IOB) that would function in a manner similar to a corporate
independent audit committee. The IOB would receive Office of Internal
Oversight (OIOS) reports and, in consultation with the Board of Auditors and
Secretariat management, would have the authority to fix the budget and approve
and direct the assignments of the OIOS and of the Board of External Auditors
just as an independent audit committee in the United States has such authority
with respect to both the internal and external auditor. The OIOS budget must be
set by an Independent Oversight Board and submitted to the General Assembly
budget committee in a separate track outside the regular budget.
❚ The United Nations must provide both the resources and the authority to
OIOS to provide appropriate oversight to every activity that is managed by
UN personnel whether or not that activity is funded by the assessments of the
General Assembly or by voluntary contributions.
❚ Oversight reports must be accessible to member-states under guidelines that
facilitate transparency and meet, at a minimum, the freedom of information
flow between U.S. investigative agencies and the Congress.
❚ The UN Secretariat needs to have a single, very senior official in charge of daily
operations and filling the role of chief operating officer (COO).
❚ The United States should insist on management capability as a fundamental
criterion for the selection of the next UN secretary-general.
❚ The United Nations needs to develop a far more robust policy for whistleblower
protection and information disclosure.

Budget and Programming

❚ The “5.6 Rule,” which requires the Secretariat to identify low-priority activities
in the budget proposal, should be enforced and bolstered by an additional
requirement that managers identify the lowest priority activities equivalent to
15 percent of their budget request or face an across-the-board reduction of that
amount. The identification of 15 percent of the budget as low priority should
not necessarily be interpreted as a list for elimination, but as information on what
programs could be reduced in favor of higher priority mandates.
❚ The Secretariat’s leadership must demand that managers define and attempt to
achieve specific outcomes. Future budgets should be tied to whether those results
are achieved. The OIOS should be tasked with a larger monitoring/evaluation
role to evaluate the degree to which programs are achieving their targeted results.
❚ The United States should support the secretary-general’s plan, described in his
March 21 report, to establish a Management Performance Board “to ensure that
senior officials are held accountable for their actions and the results their units
achieve.”
❚ The United States should insist upon both of the secretary-general’s sunsetting
proposals: the 1997 proposal to include sunset clauses for all major new
mandates, and the proposal in the March 21 report this year to review all
mandates dating back five years or more. Every mandate and program should
have a sunset clause to ensure that it is regularly evaluated and continues to
perform a necessary function. The sunset clauses should assume that programs
will be shut down unless the General Assembly’s budget committee confirms by
consensus that they should continue based on a publicly available analysis identifying
the program’s purpose, budget, and ongoing relevance.
❚ The United States should insist that the United Nations publish annually a list
of all subsidiary bodies and their functions, budgets, and staff. Their budgets
should be subject to the same sunset provisions that apply to other UN programs
and activities. The United Nations should also publish budget information in
a manner that lays out multi-year expenditures by program and identifies the
source of funds as assessed or voluntary (including the source country) and
includes in-kind contributions.
❚ The U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) should annually report to
Congress on all U.S. contributions, both assessed and voluntary, to the United
Nations.
❚ The United States should work with a representative group of member-states
to explore ways of giving larger contributors a greater say in votes on budgetary
matters without disenfranchising smaller contributors. The consensus-based
budget process has proved effective at reining in increases in the UN budget but
not at setting priorities or cutting many obsolete items.
❚ The Department of Peacekeeping Operations should become a more independent
program with distinct rules and regulations appropriate for its operational
responsibility for comprehensive peacekeeping missions. Its responsibilities must
include coordination with broader reconstruction and development activities of
the United Nations.

Personnel

❚ The United States should insist on the secretary-general’s call in his March 21
report for a one-time severance program to remove unwanted, or unneeded,
staff, and should monitor that program closely to ensure it is designed to
remove the staff who ought to be removed.
❚ The United Nations should not offer permanent contracts to any new employees.
The identification of redundant staff, along with other relevant recommendations
in this report, should apply fully to the UN’s nearly 5,000 contractors and
consultants.
❚ The UN’s hiring practice must reflect the emphasis on competence laid out in
the Charter, with geographical considerations taken into account only after the
competence test is met.
❚ The United States should insist that the United Nations install a more empowered
and disciplined Human Resources Department that employs all the techniques
of modern personnel policies.
❚ The United States should support granting UN managers the authority to
assign employees where they can be best used and amending job placement
❚ The United Nations should more systematically take advantage of secondments
of personnel from member-states on a pro bono basis for specified periods or
tasks.
❚ The General Assembly must fully implement its new requirement that candidates
for positions on the UN Administrative Tribunal must possess appropriate
qualifications before being approved.
❚ In criminal cases involving UN personnel, immunity should be waived unless
the Legal Adviser to the secretary-general determines that justice is unlikely
to be served in the country at issue. The Legal Adviser’s report should be made
available to the proposed Independent Oversight Board to ensure accountability
to an independent body. Efforts must be made to find an appropriate jurisdiction
elsewhere.
❚ Legal fees for accused staff should only be reimbursed if the accused staff is
cleared by appropriate legal processes.
❚ A new standard of personnel ethics must be developed and advertised within
the United Nations. Disclosure forms must be mandatory at the P-5 level and
above. Failure to disclose must be sanctioned, and sanctions clearly laid out.
An Office of Personnel Ethics should be established within the Secretariat but
accountable to the IOB to serve as a repository for disclosure documents. These
documents must be made available to member-states upon request.
❚ The United Nations must meet the highest standards of information disclosure.
The United States should carefully monitor the Secretariat’s current efforts to
develop a comprehensive information disclosure policy.
❚ If the United Nations is again called upon to administer a large scale sanctions
regime, it should set up an effective and separate management structure, with
serious audit capacity, to do so.
❚ The United States should work with other member-states to identify which of
the operational programs now receiving funds from the assessed budget should
be funded entirely by voluntary contributions.
❚ The General Assembly’s committee structure should be revised to increase its
effectiveness and to reflect the substantive priorities of the United Nations, as
identified in other parts of the Task Force report. Bearing in mind the recommendations
of this report, the United States should review the mandates and performance
of the committees with a view to identifying areas of duplication between
the committees and other bodies, programs and mandates in the UN system.

Deterring Death and Destruction: Catastrophic Terrorism and Proliferation
of Nuclear, Chemical, and Biological Weapons

UN Security Council

❚ P-5 members should consult regularly on proliferation and terrorism issues.
Frequent substantive contacts will not guarantee unanimity, but they could
promote greater convergence in perceptions of the threat and facilitate more
constructive engagement when difficult issues are brought before the Council.
❚ The Council as a whole should also meet regularly on proliferation and terrorism
issues. It should receive closed-door briefings three or four times a year by
the Directors General of the IAEA and OPCW, the chairs of the CTC and 1540
Committee, and other senior officials from relevant UN organizations.
❚ The United States and other Security Council members should urge the 1540
Committee to move aggressively in encouraging UN members to put in place
the laws and control measures required by UN Security Council Resolution
1540.
❚ The United States should press within the Council for improving the effectiveness
of the UNSCR 1373’s Counterterrorism Committee.
❚ The United States should promote the “naming of names” that is, the United
States should push the Security Council to have the 1373 Committee publicly
list state sponsors of terrorism.
❚ The United States should take the lead in the Council to rationalize the work of
the three Security Council committees responsible for terrorism and proliferation
under three separate resolutions (1267, 1373, and 1540).
❚ The United States should also take the lead in the Council on steps to
strengthen international verification such as it is in the nonproliferation fields.
If the IAEA or OPCW Technical Secretariat, respectively, is unable with existing
authorities to resolve whether a particular country is in compliance, the
Council will meet immediately with a view to providing authorization, under
Chapter VII, to utilize much more extensive, supplementary verification
methods (e.g., comparable to those authorized for use in Iraq by UN Security
Council Resolution 1441).
❚ The Council should also strengthen the UN secretary-general’s existing authority
to initiate field investigations of alleged violations of the Geneva Protocol or
the Biological Weapons Convention by making it mandatory for states to grant
prompt access and provide full cooperation.
❚ To carry out the more robust supplementary verification activities in the
nuclear and chemical fields that may be authorized by the Security Council, the
IAEA and OPCW should be prepared to make available on short notice inspectors
who are specially trained in more rigorous verification methods. In the
biological weapons area, where no comparable verification organization exists, the
Council should establish and train a roster of specialists who would be available
immediately in the event that the Council or secretary-general (under his authority
to initiate CW or BW investigations) activated them.
❚ The U.S. should support a Council instruction to UNMOVIC and the IAEA
to document and archive information on the investigation of Iraqi WMD
programs begun in 1991, with a mandate to complete the task within six
months.
❚ On the critical subject of the nuclear fuel cycle and the Nuclear Non-
Proliferation Treaty, the United States should continue to promote the Bush
administration’s initiative to prevent the acquisition of uranium enrichment and
plutonium reprocessing facilities by additional countries.
❚ The United States should encourage the Council to strengthen legal authorities
to interdict illicit WMD-related shipments and disrupt illicit WMD-related
networks.
❚ The United States should urge Council action to discourage and impede unjustified
use of the NPT’s withdrawal provision, which allows a party to leave the
treaty after 90 days if it asserts that remaining in the treaty would jeopardize its
supreme interests.
❚ The Council should develop a menu of penalties that would be available for
future Council consideration in individual cases of violations.
UN General Assembly
❚ The General Assembly should move expeditiously to adopt a definition of
terrorism along the lines recommended by the High-Level Panel and endorsed
by the secretary-general. On the basis of that definition, the Assembly should
proceed as soon as possible to conclude a comprehensive convention on terrorism.
The definition of terrorism should cover the actions of individuals or irregular
organizations, rather than armies since the latter are bound by the rules
of war and need not be covered by additional language prohibiting terrorism.
Although international consensus on the basis of the formulation contained in
the High-Level Panel would be a major step forward, the definition of terrorism
should ideally also cover acts of violence against noncombatant military units—
for example, those deployed to a given country as part of a UN-authorized
peacekeeping force or those present on foreign soil only to provide training or
receive logistics support.
❚ The Terrorism Prevention Branch of the UN Office on Drugs and Crime
(UNODC) should be encouraged to intensify its efforts to promote wide
adherence to the international conventions on terrorism, especially the new
Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism, and to provide
member-states legal advice on domestic implementing legislation necessary to
make those conventions effective.

International Atomic Energy Agency

❚ The United States should continue pressing for establishment of a committee
of the IAEA Board to review the Agency’s role in monitoring and promoting
compliance with nuclear nonproliferation obligations.
❚ The IAEA and its Board should strongly promote universal ratification and
rigorous enforcement of the Additional Protocol. Nuclear Suppliers Group
members can assist in this effort by adopting a guideline that makes adherence to
the Additional Protocol by recipient states a condition for nuclear cooperation.
❚ IAEA Board members should urge that the Agency’s relatively new function of
investigating nuclear trafficking networks be expanded.
❚ The United States and other Board members must strongly encourage the IAEA
to assign higher priority to nuclear security.
❚ The IAEA and its Board should examine means of assuring countries that
renounce the right to possess their own enrichment and reprocessing capabilities
that they will have reliable access to nuclear reactor fuel supplies.
Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW)
❚ The missions of OPCW and its Technical Secretariat should be adjusted to deal
more heavily with the nonstate actor chemical weapons threat.
❚ OPCW should become a partner of the 1540 Committee to help it implement
UN Security Council Resolution 1540’s requirements in the chemical area as
in the case of the IAEA for nuclear issues, including taking the lead in assisting
in establishing international standards for legislation criminalizing CW-related
activities by nonstate actors. It should assist the Committee in the area of physical
protection, assessing the adequacy of security and accountancy measures at
declared chemical weapons storage depots and developing international standards
for protecting chemical industry plants against theft or sabotage. With respect to
the reports countries are called upon to submit under 1540, the OPCW would
assist in evaluating performance, suggesting improvements, and coordinating
assistance efforts.
❚ The United States and other CWC parties should request OPCW’s Technical
Secretariat to examine the potential for state and nonstate actors to use new
technologies, such as micro-reactors and novel chemical agents, for CW
purposes and make recommendations on whether and how the CWC regime
can be modified to keep up with the evolving CW proliferation threat.

World Health Organization (WHO)

❚ While the WHO should strengthen its existing public health capabilities
that are also relevant to reducing the biowarfare threat, consideration should
urgently be given to establishing a new UN organization responsible for dealing
with biological weapons issues.
❚ WHO should undertake a major upgrading of its global disease surveillance
and response network. The United States should be prepared to take the lead
in persuading other donor governments to commit the additional resources
required. Informal arrangements should be worked out so that, in the event of a
suspicious disease outbreak that seemed to be the result of intentional BW use,
WHO could immediately notify the new UN biological warfare organization
and the UN secretary-general, who would be in a position to dispatch biowarfare
experts to assist WHO in its investigation.
❚ The new UN organization responsible for countering the biowarfare threat
would work with the 1540 Committee and relevant international health organizations,
including WHO, to develop common international biosecurity standards,
both with respect to ensuring that only bona fide scientists have access
to dangerous pathogens and ensuring that facilities engaged in legitimate
research with dangerous pathogens have adequate physical security measures in
place.
❚ The new biowarfare organization should also work with the WHO and other
international scientific organizations to develop international guidelines or standards
for reviewing, approving, and monitoring dual-use bioscientific research
projects, particularly in the area of genetic engineering, that could produce
results that could be applied by states or terrorist groups to offensive BW
purposes.

Conference on Disarmament (CD)

❚ The CD has outlived its usefulness and should be disbanded. Instead of having
a single multilateral negotiating body take its place, the Security Council should,
as the need arises, set up ad hoc bodies of manageable size to take on discrete,
narrowly defined tasks, such as negotiating a treaty banning further production of
fissile materials or developing common international standards for biosecurity.
War and Peace: Preventing and Ending Conflicts
UN Peacekeeping: Doctrine, Planning and Strategic Guidance
❚ The Department of Peacekeeping Operations should develop doctrine that
recognizes the need for capable forces in the new security environments in
which peacekeepers are mandated by the Security Council to operate, and the
United States should press for member state acceptance of these new realities
and their resource implications.
❚ More broadly, the United Nations should develop doctrine and strategy for
multidimensional peace operations that thoroughly integrate the security
dimension with economic and political development requirements. Prior to
deployments, a strategic assessment of the crisis situation should be made to
determine the full range of measures necessary to effectively address the causes
of the crisis. Strategic mission plans should precede deployments, and should be
drafted by senior-level mission strategy groups brought together prior to missions.

Sexual Exploitation and Abuse

❚ The United Nations must quickly implement a policy of zero tolerance of
sexual exploitation and abuse by peacekeepers. The United States should
strongly support implementation of reform measures designed to ensure
uniform standards for all civilian and military participants in peace operations;
training programs relating to sexual exploitation and abuse; increased deployment
of women in peacekeeping operations; deployment of established (rather
than “patched together”) units to peacekeeping operations; accountability of
senior managers; effective data collection and management; victims assistance;
staffing increases to enhance supervision; and organized recreational activities for
peacekeepers.
❚ While these measures have recently been endorsed by member-states, the
United States should urge generous budgetary support for these initiatives, and
should also press for independent investigative capacity.
❚ The United States should seek to ensure effective programs of assistance for
victims who make substantial claims, even when neither the victim nor the
United Nations is able to obtain redress from the perpetrator of the abuse.
❚ States that prove unwilling or unable to ensure discipline among their troops
should not be permitted to provide troops to peacekeeping missions.
Rapid Deployment
❚ While the Task Force does not endorse a standin

View User's Profile E-Mail User View All Posts By User U2U Member





Powered by XMB 1.8 Partagium Beta Build 20110207PM
Developed By Aventure Media & The XMB Group © 2002
Procesi i kryer nė 0.1499450 sekonda, 25 pyetje