|
Disarmament DocumentationBack to Disarmament Documentation US Senator Richard Lugar on UN Reform and Weapons of Mass Destruction, February 6, 2006Address to the U.N. Security Council By Chairman Richard G. Lugar February 6, 2006. EXCERPTS: U.N. Reform Weapons of Mass Destruction Accountability Iran "In this context, if Iran does not comply with U.N. Resolutions
and arms agreements, the Security Council must apply strict and
enforceable sanctions. Failure to do so will severely damage the
credibility of a painstaking diplomatic approach and call into
question the world's commitment to controlling the spread of
nuclear weapons. The precedent of inaction in this case, would
greatly increase the chances of military conflict and could set off
regional arms races." Mr. President, Distinguished Ambassadors, Ladies and Gentlemen:
I am grateful for the opportunity to address the Security Council
and for the warm welcome that you have extended to members of the
Senate Foreign Relations Committee today. I want to thank
especially Ambassador John Bolton for his assistance in
facilitating our visit and for the attention and insights he has
provided to members of the Senate during his tenure as the U.S.
Ambassador. The Foreign Relations Committee is united in its belief that an
effective United Nations is a vital component to addressing the
trans-national problems confronting each of its member states. The
four Committee members here today, Senator Chuck Hagel of Nebraska,
Senator Norm Coleman of Minnesota, Senator George Voinovich of
Ohio, and myself, have all spent much time thinking about
international affairs and the role of the United Nations. Although
our approaches are not identical, each of us has chosen to serve on
the Foreign Relations Committee because we understand that
America's problems cannot be solved in isolation from the world
community. We have chosen to serve on this Committee out of a
solemn belief that the United States of America will be stronger,
safer, and more prosperous if it engages the world in a search for
cooperative solutions. We also believe that the United States has a
moral obligation, as the oldest democracy on earth and as one of
the wealthiest, to be an advocate for human and religious rights
and political freedoms and to be a generous contributor to
international efforts that address poverty, disease, environmental
degradation, and other problems that hinder human advancement. We understand that the United States must not only speak clear
truths, it must also listen and learn from others. We know that we
are part of a much larger world that has intellectual, scientific,
and moral wisdom that can supplement our own knowledge and
experiences. In that spirit, we have come to the United Nations to converse
with you about the direction of this institution and about problems
that must be solved cooperatively. Strengthening the U.N. through Reform Because we value an effective and credible United Nations, we
have advocated a United Nations reform agenda in our work in the
U.S. Senate and during our visit today. Ensuring that the
operations of the United Nations are transparent and efficient is
important to the United States and the American people. Each of us
hears from our constituents on a weekly basis about this issue.
Most Americans want the United Nations to succeed. They want the
U.N. to be able to facilitate international burden sharing in times
of crisis. They want the U.N. to be a consistent and respected
forum for diplomatic discussions. And they expect the U.N. to be a
positive force in the global fight against poverty, disease, and
hunger. In my home state of Indiana, we are particularly proud of
our native son, Jim Morris, who heads the World Food Program. We
celebrate his achievements and recognize how much U.N. agencies
like the World Food Program, UNICEF, and the World Health
Organization are doing to benefit humankind. But Americans, like people throughout the world, also want to
ensure that the United Nations is free of waste and corruption.
They are deeply concerned by the Oil-for-Food scandal and the
evolving investigation of kickbacks and rigged contracts in the
U.N.'s own procurement division. They understand that the influence
and capabilities possessed by the United Nations come from the
credibility associated with countries acting together in a
well-established forum with well-established rules. Profiteering,
mismanagement, and bureaucratic stonewalling, squander this
precious resource. If accountability and transparency are lacking
in the way the U.N. does business, increasingly it will find itself
on the sidelines of diplomacy and major multilateral security
initiatives. I have written to Secretary General Annan calling for the
resolute and timely implementation of ten reforms that I believe
would be a major step forward for the United Nations. I applaud his
affirmation on U.N. reform that "2006 must be [a year] of visible
results." I appreciate his vocal advocacy for a constructive reform
agenda. Several of the ten reforms that I have advocated have already
been initiated, including the funding of an Ethics Office that will
enforce lower gift limits, the establishment of a zero tolerance
policy regarding sexual exploitation by U.N. personnel, the
strengthening of the Office of Internal Oversight Services, the
launching of a review of U.N. mandates that are more than five
years old, and the creation of a whistleblower protection policy.
The U.N. also must overhaul its procurement system to prevent
bribes and kickbacks, establish an oversight body that will be able
to review the results of investigations, fund a one-time staff
buy-out to allow for a more efficient use of personnel, and improve
external access to all U.N. documents. Each of these reforms is
currently being discussed. One reform that is critically necessary is establishing a
respected Human Rights Council to replace the Human Rights
Commission, which has been discredited because of the membership of
repressive and undemocratic regimes. The membership criteria of the
new Council must ensure that those elected to it observe human
rights and abide by the rule of law. These ten reforms confer no advantage on the United States, they
do not conflict with the U.N. Charter or its mission, they would
improve management practices and morale, and they would enhance the
U.N.'s global standing. I believe that they could be implemented
quickly, without irresolvable controversy. The adoption of these reforms would not end the reform debate,
nor should it. Many other potentially useful updates to U.N.
organization have been suggested. Moreover, reform cannot be
treated like a one-time event. Rather, it should be an inherent
part of the United Nation's operating culture. Any organization or
government unit should continually review its rules and practices
to ensure that mechanisms are working to prevent waste, fraud, and
abuse. In the short run, the effective implementation of this list of
reforms would generate substantial confidence that the United
Nations is committed to ensuring transparency and efficiency in its
operations. It would also signal a willingness to embrace new
standards and practices at the U.N. that would strengthen the
United Nations for the monumental tasks that lie ahead. The United
Nations and this Security Council must be prepared for the heavy
lifting of the coming decades. You must be ambitious in the tasks
you undertake because the world is confronted by problems of great
magnitude. Controlling Weapons of Mass Destruction Today, I want to call to your attention two challenges, in
particular. I believe that how we address these two challenges will
determine whether we will live in peace and whether both developing
and developed nations will continue to enjoy economic growth and
human advancement. The first challenge is the proliferation of weapons of mass
destruction, a threat that has been on the Security Council's
agenda for more than a half century. This is not just the security
problem of the moment. It is a universal economic and moral threat
that will loom over all human activity for generations. The
non-proliferation precedents we set in the coming decade are likely
to determine whether the world lives in anxious uncertainty from
crisis to crisis or whether we are able to construct a global
coalition dedicated to preventing catastrophes and to giving people
the confidence and security to pursue fulfilling lives. Given economic globalization, there will be no safe haven from
catastrophic terrorism or a nuclear attack. Distance from the site
of a nuclear blast, will not insulate people from the economic and
human trauma that would result. We must recognize that these
threats put the domestic hopes and dreams of our respective
citizens at grave risk. Does anyone believe that proposals for
advancing standards of living, such as expansions in education for
our children, stronger protections for the environment, or broader
health care coverage, would be unaffected by the nuclear
obliteration of a major city somewhere in the world? They would
not. The immediate death toll would be horrendous, but the
worldwide financial and psychological costs might be even more
damaging to humanity in the long run. Such a catastrophic event would bring years, if not decades, of
massive health care and environmental clean-up costs to the nation
where the attack occurred. But the economic damage would not be
confined to a single country or region; it would be global. The
value of world investment markets would plummet and urban real
estate could suffer the same fate. Regaining investor confidence
and restoring capital flows would be a slow process. Enhanced
security measures in the wake of the tragedy could hinder commerce
and trade. Insurance costs would rise worldwide, and governments
inevitably would transfer national assets to security measures,
exacerbating budget deficits and leaving fewer assets devoted to
increasing economic productivity and to providing for the needs of
citizens. The world would not see a catastrophic terrorist attack as a
one-time tragedy. Rather, it would change the expectations of
people throughout the world. If one such terrorist attack could be
mounted, could not other attacks be imminent? If some nuclear
material had been diverted from safe keeping to terrorists, why not
more? We would see greater restrictions on personal freedom,
stricter controls on travel and international study, more barriers
to international commerce, and a massive increase in psychological
disturbances and suffering. The constricting effect on
international interaction would be felt in every country of the
world. Last year, I surveyed 85 top international proliferation and
arms control experts about the prospects for averting attacks with
weapons of mass destruction. According to the experts surveyed, the
possibility of a WMD attack against a city or other target
somewhere in the world is real and increasing over time. The group
estimated that the risk of a nuclear attack somewhere in the world
in the next five years was 16 percent. When the time frame was
extended to 10 years, the average response almost doubled to more
than 29 percent. The estimates of the risks of a biological or
chemical attack during the same time periods were each judged to be
comparable to or slightly higher than the risk of a nuclear
attack. The Cold War was an unconventional war, as is the struggle with
terrorist ideologies. The irony of our situation today is that
victory in the current struggle depends on cleaning up the remnants
of the previous war and enforcing arms agreements written in the
earlier era. The international community is not powerless. We can
come to agreements on actions designed to enforce international
norms and agreements that are vital to collective security. We must perfect a worldwide system of accountability for
nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons. In such a system, every
nation that currently has weapons and materials of mass destruction
must account for what it has, safely secure what it has, and
demonstrate that no other nation or cell will be allowed access.
Meanwhile, we must work to contract existing stockpiles and prevent
further proliferation. If a nation lacks the means to participate
in this effort, the international community must provide financial
and technical assistance. As one of the authors of the Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat
Reduction Program, I have witnessed extraordinary outcomes based on
mutual interest that would have seemed absurd from the vantage
point of the Cold War. In 1991, the vast nuclear, chemical, and
biological arsenal of the former Soviet Union had become an
immediate and grave proliferation risk. Many weapons sites lacked
adequate defenses and safeguards. The Russian economy was
struggling, increasing incentives for bribery and black market
activity. Moreover, many weapons sites were located outside of
Russia, in newly independent states such as Belarus, Ukraine, and
Kazakhstan. This created the possibility of an expansion of nuclear
powers with unpredictable results. Former United States Senator Sam Nunn and I came together to
write and promote legislation to establish a program that devoted
American technical expertise and money for joint efforts to
safeguard and destroy these vulnerable weapons and materials of
mass destruction. The program received invaluable encouragement,
support, and insight from leaders in the former Soviet Union who
recognized the dangers of inaction. Since its inception, Americans and Russians have worked closely
under the Nunn-Lugar program to deactivate 6,828 former Soviet
nuclear warheads, destroy 1,174 ballistic missiles, and
decommission hundreds of missile silos, strategic bombers, cruise
missiles, submarine missile launchers, and nuclear test tunnels.
Perhaps most importantly, Ukraine, Belarus, and Kazakhstan are
nuclear weapons free as a result of cooperative efforts under the
Nunn-Lugar program. In addition, Nunn-Lugar is building a facility
at Shchuchye, Russia, to eliminate some two million chemical
weapons. It is also employing weapons scientists in peaceful
pursuits and working at many bio-weapon sites and nuclear warhead
storage facilities to establish security controls and dismantle
weapons infrastructure. While American and Russian experts have been cooperating on
dismantlement operations in the former Soviet Union, the United
States has been meeting its obligations under arms control treaties
to dramatically cut its own nuclear arsenal. By 2012, the United
States will have reduced its nuclear stockpile by 75 percent since
the end of the Cold War. No one would have predicted in the 1980s that Americans and
Russians would be working side-by-side on the ground in Russia
destroying thousands of nuclear weapons systems, as well as
biological and chemical weapons. Similarly, from the vantage point
of today, few observers would predict that the international
community would eventually participate in dismantlement operations
in North Korea or, perhaps, Iran. The future is not clear in these
states, but if a peaceful outcome is to be secured and weapons of
mass destruction are to be eliminated, we should not rule out such
extraordinary outcomes. Since 1992, the United States has spent more than $17 billion on
non-proliferation and threat reduction assistance, most of it in
the former Soviet Union. The rest of the world collectively has
spent about $2 billion on this objective during that period. I
commend those nations that have pledged additional
non-proliferation funds, and I urge them to follow through on their
commitments, but the world needs to do much more in this area.
Almost four-fifths of the non-proliferation experts that I surveyed
last year said that their country was not spending enough on
non-proliferation objectives. None of the experts believed that
their country was spending too much on non-proliferation. More than
half of the experts recommended an increase of 50 percent or more
in their nation's non-proliferation budget. Beyond a commitment of more resources, peace depends on the
willingness of responsible nations to look past short-term economic
gain and assert themselves when nations violate their treaty
agreements. Without dismissing the economic needs of any nation, I
would submit that nuclear proliferation is not in the interest of
any national economy over the long run. Whatever short-term
economic gains that may be realized by tolerating non-compliance
with international non-proliferation norms will be overtaken by the
risks and costs associated with greater instability. The world must be decisive in responding to nations that are
violating the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty or other
international arms agreements. Diplomatic and economic
confrontations are preferable to military ones. In the field of
non-proliferation, decisions delayed over the course of months and
years may be as harmful as no decisions at all. In this context, if Iran does not comply with U.N. Resolutions
and arms agreements, the Security Council must apply strict and
enforceable sanctions. Failure to do so will severely damage the
credibility of a painstaking diplomatic approach and call into
question the world's commitment to controlling the spread of
nuclear weapons. The precedent of inaction in this case, would
greatly increase the chances of military conflict and could set off
regional arms races. Meeting Energy Challenges The second major global challenge that I wish to emphasize is
energy. Like the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, the
potential scarcity of energy supplies and the imbalances that exist
among nations represent grave threats to global security and
prosperity. Up to this point in history, the main concerns surrounding oil
and natural gas have been how much we pay for them and whether we
will experience supply disruptions. But in decades to come, the
issue may be whether the world's supply of fossil fuels is abundant
and accessible enough to support continued economic growth, both in
the industrialized West and in large rapidly growing economies such
as China and India. When we reach the point that the world's
oil-hungry economies are competing for insufficient supplies of
energy, fossil fuels will become an even stronger magnet for
conflict than they already are. In the short-run, dependence on fossil fuels has created a drag
on economic performance around the world, as higher oil prices have
driven up heating and transportation costs. In the long-run, this
dependence is pushing the world toward an economic disaster that
could mean diminished living standards, increased risks of war, and
accelerated environmental degradation. Increasingly, energy supplies are the currency through which
energy-rich countries leverage their interests against energy-poor
nations. Oil and natural gas infrastructure and shipping lanes
remain targets for terrorism. The bottom line is that critical
international security goals, including countering nuclear weapons
proliferation, supporting new democracies, and promoting
sustainable development are at risk because of over-dependence on
fossil fuels. This dependence also presents huge risks to the global
environment. With this in mind, I have urged the Bush
Administration and my colleagues in Congress to return to a
leadership role on the issue of climate change. I have advocated
that the United States must be open to multi-lateral forums that
attempt to achieve global solutions to the problem of greenhouse
gases. Climate change could bring drought, famine, disease, mass
migration, and rising sea levels threatening coasts and economies
worldwide, all of which could lead to political conflict and
instability. This problem cannot be solved without international
cooperation. The time is ripe for bold action by the international community
because much has changed since talks first began in 1992 on what
became the Kyoto treaty. For one, China and India, who won
exemptions from the treaty's emission-cutting requirements, have
enjoyed rapid growth. They are now much greater sources of
greenhouse gases than anticipated, but also far stronger economies,
more integrated into the global system. Our scientific understanding of climate change has also advanced
significantly. We have better computer models, more measurements
and more evidence -- from the shrinking polar caps to expanding
tropical disease zones for plants and humans -- that the problem is
real and is caused by man-made emissions of greenhouse gases,
including carbon dioxide from fossil fuels. Most importantly, thanks to new technology, we can control many
greenhouse gases with proactive, pro-growth solutions, not just
draconian limitations on economic activity. Industry and government
alike recognize that progress on climate change can go hand in hand
with progress on energy security, air pollution, and technology
development. A roadmap to this outcome is contained in a recent report from
the Pew Climate Center, a non-partisan organization, which
assembled representatives from China, India and other countries and
from global industrial companies, as well as from the U.S. Senate
Foreign Relations Committee staff. This diverse group agreed on the
need for fresh approaches beyond Kyoto. They said the U.S. must
engage all the major economies at once, including India and China,
because experience has shown that countries will not move unless
they can be sure their counterparts are moving with them. The United States, the world's richest country and the largest
emitter of greenhouse gases, should seize this moment to make a new
beginning by returning to international negotiations in a
leadership role under the Framework Convention on Climate Change. I
believe that the United States is prepared to do that. Our friends
and allies should embrace this opportunity to achieve a
comprehensive international approach to global warming. Finally, in addition to security, economic, and environmental
considerations, anyone who professes to being concerned with
economic development must be concerned about the ability of
developing nations to pay for the energy they need. The economic impact of high oil prices is far more burdensome in
developing countries than in the developed world. Generally,
developing countries are more dependent on imported oil, their
industries are more energy intensive, and they are able to use
energy less efficiently. There is a virtual consensus among scientists that when
considered as part of a complete cycle of growth, fermentation, and
combustion, ethanol contributes no net carbon dioxide to the
atmosphere. Although burning ethanol releases carbon dioxide into
the atmosphere, it is essentially the same carbon dioxide that was
fixed by photosynthesis when the plants grew. In contrast, the
carbon dioxide released by burning fossil fuels would have remained
trapped forever beneath the earth had it not been extracted and
burned. The full commercial emergence of cellulosic ethanol would
provide a cash crop to any region that could grow grass, trees, or
other vegetation. This would help rural development, improve the
developing world's balance of payment position, and reduce its
reliance on oil. Biorefineries producing biofuels and biochemicals
can be modularized, simplified, and sized to meet the needs of
communities in remote areas. Such a democratization of world energy
supplies would reduce armed conflict, lower the risk of global
recession, and aid in the development of emerging markets. Cellulosic ethanol is just one of several promising energy
sources, including clean coal technology, biodiesel, and hybrid
cars, which can move us away from extreme dependence on oil. The
task is to make this happen before a global crisis occurs. The
economic sacrifices imposed by rising fossil fuel prices have
expanded concerns about energy dependence. But in the past, as oil
price shocks have receded, motivations for action also have waned.
The international community cannot afford to relax in our effort to
democratize energy supplies. Oil's importance is the result of
industrial and consumption choices of the past. We now must choose
a different path. I am pleased by the attention being given to energy development
by the United Nations Development Program, which has asserted that
"Energy is central to sustainable development and poverty reduction
efforts. It affects all aspects of development - social, economic,
and environmental - including livelihoods, access to water,
agricultural productivity, health population levels, education, and
gender-related issues. None of the Millennium Development Goals can
be met without major improvements in the quality and quantity of
energy services in developing countries." The UNDP currently
supports 153 full scale projects in renewable energy with a total
program value of $556 million. I would argue that this is a good
start, but members of this body should examine how more
international resources can be brought to bear on achieving energy
self-sufficiency in the developing world. We also need to think creatively about how countries can
cooperate with each other to address today's global energy
challenges. For example, last November, I introduced in the U.S.
Senate, "The United States-India Energy Security Cooperation Act of
2005." This bill would promote greater cooperation between the U.S.
and India on clean coal technology, ethanol, and other energy
sources. I am developing additional legislation of this type to
encourage bilateral and multilateral energy cooperation with many
other nations. I am hopeful that member states will embrace these
opportunities. Likewise, I am hopeful that the United Nations and
the Security Council will elevate the importance placed on
dialogues about energy. I am confident that the challenges that I have underscored today
are not insurmountable. In fact, I believe that we possess the
technology and experience necessary to revolutionize energy
supplies and secure our future against the threat of WMD
proliferation. It is our job as political leaders to supply the
most elusive ingredients - the political will and international
cohesiveness that will make achievement of these objectives a
reality. I urge you to embrace these tasks and work together with
determination and compassion for the benefit of all the people of
the world. Thank you for the honor of addressing the Security Council. # # # Source: Senator Lugar's website, http://lugar.senate.gov. © 2005 The Acronym Institute. |