I thank the Chairman for calling this important and timely hearing. 

As you may be aware, promoting reform at the United Nations has been among my highest priorities for this Committee. 

I do this not as an enemy of the UN, but as someone who is committed to helping the UN help itself.

I hope that today’s session marks the beginning of a series of hearings and comprehensive review of  real UN reform and that we will soon consider H.R. 557, the United Nations Transparency, Accountability, and Reform Act of 2009. 

The peacekeeping section of this bill that I introduced requires the adoption of a uniform code of conduct that would apply equally to all UN peacekeeping personnel – military and civilian alike.

It also requires the UN to maintain a database to track violations of that code of conduct – which should be shared across all UN agencies.

This will help ensure that those who have abused the very populations they have been sent there to protect are not simply recycled to other missions. 

Ambassador Rice, I would ask for your cooperation on this legislation and your commitment to work together on the promotion of comprehensive reforms at the United Nations, particularly in regard to peacekeeping.

UN peacekeeping has contributed to the promotion of peace and stability for more than 60 years, and the overwhelming majority of peacekeepers have served with honor and courage. 

But to allow the operational failures and unconscionable acts of misconduct that have come to plague UN peacekeeping to remain unchecked undermines the credibility of the UN.

As we speak, the United Nations has over 116,000 personnel from 120 countries deployed across 17 peace operations, including two special political missions.

Seven new missions requiring more than 54,000 uniformed personnel have been authorized over the past five years alone. 

The budget for July 2009 through June 2010 has swelled to $7.8 billion, with more than $2 billion coming from the United States. 

The days of “traditional peacekeeping” – when peacekeepers deployed only to places where there was a peace to be kept, monitored lines of disengagement, and used force only in self defense – those days have long since passed.

Experts say we now have entered into a second generation of peacekeeping, where missions are increasingly complex, multidimensional, and dangerous. 

The mission in Haiti, which was preceded by a U.S.-led Multinational Interim Force (MIF), was authorized in 2004. 

Not a traditional monitoring mission, the mission in Haiti has been charged with:

·      securing a stable environment;

·      restructuring and reforming the Haitian National Police;

·      assisting in disarmament, demobilization and reintegration programs;

·      supporting the political process, and

·      monitoring human rights.

The mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo was originally deployed in the year 2000, as a traditional monitoring mission with just over 5,500 uniformed personnel. 

Today, it has an authorized strength of 19,815 uniformed personnel and an aggressive mandate to:

·        use force to protect civilians;

·        forcibly disarm combatants;

·        train and mentor the armed forces of the DRC;

·        seize illegal arms shipments; and

·        “provide advice to strengthen democratic institutions and processes” at every level of government.  

The complexity and dangerous nature of the Congo mission is eclipsed only by the hybrid UN/African Union mission in Darfur, Sudan. 

With multiple chains of command and direct interference by the Sudanese regime, the hybrid model presents unique challenges. 

And now, the UN is being pushed to launch a new mission in Somalia, as the UN General Assembly has adopted the concept of the “Responsibility to Protect.”

Ambassador Rice please discuss, if you would, how the U.S. interprets this responsibility and how the U.S. views requirements, if any, on individual nations stemming from the Responsibility to Protect and when we expect this concept to be applied and how.

This discussion is timely following last week’s debate at the UN.

The United States has a strong record of support for peacekeeping.

Since 2004, we have supported the provision of training and equipment for 81,000 new peacekeepers worldwide through the Global Peace Operations Initiative (GPOI).

Through the GPOI we also have supported the training of 2,000 instructors at the Center of Excellence for Stability Police Units. 

We have facilitated the deployment of nearly 50,000 peacekeepers to 20 UN and regional peace support operations.

And we have been at the forefront of efforts to secure critical mission enablers, including utility and tactical helicopters to support missions in Darfur, Chad, Congo, Afghanistan and beyond.

I look forward to the testimony today on how we can make this assistance even more effective, while coordinating efforts with our regional Combatant Commands and other donors to ensure appropriate and equitable burden sharing.

As conflicts rage and new models of peace operations emerge, it would seem that UN peacekeeping is currently faced with three fundamental questions:

·  When is United Nations peacekeeping the right instrument? 

·  What tasks can United Nations peacekeeping actually accomplish? 

·  How can United Nations peacekeeping become more effective?

I appreciate the opportunity to discuss these important issues today.