U.S. Priorities for the UN High Level Event

MS. NISBET: I’d like to welcomeKristen Silverberg, Assistant Secretary for International Organization Affairs at the U.S. Department of State. She’s here today to give us insight into some of the key issues being discussed at this year's UN General Assembly. It's a pleasure to have her. We’ll start off with remarks from the Assistant Secretary and then go to questions.

We also have Washington with us via DVC. Welcome to the Washington Foreign Press Center. There may be questions there, so if you could just wave your hands whenever that may be and state your name and affiliation. Thanks so much.

ASSISTANT SECRETARY SILVERBERG: Thank you. I'm very happy to be here today. This is my first briefing in my new position at the Foreign Press Center so, anyway, delighted to see all of you. I wanted to talk to you today a little bit about some of the big UN-related issues that we'll be dealing with over the next couple of weeks. As you know, there will be lots and lots of bilateral meetings. The President will have some, the Secretary and all of the U.S. State Department officials. And so I won't cover all of the issues that might come up on a bilateral level at all of those meetings. I'll focus today on sort of our global UN-related agenda items.

And before I begin, I just want to open my remarks by reiterating what a strong supporter the U.S. is of the UN as an organization and our commitment to strengthening the organization and making it more effective to deal with upcoming challenges. You know, the President has addressed the UN and talked about the importance of effective multilateralism. That's something that has been reflected in his agenda items and in our budgetary commitments. The U.S. contributed well over $3 billion to the UN in '04. We remain strongly supportive to ensuring that the UN has the resources it needs. Specifically, we've contributed 48 percent of the budget of the World Food Program, which does great work providing food relief all over the world; 31 percent to the budget for the High Commissioner for Refugees; and $1.1 billion for peacekeeping operations.

You know, some of the things we think the UN does particularly well is in the area of humanitarian relief, and as you know, the importance of international cooperation has been particularly visible here in the United States as we deal with the aftermath of the hurricane. We have been so grateful for the support of many nations. To date, 118 countries and 12 international organizations have made offers of assistance. The American people are grateful for that support and it's a reminder to all of us that the international community works best when it works together.

To talk about the specifics for the next two weeks, the Secretary General in March laid out a four-part agenda and it's something we strongly support -- his agenda for this High Level Event and for the General Assembly -- because it closely parallels the President's priorities for the UN.

To begin, the first agenda item is development. Now, as you know, the U.S., and especially under this Administration, strongly supports increases in development assistance. Since the President took office, the U.S. has almost doubled development aid, from $19 billion -- I'm sorry, from $10 billion to $19 billion. We have increased aid by more -- by a larger amount in less period of time than in any period since the Marshall Plan. So this President remains a strong supporter of providing increased development assistance.

However, as we have emphasized, we think the most important thing we can do -- we as the U.S. and we as part of the international community can do to promote development -- is to ensure that we help countries make and implement the kinds of changes that can make development assistance effective. And by that I mean free market reforms, focus on rule of law, anti-corruption measures, the kinds of things that can invite private investment, that promote trade and that can make official development assistance effective. We talk about this in terms of creating an enabling environment in country that can make ODA -- I'm sorry, official development assistance -- particularly effective.

To help emphasize how important that it, in 2002 trade flows in and out of developing countries totaled $5.7 trillion. That's exports of $3.1 and imports of $2.6. In contrast, official development assistance to the same countries amounted to only about $77 billion. So you can see that trade dwarfs in any circumstance ODA and so it's important that we focus on the kinds of things that can promote more trade and more private investment by lowering/reducing/eliminating trade barriers and by ensuring that we have the conditions in country to invite trade.

Just to focus on two particular priorities within the development area and in terms of increased official development assistance, two particular priorities for the U.S. are efforts to fight HIV/AIDS and our efforts to fight malaria. With respect to HIV/AIDS, many of you know that in 2003 the President committed $15 billion over five years for a global effort to provide treatment to 2 million people. We remain -- we actually, on existing funding scales, are likely to exceed the $15 commitment. We are ahead of pace in terms of our goals for ramping up treatment provision. We are working closely with the Global Fund, with UN AIDS and others, other international partners, and in particular with the host countries themselves to make sure that we have an ambitious and successful, effective effort against HIV/AIDS in Africa.

On malaria, this was an issue that was a focus at Gleneagles. We have committed $1.2 to increase funding by $1.2 billion over five years and have encouraged other nations to join us in that effort.

We are particularly glad that it looks as if the development sections in the outcome document which are currently being negotiated are going to recognize the importance of all the issues I just cited and also to recognize the efforts the world has made since the Millennium Summit in 2000.

Countries that represent three-quarters of the population of the developing world are on track to meet the goals set out in the Millennium Declaration, and the critical role of markets and the private sector, property rights and private financial flows, we think, will be recognized in the document.

Turning to the second agenda item, democracy and human rights. This, of course, is the centerpiece of the President's foreign policy agenda is the expansion of democracy. This summit represents an important opportunity for us to celebrate the UN's role in that. The UN has played a critical role in providing election assistance and other kinds of democracy assistance in both Iraq and Afghanistan, and we're encouraging even expanded efforts in both cases.

We're also celebrating the opening of the UN Democracy Fund, which is something the President called for last year before the General Assembly. The Secretary General announced the opening of the Democracy Fund this summer, and the U.S. and India and others have made contributions to that fund. We are particularly grateful for India's leadership on this issue.

We will also be continuing to pursue efforts to replace the Commission on Human Rights, which we think has been discredited in a number of ways, first by the inclusion of members who are among the worst abusers of human rights, but also because the Human Rights Council -- I'm sorry, the Commission on Human Rights, has focused too frequently on politicized and meaningless resolutions rather than on addressing urgent and grave situations. And so we're continuing to work with other countries to replace the commission with a smaller and more effective human rights council that can focus on grave cases.

The third agenda item we'll be addressing is counterterrorism and security. The President will participate in a Security Council summit to consider a UK resolution on the incitement of terrorism, and we're very glad that enough support has been developed to adopt that resolution.

The President will also sign the International Convention for the Suppression of the Acts of Nuclear Terrorism and will be continuing to call for adoption of the Comprehensive Convention on International Terrorism to better address the threats and challenges of the 21st century.

As part of this, we're also proposing a new peace building commission at the UN. As you know, this was something the Secretary General proposed and that we strongly support. We think that a commission along the lines of the Secretary General's proposal can help coordinate effectively within the UN and make sure that we provide the support to countries in the transition from conflict to peace.

And the final priority and the one that's been the focus of a lot of attention is the importance of UN reform. In order to meet all these challenges, to address development, democracy and human rights and terrorism and security, we need a UN that's effective, that's well run, well managed, that's strong and that adheres to the highest ethical standards. So we have proposed a number of things and are working with the Secretariat and with all -- many member-states, including, in particular, Japan to promote a UN that has a strong and effective oversight organization to try to identify any ethical problems and enforce existing rules. We want to make sure that the Secretary General has the kinds of authorities he needs in terms of personnel. We want to make sure that UN budgets get subject to the right kinds of review.

And I want to point out on all of these areas that management reform isn't just a U.S. or a large donor initiative. These are things that were endorsed by the High Level Panel. They've been endorsed by the Secretary General. They've been endorsed recently by the Volcker Commission. This is something that all countries with an interest in an effective, well run and credible institution should support.

So those are the issues that will be the focus of our agenda. I am happy to take any questions, and why don't I just --

MS. NISBET: I don't know if we want to start off with Washington. I'm told that they have a question. No? Okay. Well, then when you come around to it. Why don't we go ahead and start with follow-up.

QUESTION: Paolo Mastrolilli, UN correspondent for the Italian newspaper La Stampa and for the Vatican Radio. There are some scholars here in the United States that have been proposing for a while to close the United Nations and replace it with a different organization. Some call it Alliance of Democracies, some use different terms. I would like to know if the U.S. Government is considering in any way this idea, is interested in this idea in any way.

ASSISTANT SECRETARY SILVERBERG: We remain strongly supportive of the United Nations. We think it's a critical organization. It's critical to have an organization with the kind of scope of the United Nations, with the broad portfolio. So no, we remain strong supporters of the institution and have been since its founding. I don't expect that will ever change.

Of course, there's room for lots of other multilateral organizations. The Community of Democracies is one that we strongly support. The Administration has worked closely on building a capacity of regional organizations, the AU in particular, to help address regional problems.

So we think that there's room for focus on lots of kinds of multilateral approaches but with a continued focus and commitment to the UN.

QUESTION: Thomas Nehls. I'm with the German Public Radio. Isn't it a little bit jeopardizing the summit results or even weaken the Secretary General's position the fact that you came out such late with all those demands to change the communiqué? I know it was because of the, you know, relation of Mr. Bolton that late, but now in the days before the summit begins it seems to jeopardize the whole process, the bunch of wishes of the United States, about 700, to change all those items you mentioned.

ASSISTANT SECRETARY SILVERBERG: We don't think it's correct that we came in late in the process. The U.S. submitted -- began submitting its amendments in June. I think we had four different submissions in June. Ambassador Patterson gave a speech about -- a very public speech about all of our concerns on August 2nd. So we submitted, and we think as did many other member-states, a number of objections to earlier drafts, both objections and ways that we thought we could improve the draft. There were lots of areas where we thought the language could be strengthened and where the UN can take a stronger stand.

Ambassador Bolton has proposed since the formal negotiations started, which was a week ago Monday -- I can't remember the exact date, sorry. Ambassador Bolton has proposed, we think, some very reasonable amendments and these are all reflected in the Dear Colleague letters that he put out as the negotiations started.

I don't think -- at last count there weren't anywhere near 700 of them. They were pretty, I think, reasonable and a number of things where the U.S. position is longstanding and well known. Our view about the way that you talk about official development assistance or our view on the International Criminal Court or on global taxes, these are all things that come up regularly in international fora. Other member-states are well aware of them and so we don't think it was particularly surprising to anyone when we reiterated these particular comments in this process.

QUESTION: Hi, my name is Maya Mirchandani from New Delhi Television, India. We just heard you talk about how the U.S. is thankful for India for the role it's playing in the democracy initiative. We all know that India's position has been on UN Security Council reform and the fact that India does feel that it merits a seat on an expanded Security Council. Why has the U.S. not yet been forthcoming in endorsing this view? And in your opinion, do you think something might come of that in this General Assembly?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY SILVERBERG: We have said that we're very open to Security Council expansion along the lines of a criteria-based approach. We've outlined a number of different things we think that member-states should look at with a view to making sure that any expansion of the Council makes it more effective rather than less effective. So we've said that we ought to consider things like commitment to the organization, which can be reflected in financial contributions to the UN or contributions to peacekeeping operations. We've said that we ought to look at things like regional diversity, at the size of a country both in terms of its population and in size of its economy. So we've outlined a criteria-based approach.

We've said that Japan, we think, clearly meets those criteria. There may well be other countries that meet those criteria as well and we're very interested in working with other member-states along the lines of that approach going forward.

QUESTION: Thank you. Deepanshu Banghcee from CNBC TV (inaudible) in India. I just wanted to follow up with Maya’s question. What sort of time frame are you looking at now? UN Secretary General Kofi Annan had said he would like to have this resolved this time around at this UN General Assembly. Do you think this will now get pushed back to December and what future talks will you be holding on this issue of Security Council expansion?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY SILVERBERG: I think it's not clear what the timing will be like. That in part depends on how much progress we see on the other parts of our reform agenda. We've said that we want to see some progress on them before we move. Security Council expansion has the possibility, we think, of occupying the stage so we want to see some progress on the other things before the Security Council debate is closely engaged. So it's not exactly clear what timing is but we have already been reaching out to a number of member-states about the best way forward and we'll continue to do so closely.

QUESTION: Lennart Pehrson of the Swedish newspaper Sydsvenska Dagbladet. I'm wondering about the debate that's going on on the development goal of 0.7 percent of the GNP. It seems to have been clear that that has not been acceptable for the U.S. for a long time. Still, it was allowed to get into a lot of documents, draft documents and so on. Other countries have said that this -- you know, explain it now a lack of interest or lack of leadership from the U.S. Could you shed some light from your side why this happened and it became sort of a divisive distraction?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY SILVERBERG: Sure. The point -- our position on .7, or really on any, we think, artificial goal for official development assistance has been a longstanding U.S. position, you know, dating for decades. And our general view on it is that when .7 was originally developed, there was a target for the kinds of growth rates we wanted to see in developing countries. And that, of course, makes sense. You want to look at what -- set something in mind for what you want to see actually on the ground in a developing country. A group extrapolated from that and made an assumption, all right, to see 6 percent growth in this particular developing country, we need to see an additional, say, billion dollars in increased ODA. They then made assumptions about what share of that would be official and what share of it would be private, and then extrapolated from that to get the .7.

We think really at a number of steps along the way there were some erroneous assumptions, one of which is that when .7 was originally developed, private assistance was about 30 percent of overall ODA and official development assistance was about 70 percent. In the time since, that's actually flipped and now private assistance dwarfs ODA. So there are a number of assumptions that we think make .7 itself questionable, but the bigger point is that the way to promote, we think, development most effectively isn't to focus on some artificial target for ODA; it's to focus on what are the conditions that can make ODA effective. As I said, the United States has supported some very dramatic increases for U.S. development assistance. We have close to doubled since the President took office. The President said again in Gleneagles, made a commitment that from '04, starting in '04, we will again double aid to Africa. So we strongly support increased aid but we think the way that you promote development most effectively is to focus on the kind of enabling environment.

QUESTION: Why do you think that it has to be anything, or since it's been clear, what is your concern now has been clear for a long time?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY SILVERBERG: I think this comes up very regularly in international fora. And the agreement we reached at Gleneagles, and I think the agreement we'll reach here too, is that it's very appropriate for other -- to recognize what other -- that some countries have made those commitments. So we feel very comfortable recognizing that some countries approach ODA in that way, so long as it doesn't purport to commit the United States to something that we have not committed to.

MS. NISBET: I think we have two or three questions from Washington. Maya, if you could just move to the side and if you could look straight ahead at the monitor. Go ahead and state your name and affiliation, please.

QUESTION: Thank you. Fawaz Turki, Arab News. Yes, my question is in context of the question raised earlier in New York about the hundreds -- well, maybe not 700, but hundreds of last-minute changes introduced by Ambassador Bolton during the negotiations over the agreement that is to be presented on Friday. This is what the Economist had to say about Mr. Bolton's attitude, if I may read it for you. It said, "Although many of the alterations demanded were stylistic or anodyne, some of them tore into the delicately balanced grand design between rich and poor countries that the UN had taken such pains to erect."

What do you say to that?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY SILVERBERG: I think it's important to remember a little bit about the way the process unfolded, which is prior to about a week and a half ago there were not formal negotiations around the document. There was this facilitator process where a facilitator would take a section of the document to the U.S. delegation, hear out the U.S. delegation and its concerns, go separately to the UK and hear out the UK concerns, go separately to Malaysia, that kind of thing. And so it wasn't a particularly open and transparent process. There were good reasons for it, but it was hard to see in any case what objections particular countries were raising. So although the U.S. has been raising positions all along, and particularly all the cases I've cited in June, it may not have been as public a process. I guess that would be my first point.

My second point is that, again, you know, the U.S. has worked diligently to get a good outcome document and we think we feel very good now, particularly about the development section, which has made -- we've made some great progress on it and worked cooperatively with lots of other member-states. So we remain committed to this but of course it was appropriate for the U.S. to put forward its views of the document all along.

QUESTION: Thank you. Sonia Schott, Radio Valera, Venezuela. I would like to know, I know you mentioned it very briefly on the UN Security Council expansion, but I would like to know about Brazil. I know that China is supporting Brazil as the coming permanent seat the UN Security Council. What about the U.S.? And if you have some comments on the common (inaudible) on terrorism, how far are you coming (inaudible) right now? Thank you.

ASSISTANT SECRETARY SILVERBERG: Yes, as I said earlier, we've said that we think Japan clearly meets the criteria. There may well be other countries that do as well. We haven't made any final judgments with respect to any other country but we are very open to Security Council expansion along those lines.

Your second question on terrorism -- what specifically?

QUESTION: If you are justified to a common (inaudible).

ASSISTANT SECRETARY SILVERBERG: I can't -- the TV is --

QUESTION: Definition of terrorism.

ASSISTANT SECRETARY SILVERBERG: Oh. The U.S. has -- as you know, a number of states have proposed to have an exception in the terrorist definition that would allow the intentional, deliberate targeting of civilians when it's done as part of a national liberation movement. We strongly oppose any kind of exception along those lines.

QUESTION: Yes, actually, the amendment that developing countries are calling for in the terrorism debate is this, and I quote: "The right (inaudible) people under occupation, the struggles of their independence and (inaudible) of their right to self-determination." You object to that clause?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY SILVERBERG: I'm sorry, I can't -- I can't hear it. The United States has said that we support the right of self-determination. Obviously, that's -- the United States has been on record on that for many decades. What we don't -- what we do object to is the notion that there's an exception to terrorism that the intentional and deliberate targeting of civilians is appropriate when it's done as part of a national liberation movement.

QUESTION: David Bario from the Asahi Shimbun. It looks at this point like an agreement, substantial agreement on both the human rights council and the management reforms is looking unlikely. Can you just give us your assessment as to why that happened? And if the U.S. had been more willing to give further concessions on development earlier on, if it may have helped its own case in this case.

ASSISTANT SECRETARY SILVERBERG: Well, I think, you know, the U.S. made a number of concessions on development. Last week we put, I thought, some very important compromise proposals on the table. And so we have worked hard to get there around language that was important to a lot of member-states for a good reason. We have not seen the same kind of flexibility from the other side with respect to management and human rights council and we think this is very counterproductive.

And just to give you, you know, a few examples, the management -- the Volcker Commission report from last week made as strong a case for management reforms as we think could be made. It talked about the risks of lax oversight, of the ethical problems, and made a very strong case for the need for an independent oversight and for some more flexibility for the Secretary General. So we think to resist management reforms in light of that is -- really could do some serious damage to the organization over the long term.

We will continue -- regardless of what happens in the outcome document, the United States will be pursuing as a very high priority resolutions within the General Assembly on both management and human rights council. As you know, on all of these issues, a resolution in the GA is what would effectively implement all of these changes. So we will remain committed to pursuing that as we go forward.

QUESTION: Nick Romov with Nikkei. Basically, there's just not enough time to come out with a really substantive outcome document at the United Nations so a lot of the press corps and a lot of the delegates there are basically giving up to prepare for just sort of a very generalized, vacuous document that's going to be billed as somewhat a failure at the summit. Do you attribute that to this facilitator process that was adopted early on?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY SILVERBERG: I think it will be a substantive document. I don't know that it will cover every topic under the sun, but I think it will be a lengthy and substantial and meaningful document. I don't -- you know, I think I don't want to, you know, attribute the reasons why things might have happened. I think the important thing is that going forward, and particularly as we go into the General Assembly, that we renew our commitment to pursue these important things, like a human rights council, like management reforms, like a peace building commission. So the U.S. will pursue those and I expect the President will make a strong statement of support.

QUESTION: Andrei Loshchilin, Russian News Agency RIA Novostia. Just before this briefing started, the word came out from the American mission at the United Nations that the delegations failed to reconcile their positions over the outcome document. Is it something the United States is ready for? Is it something that the United Nations can afford to come out of this summit without a final document?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY SILVERBERG: I think that the critical thing is that as this General Assembly session progress that we come out with meaningful resolutions on all of the things I cited: as a very top priority, management reforms. These are kind of very practical management reforms that would apply to any major organization, not just the UN. These are the kinds of things that can be supported from people not just from the U.S. but across the board really anyone who cares about the effectiveness of the organization. So I think the critical thing is that as we go forward and enter the General Assembly, we renew our commitment to resolutions that can put these kind of changes in place.

QUESTION: Laura Trevelyan from the BBC. The UN Secretary General Kofi Annan's term is up at the end of next year. Has the U.S. started to form a view on who the next Secretary General should be?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY SILVERBERG: We do not have a view on who the next Secretary General should be.

QUESTION: Or what their qualities should be?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY SILVERBERG: There are lots of important qualities and we'll look forward to talking to other member-states about the things that might be particularly high priority. But you can -- yes, you can imagine that will be an important part of our (inaudible).

QUESTION: Briefly, back to the possible enlargement of Security Council. I'm not that patriotic as a German regarding a possible German seat at the Security Council, but having heard your judgment twice that Japan meets the criteria, why does Germany not, in your opinion?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY SILVERBERG: I have not said that Germany does not. I've said there may well be other countries that meet those criteria; we just haven't made a final judgment.

QUESTION: My name is Shogo Kawakita. I'm with Kyodo News, Japanese News Agency. I would like to go back to the time frame of the Security Council expansion because, you know, it is not so clear to me. As you may know, G-4 is now willing to set a clear deadline. It is the end of this year. Could you tell us, what is your idea about G4's demand to set a deadline like that? Thank you.

ASSISTANT SECRETARY SILVERBERG: We think, in part, the appropriate deadline depends on the progress we see with respect to the other parts of the UN reform agenda and we just don't know enough yet about how those issues are going to progress. So in part, we'll have to see whether we see a commitment coming out of the summit to -- if we see sufficient support around resolutions on management, human rights council, peace building commission and other things.

QUESTION: Deepanshu Bagchee again from CNBC. I promise this one's not about UN Security Council. I just wanted to ask you, you said that you would wait for other UN reforms before you look at UN Security Council. What other issues will you be working with India this time around at the UN General Assembly, if you could talk a bit more about the Democracy Fund and that?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY SILVERBERG: Yes, actually, that's an important one, implementation of the Democracy Fund, and also how we go forward with respect to the Democracy Caucus. You know, the U.S., India and others are participating in a group in the UN to try to build support within democracies for a lot of things, like the human rights council. And so that will be an important part of, we think, our joint agenda with the Indian delegation on how can we make the Democracy Caucus effective, how can we -- what are the kinds of things the Democracy Caucus should prioritize. We'll be working on lots of issues like the human rights council, how can we wrap up the business of the Commission on Human Rights and how can we build support, broader support, for a human rights council that can address a lot of the things that have discredited the Commission.

QUESTION: Yes, I wondered, could you be a little bit more specific when you say that you will wait and see what comes out of this before you go on? I mean, are there certain set targets? I mean, will you sort of continue to work the other issues if you don't get the terrorism definition, if you don't get the human rights council and so on? And is there sort of a limit there when you say that, no, this is not working?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY SILVERBERG: I think what we'd like to see is sufficient momentum around management reforms as a top priority and around the human rights council. I think we'd like to see some real momentum around resolutions on both of those issues.

QUESTION: Paolo Mastrolilli for La Stampa news --

ASSISTANT SECRETARY SILVERBERG: Actually, may I just amend my answer? But I should say our discussions on expansion of the Security Council are ongoing. We haven't stopped the discussion in any sense on those. It's something we're continuing to engage other member-states on regularly.

Sorry.

QUESTION: The uniting for consensus movement has proposed to reform the Security Council by adding only nonpermanent seats. Is that something that the U.S. might consider in the future if there is no consensus about the enlargement by adding permanent seats?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY SILVERBERG: It's another proposal that we think will -- should deserves very serious consideration, so we're glad to have another idea on the table and looking at it closely.

QUESTION: Going back to what the likely outcome of the summit will be, of course, Congress was -- had put forward a bill. You know, it didn't go anywhere but they basically were suggesting that the U.S. should cut contributions to the UN general budget if they don't see the reforms that the U.S. likes. And this summit is sort of seen as the one chance for, you know, the world to be shown if the UN is going to reform along those lines. If (inaudible) don't see that, is the State Department concerned that Congress and the Administration concerned that Congress will make those moves again and it will just increase their hand in this?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY SILVERBERG: I don't want to speak for Congress, but there was very strong bipartisan support. As you know, a bill passed the House of Representatives with strong support which would requite the State Department to withhold contributions to the UN unless a number of reforms were made. There is significant support in the United States Senate for some variation that would encourage withholding unless there are strong reforms, particularly on the management side. I don't want to speak to what Congress would or wouldn't do, but I will say that there are within the U.S. there is overwhelming bipartisan support for the kinds of changes that can make sure that this organization functions always ethically, functions effectively, that we have the kind of pragmatic, very practical steps, so give the Secretary General authority with respect to personnel and other things, that we have a meaningful budget process where programs get an actual meaningful review before we fund them. So I will say there is very strong support for those kinds of changes.

We don't think -- we would really like to see in this outcome document a strong statement of support along those lines. We also -- it's also important going forward that we get strong support around a specific resolution, which is what will actually put the management reforms into effect.

QUESTION: Would the U.S. Administration, though, maintain its opposition of that sort of approach?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY SILVERBERG: We don't think that mandatory withholding is appropriate. We think that as we continue, as I started my remarks by talking about our commitment to the UN and we think it's important that the U.S. exercise a leadership role by meeting our financial commitments here. And we think the UN does a number of essential things around the world and we need to stay to continue to be one of the strong financial supporters of the organization.

QUESTION: Following the release of the Volcker report, many people have, in fact, called for the Secretary General's resignation. And U.S. Senator Norm Coleman reiterated his call for his resignation just a couple days ago. Why does the -- first of all, does the U.S. support the Secretary General and, if so, why aren't there more calls for the Secretary General to step down, given that he has failed in many ways as an administrator, according to, at least, many people's perspectives? Can you just reiterate the U.S. stance on his leadership?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY SILVERBERG: We support the Secretary General in his work at the UN and we're grateful that he's been such a strong partner in promoting reform.

QUESTION: On the UK's resolution on incitement of terrorism, I understand that there was some criticism from the human rights groups, you know, it could restrict the right to express freedom -- you know, right to expression or freedom of speech. How do you respond to that criticism? Thank you.

ASSISTANT SECRETARY SILVERBERG: You know, within the U.S., obviously, we have a very robust First Amendment that protects the broad swath of right to expression. It's an essential part of our constitutional structure. It's something that is deeply wound into the fabric of our society. But there is an enormous difference between expression and between encouraging a specific and targeted act of violence. That's also a longstanding principle within our First Amendment jurisprudence. And so we think that it's not either/or. You can have robust freedom of expression and still call for action that would first prevent incitement to specific acts of violence, but also make sure that there is a space for moderate voices. That's another important part of our foreign policy agenda is to make sure that we are creating room around the world for moderate voices to speak out against extremism.

QUESTION: But I understand that there is no definition of the incitement of the terrorism in the draft document, draft resolution, so that's the point. So how do you define incitement of terrorism?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY SILVERBERG: Different states may define incitement differently, especially depending on their legal structures. In the U.S., this issue has received, you know, years' worth of review, including by the Supreme Court. And the essential line is that it's not appropriate to encourage a specific act of violence against one.

QUESTION: Gunilla Kinn with Swedish National News Agency. You said before that there's been a lack of flexibility in terms of the negotiations (inaudible) reform. Can you be more specific what obstacles do you see which countries are specifically responsible for this?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY SILVERBERG: A number of states came in yesterday with some proposals to eliminate the provisions in the mandate that would allow a focus on grave and urgent situations. And this is a high priority, we think, because you want a council that can actually act when there's a crisis on the ground, not a council that's just sort of speaking globally and, you know, with unrelated to a specific crisis. There have been objections to voting requirements that would keep the worst offenders off. There have been longstanding objections to any criteria, any kinds of criteria to keep offenders off and other things related to the size of the council.

So across the board there have been a lot of amendments that we think would make this -- would ensure that the new body effectively replicated all of the problems of the old body, and that's something that we think needs to be avoided.

QUESTION: (Off mike.)

ASSISTANT SECRETARY SILVERBERG: Some of the amendments have come from Russia, China, Pakistan. I think that Libya and Cuba are also supporting them.

QUESTION: John Bolton said to the Security Council last week that there were some countries who wanted business as usual on this issue of UN reform. Which specifically countries was he talking about?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY SILVERBERG: I think that among the countries that have proposed management reforms are Egypt, Pakistan, Jamaica, others.

QUESTION: (Inaudible) what their reasons for proposing (inaudible)?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY SILVERBERG: I don't.

QUESTION: (Off mike.)

MS. NISBET: Are there any questions again from Washington? Anyone who hasn't had a chance?

QUESTION: Sonia Schott with Radio Valera Venezuala again. I would like to know the UN was (inaudible) that it would (inaudible) corruption (inaudible) presently. I would like to know, corruption or fight against corruption will be an issue for the General Assembly? And what about the U.S. position on the international (inaudible)? Has something changed or will be any change (inaudible)?

Thank you.

ASSISTANT SECRETARY SILVERBERG: I do think that the risk -- the measures to prevent corruption within the organization will be an important part of the efforts in the General Assembly this fall. That's a key part of our management reform agenda. It's the reason we support a more independent office of internal oversight because we want to make sure that there's a body that can effectively enforce ethical requirements at the UN.

QUESTION: The second question was on the position, the U.S. position on the international (inaudible).

MODERATOR: You mean the criminal court?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY SILVERBERG: Are you talking about the International Criminal Court?

QUESTION: I'm sorry (inaudible). Sorry.

ASSISTANT SECRETARY SILVERBERG: Yeah. No, our position has not changed on the ICC. We have the same concerns with it. As you know, we abstained on resolutions this year that allowed referrals in the context of Sudan to the ICC and we think that our position on that made some sense. We had -- in that case there was a specific Security Council referral so it wasn't -- the ICC wasn't acting on its own accord. There were protections put in place for parties who are not -- or countries who are not party to the Rome Treaty, including the U.S. And so we think that's a good way forward in the context of Sudan, but no, our position on the ICC has not changed.

MODERATOR: One more from Washington, please.

QUESTION: How do you see the role of future peace missions, UN peace missions?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY SILVERBERG: Peacekeeping?

QUESTION: Yes, peacekeeping. Yes.

ASSISTANT SECRETARY SILVERBERG: This is a high priority for us is making sure that peacekeeping mission are right-sized. In some cases, that requires -- in some cases like the Congo, it might require a real expansion. In other cases, we -- and for example, East Timor recently is a good example, we think that we can downsize or, in the case of some of them, close altogether. And so I can't predict and wouldn't want to predict what the size of peacekeeping missions will be a year from now. I think the important thing is that we constantly review their mandates to make sure that they're appropriately sized.