97 U.N. budget. We will continue to press the Secretariat on the issue of absorption and are seeking support for this position from other major contributors.

We cannot speak for the Secretary General regarding the feasibility of operating within the budget cap. From the U.S. standpoint, the issue is clear. The U.N. must operate within the $2.608 billion budget ceiling approved last December. All additional costs must be absorbed within the ceiling.

PEACEKEEPING MISSIONS

Question. Ambassador Albright, your testimony notes that the Peacekeeping budget is going down. But isn't this due to NATO and the U.S. military taking over the Bosnia operation?

Answer. Yes, most of the decrease in the fiscal year 1997 budget request is due to the restructuring of operations in the Former Yugoslavia. However, the closure of U.N. operations in Rwanda, Somalia, and Mozambique, as well as the downsizing of the U.N. operation in Haiti, also account for a a significant part of the decrease. Question. It seems like the success of the NATO mission leads one to question the effectiveness of U.N. peacekeeping. When this was a U.N. mission, we saw nightly news reports of fighting and rape. We heard reports of corruption. And our biggest concern became how do we evacuate those U.N. peacekeeping forces before winter sets in.

How would you assess the record of U.N. peacekeeping in Bosnia?

Answer. A major difference between IFOR and the U.N. mission in Bosnia, UNPROFOR, is that IFOR deployed after a peace agreement among the parties was signed. UNPROFOR had the more difficult task of trying to ensure the delivery of humanitarian aid and carve out safe areas in the midst of ongoing conflict.

Although UNPROFOR's assistance to humanitarian operations in Bosnia saved hundreds of thousands of lives, it lacked the military power required to impose its will upon well-armed and hostile Bosnian factions, particularly the Bosnian Serbs. UNPROFOR was also hampered by a lack of agreement among the permanent members of the Security Council, not only about the proper response to the fighting, but about the nature of the conflict itself. As a result, the operation was not able to fulfill many aspects of its mandate.

Because of our experience with UNPROFOR, we have been insisting, in Security Council deliberations, that new U.N. peace operations have realistic mandates, adequate resources, clear target dates for departure and fully satisfactory arrangements for the command and control of participating forces. We have also been placing greater reliance on "core contributors" to U.N. peacekeeping operations, such as Canada in Haiti and Belgium in Eastern Slavonia.

Question. The President has committed to get U.S. forces out of Bosnia by Christmas. What happens then? The U.N. isn't contemplating putting in a new operation is it?

Answer. The Administration's position continues to be that IFOR's mission can be completed in about a year. IFÓR's present plan is to maintain its force at full strength through the elections in Bosnia. The drawdown of IFOR is expected to begin after the elections, but NATO will maintain a militarily effective force up until the end of IFOR's mission. The pace of the drawdown will be determined by General Joulwan and NATO military authorities, in consultation with the NAC, based on the security environment. IFOR hopes to complete the drawdown of all of its troops in the weeks immediately after December 20, on a schedule consistent with troop safety and logistical requirements.

As for a follow-on operation for IFOR, at this point, no decision has been made about the necessity for such an operation, or what form it might take if it were deemed necessary.

ARREARAGES

Question. Ambassador Albright, your budget includes an increase of $43 million to pay arrearages to the United Nations and other international organizations. And your plan is to have the U.S. Congress appropriate an additional $215 million over the next five years.

Now these are arrearages for payments that the U.S. did not make back in the mid-1980's.

The U.N. and other international organizations functioned without these appropriations in the mid-1980's. We have been fully funding requests for at least the past five years. So, why is it now important to provide funding in fiscal year 1997 for requirements that were requested back in 1987?

Isn't it impossible to reduce your budget? Whatever we don't fund in your request, you argue that we owe you.

Answer. The total amount we are requesting for arrears over five years is $215 million for the Contributions to International Organizations (CIO) appropriation and $743 million for Contributions for International Peacekeeping Activities (CIPA). The portion of the CIO account that relates to the United Nations regular budget is $56 million and these arrears occurred in the mid to late 1980's. That $56 million plus the $743 million for peacekeeping totals almost $800 million that we owe to the U.N. and that is significant. The peacekeeping arrears are current; they arose in fiscal year 1995 and fiscal year 1996. The Administration submitted a fiscal year 1995 supplemental request for peacekeeping that was not acted upon by the Congress. As a result, these obligations remain outstanding.

U.S. arrears to the United Nations are a major cause of the U.N.'s financial problems and have become a major political issue for us. They contribute to chronic cashflow problems that complicate U.N. planning and, if not addressed, could impinge seriously on peacekeeping and other operations in which the U.S. has a strong interest. Our effort to sustain progress towards reform at the U.N. is also being undercut by our failure to pay what we owe. Even countries sympathetic to reform argue that the biggest problem facing the U.N. is not failure to reform, but the failure of members to pay their dues. Our proposal to pay arrears would remove this distraction to reform, while creating new reasons to proceed with the kind of farreaching change we believe is needed to prepare the U.N. for the twenty-first century.

Our reform proposals include eliminating or downsizing low priority activities, consolidating related agencies, expanding the Inspector General concept and implementing more efficient management practices throughout the U.N. system. We have also initiated a new budget policy that will reduce U.S. costs by holding U.N. agency budgets down. While difficult, it is not impossible to reduce the budget. In fact, for the first time in its history, the U.N. approved a budget last December that is at least initially below the spending level for the previous two years. Because our fiscal year 1997 request for the U.N. regular budget pays our calendar year 1996 assessment, any shortfall in the appropriation results in a further arrearage for the United States.

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR PETE V. DOMENICI

Question. President Clinton in his fiscal year 1997 budget request has asked for 4 years of advanced appropriations to pay off what the U.S. owes the U.N. In addition to the actual funding request, the President proposed appropriations language that states, "none of the funds appropriated under this heading for the payment of arrearages shall be obligated until any conditions imposed by law on the obligation of such funds for a particular fiscal year, concerning the reform of the United Nations, have been satisfied."

Ambassador Albright, the administration sent this language and funding request but sent no specific U.N. reforms. What specific reforms is the President referring to?

Answer. Based on discussions we have held with Members of Congress over the past year, we expect that funds authorized and appropriated to finance arrears payments to the U.Ñ. will be subject to continued progress on reform. The nature, timing and extent of reforms required to trigger the payment of appropriated funds for arrears is a matter for further discussion. Our goal is an arrangement that would provide an incentive for additional reforms that are achievable at the U.N. and that are in accordance with those presented by the United States to the U.N. High Level Working Group on U.N. Finances and to the High Level Working Group on Strengthening the U.N. System.

Copies of those proposals have been made available to Congress. They include suggestions for cutting administrative costs, restructuring the U.N. Secretariat, using the General Assembly instead of expensive global conferences for debating selected topics of broad interest, rationalizing the U.N.'s scale of assessments and replicating the U.N.'s Inspector General concept elsewhere within the U.N. system.

U.N. SECRETARY GENERAL

Question. Will the Administration support Dr. Boutros Boutros-Ghali for a second term to be Secretary-General of the United Nations (his term expires on December 31, 1996)? If not, who are the other candidates that the Administration is considering?

Answer. Secretary-General Boutros-Ghali has not indicated he is running for a second term. We have not made any commitment to him concerning his possible

candidacy for re-election. By the same token, it would also be premature to indicate a position on other possible candidacies.

The Office of Secretary-General is exceptionally challenging, demanding great energy, a wide range of skills, and a strong commitment to U.N. reform. The U.N. Secretary-General should be a strong leader, experienced administrator, sound manager, and adept diplomatist. In short, the U.N.'s leader should be dedicated to an effective, fiscally and administratively disciplined U.N. that is supportive of principles and values that Americans and citizens around the world cherish: security, peace, and stability; freedom, democracy, human rights, and the rule of law; and market economies. These are the qualities we would look for in any candidate we would support for Secretary-General.

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR ERNEST F. HOLLINGS

Question. Our Committee staff went up to the United Nations in New York a few years ago and they met with your people and representatives from various U.N. member states. They were told at one lunch by these representatives that the U.N. is not criticized in other Western nations, that this was an American phenomenon. Is that your perception?

Why do you think that is, because U.S taxpayers are expected to pay so much of the budget?

Answer. No, my perception is that there is fairly broad support for the United Nations within our own country and in most other countries. Public opinion polls back this up.

At the same time, there is recognition in many countries that the U.N. needs to improve its management and that it should be reorganized to minimize duplication and to tighten its focus.

With respect to cost, I would point out-as European diplomats frequently do to me that the citizens of Japan and the European Union countries are assessed by the U.N. at a higher rate, relative to their share of the global economy, than are U.S. taxpayers.

STATEMENTS OF:

U.S. INFORMATION AGENCY

JOSEPH DUFFEY, DIRECTOR, U.S. INFORMATION AGENCY

DAVID W. BURKE, CHAIRMAN, BROADCASTING BOARD OF GOVERNORS

ACCOMPANIED BY:

PENN KEMBLE, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, U.S. INFORMATION AGENCY JOHN P. LOIELLO, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR FOR EDUCATIONAL AND CULTURAL AFFAIRS, U.S. INFORMATION AGENCY

CAROLINE ISACCO, ACTING DIRECTOR, CONGRESSIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS, U.S. INFORMATION AGENCY STANLEY M. SILVERMAN, AGENCY BUDGET OFFICER, U.S. INFORMATION AGENCY

TOM C. KOROLOGOS, MEMBER, BROADCASTING BOARD OF GOV. ERNORS

GEOFFREY B. COWAN, DIRECTOR, INTERNATIONAL BROADCASTING BUREAU, AND DIRECTOR, VOICE OF AMERICA

PREPARED STATEMENT

Senator GREGG. Let us start this hearing. I appreciate your willingness to sit through all this confusion, Mr. Duffey, and the good folks with you.

Again, we are in the middle of these 10-minute votes, so we are rushing in and out, and I apologize for that.

Why do we not proceed with you making whatever statement you feel most comfortable with, however you wish to proceed on that, either submit it to us or give us a quick thumbnail sketch, whatever you desire, and then we will go into some questions.

Mr. DUFFEY. I have a written statement. Can that just be entered for the record and let me make my remarks very informally. Senator GREGG. Yes.

[The statement follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DR. JOSEPH DUFFEY

Chairman Gregg, Senator Hollings, Members of the Subcommittee: I am pleased to appear today before the Subcommittee and I appreciate the opportunity to express my views on the mission and the work of the United States Information Agen

cy.

It is clear to all observers-whether their vantage point be that of government, business or academics that, even as we speak, powerful forces continue to shape and reshape the face of international relations. On the one hand, the information and communications revolution of the 20th century is as profound in its consequences as was the Industrial Revolution of the last century. On the other, the realignment of forces in the world since the collapse of the Soviet Union has led to a growth in democratic practices and a marked shift in power to individuals and publics. These phenomena have presented American leadership with new challenges and forced upon all of us a reassessment of the way in which we engage the world. Now that the nations of the world are no longer arrayed along one great ideological divide, many more and different voices are heard. The world is a more varied and fragmented place as peoples and governments go their own individual and idio

syncratic ways. It is a world where America will need to cooperate as well as lead; listen as well as speak. We will have to be acutely aware of other people's values and beliefs while always ensuring that they know and understand ours. Our policies will have to be more complex and informed. We will need to engage to a much greater extent the talents and resources of our own society and citizens.

The world that I am describing is the world of the U.S. Information Agency. We have a clear and focussed mission to promote the national interest and national security of the United States of America through understanding, informing and influencing foreign publics and broadening dialogue between American citizens and institutions and their counterparts abroad. USIA is vigorously responding to a changed world and reinventing public diplomacy to match the needs of American society and American foreign policy. The men and women of USIA are proud of this mission and its direct relevance to the world around us.

The most recent independent testimony to this relevance comes from two distinguished former defense officials, Admiral William Owens, former Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and Joseph Nye, former Assistant Secretary of Defense. Writing in the latest issue of Foreign Affairs, they find it strange that there is a debate about "whether to dismantle USIA just when its potential is greatly expanding." "Some in Congress," they go on to say, "have been reluctant to support any defense spending that does not directly involve U.S. combat troops and equipment. However, defense by other means is relatively inexpensive. Programs like USIA *** constitute only a tiny fraction of the defense budget. Although it is impossible to quantify these programs' contributions, we are convinced that they are highly cost effective in serving U.S. security needs. Similarly, USIA's achievements * * should be more appreciated. USIA's seminal contribution of keeping the idea of democracy alive in the Soviet bloc during the Cold War could be a mere prologue." Nye and Owens conclude that “* * * the U.S. government should not abdicate the agenda-setting function to the media because the market and private individuals cannot fulfill all of the information needs of American foreign policy."

USIA is, indeed, an agile organization that has responded quickly and well to the seemingly endless process of change that confronts the American policymaker. USIA is a vitally important agency within the foreign policy community. We carry out a distinct and important mission that serves the nation's interests. All of our activities-field missions, exchanges and training programs, broadcasting, information dissemination-advance and support the foreign policy priorities set forth by the President and the Secretary of State.

When I began my tenure as Director of USIA, I ordered a rigorous scrutiny of all our activities. Then, we acted. For example:

-Our response to foreign policy initiatives has been dynamic. Since 1990 we have closed 28 posts around the world-10 of them mission posts-and at the same time we have opened 26 new posts. These new posts support foreign policy priorities of both the Bush and Clinton administrations in Russia, the NIS and elsewhere.

-In fiscal year 1996 alone we are closing five mission posts and 10 branch posts. At the same time, we are shifting resources to enable us to support USG policy in Moldova, Yekaterinburg, Russia and Pristina, Kosovo. We no longer hold to the principle of universal presence. We have made the hard decisions to place our resources where they matter most to American interests. Our overseas reductions, moreover, have been made according to a sophisticated and carefully thought-out analysis of our posts and their importance to American foreign policy.

-We have consolidated all non-military international radio broadcasting for a savings of more than $400 million over the period fiscal year 1994–97 and eliminated over 1,200 positions.

-We have terminated programs of long-standing and distinguished service, such as our worldwide printed magazines, because they were no longer the most effective means of reaching foreign decision-makers.

-We eliminated an entire bureau and created, from scratch, a new Bureau of Information-lean, team-based and one-third smaller than its predecessor-that anticipates America's foreign policy needs and is structured and staffed to take full advantage of the information revolution.

-The Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs is undertaking a consolidation that will reduce seven offices into four and cut staff by 16 percent.

-The Management Bureau has reengineered its administrative processes and is developing more efficient ways of doing business while cutting staff by 18 per

cent.