Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Crossfire

Is America's Influence Declining Around the World?

Aired May 09, 2001 - 19:30   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ARI FLEISCHER, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: The real losers in this vote are people around the world who need a strong United Nations and a strong voice on behalf of human rights.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ROBERT NOVAK, CO-HOST: Tonight, after being tossed off two United Nations panels, is America's influence declining around the world? And is it time for Washington to stop paying its U.N. dues?

ANNOUNCER: Live from Washington, CROSSFIRE.

On the left, Bill Press. On the right, Robert Novak. In the CROSSFIRE: House Majority Leader Dick Armey, a Republican of Texas. And later, in New York, former U.N. Ambassador Richard Holbrooke.

NOVAK: Good evening. Welcome to CROSSFIRE.

U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan sounded like a worried man today. He blanched at threats that U.S. payments to the United Nations will be frozen by Congress in retaliation for Yankee-bashing.

The U.N. chief called that a wrong and counterproductive reaction to the U.S. being kicked off the U.N.'s Human Rights Commission, while blatant human rights offenders Libya and Sudan are on it.

And in an added slap, the U.S. was voted off the U.N.'s Narcotics Control Board. Kofi Annan today called the double rejection a temporary setback that will be corrected -- next year.

But next year may be too late. The Republican chairman of the House International Relations Committee, Henry Hyde, is joined by the committee's top Democrat, Tom Lantos, in sponsoring a hold on the final $244 million in back dues to the U.N. owed by the U.S.

Have the anti-Americans at the U.N. gone too far? Or, is Uncle Sam getting what he deserves for throwing his weight around? Bill Press.

BILL PRESS, CO-HOST: Thank you, Robert. Of course, we will be joined shortly by Ambassador Holbrooke in New York.

But first, Mr. Leader, welcome to CROSSFIRE.

REP. DICK ARMEY (R-TX), MAJORITY LEADER: Thank you.

PRESS: Thank you for joining us.

I think all Americans are outraged by the idea that we, the champion of human rights, would not be on the human rights panel. And Sudan and Libya would be there. The question is, what do we do about it?

You have been one of the most vocal in saying, we ought to respond by cutting off our dues to the United Nations. But isn't that just, seriously, going to compound the problem, make matters worse, just provoke further retaliation by the part of U.N. members?

ARMEY: Well, it's hard to tell. The U.N. kind of has a push me, pull you attitude towards the United States. On one hand, they want us to participate and invite our participation; they especially invite our contributions. We pay 25 percent of the expenses of the U.N. -- that's twice what the next most generous contributor is. And we participate in so many other ways.

But the United States, a nation that is foremost in its commitment to human rights, cannot, in any way, tolerate the inclusion of countries like Libya and Sudan. Especially Sudan at this time, the most awful horror story you can imagine being played out in that country, and they will be now appointed by the U.N. to be one of the foxes to watch that hen house?

I just think this nation has got to cry out in protest in the interest of human rights before, the interest of the United States.

PRESS: The question, again, is, do you cry out by withholding the check? I hear what you are saying, but not all voices, even in your own party, maybe not even your own president, agree with what you're saying. Here's the press secretary of the State Department today, Richard Boucher, his response to that very question. Please listen: I'd like to get your comment.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

RICHARD BOUCHER, STATE DEPARTMENT SPOKESMAN: We don't think that linking our obligations and payments to the United Nations to the outcome of that particular vote is a good idea. We think that that would be extremely damaging to our ability to cooperate in multilateral organizations and with a sense that we are a reliable participant in these organizations and that we'll pay our way.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

PRESS: So he says, no linkage, you say, linkage. So, is George Bush too soft on this?

ARMEY: What you have to do is, I think you have to take a look of, where does this come from? It comes out of the committee, with people like Tom Lantos and the chairman of the committee. And the fact of the matter is, the American people are desperately concerned about the U.N.: what is this institution today? How is it run? And there's a big sense of concern that the organization has fallen into the hands of permanent lifetime U.N. bureaucrats. And that indeed is the way to get their attention.

PRESS: What about the White House response? You just think the State Department here is being too soft?

ARMEY: I think the Congress of the United States is going to make a statement that is American in its emphasis. We are speaking on behalf of the American people, we are reflecting the attitudes of the American people, the State Department will come at it from another point of view.

But I can guarantee you this: that amendment will be on the floor and it will have at least 300 votes, and that's the American people saying...

NOVAK: Including Dick Armey.

ARMEY: Absolutely. No doubt about that.

NOVAK: Secretary of State Colin Powell said, we just have to take our hit and move on. He also said something, Mr. Leader. He said that the people who voted against this in the Western European bloc, to get on this commission, were kind of trading votes, playing games, and they were as astounded as we were that we were kept off. Do you buy that, that they were just playing and things went awry? Do you really accept that?

ARMEY: Not necessarily. I don't believe that. And I don't believe that the greater offense in this matter is the United States being kept off. The thing that the nation -- the world should be alarmed about, is Sudan, especially Sudan, but certainly Libya as well being on.

This is the United States -- the United Nations saying to Dick Armey just a poor old country boy from Texas, Dick Armey, we really don't take human rights all that serious. I said earlier today and I will say it here on your show: They have made a farce of themselves on the subject of human rights by including these two nations more than anything else. And this nation I think has to speak out against that.

NOVAK: I like to read to you what your counterpart on the Democratic side, Dick Gephardt, the minority leader of the House, had to say about the exclusion of the United States from the human rights commission. He said quote:

"I hope the Bush administration shifts course,and learns that our government must work cooperatively with our allies and other nations when possible to have influence abroad."

In other words, we don't play nice with the other kids, and that's why all these rogue nations, including Sierra Leone -- they are not very nice either -- they are on this human rights commission. Would you comment on Mr. Gephardt's comment.

ARMEY: Well, I guess if I hadn't seen Dick everyday, day in and day out for the last 18 years, I would ask what planet Dick, have you been on. The United States of America is the world's leader; we are the first ones there.

Who? What nation ever commits their young people, their resources, their riches, to the cause of human liberty more quickly than the United States? What nation reaches out to other nations when they are in distress more quickly than we do?

What I think -- we have a group of folks here at the U.N. that have a burr on their saddle for one reason or another: They want to send us a message.

I think we should send one back, and say, look, don't be calling us ugly and then expect us to take you to the problem. Because we've been paying the way for prom dates for a lot of those nations for a lot of years. This is a generous nation. We will continue that.

But we will not have the very principle that we are fighting for and devote so much of our nation's resources to, human rights, assaulted by inclusion of the world's worst perpetrators on this commission.

PRESS: Mr. Leader, I don't think Dick Gephardt was questioning at all our commitment to human rights. i think what he's getting at -- if you look at the last 100 days, President Bush has really gone out of his way to irritate, if not alienate, some of our allies.

We dropped out of the Kyoto Treaty, we dropped out of the ABM Treaty, we're forcing missile defense on people in Europe and in Asia that don't want it, we are still behind in our U.N. dues, we said we won't even continue talks with North Korea.

We have been poking them in the eye. Isn't this sort of payback? And don't they have a right to be annoyed at our go it alone...

ARMEY: First of all, I don't think we will force a missile defense on anybody. We are saying that we will build one for the interest of the American people to secure our nation and we are fair and willing to share it with anybody else who wants that technology. What more generosity can you have in doing that?

The Kyoto Treaty many of us thought was ill-advised and is in fact bad not only for the United States but possibly the entire world, and our president makes a judicious decision there. That is what presidents do when they take office and assume the responsibility of leadership.

PRESS: But here's the point: that all these decisions are made without consultation on any of our allies. And they are ticked off. And isn't the lesson here, that in this era of globalization, you have to have global cooperation? We just can't act as a unilateral agent.

ARMEY: I can't speak to the question of how much I know the president. I've talk to the president frequently; he contacts international leaders; he tries to stay active; he's trying to get his ambassador of the U.N. out through the Senate.

This is a man who has, I think, a good understanding of diplomacy and is a man who has shown us -- I'm talking about President Bush. He has shown us that he's the first to reach out. Now, I have an idea that you've got some folks in Europe and some of these nations that don't understand.

Who was it that said, let's expand NATO, we're for NATO? Who was there with NATO? The United States. As quickly as possible, it was the Republicans in our majority that said: Expand NATO.

I don't think that they're always appreciative and recognize what we are doing. But let's say you're mad as a wet hen at the United States. We've been the rudest people in the world. Are you are going to put Libya and Sudan on that commission? That is really, I think, quite ill-advised behavior.

PRESS: Majority Leader, Dick Armey, thank you very much for joining us on CROSSFIRE. We're going to take a break now. When we come back, we'll turn to a man with perhaps a different point of view, former U.N. Ambassador Richard Holbrooke will be joining us from New York.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

PRESS: Welcome back to CROSSFIRE. Recapping: For the United States, it's a double whammy, Sudan and Libya on the U.N. Human Rights Commission, where we no longer have a seat. Peru and Iran on the International Drug Monitoring Panel, from which we were also booted -- actions which have prompted some on Capitol Hill to demand not paying our U.N. dues.

Now, for a second take on what's the appropriate response, we turn to the man who represented the United States at the United Nations for the last two years: Ambassador Richard Holbrooke. He joins us from New York -- Bob.

NOVAK: Ambassador Holbrooke, thanks for coming in. The Swedish ambassador to the U.N., Pierre Schori, was quoted the other day as saying the following: "There is no permanent seat for anyone." That's on the International Human Rights Commission.

"You have to earn your seat year to year." Earn it like Sudan and Libya did!

"Global problems need global solutions. You can't go it alone any longer in this globalizing world." Well, since we have such arrogant friends in Western Europe, Ambassador, don't you think we ought on go on a year-to-year basis on paying back the U.N., and go along with Dick Armey and his colleagues, and hold back that last 244 million?

RICHARD HOLBROOKE, FORMER U.N. AMBASSADOR: It's great to see you again, Bob. (LAUGHTER)

Listen, let's start -- I know this is very radical for talk television, but let's start with some facts. Your previous interview -- your previous interviewee made several major and minor factual errors. We don't pay 25 percent of the U.N. budget anymore. We're down to 22 percent, because that's what Senator Helms and Senator Biden mandated. And we negotiated that last year. We don't pay more than twice as much as any other country. Japan pays 20 percent.

Now let me go to your question: Of course we should review it every year. And what happened to the United States last week in the Human Rights Commission, which by the way, was founded by Eleanor Roosevelt -- and on which we've been continuously for 55 years -- was an outrage.

But let's examine what happened. I don't like the fact that Libya and Sudan are on the commission, but that isn't any threat to our national security. The reason we came off that commission last week as I understand it, and I've talked to my friends and colleagues and former colleagues at the U.N. and in the U.S. government about this in the last few days, and this is the first time I've had a chance to talk about publicly because I've been overseas -- is it was a very unusual combination of circumstances. It's not going to happen again.

I am certain the U.S. will get back on the commission next year. And I have no problem at all with the Lantos-Hyde amendment, which withholds the last $244 million of the Helms-Biden arrearage package -- I know this is getting a little technical -- but withhold next year's 244 million if we don't get on.

So that, I hope, satisfies what you've just talked about. But I also agree with the sound byte you used of Ambassador Boucher at the State Department, saying we ought to go ahead and meet the obligation that we already agreed to, and which Helms and Biden put forward and passed the Senate by a vote of 99 to nothing to pay the 582 million. Now, that's where we are.

NOVAK: I'd like to play you a sound byte of somebody who ranks a little bit higher than Mr. Boucher, and that's the secretary of defense. Let's listen to what he had to say.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD RUMSFELD, SECRETARY OF DEFENSE: Sudan on the human rights commission is -- and the U.S. off -- tells more about the people who cast the votes and the judgment that was used than it does about the United States.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

NOVAK: Now, that isn't just...

(CROSSTALK)

HOLBROOKE: Bob, I completely...

NOVAK: Let me just ask the question, Dick. That isn't just Bob Novak talking. That's the secretary of defense, and he seems to be a little bit more outraged about the collective judgment of your former colleagues at the U.N. that you are.

HOLBROOKE: No, he isn't, Bob. And you're not going to trap me into being out-outraged by someone else. If I had been in the job this week, I would have fought like hell, and I would have said what I'm going to say to you now. It is an outrage that we were put off this commission. The United States will get back on it next year. They lost the position. The administration lost the position through a combination of events, and you haven't explained to your viewers, nor indeed have most of journalists writing about it, explained what really happened.

We didn't lose a vote to Sudan and Libya. The U.N. is divided into regional groups. The United States, for bizarre reasons I won't bore you with, is in a group with the Europeans. That group had three seats. The European Union put up three candidates, France, Sweden and Austria, so the United States was put in the appalling position of having to run against pro-human rights, like-minded countries from Europe, one of whom -- the Swedes you've just quoted.

Now, that is wrong. The E.U. should not have put up three candidates. They and the U.S. should have settled this between themselves. Once that happened, we turned this decision over to some of our adversaries. It was a lousy way to do business. But -- Bob, this goes to Don Rumsfeld's point -- the United States should not punish the organization for the vote of certain countries on it, and that is what -- that's what Secretary Rumsfeld said, and I agree with that. Let's not punish the U.N., which is important to us. Let's go after the countries that did this.

PRESS: Ambassador, I want to ask you about another factor that might have gone into this vote. As you indicated by your answer, there's a lot of homework here that had to be done, a lot of talking to people. Yet since you left the United Nations, there has been nobody at the helm. The next man to be ambassador, John Negroponte, has not been confirmed by the Senate.

Had he been on the job, do you think could have been avoided, would have been avoided?

HOLBROOKE: Well, first of all -- let me say two things. First of all, John Negroponte is a terrific choice for this job. He was Colin Powell's deputy at the White House. He was my deputy during the Carter administration in the Asian bureau. He was my roommate, in fact, in Saigon 35 years ago, and I am just honored and proud that he will be my successor.

Secondly, the acting ambassador to the U.N., James Cunningham, was my deputy. He is one of the finest career diplomats of this generation. he is in the middle of a great career, and I am not going to say anything that would imply that he performed less well than either I or John Negroponte would have. What happened was a series of events caught up, a very unusual combination of events caught up with them, and it happened. Now, let's deal with its consequences. We've got to get back on and we've got to find out how to prevent this in the future.

PRESS: And let me ask you, if I can quickly them, to look in the context. I know you read the front page of "The New York Times" today, which talked about an emerging new foreign policy for this administration, which is referred to here as aggressive unilateralism, maybe translating: We're strong, we're big, we go it on our own. We don't need any other treaties or no, you know, deal with our allies. Good policy, and will it work?

HOLBROOKE: Bill, I can't imagine that anyone would seriously put forward aggressive unilateralism: two words each of will backfire if implemented. We are the world's only superpower. We are the world's leader, but we can only do it in partnership with our NATO allies and other great countries around the world like Japan and other great allies. So, I don't know what that phrase means.

NOVAK: Ambassador, I just want you to listen to something that the national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, said on Sunday.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CONDOLEEZZA RICE, NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER: I suspect that this was a backlash of those who don't like being judged, that perhaps the United States has been a little too active on the human rights commission. We were very active in this most recent round, and maybe it will be easier now for human rights abusers to escape scrutiny.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

NOVAK: We need a quick answer from you: agree or disagree?

HOLBROOKE: My interpretation is different from Condi's. It was the fact that the Europeans put up threes candidates for three seats that forced us to compete against them, and let the rogue states get into this game, number one. Number two, it's not going to diminish American leadership. At least, it shouldn't. I can't speak for this administration, but United States should be just as vigorous as ever and I don't...

NOVAK: We're out of time.

(CROSSTALK)

HOLBROOKE: ... and I think this a technical issue and it's going to be fixed.

NOVAK: Ambassador, thank you very much for coming in. And for closing comments, that old America-basher, Bill Press, and I will be back soon.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

NOVAK: Bill, I know -- I don't question your patriotism. I never would do that, but you're in the old blame American crowd. When anything goes wrong, blame America. I don't think we should be blamed for these people -- this society of rogues called the United Nations kicking us out. We ought to be proud and just as both our guests said tonight, withhold that last payment until they put us back on that commission.

PRESS: I'm not blaming America. I'm blaming the United Nations. This is a stupid, dumb, outrageous thing to kick us off. The question is, how do we respond. We've got to continue to play in the United Nations. Bob, you cannot cut yourselves off. I've got no problem two years from now holding that thing off, but to retaliate now is wrong.

NOVAK: You fooled me. I thought you would you say it was Bush's fault.

PRESS: From the left, I'm Bill Press. Good night from CROSSFIRE. See you later in "THE SPIN ROOM."

NOVAK: From the right, I'm Robert Novak. Join us again next time for another edition of CROSSFIRE.

TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com