 |  |  |
| Return to: Left History: a digital archive | Return to: Say no to imperialist wars! | Return to: NATO-Yugoslav War Internet Resources |
| | |
| Return to: Left History: a digital archive | Return to: Say no to imperialist wars! | Return to: NATO-Yugoslav War Internet Resources |
UNITED NATIONS, Oct. 29 (UPI) The controversy over America's unpaid U.N. dues is just a small piece of the federal budget debate in Washington, but U.N. officials see it as a struggle for the world body's very existence.
For U.N. officials, it's literally a billion-dollar issue. They say the United States owes more than $1.5 billion for regular and peacekeeping dues. Washington says the figure is closer to $1 billion, but no one disputes that the money is owed.
The Clinton administration's plan to pay nearly $1 billion in back dues has long been delayed in Congress thanks to a dispute over providing funding for international programs that mention the possibility of abortion. While the Clinton administration blames Congress, some lawmakers say that the administration has refused to compromise on the abortion language and therefore is responsible for the deadlock.
U.N. officials say they just want the dues paid so the United Nations can operate effectively.
U.N. Undersecretary-General for Management and Budget Joseph Connor said recently that the magnitude of unpaid U.S. assessments eliminates any financial base for the world organization.
"It obliterates it," said Connor, U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan's point-man on the institution's budget and the former chief of the PriceWaterhouseCooper international accounting firm. "Absence of financial flexibility endangers the organization's very existence."
The situation has also roused the ire of other nations, which resent the United States for being what they see as the world body's biggest deadbeat. At last month's General Assembly session, a parade of speakers from around the globe made indirect, but hardly subtle, references to the United States' failure to pay its dues. Even a British official, whose nation is a staunch ally of the United States, on Thursday took a swipe at the U.S. debt to the United Nations.
"As a friend of America and sharing the same values, we have exactly the same approach in many ways," he said, including the need for budget reform and "financial rectitude" at the United Nations.
But that said, he noted, "We find it hard to understand why the richest country in the world is the single biggest debtor in the United Nations." President Clinton said the need to pay back dues is a "vital" U.S. priority in the midst of his budget battle with Republicans in Congress.
Clinton said the United States needs to "honor our obligations and pay our debts to the United Nations." Without U.N. backing, he said, "America would be left with an unacceptable choice in future conflict, a choice between doing nothing or acting all alone."
Right now, the U.S. choice is either to pay some of its late dues or be blacklisted in the U.N. General Assembly, the body consisting of all U.N. member nations in the world.
In what is becoming an annual ritual, the United States must come up with nearly $300 million by the end of the year to avoid the loss of its vote in the U.N. General Assembly as consequence for failing to pay down its U.N. debt. Until recently, the figure was $350 million.
But at a U.N. budget hearing earlier in the week, Deputy U.S. Ambassador Peter Burleigh announced that U.S. officials had found $47 million to make at least a token payment, and U.N. officials say that Congress recently voted another $20 million toward back dues. "We were a little bit surprised and very happy," Connor told United Press International. "I'll take cash anytime," he said. "We don't care whether it comes as part of the regular budget, for peacekeeping or (international) tribunals. It all counts to the $350 million needed to avoid a loss of vote" in the General Assembly.
That $67 million payment reduces the amount needed to avoid a U.S. vote loss to $283 million. No matter what happens, the vote would not be affected in the more powerful Security Council, where hot issues from East Timor to Kosovo are handled and international law is written.
But U.N. officials say a lack of payment could have ramifications that affect critical peacekeeping and civilian operations in strife-torn Kosovo and East Timor. The United Nations has been dipping into peacekeeping funds to pay debts, leaving troop contributors unpaid.
Fred Eckhard, Annan's spokesman, said: "We've built up a huge debt to nations who have contributed troops. Peacekeeping is to a point where some are now reluctant to offer new troops until those outstanding debts have been settled."
The long-simmering problem has eroded U.S. influence in the world body, U.S. and U.N. diplomats said.
"The fact that the world's most powerful nation that also claims to be a staunch supporter of the United Nations is not supporting it financially gets in the way of the United States playing its natural leadership role in the organization," said Eckhard.
"It makes it hard to work with people," said a U.S. official who asked not to be identified. "People see it as the United States violating its treaty obligations. It makes them less inclined to cooperate with us."
The official pointed to the recent U.S. ouster from the all-important Advisory Committee on Administration and Budgetary Questions, which holds the purse strings for the secretary-general. Diplomats say that was a clear consequence of the U.S. failure to pay its back dues.
But the Clinton Administration has been lobbying behind the scenes to keep the ACABQ seat. The latest forecast among diplomats is that the United States could win back its seat on the panel in the next few days, ending a demand by some members of Congress that Washington be reseated on the ACABQ before any funds are approved.
Meanwhile, the debt payment debate is caught in a complex Capitol Hill web surrounding the fiscal 2000 budget battle, which involves the Republican leadership in Congress, the White House and an older issue about U.N.-related family planning programs.
Congress has already set aside $351 million of the roughly $1 billion in arrears that Washington says it owes.
But the money is in limbo because Clinton vetoed the spending bill for the Commerce, Justice and State departments, which contained the payment. Also, the House Republican leadership is holding the final piece of the puzzle the fiscal 2000 State Department authorization bill, which contains the language that would officially send the money to the United Nations.
Both the House and Senate passed authorization bills, but they haven't worked out a final version in a conference committee yet, because the House GOP hasn't appointed its conferees.
The hang-up centers on House conservatives, who don't want the U.N. funding to pay for international organizations that lobby foreign governments to loosen abortion laws. It is part of a dispute within the Republican party.
A House Republican staffer, who asked not to be identified, said the party leadership is not naming conferees out of concern that the abortion language might not hold sway with enough House members anymore, especially with the threat of the United States losing its General Assembly vote.
If the authorization bill goes to conference, it could emerge without any restrictions related to abortion, which would anger the House GOP's conservative wing. The House conservatives hold considerable power over foreign policy issues. The Senate did not pass any anti-abortion language in its bill.
So instead of completing the process, the GOP, led by House Republican Whip Tom DeLay, is holding back the authorization bill as a way to put pressure on Clinton to make compromises on the bill for Commerce, Justice and State, the Republican staffer said.
With the U.N. payment now a budget bargaining chip, the staffer added, "It all comes down to this: How much does the White House want it, and how much are they willing to give up to get it?"
Some Republicans, meanwhile, are turning the abortion issue back at the White House, saying Clinton must accept the limitations on funding the family planning organizations.
"The only thing that stops us is, I suspect, one or two internationalists, activists at the White House, who have decided to make a cause celebre for themselves over this really obscure piece of language," said Sen. JuddGregg, R-N.H.
If there is a breakthrough on the Commerce-Justice-State bill, meanwhile, it is possible that the House leadership could be motivated to finish the conference committee on the authorization bill, said John Czwartacki, a spokesman for Senate Republican leader Trent Lott.
But time is running out. Congress is likely to remain in session only through Nov. 5. That fact has not been lost on Democrats.
"If we lose our (U.N. General Assembly) vote, the House will get blamed in December," said a top Democratic staffer who asked not to be identified. "They'll try to turn it to Clinton on abortion, and he'll say it has nothing to do with abortion."