Whatever the outcome of the recent diplomatic efforts of UN Secretary General Kofi Annan in Iraq, they demonstrated again the great value of the United Nations in reducing the threat of international conflict. Given the UN’s importance to the interests of the United States, we should say yes when he asks that we pay our dues.
Four weeks ago, the United States and its closest allies were on the brink of military action against Iraq. The question of the day was whether bombing would persuade Saddam Hussein to allow UN weapons inspectors to do their work. Now, after Annan’s effort, the debate has shifted to whether Hussein will live up to the new agreement. Temporarily at least, the threat of violent conflict has lessened.
What seemed an inevitable move to war was defused because an institution representing the nations of the world could act.
Some are critical of the agreement, and many more are skeptical that Iraq will honor it (Hussein has done little to earn trust). But the common opinion is that the UN has performed a service for the world. For the United States, Annan’s diplomacy has been especially valuable. International support for air strikes against Iraq was thin before his trip. If Hussein interferes with the inspectors now, international support will be less difficult to muster, and the cost would be shared by a broader range of nations.
In light of the bombs not dropped, lives not lost, people who will not be refugees, and Mideast relations not disrupted in this one standoff alone, support for the UN is a good investment. The U.S. was willing to go to war to ensure that the UN could carry out its mission. Why not support it now, simply by paying our dues?
As of Dec. 31, 1997, the U.S. owed the UN $1.3 billion for the regular budget, the international tribunals and peacekeeping, plus $254 million for 10 other UN agencies. Of all unpaid obligations of the UN, more than 50 percent can be traced to our government.
Because of the huge U.S. arrearage, the UN has been strapped for cash and has had to borrow from peacekeeping funds. As a result, countries that provide peacekeeping troops and equipment, who are supposed to be reimbursed, are simply not paid. As of last October, the UN owed 70 countries $907 million.
Last year Congress indicated it was willing to pay our debt if the UN reduced our dues. Most member nations are reluctant to extend a discount to the richest nation on Earth. Recently, John Weston, British ambassador to the United Nations, said the United Kingdom shares the “widespread and profound resentment” over U.S. defaults. “Where good arguments would otherwise prevail,” Weston said, “they are discounted if they are heard from the mouth of the United States because the United States is seen as the chief defaulter.” This from our strongest supporter during the Iraq buildup.
As Congress reconsiders our obligation to the UN, it will inevitably consider issues of waste and inefficiency. The record of reform is impressive. The staff of the UN Secretariat has been cut by 25 percent since its peak of more than 12,000 in 1984. It now employs 9,000 people–about 7,000 fewer than the Chicago Police Department. U.S. citizens hold more Secretariat jobs than do citizens from any other member state.
The 3-year-old Office of International Oversight has identified more than $64 million in overpayments, waste and fraud and has recovered $37 million. The peacekeeping budget, $3 billion in 1995, has been cut by more than 60 percent.
Some argue that the U.S. does not need the UN, that we could go it alone. But the economic sanctions against Iraq are overseen by the UN and could not have been imposed by the United States acting alone. In a world in which the greatest problems can be addressed by nations working together, the United Nations is a crucial instrument of diplomacy. The U.S., by taking a strong stand, focused world attention on the threat represented by Iraq’s capacity to produce weapons of mass destruction. But it was the UN that put the sanctions and inspections in place, with the full weight of the world’s governments behind it.
This most recent act of diplomacy by Kofi Annan could save the United States more in military costs than we are behind in dues. It should also lead us to resolve our differences with the UN and settle the tab. No member of any organization, including the UN, agrees with every one of its actions and policies, but in furtherance of overriding common goals, members agree to sustain it. Let’s live up to our agreement. We protect the future–and we set a good example.
