Q: should the United States pay the debt that the U.N. claims it owes

0 Comments | Insight on the News, Feb 3, 1997 | by Alvin P. Jr. Adams, | Edward Royce

Yes: Withholding our obligated dues is hurting the cause of reform of the United Nations.

When asked why the United States should pay its accumulated $1 billion-plus debt to the United Nations, I am reminded of a recent quote by House Speaker Newt Gingrich of Georgia. In a November 1996 address to the Republican political-action committee he noted that we had to reform the United Nations, but that we also had to pay for it. In what was a visionary address, Gingrich reviewed the importance of the rule of law on a global scale and, in that context, noted that the United States had both external and internal obligations. "We can't end up as a country totally isolated around the world because people don't understand our policies and don't understand what we're doing'" he said. Further, while acknowledging "honest disagreements" with other countries, Gingrich added, "But you try wherever possible to find a way to work together so America deals with the world with a unity and a consistency of purpose."

The United States has allowed its arrears to the United Nations and other international organizations to accumulate for more than a decade. The bottom line is that these debts are legal treaty obligations. While some countries have followed our poor example and likewise have been remiss in the payment of their dues (though on a much smaller scale), it also is the case that most other Western governments treat their obligations more seriously by paying their assessments in full and on time. We are not "making friends and influencing people" by virtue of our neglect. In fact, reneging on our finding responsibilities has resulted in a bitter environment at the United Nations where many other countries, including our closest allies, are appalled by our delinquency

From a broader and more philosophical perspective, the United States runs the risk of weakening the foundations of a legal order by treating our international obligations and commitments with indifference. What are the likely consequences for the United States when such practices spill over to other countries? The United States would care very much, for example, if other countries took such a casual approach to trade or arms-control agreements or bilateral investment treaties. Indeed, the United States is a country founded on the rule of law. Thus, we should care, and care very seriously, about adherence to this principle. Through the committed efforts of scores of visionary Americans, promotion of this vital concept has ensured that a human-rights agenda is advanced globally and that some order is maintained in a world of increasing complexity. In a speech to a legal forum last October, Madeleine Albright, U.S. secretary of state-designate, noted, "Law is one of the building blocks out of which a stable world order is achieved.... For the past few years, I have seen firsthand what happens when the instruments of law and order break down or are subverted."

The belief that law should rule among nations should not be controversial, especially in an age of increasing interdependence. Our present world realities dictate that we must work constructively, and on a legal basis, with other member states. This means that we have to "step up to the plate" with respect to our relationship with the United Nations. For all of its flaws, the United Nations remains the only forum where we can work with all the nations of the world to meet the challenges that no one country can solve in isolation. Unilateral policies are incapable of addressing these challenges. Furthermore, the American people, in survey after survey, overwhelmingly prefer to address international problems with our U.N. partners rather than alone. This is a viewpoint that should not be lost on our national leadership.

I believe it's safe to say that we find ourselves at a crossroads in the 51-year-old US./U.N. relationship. We are presented with a unique opportunity to live up to our historical record as a founding member of the United Nations. We are the largest financial contributor to the United Nations, a permanent member of the U.N. Security Council and the host to U.N. headquarters. As such, U.S. actions at the United Nations have an impact that is unmatched by those of any of the other 184 member states. Indeed, the sheer size of the US. debt to the world body is the primary reason why the United Nations so frequently is on the brink of financial insolvency. What we do matters. Thus, let us not squander our leadership - especially at this opportune time.

Whether American citizens supported the Clinton administration for seeking to deny a second term to former U.N. Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali, few observers would deny that the situation has been resolved in a manner favorable to the United States. For all its moments of problematic protocol, the debates over the appointment of the next secretary-general last fall have provided us with an individual acceptable to both the administration and the new Congress. In his inaugural speech, the new secretary-general, Kofi Annan of Ghana, promised to make the organization "leaner, more effective, more efficient and more responsive to the wishes and needs of its members." Even Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Jesse Helms of North Carolina, long one of the most vocal critics of the world body, has extended a hand of welcome; President Reagan's ambassador to the United Nations, Jeane Kirkpatrick, has called for the United States to pay off its U.N. arrears in a recent New York Times op-ed column.