[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 124 (Wednesday, September 11, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10344-S10345]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




              WHY DO WE KEEP STIFFING THE UNITED NATIONS?

 Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, the Los Angeles Times recently 
carried an op-ed piece by James P. Muldoon, Jr., and Rafael Moreno 
under the title, ``Why Do We Keep Stiffing the U.N.?''
  My colleagues know of my unhappiness with our failure to pay the debt 
we owe.
  Our provincialism is astounding. The article refers to our debt as 
being $1.5 billion. That may be a slight exaggeration, but it is at 
least $1.2 billion and probably somewhat higher than that.
  What is also of interest is their paragraph on relative cost paid by 
different countries. They write:

       It's difficult for Europeans to accept that the U.N. is a 
     budget-buster for the U.S. The costs to Americans for the 
     U.N. in general and U.N. peacekeeping in particular are 
     significantly lower than they are for Europeans. The U.S. 
     costs for the 1996 U.N. regular budget come to only $1.24 per 
     American, while the people of San Marino owe $4.75 each. 
     Luxembourg $2.06 each and for the Swedes $1.57 each. The U.S. 
     per capita cost for 16 U.N. peacekeeping operations in 1994 
     was less than $4.

  I ask my colleagues to read what Mr. Muldoon and Mr. Moreno have to 
say.
  I ask that the op-ed piece be printed in the Record.
  The op-ed piece follows:

                   Why Do We Keep Stiffing the U.N.?

              (By James P. Muldoon Jr. and Rafael Moreno)

       Italian President Oscar Scalfaro, in an address to the U.N. 
     General Assembly earlier this year, diplomatically yet firmly 
     took the United States to task about its mountain of debt to 
     the United Nations. Sadly, Scalfaro's message is hardly new. 
     Over the past few months, nearly all our European partners 
     have expressed similar discontent with U.S. leadership at the 
     U.N.
       This week the Council on Foreign Relations issued a report 
     by a bipartisan group of U.S. foreign-policy experts, who 
     warn that Washington's hostility to the U.N. is damaging both 
     the world organization and America's national interests. The 
     report says that politicians have misrepresented U.N. 
     activities in such trouble spots as Somalia and Bosnia in 
     order to cover up their own policy failures.
       America's U.N. debt now tops $1.5 billion. French President 
     Jacque Chirac chided members of Congress, in a joint session, 
     saying their shortsightedness was weakening America's 
     position of global leadership. Behind the scenes, similar 
     messages of concern are being registered across Europe. 
     America's allies are confounded by the intense anti-U.N. 
     rhetoric that has emerged during the U.N.'s 50th anniversary 
     year, intensifying as the presidential election nears.
       Since the end of the Cold War, the major powers have 
     recognized that the U.S. could not (and would not) be the 
     world's policeman. For that reason, many countries, including 
     the U.S. attempted to make the U.N.'s ``collective security'' 
     machinery function in response to a range of conflicts over 
     the past five years that were not imagined by the drafters of 
     the U.N. Charter. Yet when the peacekeeping missions in 
     Somalia, the former Yugoslavia and Haiti lost their way, the 
     ``great powers'' who approved and mandated these missions 
     conveniently shifted most of the blame onto the secretary-
     general and the U.N. secretariat, distancing themselves from 
     their decisions and mandates in the Security Council. When 
     the bills came due, the greatest power--the United States--
     said it was unable to pay.
       It's difficult for Europeans to accept that the U.N. is a 
     budget-buster for the U.S. The costs to Americans for the 
     U.N. in general and U.N. peacekeeping in particular are 
     significantly lower than they are for Europeans. The U.S. 
     costs for the 1996 U.N. regular budget come to only $1.24 per 
     American, while the people of San Marino owe $4.75

[[Page S10345]]

     each. Luxembourg $2.06 each and for the Swedes $1.57 each. 
     The U.S. per capita cost for 16 U.N. peacekeeping operations 
     in 1994 was less than $4.
       Making matters worse is the U.S. arrogance when discussing 
     problems of U.N. peacekeeping, especially regarding the U.N. 
     troops in the former Yugoslavia, and the disavowal of 
     Washington, particularly Congress, for America's part in the 
     ``failure'' of the U.N. in the Balkans. The real facts 
     regarding the limitations of U.N. peacekeeping in the post-
     Cold War period is a shameful record of ``great power'' 
     mismanagement and unrealistic mandates. The vast majority of 
     U.N. Troops in peacekeeping missions are from such member 
     states as Fiji, Pakistan, Malaysia, Italy and Spain. The 
     permanent members of the Security Council--the U.S., Britain, 
     France, Russia and China--have extraordinary power and can 
     stop the expansion or addition of U.N. missions simply by 
     voting no. The fact that they hold such power is the primary 
     reason that they are expected to pay more for these missions 
     and to deploy larger troop contingents.
       European concerns go well beyond the matter of America's 
     $1.5-billion U.N. debt. One thing that most bothers our 
     allies is the cynical American tendency to take advantage of 
     the organization when it serves our national interest--as it 
     did with Haiti--or to use it as an excuse to hide behind when 
     it doesn't--Bosnia, for example.
       This is not a debate about the $4.40 that each American 
     owes the U.N. but about the kind of world we want in the 21st 
     century. Will it be one with the U.S. as the haughty and 
     lonely superpower or one with nations and peoples following 
     America's moral leadership and working out differences 
     through dialogue, cooperation and common will, something very 
     similar to what the U.N. is all about?

                          ____________________