[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 74 (Wednesday, June 10, 1998)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1085]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                       TIME TO PAY OUR U.N. DUES

                                 ______
                                 

                          HON. LEE H. HAMILTON

                               of indiana

                    in the house of representatives

                        Wednesday, June 10, 1998

  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, it is time to pay the arrears that we owe 
to the United Nations.
  I include for printing in the Record a letter form the Honorable John 
Whitehead, Deputy Secretary of State in the Reagan Administration, and 
Chair of the United Nations Association. Mr. Whitehead eloquently 
outlines the reasons we should pay our arrears, and the costs to United 
States interests if we do not. He further refutes effectively the 
argument some have made that we do not actually owe this money to the 
United Nations.
  I urge my colleagues to read this letter, and call on the Congress to 
take action to pay what we owe.

         United Nations Association of the United States of 
           America,
                                                     June 1, 1998.
       Dear Member of Congress: The United Nations Association of 
     the USA, representing millions of Americans through its 
     nationwide chapters and affiliated organizations, regrets the 
     continuing impasse over payment of US arrears to the United 
     Nations. We urge you to consider the following points during 
     the weeks ahead as Congress grapples with the problem of 
     meeting longstanding financial obligations to the United 
     Nations.
       The United States, first of all, faces the loss of its vote 
     in the UN General Assembly at the end of this year under 
     Article 19 of the UN Charter. This penalty is automatically 
     applied if a member state's arrears at the year exceed the 
     previous two years' assessments. With the world's largest 
     economy by far, the US historically has been the largest 
     contributor to the UN system. But, the US is now responsible 
     for some 60 percent of the debt of all member states--
     arrearages more than double the UN's annual regular budget, 
     which are crippling UN capabilities and paralyzing 
     peacekeeping. Although various contingencies could avoid 
     America's loss of vote at the start of 1999, the mere 
     possibility that the world's leader may be placed in such a 
     position does not befit our great nation.
       On another issue of evident priority to American 
     policymakers, the US now has a limited window of opportunity 
     to negotiate a lowering of its United Nations assessment--
     from its present rate of 25 percent of the UN's regular 
     budget to 22 percent. UN member states have indicated a 
     willingness to reopen negotiations on the assessment level if 
     a substantial amount of US arrears are paid. One might note 
     that the Reagan Administration--in which I served as Deputy 
     Secretary of State--had opposed such a reduction, fearing 
     diminished influence would follow; other countries oppose it 
     on grounds of equity: A member state's assessment is based 
     primarily on ``capacity to pay,'' largely measured by each 
     member's share of world income--over 26 percent for the 
     United States. The US already pays less than this amount. In 
     contrast, for example the 15 member states of the European 
     Union which account for 30.8 percent of world income, are 
     assessed 36.2 percent of UN costs. The assessment on the 
     Japanese, even with their ailing economy, will rise to just 
     above 20 percent in the year 2000.
       Those calling for a lowering of the US rate of assessment 
     argue that this country makes appreciable contributions to 
     the maintenance of international peace and security in other 
     ways, particularly through its defense commitments and 
     refugee and other emergency relief programs. They argue that 
     the United Nations does not reimburse the US for these 
     contributions. When the United States Government decides to 
     launch such operations on its own, under its own control--
     even if blessed by authorizing United Nations Security 
     Council resolutions--other countries have no say in the 
     mission (and indeed, may see it as susceptible to 
     manipulation for US advantage). We would rightly object to 
     paying through the UN for Russian troops under Russian 
     command in Georgia, or for Nigerian troops under Nigerian 
     command in Sierra Leone--so we cannot claim that the rest of 
     the world owes us money for US operations. The Italians, who 
     led a mission in Albania with very close Security Council 
     oversight, acknowledge they have no claim to reimbursement 
     from other UN members for the costs of that operation. With 
     UN control goes UN financial responsibility--and with 
     national control goes national financial responsibility. If a 
     country asserts exclusive control over its deployments, it 
     volunteers to pay the costs on its own.
       Most of the United States' debt to the United Nations 
     actually is owed to past peacekeeping activities, 
     particularly in the former Yugoslavia, which the US voted to 
     create. This means that many countries are owed significant 
     sums for their previous contributions of troops and equipment 
     to peacekeeping operations, and countries are increasingly 
     reluctant to offer troops to the UN when there is no 
     reimbursement. There is no doubt that UN peacekeeping is a 
     cost-effective investment in stability--but if UN 
     peacekeeping is to survive, the United States must pay its 
     share of those expenses.
       For all the furious debate over US financial contributions 
     to the agencies and activities of the UN system, the US 
     annually spends only about 0.1 percent of our federal 
     budget--or $7 per American--on all voluntary as well as 
     assessed contributions. These limited amounts provide support 
     to combat malnutrition, contain the spread of infectious 
     diseases, minimize the devastating impact of refugee flows, 
     harmonize actions on global environmental initiative, provide 
     economic assistance to developing countries and provide for a 
     neutral intervener to keep the peace in potentially volatile 
     political situations.
       The American people do not want the United States to accept 
     the costs of single-handedly being the world's policemen or 
     to address on its own a host of worldwide social, economic 
     and environmental challenges. It serves the national interest 
     to promote consensus-building and burdensharing at the 
     international level and to strengthen the notion of the rule 
     of law on which international stability rests. Opinion 
     research consistently finds that an overwhelming majority of 
     Americans believe in strengthening the United Nations to meet 
     the challenges before us. In a world characterized by a 
     growing web of global connections, the United Nations and its 
     system of agencies and programs offer unique and essential 
     avenues for the United States to exercise leadership in 
     support of its values and its vision for the future.
           Sincerely,
                                                John C. Whitehead,
                                                         Chairman.

     

                          ____________________