WHY THE US OWES
NOTHING TO THE UN
The Great Temptation

"Liberty cannot be preserved without a general knowledge among the people, who have...a right, an indisputable, unalienable, indefeasible, divine right to that most dreaded and envied kind of knowledge, I mean THE CHARACTERS AND CONDUCT OF THEIR RULERS."

The U.S. Congress is currently being tempted to pay a "debt" to the United Nations in exchange for certain "reforms" in the world organization. In fact, however, there is no "debt" to the U.N. and most of the "reforms" being proposed would have no effect whatsoever in diminishing the activities of the world organization in the controversial areas of military peacekeeping, population control, managed trade, global environmentalism, and criminal tribunals and prosecutions.

To make matters worse, the "reforms" might have the effect of making the U.N. more dangerous to human rights and national sovereignty in these areas. Since the last U.N. Secretary-General, Boutros Boutros-Ghali, publicly embraced global taxes and a standing U.N. Army, it is reasonable to be apprehensive about where the U.N. is heading these days under his long-time ally, Kofi Annan. On top of these potential threats, the U.N. is currently negotiating the establishment of an International Criminal Court which could have the power to prosecute American citizens and put them in foreign jails.

Yet when members of Congress expressed concern about the direction of the U.N., new U.N. Secretary-General Annan essentially scoffed at them. "Some of them were very concerned that the U.N. is a threat to U.S. sovereignty, and that we're going to come in and tax U.S. citizens," Kofi Annan said of his January visit to members of the U.S. Congress. "I hope I was able to dissuade them of this misunderstanding..." However, on what basis is this a misunderstanding? It is certain that the American-educated and English-speaking Secretary-General made a good impression on those members of Congress. But it is less than clear that he was able to persuade them that the U.N. is not a threat to American sovereignty. In fact, there is absolutely no reason to believe that Annan has any intention of taking the world organization off the dangerous course that he and Boutros-Ghali have already put it on.

Moreover, proposed "reforms" at the U.N. will likely take the form of measures to further dilute the influence of the United States at the world body, such as by enlarging the size of the Security Council. Indeed, this is a proposal that Annan has already endorsed.1 Such expansion would undermine U.S. authority at the highest ranking U.N. body which was established when the world organization was founded. It is one of the few areas where the U.S. still has clout. Annan has not said whether he wants to take the additional step of eliminating the U.S. veto power altogether.

In addition, there are important domestic issues that have to be taken into consideration if the Congress embraces a financial bailout of the U.N. The proposed congressional payments to the world body that Annan is seeking should be understood in the context of the Congress deliberating a budget submitted by the Clinton administration which proposes significant cuts in the projected growth of the Medicare program. Therefore, America's senior citizens could see reductions in their living standards while the "savings" could, in effect, be transferred to foreign bureaucrats at the U.N. who already pull down inflated salaries and lucrative pensions. It is extremely doubtful whether such a bailout will be politically popular in the U.S.

Moreover, it can be argued that, even if an authentic "debt" to the U.N. existed, it would be more proper to balance the U.S. budget and pay off the real U.S. national debt first. An argument to the contrary suggests that the U.N. has an "entitlement" from the U.S. Congress which is sacrosanct, while senior citizens under Medicare do not.

Rather than prepare a financial bailout of the U.N., another solution presents itself. In the same way that Congress borrows from the Social Security Trust Fund to bring the federal budget more into balance, the U.N. could borrow from its own pension fund to balance its books. This pension fund, sometimes referred to as the best-managed program at the U.N., is worth a staggering $15 billion.2 It is "kept totally separate from the organization's cash-hungry operating and peacekeeping budgets"3 but doesn't necessarily have to be. It is truly remarkable that the size and assets of this fund have largely escaped media scrutiny while the U.N. has been crying poverty and claiming to be going broke.



Annan is a 30-year veteran of the U.N. who was involved in some of the worst debacles in the history of the U.N. As director of peacekeeping, for example, he presided over humiliating withdrawals from Somalia and Bosnia. Indeed, an investigation determined that he was one of the main strategists and operational directors of the failed nation-building scheme in Somalia which cost 18 American lives and left 84 wounded.4

Clinton administration claims that he is a "proven reformer" are transparently phony on their face. A September 30, 1996 report of the U.N. Office of Internal Oversight Services reaffirmed that the world body "has lived without independent and effective oversight for decades," including Annan's former department of peacekeeping.5 Several pages of the report are devoted to waste, fraud and abuse in Annan's former department.

Annan can be expected to vigorously resist any measures which truly downsize the U.N. or shrink its powers to interfere in the sovereign affairs of its member-states. Just weeks after he started his five-year term as Secretary-General, the real truth is already starting to emerge publicly about his management "style."

During a February 15, 1997 appearance on the CNN program "Evans & Novak," for example, Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Jesse Helms (R-N.C.) accused Annan of having broken an agreement to pursue reform of the U.N. in coordination with Congress. Helms said that Annan "nodded and agreed" when a program of reforms based on "benchmarks" was presented to him in a meeting with members of Congress but that he has "backtracked on that" in subsequent public statements.

Annan: Reform of U.N. To Take Time was the headline over a February 14, 1997 article in the Washington Times. The article noted that Annan is being criticized for being too slow and that he is offering to present a reform plan only by the middle of the year. Annan also said he hoped to have a deputy "to help focus on the reform process" but only in the fall.6

Previously, the New York Times had weighed in on the subject, describing Annan's initial moves as having "disappointed" various experts on U.N. affairs, including officials of the Clinton administration. The Times article, carried on the front page, described Annan as one who prefers "quiet, slow-moving consensus-building to dramatic bold action." Reporter Elaine Sciolino reported that another problem was that Annan had reappointed "most of the senior bureaucracy at the United Nations," instead of cleaning house. One Clinton official described the appointments as "uninspired."7

Annan had led people to believe that he was going to take bold and decisive action. On his first day as Secretary-General, he asked for and accepted letters of resignation from about two dozen top U.N. officials. Annan builds "dynamic" team", was the headline over a Washington Times article about the resignations. This turned out to be wildly optimistic. Two weeks later, the disappointing results came in. "Key U.N. choices less than daring," was the headline over this article. Washington Times U.N. correspondent Betsy Pisik reported that Annan had announced all of his senior appointments and that "Anyone looking for sweeping changes or a dramatic reduction in the number of top-level bureaucrats was likely to be disappointed."8 Jeffrey Laurenti, an official with the United Nations Association, a pro-U.N. lobbying group, conceded that, with few exceptions, "he's bringing in no one fresh from the outside. If it's new blood he is looking for, this list doesn't have it." This was an extraordinary comment, coming from someone predisposed to view Annan in a favorable light.

One appointment, that of French diplomat Bernard Miyet as director of peacekeeping, was widely viewed as a "payback" for France's dropping of its opposition to Annan for the post of Secretary-General.9 This is typical of U.N. operations - appointing people based on factors other than competence and merit. There is no reason to believe this concept of "personnel management" will change.



Rather than downsize, Annan has already started up another U.N. bureaucracy. Gillian Martin Sorensen, who coordinated U.N. 50th anniversary celebrations in 1995, was appointed to a brand new post of Assistant Secretary-General in charge of "external relations." The post pays $113,000 a year. The Washington Times reported, She will coordinate Mr. Annan's speeches, personal appearances and other areas of public information in an effort to explain the often complex organization to Americans in "simple terms."

Sorensen is the wife of former Kennedy administration official Theodore Sorensen, and both of them are intimately involved in Democratic Party affairs. Mrs. Sorensen made financial contributions to Al Gore's 1988 presidential campaign and Geraldine Ferraro's 1992 campaign for the U.S. Senate, while her husband Theodore Sorensen contributed financially to the 1996 campaigns of Oregon Senator Ron Wyden, Georgia Senator Max Cleland, Massachusetts Senator Ted Kennedy and President Clinton, among others.

The Sorensen appointment was announced just a few days after Kofi Annan was in Washington, D.C. meeting with President Clinton and leaders of the U.S. Congress. During these meetings, Annan made a favorable impression by emphasizing that he wanted "reforms" at the U.N. But the Sorensen appointment indicates that he is more concerned with style than substance. "External relations," after all, is just a fancy term for publicity and lobbying. This time, the target is the Congress. Annan obviously thought it was more important to create a new post for public relations than follow through with concrete actions designed to reform the world organization. Indeed, some might argue that his appointment of Sorensen demonstrated that his promise of reform is an utter fraud.



But another appointment was even more ominous - that of Maurice Strong to the newly created post of "Executive Coordinator of Reform." The New York Times reported that when Madeleine Albright met with Annan before she left for Washington to be Secretary of State, she had a two-word reaction to the Strong appointment. Albright, who had served as U.S. Ambassador to the U.N., asked him, "Why Strong?" The question was prompted by fears that Strong would usurp or duplicate some of the functions now performed by Joseph E. Connor, the American Under Secretary-General in charge of U.N. administration and management. Annan replied that Connor would work on making the U.N. efficient, while Strong could reach out to the countries that belong to the U.N. and "craft a plan reflecting their larger vision for change," as the Times put it.

This vague formulation only serves to mask Strong's real agenda - the radical strengthening of the U.N. and the weakening of U.S. influence at the world organization.

As I noted in a column in the Washington Times, "The pick of Strong reflects the influence of U.N. insiders who want to save the 50,000-strong bureaucracy from the budget cutters in the U.S. Congress. Their job is to bamboozle the Congress into accepting the false hope that U.N. bureaucrats will "reform" themselves out of their own jobs...

"Described by his critics as a New Ager and a socialist, he's best known as the chief of the 1992 U.N. "Earth Summit," an exercise in global environmentalism by treaty that critics say will deindustrialize the U.S. economy in the name of saving the planet. He also headed the U.N. Environment Program, which sponsors "Environmental Sabbath" activities designed to imbue the earth with sacred qualities.

"Strong is currently chairman of the Costa Rica-based Earth Council, an organization leading a campaign to draft and get the U.N. to pass an Earth Charter, described by supporters as "a universal code of conduct for states and people." Those involved in the campaign are currently debating whether animals should have special rights when this "people's treaty" is finalized and then adopted by the world.

"For instance, in a special issue of Earth Ethics, devoted to the Earth Charter, there is an article describing apes as "our closest relatives" and "fellow animals" entitled to "the basic rights of human beings." The article states they should be treated as "full members of the community of equals." "But humans are a different story. It is Strong's view that the American way of life is unsustainable and that we have to be forced into austere lifestyles. This probably won't affect people like Strong, a multimillionaire, but for the rest of us it could be catastrophic. In order to accomplish this restructuring of human society, Strong believes in a vast strengthening of the United Nations."

Strong was a member of the Commission on Global Governance, a group of 28 "experts" on world affairs, which produced a 410-page book in 1995 titled Our Global Neighborhood. A 22-page summary, titled "A Call to Action," claimed that "Global governance is not global government" but nevertheless called for national sovereignty to be "exercised collectively." It is apparent that they wanted to avoid the term "world government."

Rather than urge true reform, these "experts" from Russia and China and other countries called for the massive expansion of U.N. powers. They proposed the creation of a U.N. international criminal court, "enhancing" the role of the International Monetary Fund, strengthening the World Trade Organization for the purpose of managing "global competition," world-wide disarmament under U.N. auspices, and the establishment of a standing U.N. Army described as a "UN Volunteer Force."

In order to pay for this, the Commission on Global Governance said, "It is time for a consensus on global taxation for servicing the needs of the global neighborhood. A start must be made in establishing schemes of global financing of global purposes, including charges on the use of global resources such as flight-lanes, sea lanes, and ocean fishing areas and the collection of revenues agreed globally and implemented by treaty. An international tax on foreign currency transactions should be explored as one option, as should the creation of an international corporate tax base among multinational companies."

The Commission did call for "reform" in the sense of advocating the closing down of some agencies such as the U.N. Economic and Social Council. But at the same time it urged the creation of new ones, such as an Economic Security Council. Equally significant, it urged measures to dilute the influence of the U.S. in the U.N., including the expansion of the U.N. Security Council and phasing out the veto. The appointment of Strong, whose record on the Commission was known to the U.N., is the strongest indication yet that Annan shares this anti-American agenda.

But Strong's background was not well-known to members of Congress who read about the appointment. The Washington Post had highlighted Strong as a "Canadian businessman," which sounds impressive. After all, isn't a businessman needed to shake things up at the U.N.? The Post article completely ignored his involvement in the Commission on Global Governance and his development of the controversial Earth Charter.

Also ignored was Strong's involvement in domestic U.S. politics. Records at the Federal Election Commission reveal that he donated $20,000 to the Democratic National Committee in 1988 and $1,500 to two congressional races. However, author Elaine Dewar, who interviewed Strong extensively, reports that his financial contributions were far higher. He "had donated some $100,000 to the U.S. Democratic Party and a slightly lesser amount to the Republicans in 1988," she claimed.

Dewar, an award-winning journalist, said she was "astonished" at this revelation from Strong because he was a Canadian and foreign nationals are prohibited by law from contributing to U.S. political campaigns. Dewar said she was told that Strong had a U.S. green card (because the governor of Colorado "had suggested it") and could therefore make such contributions. Dewar asked why Strong contributed to U.S. political campaigns and his response was, "Because I wanted influence in the United States."10 However, a green card makes an immigrant eligible to make contributions only because it indicates that the person has been lawfully admitted for permanent residence in the U.S. It is not known if Strong ever became a U.S. citizen or how much time he actually spends in the U.S. or Canada.

The controversial appointment of Maurice Strong only makes sense in the context of understanding U.N. "reform" as an attempt to make the world organization better able to impose its will on member-states. There is no question that Strong's notion of reform is to streamline the organization for the purpose of increasing its power and authority over member-states, including the U.S. This is Strong's agenda; it is apparently shared by Annan.



If Kofi Annan had wanted to make a good impression on the Congress prior to his arrival in Washington, there were a number of actions he could have taken. Some of them were suggested in a January 19 column I wrote in the Washington Post, only a few days before his visit. I raised four issues that he could have addressed. These were:

(1) Why has the position of U.N. Secretary-General enjoyed a 70 percent increase in gross pay over the past six years while the U.N. has been going broke?
(2) Why is the U.N. still paying a $102,000 annual pension to former U.N. Secretary General and accused Nazi war criminal Kurt Waldheim?
(3) In discussing the issue of the alleged U.S. "debt" to the U.N., why not take into account the billions of dollars worth of assistance to the U.N. for which the U.S. has never gotten credit or reimbursement?
(4) Why are officials of the U.N. continuing to push global taxation schemes?

Yet, in his address to the National Press Club on January 24, he didn't address any of these concerns. Instead, he berated the U.S. over the "debt" issue, claimed the U.N. did a lot of good work, committed himself to U.N. "reform," and claimed that the Secretariat "initiated more than 400 efficiency projects with concrete results already in hand - for example, expanding the use of the Internet and the United Nations Home Page to disseminate United Nations information, reducing the cost of documentation and meeting services, and improving cash management."

Furthermore, Annan said, "I have tried to set the example in my own executive office, by streamlining its functions and reducing significantly the size and level of its staff." However, he did not announce that he would set the example by taking a pay cut. According to the U.N., Annan's gross salary will be $280,075, with an additional $25,000 for entertainment. By contrast, President Clinton makes $200,000 a year, with an allowance of $50,000 for entertainment.

In addition, Annan has the use of a townhouse on Sutton Place, with 4 bedrooms, 3 bathrooms, a dining room and studio; a chauffeur-driven Mercedes-Benz; 24-hour protection from the New York Police Department; and a full-time U.N. Security Guard.11



Annan had an opportunity to exhibit bold and decisive action after the Washington Post on January 5, 1997, ran a front-page story about a scandal in the U.N. Drug Control Program (UNDCP). But his response was weak at best. The article by William Branigan and James Rupert detailed extraordinary charges of sexual harassment, nepotism and financial improprieties against a top UNDCP official. However, despite publication of this article, there were "initial indications that the UNDCP planned to take no action," the Post reported. It was at this point that Annan "asked an aide to raise the matter" with the UNDCP chief, Giorgio Giacomelli of Italy, who placed the accused official on administrative leave and said his contract would not be renewed. Thus, Annan apparently did not believe this scandal deserved his personal involvement and attention. He merely asked an aide to look into it.

Another embarrassment for the U.N. hit the newspapers on February 13, 1997, when it was reported that an investigation of the U.N. "war crimes" tribunal for Rwanda had found "widespread mismanagement, waste, and incompetence," according to a Washington Post account. U.N. Inspector-General Karl Paschke's report said that "not a single administrative area" of the court "functioned effectively." This report, submitted to Annan, presented the new Secretary-General with another big challenge, press reports said. However, Annan responded only by saying he would discipline U.N. officials if necessary. "If disciplinary action is required, we will take disciplinary action," he said.12

In another controversial area, the involvement of the U.N. Children's Fund (UNICEF) in abortion-related activities, Annan has remained strangely silent, failing to urge any investigation at all into the matter. The controversy intensified in November 1996 when the Vatican mission to the U.N. announced it would withhold its annual donation to UNICEF because of the organization's involvement in promoting abortion drugs, contraceptives and working to legalize abortion.

The U.N. and the Vatican have, of course, been involved in bitter disputes over population and human life issues. Pope John Paul II once declared that a 1994 U.N.-sponsored conference on population issues was preparing a project "to destroy the family" and was "the snare of the devil."

Meanwhile, Catholics for a Free Choice (CFFC), a pro-abortion group based in the U.S. which has received support from the Playboy Foundation, used the Vatican-UNICEF dispute to accelerate its petition campaign aimed at unseating the Vatican as a permanent observer to the U.N. This status gives the Vatican the right to speak but not vote at the U.N. CFFC says that 130 national and international organizations have signed its petition. However, during his appearances in Washington, D.C., Annan did not disavow this anti-Catholic campaign. Is the eviction of the Vatican from the U.N. one element of U.N. "reform?"



Clearly, Annan has a very different idea of reform than the U.S. Congress. It is significant that a U.N. group working on "reform" is called the "High-Level Working Group on Strengthening the UN System." Thus, the notion of reform has been transformed into "strengthening" the world body. This group issued a document emphasizing the need for the U.N. to "evolve from a fragmented configuration of competing structures into a fully integrated, interactive system."

As for working with the U.S. to implement reforms, Annan has arrogantly asserted that U.N. reforms are "within the prerogative of the office of Secretary General"13 and cannot be mandated by the Congress. His oath of office requires that he take no directions or instructions from any authority "external" to the organization, such as a foreign government.

At the time of his Washington visit, there was some controversy over whether or not he would even meet with members of Congress. Traditionally, U.N. officials have refused to consult directly with the parliament or Congress of a member-state and deal instead through a country's mission to the U.N. In the case of the U.S., this means dealing with the executive branch. Eventually, however, he did meet with some congressional members, who were rebuffed in their concerns about growing U.N. power.

Annan does leave open the possibility that member-states, such as the U.S., can have some undefined role in the process of reform. He has spoken of reform being rooted in a "political consensus" among all member-states. But this is a formulation which plays down the role of the U.S., the largest funder of the world organization. It appears, moreover, that Annan wants to keep it that way. Regarding the large "assessments" made on the U.S., Annan has not shown any sympathy at all for reducing them. "The United States can negotiate a lower scale for itself - but it must persuade other Member States first," he claims.14

So what is meant by reform and how can it be carried out? In his budget for fiscal year 1998, President Clinton proposes to fully fund the U.N. "assessments" for 1998 and pay off the "arrears" or "debt." He says, "The release of these appropriated arrears would depend on the adoption of a series of reforms in the coming year, specific to each organization, that should reduce the annual amount that we must pay these organizations, starting with their next biennial budgets. These reforms would include a reduction in the U.S. share of organizational budgets, management reforms yielding lower organizational budgets, and the elimination of, or U.S. withdrawal from, low-priority programs and organizations." Furthermore, the administration says it wants "to work closely with Congress to shape this package."

Similarly, Senator Jesse Helms (R-N.C.) has declared that his Senate Foreign Relations Committee "is working in good faith to produce a bill that will pay the U.S. arrears in exchange for meaningful reform." It appears as if the Clinton administration and Senator Helms believe that a piece of legislation can be hammered out to release financial payments to the U.N. in exchange for certain reforms. But how the money will be released - and by whom - is a matter still to be worked out. Some question whether such a piece of legislation can even be negotiated, and whether the U.N. will eventually agree to it.



But it is not at all clear that such a bill would even clear the Congress because there is an increasing awareness by members of the House and Senate that constant claims about a U.S. "debt" to the U.N. lack merit. The claim has been repeated so often that many people, including some conservatives, believe it to be true. Senator Helms apparently accepts the notion, and House Speaker Newt Gingrich has said about Kofi Annan's demand for payment, "He'll probably get the money he's insisting upon and we'll get the reforms we're insisting upon."15

The claim about a U.S. "debt" is usually presented in solemn tones, in the same way that it is said that the U.S. has an obligation to pay off the national U.S. debt. However, this claim originates from the U.N. and its supporters. The U.N. claims that the member-states of the U.N. owe "dues" based on "assessments" which amount to "financial obligations" to pay certain amounts of money. On this basis, Annan claims the U.S. has a "debt" of $1.3 billion.

President Clinton says paying this "debt" will "show that we recognize our legal obligations and are determined to maintain the sanctity of our treaty commitments as we press for changes" in the U.N. and its affiliated organizations. Similarly, U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Bill Richardson claims the U.S. is "obligated to make payments required by the U.N. Charter" and that these are obligations made under "international law."

However, this is NOT what the U.N. Charter or the U.N. actually say. The U.N. Charter, which was ratified by the U.S. Senate as a treaty, says nothing about "dues," "assessments," or "financial obligations." It says nothing about what to do if a nation goes into "debt" to the U.N. Instead, it refers to payments to the U.N. as "contributions." This term implies a voluntary commitment, not a payment required by law, domestic or international. The terms "dues," "assessments" or "financial obligations" do not appear at all.

Article 17 of the Charter says that the General Assembly "shall consider and approve the budget of the Organization" and that the "expenses of the Organization shall be borne by the Members as apportioned by the General Assembly." The General Assembly, of course, is the body of the U.N. where the U.S. has no veto, and whose members have historically been hostile to the U.S. The highest body, the U.N. Security Council, has five permanent members - the U.S. Russia, China, Britain and France - but has no role under the Charter in putting together this budget.



Article 19 does make mention of the subject of "arrears," which is the source of all the talk about "dues" and "debt." It refers to a member-state which may be "in arrears in the payment of its financial contribution to the Organization..." In this case, however, the U.N. Charter goes on to say that such a member "shall have no vote in the General Assembly if the amount of its arrears equals or exceeds the amount of the contributions due from it for the preceding two full years. The General Assembly may, nevertheless, permit such a Member to vote if it is satisfied that the failure to pay is due to conditions beyond the control of the Member."

In other words, the only recourse for the U.N. under its own charter, when a member-state fails to make certain "contributions," is denial of voting rights in the General Assembly. If the U.N. member states believe that the U.S. is truly defaulting on a "debt," then it is their "obligation" under the U.N. Charter to lead a move to deny the U.S. voting rights in the General Assembly. Their failure to make such a move betrays the true facts in this controversy - there is no actual "debt" to the U.N. Rather than tirelessly insist on these payments from the U.S., the U.N. would have been better advised to ask for them from other countries more eager and willing to pay. This would have been the prudent thing to do.

Another alternative, of course, is for the U.N. to develop an enforcement mechanism to impose its will on member-states. This could be accomplished under the cover of "reform." If, for example, the U.N. had an International Criminal Court - an entity being negotiated right now - it is conceivable that judicial proceedings could be undertaken, in accordance with "international law," to somehow "force" the U.S. to pay. If a global tax were in place, this proceeding could result in raising the U.S. share of the tax to pay this "debt" to the U.N. Fortunately we are not at this point - not yet. However, various U.N. officials, mostly in place at the U.N. Development Program, are working feverishly to implement such a scheme.



The reference to "contributions" being "apportioned by the General Assembly" is clearly where the notion of "dues," "assessments," and "financial obligations" comes from.

But the fact that the General Assembly may assemble the budget in this way does not imply any legal obligation to pay anything. As noted, the Charter itself does not refer to these contributions as anything but voluntary. And according to the U.N. itself, the General Assembly has absolutely no legal authority over the member-states. An October 1996 U.N. publication states, "The Assembly's decisions, though not legally binding on Member states, represent the moral authority of the community of nations."16

Hence, the notion of "dues," "assessments" and so forth is based solely on whether the U.S. chooses to submit to the "moral authority" of 185 nations. This strikes many Americans as a surrender of sovereignty. Most U.N. member-states consistently vote against our national interests. To take just one example, on November 12, 1996, the General Assembly voted 138 to 3 with 24 abstentions for a resolution urging the U.S. to end the economic embargo of Communist Cuba. Only the U.S., Israel and Uzbekistan voted no. The economic embargo of Cuba is a policy supported by members of both U.S. political parties, the U.S. Congress and the Clinton administration. Yet the U.N. overwhelmingly opposes us. This is the "moral authority" of the U.N.



The U.N. claims that a member-state's contributions are calculated "on the basis of its share of the world economy and ability to pay." The U.N. also says that the contributions are decided by analyzing "national income statistics" for individual nations.17 This has led to a system whereby the U.S. - one of just 185 nations in the U.N. - is "assessed" 25 percent of the "regular" U.N. budget, which pays for "core functions."

However, it appears that certain negative features of the U.S. national economy, such as our $5 trillion national debt and massive trade deficit, are not even considered in these calculations. Therefore, by focusing exclusively on our assets rather than both our assets and liabilities, the U.N. greatly overcharges us. The "ability to pay," as defined by the U.N., amounts to nothing more than a desire on the part of the world organization to make us pay. This works only if the administration and Congress are foolish enough to comply.

Yet these "assessments" ignore the tremendous contributions that America has made historically to the cause of peace and security - functions which the U.N. is now supposed to perform. The U.S. absorbed the lion's share of the costs of World War II and the Cold War, and we continue to protect Europe and Asia. The U.S. 1995 defense budget was $277 billion, compared to $48 billion for France, $33 billion for Germany and $33 billion for Britain.

To add insult to injury, the U.N.'s Advisory Committee for Administrative and Budgetary Questions had the audacity to kick the U.S. off this critical panel because of the alleged failure to pay the "debt." The U.N. and its supporters are now claiming the U.S. has an obligation to pay off this "debt" before the U.S. government pays off its real and actual debt of $5 trillion to the holders of U.S. securities.

The U.N. also maintains a separate peacekeeping budget, for which the U.S. has been assessed a staggering 30.9 percent of the cost. This percentage is based on a "special scale" applied by the General Assembly that takes into account a "higher assessment" on the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council - China, France, Russia, Britain and the U.S.

However, the term "peacekeeping" never appears in the U.N. charter and it's not clear on what basis, if any, these military operations are conducted and a budget is maintained. Beyond this, however, the financial underwriting of these operations is also a matter of dispute. Like the "assessments" for general U.N. expenses, the "assessments" for peacekeeping expenses have to be considered requests for contributions based on our understanding of the "moral authority" presented by the U.N. Therefore, they are - and always have been - completely voluntary in nature.



This fact is already recognized by Congress, for it decided that, under U.S. law, as of October 1, 1995, the U.S. would pay no more than 25 percent of U.N. peacekeeping costs. However, the U.N. continues to "bill" the U.S. at the rate of 30.9 percent. This controversy demonstrates that the Congress has - and has always had - the ultimate authority to decide what payments, if any, should be made to the U.N.

The ratification of the U.N. Charter does not obligate the Congress to make any payments at all to the U.N. Instead, Congress retains the complete authority to decide what counts as a "contribution" to the world organization, and in what manner these contributions should be counted and made. Ultimately, this authority is based on the U.S. Constitution, which states in Article 1, Section 7, that "All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives..." An international agreement or treaty cannot supersede this clause, even if the U.N. Charter did in some way try to mandate or require certain payments. If the U.S. Constitution is not preeminent in this matter, as analyst James P. Lucier has noted, then the U.N. has already acquired the authority, in effect, to tax American citizens for its own benefit. On this basis, it could demand $10 billion or even $100 billion a year.



Tragically, although Congress is charged by the Constitution with raising revenue and appropriating money, the Clinton administration and the U.N. have managed to circumvent this requirement, laying the groundwork for one of the greatest untold stories of our time - the actual U.N. debt to the U.S.

Together, the administration and the U.N. have "redirected" funds appropriated by Congress for functions of the U.S. Government into support of the U.N. This has been most apparent in the area of U.N. peacekeeping activities. In effect, the Department of Defense has been transformed into a military arm of the U.N., a practice that Charles M. Lichenstein says has "contributed to a state of unreadiness in the U.S. military."18 Lichenstein, who served as a U.S. representative to the U.N. from 1981 to 1984, notes, "These costs were skimmed off U.S. defense appropriations that were never intended for peacekeeping or any other U.N. program."19 This has been done without the prior approval of Congress, which is charged under Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution with supporting, maintaining and regulating the U.S. Armed Forces.



Bob Dole, former Kansas Senator, Senate Majority Leader and GOP Presidential candidate in 1996, was one of the first members of the U.S. Congress to understand the full dimensions of what was going on. He introduced a bill, The Peace Powers Act of 1995, that was designed in part to reassert congressional control over the administration"s practice of underwriting U.N. operations with congressional appropriations not designated for that purpose. He also complained about the administration voting at the U.N. for peacekeeping operations for which the Congress had not authorized or appropriated any funds at all. Another purpose of his bill was to make it more difficult to put members of the U.S. Armed Forces under U.N. command.

Calling U.S. funding of U.N. peacekeeping "out of control," Dole testified in favor of his bill, saying:

"The U.S. Representative to the United Nations routinely votes to establish, extend and expand operations long after congressional appropriations have been exhausted. In most other government programs, this would be illegal. At the least, it is unwise. Billions of dollars of U.S. costs in direct and indirect support of U.N. peacekeeping have been accumulated, yet the administration refuses to even seek credit toward the U.S. assessment [for peacekeeping]. According to preliminary GAO figures prepared at my request, U.S. Government costs in support of U.N. operations in the former Yugoslavia, Somalia, Rwanda and Haiti from fiscal 1992 to fiscal 1995 total more than $6.8 billion [emphasis in original]. When other peacekeeping operations are included for the same time period, the total exceeds $10 billion. As a point of reference, U.N. peacekeeping assessments to the U.S. in FY 1988 were less than $40 million.

"Meanwhile the U.N. keeps sending the bills to the American taxpayer."20 In 1994 alone, Dole estimated, the United States spent at least $1.4 billion with no reimbursement in support of U.N. peacekeeping, "far more than any other country."21 The House of Representatives subsequently put the figure at $1.7 billion and Charles Lichenstein said sources within the national security establishment estimated the value of this assistance at close to $2 billion.22



For its part, the administration put the figure at $1.5 billion. More importantly, however, the administration let it be known that it completely understands that this support is being provided as a way to circumvent Congress" refusal to underwrite U.N. operations to the extent desired by the U.N. and the administration. Speaking to a meeting of the U.N. Association in 1995, then acting Assistant Secretary of State for International Organizations George Ward mentioned this extra support in the context of talking about the "debt." He boasted, "We've provided an awful lot from the defense budget to the United Nations." He explained, "In 1994, when we were assessed $1.2 billion for peacekeeping, our non-assessed but voluntary contributions to peacekeeping - which almost all came from Defense Department resources - amounted to $1.5 billion."23

In the context in which these remarks were made, to a pro-U.N. audience, it is clear that Ward was trying to make the case that the administration was supporting the U.N. in spite of the intent of Congress. Obviously, the administration is failing to ask the U.N. for complete reimbursement because it wants to support the U.N. over and above what Congress lawfully mandates. The new U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright insists that all of this support is purely "voluntary" and that Congress has no alternative other than to pay the bill.

But Dole's answer to this problem was far better from the point of view of the American taxpayer: require credit for Defense Department expenditures in support of U.N. peacekeeping. "If we spend the money, we should get the credit," Dole said.



In response to Senator Dole's request, the General Accounting Office (GAO) completed its investigation of this controversy and issued its report in March of 1996. It was titled, "Peace Operations. U.S. Costs in Support of Haiti, former Yugoslavia, Somalia and Rwanda."24 The actual amount of assistance turned out to be $6.6 billion, slightly less than the $6.8 billion which Senator Dole had figured. It also became apparent that the solution involved more than just requiring that all Defense Department expenditures in support of U.N. peacekeeping be credited. It turned out that the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) was responsible for about $1.3 billion of this overall figure. The Departments of Justice, Commerce, Treasury, Transportation and Health and Human Services reported costs of about $91 million.

According to the GAO, the Defense Department's share of these costs was about $3.4 billion. The State Department's share of the $6.6 billion was about $1.8 billion. The State Department figure is critical because it essentially constitutes the U.S. "assessment" for U.N. peacekeeping operations in these regions over this period. Of the total, the GAO says the U.N. had reimbursed the U.S. $79.4 million for some of these costs. But this still leaves about $4.8 billion for which the U.S. has never been given credit or reimbursement.

The State Department and the U.N. are bound to say that not all of these costs are "reimbursable." But from the point of view of Congress and the U.S. taxpayer, they should be. After all, as Bob Dole put, "If we spend the money, we should get the credit."

Ironically, despite his proposal to pay off the U.S. "arrears" to the U.N. in exchange for certain reforms, Senator Helms has himself noted that billions of dollars worth of U.S. assistance to the U.N. have never been properly accounted for. During a February 15, 1997 appearance on the CNN "Evans & Novak" program, Helms said, "We are going to offer legislation to pay the U.S. arrearage after these benchmarks [for reform] have been established and have been fulfilled. But the American people don't want us to do that [emphasis added]. I forget how much it is - it's about two billion dollars worth of expenditures that the United States - meaning the American taxpayer - have made to support activities of the U.N. that nobody has even thought about reimbursing the American people for."

Helms' statement apparently reflects an increasing awareness among the American people about the several billion dollars worth of assistance - not just $2 billion - which has been provided to the U.N. without credit or reimbursement.



In fact, the support being provided to the U.N. is even greater than that estimated by the GAO, because it does not take into account the ongoing expenses associated with the deployment to Bosnia. It must be remembered that the U.N., under its then-director of peacekeeping Kofi Annan, had to stage an embarrassing withdrawal from Bosnia. A group of NATO and non-NATO countries called the Implementation force (IFOR) took over. Under the Dayton Peace Agreement which ended the fighting in Bosnia, IFOR was to become a "regional organization" under Chapter VII of the U.N Charter. According to the Department of Defense, the costs of this deployment to the U.S. taxpayers are $2.5 billion for fiscal year 1996, $3.2 billion for fiscal year 1997, and $1.5 billion for fiscal year 1998. This constitutes a total of $7.2 billion.

In effect, this money constitutes a "contribution" to the U.N. as well because the U.S. military is being used to carry out a mission on behalf of the U.N.



Leaving the costs of Bosnia aside for the moment, however, it is completely within the prerogative of the Congress to consider the $4.8 billion worth of assistance itemized in the GAO report a "contribution" to the U.N. A contribution, after all, is within the discretion of Congress, not the president. As such, Congress can consider this sum when contemplating whether to pay off a supposed "debt" to the U.N. A bipartisan group of 32 House members, led by Rep. Roscoe Bartlett (R-Md.), a member of the House National Security Committee, has sent letters to House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) and President Clinton setting the record straight. Citing the GAO report, they said, "The fact that at least some of this money was reimbursed shows that it constitutes assistance for which the U.S. should be credited. According to our calculations, and based on the alleged debt to the UN of $1.3 billion and our extra assistance to the UN valued at $4.8 billion, the UN owes the United States about $3.5 billion. Rather than prepare a bailout of the UN, it is more appropriate for the Congress to make arrangements for the UN to pay us back."

The signers of this letter included House Rules Committee chairman Gerald Solomon (R-N.Y.), Veterans Affairs Committee chairman Bob Stump (R-Ariz.), Rep. Joe Scarborough (R-Fla.), who introduced a bill to get the U.S. out of the U.N., Rep. James Traficant (D-Ohio), and all four co-chairmen of the Congressional Conservative Action Team - Dan Burton (R-Ind.), John Doolittle (R-Calif.), Ernest Istook (R-Okla.) and Sam Johnson (R-Tex.)

There is no reason why Congress should not insist on full payment from the U.N. This is reasonable and fair on its face. After all, if the U.N. can insist on our payment of a levy it tries to impose on the U.S., the Congress can insist on credit or reimbursement for what it has provided to the world organization. There is no reason, on this basis, why the costs of the Bosnia deployment should not be charged to the U.N. as well.

The fact that the administration has not insisted on credit or reimbursement for most of the expenses should not in any way dissuade Congress from exercising its own constitutional responsibilities and acting to protect the interests of the U.S. taxpayer. In fact, this may be the only way to prevent the administration from engaging in this kind of behavior in the future. Because even if the U.N. "debt" is paid by Congress, the administration could be expected to provide even more extra assistance to the U.N. without congressional approval, in the same way it has done in the past.

It's important to remember that the U.S. ran up this "debt" to the U.N. in the first place because congressional appropriations for the U.N. fell short of what the U.N. "required" in its assessments. This is where the "arrearages" have taken place. But this money was withheld to spark true reform at the world body. The administration, however, has gotten around this incentive for the world body to reform by using congressional appropriations designated for U.S. Government activities to benefit the U.N. This has lessened the incentive for reform and it has frustrated the will of Congress. As Senator Dole indicated, the administration's conduct is improper, if not illegal.

Now, the administration is trying to have it both ways; it wants the "dues" paid by Congress to the U.N. and it also wants to continue misappropriating funds in support of the U.N. Congress should not permit this to continue; demanding reimbursement is the only way to make sure it stops.

Bluntly speaking, the Congress could present the U.N. with a bill for what has already been provided. The U.N. and the administration have to understand that Congress appropriates the money, not the president. Once this invoice is presented to the U.N., talk of real reform of the world organization could begin. Sadly, this may be the only way of forcing the organization to take some elementary steps toward basic reform, such as Annan volunteering to take a pay cut and the General Assembly moving to cut off accused war criminal Kurt Waldheim's pension.



1. see Kofi A. Annan, Secretary-General of the United Nations, Address to the National Press Club, Washington, D.C. January 24, 1997, page 16.
2. Letter to Cliff Kincaid, February 22, 1996, from United Nations Joint Staff Pension Fund.
3. Daniel J. Shepard, "Financial problems trouble the U.N., but formidable pension fund in healthy shape," The Earth Times, November 1-15, 1996, page 21.
4. see "United States Senate Committee on Armed Services, September 29, 1995, Memorandum for Senator Thurmond and Senator Nunn. From: Senator Warner and Senator Levin, Subject: Review of the Circumstances Surrounding the Ranger Raid on October 3-4, 1993 in Mogadishu, Somalia," page 21.
5. United Nations General Assembly, Fifty-first session, Report of the Secretary-General on the activities of the Office of Internal Oversight Services, September 30, 1966, page 7.
6. "Annan: Reform of U.N. To Take Time," The Washington Times, February 14, 1997, page A13.
7. Elaine Sciolino, "Despite Critics, New U.N. Chief Keeps His Style," The New York Times, February 7, 1997, page 1.
8. Betsy Pisik, "Key U.N. choices less than daring," The Washington Times, January 29, 1997, page 1.
9. see Betsy Pisik, "Annan prepares to repay France," The Washington Times, January 22, 1997, page 1.
10. Elaine Dewar, Cloak of Green (Toronto: James Lorimer & Company, Publishers, 1995), page 285.
11. see Johanna McGeary, "The UNforgiven," Time magazine, December 2, 1996, page 47.
12. "Annan: Reform of U.N. To Take Time," The Washington Times, February 14, 1997, page A13.
13. Kofi A. Annan, Secretary-General of the United Nations, address to the National Press Club, Washington, D.C., January 24, 1997, page 12.
14. Ibid., page 17.
15. Andrew J. Glass, "Gingrich Pledges to help Clinton broaden NAFTA, He also supports paying U.N. dues," The Washington Times, February 3, 1997.
16. "Image & Reality, Questions and Answers about the United Nations. What it does. How it works. Who pays for it," Published by the United Nations Department of Public Information, October 1996, page 9.
17. Ibid., page 24.
18. see Charles M. Lichenstein, "We Aren't the World," Policy Review, Spring 1995, page 63.
19. Ibid.
20. News from Bob Dole, U.S. Senator for Kansas, Senate Majority Leader, March 21, 1995.
21. Bob Dole, Senate Majority Leader, "Budgeting for the United Nations," The Washington Post, March 4, 1996, page A14.
22. Ibid., Lichenstein.
23. As quoted in Cliff Kincaid, "The U.N.'s Design for Global Dominance," Human Events, November 3, 1995, pages 7, 8.
24. see "Peace Operations. U.S. Costs in Support of Haiti, former Yugoslavia, Somalia, and Rwanda," Report to the Majority Leader, U.S. Senate, March 1996, GAO/NSIAD-96-38.

Image Copyright © Noel Mollon. Used with permission.