|
The United Nations and Alleged U.S. Debt: Is America a "Deadbeat" Nation? By Trudy Chun Concern Women of America July 2000 For years, an annual controversy has erupted over whether the United States owes member dues to the United Nations. The controversy has led many critics to label the United States a "deadbeat" nation, unwilling to pay its "fair share" to support the world body. Opponents counter that the United Nations actually owes the United States money: The United States has continually footed the bill for peacekeeping activities, well beyond its required share. The United Nations has failed to repay that money. To unravel this accounting mystery and decipher the true state of affairs, we must take a look at some of the history and bookkeeping of the last several years. Who Owes Whom?In 1997, this issue made headlines when Rep. Roscoe Bartlett (R-Maryland) introduced the United Nations Erroneous Debt Act. Bartlett pointed out that, according to a 1996 General Accounting Office (GAO) Report for fiscal years 1992-1995, the United Nations actually owes money to the United States. Between 1992 and 1995, the United States spent $6.6 billion on peacekeeping activities in Haiti, the former Yugoslavia, Rwanda and Somalia. Of this amount, the United Nations reimbursed the United States for only $79.4 million. And of the original $6.6 billion, the United Nations was only willing to count $1.8 million toward U.S. dues.1 Hence, the congressman did some calculations:
Based on these calculations, Rep. Bartlett concluded that the United States owed no money to the United Nations. In fact, the United Nations owed the United States $3.4 billion. He designed his bill to stop all U.S. payments of assessed or voluntary contributions to the United Nations until our nation’s overpayments have been credited or reimbursed. The Administration’s ResponseThe Clinton administration argued that the congressman and his supporters came to "flawed conclusions." A fact sheet released by the U.S. State Department in 1998 stated that the United States should not expect reimbursements for all U.N.-sanctioned peacekeeping operations. "When the U.S. undertakes peacekeeping operations that are not under U.N. control, it does so without any expectation of U.N. reimbursement," the document states.2 Therefore, it would seem that, under this definition, anytime the United States takes military action to assist or carryout a U.N. resolution, we have to foot the bill. The administration is saying the United States has a right to require reimbursement only when it has yielded its sovereignty by placing American troops under foreign control. U.N. Rules and PoliciesThe controversy over this issue has become increasingly tense over the past few years, as some American supporters of the United Nations feared that by not paying the dues, the United States risked losing its vote in the U.N. General Assembly. Article 19 of the U.N. Charter states that member nations lose their right to vote in the General Assembly if their unpaid U.N. bills equal or exceed the amount of contributions they made to the world body during the preceding two years. In 1999, GAO released a report addressing this very issue. Using the charter formula, GAO calculated the figures. (See chart. GAO Chart, as published in GAO/NSIAD-99-187, found at: http://www.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=gao&docid=f:ns99187.txt.pdf ) GAO reported that the United States was in danger of losing its vote in the U.N. General Assembly as of January 2000. This was because, beginning that year (if we accept GAO’s calculation), the amount of U.N. dues the United States owed amounted to $1.4 billion, while the previous two years’ contributions amounted to $1.28 billion. The shortfall that threatened to take away the U.S. vote in the General Assembly amounted to $153 million. However, the United Nations admits that it owes the United States $142.7 million in reimbursements for participation in U.N. peacekeeping operations, which has not been factored into the equation.3 That would bring the figure down to $10.3 million, before any voluntary contributions are included. In 1995 alone, the United States poured $1.2 billion into U.N. organizations via voluntary contributions—mostly to humanitarian programs.4 Moreover, the GAO report admitted that calculating these figures was not a cut-and-dry endeavor. The report pointed out that although the U.N. Charter specifically lays out the criteria that would lead to a lost vote, it does not state how those numbers should be calculated. As a result, voluntary contributions to specific U.N. programs, like refugee relief, do not factor into the equation. GAO also noted early in its report that loss of the right to vote in the General Assembly does not affect a member nation’s right to vote in the U.N. Security Council or in several of the specialized U.N. agencies.5 Historic GenerosityThe calculations also overlook the fact that the United States has historically never been stingy toward the United Nations. A look at the statistics proves America’s overwhelming generosity to the world body. The United Nations itself has admitted as much, as 1995 statistics list the United States as the largest contributor to the world body, giving more than $1.8 billion that year alone. That’s $400 million more than that of second-place contributor, Japan.6 In fact, between 1946 and 1996, the United States contributed in excess of $32 billion to the United Nations.7 And, as Rep. Christopher Smith (R-New Jersey) notes, "We have also paid at least $22 billion since 1992 in additional costs in support of U.N.-authorized peacekeeping."8 The 1999 CompromiseIn 1999, the issue of U.N. arrears reached a crescendo as American officials feared the United Nations would take away its vote if our nation did not make payments. The battle became a bitter showdown between Congress and the President, which concluded with a deal that involved abortion funding. In the end, Congress agreed to pay $926 million to the United Nations over three years, as long as the United Nations carries out previously agreed-upon reforms, including the lowering of U.S. dues. In order to win this concession from Congress, the President had to accept a ban on funding for any overseas "family planning" programs that promote or perform abortions. The true impact of this deal is not clear on the surface. The President has the power to waive the restrictions, with the penalty of a 3-percent decrease in overall population funding (approximately $12.5 million). Population-control advocates are more threatened, however, by the fact that the abortion restrictions have now been codified into law. Past restrictions—such as the Reagan administration’s Mexico City policy9—had simply been a policy established through executive order.10 This sets the stage for many abortion-funding battles in the future. ConclusionThe debate over U.S. funding of the United Nations is fraught with accounting inconsistencies and confusion. But regardless of which numbers are used and who is doing the calculations, several things are clear. First, it is no secret that the United Nations has become a bloated bureaucracy. Requiring the world body to meet a few modest reforms before it receives dues is what we call responsible government. Second, it is clear that the United States has historically pulled more than its weight financially at the United Nations. It has contributed countless billions since the organization’s inception and continues to provide for the bulk of many peacekeeping initiatives today. That, coupled with the fact that the United Nations has not paid back the United States for spending on certain military operations, makes calling America a "deadbeat" nation preposterous. America must be bold in dealing with the United Nations. The country that carries such a bulk of the body’s financial burden should not be so willing to sacrifice sovereignty and so eager to cater to the United Nations’ every demand. End Notes
|
||||||||||||||||||
