Credit Where It Is Due: Rep. Bartlett Should Be Commended, Supported For His Efforts To Show The U.N. Owes U.S. Money

(Washington, D.C.): The House of
Representatives is expected shortly to
consider an amendment offered by Rep.
Roscoe Bartlett (R-MD) that is intended
to bring a measure of integrity,
accountability and realism to the United
States’ financial relationship to the
United Nations. The debate on the
Bartlett legislation, entitled the
“United Nations Erroneous Debt Act
of 1997,” affords a long-overdue
opportunity for Congress to address not
only what is actually owed and by
whom; it also permits a needed,
critical examination of the portentous
character of the Clinton Administration’s
policy toward this international
institution.

We Gave — and Gave and
Gave — At the Office

President Clinton, former UN
Ambassador and now Secretary of State
Madeleine Albright and other top
officials have repeatedly echoed — and,
thereby, legitimated — the charge that
the United States is the world’s biggest
deadbeat when it comes to paying its
“dues” to the United Nations.
In fact, as a study performed last year
by the General Accounting Office shows, the
arrearage of some $1.3 billion to which
this criticism refers is much more than
offset by the unreimbursed costs of U.S.
involvement in various UN peacekeeping
operations conducted from 1992-1995.

Specifically, the GAO found that
during this period, the U.S. laid out
$1.6 billion for the Haiti operation;
$2.2 billion for the former Yugoslavia;
nearly $600 million for Rwanda; and $2.2
billion for Somalia. Of these sums only
$79.4 million has been reimbursed by the
UN; $1.8 billion has been credited as
U.S. “dues.” This
leaves an outstanding balance due the
U.S. of some $4.7 billion or $3.4
billion more than the United States
“owes” the UN.
While more current numbers are not
available to the Center at this writing,
it is a safe bet that the continuing
costs of UN-mandated peacekeeping
operations in places like Haiti, Bosnia,
Macedonia and Rwanda that are still being
borne by the United States are even
larger — and still substantially
unreimbursed.

Lest there be any doubt, this
is real money. Much of it has
been provided by the taxpayer and
allocated by the Congress for very
different purposes than those to which it
has been applied. For example, over the
period examined by the GAO, the Defense
Department was obliged to divert some
$3.4 billion — coincidentally,
approximately the amount the UN
“owes” the United States —
from already cash-strapped modernization,
research and development and
readiness-related accounts.

Noblesse Oblige

Unfortunately, these unreimbursed
expenses also epitomize tangibly the
Clinton Administration’s attitude toward
international government and the role its
institutions are believed to play in
bringing about a new world order. The
sentiment at work might be described as
that of noblesse oblige — that
it is the duty of the United States not
only to pay a disproportionate share of
the expenses of various peacekeeping
operations, but also to refrain from
seeking the compensation for such
disbursements to which it is entitled. As
a result, the U.S. is neither given
credit, literally or politically,
for the burden it is uniquely bearing.
Insult is added to injury to the
reputation and influence of the American
government when its own senior
representatives dignify charges that the
United States is irresponsibly derelict
in pulling its load at the United
Nations.

The Bottom Line

Rep. Bartlett is to be commended for
his initiative in highlighting the true
nature of the U.S. entries in UN
bookkeeping. His legislation — which
makes payment of “any assessed or
voluntary contribution to the United
Nations or any specialized agency of the
UN” contingent on the President
certifying either that: 1) the U.S. is
being reimbursed for its
as-yet-uncompensated contributions to UN
military peacekeeping or 2) the alleged
U.S. “arrearages” are
eliminated and the United States is given
credit for the roughly $3.5 billion
difference between its outlays to date
and what it “owes” — offers an
opportunity to halt the utterly
unjustified demeaning of America in which
UN bureaucrats, foreign diplomats and
Clinton Administration officials all too
often indulge.

More importantly, the debate on the
Bartlett amendment should catalyze
congressional efforts to end the
practice of considering Pentagon and
other U.S. government accounts as slush
funds to be plundered at will by
an Administration determined to enable
peacekeeping operations that might
otherwise be deemed unjustified. This
practice materially degrades the combat
capabilities of the American military —
both by diverting troops from their
principal missions and training regimens
and by ripping-off needed resources. What
is more, it tends to encourage a lack of
discipline with respect to the real
costs associated with international
interventions in conflict or
proto-conflict situations, a practice
that often exposes the United States to
still more expensive, and unreimbursed,
obligations entailed in sustaining or
withdrawing peacekeeping units.