|
 |
 |
UNITED NATIONS — Polite arm twisting has always been something of a diplomatic game. The game becomes political hardball when assessed dues for the U.N.'s189 members come into play. While Washington has long been assessed at 25% of the biennial budget, the amount has now been trimmed to 22 % reflecting the reality that other countries are perfectly able, though often not willing, to carry a larger financial burden both in assessments and peacekeeping dues.
Traditionally the industrial democracies carried the largest burden. Part of the problem rests with the scale of assessments which were basically written back in the 1960's--in other words, in an era when the US and a relative handful or other states held the economic chips. The current American 25% assessment dates to the Nixon Administration.
Thus it's absurd to see increasingly prosperous countries like Brazil, China, or the Arab petroleum producers getting away with under assessments which simply don't reflect their often impressive economic performance or for that matter the very real and genuine prosperity throughout much of the world since that period.
Take People's China for example. Beijing pays 0.99% or $10.4 million; about the same as Mexico. South Korea is assessed at 1% or $10.5 million. But Saudi Arabia is assessed at 0.56% or $5.9 million; Kuwait at 0.12% or $1.3 million and the United Arab Emirates at 0.17% or $1.8 million. Super-rich Brunei Darussalam weighs in for a piddling 0.02% or $210,000 or the price of the Sultan's Rolls Royce.
Equally 37 countries pay 0.001 % of the budget or $10,519 annually; a further fifteen countries are assessed at 0.002% of the UN budget!
Japan has been pegged at nearly 20%; realism, and cost sharing would argue that this sum be trimmed and that a score of newly industrialized states pay a bit more as to lessen dependence on one source.
Assessments are based on a complex formula of GNP, commercial accounts, and national reserves. The bottom line remains that Washington has been joined by both Tokyo and Berlin as the chief contributors to the system, thus carrying an increasing financial burden, but gaining formidable political clout. As they say, "He who pays the piper." The biennial budget stands at $2.2 billion.
It's all a numbers game--consider the combined European Union contribution, at 36 % for the regular budget and and 39% for peacekeeping. Europe openly balks over what it sees as the U.S. playing financial games with the budget.
Though the Helms/Biden Law mandates cutting the U.S. assessments along with a myriad of efficiency measures, there was always an undercurrent in the Administration to actually keep the dues higher as to have more corresponding influence. Ironically, by not paying assessments there's influence too, albeit in inverse order.
The Clinton Administration was always quick to blame Congress for the financial foibles. Bill Clinton wished to keep the UN on a short leash thus allowing the budget battles to continue. Quite frankly an Executive Order could have paid the American arrears in the stroke of the Presidential pen. Rather Clinton played a perfidious game of blaming a Republican Congress while not really wanting to solve the problem.
Though some countries say that the US will pay less and the poor will pay more this is nonsense. A more equitable budget assessment is in everyone's favor. Moreover true vision would allow the poorest countries to be excused to pay membership dues completely. How? Presently the poor countries are assessed at 0.001 percent or $10,519. One percent more by let's say Kuwait or the Emirates, could erase the need for these countries to pay anything.
Bottom line--the U.S. regular budget will be trimmed to 22% and 27% for peacekeeping. Realistically this cuts $34 million from America's assessment and $40 million in peacekeeping. This hardly represents a financial windfall for Washington, but does show a symbolic move to bring a dose of overdue realism. Congress should reciprocate by releasing the $1.3 billion the U.N. claims Washington owes in arrears.
With a more realistic assessment and a new Administration in Washington, it's time for the U.S to turn over the probervial new leaf with the United Nations. George W. Bush has a positive deal to build upon.
John J. Metzler is a U.N. correspondent covering diplomatic and defense issues. He writes weekly for World Tribune.com.
