UNITED NATIONS: Reforms, U.S. Arrears Dominate U.N. Agenda

By Farhan Haq Reprint | | Print |

UNITED NATIONS, Sep 16 1997 (IPS) - The annual opening sessions of the U.N. General Assembly each September often have been a time of controversy and heated debate but this year’s plenary promises to be one of the most fractious ever.

For a change, the main problems looming before the General Assembly, which formally began its 52nd session Tuesday, do not involve world crises. Instead, the three major disputes involve the functioning of the United Nations itself – plans to streamline U.N. bodies, expansion of the 15-nation Security Council and efforts to get the United States, the U.N’s largest to pay its arrears.

No one here believes this will be an easy task. Secretary- General Kofi Annan’s ambitious reform plan includes many items which require Assembly approval, and there is no guarantee that the 185-nation body intends to grant it.

The reforms, in turn, respond at least partly to U.S. demands for change, at a time when Washington’s 1.5 billion dollars in unpaid dues give it little credibility – among even traditional U.S. allies. Thus the stage is set for what could well be several months of unresolved debate over how to prepare the United Nations for the next century.

The outgoing President of the General Assembly, Razali Ismail of Malaysia, said it all when he wrapped up his term Monday.

“Every aspect of the United Nations remains a stake and a prize in the escalating debate between the North and the South – each side with conflicting claims on fundamental values and perspectives – causing political gridlock in virtually every aspect of reform,” he declared.

Despite such concerns, Annan remains optimistic that his reform plan, under which the United Nations has already adopted a Cabinet- style leadership, will be broadly acceptable. “I think the winds are blowing in the right direction,” he said last week. “It’s important that we move ahead with reform.”

Annan has put approval of his reform package at the top of the list of his hopes for the new session. he has argued that the atmosphere for change has improved somewhat following progress in steering Washington towards paying its dues.

The White House and the Senate tentatively have agreed to repay some 819 million dollars in arrears over the next few months – although Annan has conceded that “even that sum can be increased slightly.” Other diplomats go further.

“The issue of U.S. nonpayment is perhaps the most disappointing part of the (last) General Assembly (session),” Razali argued. Referring to the promised U.S. payments, he added, “Members should consider very seriously whether this half a loaf is acceptable or not.”

Washington, for its part, has tried to improve its image here following several years in which even its European allies have bitterly criticised its dominance in the world body and its concurrent arrears as, in former British Foreign Secretary Douglas Hurd’s words, “representation without taxation.”

“The secretary-general has done a good job of not just reforming the United Nations, but also (ensuring that) its financial house appears to be in order,” U.S. Ambassador Bill Richardson acknowledged recently. Now, he said, he hoped to complete the process of repaying the dues at least partially, contending, “We want to put this arrears package behind us.”

The United States also wants another major change in U.N. operations: a shift in the assessments of dues which would commit Washington to pay 20 percent of the regular U.N. budget, down from the present 25 percent. The assessments are weighted to reflect the strength of member states’ economies, and the United States has long contended that the scales should be changed to reflect the growing economic power of Germany, Japan and China.

Accordingly, Richardson has travelled to other countries to pick up support for reducing the U.S. assessment. Under one plan, China – which pays less than one percent of U.N. costs but has been growing by 10 percent annually in recent years – would pay 4 percent of U.N. costs, Japan would account for 19 percent and the European Union, which currently pays 36 percent, would go up to 41 percent.

Japan has indicsated it is willing to accept the plan, and China has not rejected it, but several European countries have been angered that Washington is lobbying for a change before clearing its debts.

To mollify the countries who will be paying more, the United States has also strongly supported a revamping of the 15-nation Security Council to add five new permanent members: Germany, Japan and one member each from Asia, Africa and Latin America. Those nations would then join the existing five permanent members: Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States.

Richardson would not say whether the new members should be granted the veto power the current five permanent members have. Nor does Washington want an expansion in the number of non- permanent members, currently 10, who sit on the Council for elected two-year terms.

Yet so interconnected are U.N. affairs that even the expansion package can become lost in the tangle of the other disputes. “Developing nations would have to be stupid to agree to Council reform before everything else they want, such as the payment of (U.S.) arrears, is decided,” one former U.N. diplomat, speaking on condition of anonymity, said. “It’s the only negotiating card they have.”

Also, many nations do not agree to the current expansion of five permanent members – particularly because Washington insists on no more than 21 members overall. Razali called such a plan “absurd,” and has secured broad agreement for at least 24 Council members, most of them non-permanent. Other countries want to see veto power

Ultimately, the tangle of controversies will land in the General Assembly’s lap this fall although many of the dispoutes will be formally aired on Monday, when world leaders kick off the first plenary.

In the meantime, world crises that perenially loom on the horizon – from the stalled Middle East peace process to massacres in Central Africa – promise to complicate what already is a full schedule.