UNITED NATIONS: U.N. Challenges U.S. Decision to Reduce Funding

By Thalif Deen Reprint | | Print |

Thalif Deen

UNITED NATIONS, Oct 19 1995 (IPS) - The United Nations has formally challenged a U.S. decision to unilaterally reduce its dues for peacekeeping operations.

The U.N. response came Thursday following the first public statement by the United States declaring its intention to reduce its contributions from 31 to 25 percent of the U.N. peacekeeping budget.

U.N. Under-Secretary-General and Legal Counsel Hans Corell said any attempts by Washington to unilaterally reduce its contributions would be in violation of the U.N. charter.

A U.N. source told IPS the Legal Office is also of the opinion that charter provisions, obligatory on all 185 member states, override national legislation. Asked what the United Nations could do in a situation like this, he said, “Unfortunately, we don’t have a police force to enforce the law.”

The United States made its public declaration on reduced funding during a discussion on the financing of the U.N. Mission in Haiti (UNMIH). Addressing the U.N. Administrative and Budgetary Committee, U.S. delegate William Grant said his country would not be able to pay more than 25 percent of any peacekeeping budget because of its national legislation.

Grant said though his delegation would join a consensus to finance UNMIH as in the past, Washington would not be able to pay more than 25 percent of that budget or of any other peacekeeping budget in the future.

To date, the United States has paid 51 million dollars for UNMIH. Grant said that even at 25 percent, the U.S. payments were far higher than those of any other member-state. The Assembly should reform the way assessments are levied, he added.

U.N. Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali had asked the General Assembly to appropriate about 152 million dollars for UNMIH for Aug. 1995 through Jan. 1996.

Asked for his legal opinion, Corell told delegates that funding of the United Nations and its peacekeeping operations is governed by the charter.

Article 17 of the charter says “the expenses of the Organisation shall be borne by the members as apportioned by the General Assembly.”

According to Corell, “once the General Assembly has approved the budget for the UNMIH operation, member-states will be obligated to bear the expenses of that operation as apportioned by the General Assembly.”

The General Assembly has determined that the portion of expenses the United States is to bear for operations such as UNMIH is slightly more than 31 percent.

“Unless the General Assembly were to take action to reduce the portion of expenses that the U.S. is to bear for such operations generally, or this particular operation, the U.S. government would be legally obligated under Article 17 of the charter to pay at the existing rate determined by the General Assembly,” he said in his ruling.

The United States is the biggest single defaulter in payments to the United Nations, with more than 1.5 billion dollars in arrears — 527 million dollars to the regular budget and 1.07 billion dollars for peacekeeping.

The U.S. decision to reduce its contributions to peacekeeping funding took effect at the beginning of October, the United States’ new fiscal year. U.S. peacekeeping contributions are now on par with Washington’s assessed annual contribution of 25 percent to the regular budget. The U.N. peacekeeping budget is roughly three billion dollars annually while the regular budget is about one billion dollars.

The move to reduce U.N. funding was initiated by a Republican- controlled Congress which is also trying to slash funding earmarked for several U.N. bodies, including the International Labour Organisation (ILO), the U.N. Development Programme (UNDP), and the U.N. Industrial Development Organisation (UNIDO).

The New York-based U.N. Association of USA last month criticised “misguided politicians” who see U.N. contributions as an easy target.

“In asserting that national parliaments can unilaterally set their nations’ assessment levels, claim offsets from assessed obligations for voluntary peacekeeping contributions, and impose policy conditions for payment of their agreed share of expenses, some Washington politicians jeopardise the institutional underpinnings of the world community,” the Association said.

“No multilateral organisation — whether the United Nations, the World Bank or the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) — can long survive if member-states play such rules,” said the Association which has 30,000 members from 175 chapters throughout the United States.

In ratifying the U.N. charter, every member agreed by law to the financial obligations of U.N. membership.

“Virtually, all of America’s allies in the industrialised world fulfill those obligations to the United Nations — in full, on time, and without conditions,” said the association. “Until relatively recently, so did the United States. It must do so again.”

According to the foreign ministers of Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden, the unilateral withholding of assessed U.N. contributions “is a clear violation of the obligation of member-states.”

In a statement released here last month, the Nordic countries said it is “unacceptable” and “deplorable” that an institution celebrating its 50th anniversary should be practically bankrupt due the failure of member states to pay their dues in full.

UNITED NATIONS: U.N. Challenges U.S. Decision to Reduce Funding

By Thalif Deen Reprint | | Print |

Thalif Deen

UNITED NATIONS, Oct 19 1995 (IPS) - The United Nations has formally challenged a U.S. decision to unilaterally reduce its dues for peacekeeping operations.
(more…)