Many at U.N. Not Satisfied by U.S. Dues Deal

UNITED NATIONS —  In the halls of the United Nations, the news that Congress has finally agreed to pay at least part of America’s long-standing debt to the world body was cause for cautious celebration.

“Right. The check is in the mail, and it will take three years to get here,” said a European diplomat. “Maybe by then America will have convinced the rest of us that it’s a good deal.”

For the U.S., it’s a billion-dollar bargain. The agreement, expected to be signed by President Clinton this week after a several-year battle in Congress, approves $926 million in back dues to be paid to the U.N. over three years--enough for Washington to keep its vote in the General Assembly, but not nearly what the U.N. says it is owed.

That’s why many diplomats here think the deal’s a rip-off. The U.N. calculates the debt to be $1.6 billion, and it doesn’t see why the world’s richest country should be forgiven more than $600 million.

“The taxpayers of the U.S. owe this money to taxpayers in other countries,” Canadian Ambassador Robert Fowler said. “This money belongs to people, and in many cases these other countries are among the poorest in the world.”

The congressional deal also attaches stringent conditions for the organization’s reform in exchange for the money: The U.N. must accept the $926 million as complete fulfillment of U.S. debts, the American share of U.N. expenses must be permanently reduced, and the U.N. budget must be frozen for two years.

On Wednesday, the U.S. named a special envoy, Donald Hays, to ensure that those conditions are met. He and U.S. Ambassador Richard Holbrooke have the delicate job of convincing 187 diplomats that their governments should pay a little more of the U.N. budget so the U.S. can pay a little less.

Holbrooke, who has recently spent part of each week lobbying in Washington, told a gathering of U.N. ambassadors that he would soon be using his persuasive skills on them. “I hope that when we come knocking on your door, you will still want to see us,” he said.

The United States wants to reduce its share of the U.N. operating budget from 25% to 22%, and its portion of peacekeeping operations from 31% to 25%. That means a difference of about $70 million in the general budget that other countries would have to pick up. The burden would probably be shifted to European nations and countries such as China and India that pay relatively little compared with their fast-growing economies.

Developing nations are the most reluctant to meet the U.S. demands.

“First pay, then we’ll talk,” said one African ambassador.

But a handful of others think it’s time to take another look at assessments. Last year, Denmark proposed lowering the U.S. share, reasoning that it’s unhealthy for the U.N. to be so dependent on one country, Danish Ambassador Jorgen Rud Hansen Bojer said. “We have no problem with reducing the assessment,” he said. “But it should be negotiated, not a unilateral decision.”

In Washington, many are unhappy with the compromise that freed up the money. President Clinton grudgingly agreed to a rider on the budget bill that will ban U.S. funding for international family planning groups if they promote abortion rights in other countries.

“I don’t call it a victory,” Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) said. “This issue should be completely de-linked from family planning. You can bet it will be an issue in the next election.”