Pragmatism on U.N. Dues

The tentative deal struck by the Clinton administration and Congress to pay back dues and assessments to the United Nations is an inelegant if unavoidable compromise. Its chief political accomplishment is that it lets both sides claim victory. Its pragmatic value is that it finally clears the way for the United States to settle an embarrassing debt. That will let it keep its vote in the General Assembly and, maybe, regain some of the esteem it lost by becoming the United Nations’ biggest deadbeat.

The full Congress must still approve this week’s agreement. It calls for the United States to pay its full $926-million arrears to the United Nations. (U.N. calculations put the debt at $1.6 billion.) But payment is contingent. While $100 million would be handed over this year, the rest would be released only after the U.N. froze its budget and cut the U.S. share of dues to 22% from 25% and the U.S. share of peacekeeping costs to 25% from 31%.

This demand isn’t unreasonable, given the redistribution of world wealth that has taken place since dues were first apportioned more than 50 years ago. The condition is also not absolute. Even if the changes sought by Washington aren’t made, the president is given the authority to pay the full arrears if he believes national security interests require it.

The administration failed to get Congress to separate the U.N. debt issue from the restrictions on financing overseas family planning groups that conservatives have long insisted on. But the compromise that was reached is far from being the capitulation or calamity that some abortion rights advocates claim.

The deal provides $385 million to help family planning organizations overseas but imposes a one-year ban on U.S. funding for groups that provide or advocate abortions. Again, the president is given the power to waive that ban. If he does, as administration officials say is likely, the family planning budget would be cut by 3%, or about $12 million. The agreement also caps at $15 million U.S. contributions to foreign organizations that provide or promote abortions--a nominal restriction since funding for such groups already falls below that amount.

The refusal of conservatives to unlink the abortion and U.N. dues issues compelled the administration to make a hard choice. It opted to make good on America’s debt and to try to regain lost influence at the United Nations, at the cost of bending slightly on the principle of abortion rights but not on the practical effect of continuing advocacy for family planning and abortion rights. The administration made the right decision.