Holding the UN hostage

At first glance, the United States' offer to pay some US$900 million in arrears to the United Nations looks like a generous and timely gesture to save the world body, which is on the brink of bankruptcy.

A closer look at the offer, made by President Bill Clinton in his address to the General Assembly on Monday, tells us a different story. The two dozen conditions attached to the offer make a total mockery of the United Nations and UN members who have met their financial obligations.

The U.S. owes the United Nations $1.5 billion in current and past dues, including its contribution to the heavy cost of maintaining various UN international peacekeeping operations.

Last year, Washington withheld these payments to kill the reelection chances of then secretary-general Boutros-Boutros Ghali and to demand sweeping reforms to the world body. Washington made clear its dislike of the skilled and visionary Egyptian diplomat, who had the support of most other UN members, including U.S. allies.

The U.S., now the lone superpower, got its way and much more. Boutros-Boutros Ghali was replaced on Jan. 1 by Kofi Annan. The Ghanaian diplomat has since laid out his reform plans which goes a long way toward meeting the demands of the U.S.

Most of the world has given Washington the benefit of the doubt all this time, even though the U.S. increasingly sidesteps the UN on various issues.

Now comes pay back time and the answer is even more contempt for the world body and, indirectly, the rest of the world.

Annan's reform plans might not meet the United States' requirements in full but they have gone more than half way.

Washington, meanwhile, has not even moved an inch. Clinton's offer to pay up some two-thirds of the U.S. debt came with so many strings attached -- all imposed by Congress -- that one should question its sincerity.

To add insult to injury, Clinton had the cheek to call his offer a "compromise" which he hoped other UN members would accept.

Not surprisingly, reactions to his speech have been swift. Criticisms came from Washington's chief allies like Britain and Germany. A debt is a debt. It has to be paid when it falls due. There can be no more compromises. The world has already made too many to accommodate the U.S.

One could accept the argument that the U.S., as the biggest financial contributor to UN coffers, has the right to insist that its money is spent effectively and efficiently. But that is something that all members want, it is not an exclusive American concern. There has to be a limit, however, on how far a member can dictate to the world body simply because it is the largest contributor.

It may be American taxpayers' money, but the stumbling block is not the taxpayers but rather U.S. Congress members who are politicizing the debt issue.

One cannot envisage the consequences of the UN being held hostage by politicians hiding behind taxpayers all over the world. But the trend is catching.

Japan has refused to increase its financial contribution to the UN unless it is given a permanent seat on the security council, saying that it has to answer to Japanese taxpayers. A few more countries take that attitude, and it could spell the end of the UN as we know it.

The United Nations has received a temporary reprieve with the $1 billion contribution from American media mogul Ted Turner. But the U.S. debt, as the swift reactions to Clinton's speech indicate, could consume much of the time and energy of this year's assembly, at the expense of Annan's reform proposals.

Considering that these reforms were badly needed, far more than the United States' $1.5 billion debt is at stake. The future of the United Nations is also in jeopardy.