Funding the U.N.

The General Assembly of the United Nations has reluctantly accepted a further squeeze on expenditures as Secretary General Javier Perez de Cuellar struggles to erase a $76 million deficit in the organization’s budget. The decision was a wise one. The squeeze is a healthy one. But there are forces at work among U.N. members, including the United States, that threaten the very fiber of the world organization, and that is neither wise nor healthy.

There is no question that the United Nations and many of its specialized agencies have grown fat and flabby, sanctuaries for an international civil service too often distinguished for its high salaries and gold-plated perquisites than for its extraordinary performance. There has been a growing tendency of a majority of the membership to go ahead and vote for ever-escalating budgets without due regard to performance simply because the budget assessments for most is minuscule. The major nations, led by the United States, that pay for most of the operations, are easily outvoted when budgets are adopted.

The growing concern of the major nations has coincided with growing criticism of the world organization in the American government, both within the Reagan White House and Congress. That has climaxed with the Draconian budget law written by Sen. Nancy Landon Kassebaum (R-Kans.) that will unilaterally reduce U.S. support of the U.N. next Oct. 1 unless a new day has dawned in the way the organization adopts its budgets. And the Kassebaum amendment’s impact has been made all the harsher by imposition of Gramm-Rudman-Hollings cutbacks in budget projections.

The message being transmitted from Washington has been heard in New York at least by the secretary general, who has undertaken $60 million in cutbacks and proposed a new scale of assessments that would reduce the American share by way of reducing dependence on a single nation. The new budget is 4% less in real terms than last year’s budget. The cash flow has been brought close to balance despite assessments in arrears totaling $177 million.

Unfortunately, the message for economy is not the only message being heard. A second message is being transmitted from Washington, a message of defiance, of unilateral rejection of international obligations. The assessments for the U.N. and its specialized agencies are treaty obligations and any breach of them serves to erode respect for the rule of law. This is not ameliorated by the fact that most members, and most notably the Soviet Union and its closest allies, have long flouted the assessments and have substantial obligations.

The newly discovered fiscal discipline is to the advantage of all nations. But U.S. policy makers must know the risks of carrying the campaign too far. For all their defects, imperfections, and failures, the United Nations and its specialized agencies are critically useful institutions in managing the enormously complicated relations and rivalries that govern the world at this moment. Their costs, even at their most extravagant levels, are trivial alongside the expenditures in arms now being made from national treasuries.

Between now and Oct. 1, there will be occasion for a reevaluation of the Kassebaum decision of Congress and the budget cutbacks being imposed by the Administration.

This provides an opportunity for second thoughts, to postpone for at least a year further unilateral cuts in the U.S. payments. This is an opportunity for the United States to return to its role of leadership in strengthening the U.N. and its specialized agencies, while setting an example of respect for the rule of law.