U.S. Hands on the U.N. Throat

Congress has taken the law into its own hands, which is not a good idea, and has ordered a new system for establishing budgets in the United Nations, which has some merit.

This has been done through amendments to the authorization legislation for the State Department budget--a favorite if awkward place for frustrated congressmen to practice foreign-policy making.

At the behest of Sen. Nancy Landon Kassebaum (R-Kan.), Congress has now decreed that the United Nations and all of its specialized agencies must abandon the one-vote-per-country rule on all decisions having to do with money, and devise a weighted system of voting that recognizes actual cash contributions, which are based on relative per-capita income. Furthermore, Congress has commanded that the United States must unilaterally cut its contributions to a maximum of 20% of the total, compared with an average assessment currently of 25%, if the United Nations has not changed the voting rules by 1987.

A good case can be made for placing restraints on the way in which majorities in the United Nations have been allowing budgets to rise, often over the protests of the handful of nations that pay most of the money. Major contributors to the United Nations and its specialized agencies have been trying for more than 20 years to put a lid on budget growth, to place tighter controls on U.N. salaries and to rub some of the gilt off U.N. retirement benefits. Kassebaum has been outspoken on all these matters in recent years. Her proposal comes, however, at an awkward time--just when the major donors had been making substantial progress on the budget-control issue. And her formula of weighted voting is poison to most U.N. members, who treasure their voting equality as essential to their sovereignty.

The congressional action has other flaws. It invites a violation of treaty obligations on the part of the United States at a time when the United States has been trying to win universal respect for the rule of law. The funding of the United Nations and the specialized agencies is based on assessments, not voluntary contributions. The payment of assessments is a charter obligation. Over the years the United States has made a major pointof this when the Soviet Union and others have violated that obligation. The charter can be changed only by a vote of two-thirds of the membership, including all five permanent members of the Security Council. That is a long and difficult process, apart from the issue of weighted voting.

That America has been restive about international organizations is not new, but it also has recognized that in each of the bodies the United States has garnered benefits outweighing the relatively small price of participation. The United Nations has proved an efficient place for global consultation, the Security Council has been an effective forum for defusing potentially explosive disputes, and the specialized agencies have made significant contributions in such areas as health, agriculture and development. To weaken the structures by defying charter obligations would only make more remote the day when the United Nations functions as it was intended.

But leaders at the United Nations will be foolish if they think that Congress will easily back down. The anger and frustration run deep--among moderates as well as traditional foes of the United Nations. Only a new restraint on financial matters, only a serious respect for the concerns of the major donors in the months ahead will serve to deter the implementation of this action.