Endangering World Health

The scofflaw posture of President Reagan and Congress toward assessments for the U.S. share of the budgets of the United Nations and its specialized agencies is having effects that even the most dedicated U.N.-basher may find embarrassing. One victim is the World Health Organization. At risk is its highly praised and crucial Strategy for the Health of All by the Year 2000.

Total American assessments and voluntary contributions to the United Nations and its agencies due this year totaled almost $600 million. President Reagan asked for $433 million--not even enough to meet the payments required by treaty, and Congress gave him $385 million, but one-third of this has been postponed until next October, when the U.S. government commences a new fiscal year.

The result has been predictable. For the United Nations itself--allocated $100 million for the year, less than half the agreed U.S. share--there has been chaos and disruption. The shock therapy won a consensus compromise from the General Assembly that gave more budget authority to the nations, like the United States, that pay the biggest shares. Reagan Administration officials were delighted, and apparently not the least embarrassed in this practice of ends justifying means--any means. But there is no guarantee now that Congress will reward the new fiscal responsibility by appropriating the withheld money.

There will be ill-concealed glee in some quarters about the discomfiture of the United Nations, regardless of what Congress does. A number of American lawmakers find it hard to look beyond the sophomoric tirades against the United States by Third World radicals to grasp the constructive elements of the United Nations. Furthermore, even though the whole U.S. contribution is a minuscule element of the federal budget, it is an easy target with no constituents likely to complain about cuts. But there must also be deep regret about the effect of this approach on the rule of law and the destructive consequences for some of the most vulnerable of the world’s poor.

The United States’ share of the world health program for 1986 was $62 million, of which none had been paid as of mid-December. Under the reduced congressional appropriation, the State Department has allocated $46 million to WHO, but most of this reduced payment will be delayed until after Oct. 1 of next year, to place it in a subsequent American fiscal year. This penurious approach has placed in danger the global health efforts of the organization, which depends on the United States for one-quarter of its support.

Perhaps as alarming as the ease with which Congress and the President have neglected legal obligations and responsible budgeting is the national complacency regarding this action. Dr. Halfdan T. Mahler, the Danish director general of WHO, has suggested plaintively that his organization is being punished indiscriminately by those intent on bashing the world organization. But to his credit he has declined to divert funds to lobby those in Washington who find it so easy to cripple WHO on grounds that the United States cannot afford to meet its obligations. Mahler has managed the proposed reduced budget to permit a modest increase in expenditures in developing nations, but at a cost to other important programs.

The question now is whether the United States, having led the revolt of the principal contributors, will come forth with the funds to restore order and vitality to the U.N. system.