U.N. Should Tighten Its Belt, and U.S. Should Pay Arrears : That would be a fair political trade-off

What another glorious party it was when the United Nations celebrated its 50th birthday last October, this from an organization that whatever its shortcomings knows how to lay out an elegant spread. The New York bash was sufficient to resurrect, if but for a few days, that shining aura that once curled round the world body much as the olive branches embrace the world on the U.N. flag. Turning 50, you need a boost like that.

Six months later, the U.N. finds itself in the situation of a lot of other 50-year-olds. The bills are murderous and the boss has ordered layoffs.

Problem No. 1 for Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali is the money. At the end of 1995, U.N. member nations were collectively $2.3 billion in arrears on their contributions to the budget, and the United States was the foremost deadbeat, owing $1.2 billion.

Boutros-Ghali now finds himself in the position of many corporate executives. Investors in his operation want to see some lean meat on the table. The bloated bureaucracy in the U.N. Secretariat is a problem. Noted a report by The Economist: “In the bad old days the annual assessment of staff arbitrarily described 90% of them as ‘excellent.’ This made both promotion and dismissal virtually impossible.”

Washington, particularly, is pressing for cost containment. The campaign began under Presidents Ronald Reagan and George Bush and has continued in President Clinton’s administration. Now the secretary-general has gotten the message. The U.N. is downsizing, firing 800 civil servants and cutting $250 million from its operating budget. “We are practically bankrupt,” Boutros-Ghali told The Times’ Washington bureau in February.

The causes are many. Peacekeeping expenses--a separate category of member-paid contributions--have grown steadily in recent years. Operations in Bosnia take the lion’s share. In total, the bill from countries supplying blue-helmeted forces to trouble spots around the world runs three times higher than the figure for the U.N.’s regular budget.

Washington is the designated No. 1 contributor for both categories of funding--peacekeeping and regular operations. That is a natural result of America’s dominant economic role in the post-World War II world. However, a different age exists in the 1990s. The United States is supposed to pay 31% of U.N. peacekeeping expenses and 25% of regular operations, but Washington is balking.

This is the situation. A Senate appropriations bill would restore cuts made in Clinton’s proposed U.N. contribution for fiscal 1996. If the House concurs with the Senate, the increase will go through. However, here’s a “but”: To get the U.N. contribution through, the White House would have to make compensating cuts in other spending programs. Meanwhile, Clinton’s 1997 fiscal plan calls for the United States to pay off its U.N. arrears in five annual installments. The U.N., in return, would have to make money-saving reforms. Over at the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Chairman Jesse Helms (R-N.C.), no friend of the United Nations, has shown no sign of buying the president’s plan.

The arrears should be paid. Boutros-Ghali is serious about financial reforms. This is a fair political trade-off.