When All Is Said, a Debt’s a Debt

The United States is sticking to its decision not to support Boutros Boutros-Ghali for a second five-year term as U.N. secretary-general, insisting that the world organization needs a more reform-oriented leader to put its fiscal and bureaucratic house in order. Washington’s position has put it squarely at odds with others on the 15-member Security Council, whose job it is to present a candidate to the 185-member General Assembly for ratification. But even with little backing at U.N. headquarters, American opposition to Boutros-Ghali will prevail. With the veto power given it as one of the five permanent council members, the United States by itself can keep the 74-year-old Egyptian diplomat from another term.

U.S. Ambassador Madeleine Albright says of American opposition to Boutros-Ghali that “this is not personal. This is business.” That business has a lot to do with the $1.4 billion in back dues and assessments Washington owes the United Nations. Congress refuses to appropriate the money, in part because it blames Boutros-Ghali--not entirely fairly--for the inefficiencies and high costs of the U.N. secretariat. That refusal to honor a legitimate debt has hurt this country’s standing and diminished its influence at the United Nations.

Whether a quiet deal has been struck between the Clinton administration and key Republican congressional leaders, linking Boutros-Ghali’s departure with U.S. payment of its U.N. debt, is unknown. Certainly Washington’s position at U.N. headquarters will suffer even more if its rejection of the popular choice of Boutros-Ghali is followed by a further refusal to pay its arrears.

For all its faults, the United Nations remains an essential forum for international communication and cooperation. It stands in need of reform, but having the United States contribute to its bankruptcy hardly contributes to that goal.