United Nations: US Debt (Hansard, 20 October 1998)

§ Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean
My Lords, we have made it clear to the United States that we expect the 1313 United States to pay its United Nations arrears and future contributions promptly, in full and without conditions. We welcome the inclusion of the 475 million dollars for United Nations arrears in the budget agreed by Congress and the White House on 15th October, last week. But this is far short of what the US owes, and we have serious concerns about the conditions attached. The relevant legislation still contains unrelated abortion which the Administration has said would cause President Clinton to veto the whole legislation.

§ Lord Renton of Mount Harry
My Lords, while I thank the noble Baroness for what she has just said—I very much agree with it—is it not true that the 475 million-odd dollars that the United States has agreed to pay is only just sufficient to keep the US with a vote in the General Council? Further, is it not ironic that at the very moment when President Clinton is working so hard to broker a renewal of the Middle East peace talks the United States is itself 1.6 billion dollars—four times the figure for Russia—in arrears to the United Nations, which endangers peace-keeping operations all round the world? Can the noble Baroness use all her influence in Downing Street to persuade the Prime Minister that, if he has the close relationship with President Clinton of which the spin-doctors tell us so much, he should use it to get the United States to pay its dues to the United Nations?

§ Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean
My Lords, I should like to make an important point about the budget agreed last week. There are two parts that are relevant to the financing of the United Nations. The first is legislation to authorise payment of a further tranche of the 1998 dues. That is likely to be enough for the US to avoid the operation of Article 19 in January 1999. We welcome that but only as far as it goes. The second matter is the bill to which I referred in my initial response. That is an appropriation of 475 million dollars of arrears to the United Nations. It is that payment which remains tied to the "abortion" language.
The noble Lord asks how much the United Kingdom is able to bring pressure to bear on the United States on this matter. We have used our European Union and G8 presidencies to press for payment of all the arrears, not only those of the United States considerable as those are. The Foreign Secretary has raised the issue with Madeleine Albright. I have raised the issue on a number of occasions. The subject is raised frequently by Sir Christopher Meyer, our ambassador in Washington, and Sir Jeremy Greenstock, our Ambassador to the United Nations in New York. No one is left in any doubt about that. But it is not a matter of exerting influence upon Mr. Clinton. If Mr. Clinton had a free hand in such matters he would not be unwilling to make the prompt and unconditional payment that we all wish him to make. It is a matter of Congress using this as a vehicle for some of its other preoccupations to try to exert pressure elsewhere.

§ Lord Peyton of Yeovil
My Lords, does the Minister agree that it is a particularly shabby manoeuvre on the part of Congress to connect two issues which have nothing to do with one another, thus frustrating the strength and 1314 influence of the United Nations at a time when every day that institution becomes more necessary? It is surprising that the United States which provides the home for the United Nations should be doing that.

§ Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean
My Lords, I agree that the connection which Congress has sought to make is unrealistic. I hope that we shall not indulge in name calling so far as concerns Congress. I believe that all that will do is to harden attitudes. We should be trying to persuade the United States Congress that, as a responsible member of the United Nations, the United States must pay its contributions on time, in full and without conditions.
I stress to your Lordships that it is not only the United States which is in arrears. I told your Lordships last week that 149 countries are in arrears. There has been some updating. The figure is now only 145 countries in arrears—a marginal improvement, but none the less an improvement. However, the difficulties that that has engendered mean that we expect a deficit on the important peace-keeping finance of 864 million dollars by the end of this year. And that is on peacekeeping, which is at the forefront of so many of your Lordships' minds through Questions in this House.

§ Lord Bridges
My Lords, will the Government bear in mind that any decision by the United States to pay its arrears will be preceded by a tough negotiation between Congress in Washington and the Secretary-General in New York? The Secretary-General will be under severe pressure to impose across the board reductions in staff and budgets of the United Nations. Will the Government do their best to ensure that those cuts do not damage the most efficient and vital parts of the United Nations secretariat and its agencies?

§ Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean
My Lords, we support Mr. Kofi Annan's effort to make the United Nations a more efficient organisation. I hope that I have been able to make that clear to your Lordships on other occasions.
However, I believe that we must also reject the call by the United States for a reduction of their regular budget ceiling to 20 per cent. from the existing 25 per cent. I suspect that much of the negotiations which precede the payment of arrears will not only focus on the United Nations and efficiencies there, but also on the desire of the United States to cut its budgetary contribution to the United Nations.