<<  <  >  >>

Page 14

United Nations pick up the tab for all of the green-helmet operations. Instead, Bartlett's

intention seems to be to force a full accounting of where and how the money has been

spent and then allow Congress to decide if those expenditures are truly in the national

interest. For example, Congress might well decide that it is proper for the United States,

not the United Nations, to fund the deployment of the 37,000 U.S. troops in Korea, even

though they are technically there under UN authority. It may also be the case that

Congress would want to fund the Bosnia deployment, although it is technically being

conducted under the auspices of both the United Nations and NATO. The fundamental

point, however, is that Congress, not the administration and the United Nations, has the

constitutional authority (and responsibility) to make such determinations. In short, what

Bartlett and his colleagues are arguing for is a full accounting and no "debt" payments

until the United States is given proper credit or reimbursement for its support of UN

peacekeeping operations.

Such scrutiny is overdue and would be most enlightening. If the Bartlett bill or

similar legislation passes, it will probably be necessary to hold extensive congressional

hearings to determine the full scope of U.S. support of UN peacekeeping. The books of

both the Department of Defense and the United Nations would have to be scrupulously

examined. The Pentagon might welcome that, given the fact that it could highlight how

the combat readiness of U.S. troops has been adversely affected by involvement in

peacekeeping. Indeed, Congress may decide to cut funding for UN-authorized operations

and use the money to underwrite U.S. military readiness.

There is no doubt that the United Nations would react negatively to such an

inquiry. Since UN officials would undoubtedly claim that the organization could not repay

the money or credit the United States, a period of intense and delicate negotiations

involving the UN, the administration, and Congress would have to ensue. From the

viewpoint of Congress, a continuing refusal to pay the UN "debt" could provide additional

leverage for forcing tough reforms on the United Nations in other areas as well as

peacekeeping. That may be an unprecedented opportunity to finally compel the United

Nations to downsize its operations and its bloated bureaucracy.

Equally important, demanding credit or reimbursement for assistance to UN

peacekeeping missions seems to be the only practical way to stop the improper, if not

illegal, administration practice of diverting funds to the United Nations. It would also

send a strong message to UN officials--that an administration vote on the Security Council

for U.S. participation in a peacekeeping operation does not carry with it automatic

congressional endorsement or funding. Secretary General Kofi Annan may not like to

deal with Congress, but the Bartlett approach to the UN debt question would make him

pay attention to the U.S. legislative branch and respect the requirements of America's con-

stitutional system.

Ambassador Richardson would likely insist, as he has in the past, that such an