<<  <  >  >>

Page 15

approach would bankrupt UN peacekeeping and that "we have no legal basis to insist on

reimbursement for these unilateral national costs."36 But they are hardly unilateral if the

United Nations endorses the underlying mission. Such an endorsement directly implies

UN support and backing for the expenses (and in most cases significant UN influence on

the direction of the policy). Why, then, shouldn't the United Nations be expected to pick

up some of the bill? Conversely, if the United Nations does not want to pay the cost, it

should decline to endorse the mission and thereby compel the United States to pursue the

venture unilaterally or as part of an ad hoc coalition.

The ultimate solution to the problem, to use Richardson's terminology, lies in

getting approval of "unilateral national costs" in advance from the body that has the con-

stitutional power to approve them. Under the Constitution, that body is Congress, not the

UN Security Council.

Notes

1.  Kofi Annan, "The Unpaid Bill That's Crippling the UN,"

New York Times, March 9, 1998, p. A23.

2.  "President Urges Payment of UN Debt," Washington Weekly

Report, January 30, 1998, p. 1.

3.

Ibid., p. 2.

4.  Proceedings of the World Economic Forum, broadcast on C-

SPAN, February 8, 1998.

5.  Tom Carter, "$1 Billion Foreign Affairs Increase 'Pro-

tects American Leadership,'" Washington Times, February 3,

1998, p. A11.

6.  Bill Clinton, Letter to the Speaker of the House of

Representatives, February 2, 1998.  Copy in author's posses-

sion.

7.  U.S. Department of State, "International Organizations

and Conferences, Arrearages Payments," Press release, undat-

ed.

8.  Letter on the stationery of the Emergency Coalition for

U.S. Financial Support of the United Nations, July 25, 1997.

Copy in author's possession.

9.  Nina M. Serafino, "Peacekeeping: Issues of U.S. Military

Involvement," Congressional Research Service, updated Novem-

ber 13, 1997.