US wants revision of members’ dues to UN

“I think every single person in this room would agree that such a development would be regrettable and a sad portent for the future of the United Nations, the United States and the international community,” he declared.

As the US representative at the United Nations, Richardson said his goal was to prevent such a scenario from occurring.

Arguing that countries such as Germany, Japan, China and the newly-industrialised Southeast Asian nations should shoulder a larger burden, the United States recently has been seeking a reduction of its own assessments, with the slack to be picked up by other rich nations.

Currently, Washington is the largest single contributor accounting for 25 per cent of the UN’s regular budget of about 1.2 billion dollars annually, and about 30 percent of the UN peacekeeping budget, which varies from year to year.

The US wants to reduce its assessment to 22 per cent by 1998 and 20 per cent by the year 2000, as well as an immediate reduction of its peacekeeping dues to 25 per cent.

The majority of the member states, including most of the 132 developing nations, pay the minimum: 0.01 per cent of the budget which amounts only to a few thousand dollars. In contrast, the US pays about 312 million dollars, Japan about 166.6 million dollars and Germany 96.5 million dollars.

In percentage terms, the second largest contributor to the UN’s regular budget is Japan (15.6 per cent) followed by Germany (9.1 per cent), France (6.4 per cent), Britain (5.3 per cent), Italy (5.2 percent) and Canada (3.1 per cent).

Richardson said Washington “believes very strongly” that the United Nations must end its ‘“unhealthy overdependence on one nation and adapt new scales of assessment for member states that accurately reflect modern economic realities.”

Currently, the United States owes more than 1.2 billion dollars in outstanding dues held up by Congress which wants a restructuring of the United Nations as a condition for settling Washington’s debt. As of end September, the overall outstanding dues to the United Nations amounted to about 2.4 billion dollars. This huge debt is being blamed for the cash crisis facing the organisation.

Speaking on behalf of the 132 developing nations, Ambassador Daudi Mwakwago of Tanzania, chairman of the Group of 77, told delegates that the principle of “capacity to pay” remains the cardinal principle in the apportionment of the organisation’s expenses. “It is democratic as well as equitable: deviation from that principle may have serious consequences on the well-being of the organisation,” he added.

Both the Group of 77 and China, he said, have consistently maintained that the continuing financial difficulties of the organisation are the direct consequence of the non-payment of substantial arrears and overdue contributions by some major contributors.

“Viable solutions to the financial situation can emerge only when member states take concrete actions to clear their arrears and pay their future assessed contributions, in full, on time and without conditions or benchmarks,” Mwakwago said.

The developing nations firmly believe that the present financial crisis can be resolved only if member states show firm political will by fulfilling their legal obligations under the UN Charter, he added.

Mwakwago said the Group reaffirms the view that the current financial situation is not linked to the methodology of the scale of assessments.

India for international criminal court

India has expressed strong support to establishment of an international criminal court but opposed giving sweeping powers to the prosecutor or the Security Council to bar or invoke its jurisdiction.

Addressing the United Nations committee considering the issue, Indian delegate P J Kurien said the court’s jurisdiction should extend to most serious crime of common international concern, including international terrorism. Stating terrorism is the “most condemnable” form of international crime, he said it threatens integrity and political and social fabric of states and friendly relations between states, taking a toll of the lives of innocent civilians and does not respect boundaries.

It entertains no distinction as to race, religion, region and is a comprehensive and massive violation of fundamental human rights, he added. The court “must necessarily cover within its jurisdiction this serious international crime of common interest to the mankind as a whole,” he said.Kurien said for the court to prove “functionally efficient and practically viable”, not only should the consent of states be a pre-condition but only the concerned states should initiate its jurisdiction.