United Nations - United States relations discussed during 9-11 September trip.

United Nations-United States relations discussed during 9-11 September trip

United Nations relations with the United States were the focus of discussions during a visit to Washington, D.C., from 9 to 11 September by Secretary-General Javier Perez de Cuellar.

Mr. Perez de Cuellar also delivered statements at a luncheon at the National Press Club, a symposium of the Woodrow Wilson Centre for Scholars, and a meeting of the Organization of American States (OAS) Permanent Council.

United Nations programmes contributed to better global conditions of life, which were "essential for a stable world community', he told the Press Club luncheon on 10 September. During periods of direct confrontation between major Powers, the United Nations "may provide a way out--a formula for agreement, or simply a period of debate during which the flashpoint of crisis can pass'.

Talks with several members of Congress on 10 September centred on two new laws--one by which the United States contribution to the United Nations budget may be reduced from 25 per cent to 20 per cent starting on 1 October 1986; the other limiting the travel of United Nations staff members of several nationalities to a radius of 25 miles from the centre of New York. The possible withdrawal of the United States from the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) and the international narcotics problem were also discussed.

In addition to United Nations-United States relations, the situation relating to Afghanistan and the Cyprus question were among major topics discussed with Secretary of State George Shultz on 10 September.

Four questions: At the National Press Club luncheon, the Secretary-General recalled four questions being asked with "increasing insistency' by the United States press:

How did the United Nations serve United States interests? Why had it become politicized to the point that useful operations were jeopardized? What was the cost of the United Nations to the American taxpayer? Why had not the United Nations kept the peace?

As for the first, he noted the United Nations contribution to peace and, consequently, to the security of the United States, recalling the Organization's key role in promoting solutions to the 1948-1949 Berlin crisis, the 1962 Cuban missile crisis, and the 1973 Middle East war. During conflict situations, the Organization could carry out certain functions--fact-finding, observation and peace-keeping--not easily performed by national entities, and provide for mediation which could avoid the complexities of direct involvement of the super-Powers.

Regarding the Organization's "politicization', Mr. Perez de Cuellar said that since the Security Council and the General Assembly had been set up to resolve political problems, discussion and debate in those bodies was essential. Problems arose because of the "frequent failure by the conflicting parties to utilize the political processes' afforded by the world body. "It is a problem of polemics rather than politics.' On the other hand, he said, the work of most United Nations agencies had "proceeded unprejudiced by external political controversy'.

Regarding cost, the Secretary-General noted that the regular budget of the Organization for 1985 was $806 million--two-thirds of the annual budget of the New York City police force, and just under a third of the cost of a Trident submarine. The per capita cost of the regular United Nations budget for Americans was about 86 cents per person annually. The General Assembly decided on both the United Nations budget and the percentage to be contributed by each Member State. The latter was determined by a complex formula in which national income was the major element.

By that formula, the United States would be liable for more than 28 per cent of the Organization's budget. However, in 1972, the General Assembly had agreed to the American request that its assessment not exceed 25 per cent. "Unilateral reduction by the United States of its proportional assessment, as determined by the General Assembly, would be widely seen as non-compliance with a Charter commitment', Mr. Perez de Cuellar stated.

As for the suggestion that United Nations salaries were too high, he said they were designed to be equivalent to those of the highest-paid national civil service--that of the United States. For the past 10 years, no real increase in the base pay of the United Nations staff had been approved; even cost-of-living adjustments had been suspended for the time being.

With the support of the United States and the Soviet Union, the Secretary-General said he was seeking to assure economy in the United Nations, operating on an essentially no-growth budget. However, unilateral withholding of assessed funds for specific peace-keeping programmes had brought the Organization into a severe financial crisis from which it still suffered. "Unilateral reductions in the assessed contributions of the basic core budget of the United Nations can make orderly administration impossible and jeopardize the capacity of the Organization to carry out the responsibilities mandated to it', he said.

The fourth question--why the Organization "had not kept the peace'-- was essentially the same as that posed by United Nations founders about the League of Nations. They had concluded that the most powerful countries should share responsibility for maintaining peace and so should have the right of veto in the Security Council. Their second conclusion--that enforcement of decisions concerning the maintenance of peace could be implemented by an international armed force at the disposition of the Council--had never been realized.

"Yet the record of the United Nations in the maintenance of peace is by no means one of failure', the Secretary-General said. It had repeatedly helped to resolve or restrict conflicts and it had provided time and a mechanism for crises to be defused.

The United Nations existed as a practical, essentially universal instrumentality for international co-operation in promoting and protecting common interests, most importantly, preventing war, the Secretary-General said. If those common interests were increasingly recognized, then it made sense to work to improve the effectiveness of the United Nations, rather than to diminish its potential by lack of interest, diminished support or tendentious condemnation.

OAS statement: At the OAS Permanent Council, the Secretary-General on 11 September called the United Nations an "irreplaceable instrument'--the only organization which had structures within which regional groups could work together toward goals which they could not achieve separately. Multilateralism, as represented by the United Nations, was the only means of solving the problems created by the interdependence of countries and peoples.

In view of the strong political cohesion which usually existed among the members of regional organizations, however, local disputes should be settled at the regional level. The regional problems of Central America should be solved in the regional context by peaceful and negotiated means, without outside interference.

Regional organizations could also play an important role in the promotion and protection of human rights. In its 26 years of existence, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights had saved many from torture, arbitrary detention, death or disappearance. It had worked effectively for peace in delicate conflict situations and had made a significant contribution to the region as a whole.

All States of the region should use the means provided for in the international system of collective security to settle their disputes peacefully.

The persistence of the Central American tragedy had led him to think that what was needed was "nothing short of a change in States' attitudes in the way they approach international relations'. On the fortieth anniversary of the United Nations, he concluded, there should be a renewal and a reaffirmation by States of their commitments and obligations under the Charter.

Proposed award: Speaking to a symposium of the Woodrow Wilson Centre for Scholars on 11 September, the Secretary-General, recalling that the General Assembly had declared the United Nations Decade of Disabled Persons (1983-1992), suggested an international award might be established to draw attention to what was being done on behalf of the disabled, perhaps in honour of a disabled person who had made an outstanding contribution to national or international life.

By the turn of the century, he hoped to see a world in which preventable diseases had disappeared and disability decreased, and where there would be universal respect for people with disabilities, adequate opportunities for their skills to be utilized, proper care for those who needed it, and the causes of disability subject to human control reduced.

A United Nations study indicated that it would be possible to halve the disparity in income between developed and developing countries by the end of the century provided there was an annual growth rate of 5 per cent in agricultural production, he stated. That would result in adequate availability of food for all, even with the population growth that was expected.