cent cut in the 50,000-strong U.N. bureaucracyrn—and it turned out the positionsrnwere aheady vacant. The Helmsrnplan also included calls for reductions inrnthe “dues” the U.S. pays to the U.N.rnTo understand how far Helms movedrnon the issue, consider what the Post declaredrnwhen the senator announced hisrnplan: “If you measure the Jesse HelmsrnU.N. reform package against what hernoriginally sought—a 50 percent cut inrnthe bureaucracy, a 75 percent cut in thernSecretariat’s budget, a virtual gutting ofrnthe organization’s missions in the namernof repelling its supposed profligate invasionsrnof its member states’ sovereignty—rnthen you will perhaps be relieved at thernchanges that he and the Senate Democratsrnand the Clinton administrationrnhave now agreed to.”rnTo be sure. Helms had some provisionsrnthat seemed pleasing to conservatives.rnHis plan purported to prohibitrnglobal taxes by requiring a certificate thatrnsuch schemes are not being officiallyrnpromoted by the U.N. bureaucracy. Butrnguess whom the certificate is supposed torncome from? Secretary Albright. However,rnit was under Albright as U.N. Ambassadorrnthat the world body moved aggressivelyrnto implement these schemes. Thernleading cheerleader was James GustavernSpeth, the Clinton-appointed administratorrnof the U.N. Development Program.rnAssuming that Albright could be trustedrnto “certify” that the U.N. is not up tornno good, the Helms reform plan had anrnexception in the area of global taxes forrnglobal “fees,” a dangerous loophole. ThernClinton administration is expected tornsupport a variation of a global tax or feernthis December when it signs a U.N.rntreaty to prevent “global warming.”rnThe Helms reform plan also purportedrnto prohibit the U.N. from establishingrna world army under its control. However,rnNATO has since emerged as the dernfacto militar}’ arm of the world organization,rnoperating in the former Yugoslaviarnunder U.N. authorization. This is consistentrnwith the use of “regional organizations”rnunder the U.N. Charter to servernU.N. interests. In addition, a group ofrnEuropean countries and Canada isrncreating a 4,000-strong “MultinationalrnU.N. Stand-By Forces High ReadinessrnBrigade,” for use by the world body.rnSince this is an initiative of nations,rnrather than the U.N., it is acceptable underrnthe Helms legislation.rnIn exchange for these phony reforms.rnthe U.N. gets $819 million of U.S. taxpayerrnmoney over a three-year period.rnThis is most of the $1.3 billion the U.N.rnclaims is owed by the U.S. TTiis figure, arnsubject of much controversy, is derivedrnfrom U.N. calculations about what thernnations of the world are obligated to payrnthe U.N. for general and peacekeepingrnexpenses. The U.N. bureaucracy has decidedrnthat the United States should payrn25 percent of the general costs and 31rnpercent of peacekeeping. But Congressrnhas withheld some payments as a protestrnagainst U.N. mismanagement, and otherrnpayments were withheld because of tliernbelief that the United States was beingrnovercharged.rnIt’s here that Helms abandoned notrnonly the truth but the national interest,rnbecause he knew in his heart and mindrnthat we owed nothing to the world organization.rnOn February 15, while defendingrnpayment of this “debt” to the U.N.rnduring an appearance on the Evans &rnNovak program on CNN, Helms said hisrnrecollection was that “about two billionrndollars worth of expenditures” had beenrnmade by the United States “to supportrnactivities of the United Nations that nobodyrnhas even thought about reimbursingrnthe American people for.” Helmsrnwas part of this group, for he had clearlyrnnot demanded reimbursement.rnThe Washington Times took a similarrnposition, admitting in an editorial thatrnthe money wasn’t owed but saying thatrnthe payment would provide an “incentive”rnfor U.N. reform. To put it charitably,rnit appears that Helms was misled byrnhis staff, who failed to inform him aboutrna critical General Accounting Officern(GAO) report that put the “debt” issuerninto the proper context and provided extraordinaryrndetails about our true financialrnrelationship with the U.N.rnBob Dole, as majority leader of thernU.S. Senate, had requested this report.rnHe realized soon after Clinton took officernthat funds were being diverted fromrnvarious federal agencies, especially thernPentagon, to support the U.N. He askedrnthe GAO to invesfigate, resulting in thernpublication in March 1996 of a reportrnwhich showed that, during fiscal yearsrn1992-95, the United States had spentrn$6.6 billion in support of U.N.-authorizedrnoperations in the former Yugoslavia,rnRwanda, Somalia, and Haiti.rnOf this figure, however, only $1.8 billionrnwas counted against American “dues” tornthe U.N. Of the remaining $4.8 billion,rnthe U.N. reimbursed the United Statesrnonly $79 million.rnThe Jesse Helms that we used to knowrnwould have demanded our money back.rnHe would have taken a principled protaxpayerrnand pro-sovereignty position,rneven if the world was united against him.rnInstead, Representative Roscoe Bartlett,rna Maryland Republican, played this role,rnintroducing a bill in the House with thernappropriate title of “The United NationsrnErroneous Debt Act.” More than 60rnmembers cosponsored his bill, includingrnHouse Majority Whip Tom DeLay ofrnTexas. Bartlett also vowed to introducernamendments to various appropriationsrnbills to cancel payment of this “debt.”rnOne of these amendments received 165rnvotes last September.rnAssuming, for the sake of argument,rnthe $1.3 billion “debt” to the U.N.,rnBartlett subtracted it from the roughlyrn$4.8 billion owed to the United Statesrnand concluded that the world body wasrnin arrears to American taxpayers by aboutrn$3.5 billion. For its part, the Clinton administrationrnand Madeleine Albrightrnclaimed these expenditures were all “voluntary”rnand that the U.N. could not bernexpected to credit or reimburse us. Theyrnasserted that federal agencies could bernlooted to support the U.N. and thatrnCongress had no alternative except tornpay the bills. The Bartlett legislation wasrnan attempt to reassert the congressionalrnpower of the purse. Senator Helmsrnshould have championed this causernfrom the start.rnWhere would the U.N. get $3.5 billion?rnAnnan said that paying back thisrnmoney could bankrupt the U.N. andrnforce the organization to sell its NewrnYork City headquarters. In fact, the U.N.rnhas a $15 billion pension fund that itrncould tap into in order to balance itsrnbooks. Not surprisingly, this is said to bernthe best-managed program at the U.N.rnAnd thanks to Senator Helms, it will continuernto grow.rnCliff Kincaid is the director of the AmericanrnSovereignty Action Project and thernauthor of Global Taxes for World Governmentrn(Huntington House). For morerninformation about ASAP, please callrn1-800-787-5246.rnfV ff O rV <^” / •rn877 – 5459rnDECEMBER 1997/45rnrnrn