January 20, 1965

Let Russia Off Hook And Strengthen Charter

There is a striking similarity between the present financial plight of the United Nations and that of the young United States. Out of the latter's early difficulty emerged an inspired solution — the Constitution. World statesmen would do well to read American history books for guidance in the present UN dilemma.

Having won their independence from Great Britain, the 13 American colonies established a "Confederation" of autonomous states to settle differences between themselves and provide a common defense.

Each state had veto power. Objection by one state would kill any proposed legislation. New York alone blocked a badly needed tariff, for example. Unanimous consent was needed for adoption of any law.

One of the first decisions to face the Confederation was whether to assume the heavy war debts or leave them to the individual states. Alexander Hamilton, financial genius of the fledgling nation, argued strongly for a common acceptance of debt for common defense. In the face of opposition from those states which had suffered only lightly from the revolution, Hamilton's view prevailed.

Though the principle of defense debt responsibility was recognized, carrying it out was another matter. All work of the Confederation depended upon voluntary cooperation. The central government had no power of taxation and could only assess "imposts" against the states which too frequently were ignored. Bankruptcy was dangerously near.

Into the crisis stepped the same group of leaders who had guided the country up to this moment of decision. Now older and wiser, and with 13 years of experience in self-government, the Founding Fathers determined to "build a more perfect Union." The result was the Constitution which set up a federal government with the power to tax and a standing army to comply payment.

There was fear of so much authority being lodged in a central government, but necessity left no other choice. The argument still goes on today, but it can not be denied we have prospered whether "because of" or "in spite of."

Sixteen of the 115 United Nations, including the Soviet Union and France, are behind in their assessments and are unable to vote in the General Assembly. The UN charter requires member nations to be not more than two years in arrears in their dues. About half the laggards are simply hard-pressed for cash. But Russia and her puppets refuse to pay up because a portion of the obligation has been spent for keeping peace in the Congo. The USSR apparently feels the world should get out of town and let the Communist-inspired jungle beasts set up a human butcher shop.

The nine Communist countries that are past the two-year mark do not pay peace-keeping assessments for either the Congo or the Middle East on grounds the assessments were levied illegally, by the General Assembly instead of by the Security Council where Russia has the veto.

The U.S. has challenged this position and announced it will call for enforcement of the charter. Russia has said it will leave the UN — as Indonesia did two weeks ago — if denied its vote. In the meantime the UN transacts no business and staggers closer to bankruptcy.

In all respect to the Soviet Union, it must be admitted it has some basis for its stand. Matters of world security are properly the business of the Security Council. Though Russia has used its veto power 120 times to thwart the majority, and the United States never has, it should be remembered that the U.S. is quite as anxious as Russia to have a safeguard against adventures contrary to our own interest.

It seems clear to Americans — and to a majority of the rest of the nations SO FAR — that the UN expeditions in Korea, the Middle East and the Congo are justified. However, as we accord primitive tribes the status of "nations" and a vote in the UN General Assembly even that bastion might commit the United States to financing a war against — say — South Viet Nam or Nationalist China.

We have not used our veto up to now because everything has been going our way.

The United States made an issue of Russia's arrears because to ignore them would be a tacit admission that the Middle East and Congo actions were extra-legal. Now we are hoisted on our own petard.

The U.S. has several courses of action:

• Back down to Russia's refusal to pay up.
• Accept the premise a nation has the right to pick and choose its assessments and do likewise.
• Treat the present situation as water over the dam and introduce amendments to the UN charter to halt "brush wars" until permanent action can be taken.

All of these alternatives have serious consequences — you pay your money and take your choice.

To back down is to become the fools of the world.

To cut back on our own payments into the UN has a certain amount of merit because much goes to communist countries against our will. For example, Cuba receives substantial UN aid for agricultural research and improvement and most of it comes from American donations.

Though the temptation is strong to fight fire with fire, we must remember that official U.S. interests are being served by the various UN aid commissions. Several American administrations — both Democratic and Republican — have held that generous assistance prevents the spread of communism. This is debatable but national policy nonetheless.

Taking a cue from our unique historical experience, we should explore the possibility of writing a new UN "constitution" or at least strengthening the present one. In labor-management disputes in this country, the Taft-Hartley law imposes a "cooling off" period while regular court machinery and a calmer atmosphere can be brought to bear.

A similar provision in the UN charter might require giving up some sovereignty, but a "police" action of six months would give world opinion time to put pressure on the Security Council where a solution must be worked out.

The alternative seems to be a nuclear show down.

Author: Lindsey Williams