Tim Barner Executive Director, World Federalist Association

Dr. Alan Geyer Senior Scholar, Center for Theology and Public
Policy; Board Member, United Nations Association/NCA

Rev. David Cammack World Federalist Association Chesapeake Region

Becky Cain President, League of Women Voters of the U. S.

Excerpts from the Message of UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan to Worldwide Vigil participants.

Main Sponsors:
The World Federalist Association
United Nations Association/National Capital Area

American Council for the UN University *** American Kurdish Information Network *** American Veterans Committee *** The Center for Victims of Torture *** Church Women United *** Emergency Coalition for Financial Support of the UN *** Friends Committee on National Legislation *** The Fund for New Priorities *** Human Rights Access (HRX) *** The International Development Conference International Human Rights Law Group *** League of Women Voters/National Capital Area *** League of Women Voters of the District of Columbia *** Mennonite Central Committee U.S./ Washington Officer The Population Institute *** Veterans for Peace *** World Organization Against Torture/ USA

UN SECRETARY GENERAL KOFI ANNAN'S MESSAGE
to the Second Worldwide Vigil for the United Nations to protest the financial crisis

I am pleased to convey a message to this Second Worldwide Vigil for the United Nations, and thrilled to know that people in cities around the world have gathered to show their solidarity with the United Nations and its indispensable work for peace, development and human rights.

At the same time, I am convinced that there should be no need for such an event; no need for the United Nations to exist in a perpetual state of financial instability; no need for an Organization that seeks to fulfill the highest aspirations of humankind to be thwarted not by enemies but by the very states who created it, endowed it with an enduring, universal vision and pledged their steadfast support.

The facts are as follows: As of today, Member States owed the United Nations $2.2 billion. This number represents their unpaid assessments to the regular budget, to the peacekeeping budget and to the international criminal tribunals for Rwanda and the Former Yugoslavia. One State accounts for 60 percent of this total. But 91 others - nearly half the membership - have also failed to pay their contributions in full. This problem has not gone away. It may be getting worse.

It is a terrible irony that the United Nations is highly dependent on the level of peacekeeping activity, and the forbearance of troop and equipment providers - to whom we will owe $900 million by year's end - for our financial liquidity and stability. This is a precarious perch. It is not a good place to be.

As we dwell on this stark reality, the generosity of individual supporters of the United Nations such as yourselves is what sustains us. One individual, Mr. Ted Turner, stands out in his generosity. Through this extraordinary act of philanthropy, he underscored the reality that the United Nations is also an investment -an investment in our common future. An investment that pays dividends, in the broadest sense, many times over.

The reform effort currently being debated by the Member States aims to ensure that investment keeps on paying, that the United Nations can do even more, even better. But the reform plan does not alleviate the current, perilous situation.

And Ted Turner's contribution, like that of so many individuals around the world, in no way substitutes for the responsibility or Member States to meet this fundamental obligation.

Assessments are based on a formula that was negotiated and agreed upon by all parties. Non-payment thus raises a very basic question: do Member States want the United Nations to succeed? If the answer is yes, they must provide the resources needed to meet the challenges they put before the United Nations.

United Nations Day is a day of celebration. In that spirit I would like to thank the sponsoring organizations of this event: the World Federation of United Nations Associations, UNA-USA, the Global Policy Forum, the World Federalist Movement, the World Federalist Association, the Conference of NGOs in Consultive Status with ECOSOC, the Tribal Link Foundation, Economists Allied for Arms Reduction, and the DPI/NGO Executive Committee.

In recent years, United Nations Day has also become a day to dwell on the financial crisis, and to try and arrest the crisis of confidence that afflicts our organization. On this second world-wide vigil, let us wish this effort out of existence that we may devote all our energies to the true work of the United Nations - assuming a world where peace, justice, development, democracy, human rights, health, hope and opportunity prevail.

The Senate passed a bill which provides for a partial payment of the U.S. debt to the UN, but requires that 38 conditions be met in order for the UN to receive payment from the United States. These conditions not only fail to meet U.S. treaty obligations under the UN Charter, but will severely constrict the UN ability to carry out its missions effectively. The bill would only budget for payment of $819 million in arrears over three years, far short from the $1.3 billion which is overdue.

What follows is a partial list of the conditions which the United States would unilaterally impose on its 184 partners in the United Nations - the other Member States. By example we are encouraging each of them to put forth their own unique set of demands.

• The U.S. will withhold funds from regular budget dues for any new UN peacekeeping missions unless they serve an important national security interest of the United States.

• No funding for UN world conferences outside New York, Geneva, Vienna, Rome.

• Ban on funds to UN-related organizations, including the Framework Convention on Global Climate Change, and International Seabed Authority.

• Cap on U.S. funds for "international organizations" after 1998, set at no more than $900 million per fiscal year.

• Unilateral reduction of the U.S. percentage of the UN regular budget from 25% to 20% and of the UN peacekeeping budget from 31% to 25%.

• No UN action to create standing UN forces for peacekeeping or peace enforcement.

• No discussion of supplemental UN funding sources, such as an airline ticket surcharge.

• UN repayment of all peacekeeping costs to the U.S. for all voluntary peacekeeping operations where contributions total over $3 million per year, unless the assistance is "for the direct benefit of the U. S. armed forces."

• Prohibition of U.S. funds going to UN agencies from which the UN has withdrawn.

• Although these provisions are being called "reforms," by the U.S. Congress, the legislation ignores a broad set of reform measures already introduced by the UN Secretary-General and aimed at improvement of UN effectiveness while cutting costs.

• Legislators claim these measures are constituent-driven, when in fact, Americans hold the UN in higher regard than Congress, with an opinion approval rating of over 60%.

• Contrary to the rhetoric, the UN costs each American less than $7 each year. The UN's yearly budget is less than New York City's fire department, and the UN employs less people than Disneyland.

• Forced cutbacks in many UN programs and inability to pay suppliers, including member states who supply troops for peacekeeping missions.

• Resentment by other Member States toward the U.S., which owes over $1 billion, for holding the UN as a financial hostage.

• Loss of trust by other governments that the U.S. is willing to stand by the agreements that it does sign and reduced willingness to cooperate with the U.S.

• A crippling of the UN effectiveness as a center for coordination of world communication standards, efforts to combat hunger and to advance public health and human rights.

• Lowering of pubic expectations for the benefits of international cooperation and the rule of law.

• Blame for the UN when a mission fails.

• Weakening of international law and fewer resources to prevent genocide and prevent armed conflicts by non-violent means.

• This package could start a dangerous precedent, whereby any national parliament/legislature could slash its scale of assessments and make up its own rules.