Symposium

• Gerson, A

Abstract

The 1999 Congressional season, the penultimate of the century, ended with President Clinton's grudging acquiescence to the terms set by House Republicans for forwarding the bulk of money claimed due by the United Nations. In return, the Clinton Administration agreed not to vet a rider to the UN funding bill which would withhold US funding to organizations urging foreign governments to adopt birth control measures. Lost in the shuffle of domestic politics was the issue of whether the United States in fact owed the United Nations what it claimed, and whether America's efforts at selective withholding indeed constituted a fall from grace, as critics charged. The legal issues were always far from clear. The UN dues standoff does not represent the hijacking of the American multilateralist vision by isolationist-minded Republicans on Capitol Hill. In fact, the United States has never claimed unwavering loyalty to a literalist interpretation of the principle of 'collective financial responsibility' of Article 19 of the UN Charter insofar as that meant acquiescence to the will, no matter how unreasonable, of the UN General Assembly majority on budgetary matters. Here, rhetoric impeded a negotiated solution.