L>

Hello from the Global Policy Forum!

October 24 marks United Nations Day. On October 23, the eve of UN Day, GPF coordinated a worldwide series of events to protest the UN's financial crisis. For the fourth year in a row, from Washington DC to Stockholm and Calcutta, thousands of citizens took action to express their discontent and alarm that the UN remains on the brink of financial collapse.

We thank and congratulate our partners worldwide, whose dedication keeps this issue constantly before the public. In particular, we extend thanks to Sharon McHale, Director of the National Capital Area (Washington DC) chapter of the United Nations Association-USA. Sharon has again organized a fine event in Lafayette Park, across from the White House, with a large coalition of local and national organizations. Her enthusiasm and commitment to this cause have been an inspiration.

The United States government is largely responsible for the UN's financial crisis, of course. At the end of August, the US owed a total of $1.739 billion out of a total of $2.870 -- 61% of the total owed for the regular budget and peacekeeping. That's nearly twice as much as all other UN member states combined!

We should not blame this disgrace on Senator Helms and a handful of conservative members of Congress. The US national security establishment overwhelmingly favors a weak UN. Not "isolationism" but aggressive uni-lateralism drives this policy, which is deeply rooted in the philosophy of the Pentagon, the intelligence agencies, the nuclear weapons establishment, and Congress on both sides of the aisle. Secretary of State Albright offers a rationale when she asserts that the US is the "greatest moral force in world history."

The United States will almost certainly lose its vote in the General Assembly by January 1, 2000 as a result of this loathsome policy. Now that the US has rejected the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, refused the International Criminal Court, rejected the Landmines Convention, and reinvigorated NATO, who knows where this perverse policy logic will next lead?

Readers who want to look more closely at the UN's financial woes should consult GPF's extensive web resources. Among the best of our offerings is a series of tables and charts, covering every aspect of UN finance and the financial crisis. This week, we posted additional data for three of the most important tables, received from our friend Prof. Klaus Huefner of the Freie Universitaet in Berlin. The key table, "Total UN System Expenditures: 1986-1997," shows the broad financial trends throughout the UN system, including all agencies and funds such as WHO, UNICEF and UNDP. The table shows a peak of spending in 1994 of $13.363 billion, followed by decline to $10.364 billions in 1997. These numbers are not adjusted for inflation and so the real decline has been even greater -- perhaps a drop of a third in the three years.

Though system-wide data are not available after 1997, we know that the 1999 totals will be lower still, perhaps by another billion dollars or more. The current surge in peacekeeping spending may reverse the downward trend next year, but how the bills will be paid remains to be seen. Our thanks to Prof. Huefner -- and to Michael Renner of Worldwatch Institute who has also offered us help with our data series. We only wish the numbers had a more encouraging tale to tell!

Readers will be interested in a model resolution on the UN financial crisis, designed to be adopted by local governments. We urge you to present this resolution (posted on the site last week) for passage by your city council or other local authority. The idea for this initiative came from our friend Jock Forbes of Boston, Director of the Coalition for a Strong UN and head of the New England Branch of the World Federalist Association. We understand that the Cambridge (Massachusetts) City Council will soon adopt a version of this resolution. Activists are working for other adoptions from Maine to California.

The Emergency Coalition for US Financial Support of the United Nations has been organizing citizen phone calls to the White House to demonstrate broad public support for paying the US debt. Unfortunately, the Coalition has failed to alert the public to the difference between the abominable "Helms-Biden" bill that the administration favors, with dozens of conditions, and the honorable and effective path of action -- unconditional payment of all US arrears. If you are thinking of calling, here's the number: 1-888-295-2823 or (202) 456-1414
(once connected, press 1 and then 0)
But be sure to leave a message that you oppose Helms-Biden and support payment "on time, in full and without conditions."

On another financial front, the New York Times this week published a very thorough and revealing summary article on the Russian money laundering scam. We have posted this piece, which details the role of the Bank of New York in siphoning billions of dollars in illegal funds from Russia. At a time when pundits are blaming East Asian economic authorities for cronyism and lax regulation, it is interesting to note how one of New York's most blue chip banks laundered billions without even being noticed by the Federal Reserve or New York State regulatory authorities. The recent collapse of the Long Term Capital Investment company provided a similar tale. So it appears that "off-shore" is coming "on-shore" and crony capitalism is flourishing in New York even more than in Djakarta. To celebrate the new era, Congress passed the Financial Services Act of 1999 in the wee hours of the morning of October 23. Described by the New York Times as an "agreement to deregulate Wall Street, favored by many of the nation's most powerful business interests," the bill abolishes the old Glass-Steagall Act of 1933, the mainstay of US banking regulation. The new legislation opens the way for a wave of new mergers and acquisitions that will create vastly larger and more powerful financial institutions -- a new breed of truly "global" players.

FAIR USE NOTICE: This page contains copyrighted material the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Global Policy Forum distributes this material without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. We believe this constitutes a fair use of any such copyrighted material as provided for in 17 U.S.C íŸ 107. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond fair use, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.