Until We Pay Up, We'll Just Clam Up

The United States has long been criticized for being behind in its promised contributions to various international organizations -- including NATO, the International Atomic Energy Agency, the World Health Organization, the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons and so on.

Congressional conservatives have long been less than enthusiastic about giving to international organizations. The Bush administration has asked for -- but not always gotten -- enough to cover yearly dues at various agencies. Requests weren't made to clear prior-year shortfalls. Worse yet, the plunging dollar -- these payments are made in local currencies -- has added to the problem.

Total arrears recently stood at around $130 million, by one count, though Sen. Pat Leahy (D-Vt.) pushed about $50 million into the supplemental war appropriation a couple of months ago to alleviate the problem at a few organizations -- including NATO. But the international agencies are increasingly anxious and want their money.

What to do? Well, for one thing, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice suggests, let's not talk about it. Rice apparently had cabled various U.S. missions about the financial problem and the information had gotten out, causing some heartburn. The concern, one State official said: "Why tip your hand when you're negotiating" over payments?

So she followed up with a cable to U.S. officials at the United Nations, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development in Paris and the International Civil Aviation Organization in Montreal, among other places, reminding them that the first cable on "the funding shortfall is intended for Mission personnel only and should remain close hold." Meaning, don't tell anyone.

Further, the officials are "requested not to use any of the information in this cable with the international organizations or the public. Mission is further instructed to not mention that the U.S. will go into arrears when discussing U.S. assessments owed to international organizations." Change the subject, talk about the new Nationals stadium or something.

But what if the organizations simply demand to know when the money's coming? Okay, Rice's cable said, if you're "pressed about when the organization can expect payment, the suggested response is" to say that President Bush asked for the money but that it's up to Congress to deal with it.

"If mission is further pressed about when the organization can expect to be paid the balances owed," the cable said, ". . . say there is currently no legislative authorization for additional funding" to pay the balance owed on last year's assessments.

That has the virtue of being true and meaningless, since Congress routinely writes checks without authorization.

Maybe when all else fails, just tell them the checks are in the mail?

Fact Czech

Speaking of Czechs, President Bush's much-praised freedom speech in Prague last week had a number of stirring, memorable lines. One was "The most powerful weapon in the struggle against extremism is not bullets or bombs -- it is the universal appeal of freedom."

Our colleague Robin Wright thought there was something oddly familiar about that notion and the way Bush -- or one of his speechwriters -- turned the phrase.