Among supporters, U.S. financial support for the United Nations has been tempered by charges that the organization has become bloated, inefficient, and persistently extends it activities beyond official mandates. In April 1997, the Clinton Administration, which previously advocated the payment of dues prior to reform, unveiled a proposal for reform that included a number of benchmarks that would relate to the release of appropriations. The proposal echoed some of the reforms suggested by the United Nations itself and included such key issues as cutbacks in bureaucracy and overlap as well as an increase in U.N. accountability for its programs and operations. Clinton s proposal also addressed what has been a fundamental issue for lawmakers a reduction of the percentage of U.S. assessments to the United Nations. For the United States, two central issues in the debate over U.N. finance are the linkage of payment of dues to reform and the reduction of the U.S. share of the U.N. budget.
Opinions vary with regard to linking U.S. payments to reform efforts.
Some members of Congress and former government officials feel that the United States should honor its financial commitments to the United Nations and then push for reform. Other members see the withholding of U.S. dues and arrears as leverage for the United States to press for reform. The reduction of the U.S. share of the U.N. budget is one of the most important aspects of U.N. reform from the U.S. perspective. The U.S. Congress is acutely aware that while the public wants to see America involved in the world, they are not interested in seeing their tax dollars spent on programs they consider inconsistent with American interests or values. They point out that other countries could afford to take on more of the burden, especially China, which has a seat on the Security Council but pays a small percentage of the U.N. budget.