The New York Times

Tuesday, November 16, 1999

Deal on U.N. Dues Breaks an Impasse and Draws Critics

By ERIC SCHMITT

WASHINGTON -- A fragile deal between the White House and House Republicans to end a fight over abortion and U.N. dues drew scathing criticism Monday from abortion rights advocates and cutting reviews from Vice President Al Gore and former Sen. Bill Bradley.

In breaking an impasse that will free nearly $1 billion that the United States owes the United Nations, both sides claimed victory Monday in an issue that could undermine American global leadership and a year-end budget agreement.

But the deal still has a few crucial loose ends, like the timing of the repayment of the back dues and a dispute over debt relief to the world's most impoverished nations. Until the agreement is complete, the long-term impact of the measure remains uncertain.

For now, the compromise appears to pave the way to end a long-running dispute that has threatened to strip the United States of its vote in the U.N. General Assembly unless it pays before Dec. 31. The seat and vote in the Security Council are not affected.

The criticism from Bradley and Gore underscored Gore's desire to avoid giving his Democratic rival any opening to exploit on a white-hot domestic issue. As Gore's presidential campaign goes on, he has been more willing to take positions that diverge from President Clinton's.

Speaking to employees at Microsoft in Seattle on Monday, Gore would not directly answer whether he supported the deal, but did say that he opposed "bargaining away any critical policy aspect of a women's right to choose."

A senior Gore adviser said the vice president had expressed "strong reservations" about the deal, and while heaping most of the blame on Republicans, said Gore "opposed what the White House ended up doing"

While Gore has tried to distance himself from Clinton on the issue of his personal conduct, this position is probably the one in which he most distanced himself from the president.

Under a compromise struck late Sunday, a ban on U.S. financing to international organizations that promote abortion rights would be written into law. The deal is a triumph for House conservatives led by Rep. Christopher H. Smith, R-N.J., who for three years has insisted on tying the payment of the U.N. dues to the funding ban.

But Clinton could waive the ban if he pays a $12.5 million penalty, to be subtracted from the $385 million that a State Department agency, the Agency for International Development, awards to family planning groups abroad.

The $12.5 million, just over 3 percent of the total, and down from the initial demand by Republicans of $100 million, would go to a separate children's health fund, also administered by the Agency for International Development. If the deal is completed, Clinton is expected to invoke such a waiver. The $385 million is what Smith and his colleagues had sought to eliminate.

If Clinton invokes the waiver, the agreement caps at $15 million the total amount of money that the United States would give to organizations that perform abortions or advocate family planning measures. Administration officials said it was unlikely the cap would be met and health services would be only minimally affected. But abortion-rights supporters said the provision would have a chilling effect on family-planning activities overseas, from sponsoring conferences to publishing safe-sex pamphlets.

Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, who has aggressively lobbied Clinton to repay Washington's U.N. debt and volunteered to be the lightning rod for criticism from abortion-rights groups, defended the agreement.

"The agreement that I hope will come out will not interfere with family planning around the world and that it will have minimal effect," Albright told reporters traveling with Clinton in Turkey.

Abortion rights advocates denounced the deal as a sell-out to appease a small band of Republicans, and claimed that the dealwould endanger the lives of women in developing countries who rely on the help of international family planning groups.

"Women's lives have once again been sacrificed for political expediency," said Gloria Feldt, president of Planned Parenthood Federation of America, which uses less than 1 percent of its funds for abortion services.

Rep. Carolyn B. Maloney, D-N.Y., who telephoned the White House chief of staff, John Podesta, to demand a meeting on Tuesday, said, "Administration negotiators paid an unjustifiable, high-cost ransom to a small number of extreme-right, anti-choice lawmakers."

The Agency for International Development says that family planning programs, which it oversees, have helped prevent unintended pregnancies in more than 70 countries, and have increased the use of contraceptives in those countries from 10 percent in those countries 34 years ago currently to 40 percent now.

Some Democrats expressed pessimism about reaching a final deal.

"The more I get into the details, the more difficult it is to resolve," said Rep. David R. Obey of Wisconsin, the senior Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee. "We've got too much talking on camera, including by the secretary of state."

The issue exploded on the campaign trail Monday as a potentially divisive issue between the two Democratic presidential candidates.

A spokeswoman for Bradley, Kristen Ludecke, said the former New Jersey senator opposed the tentative deal and cited his remarks on Sunday.

"I would not support it if I was there," Bradley said on CNN's "Late Edition." "A woman's right to choose is absolutely essential, and I think family planning for the rest of the world, if we wanted to provide it, should be permissible."

House conservatives expressed cautious optimism that they had won their biggest victory on the issue since Clinton rescinded a 1984 executive order by President Ronald Reagan that denied grants to international organizations for any purpose if they promoted abortion rights.

The United States has barred direct financing for abortions since 1973, but Reagan advanced that policy by adopting what has become known as "Mexico City" because he announced the executive order during a U.N. conference there.

"It's as close as we've been to reinstating the language of Mexico City since Bill Clinton became president," said Michele Davis, a spokeswoman for Rep. Dick Armey, R-Texas, the House majority leader.

Mindy Tucker, a spokeswoman for Gov. George W. Bush of Texas, the Republican presidential front-runner, said Bush "would support reinstating the executive order banning the use of taxpayer money to promote abortions in foreign countries." the State Department to pay the $926 million debt to the United Nations over three years. The first installment from that bill, combined with money from a second spending bill that covers the costs of the Commerce, State and Justice departments, would be enough to prevent Washington from losing its General Assembly vote, administration officials said.

"U.S. foreign policy is on a little firmer ground with this news," said Linda S. Jamison, executive director of the Emergency Coalition for U.S. Financial Support of the United Nations.

Two of Clinton's key Senate allies, Tom Daschle of South Dakota, the Democratic leader, and Joseph R. Biden, the senior Democrat on the Foreign Relations Committee, also voiced support for the deal. "Somebody has to give, and there is give here on both sides," said Daschle. "It's a pretty good deal."

In defending the deal, administration officials said they could shield international groups from financial cuts by defining which organizations are affected and how lobbying for abortions rights is defined.

Moreover, they said the deal expires after a year, when all sides agreed the fight would be joined again, but this time without the huge U.N. debt hanging over the White House's head.

Abortion rights supporters were not placated.

"This not a compromise," said Kate Michelman, president of the National Abortion Rights Reproductive League. "This is capitulation."