Conservatives have long criticized the United Nations, and there has been much to criticize. Yet the U.N. has in recent years proved responsive to calls for reform. Accordingly, it's time for the U.S. to pay some or all of the $1.3 billion in back dues it owes to the U.N. The U.N.'s performance, to be sure, hasn't been spectacular. But a recent study by theAlexis de Tocqueville Institution shows significant progress.

The U.N. has adopted more than half of the specific reforms demanded by the Heritage Foundation's United Nations Assessment Project in a series of 1983 and 1986 recommendations. Some of the unadopted reforms either are no longer relevant (e.g., an agency that was to be altered was eliminated) or have been partially implemented.

The U.N. has improved in many of the areas its critics said were most important. U.N. reformers for years loudly demanded the appointment of a more independent official to review and reform U.N. finances--someone with a background in business and credibility as a manager. The U.N. followed this advice nearly five years ago, and the man appointed, Joseph Connor, then chairman of Price Waterhouse, now says the institution is significantly leaner and more accountable. Charles Lichenstein, a U.N. skeptic who served as alternate U.S. representative to the U.N. during the Reagan administration, told Tocqueville researchers that "most of the things we were listing as reforms in the 1980s have been implemented."

Perhaps the most important reform demanded by critics, and certainly the most prominent aspect of U.N. operations, centers around its peacekeeping efforts. Many improvements have yet to be made, but the U.N. has had spectacular successes--most notably its role in the Gulf War.

It's important to note that the U.N. performance on fitting peacekeeping missions to U.S. demands is 100%. This is by definition, since U.N.-sponsored peacekeeping troops cannot undertake a single action without the acquiescence of the U.S. at the Security Council. The Clinton administration has often been passive in failing to use this veto. But this is not a criticism of the U.N. If Congress disagrees with U.N. actions, it should discipline the Clinton administration, not the U.N.

Most recently and most notably, the U.N. declined to reappoint Boutros Boutros-Ghali as secretary-general, even though he had the support of many other countries. Instead the U.N. chose Kofi Annan, a candidate acceptable to the U.S.

In 1997 the administration and senior congressional leaders agreed to implement a series of U.N. reforms suggested by Sens. Jesse Helms (R., N.C.) and Joseph Biden (D., Del.), withholding U.N. dues until the international body makes certain reforms. Congress is now considering various measures to encourage further reforms at the U.N. The U.N. has not implemented some of the key elements of Helms-Biden, such as a reduction in the level of U.S. dues to 22% of the U.N. budget (and later to 20%), from 25%. On the other hand, Washington has not paid the money that was mostly due long before the Helms-Biden agreement.

The Helms-Biden targets are reasonable and achievable over the next two to three years. The appropriate way for Congress to signal its seriousness would be to link payment of future dues to progress on these reforms. But in the meantime, the U.S. should pay the back dues that it already owes for U.N. operations past--especially since the U.N. has carried out many of there forms we've been demanding all along.