Six years of squabbling that put the United States nearly $1 billion in debt to the United Nations were swept away last week when the Senate voted without a single dissenting vote to back a repayment plan in exchange for a future reduction in the U.S. share of UN operating and peacekeeping costs. According to Foreign Relations Chairman Sen. Jesse Helms, the architect of the dispute, it was never about anything more than fiscal prudence and cost-sharing, it was nothing a little negotiating and compromise couldn’t fix. The plan now moves to the House, where, after for some minor tinkering, quick approval is expected.

Quite a change from 1994, when Congress unilaterally capped U.S. contributions – Congress apparently unconcerned that unilateral action is the very antithesis of the U.N. ethic – and set off an ugly spiral of mounting debt and bitterness. A negotiated settlement brokered two years ago by former U.N. Ambassador Richard Holbrooke reduced the U.S. share slightly and was openly derided by Sen. Helms. The derision continued even as the U.N., under the firm hand of Secretary General Koffi Annan, enacted reform and began turning in balanced budgets.

Now the North Carolina Republican says the negotiated settlement actually is a pretty good deal, that the reduction in the U.S. shares, through not as much as he wanted, would save American taxpayers considerably. No mention of the deep philosophical divisions that once formed the core of his opposition; the anti-American sentiment he once said colored every U.N. action apparently has vanished.

Or, more likely, it just doesn’t matter as much now. With his party controlling the White House as well as Congress, Sen. Helms has figured out that the United States actually needs the United Nations. A case in point of how a Bush administration policy could be substantially effected by the opinion of the rest of the world is its centerpiece military initiative, the missile defense program.

There are two keys to making missile defense go from pie in the sky to umbrella in the sky. One, of course is science, actual rocket science that is a long way from working. The other is international consensus – the diplomatic cost is even more staggering than the monetary. Some nuclear powers are opposed to the proposal, fearing it would make their arsenals obsolete and leaving them powerless. China already has said it will match American construction of the shield with an unprecedented escalation of its missile program. Russia has hinted at the same ”new arms race” possibility, it must agree to renegotiate the 1972 anti-missile treaty or the U.S. will be forced to break the treaty unilaterally, hardly the desired option.

Non-nuclear nations also must be sold on the plan. Japan, already committed to assist in research, is heading for a conflict with its post-World War II pacifist constitution and deeper involvement in the greatest military undertaking in history. Polls show the Japanese public strongly opposed to that involvement; that opposition will only grow if the United States is portrayed as anti-United Nations.

Other, smaller nations likewise have real concerns about the missile project. A common scenario supporting global missile defense is that a renegade nation, such as North Korea or Iraq, would not be foolish enough to launch a nuclear missile against the United States, but would be ruthless enough to hold a non-nuclear nation hostage. Until the shield is up, however, smaller nations that back the missile defense plan are putting themselves in danger. They cannot be expected to side with a superpower that says its wants to protect the world while it refuses to cooperate with the organization that represents the world.