US cutting back funds to the UN

[Ocean Breeze]

What a freaking joke!!! During the 1990's the United States was so far in arrears of paying their UN Contributions that they were in serious danger of losing their vote in the UN General Assembly.

For several years the United States has been in arrears in the payment of its assessed contributions for the U.N. regular budget, international tribunals, and peacekeeping operations. Assessed contributions—which are levied on U.N. members to fund the organization’s activities—are considered to be in arrears if unpaid by December 31 of the year they came due. Article 19 of the U.N. Charter states that a member shall lose its right to vote in the U.N. General Assembly if the amount of its arrears equals or exceeds the amount of its assessed contributions for the preceding 2 years.

The United States faces the loss of its vote in the General Assembly in January 2000 because the sum of its assessed contributions for the prior 2 years—the “yardstick” for measuring U.S. arrears when applying article 19—has declined each year since 1996. This decline largely reflects a decrease in assessments for U.N. peacekeeping operations since 1995. In essence, the United States now faces the loss of its right to vote in the General Assembly because its assessed contributions are substantially less than in 1996 while its arrears have remained about the same. This explains why, with basically the same level of arrears as in past years, the United States narrowly avoided losing its right to vote on January 1, 1999, and will lose its right to vote on January 1, 2000, unless it reduces its arrears.

http://www.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=gao&docid=f:ns99187.txt.pdf
Now they are threatening the UN with withholding their payments again. Well, go ahead - if the US falls far enough behind in their payments then they will lose their right to veto any UN Resolutions and in effect relinquish their seat in the UN. If they really want to make an effective statement then they should remove themselves from the UN and force the world to recognize that the US really does'nt want the UN to succeed but only be a tool of US policy. If they really believe that they don't need the UN anymore than why are they keeping up the pretence by maintaining their seat. Give it up and good riddance - the rest of the world doesn't need to rely on the US anymore and should remove the UN headquarters from New York as soon as possible.

EXCELLENT post. ( good job)

 

[Ocean Breeze]

As for the whining about parking tickets and costs...consider how much money goes into the New York (state and city) economy because of the UN. If you guys don't want it, start a campaign to move it to Winnipeg. We'll take it.

Of course you will take it, it may put Winnipeg on the map.

who says , Winnipeg or any other place wants to be "put on the map"??? sheesh. There is merit/wisdom to understatement---something "America" has no comprehension about.

Hows that weather up there on that horse Ocean? Cool Breeze?

:wink: Very enlightening.. :wink:

 

[Walrus]

Thanks Ocean, but I've only gotten started on my rant about US participation in the UN .

Americans, as evidenced by Eaglesmack, complain about the lack of non-American participation in the UN peacekeeping missions.

I like the change in the air here in America. I say after this war is over we bring all the troops home and leave the UN to fill its ranks of its own Peace Keeping. I used to love seeing the break down of forces during these UN Peace Keeping missions. Some countries sending 25 men. That is not even a whole platoon... that is just over two squads of Marines

Well, I've got news for you - US participation in UN peacekeeping missions is practically nil. Because of the standing US policy that it will allow no US troops to be under foreign command the US military contribution to official UN missions is less than the 25 men you complain about, currently consisting of 332 civilian police, 19 Military Observers, and 10 Troops. The troops representing less than one Marine squad . Even a third world country like Niger currently contibutes more personnel to UN Peacekeeping missions than the US. http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/dpko/contributors/2005/may2005_1.pdf

I know, you're going to use examples like Bosnia, and Korea to point out that US troops were used in UN Missions. Good try, but wrong. In Bosnia the US troops were part of the NATO commitment not the UN. In Korea (like Iraq in 1990), the UN authorized the use of force to counter the aggression of another country, but the US force was not participating under the banner of the UN, but as an American force whose use was authorized by the UN - a subtle difference which allowed the US to refuse UN command of their forces but allowed US participation under UN guidelines. The same is true for Somalia - a decision which indirectly contributed to the loss of the Rangers since the US command was under no commitment to inform the UN command of their operation and when they ran into trouble they had to scramble to ask for Pakistani help in retrieving their troops.

Before Americans can legitimately criticize the UN and other countries contributions they need to have an accurate assesssment of what they actually give to and get from the UN - not the distorted point of view of people like Bolton, whose only goal seems to be to assure the US domination of the UN or to destroy it if it fails to conform to the American standard.

 

[Reverend Blair]

Another great post, Walrus. The US wants control, it does not want to participate. When that stance inevitably leads to problems, they blame the UN without ever considering their own actions.

Hows that weather up there on that horse Ocean? Cool Breeze?

Sunny like my disposition and hot like...well, I don't wan't to brag...

 

[annabattler]

RE: US cutting back funds

There are many things that need to be fixed at the United Nations. But,we cannot throw the baby out with the bathwater.
The United States may offer financial support to the U.N., but fails to support of the U.N.in lots of areas...the international court,the kyoto accord,for two.
Move the U.N. if it's such an issue...most other countries would be glad of it's physical presence.

 

[Reverend Blair]

RE: US cutting back funds

I find one of the most troubling parts of the US attacks on the UN are their constant claims that the UN is undemocratic. The sub-text of that message is that a single superpower, a power that acts only in its own interests and has representatives chosen only from within its own elite ruling class, is a better and more democratic representative for the rest of the world than the United Nations.

 

[Ocean Breeze]

Re: RE: US cutting back funds

There are many things that need to be fixed at the United Nations. But,we cannot throw the baby out with the bathwater.
The United States may offer financial support to the U.N., but fails to support of the U.N.in lots of areas...the international court,the kyoto accord,for two.
Move the U.N. if it's such an issue...most other countries would be glad of it's physical presence.

astute points. One could say that the US is a hindrence to the UN. But again, it is all about "MONEY" with the USG.(and the power money seems to give them.....in their own minds) They seem to think that because they "contribute" so much.....they can rule the UN.....and this is not the concept .

As per usual: the US(G) uses MONEY as carrot/stick , just the way a bully would.

The UN might be better placed in a neutral country or one that is not so WAR /aggressive oriented.