Changes needed to make a more effective UN

What is wrong with each country having one equal vote?

I'm also under the impression that the hosting country probably loses financially. I could be wrong. I'll have to investigate, but I agree with the rotation.

If one of the complaints is that certain nations wield more power, why not let them all be on equal footing--with no SC, nimh?

Yeh, if i get it right in your idea you would only have a GA, but with different members exercising a range of differently measured-out voting powers.

I.e., China has 1.86 vote, Portugal 0.92 vote and Liechtenstein 0.03 vote - numbers which would, additionally, be redetermined all the time based on the decisions of countries to cede more or less power to the UN - did I get that right?

Sounds awfully complicated - and the more complicated the system will be, the more easy it will be for members to accuse the system of being slanted or "tweaked" etc. The more complicated, the more controversy, would seem a fair prediction.

In an ideal world I would like to see all members equal, too (and then wait to see how countries split up to gather more votes - just jokin') - but as it is, the only way you're gonna get the world powers on board is offer them some kind of privileged position - so a two- or three-tier system (even if with rotating memberships) seems unavoidable. But a 368-tier system, which is what your proposal would come down to if I understand it at all right, would I think just smother the body into petty recriminations.

The world powers would have no incentive in taking part in or adhering to a body that would work that way. Can you imagine the US adhering to majority decisions of a body in which Djibouti had as great a say as the US itself?

And though I'm an idealist it's exactly b/c of my idealism about the UN that I would like to see a "UN with teeth" that would be able, eventually, to have countries like the US, France and Russia adhere to its decisions on war and peace.

Sofia,

Over the long term the hosting country does not lose money. The US hosting of the UN is on donated land, the cost is just security for the diplomats etc. We EASILY make money from this.

But money is hardly the important criteria. The multitude of other benefits is innumerable.

I believe there is a huge problem with granting nations equal voting. simply because nations are not craeted equal.

If one nation = one vote how many "loosely" affiliated nations do you think Russia could split up into?

If a nation with a couple thousand people can have the same vote as a nation with over a billion there really is no equality.

The only way for this to be a fair system while letting nations have equal power is to have nations divided along less arbitrary lines. The division of land is not equal, to make the devision of land that constitutes nations the criteria would continue this trend into the UN.

The complaint isn't really that nations do not have equal power. Even the most foolhardy nations know that there is no legitimate argument they ahve for equal power.

I think the idea is to end the ridiculous way the security council works.

There is no criteria by which France should be a member for example.

Germany or Japan have MUCH more to support an SC seat.

The SC was a poorly thought division of world power.

I think teh idea is not to grant some nations the power to ruin everyone's plans. An example would be if the whole world wanted something done and one SC permanent seat vetoed it.

The world would have a choice. Eat their loss or circumvent the UN. If we want to strengthen and improve the UN we can'thave it setup for such an inevitable failure.

The veto is the 'inordinace'.

Yes.



Yeah, the numbers would have to be based on a base 1000 though for my plan.



Well it's a complex situation. I don't agree with all simplifications and the ruling of the world in one of the places where I do not think it should be the number 1 criteria.

Plus I do not think it that complicated.

Say the population criteria is distributed along the base of 1000 points.

Afterward a nation can get additional points by additional criteria.

E.g. if they pass the human rights muster they get more. If they sign a treaty not to use their military without authorisation they get more. If they contribute a crtain % of their GNP to the world's coffers they get more etc etc

IMO it's a way to immediately incentivize participation.



Avoiding recriminations is somthing that is impossible. But there is, of course, the need to reduce the need or utility of them.

In teh scheme I envision the powers that eb will want to buy in. Literally.

The amount that the US spends in charitable work would be buying it clout. Since money is power a criteria based on money will be attractive to the powerful.

There will also be a UN military. The nations that contribute the most resources to the UN military will have more clout.

Again military is power so the nations with power have an immediate way to have more of a say.

I should have specified the portion of Craven's quote, or my take on it that I agreed with. I think the money spent by countries on the prosection of the UN's authorised military actions should be subtracted from 'dues'. Not the part about more weight...

I am under the impression that the US has spent more in money and material and service personnel toward UN goals than everyone else. If you dispute it, I suppose I will have to investigate the facts.

I believe the only fair UN course is equal voices for all members and no 'special members', or cloistered internal powers, which leads back to AU's 'paper tiger' definition--which I believe is accurate.

And, yes, I guess this idealised and fair method wouldn't draw the big and powerful... which is why I don't think the UN will work. The 'fair way', I feel, is what I've suggested. The machinations you and Craven suggest sort of show, to me, the reasons why the UN will never work. If submission to the group must be coaxed, and manipulated--the efficacy of the UN is contrived and unstable. Thats what it is now, and what it will always be, unless members give up their power willingly. Who does that?

It can't be a relinquishment of power. It has to be the controlled use of power.

The US is right to not wish to cede their power to teh UN, it could be used disasterously.

The world is right not to want to cave to the US.

We have a stalemate. The dillema is not inherent to the UN. The dillema is inherent to having conflicting interests.

Nations and conflicting interests exist. The problem is not the UN. The problem lies in such conflicting interests.

To draw everyone to the tabel ethere will have to be coaxing. This is a dillema inherent to negotiations of such conflict and complexity and not problems inherent to an institution like the UN.

Yeah, who gives up power willingly? The ones to whom there is a clear advantage to doing so.

The institution through which such conflicting interests will derive advantage is intristically full of the nuance and coaxing and sheer complexity many people here deride.

What I'm trying to say is that gropolitics is not the same thing as the UN. All of the things direcded here have been going on since there were nations. It's not the UN's problem.

The UN will always be complex as long as the world's diversity causes conflicting interests. You can complain about the symptoms of an array of conflicting interests but it has little to do with helping create an efficient forum for the dispute resolution.

I really would like, if you could find just one serious source for that!

It would seen to me that inorder for the UN to be an effective vehicle it would have to be a world government with every nation subservient to it. Similar to the US system where all of the states are in effect subservient to the federal government. That of course could never happen first because of nationalism, second because of member nations various forms of government and wealth, third because of national interests and forth because it's a pipe dream.
The UN is a great concept which was setup by the victors after a devastating war to maintain peace and heal the world that had broken it's wing. Will it work as advertised no?

Russia Won't End Accord With Iran to Build Reactor

By DAVID E. SANGER

Published: September 28, 2003

WASHINGTON, Sept. 27 — President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia said today that he would send "a clear but respectful signal to Iran" that it must comply with international inspections of its suspected nuclear weapons program. But he told President Bush that Russia would go forward with its plans to help Iran build a nuclear reactor.

This is a IMO is an example of why the UN does not work. Russia has joined in setting an Oct. 31 deadline for Iran to open itself completely to international inspectors, who have found worrisome traces of highly enriched uranium at two sites in the country. Yet they facilitate Iran's nuclear program. Would an effective UN allow this to continue at least until Iran complied?



http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/28/international/worldspecial/28PREX.html?th

In my UN it would. Iran deserves nukes just as much as anyone else.

The reactor is a legitimate use. Even if you think they have a nuke program the reactor is technology they have a right to and for a function that is not against anything they voluntarily signed.

Craven
Am I to take it than that you are in opposition with the UN's stance that Iran open itself completely to international inspectors, who have found worrisome traces of highly enriched uranium at two sites in the country. Since it is their right as a sovereign nation to have a nuclear program if they so desired.

No. If Iran wants to voluntarily comply with the NPT they should. If they don't they should say so.

It is my opinion that they should withdraw from the treaty if they wish to pursue nukes.

And if they do so there is no basis for complaints. Iran has just as much of a right to nukes as anyone else.

Israel is thought to have them. If I were in charge of Iran making nukes would be a priority.

Interestingly enough, there was an article in Foreign Affairs a few months back that posited that the current century would be one of increased, rather than decreased proliferation of WMD. I believe the author was correct.

Found a source ... www.globalpolicy.org has quite detailed stats on financial contributions to the UN.

Short answer: the US pays more than "anyone else" (unless you count the EU as one), but definitely not more than "everyone else". (Hope I get that grammatical distinction right).

The US is expected to pay about 25% of the UN Regular Budget. The EU countries together pay more - about 36%.

One problem here is that the US chronically refuses to pay its bills in time, and of the sum total of arrears in UN contributions usually one-third to half is due to US arrears.

The Regular Budget, however, worth 1.3 billion US $, is only one of several budgets. There's a separate budget for the peacekeeping operations, and additional budgets for the specialised UN agencies (of the UNICEF, WFP, WHO kind I presume). Those are all obligatory, the grand total of which was some 4,4 billion US $ in 1997. Additionally countries make voluntary contibutions to UN organs and agencies of at least that amount. So its not an easy task to get an general overview.

[More in next post]

The UN owes us.

The United Nations Debt: Who Owes Whom?
by Cliff Kincaid

Cliff Kincaid, a veteran journalist, is author of "The United Nations Debt: Who Owes Whom?" recently published by the Cato Institute.

Last month it was revealed that the Clinton administration had sent $200,000 to the United Nations as "seed money" to help the UN put together a "standby" peacekeeping army. Your elected representatives didn't vote to spend the money that way. It wasn't money set aside by Congress for UN peacekeeping support. Rather, the White House "reprogrammed" money that had been appropriated by Congress for another purpose.

Furthermore, the contribution wasn't even credited against the billion-dollar "debt" that the United States supposedly owes the United Nations. In fact, it's just one of the many instances in which the Clinton administration has diverted billions of dollars from various federal agencies, especially the Department of Defense, to the UN. And virtually none of this support has been credited against the alleged U.S. debt.
Despite the fact that news articles routinely discuss the U.S. debt to the United Nations, no such debt exists. Assertions about this nonexistent debt ignore the billions of dollars of military and other assistance that has been provided to the world organization but neither properly credited nor reimbursed to the United States; they divert attention from the administration's policy of providing resources, personnel and equipment to the UN without the approval of Congress.

Rep. Roscoe Bartlett (R-Md.), a member of the House National Security Committee, is doing his best to end this diversion of taxpayer money. Thanks to his work, Congress is now fully aware of administration attempts to usurp the legislative branch's constitutional role. Bartlett wants to prevent payment of any "debt" to the UN until all U.S. assistance to the world body is accounted for in the U.S.-UN financial relationship. He also wants the administration to quit the practice of providing the UN "voluntary" assistance worth billions of dollars without congressional approval.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The United States paid more than $11 billion for international peacekeeping efforts between 1992 and 1997.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Clinton administration insists that Congress has an obligation to pay most -- but not all -- of the money the UN demands. It says the figure is close to $1 billion. True, Congress has withheld some money from the UN: some members believe we are being overcharged, and others want to force UN reform. But it's also true that the administration has been diverting additional billions of dollars to assist the UN without asking it to credit them against our "dues."

Bartlett cites a Congressional Research Service report that found that the United States paid more than $11 billion for international peacekeeping efforts between 1992 and 1997. Although the report didn't specify how much of that money had been counted as U.S. "dues" to the UN, the figure could be as low as $1.8 billion. That leaves about $9 billion worth of what the administration calls "voluntary" international peacekeeping assistance. But the $9 billion only covers assistance provided by the Department of Defense. Other federal agencies have also been ordered by the administration to support the UN, bringing the sum of uncredited payments to perhaps $15 billion.

The $1.8 billion figure counted as U.S. "dues" to the world body derives from a 1996 General Accounting Office report on U.S. costs in support of UN-authorized "peace operations" in places like Haiti, Somalia and Rwanda during the previous three years. The figure represents the State Department's share of the costs of those operations. That is the budget from which the U.S. share of UN peacekeeping operations has traditionally been funded. Overall, the GAO found that the costs reported by U.S. government agencies for support of UN operations in those areas of the world was over $6.6 billion and that the UN had reimbursed the U.S. $79.4 million "for some of these costs." That leaves about $4.8 billion in what the administration calls "voluntary" assistance to the world body.

By refusing to pay the UN "debt," Congress would not only put a stop to the improper if not illegal practice of misappropriating funds to the UN; it would also acquire additional leverage for forcing tough reforms on that body. The latest UN scandal, uncovered by the New Yorker magazine, is that in 1994 Secretary General Kofi Annan, then director of peacekeeping, ordered UN troops in Rwanda not to intervene to stop a planned genocide campaign that took half a million lives. Annan, a veteran UN bureaucrat, has reacted to the controversy over his role in the genocide by blaming the United States for not doing more to save lives. It appears that much of our "voluntary" assistance to the UN for peacekeeping missions has been wasted.
U.S. Ambassador to the UN Bill Richardson insists that if Congress demands reimbursement or credit for all of this assistance, the UN might go bankrupt. In fact, the organization has accumulated a $15.5 billion pension fund; it even continues to pay a $102,000 annual pension to former secretary general Kurt Waldheim, who was exposed as a Nazi war criminal.

The United Nations won't go broke. Whether it should is another question.

So, its one thing to owe us for your existence--and to owe us money you cannot pay back without going bankrupt--but to then have the nerve and lack of honor to act like we owe still more is stupid.

Sofia... nemind.

[this is a follow-up post to my previous one - havent checked up yet with what you may have posted in the meantime]

The UN Regular Budget is easiest to find out about.

Turns out countries are assigned a percentage of the costs of the UN Regular Budget. These assessments are made on the basis of the "capacity to pay" principle. That is to say, the share of the percentual contribution to the UN regular Budget is roughly tied to the country's share of world income.

"Roughly", because for one, there is a "floor" that sets a minimum contribution even for countries whose share of world income would fall below that; and a "ceiling" that caps the maximum contribution of a single country. The US has always profited from this "ceiling", back from the days when the ceiling was "nearly 40 percent, when the U.S. accounted for more than half of world income", and has succesfully strived through the years to lower the ceiling as well.

This topic came up in the late 90s again, when the US pushed for a 22% ceiling. Opponents noted that,



UNA-USA: The New U.N. Assessment Scale

Eventually, it seems the US got its way and a new scale was formulated for the year 2001, which defined that the US should pay 22% of the UN Regular Budget, Japan 19,6%, Germany 9,8%, France 6,5%, the UK 5,6% and Italy 5,1%.

Deducted from these gross contributions is the "credit from staff assessment", which for 2001, for example, amounted to over 10 million $ each for countries like Germany, Japan and France. Hence why the percentual part of the US in the net contributions is more than 22%.

One problem about all this, that has always attracted a lot of attention, was the chronic refusal of the US to pay its dues - or pay them in time, in any case.

It turns out that there's already a rule that if you are over two full years in arrears, you lose your right to vote in the General Assembly, unless the GA "is satisfied that the failure to pay is due to conditions beyond the control of the Member." The latest list of such countries includes the likes of Tajikistan, Somalia, Moldova and Burundi.

The US have thus far avoided that ignominious list, but have skirted past it closely a few times, especially in the nineties when the Republican majority in Congress was blocking the government from fully paying its dues. For example, in 1997 the Senate rejected an amendment that provided for "an unconditional payback [of] $819 million of arrears over two years" and instead adopted the Helms-Biden bill that placed "an unprecedented number of conditions on the payback", related to demands for UN reform - and then torpedoed the implementation even of that bill as conservative Republicans demanded to tie in an anti-abortion provisionas well - the guarantee that the contributions would not be used "for overseas abortion services or lobbying for such services".

The site has overviews of "Regular Budget Payments of Largest Payers" for 2002 and 2003 thus far. Suffice it to say that of the 15 largest payers, by the end of 2002 only the US, Brazil and Argentine hadnt paid their dues, and that as of June, 2003, the US owed the UN some 531 million US $. That amounts to exactly half of all payments due from all UN member states.

Again, all this only pertains to the Regular Budget, the sum of which amounts to only about a quarter of the full budget covered by obligatory member payments to the UN. And its only one-tenth of the grand total of UN expenditures, considering over half of the UN costs are covered by voluntary payments. See this overview for the years up to 1997.

After the Regular Budget, the second item is the budget for peacekeeping operations, which can run up to anywhere between one and three billion dollar a year. The most expensive ones in 2001/2002 were the ones in Sierra Leone ($700 million), Kosovo and East-Timor ($400-500 million).

Expensive? Is that why all the fracas in Congress about it? Well, 's all relative ... According to this overview, one B-2 bomber costs $2,200 million, and the NY City Police Department annually spends $2,500 - five times the Kosovo peacekeeping budget.

The peacekeeping budget is filled according to the same kind of key as the Regular Budget - each country is expected to pay a percentage of the costs. At the 2000 reform of those scales, the US contribution to the Peacekeeping budget was set at 27%, down from 31% thus far. That year, Ted Turner of CNN fame donated the 34 million $ that equated with "the three percent of the U.N. 2001 budget resulting from the U.S. reduction".

Again, though, a problem here is that the US is habitually paying the corresponding sums over a year late. This causes great problems in maintaining peacekeeping forces at strength, as basically the countries that contribute the troops have to advance the money that the US is late in contributing. Of the total debt owed, last June, to the UN concerning the Peacekeeping budget, 48% was owed by the US.

After Regular Budget and Peacekeeping budget, another some 1.8 billion $ of the obligatory payments go to the UN's "specialised agencies". These include the IAEA, ILO, FAO, UNESCO and World Health Organisation. Unfortunately I couldnt find indications of which country paid how much to their budgets.

Same goes (by and large) for the voluntary contributions to the various UN Programs, Funds, Organs and Specialized Agencies, which amounted to a whopping 6,4 billion $ in 2001. Such contributions concern the work of, for example, UNCTAD, UNDP, the United Nations Environment Program, the UNHCR and UNICEF.

These rely on donations, and are consequently always strapped for cash. Countries tend to pledge money on world summits and the like, that they then dont actually deliver. This sad list of articles shows the consequence for an organisation like the UNHCR, which is literally always begging for money. Example: "the UN refugee agency's operation in Afghanistan will be broke within a month, it says, left with little more than promises of peace to give hundreds of thousands of people returning to their war-shattered homeland", or: "Last weekend, the International Organization for Migration announced suspension of its transportation network to return refugees to their hometowns."

The UNHCR is but one of these programs, organs and agencies that rely on voluntary contributions, but its one I googled up a budget for. Annex 3 - column 5 of this report specifies a total of $645 million in national contributions to the 2002 budget. The US contributed 245 million $, the Netherlands, Sweden and Norway were runners-up, with the EU countries contributing 215 million $ in total. In previous years the US provided 25% of contributions, while the European Commission used to contribute 200 million $ a year (on top of its Member States' contributions).

I see you have been digging, too, Sofia - except that you dug for op-eds instead of statistics.

But at least you made up for that by using the function a lot :wink: