Changes needed to make a more effective UN

The main thrust of my response to who owes what is a few posts above.

If the EU wants to add their contributions together as a comparison to the US contributions--let them have one vote, like we do.

And, how much have the EU countries spent on the UN's military/peacekeeping this decade, in comparison to the US?

They need to credit us the billions we have spent on their behalf.

Do you dispute the numbers in the article?

BM

Sofia,

A) the EU contributions are not counted together.

B) The US is the only nation who pays less than the calculated "ability to pay" without any of the negative consequences.

C) The numbers cited in your article are completely fraudulent. The dues to the UN do not include any amount a nation decides to spend on any topic remotely broached in the UN forum.

There are simple membership dues. The US did not pay them.

There are voluntary projects. The US has paid toward the ones we were interested in and no nation's voluntary contributions count toward the basic membership dues.

Lastly the numbers you are citing are calculated on the basis of a ratiocination that would include the war in Iraq, a war the UN did not sanction, as "UN dues".

It's fraudulent to say the least. The US has basic membership dues that are calculated simply along the nation's capacity to pay. The US already gets a break with the ceiling.

Let's say this again: basic membership dues have nothing to do with voluntary participation in voluntary projects.

And no, the US can't claim any of it's military spending it wants as UN dues.

Yes. They are so far off the mark that only journalists publishing a screed use them. They are demonstratably fictional.

Thats an awfully terse, rhetorical response to an awful lot of facts (that I spent three hours collecting). Are we into Able2PutDown & Able2BrushAside or into Able2Know?



Mere rhetorical jibe. The point was that you initially stated that the US "has spent more in money and material and service personnel toward UN goals than everyone else". Unless I'm confused about the difference between "everyone else" and "anyone else", that was easily refuted. And the other point to make on that count about the EU countries is that they donate a bigger share of their national income to the UN than the US.



See the data and links above about the Peacekeeping budget. It's contributed to by national ratio, much like the Regular Budget. So the EU countries will have contributed a share roughly equivalent to their share in world income. The US pays 27% of the Peacekeeping budget, not far from its share in the Regular Budget - will be the same with the EU.

If you want concrete examples, note that the Kosovo peacekeepers have been divided in four regional zones of equal size, one American, one French, one British and one ... Italian, I think, not sure by heart. Bosnia - again - France was a major contributor of troops (not something we should necessarily be jubilant about, btw - but they're there, all-right). Sierra Leone peacekeeping - almost entirely done with British troops, I recall.



And you base that strident opinion on ... the Cato Institute's op-ed above? Unless you can come up with some serious data of the kind that are brandished, but never specified or detailed in the op-ed you posted, I really cant tell whether thats here or there. What did that $11 billion consist of?

You will notice that the case about the US debt is a clear-cut one of contributions to the UN Regular and Peackeeping Budgets - contributions, the commitment to which are defined by the Charter and the specification of which was defined by UN decisions the US agreed with. Contributions that most every other country does pay in time, regardless of its own additional part in various peacekeeping operations. (You'll also note that we're apparently talking a curent total debt to the UN all of half the value of one B-2 bomber.)

You will also have seen that most countries spend some four times more money on the UN than merely their obligatory Regular and Peacekeeping Budget contributions, the grand total UN budget being ten times that of the Regular Budget. In that sense there is nothing particular strange nor particularly related in the mentioned additional "voluntary" contributions.

But thats all still assuming that there is a $11 billion case to make about American contributions of such kind. What I am particularly interested in is what kind of costs the Cato Found includes in this $11 billion dollars spent on unspecified "international peacekeeping efforts between 1992 and 1997". (Somalia, Haiti and Rwanda are specified concerning the lower figure of 1.8 billion, but the 11 billion is basically unspecified). To which extent do they indeed only include costs that were to do with the actual UN-authorized peacekeeping tasks? 'S no way to tell, from the op-ed ...

An explanation of my (and some others') views on US / UN financial dealings.

The method the UN currently uses to finance peacekeeping operations is simply unsustainable. There are currently 15 peacekeeping missions under way around the world, including 5 major missions that did not even exist a year ago. These missions generate rapidly expanding costs, which are now paid for through an outdated, ad hoc system that apportions peacekeeping costs among UN members. Financial support for peacekeeping has evolved over the years: from a voluntary commitment in the '50's and '60's, to use of the regular budget, and finally in 1973 to the so-called "scale of assessments," which was devised to fund a single, six-month operation in the Sinai.

The current system concentrates 98% of the financial responsibility for peacekeeping among just 30 member states. In 2000, nearly half of the total peacekeeping costs are to be shouldered by the U.S. and Japan alone. 120 other countries collectively pay only 1% of the budget.

In early October, the UN's Fifth Committee, which is responsible for budget matters, began the process of reviewing the scales of assessment for both the peacekeeping budget and the UN's regular budget. To be blunt, the rising gap between resources and demands, absent any success in reforming the scales, will call into question the members' commitment to peacekeeping and the future viability of all UN peacekeeping operations.

All is not lost. There are positive signs, including a widespread recognition that the system is broken. Over 75 member states called for financial reform this year. During the Millennium Summit last month, I personally witnessed a marked shift in attitudes from last year. More and more countries see reform as both necessary and positive.

In other words, for most member states, reform isn't a dirty word -- it's the watchword for a more capable organization. And there is widespread consensus among the members in support of three principles that should guide any reform of how the UN pays for peacekeeping.

First, peacekeeping expenses are the collective responsibility of all UN members. The criteria used to place UN member states in various assessment categories under the scale must be neutral, objective, and transparent. It must result in a political commitment on the part of a much broader segment of the UN's membership to support peacekeeping as a core UN function.

Second, while all UN members have a responsibility to share the burden of peacekeeping, any revision of the assessments must also take into account the reality of many developing countries, and their limited capacities to contribute. We are committed to a solution that will not lead to increased assessments for those least able to afford them. Indeed, we believe new assessments could be made in an equitable fashion that would leave a large number of member states unaffected.

Third, Permanent Members of the UN Security Council have a special responsibility to support UN peacekeeping.

In this regard, we note that at least a dozen states have expressed interest in joining an expanded Security Council. While no consensus has yet been reached about expanding Council membership, any calculation of a state's potential for effective service on the Council should take into account the way a state addresses its financial responsibility for peacekeeping.

This standard -- that Permanent Members have special responsibilities for financially supporting peacekeeping -- was endorsed as long ago as 1963, when the Permanent 5 were the top five contributing countries. This special responsibility is no longer clearly reflected in the peacekeeping assessments of the present Permanent Members -- China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the U.S.

Over the past 25 years, 2 of the Permanent Security Council Members -- Russia and China -- have gone from being among the top 6 peacekeeping budget contributors to a position where 11 other countries pay more than China and 10 pay more than Russia does. In 1976, the then-Soviet Union and China together paid 22% of the peacekeeping budget. Today, Russia and all the successor states combined will pay under 2% of the budget, while China pays slightly more than 1%. As developing countries continue to account for a growing share of the world GNP, Russia will continue to slide downward in the roster of contributors if nothing is done to reform the scales. Meanwhile, our own peacekeeping assessment remains substantial, and could top 31% next year -- an all-time high.
Russia and China both pay less for peacekeeping than the United States does because their economies are smaller than the U.S. economy. The United States recognizes that economic circumstances shift and that a member's capacity to contribute should be taken into account. In China's case, it has one of the fastest growing economies in the world and now accounts for approximately 5% of world GNP. As we all know, Russia's economic situation has been quite different and, for a time, was quite difficult.

But in the complex calculus behind the current assessment system, Russia and China also pay less because of the low per capita income of their citizens. This factor seems much less justified, given their special status as permanent members of the Security Council. Indeed, this discrepancy -- between the authority shared equally by all Permanent Members and the amount of financial assistance each is asked to contribute -- is no longer defensible or even justifiable. The equal role, status, and responsibilities of each of the permanent Security Council members demand that each also pay an equitable share of the premium that permanent Security Council members pay to cover discounts accorded to other UN members, particularly developing countries.

Simply put, we believe Russia and China in particular can and should pay more of the UN's peacekeeping costs. The special responsibility of permanent members of the Security Council was recognized as far back as 1963. We believe that responsibility should be reflected in more than just a token way, as is currently the case.

The United States believes a revision to the scale methodology resulting in an adjustment in assessments for China and Russia would renew the special commitment to peacekeeping that the Permanent 5 all accepted in 1963 and more adequately reflect the special privileges they enjoy as permanent members of the Security Council. By broadening the base of major contributors, moreover, the UN would put peacekeeping on a stronger foundation by ensuring that all missions will have the necessary financial and political support.

There is a certain irony at work here. In the early '60's and again in the '70's, several members of the Permanent 5 objected to paying for peacekeeping costs because they objected to specific peacekeeping missions or believed the Security Council should have responsibility over all peacekeeping missions. Now that the Security Council exercises such authority, these members remain reluctant to pay for the costs of peacekeeping.

We are eager to work with Russia and China to develop ways in which the premium permanent Security Council members pay to cover discounts accorded to other UN members, particularly developing countries, can be rationally apportioned. We are not wedded to any particular approach to this question and are willing to listen to any suggestion the other Council Permanent Members may have to resolve this thorny issue.

I must point out that a sustainable financial basis for peacekeeping is what is at stake, without which we cannot win the argument for peacekeeping at home.

Finally, to those who call for greater U.S. participation and payment for peacekeeping, I would remind them that the United States is and always has been the largest contributor to the UN system, with total expected contributions this year of around $3 billion. (GPF note: the US owes the UN $1.875 billion ($1.3 billion to the peacekeeping budget) - just 58% of arrears to the UN. This is also the figure the US is assessed to pay for the regular and peacekeeping budget.) (Mine--We withheld UN dues because members of our govt felt we were being screwed. I did, too.)

The United States looks forward to concluding our discussions with UN members by December -- just over two months from now. By then, we need agreement on an improved financial structure for peacekeeping. If we succeed, the UN will reap an immediate benefit: we will be able to release nearly $600 million towards our peacekeeping arrears. With a reformed financial structure in place, we can all turn to the challenge of making peacekeeping more effective. This is an opportunity that neither we nor the UN can afford to miss. The time to act is now.
------------
The bolds are for emphasis.

Thats a joke <angry>

I dig for three hours to come up with all kinds of official actual statistics, which you blatantly choose to ignore wholesale - you google up a sabre-rattling op-ed with unsubstantiated numbers - and you're asking me whether I "dispute the numbers"?

I wouldnt know where to start! What, that the US has spent "11 billion $" of unspecified costs on unspecified peacekeeping operations? Or do you mean the kind of "numbers" like, "the figure could be as low as $1.8 billion" and "bringing the sum to perhaps $15 billion"?

I'm giving up on reasoning with your kind of rhetorics. You're either here to learn something together, or to be fighting your way out of whichever corner you find yourself in as if thats all that mattered. <shrugs>

Sofia: Nimh won't read your excellent presentation. I find your figures to be correct.

Nimh like most of the left wing simply won't confront facts which shatter their absurd preconceptions.

What I find it difficult to understand, Sofia, as to how people like Nimh can hate the USA so fiercely that he would see it lose its soverignty to the UN.

I think Mr. DeKere told the truth the Real world recognizes when he said:

There is a huge problem with grating nations equal voting simply because nations are not created equal.

THAT IS REALPOLITIK.

The Enconomists know more about control than the "game players" in the UN.

Just one example will suffice. Turkey may indeed send some of its troops to Iraq to help police the country.

Why?

8 Billion in loan guarantees from the USA.

That is realpolitik and like it or not, that is what makes the bottom line, not to posturing speeches by some Idiot from Rwanda.

Italgato,

Sofia's posted articles had very little in way of fact. Your generalization about the left here is ironic. In nimh's posts you can find the facts. Facts that are conspicuously absent from Sofia's articles.

Sofia questioned the fairness of the US and Japan carrying such a load. But she doesn;t see anything wrong with the US and Japan being so disproportionately rich.

To be honest I agree that the UN needs fiscal reform. I'd like to see the US pay a share proportionate to it's capability BUT also get a weighted vote in accord with its standing.

What Sofia and yourself completely ignore is the straightforward agreement the US agreed to.

Regardless of what you think the UN dues SHOULD be there is a verifiable reality in which anyone with a little curiosity can look up what they ARE.

You might think any US military spending should be able to count toward the US's UN dues. You might be right in that it SHOULD. But that has little to do with the reality that the US helped create and that the US agreed to.

Membership dues are a straight forward expense that has nothing to do with voluntary military spending.

Your claim that nimh does not wish to read the "facts" is absurd beyond comprehension.

nimh provided the research anyone needs to show what payment plan the US has agreed to and where it stands in meeting those obligations.

Sofia countered with an op-ed that says the US military spending should count toward UN dues (despite the fact that it does not work this way for anyone and that the US agreed to the current framework). Furthermore it's an absurd notion that the UN should OWE the US.

In short, nimh reported what IS fact. Sofia posted a screed about what the conservative vociferator thought SHOULD be the way things work.

Put this to the test in your daily life.

Sign up for a financial obligation, say, like a celluar phone.

Agree to the rate and contract they stipulate.

Then call them up halfway through and tell them what you think you should pay, be so bold as to suggest that they should owe you.

Tell them that despite the clear contract terms you are the one who possesses the "facts". Tell them they are too afraid to read it.

See how far you go.

Bottom line: the US agreed to a payment plan that it has not met. What it SHOULD be is something every loudmouth has an idea on. But what it SHOULD be does not change the FACTS of what IS and what WAS AGREED TO by the US.

You are absolutely correct. One example is indeed enough to illustrate the absurdity of your ratiocination:

A) The war in Iraq is not a UN action and has as much to do with UN dues as my purchase of classic midget porn.

B) A loan guarantee to Turkey is not something in which the US will lose money. It is simply the US permitting Turkey to get a loan through the financial institutions that through enormous debt the US has a say in.

C) Even if the war in Iraq were a UN sanctioned action it would have nothing to do with basic membership dues.

Again, for those unwilling to read "facts" that are clearly available:

UN basic membership dues have nothing whatsoever to do with any amount spent on a military or humanitarian action.

UN basic membership dues are payments that the member nations have agreed to pay in order to be a part of the UN at all.

The conservative drive to withold this money simply reflects the conservatives' desire to undermine the UN and dissasociate the US from it.

The US agreed to pay X, it did not pay X. What the conservatives think the US SHOULD pay has nothing to do with what the US agreed to pay and did not pay.

Mr. De Kere: Did you not say that
"There is a huge problem with granting nations equal voting simply because nations are not created equal"?

That is an admission that "realpolitik" drives the UN>

That is the gist of what I was driving at.

I am amused at some of the Utopian schemes that are presented by the Nimh's on this thread.

It is MY OPINION that fuzzy minded thinking which does not realize that some of our modern theorists have decided that there is NO HUMAN NATURE to be considered, is precisely what has led to failure after failure in the arena of the United Nations.

The Nations are NOT United and they never will be.

Italgato did you not posit as an example a figure of 8 billion that represents and ammount that most likely will never leave US coffers and for a goal that has nothing to do with UN dues?

Yes you did.

Did the US agree to pay basic membership dues that have nothing to do with valid UN sanctioned actions?

Yes the US did.

Has the US paid the basic membership dues the US agreed to?

No the US has not.

Is your example even one in which a valid UN sanctioned action is mentioned?

No it's not.

Did your example illustrate the fuzzy logic people use to take fictional figures (the 8 billion that will never be in the payables column) and try to apply them to UN dues when it is a financial dealing that has absolutely nothing to do with the UN?

Yes, quite clearly.

Again, the UN has a basic membership fee. Let's compare it to a cellular phone paln in which the fee represents the basic month-to-month fee for which a certain amount of minutes is made available (the basic service represents the basic membership eligibility in the UN).

What you and Sofia are trying to do is add up the minutes from the landline and the cost for the new golden toilet seat and try to apply it to the basic subscription fee from your cell phone.

Now you can argue that it SHOULD be a way to pay UN dues. That is open to debate.

But the service terms that the US agreed to are clear and do not represent your wishes.

So, reality does not reflect your wish, this is lamentable. But to say nimh has an adversion to "facts" while you are positing unrelated "ought to"s as "facts" is simply false.

The US agreed to a payment term that it did not meet. If you want to dispute the current amount the US owes make sure your arguments are centered on what the agreement IS and not what you think it SHOULD be.

Disputes between countries will be settled by the leaders of their respected countries donning boxing gloves and slugging it out.

Mr. De Kere: I care nothing about UN dues.

I care about realpolitik. You are the one who said that nations were unequal. I agreed with you.

My OPINION about dues is simple.

They are living in our country. They do quite well here.

I have heard that some UN staff members cry when they have to go back to some godawful jungle.

They should pay us for the privilege.

I have no documentation for those last remarks.

I am shamelessly disregarding the Guidelines.

It is my Opinion.

I really have never understood why some half-baked barely educated Third World misbegotten denizen from a mud hut should fiercely criticize the host country with what is usually one sided condemnations.

Some say it is because they are envious of our country's economic and military power.


If so, that is another reason why the organization will never work.
It contains members who exhibit the worst side of Human Nature.

Italgato

I really would consider to change some of the drugs, you are taking!

Mr. Hinteler:

You say:

"I really would consider to change some of the drugs you are taking"

I am afraid that I am not sure that I understand.

You see, Mr. Hinteler, the structure of the sentence you wrote reveals that you are thinking in German.

Anyone writing in English and THINKING IN ENGLISH would have written.

"I really think that you should consider changing some of the drugs you are taking"

You see, Mr. Hinteler, as we have discussed in the past, you obvioulsly don't understand Nuances since you really don't fully understand English.

Take some more courses first.

And, by the way, if you consider vitamins drugs, I must tell you that I will not stop taking those. I am very sorry.

Hosting the UN is a privilidge Italgato. I am sure teh diplomats enjoy comfortable settings but the notion that providing confortable accomodations for visiting diplomats should translate into the whole world owing us is ludicrous.

Not only do your comments not have documentation but I have documentation to contradict them.

The diplomats are generally well educated, are rarely ever baked and do not generally live in a "mud hut" back in their country.

When you condemn human nature in that post you issue a declaration of unmistakable irony.

In any case, yes, I agree that not all nations are considered equal. But I believe we draw very different conclusions from this.

And who do you think created the United Nations, Mr. DeKere? Patrice Lumumba?

Quote

"With other senators on the Committee--Hatch, Ball, Harold Burton-Truman was giving more and more thought to problems of the postwar world. And though he played no direct part in the drafting of a Senate resolution for the establishment of a post war international organization, a United Nations..Truman was the guiding spirit."

P. 287- "Truman" by McCullouch

Another reason why the other countries of the world should be beholden to us. We gave them the opportunity to gather here in the UN.

The countries of the world, especially the "mud-hut" countries, have profited immensely from the Billions and billions of dollars shoveled into the Third World by the UN. A very large portion of that aid came from the USA.

Again, we are the host country. There would be no UN if it was not for us. But the Third World representatives come to the UN. They have symbolically spit on our flag many times- burning with envy and spite.

Italgato,

Rhetoric won't work with me. When I referenced irony earlier it was in regard to your indictment of the negative elements of human nature while manefesting some of the ugly traits themselves.

No the world should not be "beholden" to the US any more than the whole state should venerate the enormous testicle I plan to develop.

It's odd that such an occurance such as the creation of a global body makes some think that eternal subjugation is in order.

These are usualy the same people who downplay any past shortcoming.

I ask you Italgato whether all Americans should be eternally beholden to the Indians who are our hosts?

It's as ludicrous a notion.