Finally found a breakdown on the 11 billion.
Its an iffy source, so I'll find another to support it.
We Gave -- and Gave and Gave -- At the Office
President Clinton, former UN Ambassador and now Secretary of State Madeleine Albright and other top officials have repeatedly echoed -- and, thereby, legitimated -- the charge that the United States is the world's biggest deadbeat when it comes to paying its "dues" to the United Nations. In fact, as a study performed last year by the General Accounting Office shows, the arrearage of some $1.3 billion to which this criticism refers is much more than offset by the unreimbursed costs of U.S. involvement in various UN peacekeeping operations conducted from 1992-1995.
Specifically, the GAO found that during this period, the U.S. laid out $1.6 billion for the Haiti operation; $2.2 billion for the former Yugoslavia; nearly $600 million for Rwanda; and $2.2 billion for Somalia. Of these sums only $79.4 million has been reimbursed by the UN; $1.8 billion has been credited as U.S. "dues." This leaves an outstanding balance due the U.S. of some $4.7 billion or $3.4 billion more than the United States "owes" the UN. While more current numbers are not available to the Center at this writing, it is a safe bet that the continuing costs of UN-mandated peacekeeping operations in places like Haiti, Bosnia, Macedonia and Rwanda that are still being borne by the United States are even larger -- and still substantially unreimbursed.
Lest there be any doubt, this is real money. Much of it has been provided by the taxpayer and allocated by the Congress for very different purposes than those to which it has been applied. For example, over the period examined by the GAO, the Defense Department was obliged to divert some $3.4 billion -- coincidentally, approximately the amount the UN "owes" the United States -- from already cash-strapped modernization, research and development and readiness-related accounts.
--------
The GAO won't link me. I'll keep trying.
U.N. needs 'full Iran N-access'
Tuesday, September 30, 2003 Posted: 7:18 AM EDT (1118 GMT)
Ultimatum: ElBaradei has asked for access to all of Iran's nuclear sites.
VIENNA, Austria (Reuters) -- The U.N. nuclear watchdog chief has said he will need full and unlimited cooperation from Iran to verify Tehran's insistence that it has no secret atomic weapons programme.
Iran said on Monday it would limit the International Atomic Energy Agency's (IAEA) access to declared nuclear sites when inspectors arrive this week ahead of an October 31 deadline for Iran to show it has no nuclear weapons programme.
However, to verify Iran's claims about its controversial uranium-enrichment programme and other aspects of Iran's atomic activities, the IAEA needs access to facilities that have not been officially declared as nuclear sites.
"If we cannot have full cooperation, full disclosure, unfortunately I'll have to say that I am not able to verify the Iranian statements (that their nuclear programme is purely peaceful)," IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei told reporters Tuesday.
Iran has until the end of October to convince the IAEA that it has not been diverting resources to covertly make an atomic bomb, as the United States and other countries have alleged.
If ElBaradei tells the IAEA governing board at its November meeting that he cannot verify the Iranian statements, the board would have to report Iran to the U.N. Security Council for possible economic and diplomatic sanctions.
ElBaradei said that IAEA inspectors were leaving on Wednesday for talks in Iran scheduled to begin on Thursday.
He said the priority was understanding the nature of Iran's uranium enrichment programme, which Washington says would be used to purify uranium for use in a nuclear explosive device -- a charge Iran denies.
"The most important issue (is) the nature and extent of Iran's uranium enrichment programme and that's our number one priority," he said.
The IAEA has found weapons-grade uranium at two sites in Iran, diplomats told Reuters, which has raised suspicion that Iran has long been making enriched uranium -- a key element in a nuclear weapon.
Iran says that this is due to contamination, but that explanation has met with scepticism inside and outside the IAEA.
Originally Iran had said that its enrichment programme began in 1997, but recently changed its story and told the agency that it began in 1985. This has made understanding the programme even more urgent than it was before, ElBaradei said.
"We need to reconstruct a two-decade old programme," he said.
And after the UN is told to go scratch which IMO will happen. What do you think the UN will do? Run off like a puppy with it's tail between it's legs and pass another resolution?
Au do you think the US has any right to do anything other than economic sanctions against Iran?
Craven
I think the US should sit back and observe the UN in action. And stay the hell out of it.
Au, but what should the UN do?
What many Americans fail to realize is that there is no god-given American right to dictate to everyone that they can't have the very weapons we have and continue to develop.
By it's nature this is tricky. It's not like we have a right to demand this of Iran. Coaxing and such are necessary.
Frankly I think Iran needs and deserves nukes.
Craven
I think it is time for the UN to **** or get off the pot.
So you think the UN should get over the idea of Iran having nukes? Or that they should do just what?
The UN has as little say in this as does the US.
For too long the permanent members of the security council have enforced their will on the world.
I think they should realize the new geo-political situation, or get off the pot !
Craven
I agree with you. I was reflecting on action taken by the UN not the US.
As to the question whether Iran has the right to nuclear weapons. I believe trying to stop any nation who wants them is the same as trying to hold back the tide.
The way I see it every single sitizen should have their own nuclear weapon. Otherwise we are all "defenseless".
There would be a lot fewer break-ins if we all had a nuke!
A chicken in every pot and a nuke in every backyard!
Well, Craven, Henry IV said first that everybody should have a chicken in his pot.
So we are back to France ... ... ...
Craven
Do you think the UN's issuing of ultimatums that they can't enforce solves the problem? Or just strengthens the paper tiger label.
What ultimatums? I belive you might be talking about a different Iran than I am.
All the UN will do is declare Iran in violation and if the member states want to do anything about it they will either do it or propose a resolution.
The UN has not been threatening anything other than declaring Iran in violation.
You mean the U.N. atomic agency board's ultimatum, au? (The IAEA = International Atomic Energy Agency, hosts this board.)
The U.N. nuclear watchdog chief has said he will need full and unlimited cooperation from Iran to verify Tehran's insistence that it has no secret atomic weapons programme.
Iran said on Monday it would limit the International Atomic Energy Agency's (IAEA) access to declared nuclear sites when inspectors arrive this week ahead of an October 31 deadline for Iran to show it has no nuclear weapons programme.
However, to verify Iran's claims about its controversial uranium-enrichment programme and other aspects of Iran's atomic activities, the IAEA needs access to facilities that have not been officially declared as nuclear sites.
If we cannot have full cooperation, full disclosure, unfortunately I'll have to say that I am not able to verify the Iranian statements (that their nuclear programme is purely peaceful)," IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei told reporters Tuesday
[Iran has until the end of October to convince the IAEA that it has not been diverting resources to covertly make an atomic bomb,
Or what?That wording would to me pose an ultimatum
Walter
The threat of sanctions would qualify, would they not.
If ElBaradei tells the IAEA governing board at its November meeting that he cannot verify the Iranian statements, the board would have to report Iran to the U.N. Security Council for possible economic and diplomatic sanctions.
Mr. De Kere was the one who wrote:
Punishment for nations who engage in trade wars.
If he has not read Friedman's the Lexus and the Olive Tree" which holds that "punishment" for countries who engage in trade wars should not come from the UN( as Mr. De Kere holds) it is not my fault.
Mr. Friedman states that trade and commerce, in the final analysis, is LARGELY controlled by INVESTORS( global investors out of the reach of the almost impotent UN). Those investors are the ones who will decide whether a country's economy is strong enough for investment- not the UN.
I saw no response to Sofia's last post. It was an excellent post.
However, I must be honest. I am very much afraid that the USA has always been a treacherous country.
Some people say that we saved Europe with the Marshall Plan.
That was a clever ruse. You see, the American Plutocrats just wanted to get into Europe so that they could exploit the people there.
Sofia found a breakdown on the 11 Billion. No response to her.
Sofia- I am afraid that you are politically incorrect. Sorry- You reasearched it for naught.
