Changes needed to make a more effective UN

Dear Italgato,

I really don't care what you have read. You have mentioned it before and I have what may come as a surprise to you:

It matters not a whit what ratiocination is touted in the books you mention ad nauseum.

Frankly in this case you are making precious little sense as invenstors do not dictate tarrifs.

Sofia is still insisting that what the US agreed to pay should not be paid for because of unrelated figures.

I agreed to pay about 40 dollars a month for my cell phone bill.

I paid an exhorbitant amount on my landline but for some strange reason my cell phone provider refuses to admit that they OWE ME!

Odd, they must be too "politically correct".

In any case I am waiting for Sofia to provide a link as she promised. I would like to very carefully go through the numbers and will not shortchange you guys on this.

On the link I am waiting. I will address this given the time opportunity and most of all patience.

The total disconcern for what the facts ARE with a preference for what-should-be-if-you-hate-the-UN while discussing what IS and not the "should be" is very tiring.

See, what the future agreement should be IS open to discussion (once the US pays up) but that has nothing to do with what IS owed.

It's an inconvenient fact the anti-UN crowd likes to gloss over. I will entertain Sofia's numbers (they are exactly the numbers I ahve been expecting to come out of the figure) once they are cited. I'd not like to waste time refuting something before she is ready as in the past this has caused confusion.

finally...

I can't seem to find a way to bring the excerpt I want. I'll keep trying.

In addition to paying for the assessments for U.N. peacekeeping missions,
the United States often provides voluntary support for the operations. As
noted in table 1, during fiscal years 1992 through 1995, the U.S. costs for
supporting U.N.-sanctioned peace operations in Haiti, the former
Yugoslavia, Rwanda, and Somalia was about $6.6 billion. This includes
about $1.34 billion in assessments, and an additional $5.26 billion for other
support. For example, in addition to making payments of $786 million in
assessments for the operation in the former Yugoslavia for these years.,
DOD incurred incremental costs of $784 million when it helped enforce
the no-fly zone over Bosnia with other NATO members, provided close air
support for U.N. peacekeepers, launched air strikes against parties that
attacked safe areas, flew humanitarian airdrops with meals-ready-to-eat
and other necessities for besieged enclaves, and operated a hospital in
Croatia for U.N. peacekeepers.
-------------
This, from the GAO.

Thanks, Sofia.


I was sure, you found some others with your opinion!


However, as Craven already said x-times ....

Table 1: U.S. Costs in Support of
Selected U.N. Peace Operations, Fiscal
Years 1992-95 Fiscal years
Dollars in millions
Country 1992-95
Haiti Total
(U.S. assessment)
$1,616.7
(52.4)
Former Yugoslavia
Total
(U.S. assessment)
2,186.9
(786.0)
Rwanda Total
(U.S. assessment)
573.7
(109.5)
Somalia Total
(U.S. assessment)
2,223.1
(388.7)
Total
(U.S. assessment)
$6,600.4
(1,336.6)
Note: As of August 1995, the United Nations had reimbursed the United States $79.4 million for its
participation in these operations.

Other U.S. agencies also provide voluntary support for peacekeeping
operations. Like DOD's support, most of this assistance is not contributed
directly to the peace operations but helps create environments in which
operations can take place. For example, in fiscal years 1992 through 1995,
the U.S. Agency for International Development spent over $480 million for
activities in Haiti such as training the Haitian police force in conducting
criminal investigations, funding the human rights monitoring mission, and
providing food and health services for the population.
------------
The indirect money should be applied to the total money a country spends of UN programs, in my opinion, to give a clear picture of US expenditures on behalf of UN programs. This is why I consider it unfair and dishonest to continue to say that the US is behind on our obligations to the UN. To characterise this country as a deadbeat nation in light of the incredible burden we have accepted, both financially, and militarily, is just plain wrong.

It is from the GAO, Walter. The record keepers of US expenditures.

It may interest you that most or all of the articles I brought earlier were from globalpolicy, the same location nimh found his material.

Thanks Sofia. When I get a chance I will go over the numbers.

Take your time.

Commentary > John Hughes
from the October 01, 2003 edition

The UN and US need each other

By John Hughes

SALT LAKE CITY – In pleading last week for UN support for the postwar reconstruction effort in Iraq, President Bush made quite a U-turn in his administration's policy. Meanwhile, at the very same UN session where Mr. Bush signaled this direction, UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan declared that the UN has "come to a fork in the road," and gave its members a year to think about serious UN reforms.

It looks as though both the US and the UN need a new road map to define the relationship between them.
Actually, after waging the war pretty much alone except for help from Britain, the Bush administration seems to be recognizing the advantages of multilateralism, in which the UN is currently a preeminent institution. Rebuffed and stung by the Security Council as he sought multilateral support for the war, Bush nevertheless told UN members last week it was time to work together and "move forward." Thus he hopes to put to work in Iraq a UN infrastructure whose core budget is substantially less than what is currently being asked of the US Congress for Iraq. Meanwhile UN peacekeeping is also relatively cheap. It typically costs less worldwide in a year than the combined budgets of the New York City fire and police departments
For its part, the UN is smarting from charges of irrelevance following its abstention from the liberation of Iraq. Despite a string of UN resolutions condemning Saddam Hussein, a French-led campaign designed to curb American influence succeeded in preventing the Security Council's blessing of the US action. But the reality is that American political, military, and economic influence in the world is immense, and that reality is reflected at the UN, however the French or other nations may bridle.
One problem is that the five permanent members of the Security Council who hold veto power - France, Britain, China, the US, and Russia - no longer represent the world's power structure as it existed in 1945. (Ten other seats are filled by countries that are elected for two-year terms and do not wield a veto).
As Shashi Tharoor, one of Mr. Annan's key advisers, wrote recently in "Foreign Affairs," the Council has "acted unwisely at times and failed to act altogether at others. Sometimes it only muddles through. As Dag Hammarskjold put it, the UN was not created to take humanity to heaven but to save it from hell."
Many schemes have been advanced, and much discussion gone nowhere, for the restructuring of the Security Council. The US in the past has supported giving permanent seats to Japan and Germany (at which the Italians cry, "Why not us?") and expanding Council membership to 21. Strong arguments have been advanced for including Brazil and India (at which the Pakistanis cry, "Foul!").
A frustrated Annan scolded UN members last week, telling them: "The difficulty of reaching agreement does not excuse your failure to do so." He told them he had set up a panel of "eminent personalities" to report back in a year with their recommendations for change and reform.
The irony is that despite recent tensions, the US now clearly needs the endorsement and help of the UN in Iraq, and the UN clearly needs the support of the US, without which the international organization would indeed become irrelevant and founder.
Since its inception after World War II, the UN has established an extraordinary record in extending humanitarian aid to millions. Emaciated children have been saved from starvation, refugees housed, diseases overcome and sometimes, as with smallpox, eradicated. It has promoted democracy and monitored free elections in emerging countries. It has underpinned international agencies checking nuclear proliferation, and early warning weather systems, and international civil aviation standards. It has lost more than a thousand peacekeepers killed and, as we have seen recently in Iraq, some of its key civilian personnel have been murdered by terrorists as they sought to bring food and aid to the needy.
This seems generally recognized by the American public. There are irrational conspiracy-minded critics of the UN, who think they detect clandestine overflights by black UN helicopters, and fear the takeover of national parks by the UN, and an assault on Washington by unnamed peacekeepers.
But the polls show fairly consistent public support of the UN and even of Annan, who in a recent Pew Global Attitudes Project ranked the fourth most respected world leader after Tony Blair, George W. Bush and Ariel Sharon.
Thus the UN is not irrelevant. Its challenge is to reaffirm and substantiate its relevance.
• John Hughes, a former Monitor editor, served as UN assistant secretary-general in 1995.

I see that a lot has been posted since I last was here. I havent read up, and nor will I, because I am still as fed up as I was. (Thats even the reason I havent logged in to A2K again till now.)

I am, however, going to conclude this about the feeling of heart-felt bitterness that the logic of some responses posted back then left me with:

I find there to be something positively distasteful about people decrying and ridiculing the United Nations for being a mere "paper tiger", when you know that they themselves would rather see the UN have as little force of power as possible. When you know that they cite - and back - politicians who have done their every best to ensure that the UN would indeed remain a paper tiger - and would be undermined in every way possible even as such.

"Distasteful"? Yes. Because to me, they remind me of an abusive husband or wife, one who will put his/her partner down at every chance, use every opportunity to make sure (s)he is left insecure, hapless and disempowered - and then will turn right back at her/him to blast her/him for being so "weak" and so "pathetic". It turns your stomach.

Even someone who just sincerely comes out and says, I hate the idea of anything remotely like a world government, so every move that will leave the UN weaker is good news to me, is a lot better than the sanctimonious crap of, ah, the UN, just a talking club, by people who will in the meantime do everything they have to do to make it remain exactly that.

Yeh, so, of course, vain old fool that I am, I did cursory browse through the posts to at least see what lines might have been personally addressed to me -

(thats the one thing that always gets me in trouble (as it will again now), for one, because it has me focus on trivial **** instead of the actual question, and two, because its the one thing that'll get you in a flame-ish mood) ... and, coming across this one:



... I can promise without reservation, that should I ever find Sofia admit in the same vein that she was just simply wrong, made some stupid mistake, with no excuses or further assertions - I will excuse her mistake and honest admission of it as immediately and graciously as she did mine. It is, after all, a rare thing to see anyone do in these "Politics" domains.

I don't understand why A2K hasn't followed the recent scandal at the UN.

The internal interviews with UN personnel result in a very disturbing structural corruption. The Oil For Food fiasco is reportedly the tip of the iceburg.

Our money seems to have found it's way into several Savile Row pockets.

Wonder about the staunch backing Saddam received now from the UN--and the implications it's future.

What is the European translation for Good Ole Boy Network...?

Sofia

Where there is money to be stolen there will always be someone to steal it. As for the UN, remember it is the gathering place of the world thieves err politicians. Need I say more?

"European Commission"

You may find it amusing that your money has been stolen.

I'm not happy that mine has.

If you find it so amusing, just mail Annan and his crooks some cash.

It also seems quite apparent that since the Oil For Food program has been such a cash cow for the theives in the UN, they would seek to keep the money coming. Not hard to imagine they led a crusade to refuse to force Saddam from in power--and keep their cash coming.

As the interviews proved, there is a system of theft and duplicity at the UN. How can they be trusted with anything anymore?

Yeah! What do they think they are US congress people?

Change Needed to Make UN more Effective--
1) Countries cease sending their own humanitarian funds directly to other countries. The UN becomes the point of all Humanitarian aid. UN dues are taken off the top.

Sofia writes:


I haven't figured that one out, Sofia. When I brought it up, I was somewhat impolitely advised that I was suggesting shameful, unfounded, unproven allegations against that august body who is so much wiser and more moral than the US administration that rebuffed it. (paraphrased....a lot) So I dropped it.

I am following it privately, however, and still maintain this could be the biggest scandal of the most far reaching scope that has ever been swept under a rug.