U.S. out of the U.N.?

Walter Hinteler wrote:

timberlandko wrote:
Arrears aside, it should be noted The US nonetheless is and always has been the single largest benefactor of the UN.

Keeping the outstanding contributions aside, and not looking at the seize and population of e.g. Japan or Luxembourg: yes :wink:

FY 2003 top 12 contributors to the UN Budget:

1) U.S.: $283 Million
2) Japan: $218 Million
3) Germany: $109 Million
4) France: $72 Million
5) Britain: $62 Million
6) Italy: $57 Million
7) Canada: $29 Million
8) Spain: $28 Million
9) Netherlands: $19 Million
19) China: $17 Million
11) Russia: $13 Million
12) Argentina: $13 Million

Data: BBC

Between them, the US and Japan contributed more than the remaining 10 combined. The US alone contributed more than did Germany, France, Canada, The Netherlands, China, Russia, and Argentina combined. Hypocritical or not, The US, one nation out of 191 member nations, provides roughly 1/4 (24.6%, 2003) of the UN's total budget. Certainly The US could do more, perhaps it should. Never the less, every other member nation does less.

0 Replies

Pertinent article today:

Quote:

All of which makes even more urgent a serious reevaluation of the ability of the United Nations. The time may be coming when Uncle Sam will have to say "Enough!"

Is the United Nations Worth Saving?
by William Rusher
Posted Nov 24, 2004

For a good many years, it has been a fair question whether or not the United Nations is more trouble than it's worth. For the first 15 years of its existence, from 1945 to 1960, it served its purpose as a handy forum for the world's variegated nations, and even occasionally served a useful purpose -- as in 1950, when it lent its name to the American-led war to defend South Korea from the North Korean invasion. (Though even that was possible only because the Soviet Union, which could have vetoed the move, had temporarily walked out of the Security Council in a huff over something or other.)

But then, about 1960, a flood of new ex-colonial nations entered the world body, and quickly organized themselves as the Third World, ostensibly neutral in the epochal struggle between the Communist powers and the Free World. By virtue of sheer numbers this new entity seized control of the General Assembly -- and with it control of the United Nations' central bureaucracy -- and began selling itself to the higher of the two global bidders: Washington and Moscow. Slowly, however, under the leadership of India, the Third World began siding regularly with Moscow, and the United Nations followed suit.

This thoroughly unsatisfactory state of affairs lasted until the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991. That forced the Untied Nations, which, like any bureaucracy, is interested first and foremost in self-preservation, to seek a new sponsor. In the past decade, as France and Germany have increasingly seen themselves as the leaders of Europe in an effort to create a counterbalance to the American superpower; the United Nations has progressively yielded to their guidance. Today, it is little more than a marginally useful tool in their schemes to rein in the United States.

That is one reason why, in 2002 and 2003, the United Nations did its unsuccessful best to block the American invasion of Iraq, despite Saddam Hussein's defiance of 12 successive U.N. demands that it abandon its development of chemical, biological and (if possible) nuclear weapons of mass destruction. And that is also why U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan is today contending that any American military effort is "illegal" if Washington doesn't first receive the United Nations' permission.

All this would be more than enough reason for the United States to withdraw formally from all participation in the United Nations' brazen efforts to run the world. But recently it has become clear that the Secretariat of the United Nations, or at least many highly placed officials in it, are quite simply corrupt. The United Nations' appalling mismanagement of the high-minded "Oil for Food" program, under which Hussein was allowed to sell Iraqi oil ostensibly in return for desperately needed food and medical aid for his people, may well turn out to be the biggest instance of thievery in the entire world history of theft.

As the program actually worked, the United Nations allowed Hussein to sell oil to chosen beneficiaries at artificially low prices -- oil which they could then resell at the market price, pocketing the difference. The beneficiaries apparently included U.N. officials and (not surprisingly) well-placed French, German and Russian players. Small wonder that their governments, and the United Nations itself, bitterly opposed George W. Bush's intention to topple Hussein!

The scope of the corruption is now under investigation by the panel appointed Annan and led by Paul Volcker, the former Federal Reserve chairman, who is personally above suspicion. But Volcker seems to be having difficulty getting the cooperation he needed from Annan's office, and he may be forced to report that he is not being allowed to do the job that needs to be done.

A better avenue of investigation, therefore, may be the Congressional committee headed by Minnesota's Republican senator, Norm Coleman. This committee, too, has reported that it is running into foot-dragging at the United Nations. But it will press on, and there is reason to hope that it will come up with some answers, however shocking they may be.

All of which makes even more urgent a serious reevaluation of the ability of the United Nations. The time may be coming when Uncle Sam will have to say "Enough!"

Mr. Rusher is a Distinguished Fellow of the Claremont Institute for the Study of Statesmanship and Political Philosophy.

http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=5885

0 Replies

Foxy
Unfortunately true.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

The UN only has as much legitimacy as the US gives it. The more we flaunt the UN, the less it's going to work.

It COULD be our strongest ally/enforcement arm for what needs doing in the world, but that would take some, oh, I don't know, signs of leadership and compromise on our part? We aren't very good at leading OR compromising...

Cycloptichorn

A little late on my response, but I like it when people speak rationally rather than emotionally.
the US has to begin thinking (and I mean really thinking) about the world (that they have made their mandate to keep safe) and understand that there will come a time when the UN will work for them.
Smaller nations rely on organizations like the UN..and I would contend that reform is a much better solution.
But then again, I'm not American.

0 Replies

Personally I wouldn't trust anything that is being investigated by republicans in congress.

0 Replies

What would you prefer congress to investigate? The success rate of gay "marriages"? Sexual side effects of nipple piercings? But I digress....

0 Replies

timberlandko wrote:

Walter Hinteler wrote:
timberlandko wrote:
Arrears aside, it should be noted The US nonetheless is and always has been the single largest benefactor of the UN.

Keeping the outstanding contributions aside, and not looking at the seize and population of e.g. Japan or Luxembourg: yes :wink:

FY 2003 top 12 contributors to the UN Budget:

1) U.S.: $283 Million
2) Japan: $218 Million
3) Germany: $109 Million
4) France: $72 Million
5) Britain: $62 Million
6) Italy: $57 Million
7) Canada: $29 Million
8) Spain: $28 Million
9) Netherlands: $19 Million
19) China: $17 Million
11) Russia: $13 Million
12) Argentina: $13 Million

Data: BBC

Between them, the US and Japan contributed more than the remaining 10 combined. The US alone contributed more than did Germany, France, Canada, The Netherlands, China, Russia, and Argentina combined. Hypocritical or not, The US, one nation out of 191 member nations, provides roughly 1/4 (24.6%, 2003) of the UN's total budget. Certainly The US could do more, perhaps it should. Never the less, every other member nation does less.

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Keeping the outstanding contributions aside, and not looking at the seize and population of e.g. Japan or Luxembourg: yes :wink:

:wink:

0 Replies

The National Review is calling for Kofi Annan's head in its new subscription edition. "You're Fired!" says the cover (Trump style)

CBS picked up the story here:

U.N. secretary general Kofi Annan should either resign, if he is honorable, or be removed, if he is not. The mild-mannered Annan may not himself be corrupt. But he has presided over no less than the largest corruption scandal in the history of the world, Oil for Food. Never has the U.N. been more disrespectable or useless. Moreover, Annan's response to the scandal has been inadequate to the point of disgrace. That he still holds his post is testament to the culture of impunity that pervades the organization.

Annan's apparently congenital reluctance to move forcefully when necessity requires stems partly from his corporatist background: He has worked for the U.N. almost continuously since 1962. He is the original Organization Man, the first of the seven secretaries general to ascend to the top of the greasy pole from entirely within the U.N. He lacks the drive, and the desire, to tame the beast he inherited. Annan is a man willingly in thrall to his employer's unaccountable and inefficient bureaucracy, and a servant of its patronage machine.

To this end -- protecting the U.N.'s comfortable status quo and keeping the gravy train rolling along -- he has hindered efforts to uncover the massive scale of the Oil for Food fraud, a fraud involving his own staff. Through Paul Volcker, the former Federal Reserve chairman who heads Annan's "independent" commission looking into the Iraqi affair, he has apparently refused to release 55 internal audit reports and other key documents, such as interviews with senior U.N. staff, to a Senate investigative committee.

Though his commission lacks subpoena power, possesses little transparency, and labors under almost no external oversight -- what else could be expected of a U.N. commission? -- Volcker has promised to circulate a full, detailed report on the fraud next year. Already, however, five congressional hearings and three federal departmental investigations are discovering that the scandal is even larger than once believed: As much as $21.3 billion disappeared (double the original estimates), allegedly with the connivance of senior U.N. bureaucrats, foreign banks, and certain members of the Security Council. Some of this money was diverted into the pockets of the families of Palestinian suicide bombers; some of it was skimmed off to sympathetic agents of influence in the form of bribes; some of it was spent on purchasing munitions and illegal weaponry; and some of it, no doubt, is being used to fund the insurgency killing Coalition personnel in Iraq and, lest we forget, Iraqi civilians and officials as well.

The Oil for Food scheme was originally established to provide humanitarian aid for Iraqis suffering from Saddam Hussein's manipulation of the sanctions regime to sway international public opinion. How unpleasantly ironic, then, that the very same scheme became part of that very same manipulation thanks to the very same people trusted to prevent that manipulation. One would think, if only to clear his own conscience, that Annan would use this opportunity to pursue any leads energetically and, for once, force the U.N. to clean house -- from top to bottom and in full view of the public so that the secretariat might salvage at least some semblance of moral authority from this disaster.

In October 2003, in another irony, the U.N. General Assembly adopted the "United Nations Convention against Corruption." At the time, Annan said, "Corruption hurts the poor disproportionately -- by diverting funds intended for development, undermining a government's ability to provide basic services, feeding inequality and injustice, and discouraging foreign investment and aid." Wise words.

Annan seems intent on finishing his term of office, which ends in 2006. Two more years of defending his errant subordinates from exposure and possible criminal proceedings would be two years too many. Annan must assume responsibility for their malfeasance -- and make way for a new secretary general who sees reform of the United Nations as his primary task.

0 Replies

Einherjar, sorry, but I just don't see how the point raised by Walter and endorsed above by yourself is at all relevant to the incontravertable fact The US is the largest single donor the UN, and by itself contributes more than do Germany, France, Canada, The Netherlands, China, Russia, and Argentina combined. Regardless your opinion, those are the facts. Following the dictum "Lead by example", should not the others themselves do more if they wish The US to do more? I find it a bit disingenuous for those who do less to criticize the one who does the most for not doing more.

0 Replies

timberlandko wrote:

Einherjar, sorry, but I just don't see how the point raised by Walter and endorsed above by yourself is at all relevant to the incontravertable fact The US is the largest single donor the UN, and by itself contributes more than do Germany, France, Canada, The Netherlands, China, Russia, and Argentina combined. Regardless your opinion, those are the facts. Following the dictum "Lead by example", should not the others themselves do more if they wish The US to do more? I find it a bit disingenuous for those who do less to criticize the one who does the most for not doing more.

It would seem to me that it is the ones who do the most each (citizens of say Holland and Japan) who are criticizing, and those who do far less than what would be expected from economic comparisons, who are receiving criticism. Each US citizen contributes far less than each citizen of the Netherlands. How can you consider it fair for contributions to be compared without taking this into account?

0 Replies

Einherjar wrote:

How can you consider it fair for contributions to be compared without taking this into account?

Well, that's the US' opinion, and as is said:
"Thou shalt have no other opinions than mine."

0 Replies

Life ain't fair, its at best occasionally just. Don't notice much criticism re US - UN comin' from Japan, now that you mention it, either, but that's irrelevant. If not for The US, there would not have been nor would there be a UN - and I'll acknowledge that but for US of 80-some years ago there might yet be a League of Nations in lieu of the UN, though that is subject to some discussion either way.

The UN is at the seat of the most obscene financial scandal in history. The UN consistently fails to take action in the interest of peace or to enforce its own resolutions - and before you bring up "What about the resolutions against Israel" please research the difference between reolutions pursuant to Chapter VI of the UN Charter, of which are all of the resolutions pertinent to Israel and which call for the principals in a dispute to resolve that dispute through negotiation, and resolutions such as those pertinent to Saddam's Iraq, which are pursuant to Chapter VII of The UN Charter, calling not for negotiation but for compliance on pain of all possible sanction up to and inclusive of military action. The UN has appointed to lead oversight committees the very worst of the offenders those committees are to counter. Faced with threat, the UN consistently cuts and runs. The UN persistently obstructs US interest. The UN does very little of what it is supposed to do, much that no entity should do, and very little that is of benefit to its host nation and chief benefactor, The US. Whether or not The US gets out of the UN, the UN should either change its tune or get out of The US.

0 Replies

timberlandko wrote:

Whether or not The US gets out of the UN, the UN should either change its tune or get out of The US.

The latter would mean, quite some hundred of US-citizens would get the status of "persona non grata", too :wink:

0 Replies

Actions have their consequences. So do inactions.

0 Replies

Einherjar wrote:

timberlandko wrote:
Einherjar, sorry, but I just don't see how the point raised by Walter and endorsed above by yourself is at all relevant to the incontravertable fact The US is the largest single donor the UN, and by itself contributes more than do Germany, France, Canada, The Netherlands, China, Russia, and Argentina combined. Regardless your opinion, those are the facts. Following the dictum "Lead by example", should not the others themselves do more if they wish The US to do more? I find it a bit disingenuous for those who do less to criticize the one who does the most for not doing more.

It would seem to me that it is the ones who do the most each (citizens of say Holland and Japan) who are criticizing, and those who do far less than what would be expected from economic comparisons, who are receiving criticism. Each US citizen contributes far less than each citizen of the Netherlands. How can you consider it fair for contributions to be compared without taking this into account?

So What? Your "per capita" point of view is irrelevant. The U.S. help to maintain the U.N. financially, far more than any other country, regardless of our population.

0 Replies

Earlier this year , France connived with human-rights Champions China and Cuba to toss the US off the UN Human Rights Commission.Americas place was taken by Sudan , and if it's diplomats are not too bogged down with human torture , slave trad , and ethnic cleansing , they are very much looking forward to attending the meetings .
The UN has lost it's mind. most invalved have been bought off somwhere along the line , they no longer hold any creadabilty with me nor with a growing presentage of the US population.

0 Replies

Einherjar wrote:

timberlandko wrote:
Einherjar, sorry, but I just don't see how the point raised by Walter and endorsed above by yourself is at all relevant to the incontravertable fact The US is the largest single donor the UN, and by itself contributes more than do Germany, France, Canada, The Netherlands, China, Russia, and Argentina combined. Regardless your opinion, those are the facts. Following the dictum "Lead by example", should not the others themselves do more if they wish The US to do more? I find it a bit disingenuous for those who do less to criticize the one who does the most for not doing more.

It would seem to me that it is the ones who do the most each (citizens of say Holland and Japan) who are criticizing, and those who do far less than what would be expected from economic comparisons, who are receiving criticism. Each US citizen contributes far less than each citizen of the Netherlands. How can you consider it fair for contributions to be compared without taking this into account?

I think for those who are of the type that are harping about this UN thing; the finer points are just simply beyond them.

What I mean is that is does not matter (to them) if the Netherlands sacrifices more than the US because they are a country that has less capital than the US. The end result is that the US gives more regardless of how much we are capable of giving.

I think the UN would get along fine without the US capital or our participation. Later when we get saner people in charge we can always join it again and I imagine that we would be welcomed back.

Personally I doubt that anything is going to come of any of this; including the US getting out of the UN.

I mean think about this so called scandal. Even if it is true, what are we going to do about it?

0 Replies

So-called scandal? I think only a true, diehard, totally committed neoliberal could twist this scandal into something inconsequential.

0 Replies

Well, I haven't read too much about it on the internet other than from you folks so I don't know too much about it. I hardly ever watch the news so I don't know if it is even discussed by the main media. I am willing to have an open mind, but so far nothing has been proven yet and all we have are allegations.

At the end of the day I doubt anything is going to be done anyway one way or another.

Quote:

true, diehard, totally committed neoliberal..

sticks and stones. I hope you had a good day today.

0 Replies

seeing as you do not know much about this issue , please alow me to clarify the problem a bit . This is not a democrat or republican issue , this is not just about our country , any nation represented in the UN should be consernd . high officials in the UN have been acused of acts witch break the rules the UN it's self created , it is not just a matter of them pissing of the US . the leaders and representatives of many countrys have been acused of stealing money payed into the UN buy Tax payers , for the aid innocent iraq civilians . they have also be acused of trading weapons to sadom , knowing they would be used for the mass murders of innocent people within iraq . This was not an empty acusation , there is substatial evidence implementing guilt . it is too early to make a definitive statement , every person acused should have the chance to defend themselves after an investigation has been completed and reveiwed . however in no way can this be ignored by any country involved with the UN . if crimes were committed , those reponsable must be held acoutable. if they are not the UN will lose all standing with the people it is supposed to represent . it should not matter if you pay in a billion dollars or only a penny , theft is theft , and if the money was not used in the way dictated by UN vote , all of it's members should show great concern.

0 Replies

U.S. out of the U.N.?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know