Get a fresh cup of coffee, this is going to be a long one.
I have been a constant critic of the United Nations. That’s no secret.
And most recently, I posted more thoughts on The Motley Fool:
Well, lets address the issue of the United States arrears on its dues to the United Nations. Actually, I always thought that it was common knowledge that the United States was way behind in its dues payments (I guess it wasn’t common enough though). You should note that despite being threatened with the loss of its vote in the General Assembly because of its arrears, at least as of September 30, 2004, the United States was quite far behind.
The arrears occurred because the US has issues with the formula used to calculate charges. From the site you quoted:
In addition to the bill for 25 percent of the United Nations regular annual $1 billion budget, the United States is charged for 30 percent of the separate, fluctuating peacekeeping budget, which in the coming year is likely to total more than $2.5 billion. Congress has already lowered peacekeeping payments to 25 percent a move seen here as a violation of treaty obligations and is now demanding that the regular budget share be reduced to 22 percent.
That doesn’t even consider the lost revenue of the UN occupying some of the most desired real estate in the world.
Where did they come up with the US’s portion of the budget?
"We consider that the ceiling of 25 percent is already a great privilege because the United States represents 29 percent of the world G.N.P.," Mr. Levitte said in an interview after his speech. "Already the U.S. is paying 4 percent less than its share in world GNP."That’s pretzel logic. They rejected the US request to lower our share of the expenses based on this logic at the time:
"Our growth in the E.U. has been, unfortunately, less impressive than the growth in the United States, and the euro is going down while the dollar is going up," he said. "The E.U. contribution should go down and the U.S. contribution should go up. What we cannot accept is the ceiling going down from 25 percent to 22. It is too unfair. The principle for everybody is the capacity to pay."Needless to say, that justifcation no longer exists. Added with the Asian economic explosion and the skyrocketing Euro, the very logic they used then to stick it to the US should be recourse for the US to substantially lower its dues now.
Japan is also opposed to a lowering of American dues when the Japanese, with just below 15 percent of world G.N.P. is assessed 20.6 percent of the regular United Nations budget.
The problem with the logic used is that "the world" is not a member of the UN. Basing the fees assessed on world GNP serves no logic. Everyone is going to pay a higher percentage than their world portion of the GNP, as some very vibrant economies are not members. Secondly, they use different formulas regarding different aspects. The operations of the UN has one formula, the peacekeeping forces another formula, etc. What this does is compound the cost of those at the top and minimize those at the bottom. Someone can be a member of one aspect of the UN, and not be a member of other aspects, the US is expected to be the major contributor to all aspects. And lastly, it is not a "United Nations". It is an oligarchy whereby one member of an elite few can over-ride the desires of the many. This is why there is basically nothing being done in Africa, Iraq was allowed to fester for a decade, and North and South Korea have been at war for 50 years. If we’re going to be expected to carry 1/3 of all the expenses of the UN, I expect a lot more say-so than France is willing to allow. Get rid of that damned veto power and I’d be a little more receptive to allowing it to continue. Not a lot, but a little more than I am now for sure.
What has to be unnerving is there is a rising tide of animosity towards the United Nations within the US. And, the US citizenry has plenty of reasons to be resentful towards the UN. The Vietnam War was originally a UN mission. The Korean conflict was a UN effort, it’s been fifty years and it’s still not technically over. The Iraqi Conflict of 1991 was a UN effort. That led to the Oil For Food Scandal, the useless no-fly zones, and basically accomplished nothing tangible. Iraq repeatedly violated the terms of the UN ceasefire by interfering with the inspection process to assure they were in compliance and repeatedly attacking US military. During all this, Hussein once again declared "war" on the US, supported several terrorist groups, and paid Palestinians to attack innocent Israeli citizens. In simpler terms, Hussein was a threat to the world the United Nations was supposed to be protecting. And through it all, the United Nations kept claiming the sanctions were working. 9/11 proved to the people of the United States that were not invincible or invulnerable. We needed protection as any other country does. What the UN refused to do subsequent to the US was protect us or even support our efforts to protect ourselves. We were constant targets throughout the world of terrorists, who’s stated motivations were actions the US took in regards to UN directives. But, that entitty that was compelling us to go to places that made us a target would not protect us when we were attacked. Because of that, the United Nations was forcing the average US citizen to be a sitting duck for any terrorist in the world.
That’s not a good way to win cooperation from the average US citizen. Not at all. Toss on top of that the latest headlines of the UN Sex Abuse Scandal and others, and you really give the average US citizen no reason to support it. Toss on top of all that the fact that the US is expected to finance the biggest burden of an entity that is putting the average citizen in peril and you have the perfect recipe for open bitterness, as I exhibit.
I personally want a United Nations that protects people of the world from antagonistic forces. Waiting until after someone is attacked when you knew they were going to get attacked is just dumb military philosophy. Hussein pretty much told the world he was going to attack Kuwait, the UN did nothing, Hussein attacked. THEN, we had a full blown military conflict going that has been hot and cold for over thirteen years. IF the UN had taken preemptive action and sent a large force to the Kuwaiti border before Hussein attacked, the attack would never have taken place. IF the UN had sent troops to Iran while Hussein was building up his troops, the Iran-Iraq war would never have occurred and Iraq would not have had the WMD’s that have been a major source of centention. If the UN had taken preemptive action when Hussein initially violated the terms of the ceasefire, the US would not be standing pretty much alone in Iraq now. That’s an awful lot of if’s.
In regards to all those if’s, and the current nuclear issue in Iran, the UN is finally coming to the conclusion their military strategy is fatally flawed, and are proposing this:
Finally. Preemptive actions are not an option currently with the UN. It HAS to be. When the UN was conceived, WWII was still fresh in their minds. In those days, preceeding an attack meant building up huge forces along a border leading up to the attack. It was an obvious move. In today’s society, jets can do the job in minutes as opposed to what took days and weeks fifty years ago. The UN can not have the same military strategy it had fifty years ago. Secondly, the nature of warfare has changed drastically in the last twenty years. Terrorists hide within the civillian population and are just as well armed as soldiers. There is no declaration of war, it just happens. The ability to negotiate is not presented. The UN has to be able to take preemptive action in order to go after these elements, since they do not represent any government and no government will authorize the use of force within their boundaries. Entering a country without their approval is considered preemptive, but has to be done in today’s war climate.
If the UN adopts this policy, I think it would help a lot if they chose to use it. However, they still have one serious flaw that they have to address before preemptive actions will ever be an option:
From the United Nations Charter, Chapter V, The Security Council:
Article 23
1. The Security Council shall consist of fifteen Members of the United Nations. The Republic of China, France, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the United States of America shall be permanent members of the Security Council. The General Assembly shall elect ten other Members of the United Nations to be non-permanent members of the Security Council, due regard being specially paid, in the first instance to the contribution of Members of the United Nations to the maintenance of international peace and security and to the other purposes of the Organization, and also to equitable geographical distribution.
The non-permanent members of the Security Council shall be elected for a term of two years. In the first election of the non-permanent members after the increase of the membership of the Security Council from eleven to fifteen, two of the four additional members shall be chosen for a term of one year. A retiring member shall not be eligible for immediate re-election.
Each member of the Security Council shall have one representative.
Article 27
1. Each member of the Security Council shall have one vote.
2. Decisions of the Security Council on procedural matters shall be made by an affirmative vote of nine members.
3. Decisions of the Security Council on all other matters shall be made by an affirmative vote of nine members including the concurring votes of the permanent members; provided that, in decisions under Chapter VI, and under paragraph 3 of Article 52, a party to a dispute shall abstain from voting.
What that says is any one permanent member of the United States can veto any action the Security Council wishes to take on its own.
So, even if they had the ability to use preemptive actions in regards to Iraq, France still could have, and would have vetoed it. I can’t support an organization that we spend billions of dollars on with that ability to let one person not of US citizenry decide if the US citizenry needs protection or not. I’d rather spend that on OUR military to protect us no matter what. That makes too much sense, that’s too easy of a sale to make to the general public.
In the case of the Oil for Food scandal, it has been speculated that the French UN members were getting some of that kickback from Hussein in an effort to get the UN to lift its sanctions against Iraq so that they could rebuild their military potentially with chemical weapons. That shows just how dangerously flawed the UN concept is. One member on the take for some quick cash jeopardized world security. It wasn’t so much that Hussein was a bad man, he was harboring Al Islaam, which was attacking Iran. He was harboring Abu Nidal, who had committed some of the most ruthless acts of terrorism ever seen. He was encouraging Palestinians to kill themselves in efforts to kill innocent Israelis. Nevermind that he openly declared war on the US. That didn’t matter to those French guys on the take. The whole world could go to hell and it didn’t matter because they were making some easy cash. THAT is why the UN most go. Until that bizarre arrangement is eliminated, it is purely an oligarchy of six countries, one of which is worthy of the money we spend, and four others that could care less about the welfare of the United States.
Bottom line, our money is better spent by the Pentagon. This move is a step in the right direction, but it’s not enough. Removing Annan is a possible step in the right direction but not enough. Altering the charter is the only thing that will fix the UN, and it’s something I doubt France is willing to do. Because of that, I"m still for kicking them out and spending our money on the protection of ourselves.
Comments
Comments:
Leave a Reply
Taliban and the Bomb | Moonage Political Webdream on 04.22.2009
[...] need troops in Pakistan. Now. And, we need to tell the UN to put up or shut down. If the United Nations are not willing to deter the biggest single terrorist group in the world fro…. Some I’m sure would argue they have none now. No TweetBacks yet. (Be the first to Tweet [...]