UN Freeloaders (link corrected, sorry!)

Remove all ads!

Article of the same name as the subject:

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/GuestColumns/Hayworth20030604.shtml

God I hope the legislation that Congressman Hayworth is introducing gets passed!

Sorry I linked the wrong post before, I have edited to put in the correct article.

[ June 04, 2003, 16:49: Message edited by: Darkwolf ]

 

Do you believe this stuff?
First of all i don't think that USA has won these two wars and i don't think that the writer wasn't guided by the White House to write this article my friend.
I think you are being misleaded big time

 

Mith,

Sorry, I linked the wrong article, I have edited to post to correct.

 

He should've just raised one issue to make his point rather than bringing in the extraneous whining about the UN. He starts of whining about how the US is opposed by UN members. Now, I think a number of nations when in doubt just oppose the US simply because they think the US is too strong and take an opportunity when it presents itself to provide a setback, no matter how minor, to the US. However, in most circumstances they vote differently because they disagree. They are under no obligation to vote as the US does so it is extreme arrogance to whine and complain that someone voted different than the US when it simply boils down to whining that they didn't do what the US wanted. It's hypocritical too. The article accuses France of wanting to have things its way while it whines about not getting things its way.

Putting aside that issue, which is largely irrelevant to the other issue, he may have a point. Why should one permanent member pay so much more than another when the benefits they receive are identical? More importantly, why is it arranged in such a way that there is such a massive disparity? Only one thought here -- the UN is based out of NY right? I'd be interested in seeing how much money flows into the US because the UN is based there. Might that offset the inequity of it all? *shrug*

 

So basically the guy's saying the UN should go through reforms because ... it currently hinders US interests.

And evil France wants to take over the world, beware!

Ok, US contribution to UN regular budget :341 millions.
France's contribution: 100 millions.

Given the respective size of their economy (America's GDP must be at least five times France's GDP), France actually contribute more than the US, or did I read something wrong?

 

I think you're missing the salient points. China has the second larges economy in the world and pays 24 million. Russia pays 19 million. So the US pays 314 million? They all receive the same benefit ostensibly: veto power.

According to the article, the combined GDP of the other security council members equals the US' but the US still pays 100+ million more than the others combined. Further, even if it was capped like he is talking about the US total contribution would still be 1.4 Billion to the UN which is pretty hefty.

If those numbers are true, putting aside personal dislikes for a second, it does make you raise your eyebrow a bit doesn't it? Caveat - I'm taking the numbers at face value

 

Oxymore,

How would you like it if everyone who makes 1/2 of what you do got to pay 1/2 of what you do for everything they buy?

You satement is one of pure class warfare. Just because you have more money doesn't mean that you are obligated to give more, unless of course you are the one receiving the money, then you believe that it is totally fair.

This reminds me of somthing I read the other day.

From Boortz dialy blog, http://www.boortz.com/nealznuz.htm, 5/30/03

 

Contributing to the UN budget doesn't mean "buying" veto power in the security council. You make it seem like it is some kind of privilege for which you must pay a fee. I tend to see contribution to UN budget as the same as paying taxes for your government, the rich pay more taxes than the poor (still the poor pay the same prices in shops, then again I don't consider veto power as something that is for sale).

Perhaps the various contributions must be reevaluated, imo it would be best to level upwards (or else one day everyone will contribute the same as Haiti)

 

IMO it contributions should be trended downward, as matter of fact, when it comes to the UN, my favorite number is -0-. I don't buy spoiled food, I don't buy broken goods, and I don't give to charities that create dependance. The UN has no legal or moral right to "tax" anyone, so I do not equate funds donated to the UN as that type of revenue.

I am just thankful that I live in a country where the UN is looked at as a forum for attempting to negotiate solutions for international differences (they do a piss poor job of it, but I guess the intent is there), not a world government that supercedes national governments.

 

Considering the US contribution to the UN a maybe noteworthy thing is that together germany's and japan's payments to the UN budged iirc top the US's 110 million. And both countries don't even have a veto. How stupid must we be.

More info on the web site of our Auswärtiges Amt. Poor exploited america

This dude wants the UN to be a club of cheerleaders who support the US. Well, that kinda causes friction with the national interest of other countries, france as well as others. What's good for the US isn't necessarily good for the rest of the world as well. Dissent indeed might be the result of that.

Indeed, the UN does reflect end of WW-II power situations, manifesting them in the the veto rights. Personally I have to say, a UN reform where the financial contribution would equal in voting privileges would be more than welcome to me.
But on the other hand, would the US like to give away their untouchable status thanks to their veto right? I mean, breaking international law and getting away with it is only possible that way.

 

Let's look at it this way: your taxes pay the police in your country, right? But the police doesn't run the country. If you don't want a police force then you better have a gun, I guess it is the case for America right now, but it won't last forever. Right now you feel you don't need the UN, but in a few decades, another superpower might take over global leadership, then you'd be glad there's an international body whose function is to promote peace, because if there isn't one, you're stuck with opposing alliances, that led to world war two times already.

 

Darkwolf the UN are there not to help one superpower to achieve her own goals but to prevent the unfair treatment of weak nations by this superpower. Maybe over time USA has forgotten but it was USA that backed up this plan and this philosophy for the UN but now it seems that this plan has backfired, doesn't it?
Now the USA thinks it can rule the world and find UN as an obstacle and tries to get rid of him?
And something else in real Democracy money DO NOT buy votes one vote for one person that is that will ever be.
Your administration wants to redistribute the votes or the expenses ok i agree with that but it may not come to your interest

 

The website you link is kinda funny Ragusa because it talks about Germany negotiating to avoid further financial burden because at 9% they think they pay enough thank you very much. It also talks about how the EU is working to "reform... the scales of the assessment in order to share the costs more equitably." Now, it goes on to blame the US for reducing its payment from 25% to 22% and reducing its total bill for peace keeping missions from 31% to 25% but it seems to me that the web site is talking out of both ends of its mouth:

"The disgusting US has reduced its payment from 25 to 22%." and then "the EU needs to make the scale more equitable because we are paying a whole 9%!"

By the way, they base the assessment on GNP and that in and of itself seems like a screwy way to approach things to me.

 

Indeed germany, just as the US, had an interest in fixing it's comittment in the UN. And it has an interest in the other EU partners increasing their contribution. The point was that somehow the few points the US reduced their payment had to be compensated by others. Germany did just the same within the EU.

The AA page doesn't make an open moral statement on the US behavior, eventually they are diplomats. However, much more interesting than the reduction in payments was that part:

Germany may have reduced it's payments, but at least it was reliable and paid regularly.

It was always felt to be a little hypochritical that over years the US refused to pay their bill at the UN (besides, while permanently profiting from veto-induced immunity as well as the veto-rights) making the organisation notoriously underfinanced while claiming that it's lack of efficiency was displayed by it's inability to get through with the money available. This behavior also undermined the payment morale of other countries, adding to the financial misere of the UN.

It might have been a good idea for Mr. Hayworth to look back a few years to check his views for the impression of hypochrisy (or, let's be nice, myopia).

[ June 05, 2003, 16:57: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

 

Is it about, who should have veto power ? Or how much a country should contribute financially to the UN ? Or both ?

I take on Veto-Power.

Why should any nation have a permanent seat and veto power in the security council? Now, if the idea is, that the securty council is the only part of the UN, which can actully make binding resolutions, the veto-powers and a permanent seat are pure Realpolitik. Meaning, that the most powerfull should stop things, they don't like. Things they feel are not good for their own interest. So, it's only rational to have a gremium, where great powers can talk, before stepping on eachothers toes. It's better they know of disagreement through talking about an issue, then to have to correspond through manoevering (sp ?) man-o-wars around the sees.

So, who should have a seat ? The Americans and the Chinese surly.

The Russians. Complicated. There in a .... state of things ... Well, they still have enough nuclear weapons to **** up the whole planet, so..

The UK and France should not be there.

I agree actually with that. The same is for the UK. Both are way too small countries. Both have nothing lost there.

But who else ?

The Europeans could take one seat. But that's not possible in the nearer future, because the would have to find a way to make up their mind together. Not possible. At least, the changing of the world around Europe could have an impact on the thinking of the average European, which leads to a change of things. By the way, I don't think it has to be the EU, it might be well possible, to create a new alliance of Europeans, just for the sake of foreing policies, in no way connected to the EU. Anyway, the Europeans will have, compared to titans like China and India, no great influence in international politics. The population of the continent looks small compared them already. They have giantic military and econonomical potential. But loosing influence isn't a bad thing per se. There has never been something better then splendid isolation. Just enough influence to secure the independence of the Europeans, more is not needed.

India, like China a demographical powerhouse. India is behind Chinda in it's development, but it's potential is alike. Both will shape the next century.

Latin-America ? Probably the same situation like Europe. They would need to overcome internal differences and pull on the same streak, to further their own goals and protect their interests. Frankly, I'm talking about a region nearly completly unknown to me.

 

Mith,

The UN is not what it was when it was created, it has grown from a forum by which contries were to meet and have their disagreements arbitrated to an entitity that believes it rules the world.

Name the last piece of territory that we occupied and still rule, or had to be forced out of (a'la Germany and France). Other than Iraq you would have to go back a long way in history to find one. And no, we will not be occupying Iraq indeffinetly. The US really behaves like a nation that is out to rule the world.

I think that the citizens of a lot of nations have something similar to small man's syndrom. They can't be #1, so they are going to try to tear down whoever is, and the UN is the best tool they have available. I can't imagine why I don't support that!

 

Talking about tax-payers money and troops outside the country, defending security interests. How much do those troops in foreign countries cost the tax-payer ? How much would that sum be compared to the sum the US pays to the UN ?

(I Haven't found and £-numbers)

From Cato Institute 1998

 

I believe that Yago covered me completely

 

Most of the nations that we have those troop in don't want them to leave because of the economic loss to that nation. Not only would there be an increase in cost to that nation in having to provide a greater military of their own, but our personnel spend millions of $'s every year in the markets of these foreign nations. I would love to see the US close the majority of our foreign bases along with eliminating the subsidies that we pay to nations who routinely stab us in the back.

However, I don't think Yago covered anything of my question, unless you are claiming that our bases are occupation, which is so laughable that I even hesitate to bring it up. Any nation who seriously asks us to leave gets their wish. Usually however, those requests are really just demand for more money.

So again I ask, name the last nation that America conquered and didn't turn back over to its people to rule. We are not interested in conquering the world, hell, we don't even like most of the world, and wouldn't accept it as part of the US if every person living there begged us. We already have everything we need here, what we import is simply a matter of convenience or cost.

And one last thing, what the hell does how much we spend on maintaining our military have to do how much we allow the UN to extort from us? Sorry, but I see apples and oranges here. This look like a little more “small nation’s syndrome” rising to the surface to me. Maybe you can get the UN to pass a resolution condemning the US for its lack of compassion based upon its military spending compared to its UN contributions. Knowing how the UN is so strong in its enforcement I am sure that we will fall right in line!

[Darkwolf walks away, laughing his ass off thinking about the oxymoron of “UN enforcement”]

 

Totally true. Those funds don't pay for peacekeeping troops - the countries providing those troops pay that bill. What those funds do, for the most part, is pay UN bureaucrat salaries. They pay, for example, a member of the Libyan government to head up a human rights commission. I sure don't think that's a moral use of anyone's money. In fact I think it's making the taxpayers an accessory to a crime.

Yago, your choice of source is an excellent one, from my point of view. The Cato Institute is hardly making the point that the US is occupying other countries to benefit itself at their expense - it is making the point that US tax dollars are being wasted on foreign countries. Is that the point you are making? Darkwolf, make room- Yago is coming over to sit on our bench.