America, The Good Neighbor

[AmadMozart]

I'm a little disappointed to see so much "headline" tossing on the issue of United Nations dues owed by the United States. The facts are so easily available. The US has paid up until this year over 25% of the annual operating budget of the UN and an even greater percentage of the peacekeeping budget. The amount of the general budget assessment to the US was reduced in December [see below] to 22%. Congress' decision to withhold our dues has been in part to try and leverage necessary UN reforms. Here is an excerpt from a Heritage Foundation report that tooks me about ten seconds to find doing a google search on UN dues. If you don't like the Heritage Foundation then go do your own research. But let's stop tossing and responding to silliness and calling it FACT. [b]Steps Toward Reform. On December 23, the U.N. member states agreed to reduce the amount paid to the regular budget by the United States from 25 percent to 22 percent, beginning this month, and the amount paid to the peacekeeping budget from 31.4 percent to 27.58 percent, beginning in July. A reduction of nearly four percentage points in the amount America contributes to peacekeeping activities is not as much as Congress had sought, but it is substantial. This move follows a long campaign by Congress to encourage the U.N. to institute reforms and reduce U.S. dues. The issue became contentious in 1994 when President Bill Clinton signed the State Department authorization act (P.L. 103-236), capping U.S. peacekeeping contributions at 25 percent. The difference between the U.N. assessment and the cap led to a sharp increase in U.S. arrears, according to the U.N., but the United States does not recognize this claim as legitimate. President Clinton and Congress instituted the cap primarily because of a precipitous rise in the number of peacekeeping missions, as well as their associated costs, at the end of the Cold War. In fiscal year 1990, Congress had appropriated $81 million for peacekeeping; by fiscal year 1994, however, the amount had grown to $1.2 billion. Thus, the costs of U.N. peacekeeping, which a decade ago were nominal, became a significant burden on U.S. taxpayers. In response to this increased burden, President Clinton rightly observed in a speech before the U.N. General Assembly in 1993 that "the UN's operations must not only be adequately funded, but also fairly funded.... [O]ur rates should be reduced to reflect the rise of other nations that can now bear more of the financial burden." The perception that the peacekeeping scale of assessments was unfair resulted from the fact that the U.S. assessment was greater than the combined assessments of over 180 other states. The United States paid nearly one-third of the budget, while most of the other U.N. members' assessments were discounted by 80 percent or more. Based on these facts, the Administration and Congress insisted that the U.N. adopt a more equitable assessment scale, under which no nation would contribute more than 25 percent of the peacekeeping budget. The member states, however, resisted. Therefore, in 1999, the Administration and Congress adopted a plan in the Consolidated Appropriations Act for FY 2000 (P.L. 106-113) to pay $926 million of U.S. arrears to the U.N. in exchange for specific reforms. According to this plan, Congress would release three payments of $100 million, $582 million, and $244 million, respectively, after certain reforms were instituted. The first payment was released in late 1999. Releasing the second payment, however, required that the assessed share for "any single United Nations member" does not exceed 25 percent for the U.N. peacekeeping budget and 22 percent for the U.N. regular budget. On December 23, 2000, the Ambassador to the United Nations under President Clinton, Richard Holbrooke, secured an agreement that fulfilled the first requirement, but he was not able to get the U.N. member states to meet the goal for the peacekeeping budget. Under the new scale, the U.S. peacekeeping assessment will decline from 31.4 percent to 27.58 percent as of July and should continue to decline to about 26.5 percent in 2002 and 2003.[/b] Cheers, Mark ------------------ http://www.broadjam.com/artistprofile/artistindex.asp?artistID=936 or listen at... http://artists.mp3s.com/artists/294/mark_coming_project.html

[Mats Olsson.]

Quoted from Washington Post: "House Approves U.N. Payment Legislation Would Provide $582 Million for Back Dues Juliet EilperinWashington Post Staff Writer September 25, 2001; Page A1 Section: A Word Count: 770 The House yesterday unanimously approved legislation that would provide $582 million to pay back dues to the United Nations, a reflection of how the political landscape has been altered by the terrorist attacks two weeks ago. For months, conservatives such as House Majority Whip Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) had blocked the payment of U.N. arrears, but those lawmakers abandoned their opposition in light of the strikes in New York and Washington." End quote. /Mats

[Anderton]

<> That piece made me somewhat uneasy as well. It did seem less pro-American than anti-others. As someone who travels a lot, I am aware that there is a tremendous amount of goodwill toward Americans in many parts of the world. In fact, even in places where people don't necessarily like the US government, they regard the people as a separate entity. I've known many "foreigners" who have been upset with specific US policies, but their attitude is generally one of concern more than anger. <> I don't think that's fair. The people who were killed were [i]people.[/i] The sympathies have gone out to all those who have lost loved ones, regardless of race, color, country of origin, religion, etc. I haven't seen any posts specifically offering sympathies only to the Americans who lost their lives; this was the WORLD trade center, and Americans have always accepted the fact that many people from other countries live here. In Bush's speech, he mentioned the 120 Pakistanis, the Britons, etc. I don't know about anyone else, but I've received emails from friends in other countries who mentioned people they knew who were killed. This is an international tragedy, and I'm sure that most Americans are aware of that.

[Kris]

[quote]Originally posted by mats.olsson@rockfile.se: [b]WARNING: long post, please read it entirely before replying! Quote: "In a global economy worth nearly $30 trillion, a billion and a half people - a quarter of the human race - are living in conditions of almost unimaginable suffering and want. Six hundred and fifty million of them are children - a figure more than twice the population of the United States. Never in history have we seen such numbers. And never in history have we seen overall aid to the world's neediest countries fall to such shameful levels as they have in recent years." End quote [/b][/quote] My question is why are these people/regions having children then?... I can understand 1 child but why 5 or 10 or more????????? That seems to be the root of the problem... not the fact that Americans can't be there to help them all. Obviously these regions cannot support that amount of people. They've got to nip some of their own problems at the root my friend.

[joegerardi]

[quote]Originally posted by Kris: [b] My question is why are these people/regions having children then?... I can understand 1 child but why 5 or 10 or more????????? That seems to be the root of the problem... not the fact that Americans can't be there to help them all.[/b][/quote] MY question is why is it that the US is required to shoulder the lion's share of the burden for both regular budget and peacekeeping? Why isn't it an equal amount amongst all the countries? It's not like we haven't bailed most of the planet out of trouble before. If we're required to pay that kind of usury, it should come with the equivalent voting power. Oh, wait: That would require the UN to accept that they're a second-rate bargaining chip. Let's see all the other member nations offer equivalent support, manpower, troops, etc., that we do I'd prefer to see the UN out of the US totally, or at least let them rotate yearly, or bi-annually though all the member nations, and let those host nations pay what the US does in tertiary fees like Police, Fire, DSS, etc.

[Neutron]

"My question is why are these people/regions having children then?... I can understand 1 child but why 5 or 10 or more????????? That seems to be the root of the problem..." Yeah, how can they afford the payments on the Lexus? Seriously, people who try to understand another country's problems by measuring them by their own standards are hopelessly bound to be wrong. The roots of their problems are social and cultural, and are particular to them; U.S. reality doesn't apply. Why so many kids? If you don't have any money to go out (and there's really no "out" to go to), no cable TV and no education on safe sex practice, what do you think is the cheapest way to have fun with your wife? This message has been edited by Richie Nieto on 09-27-2001 at 03:04 PM

[Tim Walters]

[quote]Why isn't it an equal amount amongst all the countries?[/quote] For the same reason Bill Gates pays more taxes than a homeless person. UN dues are based on GNP. [quote]If we're required to pay that kind of usury, it should come with the equivalent voting power.[/quote] The U.S., along with the rest of the Big Five, has complete veto power over all UN actions.

[joegerardi]

[quote]Originally posted by Tim Walters: [b] The U.S., along with the rest of the Big Five, has complete veto power over all UN actions. [/b][/quote] Agreed, but the other "Big Five" are not paying the same. And that's only [i]veto[/i] power, not the power to put something through. Remember too, we as a country have more in the way of trade deficits than many of those "poorer" countries. The moment we try to rectify that, or make it more even all the importing countries cry "foul." Seems like the US is condered the "rich uncle" and should shoulder more of the burden until parity is desired. Then it's "Poor, poor us..." among the other countries. BTW: I remember US, Great Britain, France, & Russia. Who's the fifth? China?

[Anderton]

<> Also, many religions encourage having lots of kids so their numbers will grow.

[Tim Walters]

[quote]Agreed, but the other "Big Five" are not paying the same. And that's only veto power, not the power to put something through.[/quote] They're paying the same *rate* (i.e., percentage of GNP), as far as I know. If you know differently, let us know the details. Should Bill Gates get more votes for President because he pays more taxes? I don't see any difference between that and what you're advocating. [quote]Remember too, we as a country have more in the way of trade deficits than many of those "poorer" countries. The moment we try to rectify that, or make it more even all the importing countries cry "foul."[/quote] No one has any control over U.S. tariffs except the U.S., do they? Except for negotiation and persuasion, of course. But most opposition to tariffs comes from "free trade" believers in the U.S. itself. [quote]BTW: I remember US, Great Britain, France, & Russia. Who's the fifth? China?[/quote] You got it.

[Tim Walters]

[quote]Originally posted by Anderton: [b]<> Also, many religions encourage having lots of kids so their numbers will grow.[/b][/quote] I think the main problem is a "tragedy of the commons" situation: in poor, agrarian societies with high infant mortality, it's to each individual's economic and social advantage to have children, but when everybody does it, you get problems. Unfortunately, it's impossible for someone in a desperate situation to take the long view. The same thing is true in the U.S., if less drastic. Everybody knows that it's better for the country as a whole to use less oil, but until there's individual economic benefit to do so, most people won't.

[Sui]

[quote]You're calling a sum of almost a BILLION dollars "piddly" ? Shit man, what world are you from?[/quote] Mats said $244 million, as of this date. And this isn't a year ago. Doesn't matter though, a billion dollars isn't gonna go a very long way to solving major world problems, the cost of the damage and loss of assets alone in NYC stands far above a billion dollars. A billion is petty-anti operation when it comes to the world's requirements. I'm not saying a billion wouldn't help matters though, jesus christ. [quote]Sui, if you had said this a year ago I would have been forced to bitchslap you . You mind if I borrow ten bucks? [/quote] Only if you come into close proximity so I can proceed to administer the bitchslapping of your life. [img]http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/biggrin.gif[/img] AH what the heck, I'll give you 10 bucks for your trouble....

[Sui]

[quote]Originally posted by Richie Nieto: How do you know American workers constructed it? Unless you have copies of all their birth certificates, you are merely speculating.[/quote] Not really. It was built in the US - why would America hire thousands of people from other countries to build anything here? There are plenty of people here that need the work already, both now and at the time the UN was built. Granted some probably were newcomers, but most were probably already US citizens. [quote]My point is that the U.S. is a land of immigrants, like it or not.[/quote] AND most are US CITIZENS. [quote]Five hundred years ago your great-great-great-etc grandfather wore a feather and painted his face and was probably killed by the same people who invaded this country and later called it the United States. The few real "americans" (to use the term loosely, since America is a continent comprised of several countries, not a single nation, as many people erroneouly think) have been reduced to being forced to live in reservations, which get smaller and smaller, depending on the government's need for land. So, you may want to think twice about where you come from and what is really yours.[/quote] What does this have to do with the UN being built? [quote]I really can't see any reason why all of this should be a burden for the US! Sounds like a profit deal to me.[/quote] It puts a stress on the infanstructure of NYC. It take up resources. Sure profit comes out of it - I'm not arguing that at all. [quote]What's your problem Sui?[/quote] OK, LOOK: My problem is, every time some fucking petty-anti operator like Saddam Hussain or Bin Laden comes along and decides to threaten invading its neighbors or persecuting thier own citizens or killing innocent people in other countries, everyone in the UN wants action, but NOBODY is willing to get thier hands dirty except the USA, who almost always ends up having to provide the majority of the military and peacekeeping might. And if that isn't bad enough, after it's all over it's the US that gets the blame for everything that goes wrong, as a result of it being a mostly USA operation in the first place. IT'S BULLSHIT. Why can't some of the other UN entities get more involved in it if it is what they want and endorse? Not only do we end up spending the most money in these operations, most of the time nobody else appreciates what we do in stopping these problems. As for all of your accusations of my lack of evidence of why the US doesn't pay its dues, I was going to get you some hard facts about the costs incurred by the US of the UN's peacekeeping and operating budget (which I already suspected was true) today, but Mozart already beat me to it. Read them. This message has been edited by Sui on 09-27-2001 at 09:22 PM

[joegerardi]

Shit. It ate my post. Tim, I had a reply to you here. I'll try to remember it tomorrow and re-post it. This message has been edited by joegerardi on 09-27-2001 at 10:01 PM

[inadequate.com]

[quote]Originally posted by Sui: My problem is, every time some fucking petty-anti operator like Saddam Hussain or Bin Laden comes along and decides to threaten invading its neighbors or persecuting thier own citizens or killing innocent people in other countries, everyone in the UN wants action, but NOBODY is willing to get thier hands dirty except the USA, who almost always ends up having to provide the majority of the military and peacekeeping might. [/quote] Sui, every time is a big call. I can think of several instances where dictators sympathetic to the US have been sponsored in the UN or motions against them have been vetoed by the US. The US commits a similar proportion of it's troops to peacekeeping missions as other nations. I don't mean to be getting at you but I think you would be surprised if you researched some of the statements you have made in this thread. >>And if that isn't bad enough, after it's all over it's the US that gets the blame for everything that goes wrong, as a result of it being a mostly USA operation in the first place.<< One reason for this perception is that the right of veto that the security council members have has meant that UN operations tend to be ones that suit the interests of the major powers. As the US is the big winner in the veto derby they are seen internationally as having inordinate influence. I guess that would go some way to justifying the big bills they have run up. It's good to see the ideas on this thread are being debated in America. From the news sources in Australia it seems that many issues where not being addressed. Just goes to show how news works I guess. Peace

[Sui]

[quote]Originally posted by inadequate.com: The US commits a similar proportion of it's troops to peacekeeping missions as other nations. I don't mean to be getting at you but I think you would be surprised if you researched some of the statements you have made in this thread.[/quote] Don't sweat it. Everyone's getting at me in this thread. [img]http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/biggrin.gif[/img] What I posted apparently pissed everyone off, although that wasn't my intent. But I do stand by my statements, nonetheless. Up until now the US has sent in the majority of troops and peacekeepers, read the post containing excerpts from UN documentation outlining this (it was posted by AmadMozart). [quote]One reason for this perception is that the right of veto that the security council members have has meant that UN operations tend to be ones that suit the interests of the major powers. As the US is the big winner in the veto derby they are seen internationally as having inordinate influence. I guess that would go some way to justifying the big bills they have run up.[/quote] Makes sense, but I thought there had to be a majority in favor or against of a resolution before passing it or shooting it down. In other words everyone had an equal influence in it - if it truly favors the major powers and no one else then no, that's not right. But also it's not right that the US so far has had to provide most of the military and/or peacekeeping support in these coalitions that get formed up from time to time. It should be even up across the board. And unfortunately, (pardon the expression) it ain't. Not for the US or anyone else in the UN for that matter. [quote]It's good to see the ideas on this thread are being debated in America. From the news sources in Australia it seems that many issues where not being addressed. Just goes to show how news works I guess.[/quote] Unfortunately the thread has been blown all out of proportion though - I'm just as guilty as everyone else for that - I never intended to start a huge debate over this - this is a musician's forum after all. I thought my idea of solving the terrorist problem was a good one - just send all the newscasters over and bore them all to death.