Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

US Threatens to Withhold Funds from UN Unless it Reforms
Financial Time ^ | June 9 2005 | Edward Alden and Holly Yeager

Posted on 06/11/2005 2:10:57 PM PDT by West Coast Conservative

Less than two years after finally paying its full dues to the United Nations, the US is again threatening to withhold payments from the world body unless the UN undertakes the important reforms sought by Washington.

A US congressional committee on Wednesday voted narrowly to approve legislation that would withhold half of its annual $500m contribution unless the UN streamlined its bureaucracy, barred countries that violated human rights from UN human rights bodies and created an independent oversight board and ethics office.

Henry Hyde, Republican chairman of the House international relations committee, said the bill was the only way to force the UN to make long-overdue reforms. “You can't have reform if you don't withhold dues.”

Mike Pence, a Republican member of the committee who leads a group of conservatives in the House, warned: “The power of the purse is the power of the American people.”

The committee approved the measure 25-22 after rejecting a Democratic proposal that would have given the administration discretion on withholding payments.

The administration opposes the measure but has so far not made strong efforts to discourage the House action, say critics of the Hyde legislation.

While the Senate is not currently considering similar legislation, the House move could embolden Senate critics such as Norm Coleman, the Minnesota Republican who has led an investigation into the UN's role in the Iraq oil-for-food scandal.

In addition, the Senate is likely to act shortly to approve the nomination of John Bolton as US ambassador to the UN. In doing so it would send a harsh critic of the world body to New York, armed with growing congressional threats to punish the UN if reforms are not made.

The bill is set to move to the House floor next week, where it is likely to win approval. Tom DeLay, House Republican leader, linked the bill to the Bolton nomination. “What an incredible thing it would be if you had John Bolton negotiating these kinds of issues with the United Nations,” he said.

Mr DeLay added: “I think we're getting a two-fer if we can get this through the Senate as quickly as possible and John Bolton confirmed to be ambassador to the United Nations.”

The US was in arrears on its obligations to the UN for more than a decade until they were finally paid off in September 2003, helping the UN emerge from a long financial crisis.


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Foreign Affairs; Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: congress; hyde; turass; unitednations; unreform

1 posted on 06/11/2005 2:10:57 PM PDT by West Coast Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: West Coast Conservative
A US congressional committee on Wednesday voted narrowly to approve legislation that would withhold half of its annual $500m contribution unless the UN streamlined its bureaucracy, barred countries that violated human rights from UN human rights bodies and created an independent oversight board and ethics office.

Expect every last Islamic country in the Middle East to violently oppose that one.

2 posted on 06/11/2005 2:13:36 PM PDT by KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle ("As a conservative site, Free Republic is pro-G-d, PRO-LIFE..." -- FR founder Jim Robinson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: West Coast Conservative

Nah, let the US not give them any funds, and throw their a$$es of of the US, thus getting the US out of the UN.


3 posted on 06/11/2005 2:17:06 PM PDT by NY Attitude
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NY Attitude

This is nothing more than a money pit, a waste of US Tax dollars. The UN robs, steal, and scams behind our backs, then our sons and daughters have to pay the price in their blood.


4 posted on 06/11/2005 2:23:11 PM PDT by 26lemoncharlie ('Cuntas haereses tu sola interemisti in universo mundo!')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle
...barred countries that violated human rights from UN human rights bodies...

Looking at my globe just now, that should bar more than half of the world. Good.

5 posted on 06/11/2005 2:23:32 PM PDT by Gatún(CraigIsaMangoTreeLawyer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: 26lemoncharlie

Yes, and that is exactly why we should get out of the UN and force them out of the US.


6 posted on 06/11/2005 2:25:36 PM PDT by NY Attitude
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: West Coast Conservative

Since our crooked, self-serving politicians won't get us out of the U.N., is it possible to start a national grassroots movement to get ourselves out of it? Just asking.


7 posted on 06/11/2005 2:28:24 PM PDT by Gatún(CraigIsaMangoTreeLawyer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gatún(CraigIsaMangoTreeLawyer)

Define "human rights". Many say that the death penalty would eliminate the US. Some might even say that the lack of universal health care is a barrier to entry.




The UN has established itself as a "profit center", therefore they don't need tax dollars. A few oil-4-food jobs and they're in the chips.




Finally, Hillary! & Co. reminds us constantly that criticism of the US and its policies is "patriotic". If that's so, then why can't Bolton et.al. criticize the UN?


8 posted on 06/11/2005 2:29:40 PM PDT by randog (What the....?!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: West Coast Conservative

It's about time!


9 posted on 06/11/2005 2:30:51 PM PDT by Chgogal (Where Muslims are in a majority......Non-muslims die.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: West Coast Conservative

I can't wait for an American President to address the UN General Assembly and say "You have 30 days to vacate the premises, on the 31st day these facilities will be demolished to make way for a parking-lot. Thank you, and have a nice day."


10 posted on 06/11/2005 2:58:27 PM PDT by Nipplemancer (Abolish the DEA !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: West Coast Conservative
I hate to see the word reform used that way. Granted it would be hard for the UN to go back to its roots since there have been several radical Declarations such as Human Rights in the meantime, and making rules to accomodate the new things is hardly reformation, but progress. Should Hyde be urging progress, that buzzword of the radical socialists?
11 posted on 06/11/2005 3:03:49 PM PDT by RightWhale (I know nothing, and less every day)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NY Attitude
Nah, let the US not give them any funds, and throw their a$$es of of the US, thus getting the US out of the UN.

Ditto! They will never reform, it's time to cut our losses and be rid of them.

12 posted on 06/11/2005 3:04:52 PM PDT by wagglebee ("We are ready for the greatest achievements in the history of freedom." -- President Bush, 1/20/05)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: West Coast Conservative

IT'S ABOUT TIME! I HOPE, HOPE THAT THEY STAND FIRM.

I just hope they don't backup as usual.


13 posted on 06/11/2005 3:06:18 PM PDT by downtoliberalism ("A coalition partner must do more than just express sympathy, a coalition partner must perform,")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: West Coast Conservative
What the hell is this insane "reform" fetish? Why not try to "reform" the Mafia while we're at it?

We need to get out of the UN, and, until we do, obstruct it as much as possible - NOT try to "reform" it.

14 posted on 06/11/2005 3:27:44 PM PDT by inquest (FTAA delenda est)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: West Coast Conservative

We should not only withold funds from the United Nations we should kick the U.N. and that bunch of crooks and diapered diplomats out of the United States.

Ever since the U. N. was formed while WWII was still going on (Its first Acting Secretary General was Alger Hiss the high government official and spy for Stalin)it has been an abject failure.

I challenge anyone to name one positive accomplishment the U. N. can point to that benefits the U. S. or the free world.


15 posted on 06/11/2005 3:39:36 PM PDT by R.W.Ratikal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: West Coast Conservative

Wow! They must have put Frist in charge of "threatening".
Look how well he's done with the nuc. option.


16 posted on 06/11/2005 4:27:39 PM PDT by freeangel ( (free speech is only good until someone else doesn't like what you say))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: West Coast Conservative
Less than two years after finally paying its full dues to the United Nations, the US is again threatening

Wolf!

Wolf!

Wolf!

1995 Government shutdown: Wolf! Wolf! Wolf!

Filibuster : Wolf! Wolf! Wolf!

UN Dues: Wolf! Wolf! Wolf!


17 posted on 06/11/2005 5:16:20 PM PDT by Dont_Tread_On_Me_888 (The Republican'ts have no spine--they ALWAYS cave-in to the RATs.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: West Coast Conservative
While the Senate is not currently considering similar legislation, the House move could embolden Senate critics such as Norm Coleman, the Minnesota Republican who has led an investigation into the UN's role in the Iraq oil-for-food scandal.

It's a step in the right direction anyway.

18 posted on 06/11/2005 5:22:35 PM PDT by EGPWS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dont_Tread_On_Me_888

Wouldn't that be more like the Boy who cried wolf?


19 posted on 06/11/2005 5:33:08 PM PDT by Blackyce (President Jacques Chirac: "As far as I'm concerned, war always means failure.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: West Coast Conservative
They should link UN funding to Bolton confirmation. Then if the Democrats want to filibuster, they will be filibustering UN Aid -- a neat trick if it can be done.

The US cannot continue to fund the UN unless they have a good UN Ambassador and reform in the UN.

But I am one of the freepers would just opt for shutting down the UN and getting $1 billion (or more) from the real estate.

20 posted on 06/11/2005 5:45:00 PM PDT by topher (One Nation under God)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dont_Tread_On_Me_888

"WOLF!"

Bump to that!


21 posted on 06/11/2005 5:46:36 PM PDT by LibertarianInExile (<-- sick of faux-conservatives who want federal government intervention for 'conservative things.')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: West Coast Conservative
I'm proud to say Mike Pence is taking a real stand....unlike that other moron from my state pretty boy, do nothing Bayh.
22 posted on 06/11/2005 6:14:04 PM PDT by Earthdweller (US descendant of French Protestants_"Where there is life, there is hope"..Terri Schindler)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: West Coast Conservative

This is claptrap. If Bush had intended to defund the UN, he would not have paid the prior arrears. This is two-card-monte smokescreen political BS.


23 posted on 06/11/2005 6:44:29 PM PDT by Mad_Tom_Rackham (Delenda est Liberalism!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: West Coast Conservative


24 posted on 06/11/2005 8:25:59 PM PDT by bill1952 ("All that we do is done with an eye towards something else.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: West Coast Conservative; lizol
How about no money to the UN period? How about ejecting the UN from US soil? How about starting all over with only, democratic countries on board? (Minus France, Spain, and Germany...)

Let's put Poland, Czechoslovakia, and Japan on the Security Council.
25 posted on 06/11/2005 10:39:46 PM PDT by John Filson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: John Filson
I like this. Great back door move.

You wanna hold up Bolton, look what we can do.

We really do have to get Goofie Annan out of there.

26 posted on 06/11/2005 10:54:09 PM PDT by AGreatPer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: AGreatPer

The Senate is holding up Bolton, and on a technicality (the 60 vote one at that). The Republican Senate, I might add.


27 posted on 06/11/2005 10:57:54 PM PDT by John Filson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: 26lemoncharlie

You forgot "rapes, allows genocide, turns blind eyes to mad dictators and tyrants, ..."


28 posted on 06/11/2005 11:02:08 PM PDT by Calvin Locke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: West Coast Conservative

Terrorism's Silent Partner at the United Nations (snip)



By Joshua Muravchik
Posted: Thursday, October 21, 2004

ON THE ISSUES
AEI Online


With the Organization of the Islamic Conference defending any act committed on behalf of "national liberation," the United Nations cannot even issue an unequivocal condemnation of terrorism, let alone join the struggle to eliminate it.

This month, the United Nations Security Council voted to condemn terrorism. The resolution was introduced by Russia, still grieving over the terrorist attack on a school in Beslan, and perhaps the unanimous vote will give it a measure of solace. But the convoluted text and the dealings behind the scenes that were necessary to secure agreement on it offer cold comfort to anyone who cares about winning the war against terrorism. For what they reveal is that even after Beslan and after Madrid and after 9/11, the UN still cannot bring itself to oppose terrorism unequivocally.

Terrorism As a Right

The reason for this failure is that the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), which comprises fifty-six of the UN's 191 members, defends terrorism as a right.

After the Security Council vote, U.S. ambassador to the United Nations John C. Danforth tried to put the best face on the resolution. He said it "states very simply that the deliberate massacre of innocents is never justifiable in any cause. Never."

But in fact it does not state this. Nor has any UN resolution ever stated it. The U.S. delegation tried to get such language into the resolution, but it was rebuffed by Algeria and Pakistan, the two OIC members currently sitting on the Security Council. (They have no veto, but the resolution's sponsors were willing to water down the text in return for a unanimous vote.)

True, the final resolution condemns "all acts of terrorism irrespective of their motivation." This sounds clear, but in the Alice-in-Wonderland lexicon of the UN, the term "acts of terrorism" does not mean what it seems.

For eight years now, a UN committee has labored to draft a "comprehensive convention on international terrorism." It has been stalled since day one on the issue of "defining" terrorism. But what is the mystery? At bottom everyone understands what terrorism is: the deliberate targeting of civilians. The Islamic Conference, however, has insisted that terrorism must be defined not by the nature of the act but by its purpose. In this view, any act done in the cause of "national liberation," no matter how bestial or how random or defenseless the victims, cannot be considered terrorism.

This boils down to saying that terrorism on behalf of bad causes is bad, but terrorism on behalf of good causes is good. Obviously, anyone who takes such a position is not against terrorism at all-but only against bad causes.

No Closer to Progress

The United States is not alone in failing to get the Islamic states to reconsider their pro-terror stance. Following 9/11, UN secretary-general Kofi Annan pushed to break the deadlock on the terrorism convention. He endorsed compromise language proscribing terrorism unambiguously while reaffirming the right of self-determination, but the Islamic Conference would not budge.

Far from giving ground on terrorism, the Islamic states have often gotten their way on the issue, with others giving in to them. As early as 1970, for instance, the UN General Assembly adopted a resolution "reaffirm[ing] . . . the legitimacy of the struggle of the colonial peoples and peoples under alien domination to exercise their right to self-determination and independence by all the necessary means at their disposal."

read more....

http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.21419,filter.all/pub_detail.asp


29 posted on 06/12/2005 4:18:33 AM PDT by Fred Nerks (Understand Islam. Understand Evil. Read THE LIFE OF MUHAMMAD link My Page.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: West Coast Conservative
This Bill comes up for a vote tomorrow, 6-16. The House expects debate to be contentious, and most likely the members will be there until late in the evening.

It would be very helpful if FReepers could call/e-mail/fax their congressman, especially if that congressman is a democrat.

30 posted on 06/15/2005 8:03:14 PM PDT by reformed_democrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson