Skip to comments.US Threatens to Withhold Funds from UN Unless it Reforms
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.
Expect every last Islamic country in the Middle East to violently oppose that one.
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.
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.
Looking at my globe just now, that should bar more than half of the world. Good.
Yes, and that is exactly why we should get out of the UN and force them out of the US.
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.
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.
It's about time!
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."
Ditto! They will never reform, it's time to cut our losses and be rid of them.
IT'S ABOUT TIME! I HOPE, HOPE THAT THEY STAND FIRM.
I just hope they don't backup as usual.
We need to get out of the UN, and, until we do, obstruct it as much as possible - NOT try to "reform" it.
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.
Wow! They must have put Frist in charge of "threatening".
Look how well he's done with the nuc. option.
1995 Government shutdown: Wolf! Wolf! Wolf!
Filibuster : Wolf! Wolf! Wolf!
UN Dues: Wolf! Wolf! Wolf!
It's a step in the right direction anyway.
Wouldn't that be more like the Boy who cried wolf?
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.
Bump to that!
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.
You wanna hold up Bolton, look what we can do.
We really do have to get Goofie Annan out of there.
The Senate is holding up Bolton, and on a technicality (the 60 vote one at that). The Republican Senate, I might add.
You forgot "rapes, allows genocide, turns blind eyes to mad dictators and tyrants, ..."
Terrorism's Silent Partner at the United Nations (snip)
By Joshua Muravchik
Posted: Thursday, October 21, 2004
ON THE ISSUES
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."
It would be very helpful if FReepers could call/e-mail/fax their congressman, especially if that congressman is a democrat.
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.