[KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle]

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.

[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.

[Gatún(CraigIsaMangoTreeLawyer)]

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.

[Chgogal]

It's about time!

[Nipplemancer]

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."

[RightWhale]

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?

[downtoliberalism]

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

I just hope they don't backup as usual.

[inquest]

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.

[R.W.Ratikal]

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.

[freeangel]

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

[Dont_Tread_On_Me_888]

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!

[EGPWS]

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.

[topher]

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.

[Earthdweller]

I'm proud to say Mike Pence is taking a real stand....unlike that other moron from my state pretty boy, do nothing Bayh.

[Mad_Tom_Rackham]

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.

[bill1952]

[John Filson]

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.

[Fred Nerks]

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

[reformed_democrat]

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.