U.S. Aid Does Not Build Support at the U.N.

http://www.heritage.org ^ | 9/22/2007 | papasmurf

[papasmurf]

The United States' relationship with the United Nations is complex. The U.S. has vast and varied national interests in every region of the world, and the U.N. and its affiliated organizations have potential utility in helping the U.S. address foreign policy priorities...

Foreign Aid Does Not Promote U.S. Policies at the U.N
...
-U.S. foreign assistance has not led recipients to support U.S. positions in the U.N. On the contrary, on non-consensus votes and non-consensus important votes, most recipients of U.S. assistance vote against the U.S. more often than they vote with the U.S.

-Economically free countries are more likely to support U.S. positions. The more economically free a country is, the more likely it is to vote with the U.S. on non-consensus votes and important votes.

-Politically free governments are also more likely than less free countries to support U.S. positions on non-consensus votes and important votes in the General Assembly.

[papasmurf]

This is what many of us have been saying for quite a long time. US AID DOES NOT help our cause.

Neither does "engaging the United Nations to advance U.S. priorities"...

[Eagles6]

Perhaps withholding US aid will garner support?

[papasmurf]

ping for the financial gurus...

[papasmurf]

That, or getting Bolton back.

[bluetone006]

I’m shocked... just shocked!

[hsalaw]

Why is the UN still here? Why aren’t they taking up valuable space in - say - Zimbawbwa or Syria instead? Why are we letting them hang around here, abusing us and our values, and giving absolutely nothing back? If the UN is as valuable an organization as it thinks it is, it should be able to do its wonderful work somewhere else. Get the UN out of the US.

[papasmurf]

Actually, I was thinking more of crippling them using the same methods they use to stymie us.

J.B. would have done that.

[backtothestreets]

No kidding! Case in point, we're doing the bulk of dirty work in Iraq, with some assistance from a few other countries, enforcing U.N. Resolutions:

"Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 and subsequent relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten international peace and security, including the development of weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687, repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688, and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 949;

Whereas Congress in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) has authorized the President "to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolutions 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677";

Source: White House: Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-2.html

Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it "supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1)," that Iraq's repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and "constitutes a continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region," and that Congress, "supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688";"

So, when can we expect the U.N. to thank us, send a force to relieve our troops, and share the burden of rebuilding Iraq? Better yet, when can we leave the U.N.?

No apologies if I upset the U.N. lovers.

[GATOR NAVY]

...the U.N. and its affiliated organizations have potential utility in helping the U.S. address foreign policy priorities...

And with a small expenditure I could potentially win the lottery tomorrow but the odds are about as long as those of the U.N. being useful.

[river rat]

Duh.....

Most folks KNEW we weren’t earning friends with the Billions we dumped into the Turd World....

[TheThinker]

We should probably cut our aid but not withdraw from the U.N. altogether. Other countries have more wealth than ever before thanks to us and they can share more of the burden. But if we don’t stay engaged, the U.N. will be used against the U.S. in a way I don’t think we want to see.

[Jackson Brown]

The United States should NEVER have EVER given aid to the 3rd world through the UN.

All bags of food, medicine, etc. have the UN “label” on it, not the USA’s

Any aid given should be done by US agencies or by US NGA’s -- and -- used to as a carrot/stick to help control corruption that is rift through out the 3rd world.

[StonyBurk]

I heard once that most slaveholders did not really respect their slaves— just depended upon them for their livihood. I suppose it could be said most legislators don’t respect the drug traffickers -but sure enjoy the money they circulate through the system without paying taxes.
Think about it.