Oil for Food scandal: What effect on the UN?

[John_Mace]

@Neurotik

Has the US paid up it’s debt to the UN yet? If not, I can’t imagine that the UN is going to be too afraid of the the US withholding funds it does not pay.

@Neurotik

The US had not paid its dues for several years during the 90s, with arrears nearing a billion dollars.

Here’s the status of the US’s dues, per wikipedia, (note bolded part):

Conflict between the U.S. and the UN is not new. The first major defeat for the U.S. at the UN was Resolution 2758 - the admission of the People’s Republic of China and removal of the Republic of China against U.S. wishes in 1971 (see China and the United Nations). Since the U.S. changed its own China policy shortly after, however, this did not do lasting damage. Far more serious was the General Assembly Resolution 3379 of 1975 equating Zionism with racism, which caused great offence in the United States. Resolution 3379 was eventually negated in 1991 by Resolution 4686, but only after years of increasingly strained relations. Under the Reagan administration, the U.S. withdrew from UNESCO, and began deliberately to withhold its UN dues as a form of pressure on the UN. By far, the U.S. was, and continues to be, the state levied most heavily by the UN.

The UN has always had problems with members refusing to pay the assessment levied upon them under the United Nations Charter. But the most significant refusal in recent times has been that of the U.S. For a number of years the U.S. Congress refused to authorize payment of the U.S. dues, in order to force UN compliance with U.S. wishes, as well as a reduction in the U.S. assessment.

After prolonged negotiations, the U.S. and the UN negotiated an agreement whereby the United States would pay a large part of the money it owes, and in exchange the UN would reduce the assessment rate ceiling from 25% to 22%. The reduction in the assessment rate ceiling was among the reforms contained in the 1999 Helms-Biden legislation, which links payment of $926 million in U.S. arrears to the UN and other international organizations to a series of reform benchmarks.

U.S. arrears to the UN currently total over $1.3 billion. Of this, $612 million is payable under Helms-Biden. The remaining $700 million result from various legislative and policy withholdings; there are no current plans to pay these amounts.

The US still pays more than other nation, so the UN has a LOT to lose if the US decides to cut off funds.

As for the OP, I’m still in a wait-and-see mode on this. Is anyone aware of any similar type scandal that involved the UN?

[Neurotik]

@xtisme

Ok, I suppose I see your point. I don’t agree, but I see where you are coming from. But why trust the UN to do the investigation right? Even if you have a gut level distrust of all things the Senate or Congress does, I don’t see how that gives you confidence in an internal UN investigation.

Honestly, I don’t have much confidence in a closed internal UN investigation. I just have more confidence in them to do it right than I do with the Senate right now - particularly with so many conservative Senators, along with the administration, having political axes to grind on this topic.

If it was up to me, I’d set up an independent panel to investigate the claims. People removed from the both the US and UN political spectrum and who have shown themselves able to act with integrity and intelligence. I don’t know who I’d pick, though, I’d have to research some candidates (not that anyone’s going to listen to me).

I never heard that before. Must have totally missed it. Was there a reason why we didn’t pay our dues (presumably) under Clinton?

Well, it was mostly the Republican congress refusing to allocate funds for it until their ideas for reform of the UN were carried out.

And its nearing a billion dollars?? Just how much ARE these dues? Gods.

Well, that’s over several years. The US pays 22% of the UN general budget. Japan pays 19%, the UK, France, Germany, Spain and Italy pay a combined 30%.

There’s some formula they use based on GDP, and cash flow and other economic information that I don’t understand.

[Si_Amigo]

@xtisme

Er…I’m not sure I’m following you here. Are you saying that the US is the pot calling the UN (kettle) black?? Could you elaborate some on that? Why do you think the US is as black as the UN on this issue (if I’m reading what you said correctly)?
-XT

You are reading too much into my “Pot calling the kettle black” statement. All that I am saying is that we have done things that piss off the UN and there is really nothing that they can do about it (like say, invading Iraq). Doubt if there is much that we can do about this present UN situation, other than complain. It’s not like either institution is gonna change thier ways . . .

[manhattan]

@Brutus

The US is in a unique position to conduct this investigation. (Since obvously, the UN’s internal investigation is going to be worthless, not to mention bizarrely secretive.) It sits on our land, which could change, and a quarter of their funding comes from us, which could also change. It seems apparent that the UN is in full cover-up mode, so we can hold those two swords over their heads if need be to get our investigation done.

My less-than-low regard for the UN is more than overcome in this matter by my very high regard for Paul Volcker. If he’s unable to get to the facts of the thing for any reason I have complete and unwavering confidence that he will say so publicly. Unless and until he does, I’m comfortable to let him do things with some secrecy.

That said, I’m not exactly unhappy that the Senate and Manhattan DA Adam Schiff, uh, I mean Robert Morgenthau are also on the case.

I don’t really care to debate the issue too heavily while the investigations are still going on. To be perfectly honest, I’m finding it more enjoyable to watch the slow drip-drip-drip of facts coming out that seem to be adding up to the fact that the security council votes we were supposed to seek before liberating Iraq were bought and paid for by Saddam Hussein. Apres Volcker, la deluge.

[jshore]

@manhattan

To be perfectly honest, I’m finding it more enjoyable to watch the slow drip-drip-drip of facts coming out that seem to be adding up to the fact that the security council votes we were supposed to seek before liberating Iraq were bought and paid for by Saddam Hussein.

Of course, it is worth noting that in hindsight they were right in voting the way that they did. I.e., the claims that the U.S. were making to justify the invasion were apparently largely without basis. That is part of what makes me suspicious that this whole thing may be overblown. On the other hand, I suppose it is possible that it is not and that these countries were right for completely the wrong reason.

[rjung]

I always find it laughably amusing when our conservative brethren are all eager and gung-ho to ferry out every scrap of evidence of wrongdoing and corruption at the UN, but can’t be bothered to pay any time of day at any sign of corruption, lawbreaking, and morally dubious behavior from our own government(*).

(* = At least when a Republican President is in charge. Put a Democrat in the White House, however, and they’ll watch every move and listen to every comment with secret decoder rings at the ready)