United Nations Debt

Great Debates
21

Qadgop: Of course not.

I understand perfectly our failure to pay the UN ‘dues’ is the result of politics, not poverty. An agreement is an agreement, and for that reason, we probably should pay.

The fact that we haven’t probably indicates some serious reservations on the part of congress, apparently. I guess my disgust is the method by which this failure to pay is reported, as if we are deadbeats on the global stage. Nothing could be farther from the truth. The almost knee-jerk reactionary US Bashing just gets old, that’s all.

22

When you’re top dog, it goes with the territory. And hey, it makes it easier to figure out who your friends really are, anyway.

23

Do you not think that the "almost knee-jerk reactionary US Bashing " might actually be well thought through grievances, in at least some cases?

US citizens might well think that their administration is wasting taxpayers money by helping the poor old lame-assed rest of the entire world AGAIN.

However, i would be very surprised indeed if anyone could supply an example of the US giving aid (cheap drugs, peacekeeping troops, donations, whatever)at a rate significantly above the average provided by Europe/Japan, to anyone anywhere in the last century that could not be shown to be the US knowingly acting in its own self-interest.

24

I guess I have two questions on this topic:

  1. Were all the loans Tedster is referring to made by the US government or were they made by banks (possibly with some urging from the government)? I would expect that most of the older loans were probably made by banks. In which case it could be argued that such disputes do not involve the US or the UN.

  2. How much fiscal obligation is carried over when there is a (drastic) change in government in a country? For example: is the French Fifth Republic responsible for any and all debts incurred by the first four republics, Vichy, the first and second empires, the ancien regime, the restored monarchy, and the directory?

25

Okay, let’s try this:

  1. You lend Joe and Bob some money.

  2. You, Joe, and Bob all join a club, with rather high dues.

  3. 40 years go by. You never bother asking Joe and Bob for your money back–it was just spotting some cash to a friend, after all.

  4. You stop paying your club dues.

  5. You argue that you don’t have to pay dues, because 40 years ago you loaned some money to some of the club members.

Now. You may have a legitimate claim that Joe and Bob owe you money. So you can try to collect that money. But you also owe dues. Maybe the money will cover those dues, but you have to get it back first; you can’t just expect the entire club to just ignore your debt in the meantime.

[sub]Also, asking for money back that you loaned 40-90 years ago, for your own benefit, seems like a pretty lousy thing to do. Especially when you don’t even need it.[/sub]

26

First of all, the US IS PAID NOT A PENNY for peackeeping operations in the Balkans-the British and French trops are paid by the UN!
-Second, the US pays the lions share of the budget anyway.
-third, the UN is packed with corrupt, third-world dictatorships, who stael most of the salaries paid by the UN to its nationals
-finally, the UN have corruption aplenty, and pays its employess VRY generous salaries
I for one would be happy to see the UN shrink significatly-we don’t need most of its functions, and its precense in NYC is a major headache to the people of New York-third world diplomats have immunity from arrest, and they commit A LOT of crimes against American citizens!

27

Hey buddy can you spare a cite?

28

“Should,” Tedster? I don’t give a rat’s ass about “should.” The fact remains that we agreed to do something and we reneged. We broke an agreement. The fact that we are not the only ones is not relevant to whether or not we broke that agreement.

Or is it now acceptable for me to cheat on my wife simply because other men have cheated on their wives? Is it acceptable for me to steal from my employer because other people have stolen from theirs?
buddy1, please wipe up some of that slobber, willya?

29

Apparently, according the US is witholding monies to the UN because we do not want our soldiers on peacekeeping missions to be tried in a world court:

http://www.nando.com/opinions/story/64979p-930880c.html

I tend to agree. Note the term “Deadbeat” in the title of the article. No mention of the hundreds of millions of dollars spent in the balkans.

30

Tedster, stating that US peacekeepers shouldn’t be tried in a world court, would make a perfect candidate for a position in the US goverment or the mainstream media. It has long been the attitude of both these groups here in the US that international organisations such as the UN, World Court etc. are designed to police all the other pesky little nations, not the selfless and eternally generous United States.

The US, with the support of the media, has routinely over the past half a century ignored world court rulings unfavourable to it while pressing other countries to submit to world court judgements with which the US agrees. The US, despite its constant criticism of the Soviet Union for Cold War obstructionism in the UN, vetoed more Secutiry Council resolutions than any other member, and has also often been just about the only opposition to many General Assembly resolutions (often supported only by Israel).

As Noam Chomsky notes in Chapter Four of his book Necessary Illusions: Thought Control in Democratic Societies (1989), in a section that discusses US support for the contras in Nicaragua and a world court decision about it:
"Spence observes that ‘the obviously relevant pending World Court decision was not mentioned in the 171 [news] stories that preceded the World Court decision itself’ on June 27, 1986. In this decision, the court condemned the United States for its support for the contras and illegal economic warfare and ordered it to desist from its violations of international law and valid treaties and to pay reparations. The decision was reported, but dismissed as a minor annoyance. Its contents were suppressed or falsified, the World Court – not the United States – was portrayed as the criminal, and the rule of law was held inapplicable to the United States.

"In its editorial response on July 1, the Times dismissed the court as a ‘hostile forum’; the editors had voiced no criticism when this same ‘hostile forum’ ruled in favor of the United States in the matter of the Iran hostage crisis. They stated that ‘even the majority [of the court] acknowledged that prior attacks against El Salvador from Nicaragua made `collective defense’ a possible justification for America’s retaliation.’ The editors assumed without comment that the United States was ‘retaliating’ against Nicaraguan aggression and failed to mention that the court had explicitly rejected the claim of ‘collective self-defense’ as a justification, even if the United States could establish the charges against Nicaragua that the court rejected as groundless after examining the evidence in official U.S. government documents; the court also noted, rather sardonically, that El Salvador had not even charged ‘armed attack’ until August 1984, four months after Nicaragua had brought its claim to the court. In a July 17 op-ed, Thomas Franck of New York University Law School, a noted advocate of world order, argued that the United States should dismiss the World Court ruling because ‘America – acting alone or with its allies – still needs the freedom to protect freedom’; as in Nicaragua, for example.

“The U.S. government and the media are surpassed by none in their appeals to the august rule of law and the call for diplomacy rather than violence – when the derelictions of official enemies are at issue. Hence the events of summer 1986 called for some careful ‘perception management.’ Until June, Nicaragua’s failure to accept the Contadora treaty draft was a major story. In May, the New York Times published a lengthy report by Stephen Kinzer headlined ‘Nicaragua Balks at Latin Peace Accord’, criticizing Ortega for his unwillingness to sign the agreement without some commitment from the United States. ‘Nicaragua appears to be the only Central American nation reluctant to sign the draft agreement’, Kinzer wrote. A few weeks later, Contadora was off the agenda. In mid-June the U.S. client states rejected the treaty draft under U.S. pressure. This fact was excluded from the national press, though reported abroad. Nicaragua declared its readiness to sign the treaty on June 21. The Washington Post ignored the unwelcome fact, but it received oblique mention in two tiny items in the New York Times under the headings ‘Nicaragua Makes Offer to Limit Some Weapons’ and ‘U.S. Condemns Offer by Nicaragua on Treaty’ (June 22, 23), focusing on the Reagan administration rejection of the move as ‘propagandistic’. Both items appeared in the “Around the World” roundup of marginal news.”

For adjuncts of government, news value is determined by utility for ideological warfare.
[see http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/ni/ni-c04-s03.html for the rest of this piece]

31

Have you ever been on a “Peacekeeping” mission?

I have, you cannot imagine the conflicting restrictions placed on troops in that theatre.

We don’t need our troops subject to a world court. It is essentially a loss of our national sovereignty. I’m not invoking black helicopters here, that’s just the way it is.

Our troops need to be under our control, simple as that. I was proud to have helped in some small way to minimise the bloodshed over there. Command and control of our forces needs to be from Washington, not the Hague.

32

One that we agreed to as part of being a UN member. Funny how you’re expected to act as part of a group in order to reap benefits from it. What a crazy idea :rolleyes:

[sub]I also like how the tact of this anti-UN nonsense changed as soon as one area began to look less than promising.[/sub]

33

It’s one thing to make the assertion that “Our troops need to be under our control”, and another entirely to demonstrate why this should be the case during multilateral peacekeeping missions under the auspices of, what was it called, oh yes, the UNITED nations. Why is it that other countries that participate in these exercises have enough faith in the international bodies that they are willing to put their troops under their jurisdiction? And, as a matter of fact, the refusal on the part of the US to do this also shows a disturbing lack of faith in those who actually do the peacekeeping. If this country is sending people overseas who it does not feel confident submitting to the international rule of law, then maybe that also says something about US selflessness and generosity.

34

I merely realized why we aren’t paying our ‘dues’ to the UN- I’m all for it.

I’ve been on UN missions before. Unarmed, we were shot at routinely. Bullet holes in our aircraft, without any means of self-defense. And you think that’s okay?

Perhaps pulling completely out of the UN isn’t such a bad idea after all.

35

And that’s another issue entirely.

But I refuse to condone the breaking of promises, Tedster. No amount of flagwaving and gung-ho pro-US rhetoric will change the fact that if we break our word, we are no better than anyone else. Being a patriot does not excuse low and dishonorable breaking of promises.

36

gasp Breaking our word? Oh, come on.

The US is the UN in many ways, as has been pointed out. Since we bear the brunt of Peacekeeping duty, (world cop) it’s only logical that we call the shots.

Our troops belong under the command and control of Congress. Witholding funding from the UN is the only way of asserting that control, and I applaud the men and women of that body for doing that.

I’m not sure the UN charter says anything about turning control of our armed forces over to an international body. Feel free to show me where, exactly. In the unlikely event that it does, we need to leave.

37

Substitute “UN” for “US” and you can see how this cuts both ways.

38

While we’re talking about the UN, I do think it’s a bit ironic that when a country such as Iraq runs afoul of the UN, the rag on about how it’s nothing but a tool of the US. In this context, perhaps a rocky relationship between the US and UN is not such a bad thing.

39

Either you’re not getting it, or you don’t care.

We agreed to pay dues.

We have not done so.

40

You are indeed right that there is nothing in the UN charter about UN control of US troops. In fact, the UN website staes that:

“Soldiers on UN peacekeeping missions do not swear allegiance to the United Nations. Governments that volunteer military and civilian police personnel carefully negotiate the terms of their participation. They retain ultimate authority over their own military forces serving under the UN flag, including disciplinary and personnel matters. Peacekeeping soldiers wear their own national uniforms. To identify themselves as peacekeepers, they also wear blue berets or helmets and the UN insignia.”
See http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/dpko/ques.htm

But i finally was able to have a look at the link that you provided earlier about refusal to pay dues because of the possibility of US submission to an international court. First of all, as the op/ed piece you gave the link for said, the new court isn’t even in existence yet! It was proposed in 1998, and is in the process of being created.

Also, it’s not being designed to punish soldiers who have a bit too much to drink or who make off with UN souvenirs - the article states that the court is being created “to judge gross human rights abuses,”, and says that the need for such a court “is plain to anyone who has witnessed the fumbling global response to recurring global atrocities.”

Finally, the US (or, more specifically, House Republicans) doesn’t just want to exempt US personnel from being tried by the court. As the article which you cite as a defence for your case clearly states:

“The bill they’re pushing would ban U.S. troops from serving on U.N. peacekeeping missions unless they’re given immunity from the court. It would forbid U.S. agencies from cooperating with the court. It would block military aid to non-NATO states that have ratified the treaty. And it would authorize the president to use military force to free U.S. soldiers taken into the world court’s custody.
That last provision has drawn laughs from Europe, where it’s been dubbed the “Hague Invasion Act.” But there’s nothing terribly funny about the sum of this measure, or about the House leadership’s hostage-holding ploy for passing it. Just as U.S. refusal to pay its U.N. bills has done, this plan betrays an unbecoming American arrogance. Here’s hoping that the bullies fail, that the bill dies, that the dues are paid.”

[all this at http://www.nando.com/opinions/story/64979p-930880c.html for those who haven’t seen it yet]

Finally, it might be worth returning to the UN website. First of all, you state that because the US bears the brunt of peacekeeping duties, it should call the shots. Well, in terms of duties in relation to size and wealth, the US actually lags behind some other great superpowers. From the same UN website address as above:

“As of 31 October 2000, 89 countries are contributors of almost 38,000 military and civilian police personnel. Of this number, the top five are: India, 4,460; Nigeria, 3,441; Jordan, 3,400; Bangladesh, 2,394; Ghana, 1,894. The small island nation of Fiji has taken part in virtually every UN peacekeeping operation, as has Canada.”

And as for some of the consequences of the US failure to pay dues:

“Peacekeeping soldiers are paid by their own Governments according to their own national rank and salary scale. Countries volunteering uniformed personnel to peacekeeping operations are reimbursed by the UN at a flat rate of about $1,000 per soldier per month. The UN also reimburses countries for equipment. But reimbursements to these countries are often deferred because of cash shortages caused by Member States’ failure to pay their dues.”

Note how they are too polite to mention anyone by name.