Hey tedster, where’s Wildest Bill when you need him?
I just want to welcome mhendo and thank him for his very informed posts. He looks like he’ll make a very valuable contributor to the SDMB. Welcome mhendo.
Thanks for the kind words, sailor. This is lots of fun, and is no doubt going to be respnsible for much work avoidance.
You have no idea . . .
You’re correct, I don’t care that we’re not paying our dues, now that I know why, it’s perfectly obvious. Congressional funding is the mechanism by which we exert control. A truly unpopular war or deployment can be stopped dead in the tracks by removing funding. (This stuff costs serious money) Pretty cool, huh?
On the face of it, sending our troops into the middle of a civil war isn’t such a great idea to begin with. Subjecting them to the jurisdiction of an international court is quite unpalatable to a number of members of congress, and I agree.
Don’t suppose you’d have a cite for ground force contributions, per chance ?
Well, after more than 40 posts in total on this thread, Tedster finally comes clean. It’s not about US generosity and an ungrateful world, as stated in the original post. Nor is it about the US “being owed far more than we could ever owe” (Tedster’s second post). Nor is it about foreign aid providing evidence of our “good guy” status (another Tedster gem). It’s not even about the US being a “deadbeat” on the world stage.
It’s all a big spiel in favour of US unilateralism, especially when it suits America, as well as a thinly disguised parading of Republican party obstructionism. Tedster’s GOP ears and trunk have finally sprouted, and the historical arguments have been trampled by elephant feet.
Not to worry, I just found this:
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.
From: http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/dpko/ques.htm#shortages
Don’t mind me, carry on sounding off…
Yet another good reason Jesse Helms is retiring!
Unfortunately, the UN is falling apart. WHO and probably UNICEF still do valuable work. UNESCO is very destructive – a group of dictators trying to define the world’s morals. The General Assembly never did much. Little is coming from the Security Council.
We Americans have 3 choices:
-
Try to shut down the UN.
-
Pay our dues and ignore the problems.
-
Try to fix the UN, using unpaid dues as leverage.
IMHO #2 is almost as bad as #1. Jesse Helms was one of the few real supporters of an effective UN. He will be missed (on this issue). Keep up the good work, Tedster.
Don’t mean to undermine the rant but thought I’d quantify just one of Tedster’s interesting claims:
Figures for 1999 – nearest I could find:
TOTAL: U.N. Troops (12,132) and U.S. (223) contributions (5% overall)
http://www.clw.org/pub/clw/un/troops0499.html
That’s a big claim for 223 troops, Tedster.
Mhendo, it’s no secret where my loyalties are. I’ve been quite straightforward about that. Thanks for playing, though.
Yes, the US is owed materially and monetarily far more than can be repaid. Perhaps generous isn’t the proper word, but there it is.
Apparently that isn’t good enough, though. Our troops must answer to a world government. That doesn’t sit too well with a lot of people, myself included.
I forgot about the sophist approach to argument. Reality doesn’t matter, just winning arguments. Forgive me, what I meant to say that is the US is bearing a pretty good chunk of “Peacekeeping” right now in the balkans, in particular. I’ve been there. Have you? Our troops are deployed all over the globe in something like 100 countries, including UN deployments and “Peacekeeping”; and NATO committments.
I apologise for not being as slick as many on here, but the bottom line is the United States bears and has borne the brunt of defense spending for at least 50 years for the western world, and winning the cold war.
The Congress should have the power to make war or deploy US troops, not an international body.
Tedster, do you honestly believe that the UN is using US troops without the consent of the US government?
Tedster, you accuse others of sophistry and then make claims of a world goverment forcing US troops to obey them? Pot, kettle, black.
You also make is sound as though the US has received no benefit at all from any international peace-keeping or military commitments. That is not true. The US’ bargaining position economically is vastly strengthened by its influence overseas.
To be frank, Tedster, it’s a struggle to keep up with you. All that military training may have turned you into a permanently moving target – something that isn’t always a good idea when you’re trying to either make your points or debate same.
Your general point seems to be along the lines of: The US has been wonderfully generous to the world for a century or so, the US doesn’t need to honour it’s UN commitments, the US is the world’s cop anyway, etc.
There may somewhere be examples of a Government acting selflessly but I doubt it’s happened during the Capitalist era – no Government I am aware of acts or has acted internationally without it’s primary motive being self interest – self interest to the nation or to their particular political party. It is the nature of the capitalist beast and the US is most certainly no different to any other in that regard, IMHO.
Thus, in terms of the US, the notion of ‘world peacekeeper’ has rather more to do with:
- protecting markets (actual or potential),
- being seen to protect ‘friendly Governments’ (as in friendly trading partners) to reassure other ‘friendlies’ (markets) , or
- stabilising ‘situations’ (oil supplies comes to mind as does the Balkans) that threaten markets
than it has to do with “generosity”. No matter how patriotically it’s dressed up for you, that’s what it’s all been about.
'Course, they don’t tell you that when you’re flying missions but the Corporations and shareholders back home sure are grateful.
Ridiculous.
I had friends from the Australian Special Air Services Regiment serve in the UN peacekeeping mission in East Timor.
They did a great job there. Two of the soldiers (from memory, an Australian and a New Zealander) were killed. The Blue Helmuts no doubt saved a lot of lives and helped to start rebuilding that country. The UN, from this standpoint alone, has shown that its existence is worthwhile and valid.
If any of the soldiers had committed crimes against humanity while peacekeeping, then they should be hauled off to the International War Crimes Tribunal.
Why should American soldiers be exempted from this?
And what makes the US think that this should be tied to its UN dues?
The real reason is that, as stated above, the UN is no longer a forum which promotes US unilateralism. Other countries have a say, and in true democratic fashion, can and do vote against US interests. Democracy is fine for the US, I suppose, so long as it supports US interests.
US diplomats bungled the UNHRC seat issue (as they bungled the 1993 Vienna World Human Rights Convention), and now insist upon getting it back, linked to payment of their long overdue fees. And yet is still participates in the UN, and throws its weight around. In commerce, you don’t do business with a defaulting debtor.
It makes me furious.
But it’s alright for non-American troops serving in the same situation, Ted?
For somebody who claims to have served in UN peacekeeping missions, you’ve shown no evidence of any knowlege as to how they work. Or the US military, for that matter (here’s a little hint: while the Congress declares war, the President–being the Commander in Chief–is the one who actually deploys troops).
In that regard, Tedsterso you can have an informed opinion on UN peacekeeping and hopefully stop backflipping, I recommend you buy William Shawcross’ excellent book, “Deliver Us from Evil: Warlords and Peacekeeping in a World of Endless Conflict”.
You’ll see also in that book that most of the UN’s problems stem from its structure (established by the US post WW2)and consequent lack of direction from lack of consensus, and its lack of funding.
Many of you seem to be more interested in what are relatively minor details- such as who has the power to declare war, and who sends the troops (Although this has been blurred in recent years) as if this is a debate that will be scored by points- Three typos and a wrong date is equal to a reducto ad absurdium kind of thing.
I’m more interested in concepts, trends, and the larger issues at hand. That’s why it seemed so odd to me, to hear of any monetary debt on the part of the US when it comes to world peace. Give me a break.
Still, monetary debt is to be much preferred over blood, to a point, I imagine.
I don’t claim to be as educated nor as slick at rhetorical debate as a general SDBM, but the concept of subverting any authority to an international body strikes me as a Bad Idea ™ in general.
It would seem that witholding funds to the UN is the only way Congress can signal just how much authority they have in the US. I would bet it’s not entirely confined to conservatives, either, but that’s another issue entirely.
I’m quite aware we don’t lay ourselves prostrate to the almighty UN, but I honestly don’t believe it’s necessary nor desirable to default to them on matters of war crimes or anything else.