United Nations Debt

[Dave_Stewart]

*Originally posted by Tedster *
**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. **

The US has agreed to pay the UN money. It hasn’t. I understand this is called “welching” in the US. What has this got to do with world peace?

Are you implying that the US is the world leader in perpetuating world peace?

**
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.
**

Why?

**
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.
**

Hardly a good motivation, if this is true. The funny thing is, the US keeps changing its mind as to why it won’t pay its UN dues.

Back when Boutros Boutros Ghali was UN Sec. Gen., the refusal to pay the (then) amount of $1billion was based upon the fact that the US didn’t like Boutros Ghali. So Kofi Annan was appointed.

Then it said that reforms needed to be made The reforms requested were made. Clinton decided he didn’t want to lose leverage in a fight he would lose with Republicans in Congress, so he never backed his promise.

When Kofi Annan caused Saddam to back down in the weapons inspection issue, in a diplomatic coup, Clinton said that the US dues would be paid, and even Jesse Helms said that Annan had done a good job. But by then, the Republicans in Congress had tied the payment of dues to the pro-abortion stance of one of the UN’s subordinate bodies (funny, given abortions are legal in the US).

In May 2000, the US owed the UN over $1.5 billion. Congress offered to pay $926 million - provided this was accepted as payment in full, that the UN budget wouldn’t increase for the next two years, and tht the US would have a drop in its contribution to the UN budget from 25% to 22%. The UN refused to accept this.

I’ve had to chase bad debtors before. They weasel and squirm, and try to impose conditions on payments. The US sounds like one of the worst. Americans should be embarrassed by their government’s behaviour.

**
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. **

I take exception to your use of the term “the almighty UN”. Clinton’s presidential tour of Africa cost the US taxpayer $42.8 million. Kofi Annan toured a short time later, at a cost of $108000. Its hard to be “almighty” when you are operating on a shoe string budget, because your major debtor won’t pay his bills.

Incidentally, you don’t defer issues of “war crimes” to the UN - you defer it to the Internatioanl Court of Justice, composed of pre-eminent jurists. Its like mixing up the US government and the US Supreme Court, and its ignorant.

I have noticed you haven’t sought to answer anything else I’ve written above about why US citizens should be specially exempt from crimes against humanity, tried by an international court…

[longjohn]

Tedster -

Nitpick forsooth!

You are deliberately avoiding taking in any position contrary to your own, you are moving the ground on which you are arguing for and if you think “It seems clear” is any basis at all for an argument you are badly mistaken.

A number of people have posted solid evidence, backed by cites that rubbish most of your assertions, London_Calling weighed in with actual figures relating to US contributions sourced from UN websites, which you ignored.

I understand why you wish to try and justify what you see as grievances against the rest of the world, but you cannot in this case 'cos the evidence is not there.

Plus, whining about the actions and stance of the UN and then stating “The US is the UN in many ways” doesn’t strike me as the debating masterstroke.

I do realise that i’m posting this for my own satisfaction, as i’m sure Tedster stopped reading this post as soon as he realised it posts views contrary to his own.

j.

[Spiny_Norman]

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.

<cough> pro capita contribution <cough>

[erislover]

*Originally posted by Dave Stewart *
In May 2000, the US owed the UN over $1.5 billion. Congress offered to pay $926 million - provided this was accepted as payment in full, that the UN budget wouldn’t increase for the next two years, and tht the US would have a drop in its contribution to the UN budget from 25% to 22%. The UN refused to accept this.

Why on earth does the US pay such a large percentage of the UN budget, if I am reading this correctly?

From that paragraph alone, it sounds a lot less like “Democracy” and a lot more like “highway robbery.”

[mhendo]

Now, you haven’t read all the posts in this thread, have you? If you look at my earlier post, you will see that i made the following points:

Now regarding the UN debt. The US has been behind in the payments required to make to help keep the body functioning for about the last fifteen years. The US has some rather sound grievances to make against the UN payment schedule, given that its share of the UN administrative budget was, until December 23 last year, 25% of the $1.1 billion required to run the UN annually, and 30.4% of the UN peacekeeping budget of $3.0 billion. The reason the US fell behind in its pasyments was that Congress (which has many members hostile to the UN anyway, led by Sen. Jesse Helms) decided that the US was being asked to pay too much compared to other nations. On the aforementioned date in December, the UN General Assembly voted to reduce the US share of the admin budget to 22% (which is what Congress wanted) and to reduce its share of the peacekeeping budget to 26% by 2003 (just a bit more than the 25% demanded by Congress). At the time:

“Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.), the ranking minority member of the Foreign Affairs Committee, said today he is confident Congress will approve the deal if the Bush administration embraces it. ‘It’s a very good deal,’ Biden said. ‘I can’t imagine them not embracing it.’”
(Washington Post, 24 December 2000)

So in December everything seemed to be coming along, and it looked like the US was about to relinquish its deadbeat status. But early this year, the US lost its seat on the UN Human Rights Commission, and there was much gnashing of teeth in Washington, with many people pointing out the injustice of the US being barred entry to a commission that included countries like Sudan and Libya. What these critics failed to note is that the US is part of the Western Group, which is allowed three members on the HRC, and it was replaced not by some third world dictatorship, but by Sweden. This idea that the US, by simple virtue of its size, economic power and military strength, has the right to sit of every UN commission, especially when it doesn’t pay its dues, is the sort of unilateral thinking the world body was designed to overcome. Also, as the Baltimore Sun pointed out on May 13 this year:

“The Europeans, and others at the United Nations, know something most Americans don’t know - that despite lots of high-sounding human rights rhetoric, the United States routinely refuses to sign or ratify important human rights agreements,”

including the Convention on the Rights of the Child,the Convention on the Rights of Women, the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, and the treaty against the use of anti-personnel land mines. Anyway, after the US lost its seat on the HRC, Congressional Republicans threatened to continue to withhold about $240 million in the dues that had been approved by Congress after the UN’s December changes to US payment obligations.

Fast-forward to early this month (August), and UN Secretary General Kofi Annan was wondering why the US still had not paid its dues, despite promises to do so back in December and the final authorization for a $582 million payment as part of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act in May this year. The Senate has signed off on this, as had the House, but the loss of the HRC seat led to a House amendment to withhold the aforementioned $240 million unless the US regains its HRC seat next year.

The issue here is not whether the US pays a high proportion of the UN’s budget - there is no doubt that it does. As many people on this thread have pointed out, the US has, over and over, agreed to pay its dues and then welched on the deal. As you can see from the above, the UN complied with Congress’s demands regarding the admin budget, and was only one percentage point over on the peacekeeping budget, a deal both houses of Congress and the Bush administration agreed to until the issue of the seat on the HRC came up - an issue that is (or should be) totally unrelated to payment of dues.

If you go back and look at the exchange between Tedster and me, you will also see that the issue of US troops being under the jurisdiction of an International Court of Justice has also become an issue. But again, it is one which should have no relevance to paying UN dues.

[andros]

Many of you seem to be more interested in what are relatively minor details-

Bzzzzt. Try again, Tedster.

Here’s a hint. The proper response is “I was wrong.” “I misspoke” is also acceptable for full points. So is “I’m not communicating well.”

But weaselling is poor form, miladdo.

[London_Calling]

*Originally posted by Dave Stewart *
In May 2000, the US owed the UN over $1.5 billion. Congress offered to pay $926 million - provided this was accepted as payment in full, that the UN budget wouldn’t increase for the next two years, and tht the US would have a drop in its contribution to the UN budget from 25% to 22%. The UN refused to accept this.

If those figures are correct, I’d like to know the basis on which the contributions of all member States are calculated. For example, is it done on a formula or was this all agreed back in the 1940’s and not amended since.

It’s ball park stuff but maybe 25% isn’t extravagant if the EU countries collectively match that amount – there not a lot between the two in terms of wealth. I’m not sure that is the case. However, if it is so, that leaves the rest of the world to contribute about 50% which doesn’t seem too crazy given most of the rest – taking out the mid-East oil States, Canada, OZ and NZ - are in the developing world, to some degree or another. Just like to see the basis of the calculation.
Also, wanted to add something to my previous post. Why I do believe all countries act in self-interest and so refute the claims of US “unparalleled generosity” I want to distinguish political action from that of the people.

Without a shadow of doubt, the American people have, historically, been very generous – and I’m particularly thinking of the hardships of wartime rationing, contributions from the US public making very significant differences to the British public (including my family) but there are other examples, also.

Wanted to make that point because when people use, for example, ‘we’, ‘us’ and ‘them’ rather than ‘Government’, things get confused.

[system]

*Originally posted by Tedster *
**I forgot about the sophist approach to argument. doesn’t matter, just winning arguments.

Mirror, mirror.

[erislover]

*Originally posted by London_Calling *
[If those figures are correct, I’d like to know the basis on which the contributions of all member States are calculated. For example, is it done on a formula or was this all agreed back in the 1940’s and not amended since.

Hell, I would too. I’d be particularly interested in knowing why we find that paying 22% of the budget is “a deal.”

mhendo, I don’t always keep up with threads that don’t interest me. I read a few posts here, a few posts there, and sometimes something catches my eye. I appreciate your generous reposting of the points you made, but I had read your comment previously and found it just as interesting now as I did then.

The question still seems to be, why is the US welshing on its promise? “Now let’s not bicker an argue over 'oo killed 'oo.” This is politics, pure and simple. the US is trying to throw its weight around. Until it is satisfied with the way things are, it probably will continue to throw its weight around. Perhaps we are not in agreement on political means of reaching an agreement.

The US tries to throw its weight around to get what it wants. The UN members will throw their weight around to get what they want. IMO, war has moved from the battlefield to the debate floor.

Yes, it is very possible that the US isn’t paying because it only likes democracy when democracy is for the US. Who the hell wouldn’t? That is blatent self-preservation, pure and simple, and any nation who would pay 25% of a budget of an organization who didn’t like the nation who paid that 25% is, pardon my french, fucking stupid, and not looking out for its own interests.

I would posit this as axiomatic: no nation would be a member of the UN if it didn’t stand to gain something from it. Any nation who feels that it is more of a cost than a reward should pull out. Period. Whether they do so gracefully is a matter for the nation to decide, but I find that there is no goal lofty enough to warrant subjugation to one’s competition.

I disagree with the US method of throwing its weight around, however. If it has no intention of paying, then it never should have said so; I do agree there.

[mhendo]

Your last couple of sentences:

I would posit this as axiomatic: no nation would be a member of the UN if it didn’t stand to gain something from it. Any nation who feels that it is more of a cost than a reward should pull out. Period. Whether they do so gracefully is a matter for the nation to decide, but I find that there is no goal lofty enough to warrant subjugation to one’s competition.

I disagree with the US method of throwing its weight around, however. If it has no intention of paying, then it never should have said so; I do agree there.

are good ones, and i generally agree with the sentiments expressed. But with the US it’s not a matter of pulling out gracefully - there is no way they are going to pull out at all. Instead, as with other bodies such as the World Court, they will point to the integrity and democracy of the UN when it suits their needs, and ignore or castigate it when it doesn’t. It should be added that America is not alone here - my home country of Australia has been known to do the same thing, especially in terms of environmental issues and the treatment of Australian aborigines. But that doesn’t make it right.

[andros]

ERL:

I disagree with the US method of throwing its weight around, however. If it has no intention of paying, then it never should have said so; I do agree there

And Tedster’s ramblings notwithstanding, that’s all I’ve been saying.

[Dave_Stewart]

*Originally posted by London_Calling *
**

If those figures are correct, I’d like to know the basis on which the contributions of all member States are calculated. For example, is it done on a formula or was this all agreed back in the 1940’s and not amended since.

It’s ball park stuff but maybe 25% isn’t extravagant if the EU countries collectively match that amount – there not a lot between the two in terms of wealth. I’m not sure that is the case. However, if it is so, that leaves the rest of the world to contribute about 50% which doesn’t seem too crazy given most of the rest – taking out the mid-East oil States, Canada, OZ and NZ - are in the developing world, to some degree or another. Just like to see the basis of the calculation.

**

The figures are correct: I’ll look into the method of calculation of contribution.

[erislover]

Well, the UN’s webpage doesn’t describe how the monetary contribution scale is determined, but here’s some fun facts.

The top seven contributors to the UN are the USA (25%); Japan (17.98%); Germany (9.63%); France (6.49%); Italy (5.39%); the United Kingdom (5.07%); and Russia (2.87%). Collectively, they account for more than 72% of the regular UN budget.

Looks like Japan is getting the shaft, too. I’m really interested in how this contribution scale is set up.

Three out of five Americans (61.6 per cent) think that the US should pay the $1.6 billion that it owes the UN (Zogby/GfK, January 1999). In a similar finding, by a a 3-to-1 margin, Americans say their country should pay its UN dues, and a majority say that payment should be made without conditions (Wirthlin, August 1998). However, 82 per cent of the members of the US Congress thought that Americans generally hold a negative view of paying UNdues (Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA), University of Maryland, October 1997).

Score another one for democracy :rolleyes: Why do people continue to think it works better than it does? (note: it works better than other system, thanks Winston Churchill smarty-pants, but that doesn’t do anything to rectify situations where it doesn’t, m’kay?)

You’d think that was a lone example, and along comes this:

Over 80 per cent of the US public want to strengthen the United Nations, according to several polls (83%, Pew, September 1997; 81%, Times-Mirror, June 1995; 84%, Chicago Council of Foreign Relations, October 1994). However, American policy makers think that only 14 per cent of the public favour such action (PIPA, October 1997).

This is from the charter:

to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small…

HA, everyone who joins the UN supports human rights, huh?

Ok, I’m starting to rant… a quick reading of the charter doesn’t immediately yield how contributions are decided, except that it occurs in the general assembly.

[Tedster]

Minor nitpick, but the US isn’t a Democracy.

Those are interesting figures, however.

[London_Calling]

Interesting stuff, erislover.

So, it looks like the EU contribution (with all the countries included) would probably be approx. 30%. The population is fractionally bigger than that of the US so compares reasonably well with the (currently theoretical) US figure of 25%

As you suggest, Japan is the interesting case. Again ball park stuff but that also doesn’t seem too unreasonable as they haven’t had the burden of maintaining a military since WW2.

About the Charter: It’s important to remember when it was drawn up. Those were optimistic times, the war was over, the price paid and utopian ideals seemed worth reaching for.
I noticed also that in 1998 (troop and civilian police contributions fluctuate according to the situation – but data for 1999 is the only year I could find in some detail), **the US came out as 16th largest troop contributor **– just behind the Ivory Coast.

**How UN contributions are calculated **

The Assessment Formula from: http://www.unausa.org/Programs/scale.htm

Lovely big and comprehensive explanation but the* Summary* says:

28 January 1998

The U.N. General Assembly approved in December 1997 a new scale for
apportionment of U.N. expenses among member states. The new assessment
formula includes a number of reforms that make the rates fairer in accordance
with the principle of capacity to pay. Under the new rate scale:

• The economic data to be used in calculating each nation’s share of world
  income will be more recent, thus coming closer to current economic
  realities.
• The discount provided to countries with low per capita incomes is trimmed
  slightly.
• The scheme of limits, which barred major changes in countries’
  assessments despite dramatic changes in their economic condition, is
  eliminated.
• The “floor,” which set a minimum contribution rate that was higher than
  many member states’ share of world income, has been lowered.

The new scale does not lower the “ceiling” that caps the assessment of the
largest contributor, a provision sought by the United States; but this was not,
in any event, ever presented as a measure to enhance fairness and equity.

The actual level of financial contributions from each member country can be seen in the table at:

http://www.globalpolicy.org/finance/assessmt/dues2000.htm

[Dave_Stewart]

**Erislover **, purely for my own interest, could you please tell me where you found your facts? I certainly don’t challenge those polls, but I’d love to know where you got them from…

[Tedster]

Remember that the bulk of defense for Japan, Korea, and Europe is provided by the U.S. apart from any UN commitment. Defense related spending exceeds the next 12 largest budgets combined.

[erislover]

All from http://www.un.org but here are some more direct links:
General Fact Sheet
What Americans Really Think, which is accessible from the link just previous to this one.

It really is an interesting web site, but I think it is a little poorly organized when you come in from the home page. So many links to follow!

[Dave_Stewart]

Thanks Erislover.

*Originally posted by Tedster *
**Remember that the bulk of defense for Japan, Korea, and Europe is provided by the U.S. apart from any UN commitment. Defense related spending exceeds the next 12 largest budgets combined. **

What has that got to do with owing the UN money?

You keep linking US defence spending to UN dues.

Why? Its comparing apples and oranges. NATO and the UN are different entities. Whatever treaty the US has with Japan or Korea is different from the UN.

The UN has the Military Staff Committee, which is pretty much defunct, and can call for peacekeepers (which as has been established here the US sends less of than the Ivory Coast), but otherwise has nothing to do with US defence spending.

I’m trying to work out what you’re getting at. If you’re trying to say that the US is keeping peace in its own way by regional defence presences, and so shouldn’t have to pay UN dues which would be used for peacekeeping, then even this is a flawed proposition - the UN isn’t charged with just a peace keeping co-ordination role. Its functions range from helping displaced refugees to co-ordinating world meterology.

Tedster, you seem to think that the US role in having military bases over the world, having played a crucial part in winning WW2 over fifty years ago, and having assisted to rebuild Western Europe and Japan in the late 1940s justifies not having to pay $1.5 billion in backdebt today. I just don’t see the logic in what you’re saying.

[Tedster]

Tedster, you seem to think that the US role in having military bases over the world, having played a crucial part in winning WW2 over fifty years ago, and having assisted to rebuild Western Europe and Japan in the late 1940s justifies not having to pay $1.5 billion in backdebt today. I just don’t see the logic in what you’re saying. **
[/QUOTE]

Oh, don’t forget the war in Korea, which was a UN operation, you’ll recall. We bore the brunt of that. Vietnam, which nearly bankrupt the country. Winning the Cold War against the Soviets. We are spending trillions of dollars on defense logistics all over the globe. The Gulf War, which provided security for the worlds oil supply. I could go on, but I think you get the idea.

I’m not saying it ‘justifies’ anything, but maybe we should just send the UN a bill for our services for the last, Oh, say 90 years. With interest. The truth is, we shouldn’t owe anybody a dime.