United Nations Debt

Great Debates
81

After reading with the posts about US “generosity” (especially when refering to foreign aid), I checked the CIA site (since this one can’t be considered as biaised against the US) to find some figures about the economical aid granted by some major western countries (I included Sweden since I knew scandinavian countries where especially generous, so I picked one of them for comparison).

The results are as follow :

USA : 6,3 billions (0.07% of GNP) Canada : 2.1 billions (0.29% of GNP)
Japan : 9.1 billions (0.31% of GNP) Germany : 5.6 billions (0.30% of GNP)
France : 6.3 billions (0.46% of GNP) UK : 3.4 billions (0.26% of GNP)
Sweden : 1.7 billions $ (0.92% of GNP)

So, the “generous” US not only aren’t the most generous country if we consider the total amount (they give more or less the same amount than a major european country) but also, the part of their wealth devoted to foreign aid is ridiculously lower than any other western country.

It didn’t come as a surprise for me, since I already knew that the US was the less generous develloped country in terms of economical aid. But it could be one for some posters (well…at least for one poster).

82

Your argument is superb. My grandfather would love it. He could borrow money from a bank, incur the debt, and then say to the bank, “Hey, I don’t have to pay my debt! I fought the Japanese in World War 2!”

83

You’ll have to try harder than that…

84

Aside from the ludicrous assertion that the Vietnam war came close to bankrupting the U.S.,
I am really curious why it should be any concern of the U.N. to consider that effort as a “payment” toward anything,
especially considering that the U.S. had a small but vital role in sowing the seeds to that conflict in 1919, played another small but vital role in the early 1950s in ensuring that that conflict would occur, and then walked into that conflict for its own ideological reasons and chose to stay there despite information from its own intelligence services that the conflict would/could not be won.

If you assert that the U.S. has no obligation to the U.N. for its mission, then you must agree that the U.N. owes the U.S. nothing for its own inept stupidity.

85

What are you, a televangelist? “Give until it hurts!!” No country is obligated to do anything for anyone. Charity is, after all, voluntary.

The US is a generous country.

What is this now, a competition?

I don’t think there are many people in the world who want America to stop giving. Perhaps defaming them over it isn’t the best way to go about it, eh?

As far as Japan goes, you might note above that Japan has no military. Hell, if the US didn’t spend any money on a military force we could toss out more money too.

86

No, you have to try harder than that. Nothing you’ve said to date makes any logical sense. If you can find a way to link US defence spending for the past 50 years to the US welching and weaseling out of its UN dues, then please enlighten us. Otherwise, all you have done so far is try to muddy the waters by raising facts which don’t support your argument, with no rationale or logic to sustain your position. You’ve flipped around, backsliding and shifting on all of your points, and have made no effort to address or refute anything which has been said in an effort to justify your position. You can’t even refute my last comment with anything sensible other than a challenge to try harder. Its ignorant.

You’ve got this concept stuck in your head that the US should be let off the hook for its financial obligations under a treaty because of American involvement in past wars, it seems, and you refuse to let go of it, no matter how much evidence to the contrary or logic is presented to you.

87

[slightly offtrack]
Not quite true, Erislover. Japan has a very substantial navy by regional standards. A friend’s husband was commander of the Australian submarine squadron, and he went on an inspection tour in 1997. He was impressed by its strength.

Its just that the Japanese constitution refuses to allow Japan to use their defence forces other than for defence of the Japanese archipelego.
[/slightly offtrack]

88

Tedster, I must admit that even after reading all your post, I was somewhat surprised that you included Vietnam in the list of war for which you think you should “send the bill” to the UN. I’m sure all members would be very happy to pay for this one (I suppose Vietnam will be especially delighted to pay its share)

It seems you’re messing up a lot the US interests with the world interests at large (along the line : if it’s good for the US, or viewed favorably by the US, it must be good for everybody, so everybody should pay)

Also, it seems you don’t understand what the UN is all about. It’s not a club whose members share the same views and the same goals and try to further them together (and more specifically, try to further US goals).

It’s an organization encompassing quite all countries, yes, even those with the worst records (and even those which are ennemies of the US) and try to work together, despite their disagreements, on various topics. Amongst these topics, the most important is ensuring global security. Not defend the western values or insuring US security specifically. For these goals, there are other organizations like NATO.

For instance, yes, there are countries with awful human right records in the UN human right comitee. But the whole purpose of these comitee is to harbor discussions about human rights amongst nations which have very dissimilar views on this topic.And trying to reach some basic common agreement. Not just telling “you’re evil, you must change your ways”. If it was just that, there would be indeed no need for the UN. Any ambassador can do the same. But the results would be nil. Yes, the UN must accept the “least common denominator”. But it did a pretty much good job that way.

It’s roughly the same in all the domains covered by UN. You should imagine the UN like those consellors who try to negociate some agreement between spouses about to divorce, disliking and distrusting each other and fighting over the house and the custody. Not like a cosy club of good tempered friends who view.
Finally, it’s obvious from your posting that you’re very poorly informed. You assumed a lot about the US from the beginning, viewing them as the good and generous boy trying to do his best to help the little kids.

You seem to have been unaware of numerous facts that has been pointed to in this thread : refusal to respect their agreed upon commitments, refusal to respect international rulings when they aren’t in fovor of the US (and urging other countries to respect them in the opposite situation), refusal to sign various international agreements on difficultly arguable topics like children’s rights or landmines, very limited participation in peace-keeping operations, less that minimal involvment in foreign help, refusal to be submitted to the same rules than other countries (International court for human rights)etc…

Yes, a lot of countries have grudges against the US. But there are some reasons for that. Your view of the international role of your country is idyllic, totally unrealistic and you displayed a major lack of knowledge of the facts. You should search non-biased informations and rethink your position.

Perhaps you’ll still think that the US should withdraw from the UN since this organization doesn’t further their goals/values. But at least you won’t be using arguments based on mere self-flattering assumptions (along the line : the US do more than everybody else, when actually they do less, and are often a major obstacle on the way to an agreement)but instead on hard facts (probably like : it’s in the better interest of the US to leave the UN)

Perhaps you’ll still think that the US did great things (WWII, etc…) but you’ll be aware of the very arguable(Gulf war,…) or even clearly indefensible (Chile,…) actions they took.

Also, you should be aware that with the passing of time, people feel less and less concerned about what the US did 60 years ago (WWII) and judge your country according to what she is doing now or in a recent past. And her current record is not that brilliant. If you don’t do that, you’re living in the rags of your former glory and it’s not exactly the the most encouraging situation for a nation.

89 
Actually, I think that we have such a moral obligation, but it another debate. What I wanted to pointed out is that that stating that the US are a generous donnor of foreign help, as it has been said previously, is totally false.

I’m sure they don’t want the US to stop giving. But it seems also they’re don’t giving that much. And if I understand correctly the word “defaming”, it don’t think it applies when the figures come from the US government itself.

Ok…Japan has no army. Let’s forget them. Just say that the US give as much as france alone…happy?

Admitedly. But saying to a beggar : I’ve a big gun at home (hinting : I’ll use it for the better interest of both of us) isn’t the same that giving him money to eat, is it?

In other words : US military expenses are essentially selfish. They insure US security. If they happen at the same time to be beneficial for US allies, fine. But it’s not their primary goal.

You can say that you owe nothing to nobody (though I find this position very arguable). But you can’t boast for something you don’t do, nor for something you do mainly out of self-interest.

90

:rolleyes: Well, I guess then we can just take back the billions of dollars we have spent then, since it wasn’t “really” handed out?

No, I meant defaming as it, “The US sucks because it doesn’t give enough.”

Actually, I’ll be happy when countries can handle their own affairs without foriegn aid, so no one gives anyone anything.

WHAT?! All I can say is: no kidding. If America gets it in the ass because of a war, we can’t even give out the 6 billion plus you scoff at.

I can see no good reason why any country should not have a military.

Well, you’ve got a long way to go to convince me that acting out of altruism is noble. You are welcome to try, however.

Dave, wow, I honestly didn’t know that Japan had a Navy. Was what you mention written into their constitution as a result of WW2 or no? Terribly interesting.

91

erislover wrote:

Maybe not, but some have argued that there are countries who might actually be better off financially without US aid. Take Israel, for example, which, as Noam Chomsky has pointed out, has been the greatest recipient of US aid for a long time. A work by Yoram Ben-Porath contends that this aid has had a detrimental effect on the Israeli economy because a considerable proportion it is conditional on Israel using the money to purchase US equipment rather than investing in local production.

And for those conservatives out there who are always complaining about wasting public money on ‘useless’ stuff like welfare, social security and medicare, think about the implications of this. The US government gives tax money to Israel (or some other nation - this argument is not designed as an Israel-bashing exercise) on the condition that it buys US goods. So money is taken from US citizens, funneled through foreign countries, and comes back to enrich private corporations, especially defence contractors such as GM, GE, Lockheed-Martin, McDonnell Douglas etc. I know that these companies employ US workers, but this is a classic example of transferring public wealth to private hands.

References for this information:

Yoram Ben-Porath (ed.), The Israeli Economy: Maturing Through Crises, Harvard University Press, Cambridge (Mass.), 1986.

Noam Chomsky, The Fateful Triangle: The United States, Israel and the Palestinians, South End Press, Boston (Mass.), 1983.

92

erislover

I saw three subs myself, in Kobe harbour. Nice big things. Painted blue, which surprised me as I’m used to warships being painted grey.

And yes, that, more or less, is incorporated into the Japanese constitution. Which was a sore point in Japan-US relations in the 70s and 80s because the US wanted Japan to direct some of its taxes into defence instead of the economy, and Japan said “no thanks you’re doing a great job we’d rather use it to give tax breaks to our companies - and besides you wrote our constitution for us, so don’t blame us.” Kind of funny.

93

Erislover, thanks so much!

I have seen the light. Who would have thought your uninformed, badly phrased statements uncluttered by anything as inconvenient as fact would have converted me, but they have.

God bless America, God bless Uncle Sam.
In fact as you have been so very generous, perhaps you find yourself a little short? Maybe the rest of the world could have a bit of a whip round and help the good ol US out? It only seems fair.

sheesh.

j.

94

longjohn, I’d ask you what the fuck you were talking about but for fear that you’d answer. Go away, boy, shoo.

95

Erislover,

It was sarcasm. Laid on with a trowel as i wasn’t sure whether you’d get the point if i was being subtle.

Clearly even this wasn’t sufficient.

A pity, that.

Do you ever actually listen and debate (as one might in a forum called Great Debates)? Or do you always tell anybody who doesn’t agree with your views to shoo?

I hope not because if you did, gosh, that would make you utterly ignorant and a total cretin, wouldn’t it?

j.

96

Yup, it does seem that US Administrations undertook a major u-turn in their attitudes toward Japanese military capabilities as Japan’s industrial base expanded exponentially in the 1970’s.
While being a student Thesis (Harvard, Graduating with a Masters), I found this to be an interesting site on Japanese Military Policy and strength post-WW2:

The Overview begins thus;

“Article Nine of the Japanese Constitution, ratified shortly after the
end of the Second World War, formally renounces war and war potential,
and specifically forbids Japan from ever again maintaining land, sea, or
air forces. Throughout the postwar period, many Asian leaders have clearly
expressed opposition to a new Japanese military. Most important in terms
of this study, postwar public opinion in Japan has been rather pacifist,
and has largely opposed military growth. So how did Japan come to have
238,000 troops, 1,160 tanks, 15 submarines, 90 attack helicopters, and
440 combat airplanes?”

  • of course, the quality of armaments and offensive readiness of the above numbers do need much more analysis.
97

Oh, that was shining right through, don’t worry about that.

Do you ever actually listen and debate? Or do you merely attack anyone who doesn’t agree with your views with sarcasm and little substance?

Tell you what, lj, you make a statement and we’ll debate it; or, for my edification, pick a part of my posts here that others haven’t gracefully amended as they saw fit and do this “debate” thing you talk about. If “debating” means using sarcasm to present an unsupported opinion then I suppose you’ve got that mastered and I’ve no chance.

Otherwise-- you guessed it-- shoo. You’re bothering me.

By the way, what the hell is your problem with me? I almost feel ashamed at giving you the attention but I am intrigued.

98

Pardon me, for interjecting, but I do have a completely unsupported point to make.

The last time I paid attention to this debate, which was… about the time of the Gulf War, the reason often expressed for US not paying the UN, was that they weren’t paying US.

Does anyone know the size of the UN debt to the USA? I’m afraid I don’t know where I could find an unbiased statistic.

99

Don’t have a problem with you at all, Erislover. It’s just that some of your previous posts seemed to be a bit superior and rather stridently of the opinion that the rest of the world should be damn grateful to the Americans for all the selfless good they do in the world and all of the rest of us should be thankful to you, as a nation.
Now, I realise I have posted nothing factual in this thread, but I have not contradicted bald fact*. You have. It is there that the debate lies. The CIA website posts the figures for economic aid donations, as reported by Clairobscur. These show that the US donates many times less than the average there quoted, when measured as a percentage of GNP.

Your email refuted this, and I quote

“The US is a generous nation”.

I’m not trying to attack you, but you posted pure opinion, which flies in the face of the facts.

The links you posted, to my reading anyway, look like pretty good arguments for the US coughing up the money it owes.

Reading back through your posts in this thread, I cannot see that you have posted any facts that support the views you hold. I’m lucky, other dopers have posted lots of interesting stuff that supports my viewpoint, which is basically that the US should pay the UN the money it owes and stop weaselling. If you can come up with a relevant reason why the US shouldn’t pay or, as this debate appears to have widened, why America should be thought of as a generous nation go for it, I’m listening.
j.

  • well, CIA figures anyway.
100

With regard to the total level of arrears due to the UN:

I’d hazard there are lies, damn lies and statistics. Most sources put the total at some way the wrong side of $1 billion but you’d perhaps do better to search yourself (I’d suggest using the search term: Helms-Biden agreement)
I don’t know that it’s so easy to find completely independent sources – I guess they are somewhere on the web but they’ve escaped me thus far. The best I can locate is this, albeit from a pro-UN, US based lobby organisation.

It covers a lot of interesting areas;

In relation to the – still theoretical - level of the US contribution to the UN:

“The largest distortion to equity has traditionally been the ceiling, which has capped the United States to an assessment level below its share of world income since the U.N.’s creation. The ceiling was initially set at nearly 40 percent (when the U.S. accounted for more than half of world income); instead, member states agreed that the ceiling would be lowered in stages to the 25 percent level sought by the Truman administration as changing economic conditions and admission of new members allowed. The ceiling drifted progressively downward, reaching 25 percent in 1973—the year the two German states were admitted to the United Nations—after a strenuous campaign by the Nixon administration. Arguing for the final-stage reduction, then-U.S. permanent representative George Bush told Assembly delegates that, with the ceiling lowered to 25 percent in fulfillment of the 1946 agreement, the United States would never again seek a reduction in that cap.
So who picks up the rest? With the American assessment capped, the Europeans pick up a significant chunk (E.U. assessments rise from 34 percent under the old scale to 36 percent under the new)—but the largest share of the burden lifted from the countries in economic decline goes onto the Japanese. Tokyo’s assessment is rising sharply, from 15.7 percent last year to 18 percent this year and 20.6 percent in 2000.”

On that basis, it would seem that even if the US paid it’s agreed level of dues, US membership of the UN would still – on the agreed pro rata terms – be fairly heavily subsidised by the other member States.

Anyone got any evidence to counter this view ?