The United Nations
 

One question.

Could the U.N. survive as a relevant entity without the membership of the United States of America?

Before posting a response, please consider the following facts:

[quote:df653]Total U.S. Contributions to the UN System,
Both Assessed and Voluntary -
Estimated at $3.0 Billion

Humanitarian/Human Rights - 39%
Environment - 2%
Development - 8%
Weapons of Mass Destruction - 3%
UN Regular Budget - 9%
UN Peacekeeping - 31%
Open Markets - 4%
Health - 4% [/quote:df653]
[quote:df653]The United States is a generous supporter of key UN programs, funding:

* 51.4% of the World Food Program budget to help feed 72 million people in 82 countries.*
* 17.1% of the United Nations Children’s Fund budget to feed, vaccinate, educate and protect children in 162 countries.*
* 14.1% of the United Nations Development Program core budget to eradicate poverty and encourage democratic governance.*
* 25.8% of the International Atomic Energy Agency budget to ensure safe and peaceful application of nuclear energy and prevent the illicit use of nuclear material for weapons.**
* 22% of the World Health Organization core budget as well as significant voluntary resources, helping to prevent and control epidemics and to improve standards of health.**
* 25% of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees budget to help protect refugees and facilitate their return home or re-settlement in another country.*
* 25% of the International Civil Aviation Organization budget to ensure safe, efficient and economical air travel.**

* These programs operate strictly on voluntary contributions.
** These programs operate on a combination of assessed and voluntary contributions.[/quote:df653]
[quote:df653]U.S. Financial Contributions to the UN

The United States is the largest financial contributor to the UN and has been every year since its creation in 1945. We provided more than $3 billion in contributions, both cash and in-kind, to the UN system in 2002. (In-kind contributions include items such as food donations for the World Food Program). The United States funded 22 percent of the UN regular budget, as well as more than 27 percent of the peacekeeping budget. Additionally, the United States provides a significant amount in voluntary contributions to the UN and UN-affiliated organizations and activities, mostly for humanitarian and development programs. [/quote:df653]
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/rls/24236.htm
[quote:df653]To finance construction, the United States Government made an interest-free loan of $65 million to the United Nations. Of this amount, the last installment of $1 million was paid in 1982.[/quote:df653]
http://www.un.org/geninfo/faq/factsheets/FS23.HTM
[quote:df653]U.N. headquarters was built for an organization of about 50 members at an initial cost —for the Secretariat, General Assembly and conference buildings alone—of about $420 million in 2003 dollars.[/quote:df653]
http://www.theatlantic.com/foreign/unwi ... -08-11.htm

[quote:df653]Largest UN Contributors:

United States - 24.630%
Japan - 18.973%
Germany - 9.487%
France - 6.266%
United Kingdom - 5.396%
Italy - 4.961%
Canada - 2.524%
Spain - 2.437%
Brazil - 2.002%
Republic of Korea - 1.741%[/quote:df653]
http://www.globalpolicy.org/finance/tab ... arge02.htm

As you can see, the US contributes 24.630% to the UN. France, Britain, Italy, Canada, Spain, Brazil and Korea - combined - contribute 25.327%. Japan would have to increase their contributions by 25% to match US contributions. Germany would have to increase their contributions by 159.618% in order to match US contributions.

Some other information on US contributions to the UN:

http://www.unausa.org/newindex.asp?plac ... 020404.asp

yes



now compare those % to the GDP & you will probably find that most scandinavian countries donate more than the USA

The contributions of a country as a percentage of their GDP is pretty irrelevant in terms of the question that is being posed.

What you are saying is that the United Nations could survive as a relevant world entity after losing approximately a fourth of its budget, a third of its peacekeeping budget, its $450 million HQ building (which would cost $1.2 billion to replace) and the membership of the most influential (whether anyone likes it or not) nation in the world.

Please help me understand that logic.

It's possible, but it'd be a mistake in my pragmatism opinion. /nextthread angel:

In my opinion, no, UN cannot survive without the US. No international organization can survive without its largest contributors.

Can it be eplained to me why the UN as disliked by so many?

Before I continue I should state a couple things:

1) I do not want a global government.

2) The UN does not have very much power, nor do I think they should.

The UN is slow off the draw to deploy forces, but that is because member countries would rather keep their troops at home.

The thing I like about the UN is that they have created an international law. And when these laws are broken, the member nations have an opportunity to do something about it. Whether they do or not is another story. Without international laws I believe pre-emptive actions would have happened many times over by now. The UN was created in essence because Germany pre emptivley invaded Poland. I believe these actions are wrong. The UN won't be able to stop Russia or Israel or the US from pre-emptively attacking anyone; however it does show that what these countries are doing is wrong, and it is still relevant in its efforts as long as countries are still involved.

As soon as one country pulls out, that’s opens everything up. If the US pulls out, then Russia pulls out, China pulls out and Israel pulls out right on down the line. At this point, there is no international law.

The UN is pretty much irrelevant as it is, but disbanding it would be a mistake.

the world wouldnt survive if US was out of the UN, as then it would go do what it pleased.

We already do, in case you missed that whole invasion of Iraq thing.

The UN can't enforce its own sanctions. It is, quite simply, a worthless organization.

The United States has paved the way for prominent member nations to defy the Security Council. It will happen again and again and again.

The whole thing was illegitimized a very long time ago.

Seeing as I live in America, the UN is of little consequence to me. I would personally prefer to see the lot tossed off our soil to go spew their useless babbling elsewhere. We can spend our money on something better than wasting our time.

So then why doesn't the US, the most powerful country in the world, make it a relevant organization? Would it not benifit the US to actually have sanctions put in place by the UN followed through on?

[quote:cd405]
The United States has paved the way for prominent member nations to defy the Security Council. It will happen again and again and again.[/quote:cd405]
And this is good how?


[quote:cd405]
Seeing as I live in America, the UN is of little consequence to me. I would personally prefer to see the lot tossed off our soil to go spew their useless babbling elsewhere. We can spend our money on something better than wasting our time.[/quote:cd405]
With the savings from not participating, what should the US spend their money on?

the us cannot control the world, and is not liked by a large majority of it, it should stay in an oganization where it can get support.

The UN has become less an entity which has the power to impose sanctions and more of an entity behind which nations seem to think they can hide.

Iraq, despite its decade of violating sanctions and abusing Oil for Food, despite its decade of slaughtering its own people, was actually permitted to present argument against action by the United States and its coalition. There is absolutely no reason that a country like that should have any voice whatsoever.

And why is it a good thing? I didn't really say it was. I was just pointing out that it is already happening. I think the UN is closer to absolute failure than we all know. Also, I wouldn't be surprised to see NATO fill some of the void left there. I think that China is going to be the one to bring all this about, as well. China is eventually going to give in to its communist tendencies and begin to prepare for invasions of surrounding countries. The UN will be brought to its knees when China, a permanent member of the Security Council, is able to veto any UN actions against the country (China will be the council president in April oOo: ). Europe and Eurasia will get nervous and rally behind the US and NATO who are both ready and willing to take pre-emptive action to stop China before it starts. Such scenarios are why the UN is a joke. I mean, in 2003, Syria was on the council oOo:

I have more to say, but I have some assignments to complete before 12PM CST.

Lend me your crystal ball so i can get next weeks lottery numbers rolleyes:

What a load of bollocks. sleeping:

15 30 35 40 45 47

You can bet your leprechaun on it. beer:

Now that's something that scares the shit out of me.

In my opinion, everyone should have a voice. If were talking about an individual or a country as a whole, it doesn't matter. I don't care what you've done.

In this case, I think it was probably back up the fact that everyone needs a voice. As it stands now, the majority of the world population believes this particluar war was unjustified, and even the majority of Americans believe it was unjustified. BOTH countries are in the wrong. The US for its illegal war, and Iraq for its human rights violations. You can't pick and choose who gets to be heard and who doesn't.

What your saying sounds more like North Korea putting people on trial, the judge coming out and saying "guilty" and the prisoners getting shot all in a matter of 30 seconds than a democratic process to me, which the US claims to be spreading.

i think this is the dumb ideology which see's america disliked so much around the world.


beer: to what ninty said

Go look up the League of Nations, it was a disaster but its proof such an organisation did exist without the USA. Pakistan & Canada also technically contribute more to U.N. operations than USA, it's more a matter of peace keeping & law enforcement than money, naturally money is needed for these operations but a combined force can contain third world countries, all you need is a relatively well trained army like that of Nigeria, Canada or Pakistan to do this.

~

It's the same thing as a convicted murderer on death row being permitted to vote for a President.

When citizens commit atrocities, they are revoked some of their rights. Freedom. Free speech. The right to vote.

This is how it should be. When you commit horrible, horrible crimes, you should be denied a voice in whatever governing body is over you, in the case of a nation, the UN.

However, this is not the case. Syria, who slaughtered the people of Lebanon and export terror around the world, actually sat on the security council. One of the most violent and oppressive governments in recent history was given the right to obtain sensitive knowledge and to influence UN security policy. Meanwhile slaughtering its own people and the people of neighboring nations.

The problem with the world today is that no one wants to punish anyone. They don't want to punish anyone because they fear that someone innocent might be caught up in that punishment. But, as we all learned back in grade school, the world is never that fair. Sometimes innocent people must be punished in order to bring about a greater good. This is the basis of utilitarian theories of ethics. The UN refuses to enforce its sanctions and restrictions. It hesitates to send peacekeeping forces to prevent a slaughter, costing thousands of lives. It delays in sending aid to disaster-stricken countries.

The UN is sick. It is sick and it is dying, its weakness becoming more and more evident with each passing day. Each day it refuses to validate itself, it dies that much more.

And I'm not saying the US should be exempt from anything. So long as we choose to be a member of the UN, we should be vulnerable to the same punishments as others should we choose to defy the UN.

But I maintain that giving voice to governments which are brutal, oppressive and responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of their own people is even greater a crime, because the UN is simply telling that government that they can continue to do as they are with absolute impunity.

Anyway, maybe one of you folks will get elected and we can have serial killers and child rapists voting in the next election. They do, indeed, deserve to have a voice in such matters. They'll probably vote for a Liberal who will take them off death row in preference of living in a nicely decorated mental institution.

Your comparison isn't founded at all.

Criminals have a right to a trial. In this trial, they have the right to defend themselves. It is only after they are found guilty that rights are taken away.

The fact is that the discussion was not about what Iraq had done, rather what the US was going to do to Iraq, and if they had a right to defend themselves at the highest levels of international law.

If we go back to your prison example, once someone is convicted, do they lose all basic rights of a human? Are these people no longer human? Should it be legal to beat, mame and kill prisoners because they have lost their rights?

With Iraq, because they have human rights violations, is it appropriate to take away all rights of a country to defend itself legally? The issues between Iraq’s history of UN violations and human rights concerns have nothing to do with the beginnings of the Iraq war. They are two separate issues completely.

I don’t want to put words in your mouth so correct me if I’m wrong, but what I see you saying is that since Iraq has human rights violations, their rights as a country get thrown out. From this, other countries are now, without competition form international law, allowed to do what they please to Iraq because of this loss of rights. More specifically, the US gets to present a case stating why an invasion should take place, while Iraq can do nothing but stand idle waiting for the invasion to come, whether the invasion is justified or not.

Also, you might want to avoid personal attacks and speculation as to what “we” as “liberals” might do in the future because they really have no foundation for discussion in this topic.

werd

The comparison was not about the revocation of all freedoms, but instead the revocation of having a voice in the decisions of a governing body. Most countries do not allow convicted felons to vote, there is a purpose for this. As for going to trial and losing their rights after being proven guilty.. that doesn't make sense. Everyone knows Iraq is guilty of human rights violations. The government admits to slaughtering Kurds.

I'm not saying they should lose all rights as a nation, but I am saying they should be excluded from the discussion regarding it.

Iraq is not guilty of human rights violations, its government was. So now they DO have the right to a voice/discussion regarding whatever they please about their own nations future as that government is no longer in power, rather then have dictated leaders from the Bush camp as you would happen if Iraq has no 'voice'


but anyway: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4365661.stm

Statec, how is that even relevant?

I'm talking about them having an opposing voice during the run-up to the invasion when Sadaam Hussein was still in power. Please read.

Why don't you try to involve yourself in a debate beyond tossing in some generic anti-American tag line. All you do is throw in little pot shots and agree with anyone with an anti-American opinion without ever contributing anything original of your own.

On a side note, it's good to see that UN reform may actually happen. I'm glad people are seeing that. That link may be a good first step to curing the above, even if it does do nothing to support your argument.

[quote:82a8e]
He is expected to accept that the UN Human Rights Commission needs reform and will propose that member states that violate human rights should not serve on the Commission. It should also be a much smaller group.[/quote:82a8e]

well retract the so now part, my mistake i misread certain posts.

but the intention of when Iraq was invaded as of the WMD not Human Rights Case as you remember, so the US would not of had the same push/support whatever over into Iraq as say if they went just to overthrow the Government due to its Human Rights Violations.

so you would take away somes ones freedoms and rights protected by your constitution without thinking, just becasue they made a mistake in life, but if someone went and took away your right to own the semi automatic assault rifle then you most likley would be on the streets protesting. or would you have your head so far up bush's ass that you wouldnt give t2 fucks?

That doesn't make sense, Maple.

If I murdered someone in cold blood, I would expect my government to revoke my right to own an assault rifle. Or any firearm, for that matter.

So if you are asking if I support criminals having their right to vote revoked, of course I do. Why would I want a serial killer voting for the most influential position in the world?

wow interesting thread. I just remembered we had this forum lol.

We sort of had an interesting discussion about this in my AP Gov't class.

I sort of have the same views as Drew on this one--not totally though.


In my view, I believe the US joining the UN is unconstituational...period. Our constitution states that it is our supreme law of the land and within it it gives the president certain powers under certain circumstances. If we go by this, then what we did in Iraq isn't comparable to the other view of the UN being supreme law. It was a long discussion noneoftheless, so it doens't really do me much good to try to explain the whole thing.

To answer Drew's original question, I don't think the UN would be able to continue playing the same role as they do presently. Their power will definately be diminished.

I just don't think that it is right that some 3rd world country's vote is worth the same as the US vote. It just doesn't make any sense. But here we go again with going back to the creation of the US Senate to give representation to the smaller states.

Don't know if it's a possibility, but if it had something like the American Congress I think it would be better off with representing each countries' interests.

We're not talking about voting here, we're talking about the right for a country to defend itself in a court.

How should have the proceedings taken place? The US presents its case for war to the UN and Iraq should not have been allowed a rebuttle because of violations that have nothing to do with the current situation the US is presenting?

Okay, let me be very specific in the instance to which I was referring:

When I said that Iraq had a voice in opposition to the US invasion in the UN, this was during the time when the UN was not debating whether or not Iraq was guilty of anything, but whether debating whether a US invasion was permissable under UN guidelines.

Iraq had already broken its committments to inspectors. Everyone always talks about how there were no WMDs, but from what I've seen out of most military experts, they all believe they crossed the unsecured border in the first hours of the American invasion. I'm not saying anyone was running around with nukes, but there is a whole shit-ton of chemical and bio weapons that were tagged by the first UN inspectors that have yet to be found.

Anyway, of course Iraq can defend itself against allegations of this or that, but that is not to what I am referring. Iraq had already violated the terms set forth. At this point, it was an academic debate on whether the US (under UN guidelines) could legally invade Iraq. They also lobbied the Security Council to strike down any US proposal for invasion. At that point, being that they were guilty of a decade's worth of violations, slaughtering their people and breaking every human rights standard on the books, they should've been told to sit down, shut up and let the big boys have some adult time to decide what would happen to the country.

You do remember that there were weapons inspectors in Iraq before the invasion began. They stated many times that there were no weapons in Iraq.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/03/21/iraq.weapons/

[quote:67c04]"I think they chose to ignore us," Blix said[/quote:67c04]

As for the other part, lobbying against the invasion of their own country? Its not really tough to understand why they would do this.

I could care less if the UN exists or not. But I don't see why americans have such a big problem with it.

we pay too much and get too little

Ten largest donors to CAP 2003, measured by contributions as a proportion of GDP:
http://www.un.org/depts/ocha/cap/images ... entage.jpg

Funding contributions to peace operations:
http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/allied_ ... III-6.html

Yeah Qatar probably contributes $50 and that's more than what they should contribute. The USA still doesn't need to cough up all this money for no reason. There's no point in paying for 'membership' (for lack of better terms) to the UN when all the US gets out of it is frustration. I do think every country is in it to get something back from it. Alot of the nations are members for protection. Why the hell would America need UN troops for protection? Exactly.

I sort of believe that every action made by every human is caused by selfishness (selfish isn't used as a totally negative term in this use)

peace

I love statistics, they can be tweeked to say anything


did you know 80% of all statistics are 99% bullshit

[quote="Sgt>Stackem":65211]
we pay too much and get too little[/quote:65211]

Maybe it's because some of the countries protested against an illegal invasion

[quote:65211]I love statistics, they can be tweeked to say anything


did you know 80% of all statistics are 99% bullshit[/quote:65211]


Even when they come from the official site of the United Nations?

I love statistics, they can be tweeked to say anything


did you know 80% of all statistics are 99% bullshit[/quote:8701d]

The first one comes from the UN website itself, the second one comes from the US Department of Defense. oOo:

The first one comes from the UN website itself, the second one comes from the US Department of Defense. oOo:[/quote:e5acd]
owned

The first one comes from the UN website itself, the second one comes from the US Department of Defense. oOo:[/quote:30a38]

it is still skewed, how about ranking the countries by the amount of people that have shoes? Comparing GDP with little countries isnt a fair comparision. The US is the most industrialized country in the world so to compare it to Qatar is a joke, but if that is your way to get stats then go for it.