Good Riddance to Kofi

[ByeBye]

Originally posted by Viking

Let me ask you this. What specific functions does the UN perform now do you think a single nation could do better?

Umm..... how about enforcing it's resolutions?

The UN is great at making resolutions. The US is the only country that really seems to want to enforce them.

UN funtion: send peace keepers into a battle zone in order to enforce UN resolutions.

US funtion: send a competent military into a battle zone in order to enforce UN resolutions.

[Viking]

Originally posted by lukster
Let me tell you rather that it would serve the interest of the US, and likely many other countries, better to deal directly with whatever other country they would like to influence. A country wants help or better trade relations then they deal with the country they want it from rather than push it before an organization with broadly varying interests.

Iran wouldn't be making the noise it is today if it didn't have the forum of the UN.

The UN isn't stopping any nation from directly dealing with other countries. Where do you get this nonsense?

Shouldn't Iran be allowed to "make noise" i.e. communicate with the world?

You may think the UN gives smaller countries too much power because it allows them to talk and unite against bigger ones, I can understand that. The US may leave the UN if it so wishes (not a chance), but that won't change the fact that other countries will still use the UN against you and you will have to deal with them wheter you like it or not.

Now back to my question: What specific functions does the UN perform now do you think a single nation could do better?

[ByeBye]

Originally posted by Viking
The UN isn't stopping any nation from directly dealing with other countries. Where do you get this nonsense?
 

He never said the UN was preventing nations from directly dealing with each other. The UN is worthless.

[lukster]

Originally posted by Viking
The UN isn't stopping any nation from directly dealing with other countries. Where do you get this nonsense?

Shouldn't Iran be allowed to "make noise" i.e. communicate with the world?

You may think the UN gives smaller countries too much power because it allows them to talk and unite against bigger ones, I can understand that. The US may leave the UN if it so wishes (not a chance), but that won't change the fact that other countries will still use the UN against you and you will have to deal with them wheter you like it or not.

Now back to my question: What specific functions does the UN perform now do you think a single nation could do better?

Isn't it obvious? Protect our own interests.

The UN will collapse within 5 years of the US pulling out. So much for your having to deal with pissant countries.

[Viking]

Your contribution to the UN is nothing more then a big pile of "I owe you" notes. I'm afraid the US will never pull out of the UN. It's the biggest "pissant" country there.

[lukster]

Originally posted by Viking
Your contribution to the UN is nothing more then a big pile of "I owe you" notes. I'm afraid the US will never pull out of the UN. It's the biggest "pissant" country there.

How long can Europeans go before one of them feels they must conquer others? You think the impotent UN will or can do anything to stop it?

When was the last time the UN did anything successfully? Korea is the only thing I can recall. I don't count running away from a fight or raping and murdering a success.

IOUs huh? Care to compare what your nation contributes to the UN vs what the US does? I didn't think so.

[Viking]

Originally posted by lukster
How long can Europeans go before one of them feels they must conquer others? You think the impotent UN will or can do anything to stop it?  

It is the US that’s the warmonger now and Europe that doesn’t want to get involved. Strange how things work out like that.

The UN can help nations resolve their differences with diplomacy. Once a war has started the UN can only be a forum for nations to decide what to do about it. The UN itself has no army, nor should it have.

Originally posted by lukster
When was the last time the UN did anything successfully? Korea is the only thing I can recall. I don't count running away from a fight or raping and murdering a success.

If you’re only concerned with security matters I guess Liberia in 2005 is the latest UN success. In other fields like health, environment, women’s rights, human rights etc. the successes are numerous, but we never hear about them. It is much more “news worthy” to see you guys or the insurgents blow things up in Iraq.

Originally posted by lukster
IOUs huh? Care to compare what your nation contributes to the UN vs what the US does? I didn't think so.

Sure I’d love to! You dig up the numbers this time. Last time I checked America owed the UN more then half a billion in regular funding, God knows how much in special projects. I’m sure we’re doing much better then that.

[WMLute]

FY2007 Budget Request

The Bush administration’s fiscal year 2007 budget request contains $1.26 billion to finance the United States’ assessed share of mandatory dues to 47 international organizations, including the UN and its specialized agencies. Requested amounts for assessed contributions to UN system organizations include the following: $422.7 million for the UN regular budget; $101.4 million for the World Health Organization (WHO); $89.3 million for the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO); $83.1 million for the International Atomic [Energy Agency (IAEA), in addition to $50 million requested for voluntary contributions; $69.5 for the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO); $63.3 million for the International Labor Organization (ILO); and $33.2 million for UN war crimes tribunals.

The request includes $1.13 billion for UN peacekeeping dues, an amount expected to be well below actual US assessments (see below). The United Nations currently has more than 70,000 troops, police, and military observers serving in 15 peacekeeping missions around the world, including operations in Haiti, Sudan, Congo, Liberia, Ethiopia-Eritrea, and Côte d’Ivoire.  

The Administration’s FY07 request also includes $289 million for voluntary contributions to UN programs and other multilateral organizations, including the following: $300 million for the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria; $123 million for the UN Children’s Fund (UNICEF); $94.5 million for the UN Development Program (UNDP); and $10 million for the UN Democracy Fund (UNDEF). The Administration again failed to request funding for the UN Population Fund (UNFPA).  In each of the last four years the Administration has withheld congressionally-appropriated funding for the agency.

Peacekeeping Arrears

The United States generated $145 million in new UN peacekeeping arrears during the last fiscal year (FY05) and is expected to accrue another $376 million by the end of the current fiscal year on September 30th unless additional funding is provided. This combined level of $521 million in new UN arrears is the result of insufficient White House budget requests for FY05-06 caused by the unanticipated expansion and establishment of several peacekeeping missions (decisions which the US can veto as a permanent member of the Security Council). Adequate funds have not been appropriated to cover the shortfall, although an FY06 emergency spending bill still pending in Congress would provide an additional $129.8 million for a future UN peacekeeping mission in Darfur, Sudan.

In addition to the $521 million funding shortfall for FY05-06, the Administration’s FY07 budget underestimates US financial obligations to UN peacekeeping during the next fiscal year. The Administration assumes mission closures and reductions that are unlikely to occur and does not adequately account for the expected deployment of a large UN operation in Darfur. This is likely to exacerbate the United States’ existing funding shortfall for UN peacekeeping and will lead to the accumulation of substantial new arrears if no corrective action is taken.

Peacekeeping Dues Cap

Current law prohibits the United States from fulfilling its financial obligations to UN peacekeeping by preventing the US from paying more than 25 percent of the organization’s peacekeeping budget. Since the United States is required to pay approximately 27 percent of peacekeeping costs, according to a scale of assessments agreed upon by member states in 2000, the unilateral decision to “cap” US contributions at 25 percent of the budget results in the accumulation of additional US arrears to the organization. The peacekeeping cap has been temporarily adjusted in recent years, allowing the US to pay its peacekeeping dues in full. However, the cap – enacted as part of the FY1994-95 Foreign Relations Act (Public Law 103-236) – reverted to its initial 25 percent level at the start of the current fiscal year.  As a result, the United States has been accumulating new arrears since October 1, 2005.

[Viking]

Well, that's a nice budget for 2007, but how much did you actually pay in 2006?

[SteveBailey]

Originally posted by Viking
As good as can be expected and certainly better than with no UN. Is that so hard to understand?


100% better than no UN. Is that better?

So your answer is no, it's not meeting it's own goals.  You lower your own expectations of the UN by adding the caveat "as good as can be expected"  Nowhere in their mission statement does it say "as good as can be expected".

Here are your own words regarding the UN:

The UN proved it’s impotence by not giving Dutchbatt the ability to defend themselves, let alone the civilians.

So, you freely admitted that the UN is impotent.  I think everyone here can agree that you have set your expectations pretty darned low for the UN if you consider "impotent"  to be "as good as expected".

By the way, nowhere in the UN charter does it say one of their objectives is to be impotent.  So here is another example of them not meeting their goals, by your own words.

[Viking]

Originally posted by SteveBailey
So your answer is no, it's not meeting it's own goals.  You lower your own expectations of the UN by adding the caveat "as good as can be expected"  Nowhere in their mission statement does it say "as good as can be expected".

The UN can only be as good as its member nations want it to be. Blaming the UN for its failures is like blaming HTC for the O’Club being a mess.

Originally posted by SteveBailey
By the way, nowhere in the UN charter does it say one of their objectives is to be impotent.  So here is another example of them not meeting their goals, by your own words.

This simply does not make sense. Show me where in the UN Charter where they state the goal of “not being militarily impotent”. How can they fail to meet a goal that’s not even in their charter?

[SteveBailey]

The UN can only be as good as its member nations want it to be. Blaming the UN for its failures is like blaming HTC for the O’Club being a mess.

They are impotent, by your own words. I'm not blaming the UN.. I'm simply agreeing with you.  I neither said, nor care, why they are impotent, just that they are, and you agreed.

This simply does not make sense. Show me where in the UN Charter where they state the goal of “not being militarily impotent”. How can they fail to meet a goal that’s not even in their charter

Chapter 7, article 42:  
Should the Security Council consider that measures provided for in Article 41 would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such action may include demonstrations, blockade, and other operations by air, sea, or land forces of Members of the United Nations.

Impossible to perform any of these things if they are impotent.  You can continue to be obtuse if you like, I find it rather droll but the bottom line is, article 42 would require the UN to not be impotent and you know it.

Game, set, match.  Goodnight.

[Viking]

Originally posted by SteveBailey
They are impotent, by your own words. I'm not blaming the UN.. I'm simply agreeing with you.  I neither said, nor care, why they are impotent, just that they are, and you agreed.

And they should be. A UN with weapons is a terrifying prospect.

Originally posted by SteveBailey
Chapter 7, article 42:  
Should the Security Council consider that measures provided for in Article 41 would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such action may include demonstrations, blockade, and other operations by air, sea, or land forces of Members of the United Nations.

Impossible to perform any of these things if they are impotent.  You can continue to be obtuse if you like, I find it rather droll but the bottom line is, article 42 would require the UN to not be impotent and you know it.

The Security Council is not the UN, the Security Council is made up of America, UK, France, Russia and China, plus the currently elected non-permanent members. These nations certainly are not militarily impotent and certainly can (and have) taken such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Gulf War I is a good example of that.

[Momus--]

Please don't feed the trolls Viking. No point arguing with a sociopath  either.

[Viking]

Link requires registration Momus.