U.S. State Department Official Asks for International Agency Funding(Law of the Sea)
state.gov ^ | 22 April 2005 | U.S. State Department
Posted on 04/23/2005 7:03:55 AM PDT by nextthunder
U.S. State Department Official Asks for International Agency Funding
Assistant Secretary Kim Holmes explains U.S. multilateral priorities
22 April 2005
The level of the State Department's request for new funding for international organizations shows that the United States values its participation as a member and views the work of those organizations as important to U.S. national interests, a top official says.
Kim Holmes, assistant secretary of state for international organization affairs, said the $2.34 billion fiscal year 2006 budget request is "sizeable" because it funds organizations and partnerships "that help make Americans -- and people around the world -- safer, more prosperous, and free." He made this observation as part of April 21 testimony to the House of Representatives Appropriations Subcommittee on Science, State, Justice, and Commerce, and Related Agencies about future funding for international organizations.
The request has two components, Holmes said: contributions for peacekeeping activities (CIPA) and funding for international organizations (CIO). The former account funds 15 of the United Nations 17 current peacekeeping operations, plus part of the cost of the international tribunals for Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia, he said. (Two other U.N. peacekeeping missions are funded from the regular U.N. budget.) The latter account funds U.S. membership in 47 international organizations, chief among them the United Nations.
The fiscal year 2006 funding request for CIPA is $1.04 billion, Holmes told the subcommittee, which is $227 million less than fiscal 2005. The CIO request is larger -- $1.3 billion -- and is $130 million (11 percent) more than the level approved for fiscal year 2005. The increase, Holmes said, "reflects the continued impact of a weakened dollar, an increase to the U.N. budget generated by special political missions in Afghanistan and Iraq, and security improvements for U.N. personnel." The request also proposes funding three organizations not funded in fiscal year 2005: the International Coffee Organization, International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea and International Seabed Authority.
Holmes offered the subcommittee examples of successes for U.S. policies in various international organizations:
-- The United Nations has reached consensus on a new Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism, which will strengthen the international legal framework for fighting terrorism, he said.
-- Last year, the U.N. Security Council adopted Resolution 1540, which establishes nonproliferation standards applicable to all countries for the first time, and endorses global partnerships like the Proliferation Security Initiative.
-- Regarding Lebanon, Security Council Resolution 1559 called upon Syria to withdraw all its forces -- which Syria is now doing. Holmes said Syria "could not ignore the united voice of the international community that spoke in these resolutions."
-- At the U.N. Commission on Human Rights (funded through CIO), U.S.-backed resolutions were approved condemning human rights abuses in Cuba, reducing by one the number of anti-Israel resolutions, and criticizing the human rights situation in Burma, North Korea and Belarus.
Another organization funded through CIO, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) is:
-- Working with the U.S. and the United Kingdom to verify that Libya has ended its nuclear weapons programs;
-- Investigating Iran's nuclear program and monitoring Iran's suspension of sensitive nuclear-fuel enrichment activities; and
-- Dealing effectively with safeguards violations by Egypt and South Korea.
Other organizations mentioned in Holmes' remarks include the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization, the International Labor Organization, the International Civil Aviation Organization, the International Maritime Organization, the World Health Organization, the U.N. Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, and UNICEF. The complete transcript of Holmes statement can be found on the Internet at http://www.state.gov/p/io/rls/rm/45037.htm
(Distributed by the Bureau of International Information Programs, U.S. Department of State. Web site: http://usinfo.state.gov)
Oh my goodness!
I was totally unaware that the U.S of A had a problem anywhere with the "freedom of navigation on the high seas".
Of course, if any other country does, I can see why they might want to support it. I can think of Burkana Faso, for instance.
< /sarcasm >
Let's see here, open borders and support of this POS. Mr. President, you had better be choosing which side you're on here - you're either with US, or you're with THEM.
Choose wisely, and stick with your choice. We aren't in a mood to be trifled with.
Why is it that we lose more ground whenever a R is in office?
Shocking.
Well duh!. isn't this self-evident. United nations=socialist. Anything that comes from the UN is anti-American
Is that true? Talk about your mixed signals! Reject Kyoto, as it should be, but accept it whole-heartedly in international waters?
Shoulda admired Richard Marx instead...
Sorry...still in 80s mode from that 80s thread on FR earlier today...
"...Borgese noted how LOST stipulates that the oceans "shall be reserved for peaceful purposes" and that "any threat or use of force, inconsistent with the United Nations Charter, is prohibited..."
The same president who said he'd never go to France to get approval for our national defense plans would sign a LOST that would let the whole UN decide just where we're allowed to move our navy. Thanks, oh great nationalist Dubya!
(GOOD communist = DEAD communist)
We can't let this socialist, internationalist, anti-American piece of rubbish be RATified by the US Senate.
I'd contact my Senators, but Indiana's delegation consists of that globalist snake DICK Lugar (RINO-IN) and the sniveling socialist Evan Bayh (RAT-IN).
Every time I've contacted their offices, I've gotten some BS excuses as to why whatever sovereingnty-wrecking, Bill of Rights-trashing shenanigans they are supporting would be what's best for me and my life.
Certainly a hideous tyrannical globalist scheme.