Posted on 06/15/2005 5:29:13 PM PDT by NormsRevenge
WASHINGTON - The Bush administration told Congress on Wednesday it opposes a bill to overhaul the way the United Nations works, citing a requirement the U.S. withhold dues if the organization fails to make changes.
The bill, sponsored by Rep. Henry Hyde (news, bio, voting record), chairman of the House International Relations Committee, was to be debated by the House on Thursday.
"We specifically cannot agree to the withholding provisions," Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns said. "We are the founder, host country and leading contributor to the U.N."
Withholding one-half of the U.S. dues "would deal a great blow to our credibility in the U.N. system, and it would have ramifications for the reliability of the United States as a friend and partner to the countries that comprise the U.N," Burns said.
Hyde, R-Ill., said he was not surprised by the opposition, but promised to push back.
"The Constitution gives to Congress the power of the purse," he said in a statement. "We intend to exercise it in pursuit of meaningful U.N. reform."
Hyde's bill would require the U.S. to withhold up to 50 percent of U.S. dues if the United Nations failed to put in place specific changes.
Hyde argues that the threat of losing dues would be the only way to get the changes. President Bush already had indicated he did not want the dues provision to be include in final legislation.
The largest financial contributor to the United Nations, the U.S. pays about 22 percent of the annual $2 billion general budget.
"We believe that it's possible to make progress and reform the U.N. without withdrawing financial support," Burns said.
"We are interested in supporting congressional efforts to argue for reform in the United Nations," Burns said. "But we object to and oppose those provisions that would mandate the withholding of 50 percent of our contribution and to the other provisions of the bill that would restrict the president's ability and flexibility to instruct his ambassador to the United Nations."
Hyde said that "every administration reflexively resists congressional involvement in foreign policy and opposes any limits on its freedom of action."
Rep. Tom Lantos (news, bio, voting record), senior Democrat on House committee, hoped the administration's notification would have an effect.
"A better alternative would be to give the administration the option to decide whether and when U.S. financial support ... should be withdrawn, and by how much," Lantos, D-calif., said in a statement. "Democrats have offered such an alternative."
Lantos has offered a bill that would give the president a waiver over withholding of the dues.
The government fell millions of dollars into arrears in the late 1990s because an earlier fight between White House and Congress. As a result, the U.S. almost lost its voting rights in the U.N. General Assembly.
Hyde's bill followed reports of numerous problems within the U.N. organization in recent years. Chief among the was the oil-for-food program in Iraq. It was designed to minimize the effect on civilians of continuing penalties against then-President Saddam Hussein's government.
Withholding one-half of the U.S. dues "would deal a great blow to our credibility in the U.N. system, and it would have ramifications for the reliability of the United States as a friend and partner to the countries that comprise the U.N," Burns said.
---
We created and built it, we can put it to sleep or out to pasture as a good idea done in by bad people.
Get US out of the UN.
Someone once told me that George Bush was a conservative. I laugh when I think back to that time. Of course there are few people so foolish as to venture to say such a thing today.
The we have a responsibility to keep it honest. Giving it gobs of cash no matter what does not accomplish that goal.
"would deal a great blow to our credibility in the U.N. system, and it would have ramifications for the reliability of the United States as a friend and partner to the countries that comprise the U.N,"
No. It would deal a great blow to our reputation as a combination meal ticket and doormat. Last I heard, you don't buy friends and partners.
A shame we live with daily.
Yeah, because when the U.N. General Assembly finds out the U.S. position these days, boy, do we get deference as a major funder and credit as a source of inspiration. /sarc
Boy, would it be nice if the Senate would do something RIGHT for a change.
I grow more disgusted with W every day. Hate to say it, but the shrub didn't grow too far from the Bush (old man bush may be the biggest new world order supporter out there).
Nor am I.
There goes that "new tone in Washington" and "compassionate conservatism" again. Bites us in the ass every time.
"Withholding one-half of the U.S. dues "would deal a great blow to our credibility in the U.N. system, and it would have ramifications for the reliability of the United States as a friend and partner to the countries that comprise the U.N," Burns said.
Exploding-Head-Zone
"This is another of Bush's mind boggling strategies!"
"Those UN types had better learn not to play poker with, Dubya. They'll lose their shirts!"
"If he already doesn't, Rove should have a sign on his desk that reads: Genius At Work"
What's more, George Bush is a compassionate conservative. That's what makes him stand out from the crowd.
Keep laughing.
Libertarian ping.To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here
I'm shocked at this position, firstly us tax payers shouldn't be compelled to pay for a failing organization, which is so anti american, and secondly if we are soo obligated to the success of a world governmental body it'd be far less corrupt and far better operated if we just took over the world and instituted a psuedo american government rather than let facists and communists convene a corrupt facade of order.
I could live with this. We keep our money, and we lose our General Assembly vote. Who cares, because our vote is only 1 vote out of 190 votes. We pay 22% of the dues but we have .00526% of the vote of the General Assembly. Sure seems fair to me. /sarcasm
The only vote that matters is the Security Council, and even that doesn't matter if the libs don't agree.
Someone once told me that George Bush was a conservative. I laugh when I think back to that time. Of course there are few people so foolish as to venture to say such a thing today.
---
Well said. I found that out only recently.
I printed out and mailed these charts to the National Republican Committee and told them to take me off their mailing lists and email lists:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1400545/posts?page=59#55
I see no reason why anyone should donate to the Republican party. You get a much better bang for your buck and you can be certain it's getting spend on shrinking government with these guys (Club For Growth):
http://www.clubforgrowth.org/why.php
From those charts before it looks like the GOP is doing the opposite of what the people who donate to it want it to do.
(Such as fund the UN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)
The US ought to have 51 votes in the GA!
Apparently nobody is listening to US. What's it gonna take? A godamn revolution to get us out of this friggin no good organization?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.