Posted on 06/17/2005 12:10:30 PM PDT by SamFromLivingston
Edited on 06/17/2005 2:59:48 PM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
WASHINGTON - Culminating years of frustration with the performance and behavior of the United Nations, the House voted Friday to slash U.S. contributions to the world body if it does not substantially change the way it operates.
The 221-184 vote, which came despite a Bush administration warning that such a move could actually sabotage reform efforts, was a strong signal from Congress that a policy of persuasion wasn't enough to straighten out the U.N.
"We have had enough waivers, enough resolutions, enough statements," said House International Relations Committee Chairman Henry Hyde, R-Ill., the author of the legislation. "It's time we had some teeth in reform."
The legislation would withhold half of U.S. dues to the U.N.'s general budget if the organization did not meet a list of demands for change. Failure to comply would also result in U.S. refusal to support expanded and new peacekeeping missions. The bill's prospects in the Senate are uncertain.
Just prior to the final vote, the House rejected, 216-190, an alternative offered by the top Democrat on the International Relations Committee, Tom Lantos of California, that also would have outlined U.N. reforms but would have left it to the discretion of the secretary of state whether to withhold U.S. payments.
During the two days of debate, legislators discussed the seating of such human rights abusers as Cuba and Sudan on the U.N. Commission on Human Rights and the oil-for-food program that became a source of up to $10 billion in illicit revenue for former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein.
Rep. Jeff Fortenberry, R-Neb., won backing for an amendment under which the United States would use its influence to ensure that any member engaged in acts of genocide or crimes against humanity would lose its U.N. membership and face arms and trade embargoes.
Hyde was joined by lawmakers with a litany of complaints against what they said was the U.N.'s lavish spending, its coddling of rogue regimes, its anti-America, anti-Israel bias and recent scandals such as the mismanagement of the oil-for-food program in Iraq and the sexual misconduct of peacekeepers.
The administration on Thursday had urged the Republican-led House to reconsider the legislation. The administration said in a statement that it is actively engaged in U.N. reform, and the Hyde bill "could detract from and undermine our efforts."
Eight former U.S. ambassadors to the United Nations, including Madeleine Albright and Jeane Kirkpatrick, also weighed in, telling lawmakers in a letter that withholding of dues would "create resentment, build animosity and actually strengthen opponents of reform."
U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan expressed support earlier this week for another congressional effort to bring about U.N. reform. A task force led by former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, a Republican, and former Senate Majority leader George Mitchell, a Democrat, recommended such changes as setting up an independent auditing board and weighted voting on financial issues for members who contribute more to the budget.
Also Thursday, the administration supported a measured expansion of the Security Council, but said widespread reform of the United Nations takes precedence.
"We are not prepared to have Security Council reform sprint out ahead of the other extremely important reforms that have to take place," Rice said at a news conference. She cited management, peace-building and halting the proliferation of dangerous weapons technology.
The bill, with amendments, lists 46 reforms sought. They include cutting the public information budget by 20 percent, establishing an independent oversight board and an ethics office, and denying countries that violate human rights from serving on human rights commissions.
The secretary of state would have to certify that 32 of the 39 reforms have been met by September 2007, and all 39 by the next year, to avoid a withdrawal of 50 percent of assessed dues.
U.S.-assessed dues account for about 22 percent of the U.N.'s $2 billion annual general budget.
The financial penalties would not apply to the U.N.'s voluntarily funded programs, which include UNICEF and the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees.
Heck, could be a Freeper based on the lede.
Anyone have a link to the full list of demands?
An efficient well functioning UN is even scarier than the rats nest of donothings we have now.
It means reporting it without mentioning that “little” fact is not the whole truth. In other words, a lie.
Yes. The same Bush of the father who declared that there was a "New World Order".
This News Max of the left site presents another side to that as well. Both look like half truths and a waste of time.
Myth: President Reagan was opposed to UNCLOS.I really want no part of this thread.Fact: All of President Reagan’s objections to UNCLOS have been addressed. In 1983, President Reagan said that the treaty strongly supported U.S. interests except for one section, which dealt with deep seabed mining. With this in mind, President Reagan directed U.S. agencies to comply with the entire treaty except the part dealing with deep seabed mining. In his Statement on Oceans Policy, he said that the Convention “contains provisions with respect to traditional uses of the oceans which generally confirm existing maritime law and practice and fairly balance the interests of all states.”
Reagan further declared, “First, the United States is prepared to accept and act in accordance with the balance of interests relating to traditional uses of the oceans -- such as navigation and overflight. In this respect, the United States will recognize the rights of other states in the waters off their coasts, as reflected in the Convention, so long as the rights and freedoms of the United States and others under international law are recognized by such coastal states.
“Second, the United States will exercise and assert its navigation and overflight rights and freedoms on a worldwide basis in a manner that is consistent with the balance of interests reflected in the convention. The United States will not, however, acquiesce in unilateral acts of other states designed to restrict the rights and freedoms of the international community in navigation and overflight and other related high seas uses.
“Third, I am proclaiming today an Exclusive Economic Zone in which the United States will exercise sovereign rights in living and nonliving resources within 200 nautical miles of its coast [as provided for in UNCLOS]. This will provide United States jurisdiction for mineral resources out to 200 nautical miles that are not on the continental shelf. Recently discovered deposits there could be an important future source of strategic minerals.”
In 1994, U.S. negotiators succeeded in amending the disputed provisions to reflect all of President’s Reagan’s concerns. All of the State Department’s living former Legal Advisors (representing both Democratic and Republican Administrations) signed a letter to that effect. The letter states: “[T]he Reagan Administration’s objection to the LOS Convention, as expressed in 1982 and 1983, was limited to the deep seabed mining regime. The 1994 Implementing Agreement…satisfactorily resolved that objection and has binding legal effect in its modification of the LOS Convention."
I don't give a crap what Reagan said his reasons were for rejecting the treaty. When you have done a tenth as much research into treaty law and environmental regulation as I have, you would take the legal portent of LOST a lot more seriously, especially as regards TMDL regulations.
What?
Thanks for the ping!
The Dems or the UN?
I think I can predict where McCrazy and Specter will land on this.
You are absolutely correct, the House has an absolute lock on the purse-strings.
Thank you for posting this, it has totally altered my opinion of this bill. RON PAUL ROCKS!!!! (He even used to be my congress-critter, I think).
There is NO WAY Ron Paul or any other few members of congress would get rid of the UN altogether (at least not without trying to change it first), and demands for consistency on human rights/membership and ethics would be a big move toward changing the UN.
You're right.... my bad.... got to remember that for the future....
Good!
Just tie the funding in the Senate to allowing a vote on Bolton. Unleashing Bolton on the UN should be as good if not better as this House bill...
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.