FTAA LOST GetUSOut getusout.org stoptheftaa stopcafta
Oil-For-Food Duelfer Report Blood For Oil Kojo
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.
If you mean that as a critique of the news source, then fine, each person has his own preferences for how many details are necessary in any given report. But in no sense does this alter the basic fact that LOST creates what amounts to a taxing authority, nor does it change the underlying nature of that authority simply because the U.S. executive branch (whoever that turns out to be at any given time) has veto power over those decisions.
Oh yes.
Woohoohooawoohoohoo!
LIBERALS, your day is over. NPR and PBS are NEXT on the chopping block. WOO_HOO!!!!
It's the Good cop/Bad cop game.
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.
This part is a must!
Good. I'd rather be a Muslim in Gitmo than a Christian in Saudi Arabia!!
If you were to run a poll asking if we should sign a treaty to administer mining in international waters that’s self sufficient through levies on that activity with limitations set by the US president and you get one number. Simply ask if we should sign a treaty that enables the UN to tax impose the first world tax starting with mining activity in the oceans for redistribution to the rest of the world and the likely [hugh and series] difference between those two numbers indicates a lie, not a “preference on how many details to are necessary in a given report”. The lie’s not just due to the phrasing of the question, it’ due to a radical misrepresentation of the treaty. Intentional misrepresentation = lie.
Perhaps, but it looks like those working to defeat UNCLOS unanimously think that presidential veto is enough security to neglect mentioning it. I recognize it and don’t like that weakness, but I don’t like being lied to, especially by Freepers.
I really didn’t come here to discuss this, just had a smart-ass comment about the funding reduction. I don’t need another research project now, but I’m certainly not going to trust the opinions of those who brought this one sided version up to me.
Oil-For-Food Duelfer Report Blood For Oil Kojo
WHY?.. Americans in congress made an effort.. thats good enough.. the pressure is off..
Such as ?
Do you know what happens to the rest of the world if the US economy tanks?
"Do you know what happens to the rest of the world if the US economy tanks?"
Excellent question. And that is the only non-lethal leverage we have over the UN at the moment. But if we were to suddenly cut off funding completely, the UN would call on world wide sanctions, seizure of assets in foreign banks, seizure of businesses, arrests of US citizens overseas, etc. It's an economic doomsday concept. Just the fear of such draconian moves would cause stocks to plummet and our currency to spiral down at a fearful rate.
However, the UN's credibility is in freefall. So we can choke off some of the funding now-and-then. Slowly fading is not nearly as terrifying to the UN. Painfully frustrating to us, but not as dangerous, IMHO.
Yeah, right. We're talking about the organization that can't even pacify Somalia?
The UN is extremely swift and decisive when it comes to sticking it to the US. They initiate economic sanctions at the drop of a hat. And they absolutely love to arrest people who aren't leftist kamizars. Take their cash away, and I'm sure they'd do all in their power to inflict serious economic pain on us. Sure you want to see how much they'd hold back on us?
And even worse, are you sure they couldn't spread panic on Wall Street? We are grinding them down. Soon, we can get more bold.
Agreed. The UN is worthless and should be disbanded and reorganized as JFK, Nixon and MacArthur wanted it to be. That is, an organization of free world democratic states with invitations to all nations which want to join in under those circumstances. Of course, the Senate will derail this and RINO's will help derail it under the rubric that the UN is just misunderstood!!!!!!!
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.