Courtesy of www.rightwingstuff.com
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.
Now, let's move them to Sheboygan.
Good on you Dog. I do too.
Courtesy of www.rightwingstuff.com
Probably State Dept. whining. This is the same garbage I hear about funding for the Palestinian Authority. Don't cut their funding or they'll get madder and be even less likely to come to the negotiating table. That's crap! You don't improve these people's behavior by giving them money, that's just enabling their stupid behavior.
America should enact a total U.N. ban including: completely defunding the U.N., deporting all members back to their home countries, bulldozing the monuments in front of all U.N. offices in America, and turn all U.N. buildings into leased office space.
Don't get too revved up---notice our esteemed new world order president is against this bill too.
Oh, I can't wait to hear the howling and complaining from the marxists amongst us, and especially from the UN!
I only had a couple of minutes to look. I’ll check it out again later. This is at least worth a second look.
nice graphic :)
That person gave you the wrong reason why Paul voted against the bill. To read his own reason, follow the link at #34. It's a very good reason. I would have voted against it as well.
Faulty predictions are one thing, but that doesn't mean they have faulty reporting. Newsmax is linked on the FR's homepage, and FR's owner doesn't have much patience for fringers, so they can't be that far out in their reporting. It's not like they're part of the black-helicopter, Holocaust-denial crowd.
Do you know of any instance where they've falsely reported any facts?
This is not enough.
The UN serves no purpose for the benefit oif the United States. It is a giant anti-American redistribution of American dollars scheme.
We gain no benefit. Other nation reap American dollars.
We do NOT need the UN for anything.
Get out of the UN totally. Withold ALL dolars, Mr. Hyde.
Yes, it's all show biz. But I'd settle for a few more bones provided they came from the spine of the UN...with enough vertebrae missing, that august body would crumple in a heap on the floor and ooze in to the East River where it belongs. But spinless is a quality shared by too many congresscrits, so they'll just nibble around the edges.
“As a member of the Council the United States will have a veto over the adoption of rules and regulations for seabed mining, the distribution of any revenues collected by the Authority, and any amendments concerning the Authority;There are things in this treaty that I don’t like, but I don't like one sided misinformation that wastes my time. Life’s short.“The United States would also have the ability as a member of the Finance Committee, which adopts all rules of substance by “consensus,” to veto financial decisions of the Authority”
Great lies are built solely on selective use of “facts”.
You consider the Washington Times and the Heritage Foundation 'fringe right wing'??
Okey-dokey...
The Heritage link is congressional testimony, and all the information on the other links stands up on its own.
And that was only a tiny sampling of what's available out there that proves what I said. I don't think you're googling too hard.
I'll stand with Jeane Kirkpatrick on this one, dude. I think she knows the subject pretty well.
The Law of the Sea is about land use control. LOST will be used to justify new land use regulations "to protect the marine environment." It isn't hard to see. Many oceanic species breed in estuaries within the United States. Estuarine health isn't doing very well for a number of reasons (many of which politicized science will conveniently miss). The estuaries are fed by rivers. The rivers are lined with cities.
Marine sanctuaries and global biospheres have already been used for this precise purpose and are effectively the model for what is planned for LOST. If all we accomplish is to alter the treaty to gain protection for our military or access to seabed mining we have anyway, we will have missed the point.
LOST has the potential to be a straitjacket, fully capable of crippling this nation economically (which certainly affects its ability to defend itself). According to the email I get from ALRA, the White House (particularly Dick Cheney) and Chuck Hagel have been the instigators in trying to push this treaty through in the dark of night after the Reagan Administration had rejected it out of hand.
If the senate ever passes this (doubtful), we will be witness to Bush's first veto.
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.