| | If the Republicans don't get their way, it may be be "so long" to the UN...Page 1 of 3 (1, 2, 3) | or will the rest of the world carry on without us?
House votes to slash funds for U.N.
Edward Epstein
Chronicle Washington Bureau
Friday, June 17, 2005
Washington -- House Republicans ignored President Bush's opposition and voted Friday to slash the U.S. contribution to the United Nations by half if the world body doesn't adopt a long list of changes to the way it does business.
The Bush administration lobbied against the bill and on Thursday had issued a strong policy statement saying it would tie the president's hands in dealing with the United Nations and pushing for workable reforms at the 191-member body.
Rep. Tom Lantos, D-San Mateo, had offered a less-onerous alternative that gave the administration more leeway in pressing the world body for change, but it was easily rejected before the legislation was approved.
In two days of debate, House Republicans showed they were fed up with the United Nations for a host of sins, including the simmering Iraqi oil-for-food scandal, allegations of rape in the Congo by U.N. peacekeepers and repeated anti-American and anti-Israeli actions and votes.
The Republicans, led by Rep. Henry Hyde, R-Ill., chairman of the House International Relations Committee, insisted they weren't out to gut the world body. Instead, they said that history has shown that the only way the 60-year-old United Nations would change is by the United States to with hold funds. The U.S. share of the U.N.'s regular $2.1 billion budget is about 22 percent, or $460 million.
Other U.S. contributions of hundreds of millions of dollars for peacekeeping and such operations as UNICEF or other U.N. programs wouldn't be directly affected by a dues cut.
"This is radical surgery," Hyde said. "Sometimes it's the only way to save the patient." Bush lost in the House on Hyde's bill 221-184 but he still has the upper hand in eventually prevailing. No similar U.N. reform legislation is pending in the Senate, and there doesn't seem to be a rush to take up the idea in the upper body.
Before adopting the Hyde measure, the House voted 216-190 to turn aside Lantos' measure, which also set out a laundry list of required reforms, but would have given the secretary of state discretion to decide whether to withhold dues if the changes weren't made.
Hyde, Lantos, Bush, a bipartisan congressional commission, and even U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan have called for sweeping changes designed to cut corruption, make operations more transparent and streamline U.N. bureaucracy.
Lantos, the ranking minority member on the International Relations Committee, called the Hyde proposal "a guillotine on autopilot" that could damage U.N. operations, including peacekeeping. The Hyde bill says the United States would have to oppose any new peacekeeping operations unless the UN increases training and accountability for peacekeepers, which Lantos says would take years to accomplish.
"Rwanda-style genocides could unfold before our eyes, and the United Nations would have to turn its back,' he warned. Lantos admitted that Bush's unusual opposition to a House Republican bill put him in an odd position. "I am in the delicate but unaccustomed position of having the support of the White House and the secretary of state," he said, against the House GOP leadership.
Republicans such as Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Huntington Beach (Orange County), said the Hyde proposal was the only serious way to bring about U.N. change. "If you are opposed to withholding dues then you are opposed to reform," he said.
But Lantos was supported by eight former U.N. envoys, including Jeane Kirkpatrick, Madeleine Albright and Andrew Young. They said the legislation was ill-timed because there is "unprecedented consensus and commitment to action at the U.N..."
They warned the legislation could undermine U.S. influence at the world body. Hyde dismissed the former ambassadors' position. "There's a mind set in the upper realms of diplomacy that worships at the throne of the United Nations," he said.
His bill originally spelled out 39 reforms, 32 of which Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice would have to certify had been carried out by 2007 for the 50 percent dues cut to be averted in 2008. But during the lengthy House debate, several more reform demands were added.
The House debate came as the Senate prepared for a vote Monday on whether to cut off debate on Bush's nomination of John Bolton for U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. Bush said that Bolton, an outspoken critic of the world body, is just the kind of person who is needed to press the United Nations to reform.
The current debate on U.N. dues isn't the first time Congress has weighed in. In 1985, dues were blocked to force budget reforms and in 1994 Congress threatened to withhold dues if reforms weren't made.
Along the way, the U.S. fell roughly $1 billion behind in its U.N. dues, back debt that has only recently been cleared up, after yet another threat not to pay if changes weren't made. | |
|
| |
| |
| |
| If the Republicans don't get their way, it may be be so long to the UN...
Posted: 6/18/2005 1:16:58 PM | The U.N. was essentially fostered by the U.S. as a tool to protect our vision of what the world should be at a time when the world was in shambles and helpless.
That situation has changed and now it seems that America has a lot of heartburn about not always getting it's way.
If the U.S. decides to pull out of the U.N., I hope it continues as a viable organization to continue the humanitarian services that so many people rely on. I hope the U.S. doesn't use it's muscle to get it's allies to pull out of the U.N. and join an alternate NATO-type org. | |
|
| |
| If the Republicans don't get their way, it may be be so long to the UN...
Posted: 6/18/2005 1:37:49 PM | *shrugs*
The disolution of the UN will, in my opinion, bring us very very close to another great World War, ESPECIALLY, given the tensions within the E.U. Jealousies and insecurities between some of the heavily invested AND supported countries will blow up pretty huge.
I trust that the UN will not be scrapped and that Britain will work to assure that the US is tied into the overall world view by also joining whichever coalition may be offered. There will ALWAYS be "UNited" Nations; I just wonder who they will be. ;)
| |
|
| If the Republicans don't get their way, it may be be so long to the UN...
Posted: 6/18/2005 6:16:09 PM | | like ive said before,,,the UN has become nothing more than a paper tiger,,wagging its finger and makeing grand statements but doing nothing,,,it seems like lately that as soon as things get hard the UN pulls out,,note rwanda,mogadishu and iraq.the thing the UN has forgotten that in order to be peacekeepers you must FIRST be peacemakers. | |
|
| If the Republicans don't get their way, it may be be so long to the UN...
Posted: 6/18/2005 6:20:26 PM | I strongly agree, Erik. The UN was one of the great accomplishments of the United States. That this idiot dubyah isn't worth his salt as a statesman is no good reason to dismantle an organization which has done so much good for so long.
This is just another symptom of dictatorship in this country and our idiot not being a competent leader. | |
|
| If the Republicans don't get their way, it may be be so long to the UN...
Posted: 6/18/2005 6:23:26 PM |
Washington -- House Republicans ignored President Bush's opposition and voted Friday to slash the U.S. contribution to the United Nations by half if the world body doesn't adopt a long list of changes to the way it does business.
Why can't the U.N. move out of the U.S. and set up shop elsewhere, exclusing the U.S. as it does? I think it would be a great lesson to the U.S. if that were done. It would also bring the rest of the world together without the influence of the U.S., and blackball the hell out of the U.S. I'd be a happy camper. | |
|
| |
| If the Republicans don't get their way, it may be be so long to the UN...
Posted: 6/18/2005 9:26:57 PM |
Well, I guess Sarita and I can agree on the same thing, for different reasons. Get the US out of the UN as soon as possible. I think we all know that the UN needs US a lot more than we need it (hell, do we really need it at all?)
 At least we agree on something.
I doubt the U.S. wants the U.N. to set up house elsewhere. The U.S. may spew green pea soup and scream obscenities about the U.N. but it doesn't want to be shut out of it, if it came to that. | |
|
| If the Republicans don't get their way, it may be be so long to the UN...
Posted: 6/19/2005 9:37:46 AM | i love how some on here are trying to swing this to being Bush`s doing when it says right at teh start of the article the white house is opposed to holding back funds,,,
""The Bush administration lobbied against the bill and on Thursday had issued a strong policy statement saying it would tie the president's hands in dealing with the United Nations and pushing for workable reforms at the 191-member body. ""
I guess it shouldnt surprise me,,but at any rate the UN needs some serious reforms going on in there to become a viable force in this world..look at all the scandals that are going on,,oil for food,,the mass rape acusations,,,they pull out of an area as soon as it gets hard,,how many "sanctions" against Iraq that did nothing??
They have to be able to play hardball with these little dictator countries out there,,or we are going to have more of the past,IE Rwanda.General Romeo D`llaire was on teh news last night talking about Dharfur and how it is escalateing to another rwanda,he has been at the UN and noone there gives a damn.Seems like the only ones that WANT to do something about it threw the UN is the african nations,Canada,and the US.
So unless the UN grows somebackbone on these areas,,,its jsut gonna keep on happening. | |
|
| If the Republicans don't get their way, it may be be so long to the UN...
Posted: 6/19/2005 10:39:14 AM | | I dunno, I think it's important for the Bush Admin to publicly lobby against cutting funds, but my guess is that Bush is surreptitiously promoting it. The UN is NOT a vehicle for US ideals to be promoted, or we wouldn't have allowed Russia and China to be permanent members of the SC. The fact is that the UN has been wearing kid gloves when it comes to dealing with anything. The UN is even whining now that the US is breaking "international law", yet is STILL REFUSES TO DO A THING ABOUT IT. What is the point of having an organization like this, if it can't affect any change? | |
|
| |
| |
| If the Republicans don't get their way, it may be be so long to the UN...
Posted: 6/20/2005 7:43:06 AM |
Well it isn't like conservative Republicans supported The U.N at any time! To them any world body is the enemy and want to either be more isolationist or do things around the world their way. A reciept for disaster in the future.
I strongly support this, thin. I've seen it for years and it's true. Republicans never liked the UN. They'd rather bully people. | |
|
| If the Republicans don't get their way, it may be be so long to the UN...
Posted: 6/21/2005 3:44:57 PM |
COOL; LETS DIVIDE THE WORLD INSTEAD!!
Let's all choose sides n get it on!!!
*rolls eyes*
Yeah, they also want to depopulate it. So when they take over I'm sure you'll be glad to be one of the *chosen ones* who get to regenerate first.
They want to globalize it to control it for their own purposes. They live while we sleep. | |
|
| If the Republicans don't get their way, it may be be so long to the UN...
Posted: 6/21/2005 3:48:49 PM |
The U.N. was essentially fostered by the U.S. as a tool to protect our vision of what the world should be at a time when the world was in shambles and helpless.
That situation has changed and now it seems that America has a lot of heartburn about not always getting it's way.
If the U.S. decides to pull out of the U.N., I hope it continues as a viable organization to continue the humanitarian services that so many people rely on. I hope the U.S. doesn't use it's muscle to get it's allies to pull out of the U.N. and join an alternate NATO-type org.
No the UN was created by industrialists and monarchs whose sole purpose it to destroy what "America" stands for i.e. Individual rights.
The Rockefellers created the UN not to help the world but to control it. The help you claim the UN is giving out is exactly like the "Help" that the British war generals gave to native indians. They gave the natives warm blankets for those cold nights. However they forgot to tell the natives the blankets were laced with small pox and were used as a bio weapon.
Yeah, these are the types who run the UN.
Man if I had a rocket launcher. | |
|
| If the Republicans don't get their way, it may be be so long to the UN...
Posted: 6/21/2005 3:51:14 PM |
I haven't heard this one, please elaborate if you will.
Through all those nice vaccines for polio. The shots are giving them aids. The African people themselves know that it's the UN and they want them the fuc# out. Of course not the politicians who get boaster buckos for their help in aiding the city of london to r.ape Africa. | |
|
| If the Republicans don't get their way, it may be be so long to the UN...
Posted: 6/21/2005 3:54:09 PM |
*shrugs*
The disolution of the UN will, in my opinion, bring us very very close to another great World War, ESPECIALLY, given the tensions within the E.U. Jealousies and insecurities between some of the heavily invested AND supported countries will blow up pretty huge.
I trust that the UN will not be scrapped and that Britain will work to assure that the US is tied into the overall world view by also joining whichever coalition may be offered. There will ALWAYS be "UNited" Nations; I just wonder who they will be. ;)
Of course it will start a world war. The reason world war 2 started was because the "League of Nations" (UN's predecesor) failed. The UN is about putting the US under British control by deleting its soverignty. But it looks like the US is pretty much under British control now anyways. Things like VAWA and the Patriot act have eaten up so much of your constitution I can hardly believe you claim to have one. | |
|
| |
| |
| If the Republicans don't get their way, it may be be so long to the UN...
Posted: 6/21/2005 5:43:49 PM |
I wouldn't necessary say that Republicans are bullys, they just have a very narrow view of the world and will not conder any alternatives.Any response from those Conseratives out there?
I generally believe in what you are saying. but there is a saying that goes "Fear those who come claiming to help"
The UN is corrupt to the core. It has been since its inception. Just look at the people who got it started. They financed mass murderers all over the world. Actually they are mass murderers when you think about it.
I can bet you will find Joeseph Mengala's original notes in Rockefeller plaza somwhere. | |
|
| |
Home
login 
