How Widespread is this Point of View?

[Occhidiangela]

O please. Just because other countries don't like the fact that the US as a member 1: does not pay their share 2: choses when to agree and when to "just do what it likes itsself because with an army this big nobody dares to say anything about it" does not mean that it has totatitarian/communist roots.

These seem like the words of a somehow very frustrated person.
[right][snapback]94507[/snapback][/right]

Had to edit a few times. My apologies. :(

eppie

Maybe you need to understand the relatively recent matter of "dues," which pale in comparison to the costs of annual operation the US undertakes in Support of UN activities. (US does NOT get reimbursed by UN for its people, for example, they are seconded. Many other nations provide people/troops at a per diem, per capita, cost.) The issue that raised the red flag was solely the funding of UN PEACEKEEPING OPERATIONS, which the US funded before 1995 Kassenbaum amendment at 30% or so. This largess allowed Bangladeshi soldiers, for example, to deploy to UN Peacekeeping operations at a per diem of 100 dollars per day or so. A small fortune for a fellow from Bangladesh.

From a 1998 article on the topic:

The $1.8 billion figure counted as U.S. "dues" to the world body derives from a 1996 General Accounting Office report on U.S. costs in support of UN-authorized "peace operations" in places like Haiti, Somalia and Rwanda during the previous three years. The figure represents the State Department's share of the costs of those operations. That is the budget from which the U.S. share of UN peacekeeping operations has traditionally been funded. Overall, the GAO found that the costs reported by U.S. government agencies for support of UN operations in those areas of the world was over $6.6 billion and that the UN had reimbursed the U.S. $79.4 million "for some of these costs." That leaves about $4.8 billion in what the administration calls "voluntary" assistance to the world body.

During the Clinton administration, our country went through a vigorous belt tightening in budget, across the board. The people wanted it, Congress mandated it. In the process of looking into our own inefficient government processes, and gutting some of them, and prying the worms from under the rocks, the gross inefficiencies and lack of fiscal accountability at the UN also came under public scrutiny.

Congress refused to contribute money to an organization that would not adhere to minimal financial accountability. The recent facts that arose about the UN Iraq Oil for food mess is the tip of the iceberg, but it shows that Congress was right in principle, in passing the 1995 Kassenbaum amendment, the decision to cut off the payment until certain financial reporting and auditing was undertaken has been translated into "you don't pay your way at the UN." Bill Clinton wanted to, but he doesn't approve the budget.

So, some money is agreed by the US as "owed," but we still pay every year.

And we pay our own way in dozens of other ways each year.

Example. The operations in support of Tsunami by US forces was 2.5 million dollars per day, if you were to cost it out roughly. It was one of many aid operations undertaken each year for which the UN is not charged. The cost of our operations in Bosnia in 1997 was something like 5 or 6 billion for one year. And so on.

I appreciate the negative reaction to our government's disgust with UN accounting skullduggery and the protest that was made with a wallet. I wonder sometimes why more nations don't make the same protest. A decision (yes, heavy handed) to do something to bring attention to the problem was made. That action has been spun in different ways by different players for their own reasons.

Consider why it happened: the complete lack of fiscal responsibility demonstrated by the UN administrators and bureaucrats, some of whom are Americans. There has since been rhetoric in the US about leaving the UN. That position is a load of crap. The UN is worth the effort and money put into it, even though its collective security function is crippled by infighting and a lack of consensus.

The U.N. continues to function, doing some things well, and some things poorly. Par for the course. I mean, it's a bureaucracy. ;)

Occhi

EDIT Note this other issue. It is not a simple balance in the checkbook issue. It is, of course, full of complexities. From a paper on Ambassador Holbrooke's challenges in facing down Congress.

The UN Budget
The UN’s budget is divided into two portions, the regular budget (about $1.3
billion at the time) and the peacekeeping budget (roughly $2.5-3.0 billion). While its precise workings are eye-glazingly complex, the current version of the organization’s financing system essentially apportioned payments based on each country’s share of the global economy. A number of exceptions to this scheme existed; some countries with low per-capita income, for instance, paid less than their nation’s share of global GDP.

An important proviso of the financing scheme stipulated that no country would be
obligated to pay more than 25% of the regular budget. The U.S., however, was the only country that benefited from this ceiling; based on its share of global GDP, the U.S. should have been paying 27% of the UN’s regular budget. This “under-assessment” bred resentment among nations that felt they were shouldering more than their fair share of the burden.

For example, taken as a group, the nations of the European Union, which with a
similar share of world GDP to that of the U.S., collectively paid 36% of the UN’s regular budget. Japan, moreover, paid 20% of the regular budget rather than the 17% it would have owed simply based on its share of the world economy.

The United States’ contribution to the peacekeeping budget, meanwhile, had
been set at more than 30% of the total. In 1995, however, Congress had passed the Kassebaum Amendment, unilaterally decreeing that the U.S. would not provide more than 25% of the UN’s budget for peacekeeping operations.

By the end of the ‘90s, the UN claimed the U.S. owed almost $1.5 billion in
arrears and blamed the U.S. for pushing it to the brink of bankruptcy. The U.S. disputed about half a billion dollars of that total, but in effect, accepted the balance as owing. Indeed, the U.S. had to make several emergency payments to avoid losing its seat in the General Assembly.

EDIT 2

To underscore my earlier point. The news source (not my favorite) refers to a GAO report. The news source looked to be spinning this somewhat, so take the rhetoric with a grain of salt. The numbers are from the General Accounting Office, who count the costs.

Lawrence Morahan, CNSNews.com Tuesday, Feb. 12, 2002

CNSNews.com -- A draft report by the General Accounting Office reveals that former President Clinton contributed over $24 billion for U.N. peacekeeping missions around the world between 1995 and 2001, money that wasn't officially credited to the U.S. account by the United Nations. The report shows that America's "debt" to the United Nations was more than compensated for by extra peacekeeping assistance that the world organization never gave the United States credit for, U.N. critics said.

"This new GAO report makes it absolutely clear that the U.S. debt to the U.N. was a complete fraud," said Cliff Kincaid, a journalist and president of America's Survival, who released a copy of the draft report.

"And remember that this report only covers the fiscal years 1996 - 2001," Kincaid added. "If the complete years of the Clinton administration were taken into account, the figure could rise by several more billions."

The Clinton era saw an explosion in the number of U.N.-sponsored peacekeeping missions carried out by U.S. forces that were not necessarily supported by Congress.

Those peacekeeping operations were the cause of heated disagreements over dues, including debates on whether the United States had accumulated sufficient back dues to be voted out of the U.N. General Assembly.

Between fiscal years 1996 and 2001, the United States directly contributed an estimated $3.45 billion to support U.N. peacekeeping, the report states.

During the same period, however, U.S. indirect contributions to U.N. peacekeeping amounted to $24.2 billion.

Of the $24.2 billion figure, the GAO found that the largest indirect contribution - about $21.8 billion - was for U.S. military operations and services.

Occhi