Printer friendly version of: http://www.foreign-policy-dialogue.ca/en/discussion/index.php?m=2512
 |
Conclusion: The World We WantThank you for participating in the Dialogue on Foreign Policy. The interactive web site is now closed. The Minister's report will appear on this web site once it is released. This Forum is bilingual, and participants post messages in their language of choice.
|
| |
|
|
Contributor: fatmomma
Date: 2003-03-29 15:59:15
I search but cannot find information on why the United States is a member of the UN when they are not listed as paying dues. I only was able to search back to 2000 but they have paid nothing. Canada pays every year and on time. The United Kingdom has paid dues for 2002 but is always late. They are overdue for 2003.
Russia's dues are much less Than Canada or Italy.
Why is the USA still a member of the UN
Why does the UN have headquarters in New york when the USA is default on their dues
Why is Russia still one of 5 permanent members
Why is the USA still a member?
I am not making a statement but would be interested in more information on these topics.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: cfallon
Date: 2003-04-01 11:58:13
These are valid questions.
Added to this list should be: why is the US responsible for 25% of the UN budget? Wouldn't we get less US influence in the UN if they were required to pay based on a per capita number?
There has been talk of moving the UN from New York in these discussion forums, and I think this is a great idea. But where?
I suggest it should NOT be in Europe or North America.
I think we should put it in a city that would benefit from the economic stimulus that such a headquarters brings to a city.
Some examples of the cities where the UN should be based: Kandahar, Damascus, Gaza City, Harare, Quito, Pyongyang, etc.
It would be no benefit to the world if the new UN headquarters wound up in Toronto, Tokyo, Milan or Miami.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: cfallon
Date: 2003-04-01 14:29:04
Fatmomma, here's more info for you:
Japan pays 19.6% of the UN budget - more than the combined contributions of France, Russia, China and the UK !!
Pretty astonishing.
Japan has argued that the credibility of the security council is in doubt because the security council's make up was determined in 1965 - before, nearly 50% of the UN's members joined!!
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: traff1
Date: 2003-04-01 18:57:03
http://www.americans-world.org/digest/global_issues/un/un3.cfm
According to my quick analysis of the above website,
They are holding back the dues (US CONGRESS) pushing for reforms in the UN.
I beleive there was a comparison:
US pays 25%
European Union pays 60%
but i could be wrong, and it is an American Website.
Way to go! Thankfully someone is truly pushing for UN Reforms and looking out for the world's future.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: fatmomma
Date: 2003-04-01 23:57:22
Most of that information is old. So their delinquency is even longer than I knew. They should not be allowed to use the UN. Most of the American citizen supported paying their dues.
Americans not agreeing with any American policy should withhold their taxes.
The UN should not be spending money in the USA and should move their headquarters.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: Barretm82
Date: 2003-04-02 08:54:41
Way to go! Thankfully someone is truly pushing for UN Reforms and looking out for the world's future.
Well Said... traff1
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: Deidden
Date: 2003-04-03 00:24:02
Too true, I suggest moving it to Afghanistan. At least keep the 'nation' on the political radar...
If not... try Iraq post Saddam - would be fitting to have the 'mother of all civilisations' host the 'mother of all world organisations'.
However... that is a pipedream. We could always ship them to some deserted island.. or perhaps the moon.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: fatmomma
Date: 2003-04-03 01:51:46
The reforms are when the USA wants a resolution passed or something done Agree. Do not question anything the USA does; rules are for everybody else.
Don't ask the USA for dues; pay USA dues for being so wonderful.
Do not question the actions or views of the USA just say Yes .
Disarm the world; onlu USA should have weapons. Probably a few more.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: cfallon
Date: 2003-04-03 13:46:37
Within the USA, as you have pointed out in other posts, you can challenge the government openly. You can mobilise to change its regime peacefully.
What about this? If the UN acts, but people don't like the actions, they blame the US. (For example, who bears the brunt of blame for sanctions against Iraq - the UN? or the US?)
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: fatmomma
Date: 2003-04-03 23:36:16
I believe that the UN was pressured to place sanctions by the USA. There should have been only selective sanctions allowed. It is a War Crime to prevent a country from feeding its people. It was an American, Ramsey Clark who was persistent in pushing the UN to set up the oil for food program, I believe. Sanctions that cut off a country's food supply should never be allowed. I believe this is one of North Korea's biggest complaint.
Yes, The Americans can change their regime; I hope it won't be too late when they do
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: codc01
Date: 2003-04-03 02:35:58
I'm not sure - i exactly want to know the facts before judging of anything on this topic...
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: fatmomma
Date: 2003-04-05 01:05:47
Good luck Codco, we all want to know the true facts but with so much misinformation and wild propaganda; we all have to do the best we can. Get as many different points of view as you can find; then use your own common sense and logic.
The USA lost my vote of confidence when they started producing proof of Iraq"
's possession of WMD. These proofs were quickly discovered to be fraudulent, old and plagiarized or just lacking in proof. Did they think they could fool the world because I don't believe that they are that stupid as to not know their proofs were bogus. That is what got me started on looking for more information.
The Americans quick end to looking for Osama; to turn their attention to Iraq all sent up warning signals. It appeared a little too convenient to me.
I think they decided to finish the job that should have been done 11 years earlier since the troops were already there.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: codc01
Date: 2003-04-09 15:59:30
I have read some article titles about the UN reform at the UN site, but they were 3 years old...
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: cfallon
Date: 2003-04-09 16:37:59
I agree with you Fatmomma on alot of what you just said! :)
Yes, the US attempts to rally the security council were half-hearted and not very well executed. They knew, from 50 years of dealing with the UN, that this was a stupid route to take and could only end in their embarrassment - that's all France cares about when it comes to its veto.
I think they felt they should have finished the job 11 years ago. But what stopped Bush Sr.? He didn't have a UN mandate and knew he wouldn't get one.
Bush Sr. was the only president to go to the security council to authorise military action. He did this as a means of empowering the UN post-cold war. But, the set up of the security council is so far removed from global reality that the US quickly learned not to bother. That's why we have no UN support of the Kosovo campaign.
The government is now telling us that because attacking Serbia was done under the auspices of NATO that it was sufficiently multilateral. But this means that had the Warsaw Pact attacked a country, Canada would have said, "its perfectly alright, since they are doing it multilaterally."
If you think that Saddam's Iraq
1 - had no WMDs nor the desire to acquire them.
2 - had no expansionist ambitions.
3 - would not collude with Al-Quaeda or Al-Ansar or Al-Anything to kill some Americans
then I suggest you apply for a job in Saddam's ministry of information! :)
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: codc01
Date: 2003-04-09 17:16:34
My answers:
1) They had.
2) Not anymore - historically Kuweit was part of Iraq - just remember that fact please (that does not mean its ok, just have to keep it in mind thats all).
3) Religion and Baas don't work very well together - and several analysts have said Saddam would never do that.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: cfallon
Date: 2003-04-10 10:11:10
Was that analyst Eric Margolis?
Or better yet, an analyst from the Parisian left bank? They are such good analysts!
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: fatmomma
Date: 2003-04-10 01:19:20
Believe me Bush left no bribe unpromised; no threat unspoken
But he failed : he lied and produced fraudulent reports, The USA is responsible for the UN not acting where it should many times because American used its veto.
Mr Bush stopped because he was afraid of being charged with War Crimes for massacreing retreating soldiers (Kuwait and Iraqi and Iraqi citizens along a main highway. Charges state the USA used napalm.
Saddam may have had the desire but he obviously does not have any significant WMD; none have been used.
Saddam is a vile dictator but not the only or worst in the world.
Turkey is attacking and killing Kurds living in that country.
The USA does not have the right to make decisions for the world; they assigned that task to the UN
The USA will be looking to the UN to help pay for the damage they have done.
Destroying a dictatorship and installing a democracy does not ensure an acceptable leadership, Zimbabwe is a good example. The people of a country must be willing and motivated enough to initiate the removal of a dictatorship or they will probably return to another similar government
Reply to this message
|
Visit us online at: http://www.foreign-policy-dialogue.ca
|
