posted on June 18, 2005 01:36:20 PM new
Where do you stand on this issue? Would you agree with this bill as it passed? Would you cut MORE funding if these conditions aren't met? Would you not set so many conditions that must be met? Would you leave it up to the State Dept.?
Or do you think we're shooting ourselves in the foot....should this measure be passed, as written, by the Senate down the road?
House OKs U.N. reform bill
By Stephen Dinan
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
June 18, 2005
The House yesterday voted to withhold half of its dues from the United Nations unless it dramatically changes its bureaucracy, peacekeeping missions and the rules for its human rights organizations.
It marked the second time this week the House defied the White House on a key priority, following Wednesday's vote against renewing one part of the USA Patriot Act.
House Republicans led the way yesterday, despite a White House plea for leeway to conduct foreign affairs and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's request for flexibility in deciding whether the dues should be withheld.
"When it comes to sanctions against the United Nations for failing to reform, if you leave it to the discretion of the State Department, you're plowing in the sea," said Rep. Henry J. Hyde, Illinois Republican and chief sponsor of the bill. "Let's begin real reform of the United Nations -- a monumental task, a long road ahead -- let's begin it here and now, June 17, right in this room."
The vote of 221-184 reflected a discontent among American voters with the United Nations, which has been buffeted by a kickback scandal in the Iraqi oil-for-food program and embarrassments such as seating countries that violate human rights on its human rights commissions. The vote also was a rejection of what Mr. Hyde called "a mindset in the upper realms of diplomacy that worships at the altar of the United Nations."
U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan criticized the bill, saying through a spokesman that with-holding dues is not "a productive route" to reform and could jeopardize his own proposals, expected to be discussed in September.
But even those who voted against the bill yesterday -- most Democrats and a handful of Republicans -- endorsed the call for reforms and for withholding dues. Most of them supported an alternate version that allowed the secretary of state a waiver.
The bill lists 46 specific steps the U.N. must take, including: establishing an independent oversight board that can review all operations; prohibiting nations the U.N. has condemned for human rights abuses from serving on human rights bodies; and demanding major bureaucratic reforms.
If the secretary of state cannot certify either that 32 conditions have been met by Sept. 31, 2007, or all 46 have been met by the next year, half of U.S. dues would be withheld.
The U.S. contribution this year will be $442 million, or about 22 percent of the United Nations' annual $2.05 billion budget. In addition, the United States this year will contribute about $2.5 billion to voluntary efforts like peacekeeping and popular programs with independent budgets, such as UNICEF and the World Food Program. Those would not be affected by the bill, though no new peacekeeping missions may be undetaken unless immediate reforms are put in place.
Rep. Tom Lantos, California Democrat and chief sponsor of the alternative legislation that failed yesterday, said some of the reform goals simply aren't achievable by the deadline. He also said the bill could prevent the United States from taking part in peacekeeping missions to prevent genocide.
And Rep. Christopher Shays, Connecticut Republican, said the majority's bill would be playing into the wishes of "evil minds" in the U.N. who want to see dues withheld because it gives them another reason to attack the United States.
posted on June 18, 2005 04:51:41 PM new
Yes, I'm all for it....the U.S. needs to look more like a blackmailing bully to have better relations with other countries.
Find blackmail and extortion repulsive? Well, too bad Mr. and Ms. America!
The christian moral majority thinks it's just fine and dandy
posted on June 18, 2005 05:12:22 PM new
Risky stuff, Maybe countries like China with their new found wealth will step up with money to get more say in the U.N.
As for the U.S., until we get a President that is better at foreign relations little will change.
posted on June 18, 2005 05:17:36 PM new
I think a few less demands might be in order. Between that and the inevitable approval of a pitbull as our ambassador wouldn't it just be better to just admit we don't want to be a member anymore.
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
No, I'm saying -- I'm merely -- I'm saying what I'm saying. I don't know why I'm always having people say, are you trying to say -- you know what you can do if you want to know what I'm saying is listen to what I'm saying. What I'm saying is what I said ...
posted on June 19, 2005 01:58:09 PM new
"Down with the UN"
That is the answer to all of our international problems. If we can't play by UN policies and agreements, then we should just burn the bridge. That's the way it's done here. Put a boot up there ass!
John Bolton needs to take lessons from Michael Bolton on chilling a little. He is NOT the right choice for US Rep. He is the poster child of everything wrong with US attitudes towards International Relations.
posted on June 19, 2005 04:38:35 PM new
definition of opinion
Opinion
That which is opined; a notion or conviction founded on probable evidence; belief stronger than impression, less strong than positive knowledge; settled judgment in regard to any point of knowledge or action.
The judgment or sentiment which the mind forms of persons or things; estimation.
Favorable estimation; hence, consideration; reputation; fame; public sentiment or esteem.
Obstinacy in holding to one's belief or impression; opiniativeness; conceitedness.
The formal decision, or expression of views, of a judge, an umpire, a counselor, or other party officially called upon to consider and decide upon a matter or point submitted.
I don't see "example" in that definition at all.
But one recent thing does come to mind "Oil for Food"
I've never considered an opinion would have to be founded on any probable evidence. (Unless of course the definition applies solely to say, a judicial opinion.)
posted on June 19, 2005 08:25:05 PM new
What about Food for Oil ?
And do you mean you form your "opinion" on nothing ?? Sounds like it.
[ edited by crowfarm on Jun 19, 2005 08:46 PM ]
posted on June 19, 2005 09:40:43 PM new
Do you know anything about the oil for food scandal? or just avoiding the fact the UN is a corrupt as people claim the US government is.
posted on June 20, 2005 05:32:20 AM new
I stated my opinion, you have yet to add to the discussion, so my question is to keep it going, but if you don't know about it that is fine.
I can move on to other threads that offer better discussion.
posted on June 20, 2005 08:25:53 AM new
"Risky stuff, Maybe countries like China with their new found wealth will step up with money to get more say in the U.N."
I'll take that bet. I'll give you 3 to 1.
"What is it exactly that they have done wrong?"
Maybe even the IDEA that Syria, Yemen, or whoever gets a turn on the Council for Human Rights.
