posted on May 4, 2001 03:57:34 PM new
By secret ballot the UN has voted not to reelect America to the Human Rights Commission. We helped create this body in the UN in 1949, and have held a seat since that time.
Bush and clan should be ashamed. Sorry can't link.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/bush/story/0,7369,485946,00.html
One thing I found interesting in this article is this statement:
The US also treats the UN with scant regard. The administration has yet to formally nominate its choice for UN ambassador, John Negroponte, and the House of Representatives has been tardy in authorising authorise the payment of $582m in US arrears to the UN
Does anyone believe we've accumulated the $582M arrears just since President Bush was elected?
[ edited by Linda_K on May 4, 2001 04:16 PM ]
posted on May 4, 2001 05:07:48 PM new
Well, I have searched and can't find anything but opinions (guesses) about why this has happened. In a 'secret'(?) vote no less.
James, you may be more correct that you realize (I think you were joking) because that same article said, "The rebuff has led to an absurd situation where countries like Sudan and Pakistan, hardly paragons of virtue when it comes to human rights, are members, when the US is not."
posted on May 4, 2001 05:43:07 PM new
Since we're not linking, it was the republican congress that dragged feet in paying the quite large bill already agreed to by the previous president. I think that we've had a republican congress for some nine years.....could be eight.
"She was referring to the long dispute between Washington and the United Nations over U.S. arrears and the level of the U.S. contribution.The dispute has been settled in principle but Congress still has not paid its $1.7 billion debt".
posted on May 4, 2001 06:52:54 PM new
krs - Thanks for those links. You're sooooo kind to have posted that URL.
But every article I read had different people speculating on why this happened, no one seems to be sure, and there certainly was no consensus. It's all speculation.
posted on May 4, 2001 07:01:16 PM new
I'd call it a victory for the US. That is unless we compare our standards with those of Sudan, Uganda, Togo, Syria, Algeria, Libya and Saudi Arabia. Clinton could have forced the issue to pay down that debt to the UN if he really wanted to. However, I comend him and the US House for not paying up. After all, when the UN does send troops somewhere, the majority of those soldiers are American. I didn't see a whole lot of Sudanese UN troops lending a hand in Kosovo, or Iraq for that matter. Screw the UN. With a line-up of member nations like that, it's best we leave them to their own devices. Besides, who are they gonna call on the next time they want to put Saddam in check? Libya?
posted on May 6, 2001 11:08:08 AM new
Good point, jlpiece!
I only wish to add that the US will only treat the UN as something necessary when they abandon abortions and birth control, preferring AIDS to do the work instead "as God intended".
The Republcan politicians have been beating on this dead horse since Ronald Reagan. That's how we accumulated the 1.7 billion debt - the Republicans majority since 1992 has refused to pay a penny. That, jlpiece is why Clinton didn't pony-up our share of the cash: instead of paying, we end up holding our share by supplying troops, in case you weren't aware of it. Those who don't pay up in one way or another end up supplying the troops.
In the meantime, both China and India have each passed the 1 Billion population mark and several others are on their way in a few more years.
Mark my words -- the world population WILL go down! But it will be the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse: War, Famine, Pestilence, AIDS! Soooooo much more moral than what they're doing right now, huh?
edited for spelling
[ edited by Borillar on May 6, 2001 11:11 AM ]
