Get News & Views Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Republicans Advance Bill to Slash Funding for UN
WASHINGTON- One day after a nation-wide poll found strong popular support for the United Nations, Republicans on a key Congressional foreign policy committee Thursday voted to cut U.S. funding for the world body if it did not implement major changes.
A general view of the UN Headquarters in New York City. A key US House of Representatives panel on Thursday approved legislation that would slash US dues to the United Nations by half unless the world body agrees to be funded with voluntary donations. (AFP Photo/Chris Jackson) The Foreign Affairs Committee of the House of Representatives voted 23-15 for the United Nations Transparency, Accountability and Reform Act.
It would require Washington, among other provisions, to cut 50 percent of funding for the U.N. unless it converted to a voluntary contribution system permitting Washington to fund only those agencies and programmes "that advance U.S. interests and values".
The bill would also require Washington to quit the U.N. Human Rights Council (UNHRC); withhold contributions to any U.N. agency or programme that upgrades the current "observer" status of the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO); and end U.S. contributions to the U.N. Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA), the U.N. body charged with aiding Palestinian refugees since 1949.
The bill's future is uncertain. A vote on the floor of the Republican-controlled House has not yet been scheduled. Even if it passed there, it is unlikely to be approved by the Senate, where Democrats are in the majority, and if in the unlikely event that it passed both houses, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said she would press President Barack Obama to veto it.
"This bill mandates actions that would severely limit the United States' participation in the United Nations, damaging longstanding treaty commitments under the United Nations Charter and gravely harming U.S. national interests, those of our allies, and the security of Americans at home and abroad," Clinton warned in a letter to the Foreign Affairs Committee chairwoman and the bill's chief sponsor, Florida Representative Ileana Ros-Lehtinen Wednesday, as well as the committee's ranking Democrat, California Representative Howard Berman.
Despite its uncertain future, a number of analysts say it requires attention. "Even though this bill will likely not become law this year, it has to be taken seriously now because it sets the Republican agenda," said Don Kraus, CEO of Citizens for Global Solutions (CGS), a national grassroots group.
"It could well reappear in 2013, when control of Congress and the White House may change and enactment of this bill will be more likely," he added.
The bill is one part of a multi-pronged assault by Republicans on the U.N. and some of its specialised agencies.
Just last week, for example, the Foreign Affairs Committee approved a measure to ban U.S. funding next year for the U.N. Population Fund (UNFPA), which the Republican right has long accused of promoting abortion and China's strict birth-control policies.
The ban will likely have to be reconciled with the Senate's approval of 40 million dollars for the agency in a general appropriations bill.
In August, a key Republican-led House appropriations committee sliced a total of 600 million dollars from the administration's 2012 request of 3.5 billion dollars for the U.N. and its peacekeeping operations. It also zeroed out U.S. contributions to UNHRC.
In addition, Republican lawmakers are pressing the Obama administration to oppose U.N. plans to build a new office building at Turtle Bay in New York.
Since the U.N.'s founding in the last days of World War II, the U.S. has been its single biggest contributor. Washington currently funds 22 percent of the U.N.'s regular budget and some 27 percent of its peacekeeping budget. The U.N.'s total budget this year is 22.3 billion dollars, of which Washington has paid 6.4 billion dollars.
Opinion polls have shown substantial public support for the world body over many decades.
On the eve of Thursday's committee vote, a new survey of 900 registered voters released by the Better World Campaign found that nearly nine in ten (86 percent) said it was important that the U.S. maintain an active role within the U.N.
About two out of three said Washington should pay its dues to the U.N. (64 percent) and to U.N. peacekeeping operations on time and in full. It found that majorities of Republicans, as well as Democrats and independents, agreed with all three propositions.
Asked about legislation that would cut U.S. funding to the U.N., respondents in the survey, which was co-conducted by a Democratic and a Republican polling firm, found significant partisan differences. While 67 percent of Democrats said they would oppose cuts, Republicans and independents were more evenly split.
Half of Republicans said they would support such cuts, while 44 percent said they would oppose them. Among independents, 41 percent said they would support cuts, while a 51 percent majority opposed them.
"This polling once again shows that Americans do not want to see the United States go back into debt at the United Nations," said Timothy Wirth, a former senator and current president of the U.N. Foundation.
"While misguided legislation in Congress would cause America to forfeit our leadership at the U.N., we see time and time again that the majority of voters across the political spectrum believe the U.S. should have an active role within the U.N.," he added.
Last week, a group of 30 formerly top-ranking U.S. diplomats, military officers, and lawmakers – both Democrats and Republicans – also released a strong statement in support of the U.N. and in thinly veiled opposition to the pending bill.
"No doubt, U.S. contributions to the U.N. must be judicious and prudent: accountability, transparency and effectiveness for any organisation, including the U.N.," declared the letter, which was signed by a number of top Republicans, including former Secretary of State George Shultz, former Defence Secretary William Cohen, and half a dozen former senior Republican senators.
"At the same time, our ability to burden share with other nations helps defray costs, promote stability, and enhance the impact of our resources. Withholding U.S. funding weakens both our influence and support for our national priorities, while strengthening the hands of our adversaries," they warned.
But Ros-Lehtinen pressed ahead with her bill, introducing it with a litany of complaints about pending U.N. budget increases, its alleged anti-Israel bias and lack of transparency.
"We will never achieve lasting, sweeping reforms if the U.S. keeps paying in full what the U.N. dictates to us, with no consequences for the U.N.'s failures," she declared, noting that the main thrust of the bill would be to force the world body to shift 80 percent of its funding basis from mandatory dues to voluntary contributions within two years.
Failure to meet that deadline, according to the bill, would result in the U.S. withholding half of its annual contribution and continuing to do so until the 80 percent mark is achieved.
The bill would also impose new reporting requirements by the U.N. to ensure, among other things, that U.S. contributions are used "for the specific purposes for which (they were) made available by Congress".
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...

71 Comments so far
Show AllPolitics over people.
Will Republicans ever get around to passing real legislation that can effectively spur job growth? I guess that would interfere with their extreme anti-people agenda!
have you had a chance to study through "the american jobs act"? any thoghts to share?
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/legislative/reports/american-jobs-act.pdf
Neither Republicans nor Democrats have any real interest in legislation that would stimulate job formation. I would argue using the example of the 3 "Free Trade" bills they just passed as evidence that its a good conclusion.
And Mr. Obama is going to sign them, no matter how much labor is opposed or how it will hurt the American family.
A partisan "EarthResident".
How novel! ;)
EarthResident,
This is nothing but a pressure play on behalf of Israel by our pro-zionist congress to force the UN to stop supporting logic, human rights and common decency in issues like the atrocities being visited on the Palestinians and heaven forbid the UN keep pushing for a Palestinian state.
The mafia rules the US is playing by are getting rather blatant. This is called buy em' or bop em'.
The Republicans want to diminish US influence in the world as rapidly and as thoroughly as possible. I applaud them. Sometimes the more incompetent and deranged fascists are the better choice.
"The Republicans want to diminish US influence in the world as rapidly and as thoroughly as possible."
I have an excellent sense of humour...You are joking..Right?
Thomas Gilbert-
It would seem that they do (want to diminish US influence), but they are apparently such clueless and incompetent fascists that they actually think their approach will increase US influence.
Kivals
Thank you for expanding your previous comment. I now understand your point..
Thomas Gilbert-
much better kivals.
yes, their actions produce a result, but that result doesn't always mean the result was intended.
empiricism has to account for emPyrrhusism
It is a Bill in committee.
Nothing has been done here except the manufacture of "difference" between the Red and Blue Parties.
It seems it'd be appropriate to note the UN's history of human rights violations with those they employ, plus the actions they've taken that seem to be functions of the US government. They appear a corrupt a tool as Xe in the US. Almost.
So what do we do..Get rid of the UN? I really would like to know.....
Thomas Gilbert-
Well...That is one vote..
Thank You
Thomas Gilbert-
hell yeah, give the land and everything back to the Rockefellers, the way God intended.
it's important that a free marketplace of ideas not be maintained and that the ideas and actions advocated by all these horrible, horrible non-Americans not be allowed expressions on our sacred democratic ground.
only if America refuses to engage in debate can Americans maintain the purity of their essences.
Fuster
Yep...You are right on..lol That is the way the Lord intended things to be...
It is all about purity. Foreign ideas can only corrupt . Debate should only take place among those who are in agreement...
I am trying to think what we could do with that future vacated piece of real estate... Thomas Gilbert-
just don't ever suggest that a mosque get built there, especially not one dedicated to furthering peace and understanding amongst the world's people.....
.....the "sacred ground" gits'll get ya if you do.
fuster
I will remember that..Good advice....Thomas Gilbert-
The UN should be dismantled, but it won't because it adds legitimacy to a nations actions and they do whatever they are funded to do. Do you think the US putting in more money than any other nation combined amounts to no influence in actions, efforts, 'peacekeeping'? It's a tool and you would be foolish to presume otherwise. Banks claim all the time to be benevolent too, but just like the UN, their actions don't follow their claims.
nev, the US has much influence in the UN for a couple of big reasons that go beyond paying the big bucks, but the Repubs are pissing and moaning precisely because the UN doesn't always do our bidding and because it provides a hearing for beliefs that contradict those of right-wing Americans and as well offers an alternative source of legitimacy
fuster,
I was wondering where you went.. (been here all eventing counting UN votes..lousy voter turn out..as usual).Good comment.Thomas Gilbert
Another vote to dismantle the UN...
Thank You
Thomas Gilbert-
That is clarification of your vote to abolish....I am really interested in peoples opinion of the United Nations..Has it achieved anything positive? ....Does it have the potential to achieve positive international outcomes?
Thomas Gilbert- by abolish I mean cutting funding to this institution
The problems you refer to originate from only one arm of the UN - the US-dominated Security Council. It should be abolished, and its powers devolved to the far more democratic UN General Assembly.
The various UN scientific, relief, and development agencies also do a lot of good.
Pj, Thank you for your comment. That is what I was getting at while at the same time having a little fun with the topic. One really shouldn't tear down a house because it has a few broken windows. Thomas Gilbert-
Are the quality achievements of the UN enough to make it worthwhile? Those same services could easily be done by any number of other organizations.
Take a look back at UN "Peace Keeping" you'll find they are useless. People are murdered right in front of the Blue Helmets and they can do nothing about it. Libya on the Human Rights Council? Food for oil? And on and on.
The Security Council IS the United Nations. And other than those on that Council the rest of the UN is powerless. So what use is the UN in reality?
There are more than a few broken windows in that organization. Just a thought.
al,
peacekeeping efforts usually don't work because they generally begin where there really isn't peace and the peacekeepers have no real enforcement powers beyond the verbal.
that the UN doesn't do the impossible or even the very difficult doesn't mean that it does nothing.
one of the 60 zillion reports from the RAND commission compares UN peacekeeping efforts to efforts by other orgs and efforts by the US....says that UN did OK, better than expected and better than the others.
http://www.rand.org/pubs/testimonies/2007/RAND_CT284.pdf
World Health Organization
World Food Program
UNICEF
have done much good.
Alugilac,
Thank you. Very good comment...We pass the question on...."So what use is the UN in reality?"Thomas Gilbert-
The problem is that the lead up to the question was basically distortion after distortion.
I don't like questions about "reality" that are based upon unreality. ;)
We could pay for several dozen United Nations if we just kicked our addiction to predatory resource wars.
Useless? Why just recently the WHO redefined 'pandemic' so that nations around the world could spend billions on the latest swine flu vaccine. A year or two before that, the UN declared that LA's plan to distribute medical marijuana was in violation of an international drug treaty.
People need to come to grips with the fact that the UN is in reality a tool of global capitalists. If they ever voted Palestinian statehood, the POTUS and every neocon around would be calling for a pull out. The UN only exists as long as it promotes the global agenda.
The United Nations General Assembly could just vote to kick the USA out as a deadbeat thus knocking out its veto at the UN Security Council. That "would put a different wheel on the wagon" as the fellow said in an old Western. Now wouldn't it?
Make it two Tom. My dad worked for the UN and I can't think of a better place to leave than the UN.
John,
Your Dad worked for the UN. You and your family would definitely have a insider's view of this global institution.
Why do feel the way you do? Do you think a restructuring/reformation of the institution is possible?
Thank You John...I enjoyed many of your comments here at cd
Thomas Gilbert-
NO
I say the US should unilaterally step down from the Security Council and then agitate for its reform or removal and democratization of the UN.
Then I say the US should push for increased powers for the UN to put us on the path to Global Democracy.
A good start might be recall and stand down our Empire's military forces now stationed or fighting or cruising around the world, drastically cut their funding and scope, and then get regular operation out of the hands of the Pentagon in favor of a UN-structured international Joint Command.
(Thought I'd "throw down" a bit and see if it adds to the fun) ;)
Matti,
The institution would be more effective if certain reforms were possible. Are such reforms such as those stated in your comment possible? Your third paragraph certainly opens up a whole new approach to any discussion regarding the United Nations, or for that matter, any international institution.. If the United States is the belly of an international/Global empire can any international institution survive independent of US influence? Now we are into Alan's concerns regarding the presence of an all pervasive empire.Thomas Gilbert-
Legally speaking they are certainly possible.
But politically?
I would argue that they are politically possible as well, but only with a fairly significant shift in the socio-political world.
Of course, such a shift may be in its beginnings as we write. So what seems like a crazy long shot of a no chance now may seem open for reasonable debate quite soon.
As to the third paragraph:
I would argue that the US is not the center of an international Empire, but rather the dominant Empire amongst several that compete on the world stage -and that this dominance is crumbling. As the US Empire weakens, the typical course of history would suggest that the other Empires will have a struggle to determine either the new top dog, or the form of a "Cold War" style Imperial Standoff Period.
So I would say yes to your question.
Others will fit into our Empire's position just as well as it does in the future, and just as well as other powers did in the past.
What I think skews and confuses analysis of the situation is the unique-to-our-times factors of powerful transnational entities like major Corporations and truly Global communications.
If the US-based transnationals are seen as not truly trans-national, and then they are given top status in Economic Globalism, then things begin to look like a Global Empire.
But these transnationals are truly trans-national (witness Halliburton Corp. of Dubai) and they do not hold the reins of power in Economic Globalism.
Both of these mistaken notions stem from the unconscious cultural chauvinism that effects many USAns.
But what I really hope for is a decisive break in the "typical course of history" in which the struggle by various local hegemons for global hegemony is interrupted, and Democracy movements in the individual States instead coalesce into a Global Democracy.
Matti,
Thank you for your considered response to my questions regarding UN reform and the the survivability of any international institution in this atmosphere of perceived US dominance.
I appreciate your pointing out that we are not looking at a single global entity (US Empire) so much as several competing entities of which the United States is, for the time being, dominant. I tend to take the same competing interest position that you so skillfully described in your comment, while at the same time, recognizing the current dominance of the United States.
Thank you for also pointing out that international institutions could survive and even thrive in these Globalized times. Thomas Gilbert-
While the UN ain't perfect and most often serves the interests of the West, these Republicans are aptly demonstrating that they are not just ignorant, but malevolent and vindictive. Demonocracy indeed.
I will not shed one tear if and when the Security Council of the UN is abolished. If that takes the demise of the whole UN so be it. My reason for this is simple. The Security Council provides cover via the veto power to the big bullies on this Earth who can avoid any UN-ordered consequences for any of their vile deeds. In commerce this would be called a racket and that is exactly what it is, a big mobsters-based racket. The smaller fry on the SC are also mobsters but they cannot avoid consequences for their shit behind a veto power.
-----The bill's future is uncertain------
no. the bill's future is quite certain. it's gonna be shitcanned.
just another Republican pre-election ploy
"just another Republican pre-election ploy "
fuster
I tend to agree with you......
Thomas Gilbert-
Conservatives Deconstructed September 19, 2003
Are they nuts?
Have you ever wondered about those ubiquitous conservatives?
Why do they support tax breaks for the rich when so many of their fellow citizens are in dire straits? Why do they applaud John Ashcroft and his post-9/11 curtailment of civil liberties? Why do they oppose laws that address historic wrongs and enforce constitutionally guaranteed rights? Why do they respond to a societal drug problem with incarceration and expanded prison construction? Why do they gut regulations that are meant to protect the environment? Why do they invest more than half of our tax dollars in the military? Why are they so mean-spirited? In other words, why do conservatives do what they do? Are they nuts?
No, not according to a fascinating new study in Psychological Bulletin, “Political Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition.” Conservatives do, however, possess certain psychological traits and motives that no one in their right (or is that left?) mind would want to share.
The study’s four authors, John T. Jost, Jack Glaser, Arie W. Kruglanski, and Frank J. Sulloway, write, “People embrace political conservatism (at least in part) because it serves to reduce fear, anxiety and uncertainty; to avoid change, disruption and ambiguity; and to explain, order and justify inequality among groups and individuals.” To come to this conclusion the authors examined 88 different psychological studies conducted between 1958 and 2002 that involved 22,818 people from 12 different countries. They boiled that information down into a number of psychological attributes that are closely associated with people who are politically conservative.
http://www.inthesetimes.com/site/main/firststone/conservatives_deconstructed/
See John Deans book as well 'Conscience of a Conservative'. The next question of course is, now that we've identified the disease, how do we cure it? I recommend having every one of them be required to spend 40 hours of community service in the worst places.
Many conservatives are victims of abuse and are caught in a vicious circle where they become the abusers. Their numbers seem to increase in direct relation to the society's dysfunctionality. Electing conservatives perpetuates the dysfunction in society.
Eze, I always try to distinguish between that which is conservative and that which is authoritarian....What do you mean by the word conservative? What passes for conservatives in our political parties? Authentic conservatives and Liberals are both very much in tune with our notions of a liberal democracy..The opposition to any liberal democracy is not one who is conservative in his/her political outlook..The opposition to any liberal democracy are those who hold any notion of a functional liberal democracy in contempt..They are...Authoritarians...Let us do a rewrite of your comment..Many authoritarians are victims of abuse and are caught in a vicious circle where they become the abusers. Their numbers seem to increase in direct relation to the society's dysfunctionality. Electing authoritarians perpetuates the dysfunction in society. now with a simple change of the word conservative to authoritarian your comment makes sense to me Thomas Gilbert- Authoritarianism can come from the extreme right or the extreme left...
"Authoritarianism can come from the extreme right or the extreme left..."
I agree on this point. On one hand you have Hitler and on the other Pol Pot. That is why we should not equate the left with liberalism too strictly. We would hardly call leftists like Pol Pot, Stalin and Caescescu "liberals".
But conservatives are not what they used to be. The careful, frugal, thrifty, traditional, dependable, trouble avoiding conservatives of old have morphed into the violent, reactionary, frightened, lying, thieving, robbing, raping, murdering authoritarian conservatives of today, as explained in the study I quoted.
"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness"
John Kenneth Galbraith
Eze,
That is the point I was trying to get at.....What passes for conservatives (in the modern sense) are really not conservatives in the context of our notion of a liberal democratic society. Indeed they have morphed into the anti.democratic authoritarians we are experiencing today..
What passes for modern conservatism today would certainly surprise someone like my late grandfather who held our liberal institutions to be sacred......
There still exists authentic conservatives in our society, but, like those even slightly left of center, their voices are rarely, if ever, heard in these authoritarian times...
Thank you Eze for responding to my comment...(An excellent response at that)
Thomas Gilbert-
The US military spends in about 10 days what the UN spends in a year.
Since part of this bill is aimed at denying Palestinians their right to a sovereign state ... it should get plenty of support in congress.
A democratized UN is in chomsky's words "a bad example" The US/global elite cannot tolerate democracy nor a people's self-determination of economic development within their own countries. We should never forget this fact.