House Passes Bill to Slash Funds to U.N.
The Associated Press
By: Jim Abrams
06/17/05

Culminating years of frustration with the performance and behavior of the United Nations, the House voted Friday to slash U.S. contributions to the world body if it does not substantially change the way it operates.

The 221-184 vote, which came despite a Bush administration warning that such a move could actually sabotage reform efforts, was a strong signal from Congress that a policy of persuasion wasn't enough to straighten out the U.N.

"We have had enough waivers, enough resolutions, enough statements," said House International Relations Committee Chairman Henry Hyde, R-Ill., the author of the legislation. "It's time we had some teeth in reform."

The legislation would withhold half of U.S. dues to the U.N.'s general budget if the organization did not meet a list of demands for change. Failure to comply would also result in U.S. refusal to support expanded and new peacekeeping missions. The bill's prospects in the Senate are uncertain.

Just prior to the final vote, the House rejected, 216-190, an alternative offered by the top Democrat on the International Relations Committee, Tom Lantos of California, that also would have outlined U.N. reforms but would have left it to the discretion of the secretary of state whether to withhold U.S. payments.

During the two days of debate, legislators discussed the seating of such human rights abusers as Cuba and Sudan on the U.N. Commission on Human Rights and the oil-for-food program that became a source of up to $10 billion in illicit revenue for former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein.

Rep. Jeff Fortenberry, R-Neb., won backing for an amendment under which the United States would use its influence to ensure that any member engaged in acts of genocide or crimes against humanity would lose its U.N. membership and face arms and trade embargoes.

Hyde was joined by lawmakers with a litany of complaints against what they said was the U.N.'s lavish spending, its coddling of rogue regimes, its anti-America, anti-Israel bias and recent scandals such as the mismanagement of the oil-for-food program in Iraq and the sexual misconduct of peacekeepers.

The administration on Thursday had urged the Republican-led House to reconsider the legislation. The administration said in a statement that it is actively engaged in U.N. reform, and the Hyde bill "could detract from and undermine our efforts."

Eight former U.S. ambassadors to the United Nations, including Madeleine Albright and Jeane Kirkpatrick, also weighed in, telling lawmakers in a letter that withholding of dues would "create resentment, build animosity and actually strengthen opponents of reform."

U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan expressed support earlier this week for another congressional effort to bring about U.N. reform. A task force led by former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, a Republican, and former Senate Majority leader George Mitchell, a Democrat, recommended such changes as setting up an independent auditing board and weighted voting on financial issues for members who contribute more to the budget.

Also Thursday, the administration supported a measured expansion of the Security Council, but said widespread reform of the United Nations takes precedence.

"We are not prepared to have Security Council reform sprint out ahead of the other extremely important reforms that have to take place," Rice said at a news conference. She cited management, peace-building and halting the proliferation of dangerous weapons technology.

The bill, with amendments, lists 46 reforms sought. They include cutting the public information budget by 20 percent, establishing an independent oversight board and an ethics office, and denying countries that violate human rights from serving on human rights commissions.

The secretary of state would have to certify that 32 of the 39 reforms have been met by September 2007, and all 39 by the next year, to avoid a withdrawal of 50 percent of assessed dues.

U.S.-assessed dues account for about 22 percent of the U.N.'s $2 billion annual general budget.

The financial penalties would not apply to the U.N.'s voluntarily funded programs, which include UNICEF and the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees.

Link: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050617/ap_on_go_co/us_un_reform_19

The House Republicans remind me of one of those cults led by a paranoid psychopath and isolating itself from as much of the world as possible.  If we only listen to Tom DeLay and one another, no one can tell us we're wrong!

hopefully this will pass the Senate. 

sometimes the UN makes me wish we were still in our period of isolation.  We'd certain fix our own country if we were.  I know that's a complaint of many people on this board. 

Screw the UN and screw international affairs.  If we isolate ourselves again I can only see good things happening to us domesticly. 

The House Republicans


Like it was only republicans.  Here is how the members of each party voted:

Among all the house republicans:
Yes: 213
No: 7
Not voting: 10

Among all the house democrats:
Yes: 8
No: 176
Not voting: 18

And the one independent voted no.

Like it was only republicans.  Here is how the members of each party voted:

Among all the house republicans:
Yes: 213
No: 7
Not voting: 10

Among all the house democrats:
Yes: 8
No: 176
Not voting: 18

And the one independent voted no.


I find it interesting that 213 repugs voted yes despite the opposition of the White House.


hopefully this will pass the Senate.

sometimes the UN makes me wish we were still in our period of isolation. We'd certain fix our own country if we were. I know that's a complaint of many people on this board.

Screw the UN and screw international affairs. If we isolate ourselves again I can only see good things happening to us domesticly.




Sure, seal the boarders, divorce ourselves from our friends and let our enemies have a free pass.  Read the history of the period between the 2 World Wars and you will see the results of isolationism.  Not a pretty picture.  The UN may be flawed, it may be fatally flawed, but right now, its what we have.  Make it better?  Sure.  Abandon it at our peril.

Sure, seal the boarders...

Yes please.

divorce ourselves from our friends and let our enemies have a free pass.

As Kofi Annan would say: hell no.

The UN may be flawed

That's an understatement.  I don't expect it to be perfect, but it has failed at every possible turn.

I support pulling the US out of the UN, but more realistically I would like to see the UN reform and for the US to spend less of our tax dollars on it.  It's not fair that the UN, which is made up of something like 191 countries, expects the US to pay 22% of all it's funding.  I have about 1% respect for the UN, but that will go to zero if they ever try some kind of global tax.

Considering how huge the trade defecit is at the present moment, sealing the US off from the rest of the world has to be the dumbest thing I've ever heard.  Anyone who thinks the US does not rely on the rest of the world should check where there food comes from (with the exception of beef, most of it isn't from here), where there clothes come from, cars, etc.  Nothing is made here.

Most of our bonds are purchased by places such as China who, if pushed far enough, will start cashing them in.  Imagine the results, if China cashes in all their US bonds.  You think gasoline is expensive now? US currency will have the buying power of a peso if just one country starts dumping them on the market.  I'm willing to bet China can ride out the US market crash by dumping their goods in Europe.  That's just one example.  All the major asian countries own a huge chunk of our debt, especially with the amount of debt the Bushies are accumulating.

It's almost like Bush wants the country to experience another great depression.  This feeling the neocons have, that the US is the only superpower and can do what it wants, is not going to end well.

Considering how huge the trade defecit is at the present moment, sealing the US off from the rest of the world has to be the dumbest thing I've ever heard.  Anyone who thinks the US does not rely on the rest of the world should check where there food comes from (with the exception of beef, most of it isn't from here), where there clothes come from, cars, etc.  Nothing is made here.


And that's bad is it not?  The fact is Wal-Mart has almost nothing that's made or grown in America.  The trade deficit is because of interaction with other nations, if we isolated ourselves from them that would mean less imports, which means a lower trade deficit.  Now Bush (for whatever reason) doesn't think the trade deficit is big enough and wants to pass CAFTA.  I'm hoping the house of representatives defeats that pact.  But America shouldn't seal it's self off economically, we need some trade.

By the way, General Motors (GM) has plenty of cars that are over built in America and are made with parts that at least 90% of which are made in America.

Buy American.

Considering how huge the trade defecit is at the present moment, sealing the US off from the rest of the world has to be the dumbest thing I've ever heard.  Anyone who thinks the US does not rely on the rest of the world should check where there food comes from (with the exception of beef, most of it isn't from here), where there clothes come from, cars, etc.  Nothing is made here.

Most of our bonds are purchased by places such as China who, if pushed far enough, will start cashing them in.  Imagine the results, if China cashes in all their US bonds.  You think gasoline is expensive now? US currency will have the buying power of a peso if just one country starts dumping them on the market.  I'm willing to bet China can ride out the US market crash by dumping their goods in Europe.  That's just one example.  All the major asian countries own a huge chunk of our debt, especially with the amount of debt the Bushies are accumulating.

It's almost like Bush wants the country to experience another great depression.  This feeling the neocons have, that the US is the only superpower and can do what it wants, is not going to end well.


we'd only be sealing ourselves off politically, not economicly....we'd still trade with other nations...wed need to

Sure, seal the boarders, divorce ourselves from our friends and let our enemies have a free pass.

a free pass where? certainly not in America. 

  Read the history of the period between the 2 World Wars and you will see the results of isolationism.  Not a pretty picture. 

not a pretty picture for which nations?  As far as I know, if we stuck to isolationism then we wouldnt have gotten involved in the first world war

The UN may be flawed, it may be fatally flawed, but right now, its what we have.  Make it better?  Sure.  Abandon it at our peril.

But the UN apprently wont let us make it better.  So screw them. 

And that's bad is it not?  The fact is Wal-Mart has almost nothing that's made or grown in America.  The trade deficit is because of interaction with other nations, if we isolated ourselves from them that would mean less imports, which means a lower trade deficit.  Now Bush (for whatever reason) doesn't think the trade deficit is big enough and wants to pass CAFTA.  I'm hoping the house of representatives defeats that pact.  But America shouldn't seal it's self off economically, we need some trade.

By the way, General Motors (GM) has plenty of cars that are over built in America and are made with parts that at least 90% of which are made in America.

Buy American.


Of course its bad, but the fact is that we are fast becoming a dependant nation.  Wal-Mart is one of the major contributors, and its off shore buying contributes to that trade deficit.  Most of "our" transnationl corporations (they don't see themselves as "ours") make much of their profits overseas, shipping good back here, and many of the shift costs by over-paying for things they buy from their subsidiaries and under-pricing for things they sell them.  In one case I remember, a firm sold its subsidiary a metal building for $.99, and, of course that lowers their taxable income.


a free pass where? certainly not in America.

Maybe not here, but how about in Iraq, Afganistan, Syria...


not a pretty picture for which nations? As far as I know, if we stuck to isolationism then we wouldnt have gotten involved in the first world war

We got involved in WWI to save the Morgan Guarantee & Trust Company from bankrupcy (Oh yeah, and to make the world safe for democracy).  It had loaned England, France, and Italy huge sums to finance their war effort.  When Russia collapsed in revolution and dropped out of the war, millions of German troops were freed up to polish off the western alies.  Had they been defeated, those loans would have gone down the toilet, and MGTC would have gone under, along with the rest if the banking network, which was vertually unregulated.  Our economy would have collapsed.

Between the wars, our isolationism encouraged the rise of fascism in Europe.  Had we joined the League of nations, and resisted, with others, the Italian invasion of Etheopia, the Japanese conquest of China, and the rise of Franco in Spain, we might have actually prevented WWII.

But the UN apprently wont let us make it better. So screw them.


Certainly not by throwing our weight around, but by patient diplomacy, who knows?

Maybe not here, but how about in Iraq, Afganistan, Syria...


We got involved in WWI to save the Morgan Guarantee & Trust Company from bankrupcy (Oh yeah, and to make the world safe for democracy).  It had loaned England, France, and Italy huge sums to finance their war effort.  When Russia collapsed in revolution and dropped out of the war, millions of German troops were freed up to polish off the western alies.  Had they been defeated, those loans would have gone down the toilet, and MGTC would have gone under, along with the rest if the banking network, which was vertually unregulated.  Our economy would have collapsed.

Between the wars, our isolationism encouraged the rise of fascism in Europe.  Had we joined the League of nations, and resisted, with others, the Italian invasion of Etheopia, the Japanese conquest of China, and the rise of Franco in Spain, we might have actually prevented WWII.




but if we were still in isolationism then we wouldnt have to care about other nations politically.  Our only worry would be if they turned communist and stopped trading with us....like China, cause we see how communism is thriving and China doesnt trade with us anymore (note the sarcasm).

Had we not been funding other nations prior to WWI then we would not have had to worry about our economy collasping. 

In fact, if we kept with isolationism then we wouldnt be in the times politically that we are now.  Terrorism would not be a threat to us because we would never have tampered with middle eastern affairs.  9/11 would never have happened because the CIA wouldnt have been in the Holy Land.  We wouldnt be hated by some countries in the world.  The Cold War would never have escallated to Russia and us almost blowing each other up...in fact, the Cold War wouldnt have happened (at least not to the exent it did...we'd probably still have dealt with Cuba).  There wouldnt have been a Vietnam war.  There wouldnt have been a Korean war.  There wouldnt have been a Persian Gulf war, a war on terror, or an Iraqi war (at least not ones that we're involved with).  Im sure National Defence would not be a current issue, and Im sure Bush wouldnt have been re-elected (if elected at all).  We would be able to focus on our domestic problems, like education, health care, crime, etc etc etc.  We would have been much better off (and probably more powerful) if we didnt end isolationism.  All this is a result of our activism in the world.  But wait, I'll stop... here I am complaining about and trying to change the past again instead of dealing with the current issues that are handed to us.  Sorry.   

And that's bad is it not?  The fact is Wal-Mart has almost nothing that's made or grown in America.  The trade deficit is because of interaction with other nations, if we isolated ourselves from them that would mean less imports, which means a lower trade deficit.  Now Bush (for whatever reason) doesn't think the trade deficit is big enough and wants to pass CAFTA.  I'm hoping the house of representatives defeats that pact.  But America shouldn't seal it's self off economically, we need some trade.

By the way, General Motors (GM) has plenty of cars that are over built in America and are made with parts that at least 90% of which are made in America.

Buy American.

Bye American!

CEO Rick Wagoner has anounced GM plans to eliminate 25,000 jobs in the next three years.  The once great paragon of American greatness is in junk bond status.  If we had a single payer healthcare system maybe GM wouldn't be so bound up with skyrocketing healthcare costs.
The United States is deteriorating from within.  We can't scapegoat the U.N. for any of the severe problems the country is facing.  We made our own bed, we buttered our own bread! 
Kicking at the U.N. makes the right-wing feel better about themselves but it accomplishes nothing.  We have to deal with the new robber baron class.  They just grab ever more than their share of the pie and get ever  more isolated from the reality that the rest of America confronts.  Their extreme financial holdings makes them paranoid and psychotic.  They own the political process.  Naturally, they want to the rest of America to lash out at the U.N., the "terrorists," and the "liberal elites"...anybody but the robber barons at the root of the American downfall!

Bye American!

CEO Rick Wagoner has anounced GM plans to eliminate 25,000 jobs in the next three years.  The once great paragon of American greatness is in junk bond status.  If we had a single payer healthcare system maybe GM wouldn't be so bound up with skyrocketing healthcare costs.


That's not GM's fault.  It's the labor unions that have demanded more and more, their greed is killing GM.  Because of the labor unions, it costs GM 1,500 dollars per car for health care alone.  Can you imagine how much that's eating at their profits?  I'm all for workers' rights but it's the labor unions own fault that 25,000 of their own will be looking for a new job.

That's not GM's fault.  It's the labor unions that have demanded more and more, their greed is killing GM.  Because of the labor unions, it costs GM 1,500 dollars per car for health care alone.  Can you imagine how much that's eating at their profits?  I'm all for workers' rights but it's the labor unions own fault that 25,000 of their own will be looking for a new job.


http://leighhouse.typepad.com/blog/images/kool_aid.jpg

Oh c'mon!  You know better than that!  If organized labor was the problem GM would have gone under fifty years ago!  Is it the labor unions who are making healthcare costs skyrocket in this country?  Are workers "greedy" because they want to be able to get their children the doctor appointments and medicine they need?

Yeah, you're all for workers' rights as long a the worker works as a CEO!
::) :P

Are workers "greedy" because they want to be able to get their children the doctor appointments and medicine they need?


I don't know, but I do know 25,000 of them won't have any health care now....period.  GM is only in the hole because of the cost of health care that the labor unions demanded.  They have full coverage and pay 10 dollars a month for dental, but nope that's to much for the greedy labor unions.  It's their fault.

And by the way, I'm a member of a labor union.

but if we were still in isolationism then we wouldnt have to care about other nations politically.  Our only worry would be if they turned communist and stopped trading with us....like China, cause we see how communism is thriving and China doesnt trade with us anymore (note the sarcasm).

Had we not been funding other nations prior to WWI then we would not have had to worry about our economy collasping. 

In fact, if we kept with isolationism then we wouldnt be in the times politically that we are now.  Terrorism would not be a threat to us because we would never have tampered with middle eastern affairs.  9/11 would never have happened because the CIA wouldnt have been in the Holy Land.  We wouldnt be hated by some countries in the world.  The Cold War would never have escallated to Russia and us almost blowing each other up...in fact, the Cold War wouldnt have happened (at least not to the exent it did...we'd probably still have dealt with Cuba).  There wouldnt have been a Vietnam war.  There wouldnt have been a Korean war.  There wouldnt have been a Persian Gulf war, a war on terror, or an Iraqi war (at least not ones that we're involved with).  Im sure National Defence would not be a current issue, and Im sure Bush wouldnt have been re-elected (if elected at all).  We would be able to focus on our domestic problems, like education, health care, crime, etc etc etc.  We would have been much better off (and probably more powerful) if we didnt end isolationism.  All this is a result of our activism in the world.  But wait, I'll stop... here I am complaining about and trying to change the past again instead of dealing with the current issues that are handed to us.  Sorry.   


There is no evidance to support any of these counterfactual assertions.  In an ever shrinking world, in which several foreign countries could royally screw our economy, in which we are dependant on foriegn oil, in which a significan protion of the products we buy all come from oversears, how can anyone even think about isolationism?  Could we retain the free market capitalists so dearly love and at the same time forbid foreign investment?  Should we ignore our friends overseas or worse, ignore oue enemies?  The thought of doing so is ludicris.