[Drew]

One question.

Could the U.N. survive as a relevant entity without the membership of the United States of America?

Before posting a response, please consider the following facts:

[quote:df653]Total U.S. Contributions to the UN System,
Both Assessed and Voluntary -
Estimated at $3.0 Billion

Humanitarian/Human Rights - 39%
Environment - 2%
Development - 8%
Weapons of Mass Destruction - 3%
UN Regular Budget - 9%
UN Peacekeeping - 31%
Open Markets - 4%
Health - 4% [/quote:df653]
[quote:df653]The United States is a generous supporter of key UN programs, funding:

* 51.4% of the World Food Program budget to help feed 72 million people in 82 countries.*
* 17.1% of the United Nations Children’s Fund budget to feed, vaccinate, educate and protect children in 162 countries.*
* 14.1% of the United Nations Development Program core budget to eradicate poverty and encourage democratic governance.*
* 25.8% of the International Atomic Energy Agency budget to ensure safe and peaceful application of nuclear energy and prevent the illicit use of nuclear material for weapons.**
* 22% of the World Health Organization core budget as well as significant voluntary resources, helping to prevent and control epidemics and to improve standards of health.**
* 25% of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees budget to help protect refugees and facilitate their return home or re-settlement in another country.*
* 25% of the International Civil Aviation Organization budget to ensure safe, efficient and economical air travel.**

* These programs operate strictly on voluntary contributions.
** These programs operate on a combination of assessed and voluntary contributions.[/quote:df653]
[quote:df653]U.S. Financial Contributions to the UN

The United States is the largest financial contributor to the UN and has been every year since its creation in 1945. We provided more than $3 billion in contributions, both cash and in-kind, to the UN system in 2002. (In-kind contributions include items such as food donations for the World Food Program). The United States funded 22 percent of the UN regular budget, as well as more than 27 percent of the peacekeeping budget. Additionally, the United States provides a significant amount in voluntary contributions to the UN and UN-affiliated organizations and activities, mostly for humanitarian and development programs. [/quote:df653]
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/rls/24236.htm
[quote:df653]To finance construction, the United States Government made an interest-free loan of $65 million to the United Nations. Of this amount, the last installment of $1 million was paid in 1982.[/quote:df653]
http://www.un.org/geninfo/faq/factsheets/FS23.HTM
[quote:df653]U.N. headquarters was built for an organization of about 50 members at an initial cost —for the Secretariat, General Assembly and conference buildings alone—of about $420 million in 2003 dollars.[/quote:df653]
http://www.theatlantic.com/foreign/unwi ... -08-11.htm

[quote:df653]Largest UN Contributors:

United States - 24.630%
Japan - 18.973%
Germany - 9.487%
France - 6.266%
United Kingdom - 5.396%
Italy - 4.961%
Canada - 2.524%
Spain - 2.437%
Brazil - 2.002%
Republic of Korea - 1.741%[/quote:df653]
http://www.globalpolicy.org/finance/tab ... arge02.htm

As you can see, the US contributes 24.630% to the UN. France, Britain, Italy, Canada, Spain, Brazil and Korea - combined - contribute 25.327%. Japan would have to increase their contributions by 25% to match US contributions. Germany would have to increase their contributions by 159.618% in order to match US contributions.

Some other information on US contributions to the UN:

http://www.unausa.org/newindex.asp?plac ... 020404.asp

[imported_Fluffy_Bunny]

yes



now compare those % to the GDP & you will probably find that most scandinavian countries donate more than the USA

[Drew]

The contributions of a country as a percentage of their GDP is pretty irrelevant in terms of the question that is being posed.

What you are saying is that the United Nations could survive as a relevant world entity after losing approximately a fourth of its budget, a third of its peacekeeping budget, its $450 million HQ building (which would cost $1.2 billion to replace) and the membership of the most influential (whether anyone likes it or not) nation in the world.

Please help me understand that logic.

[Ferich]

It's possible, but it'd be a mistake in my pragmatism opinion. /nextthread angel:

[ninty]

In my opinion, no, UN cannot survive without the US. No international organization can survive without its largest contributors.

Can it be eplained to me why the UN as disliked by so many?

Before I continue I should state a couple things:

1) I do not want a global government.

2) The UN does not have very much power, nor do I think they should.

The UN is slow off the draw to deploy forces, but that is because member countries would rather keep their troops at home.

The thing I like about the UN is that they have created an international law. And when these laws are broken, the member nations have an opportunity to do something about it. Whether they do or not is another story. Without international laws I believe pre-emptive actions would have happened many times over by now. The UN was created in essence because Germany pre emptivley invaded Poland. I believe these actions are wrong. The UN won't be able to stop Russia or Israel or the US from pre-emptively attacking anyone; however it does show that what these countries are doing is wrong, and it is still relevant in its efforts as long as countries are still involved.

As soon as one country pulls out, that’s opens everything up. If the US pulls out, then Russia pulls out, China pulls out and Israel pulls out right on down the line. At this point, there is no international law.

The UN is pretty much irrelevant as it is, but disbanding it would be a mistake.

[elstatec]

the world wouldnt survive if US was out of the UN, as then it would go do what it pleased.

[Drew]

Originally Posted by elstatec

the world wouldnt survive if US was out of the UN, as then it would go do what it pleased.

We already do, in case you missed that whole invasion of Iraq thing.

The UN can't enforce its own sanctions. It is, quite simply, a worthless organization.

The United States has paved the way for prominent member nations to defy the Security Council. It will happen again and again and again.

The whole thing was illegitimized a very long time ago.

Seeing as I live in America, the UN is of little consequence to me. I would personally prefer to see the lot tossed off our soil to go spew their useless babbling elsewhere. We can spend our money on something better than wasting our time.

[ninty]

Originally Posted by Drew

The UN can't enforce its own sanctions. It is, quite simply, a worthless organization.

So then why doesn't the US, the most powerful country in the world, make it a relevant organization? Would it not benifit the US to actually have sanctions put in place by the UN followed through on?

[quote:cd405]
The United States has paved the way for prominent member nations to defy the Security Council. It will happen again and again and again.[/quote:cd405]
And this is good how?


[quote:cd405]
Seeing as I live in America, the UN is of little consequence to me. I would personally prefer to see the lot tossed off our soil to go spew their useless babbling elsewhere. We can spend our money on something better than wasting our time.[/quote:cd405]
With the savings from not participating, what should the US spend their money on?

[Maplegyver]

the us cannot control the world, and is not liked by a large majority of it, it should stay in an oganization where it can get support.

[Drew]

The UN has become less an entity which has the power to impose sanctions and more of an entity behind which nations seem to think they can hide.

Iraq, despite its decade of violating sanctions and abusing Oil for Food, despite its decade of slaughtering its own people, was actually permitted to present argument against action by the United States and its coalition. There is absolutely no reason that a country like that should have any voice whatsoever.

And why is it a good thing? I didn't really say it was. I was just pointing out that it is already happening. I think the UN is closer to absolute failure than we all know. Also, I wouldn't be surprised to see NATO fill some of the void left there. I think that China is going to be the one to bring all this about, as well. China is eventually going to give in to its communist tendencies and begin to prepare for invasions of surrounding countries. The UN will be brought to its knees when China, a permanent member of the Security Council, is able to veto any UN actions against the country (China will be the council president in April oOo: ). Europe and Eurasia will get nervous and rally behind the US and NATO who are both ready and willing to take pre-emptive action to stop China before it starts. Such scenarios are why the UN is a joke. I mean, in 2003, Syria was on the council oOo:

I have more to say, but I have some assignments to complete before 12PM CST.

[geRV]

Originally Posted by Drew

And why is it a good thing? I didn't really say it was. I was just pointing out that it is already happening. I think the UN is closer to absolute failure than we all know. Also, I wouldn't be surprised to see NATO fill some of the void left there. I think that China is going to be the one to bring all this about, as well. China is eventually going to give in to its communist tendencies and begin to prepare for invasions of surrounding countries. The UN will be brought to its knees when China, a permanent member of the Security Council, is able to veto any UN actions against the country (China will be the council president in April oOo: ). Europe and Eurasia will get nervous and rally behind the US and NATO who are both ready and willing to take pre-emptive action to stop China before it starts.

Lend me your crystal ball so i can get next weeks lottery numbers rolleyes:

What a load of bollocks. sleeping:

[Drew]

15 30 35 40 45 47

You can bet your leprechaun on it. beer:

[ninty]

Originally Posted by Drew

Iraq, despite its decade of violating sanctions and abusing Oil for Food, despite its decade of slaughtering its own people, was actually permitted to present argument against action by the United States and its coalition. There is absolutely no reason that a country like that should have any voice whatsoever.

Now that's something that scares the shit out of me.

In my opinion, everyone should have a voice. If were talking about an individual or a country as a whole, it doesn't matter. I don't care what you've done.

In this case, I think it was probably back up the fact that everyone needs a voice. As it stands now, the majority of the world population believes this particluar war was unjustified, and even the majority of Americans believe it was unjustified. BOTH countries are in the wrong. The US for its illegal war, and Iraq for its human rights violations. You can't pick and choose who gets to be heard and who doesn't.

What your saying sounds more like North Korea putting people on trial, the judge coming out and saying "guilty" and the prisoners getting shot all in a matter of 30 seconds than a democratic process to me, which the US claims to be spreading.

[elstatec]

Originally Posted by Drew

Iraq, despite its decade of violating sanctions and abusing Oil for Food, despite its decade of slaughtering its own people, was actually permitted to present argument against action by the United States and its coalition. There is absolutely no reason that a country like that should have any voice whatsoever.

i think this is the dumb ideology which see's america disliked so much around the world.


beer: to what ninty said

[imported_Fluffy_Bunny]

Originally Posted by Drew

The contributions of a country as a percentage of their GDP is pretty irrelevant in terms of the question that is being posed.

What you are saying is that the United Nations could survive as a relevant world entity after losing approximately a fourth of its budget, a third of its peacekeeping budget, its $450 million HQ building (which would cost $1.2 billion to replace) and the membership of the most influential (whether anyone likes it or not) nation in the world.

Please help me understand that logic.

Go look up the League of Nations, it was a disaster but its proof such an organisation did exist without the USA. Pakistan & Canada also technically contribute more to U.N. operations than USA, it's more a matter of peace keeping & law enforcement than money, naturally money is needed for these operations but a combined force can contain third world countries, all you need is a relatively well trained army like that of Nigeria, Canada or Pakistan to do this.

~