It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

US versus UN

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 5 2003 @ 08:00 PM
link   
1. How many UN Committees has the US been voted off of since George W Bush assumed the presidency?

2. How much does this diplomatic failure influence US military policy, if at all?



posted on Jul, 6 2003 @ 02:07 AM
link   
Friday May 11 2001

President George W Bush said today that it was outrageous that the United States had been voted off the United Nations Human Rights Commission while Sudan was voted on. While Mr Bush disagreed with the decision, he said that he disagreed with a move by the House of Representatives to freeze the final payment of US arrears to the UN until the United States regains its lost seat on the rights commission.

The US, a member of the UN human rights body since its creation in 1947, was voted off the panel last week, with the three seats reserved for western nations going to France, Austria and Sweden. The US House of Representatives yesterday voted to withhold nearly $250m owed to the UN. They have made the reinstating of the United States as a member of a key human rights body a precondition of handing over the money.

Impact
(from Human Rights Watch)

"The move has important symbolic significance. The U.S. has been on the Commission continuously since its inception in 1947.

In practice however, it really is not as significant. The U.S. can do everything except vote. The U.S. can participate in Commission meetings, it just has a shorter speaking time and must speak in a different order.

While it is not on the Commission, the U.S. can not sponsor resolutions alone, but it can still initiate resolutions if it finds a co-sponsor. The U.S. can and should be as active as ever.

Also - the UN Narcotics (drug control) Committee

The vote (by secret ballot, though suspected to have been influenced by European and South American delegates concerned with US drug policy) comes shortly after the World's Leading Nation lost its seat on the UN Human Rights Commission, not to mention its unilateral tearing up of the Kyoto treaty and the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. The question is: is this more likely to marginalise the US as a cowboy state, or to lead to the wane of the UN as a body of real influence?

I don't think the UN is going to be any less powerful with the US ignoring it. But it does need to be more effective.



posted on Jul, 6 2003 @ 08:04 AM
link   
Isn't the UN moot yet? isn't Syria on the human un-rights panel?

Why is so much stock placed on these people?
They pick and choose their battles...peacekeeping fiascos. They leave the hard jobs and dirty work for us(America) and politics and comeuppance is the meat they feed on.



posted on Jul, 6 2003 @ 08:28 AM
link   
MaskedAvatar,

I don't know the answer to your questions on how many committees we've been "voted off of"...

but if we get completely booted out of the UN playground, and it means we get to take our ball (and our checkbook) and go home...

I'll be pretty happy.

If keeping our sovereign nation status means having the UN building in another country because they don't want us, I'll vote for that and we'll use the building for a new school in New York.

[Edited on 6-7-2003 by Valhall]



posted on Jul, 6 2003 @ 11:17 AM
link   
" If I was GWB ", I would kick out the UN of NYC and would tell them to find a new place for their building, i.e, Peking or Ryad.

Also, I would withdraw the USA from the UN and would not give them a penny anymore.USA are paying more than 70% of the UN budget. We would see what they would do without the USA and their dollars !!!!!!!!!!



posted on Jul, 6 2003 @ 11:20 AM
link   
They would collapse thats what. If the USA did not help any nation or international body, the world would be in truoble. We give billions to help feed,clothe, and aid poorer nations, and a nation like Sudan who kill and opresse their own people get in. I concur that we leave the UN.

As I see it, the UN will fail just like the League of Naitons did. The UN is just a petty debate club now.



posted on Jul, 6 2003 @ 06:47 PM
link   
If there is a vacuum created where the UN once was ("everyone takes their kit home"), should the Bush administration fill it?

(Sorry for what may appear to be leading questions, it's interesting).



posted on Jul, 6 2003 @ 06:50 PM
link   
No.


regards
seekerof



posted on Jul, 6 2003 @ 10:04 PM
link   
Uh, We just about do anyways....we are the Heavy the UN (?) throws at world problems then loves to chastise like a little child other times when we want something.



posted on Jul, 6 2003 @ 10:10 PM
link   
Who cares about the UN, in the beginning they had purpose and a desire to fulfil it. Today the UN is worthless, they have stood by and watched inocents starve and die. Even refused medical support. As the USA is one of the largest contributers to the UN in man power and other, if not the largest. I personally don't feel that the UN has any purpose nymore, the leaders are corrupt and weak willed as the rest of the world. Haveing lost Morals and it's authority, the UN is a pawn or tool now, used by the highest bidder. Almost like every other global group.



posted on Jul, 6 2003 @ 10:13 PM
link   
The words out-modded, out-of-date, expired, Enron come to mind when I think of the UN! Its day is over; its usefullness is gone.....take a hike. Thats money best spent elswhere in my thinking.

regards
seekerof



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join