PDA

View Full Version : Another Reason We Need Out of UN



Kathianne
12-22-2007, 09:32 AM
http://article.nationalreview.com/print/?q=OGE3NGMyOWEwNDA3MzMyNjM3MjAzMDM3NzllNThmMDU=


Destination: Durban II
‘Tis the season to bankroll hatred of Israel and America.

By Claudia Rosett

At the United Nations, ‘tis the season to bankroll hatred of Israel and America — via pricey preparations for a 2009 gathering dubbed the “Durban Review Conference,” or
Durban II. Right now, plans have advanced from general talk of funding this jamboree out of the U.N. regular budget, and have homed in on a figure of $6.8 million which the U.N. budget committee is poised to approve. Unless Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice makes it her business to somehow block the money — and fast — this means that Americans, as top contributors to the U.N. budget, can look forward not only to being vilified at Durban II along with our democratic ally, Israel, but also to picking up the biggest share of the tab for this next landmark U.N. exercise in bigotry.

Durban II is of course being planned as the follow-up to the U.N.’s notorious 2001 conference in Durban, South Africa. Convened under the pretext of fighting racism, that conclave erupted into a frenzy of malice toward America, and even more specifically, Israel. Colin Powell, then secretary of State, had the integrity to withdraw the U.S. delegation, and publicly tell the U.N. organizers: “You do not combat racism by conferences that produce declarations containing hateful language, some of which is a throwback to the days of ‘Zionism equals racism;’ or supports the idea that we have made too much of the Holocaust; or suggests that apartheid exists in Israel; or that singles out only one country in the world — Israel — for censure and abuse.”

Today, Condi Rice is confronted with a U.N. heading right down that same road: destination Durban II. This time the pretext is a “review” of the results of Durban I, decked out with the same false label of fighting racism. Fat chance. The U.N. preparatory committee is chaired by Libya, and among the other 19 members are Iran, Pakistan, Cameroon, Russia, and Cuba — none of them run by regimes known for their contributions to tolerance and human dignity. At the behest of a resolution of the U.N. General Assembly, which is dominated by non-democratic states, the U.N. outfit officially entrusted with a “central role” in bringing this conference to fruition is the despot-infested Human Rights Council in Geneva. That outfit has made Israel the sole permanent item on its agenda, the better to spend almost all its time condemning Israel.

To raise the Durban II monster from its vat, all that’s needed now is a mega-dose of money. Durban I was funded largely by the host country, South Africa. But this time, the planners have set their sights on dollars from the U.N.’s core budget, to which the U.S. contributes 22 percent of the loot. In requesting core U.N. funds for Durban II, Pakistan took the initiative, supported by yet more regimes not exactly known for their tolerance, such as the governments of Saudi Arabia, Uzbekistan and Sudan.

Many of the specifics involved in plans for Durban II remain vague, not least the actual venue, which has yet to be chosen. But with unquestioning bureaucratic diligence, Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon’s budget division, in response to the Durban II planners, has drawn up a neat list of estimated costs for the next 18 months, covering elaborate preparations plus the conference itself. The total comes to a whopping $6.8 million. That’s double the $3.4 million which the U.N.’s own website lists as the upper bound of what the U.N. spends on most mega-conferences...

...So, what has the State Department been doing about all this? As plans for Durban II have been snaking their way through the UN bureaucracy, Ambassador Khalilzad at the U.S. Mission has been dispatching his staff to read out diplomatic statements of protest and raise questions about the budget estimates in U.N. committees. There have been some worthy statements, and good questions. But step-by-step, the U.S. has been losing this genteel showdown. Libya, Iran, Pakistan, Cuba, Russia and pals, wielding their U.N. votes, are closing in on a free ride for Durban II, loaded with goodies, courtesy of the U.S. and other wealthy democratic U.N. sugar daddies.

What’s needed right now is a lot more firepower behind the U.S. protests. Where is Condi Rice? The U.N. is her bailiwick. She could speak out, go to bat, warn Congress and the American public of the impending abuse of U.S. funds, seek out allies, strong-arm enemies and encourage Ban Ki-moon himself to scrounge up the integrity to protest this monstrosity. Faced with Durban I, Colin Powell pulled out and spoke up. Faced with Durban II Condi Rice has given no sign she’s even noticed. Is it policy these days at the U.S. State Department that U.N. abuse of U.S. money to pervert everything the U.S. stands for is no longer worth the secretary’s time?

Hugh Lincoln
12-22-2007, 11:44 AM
RP would agree.

Kathianne
12-22-2007, 03:50 PM
RP would agree.

Trust me, ron paul would agree with most of my positions. I however would not want him in office.

actsnoblemartin
12-23-2007, 04:10 AM
i agree, why are we in the united nazi's?

Kathianne
12-26-2007, 06:09 PM
22% of the UN budget:

http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=25159&Cr=Assembly&Cr1=budget


General Assembly approves nearly $4.2 billion UN budget despite US opposition

23 December 2007 – Capping off days of intensive negotiations, the General Assembly has adopted a two-year budget of $4.17 billion for the United Nations, with the United States casting the lone negative vote.

Following marathon talks that lasted through the night, the Assembly adopted the 2008-2009 budget early Saturday morning by a vote of 142 to 1. The US, which contributes around 22 per cent of the world body's budget, was the only country to vote against the plan, citing concerns that the actual budget would be significantly higher than what was approved with all the add-ons...

Yurt
12-26-2007, 06:14 PM
Seriously, what value is the UN today? I have been wondering about this issue. Is it the "actual" UN that is bad? Is the "idea" of what the UN should be good? Or is the purpose no longer necessary?


The name "United Nations", coined by United States President Franklin D. Roosevelt, was first used in the "Declaration by United Nations" of 1 January 1942, during the Second World War, when representatives of 26 nations pledged their Governments to continue fighting together against the Axis Powers.

http://www.un.org/aboutun/history.htm

Kathianne
12-26-2007, 06:27 PM
Seriously, what value is the UN today? I have been wondering about this issue. Is it the "actual" UN that is bad? Is the "idea" of what the UN should be good? Or is the purpose no longer necessary?



http://www.un.org/aboutun/history.htm

I think that the changing geopolitical entities since the 60's especially in Africa, Eastern Europe and South America has drastically altered the reality that is the UN today. When Africa was reconfigured, how many new countries came into existence? Each has a vote. Same with the others. Now some in Eastern Europe favor the West, others the East. In and of itse'f that is troubling not only in the UN, but also in reality, especially with the new Russia ala Putin.

What seemed feasible at the end of WWII is not necessarily the best organization for the US today. I'd like to see something more along the lines of United Democracies or some other such ideological linked forum.

Yurt
12-26-2007, 06:32 PM
I think that the changing geopolitical entities since the 60's especially in Africa, Eastern Europe and South America has drastically altered the reality that is the UN today. When Africa was reconfigured, how many new countries came into existence? Each has a vote. Same with the others. Now some in Eastern Europe favor the West, others the East. In and of itse'f that is troubling not only in the UN, but also in reality, especially with the new Russia ala Putin.

What seemed feasible at the end of WWII is not necessarily the best organization for the US today. I'd like to see something more along the lines of United Democracies or some other such ideological linked forum.

Good point. How can a world body exist if the members have vastly different perspectives and goals? Further, having the "five" sort of negates the "world" body IMO.

I don't believe it is possible to have a united world government or governing body. What is right here is not always right there....