Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
NOTE: use Perl; is on undef hiatus. You can read content, but you can't post it. More info will be forthcoming forthcomingly.

All the Perl that's Practical to Extract and Report

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

UN Dues 7 Comments More | Login | Reply /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More | Login | Reply
Loading... please wait.
  • The US promised to pay the dues. It doesn't really matter beyond that--if the payment of the dues to the UN isn't unconstitutional, and they're not (the constitution doesn't forbid entering into treaties or agreements that involve payment, nor does it binding on the non-US governmental parties in the agreements the US makes), we have an obligation.

    We promised. We pay. If we don't want to meet obligations we've agreed to, we should bail on the agreements.
    • Back a few years ago we did promise to pay the rest of the dues IF certain conditions (reforms and such) were met by the UN. I know of no unconditional promise. Now, Clinton and his ambassadors promised, but they have no legal authority to make such a promise. So I am not sure which promise you are referring to.
      • We promised to pay the dues when we joined. If at some point we didn't want to cough up the cash, we should've left the UN. We didn't.

        We were instrumental in setting up the club. We joined the club. We knew the financial obligations involved in being in the club. We never left the club.

        We owe the dues. Period. If we don't want to pay, we shouldn't play, and resign our UN membership.
        • Let's be clear what the US did: it ratified the UN Charter, which is not an unqualified promise to pay, but an agreement that if we don't pay, that the UN may enact a specific penalty, the removal of our right to vote in the General Assembly.

          There is no actual obligation to pay. There is no promise to pay. There is no "owing" of dues. The UN Charter has a process for nonpayment and that process involves taking away a vote, not resignation.

          The US in ratifying the UN Charter did not give the UN a blank c
          • Let's be clear what the US did: it ratified the UN Charter, which is not an unqualified promise to pay, but an agreement that if we don't pay, that the UN may enact a specific penalty, the removal of our right to vote in the General Assembly.

            That sounds like the US once stated (officially) that "yeah the UN is good idea" and hasn't had anything to do with it since.

            The US has done far more than that. It has acted as a member of the UN and participated in its operation.

            If you're going to actively parti
            • That sounds like the US once stated (officially) that "yeah the UN is good idea" and hasn't had anything to do with it since. The US has done far more than that. It has acted as a member of the UN and participated in its operation.

              Of course. My intent clearly was never to imply what you said it sounds like. My intent was to state the fact that there is no legal obligation to pay.

              If you're going to actively participate in a club, you ought to pay the appropriate dues. If you disagree about what is appr
              • I just want to clarify something in case it's been missed: I am not against payment of the UN assessments. What I am against is treating it as though this money is promised by virtue of prior ratification of the UN Charter; that the US is legally required or obligated to pay it; that the result of nonpayment should be leaving the UN.

                I feel I've demonstrated that none of those things are true: the only legally binding promise allowed by our Constitution is that of Congress appropriating a specific amount; there is no legal obligation of any kind in absence of such Congressional action; the UN Charter already outlines action to be taken as the result of nonpayment, and it is to lose the GA vote, not to part company.

                What I am further against is the current extremely vague and arbitrary way in which reimbursements are handled. If the UN wants to say "no reimbursements" or lay out specifics for when things are reimbursed, fine. But it isn't handled that way.

                So what I say is straighten out the extraordinary mess that is the handling of unreimbursed assistance by member nations, let's stop treating the assessment as a legal obligation, and let's get the financial house in order with the UN. If that means payment of dues at that point, so be it. I don't have a problem with that.
Stories, comments, journals, and other submissions on use Perl; are Copyright 1998-2006, their respective owners.