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 appropriate, you try to resolve the issue and failing that you leave the club.

              Who says? The UN Charter already, very specifically, lays out what happens "failing that," and it is not "leaving the club" it is "losing your vote."

              You are right that the there is nothing in the UN that obligates reimbursement. However, the UN does have a history of reimbursement, and when there are literally tens of billions versus hundreds of millions, you'd think it oughta count for a lot more than it does.

              Also note that while there is a distinction between the US acting of its own accord on behalf of the UN, and the US acting by accord of the UN on its behalf, the US spent $3 billion in 1997 -- 68,000 troops -- to carry out actual UN Security Council resolutions, mostly in Bosnia, Korea, and Iraq, often with the UN directing mission specifics.
              • 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;
Stories, comments, journals, and other submissions on use Perl; are Copyright 1998-2006, their respective owners.