On 7/2/03 21:56, in article cd9d8d4b.0307021756.56dc8b1@posting.google.com,
"Ernest Schaal" <eschaal@justice.com> wrote:

>>>> http://washingtontimes.com/world/20030701-115649-1264r.htm
>>>> 
>>>> "Many of those most opposed to the U.S.-led effort in Iraq now argue that
>>>> American participation is vital to the success of a proposed 5,000-strong
>>>> multinational peacekeeping mission to enforce a cease-fire. Among them are
>>>> U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan, leading European powers ? including
>>>> France ? and the editorial page of the New York Times."
>>> 
>>> Why does a country with 6% of the world's population pay 22% of the
>>> UN's expenses?
>> 
>> Because said country agreed to do so.
> 
> Therefore, if the county currently paying 22% of the UN's expenses
> decides that enough is enough, and their share should be lower (say
> 6%), that would be perfectably acceptable?

They would need to renegotiate; they would also lose influence in the
balance. It's up to them which is more important.