Michael Cash wrote:
> On 2 Jul 2003 18:56:20 -0700, eschaal@justice.com (Ernest Schaal)
> belched the alphabet and kept on going with:
>
>> Jason Cormier <fjlij@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:<BB28ADCD.4FAF9%fjlij@hotmail.com>...
>>> On 7/2/03 14:54, in article
>>> hga6gv49qigj8hfcohmna2d73i64ip6e96@4ax.com, "Michael Cash"
>>> <mikecash@sunfield.ne.jp> 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?
>
> Please refer to Kevin's correction to my post.
>
> I would favor Sepponia pulling out of the UN and kicking the
> organization out of the country, except for one little thing.

I have good news for you about that one little thing. But first, I have to
address Jason's statement.

I suppose that Jason's statement is true insofar as the US is a Member State
of the UN and thus agreed to Article 17 of the UN Charter, which provides
that the General Assembly will consider and approve the UN budget and then
apportion the expenses among the Member States, but I find it to be slightly
misleading. The GA could decide that Cameroon should pay 57% of the UN's
expenses, but it might be a little misleading to say that Cameroon agreed to
do so as there was no explicit agreement to pay a given percentage of the
UN's expenses between Cameroon and the UN. Same for the US. A Member State
does not agree to pay a given percentage of the UN's expenses; the GA simply
tells it what its share of the pie is.

That having been said, many people are unaware that not only is it
impossible for a Member State to owe anything to the UN, as there is no debt
incurred, but that payment of a Member State's apportionment is voluntary.
Look for the part of the UN Charter that provides for collections. There is
no such mechanism. The only thing that can happen to a Member State that
falls into arrears by a certain amount is that it can lose its vote in the
General Assembly (Article 19, UN Charter). It cannot lose that one little
thing. News reports about the US or any other Member State being behind in
their UN "dues" are simply irresponsible. No Member State pays dues to the
UN. "Dues" are a charge or fee for membership, and there is no such thing at
the UN. If there were, I very much doubt that the UN would have come into
existence.

Much is often made of the US's payment of the share of UN expenses that have
been apportioned to it by the General Assembly. Never have I read such a
news article deal with the direct and indirect expenses incurred by the US
in performing UN peacekeeping missions. For example, FY 1996-2001, the US
paid $3.45 billion in direct contributions to UN peacekeeping operations,
including current and past peacekeeping apportionments. During that same
period, the US paid indirect contributions of $24.2 billion. This is because
US troops do not move about on UN aircraft carriers. The 37,000 US troops on
the Korean border who are there under UN auspices do not draw a paycheck
that says "United Nations" on it. To give some comparison, the UN
peacekeeping budget for those years hovered between $0.9 and $3.8 billion
(the average was $1.9 billion), totally $13.3 billion. Over that same
period, the US paid $27.65 billion in direct and indirect contributions for
peacekeeping. I smell a rebate!
(All numbers from "U.N. PEACEKEEPING:Estimated U.S. Contributions, Fiscal
Years 1996-2001", GAO-02-294)

Tomorrow is the 4th of July, and Americans all over will be cheering and
saying, "Yeah! We have independence! We fought for it and we won it!" Not a
small percentage of those same Americans will be thinking to themselves,
"...and we had better never do that again unless the UN says so"

-- 
Kevin Gowen
"When I'm president, we'll do executive orders to overcome any wrong
thing the Supreme Court does tomorrow or any other day." Dick Gephardt
(D-MO), presidential candidate