Jason Cormier wrote:
> 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.

Um, Jason, why do you think the US could renegotiate? Member States don't
get to negotiate what percentage of UN expenses is apportioned to them by
the General Assembly.

-- 
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