"Kevin Gowen" wrote:
[snip]
> 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.

Actually, it's debatable whether the *entire* US contingent in Korea
is there under UN auspices.  One should also consider the number of
troops stationed under the terms of the ROK-USA mutual defense treaty
concluded in 1953.  PKO troops sent under UN auspices are under UN
command, and seldom conclude "Status of Forces Agreements" with the
host nation, nor do "host" nations usually allocate a cost-sharing
budget -- about US$ 500M for FY'2002 in Korea's case -- for these
foreign troops on their soil...

Given the recent calls for force reduction or outright withdrawal
from the Korean peninsula made by some US uniformed personnel and
politicians, one gets the impression that the troop presence's
scale might actually be more a function of US whims or interests
than of UN Security Council decisions...  Didn't one Henry Kissinger
argue for a US troop presence in the Korean peninsula to contain
e.g. the Soviet Union and China in the sector?  Has Kevin Gowen a
better grasp of the basis and rationale of some US foreign policy
initiatives than Kissinger?

A more realistic example of a UN-mandated military presence that
is not accounted for in the normal UN PKO budget would be e.g. the
32,000 *european* KFOR troops stationed in Kosovo...  Guess who
pays for those?


> 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!

A rebate?  On what basis?  Have your arithmetic or accounting skills
suddenly improved?  Is "0.12 approximately double of 0.7" ?  Besides,
what were the indirect costs shouldered e.g. by EU member countries
or Japan during that period?


--
"Fox News is fair and balanced"

     Kevin Gowen