Регистрация Вход

Зарегистрирован: 26.11.2003

ООН, США, Мир.... Кто же правит миром? кому нужны безмозглые крики о демократии? кому не мешало бы немножко разобраться что к чему на нашей Земле?

Эта тема призывает некоторых "политиканов" на данном форуме прозреть уже наконец и начать думать головой а не задом! читайте.

(меня уже тошнит о речей некоторых участников за их тупость!)
------

The United Nations and all its agencies and funds spend about $10 billion each year, or about $1.70 for each of the world's inhabitants. This is a very small sum compared to most government budgets and it is just a tiny fraction of the world's military spending. Yet for over a decade, the UN has faced a debilitating financial crisis and it has been forced to cut back on important programs in all areas. Many member states have not paid their full dues and have cut their donations to the UN's voluntary funds. As of December 31, 2004, members arrears to the Regular Budget topped $357 million, of which the United States alone owed $241 million (68% of the regular budget).

Many proposals for UN reform deal with restructuring the UN’s funding. Some suggest that the UN must seek alternative financing sources to fund its programs. Proposals include instituting a global tax on currency transactions, while others propose environmental taxes and taxes on the arms-trade. However, member states responsible for the highest contributions are reluctant to reform the system, fearing they would lose political leverage. This section examines the UN’s financial condition and offers proposals for alternative financing of the UN.
--------

мой доклад (на скорую руку):

US is the Biggest UN’s Problem.

(имя)
13.05.2005

The United Nations (UN) member-countries were devastated after the Second World War. Europe lay in cement dust of bombed cities and total economic disaster. Unlike Europe and Asian countries, United States (US) had practically no reconstruction to take care of and its economy was more stable. Fortunately, all countries finally realized that only strong and organized United Nations body could prevent another world war. However, since the European countries could not finance UN adequately, member-countries agreed that in 1947 US would cover 49% of the total UN budget. As European economy recovered over years, US assessment would decrease. In 1952, US would assess 33%, 30% in 1957 and 25% of the total budget in 1972.
Countries agreed to the capacity-to-pay principal under three conditions. First, United States were to support UN until European countries recover. Secondly, US were to behave decently and never use its special budgetary role for political purposes. Thirdly, UN was not to include most of the poor countries as they were to be decolonized slowly over years (Childers). Member-countries entrusted United States a very delicate mission. Unfortunately, US abused that trust making UN inefficient and questionable. To be optimistic, at least now we know “that it was never safe to trust it [US] to honor the Charter and refrain from exploiting the leverage its large share offers it for political ransom and blackmail” (Childers).
In 1985, the Swedish Prime Minister Olof Palme proposed to lower the assessment ceiling of any country down to 10-12% of the total budget. “The US were annoyed by his proposal,” Childers says, and “Europe remained silent” (Childers). In 1995, US paid 32% of the regular UN’s budget ignoring protests and abusing its role in the ”all-equal” International Public-Service Institution. The United States still dominate UN’s budget today. In 2005, US assessed 37% of the regular budget and 40% of the peacekeeping budget. Meanwhile twenty-four most developed member countries donate on average about 2% each, making it 64% of the total budget. Seventy-one developing member countries contribute 0.02% each making it 9.5% together. Eighty-eight undeveloped states assess the floor-rate of 0.01% contributing 1.5% to the budget. Finally, US bring in the rest making it 25% of the total budget.
Abusing its role in United Nations, US pressures other countries politically for its own purposes. Recent acts show that US is unlikely to loosen its grab on the rest of the world. US mobiles its military forces to the point of constant war alert. US forms NATO bases all over the world taking most strategic points on the map. Moreover, US also finances greatest share of NATO as well. Recent acts in Iraq, Afghanistan and Congo show that US is trying to hug the entire world. US supported new anti-Russian Georgian government and the Orange revolution in Ukraine only for one reason – to put military bases on their soil. It is not paranoia, US does not hide its intentions and announces them openly. “US controls UN’s budget, policies, decision-making and management” (Childers). Wasn’t UN originally designed to maintain peace and security? Shouldn’t all member-counties have equal rights within UN community?
UN needs total reconstruction. Clear budgeting laws have to be established and never let to be abused. UN will probably have to give up some of its minor and major projects and take a step back to correct problems. Otherwise, UN will inevitably collapse.
Few examples show where UN actually worked. However, many examples illustrate where UN did not work. After major events such as the Rwanda genocide, public will, at least, question UN’s purpose in life. Russians heavily criticize UN for events in former Yugoslavia. Prior to UN’s intervention Serbs committed an Albanian genocide. But after the intervention, UN let Albanians do the same to Serbs! Right now “80% of Serbian Orthodox churches and monasteries dated 13th-18th century are ruined” (Russkij Vzgljad). UN could not even save national, architectural heritage and ancient monuments as they were destroyed on religious basis. Indeed, it is hard to find any other defenseless organization that is easier to assault than the Orthodox Church. In Iraq, corruption, misuse, and lack of transparency are all present in the “Oil for Food program”. However, there is an ‘excuse’, “the UN Oil-for-Food staff were never given the authority by the Security Council to prevent smuggling”. Consequently, nobody probably gave orders not to take bribes either.... The negative samples will always outweigh the positive.
The example in Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) clearly demonstrates uselessness of the UN as long US navigates it. Cynthia Scharf reports, “Weekly death tolls in the DRC are grater than the total number of civilian casualties in ‘Operation Iraqi Freedom.’ More than three million civilians have perished here in less than five years, making Congo the world’s deadliest conflict of the last half century” (Scharf). In 1994, UN failed to prevent the Rwanda genocide that clamed 800,000 lives of innocent people. UN only had 5,500 men in the DRC, which obviously was not enough. Its management leaves to wish for the best, otherwise, how to explain the presence of eight troops in the region’s hottest spot in Ituri? Congo needs at least 100,000 well-trained troops as it is bigger than Germany, France, Poland, Ukraine and Belarus combined. “By comparison, it took 17,500 UN troops to enforce the peace in Sierra Leone, a country 1/32 the size of DRC” (Scharf).
UN has systematically failed to protect the lives of civilians threatened by imminent violence. “And yet this is precisely the role that most people around the world – certainly most Congolese as well as Bosnians – expect of the UN. MONUC is a paper tiger because key UN Security Council members – namely the US – perceive no strategic interest in Congo and thus evince no desire to invest the political and financial capital needed to create an effective UN presence” (Scharf).
The biggest problem UN now faces is the structure influenced by the US. When Kofi Annan first proposed the reform plan, he created a “High-Level Panel that consisted of former National Security Adviser Brent Scowcroft, former Russian Prime Minister E. Primakov and Arab League Secretary-General Amre Moussa” each representing different ideologies and concerns. In 2004, the Panel released its Challenges and Change report. “Incredibly, despite the radical differences between them, the members of the High-Level Panel reached consensus on almost everything” (Hukill). However, one day before report release, Senator Coleman launched the press attack against Annan on the oil-for-food program mismanagement and demanded Annan to resign. Afterwards, the report stayed in the media for a day and vanished. “There is a lot of anti-UN sentiment in congress,” Rep. Sam Farr says. “They’ll find every blemish in the United Nations to attack it” (qtd. in Hukill). Today, “while Annan presses forward with a blueprint for a UN renaissance, Republican hardliners in Congress have seized on the oil-for-food scandal as proof the UN is rotten to its core” (Hukill).
UN needs radical reconstruction. Only this time, everything should be done correctly from the beginning. The longer we wait, the harder the mistake will get. Humanity needs UN, and one country – namely the United States – is not to decide how much of it people need.

Works Cited.

Bunker, Stephanie. “25,000 displaced persons at risk, as military efforts to disarm militias
in eastern Democratic Republic of Congo block humanitarian access”. 21 Apr. 2005. 06 May 2005 <http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2005/afr1142.doc.htm>

Childers, Erskine. “Financing the United Nations”. Conference on Finance for
Development and Peace. 29 Sept. 1995. 07 May 2005 <http://www.globalpolicy.org/resource/pubs/childer3.htm>

Hukill, Tracy. “Kofi Annan’s Radical Plan to Reform the UN Comes Under Attack fro
the US”. Monetary Country Weekly. 24 Mar. 2005. 08 May 2005 <http://www.montereycountyweekly.com/issues/
Issue.03-24-2005/cover/Article.cover_story>

Scharf, Cynthia. “Congo’s War, the UN’s Shame”. Wall Street Journal. 02 May 2003. 06
May 2005.<http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues
/congo/2003/0502monuc.htm>

The United Nations Oil-for-Food Programme. UN News Center. 07 May 2005
<http://www.un.org/News/dh/iraq/oip/facts-oilforfood.htm>

форум волчат