Here's an interesting piece laying out some of the facts of UN dues for those who care. Things like the fact that the UN has no power to make mandatory any payments of dues; that the US has paid, without reimbursement, far more (perhaps 1000% or more in the past 10 years) on behalf of the UN than its total dues amount to; that many people disregard in this discussion the fact that the Constitution supercedes the UN Charter in how the US must act in regard to the UN and payments to the UN; etc.
Should the US pay more money to the UN? I don't know, maybe. But it might be easier to get it paid if people would start realizing that the dues are not an obligation and that the US, far from shirking its duty to the UN, provides more assistance to the UN than any other nation, by far.
Re:But they are an obligation
pudge on 2002-03-15T18:03:21
Back a few years ago we did promise to pay the rest of the dues IF certain conditions (reforms and such) were met by the UN. I know of no unconditional promise. Now, Clinton and his ambassadors promised, but they have no legal authority to make such a promise. So I am not sure which promise you are referring to.Re:But they are an obligation
Elian on 2002-03-15T18:15:01
We promised to pay the dues when we joined. If at some point we didn't want to cough up the cash, we should've left the UN. We didn't.
We were instrumental in setting up the club. We joined the club. We knew the financial obligations involved in being in the club. We never left the club.
We owe the dues. Period. If we don't want to pay, we shouldn't play, and resign our UN membership.Re:But they are an obligation
pudge on 2002-03-15T18:33:56
Let's be clear what the US did: it ratified the UN Charter, which is not an unqualified promise to pay, but an agreement that if we don't pay, that the UN may enact a specific penalty, the removal of our right to vote in the General Assembly.
There is no actual obligation to pay. There is no promise to pay. There is no "owing" of dues. The UN Charter has a process for nonpayment and that process involves taking away a vote, not resignation.
The US in ratifying the UN Charter did not give the UN a blank check to assess whatever they felt like assessing. Congress may either approve payment, or not; if not, then we say we are accepting the penalty, which is, as noted, losing our vote in the GA. But the only way we can, legally, owe any specific amount to the UN is if the US Congress votes to provide that amount. It is Congress' decision how much to pay and when to pay it; it is the UN's to decide what to do about it if we don't pay what they assess within the timeframe given (removal of the GA vote).
Of course, again, I believe that our other contributions -- billions in unreimbursed assistance to the UN -- should be applied to our dues, at least to some degree.
Re:But they are an obligation
jmm on 2002-03-15T20:16:31
Let's be clear what the US did: it ratified the UN Charter, which is not an unqualified promise to pay, but an agreement that if we don't pay, that the UN may enact a specific penalty, the removal of our right to vote in the General Assembly.
That sounds like the US once stated (officially) that "yeah the UN is good idea" and hasn't had anything to do with it since.
The US has done far more than that. It has acted as a member of the UN and participated in its operation.
If you're going to actively participate in a club, you ought to pay the appropriate dues. If you disagree about what is appropriate, you try to resolve the issue and failing that you leave the club.
It would be a mistake for both of the US and the UN if the US were to leave.
I have no opinion on whether the security activities that the US has contributed ought to be treated as payement. Offhand, I doubt that the UN has any obligation to treat them as such, but I don't know whether such activities are considered to be authorized by the UN and carried out by agreeing member states, or instead they are carried out (contracted for) by the UN directly.Re:But they are an obligation
pudge on 2002-03-15T22:24:18
That sounds like the US once stated (officially) that "yeah the UN is good idea" and hasn't had anything to do with it since. The US has done far more than that. It has acted as a member of the UN and participated in its operation.
Of course. My intent clearly was never to imply what you said it sounds like. My intent was to state the fact that there is no legal obligation to pay.
If you're going to actively participate in a club, you ought to pay the appropriate dues. If you disagree about what is appropriate, you try to resolve the issue and failing that you leave the club.
Who says? The UN Charter already, very specifically, lays out what happens "failing that," and it is not "leaving the club" it is "losing your vote."
You are right that the there is nothing in the UN that obligates reimbursement. However, the UN does have a history of reimbursement, and when there are literally tens of billions versus hundreds of millions, you'd think it oughta count for a lot more than it does.
Also note that while there is a distinction between the US acting of its own accord on behalf of the UN, and the US acting by accord of the UN on its behalf, the US spent $3 billion in 1997 -- 68,000 troops -- to carry out actual UN Security Council resolutions, mostly in Bosnia, Korea, and Iraq, often with the UN directing mission specifics.
Re:But they are an obligation
pudge on 2002-03-15T23:35:29
I just want to clarify something in case it's been missed: I am not against payment of the UN assessments. What I am against is treating it as though this money is promised by virtue of prior ratification of the UN Charter; that the US is legally required or obligated to pay it; that the result of nonpayment should be leaving the UN.
I feel I've demonstrated that none of those things are true: the only legally binding promise allowed by our Constitution is that of Congress appropriating a specific amount; there is no legal obligation of any kind in absence of such Congressional action; the UN Charter already outlines action to be taken as the result of nonpayment, and it is to lose the GA vote, not to part company.
What I am further against is the current extremely vague and arbitrary way in which reimbursements are handled. If the UN wants to say "no reimbursements" or lay out specifics for when things are reimbursed, fine. But it isn't handled that way.
So what I say is straighten out the extraordinary mess that is the handling of unreimbursed assistance by member nations, let's stop treating the assessment as a legal obligation, and let's get the financial house in order with the UN. If that means payment of dues at that point, so be it. I don't have a problem with that.
Re:But they are an obligation
mako132 on 2002-03-15T20:19:06
This reasoning seems sound, however does the US ever wag its finger at other countries who withhold paying dues, but contribute financially in some other way? For example, do some other countries financially support a particular UN program, but withhold their dues for fiscal or political pressure from time to time?
Since I know next to nothing about the UN save what I learned in high school decades ago...why am I even bothering to reply?:\ Re:But they are an obligation
clintp on 2002-03-15T22:17:30
Because you should never let facts stand in the way of an opinion.:) Re:But they are an obligation
TorgoX on 2002-03-16T03:27:41
"There is no actual obligation to pay."The always subjective concept of "legal obligation" depends on two things: what laws you consider valid, and whether you think that law is the only source for obligations.
Personally I say that seeking to do the bare legal minimum in any enterprise is not exactly aiming one's sights very high. "I'm such a legalist/literalist Coffee Achiever that if I did one whit less than what I'm doing now, I'd be hauled into court!! WOOHOO!"
Re:But they are an obligation
pudge on 2002-03-16T04:03:17
No, there actually is no legal obligation outside of Congressional approval of specific funds. There is nothing subjective about it. There is no law or treaty or regulation whatsoever relating to the United States that obligates payment.
In other words, it cannot be about what laws I consider valid, since there is no law anywhere, valid or not, which provides such obligation in the first place.
And your vain attempt at moralizing the issue is specious in light of the fact that I was very clear, several times, that my argument is not against payment of dues, but it is against framing the dues as a legal obligation. You decry legalism; I decry subversion of the Constitution by granting power to the United Nations that belongs to the U.S. Congress.
It's further odd that you would characterize what the United States has done for the United Nations -- that is, far more than any other nation -- as the "bare minimum" in any case.
Re:But they are an obligation
TorgoX on 2002-03-16T04:17:27
It's further odd that you would characterize what the United States has done for the United Nations -- that is, far more than any other nation -- as the "bare minimum" in any case.Your vain attempt at vain tempting is vain! I said nothing of the sort. Altho you apparently inferred that I did. I legally oblige you to give me a donut now.
Yow! Are we in law school yet?
Re:But they are an obligation
pudge on 2002-03-16T13:06:37
You were either implying that the US has done the bare minimum, or that I (or someone else, who wasn't invovled in this discussion) was advocating the bare minimum. Perhaps it is the latter; though I was very clear that I was advocating no such thing, so the implication wasn't reasonable in any case.
As to giving you donuts, no, there's no such obligation, though there was an agreement that if I don't provide a donut, you get to ignore me on #perl... but whatever.
