Gee I wonder why?

White House opposes plan to trim UN dues

http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/06/15/news/nations.php

By Steven R. Weisman The New York Times

THURSDAY, JUNE 16, 2005
WASHINGTON The Bush administration, in an unusual open break with the Republican leadership in the House, moved Wednesday to oppose a bill popular among conservatives that would cut in half the American dues to the United Nations if the organization does not enact several specific budget and management reforms.

State Department officials formally conveyed the administration's position to Capitol Hill, one day before a scheduled vote in the House. The bill, backed by the House speaker, Dennis Hastert, is considered likely to pass but also likely to face tougher prospects in the Senate in light of outright administration opposition. {God forbid the Senate would do anything that wasn't in 100 percent lockstep with what Bush wants. Isn't there anybody in this branch of government that hasn't had his spine completely removed yet?}

Until formal word went to the House, the administration had indicated its uneasiness with the bill's withholding position but had not declared its opposition, hoping to get the provisions to which it objected deleted quietly.

"We have serious concerns with the bill," said Nicholas Burns, under secretary of state for political affairs. "We are the founder of the UN. We're the host country of the UN. We're the leading contributor to the UN. We don't want to put ourselves in a position where the United States is withholding 50 percent of the American contributions to the UN system." {Why? Why can't we? It's our tax dollars, our money damn it. We control the money being spent, not you damn bureaucrats. Why are we continuing to shell out all this money to an entity that hates America? Just two years ago Jorge Bush threatened to distance America from the UN if they didn't go along with his Iraq war garbage, but I guess that was a blatant lie, not that I'm surprised or anything}

State Department officials say they fear the withholding provision, were it to become law, would return the United States to the 1990's, when dues were withheld and Washington lost considerable credibility among its UN allies. {Who cares? The UN has no credibility whatsoever. They are a corrupt entity, NWO wannabe that is controlled by petty third world dictators that hate America. They are a complete joke.}

The administration argues that cutting dues will jeopardize its chances of other reforms, such as streamlining the budget, improving accountability to avoid a repeat of scandals like the one at the oil-for-food program and preventing human rights abusers from sitting on the UN Human Rights Commission. {Gee Jorge, if we got ourselves out of the UN then we wouldn't be paying the price for Koffee Cups scandals you stupid idiot. Then the UN without our tax dollars would die the slow, horrible, painful death it richly deserves.}

Aides to Hastert and other Republican leaders say that, on the contrary, a dues cutoff provision is the only way to bring about necessary changes and that passing the bill will strengthen the hand of advocates of reform.

Representative Henry Hyde, an Illinois Republican who is chairman of the House International Relations Committee, said the administration's opposition was "not surprising" but that he was unpersuaded. "The constitution gives to Congress the power of the purse and we intend to exercise it in pursuit of meaningful UN reform," a spokesman quoted him as saying. {This branch of government may be the only hope we have left to avoid the inevitible civil war that unfortunately Americans will face in a few years from now.}

The confrontation between the administration and Republican conservatives comes at a time when the issue of "reform" is heating up at the UN, in Washington and in capitals throughout the world. Much of the attention has focused on a bid by Japan, India, Germany and Brazil to become permanent members of the Security Council.

Many changes advocated by the administration are to be considered this year, and Bush has cited the need for reform as a principal reason for choosing John Bolton, a longtime critic of the body, to be UN ambassador.

Democratic and some Republican critics of Bolton argue that, as with the dues cutoff issue, a confrontational approach - Bolton has many times spoken disdainfully of the UN bureaucracy - will set back the cause of making necessary changes. {God forbid we appoint a guy who isn't a stooge for the NWO and tells it like it is. I don't understand why Bush likes Bolton, but I guess even a broken watch is right two times a day.}

Some Republicans have also waged a campaign to remove UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, charging that he allowed corruption to pervade the oil-for-food program, which enabled Iraq under Saddam Hussein to sell oil and purchase humanitarian goods benefiting his political allies around the world. Some critics have charged that Annan's son was caught up in the scandal.

Burns said he had conveyed word of the administration's uneasiness with the dues cutoff provision to Capitol Hill for several weeks and that cables had gone out to every American embassy on Wednesday, outlining the reforms the administration did support.

These included, he said, budget and management changes, replacing the Human Rights Commission with a council, setting up a fund to support democracies, establishing a "peace-building commission" that would help civil institutions in countries torn by conflict and a new treaty outlawing terrorism, defined as the killing of innocent civilians. {Sounds like more meaningless bull to me}

He said the administration supported most of the recommendations of a panel set up by Congress that released a report on Wednesday criticizing UN management and proposing corporate-style oversight bodies, personnel standards and accounting reforms.