Trump nominee for UN ambassador questions US funding of UN
42 replies, posted
[quote]Washington (CNN)South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley, tapped by President-elect Donald Trump to be UN ambassador, will question whether the US's funding of the world body is worth it in her opening testimony Wednesday at her Senate confirmation hearing.
Haley is expected to rap the UN for its treatment of Israel and indicate that she thinks the US should reconsider its contribution of 22% of the annual budget.[/quote]
[url]http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/17/politics/haley-un-confirmation-hearing/index.html[/url]
Oh ya this is going to work perfectly.
the US's continual support of the UN is such an integral part of our soft-power, but I doubt a strongman like Trump understands anything so subtle like that
Let it all burn, why should the US be holding up the rest of the world?
[QUOTE=ultra_bright;51687699]Let it all burn, why should the US be holding up the rest of the world?[/QUOTE]
22% of the entire funding is a lot for one country to contribute.
The US should hold the huge amount of funding over the UN's head.
[QUOTE=Sableye;51687685]Oh ya this is going to work perfectly.
the US's continual support of the UN is such an integral part of our soft-power, but I doubt a strongman like Trump understands anything so subtle like that[/QUOTE]
Basically this
[QUOTE=RIPBILLYMAYS;51687741]22% of the entire funding is a lot for one country to contribute.[/QUOTE]
To be totally fair, the UN is based here. Their buildings are on our soil. Le Corbusier and Oscar Niemeyer were both known for having difficult maintenance. I wouldn't be surprised if a not-insignificant portion of our contribution goes to keeping that place from crumbling.
I'm sure there's some point to be made here about how the UN is a valuable tool for international diplomacy, and we'd be much worse off without it, but that's not my area of expertise. I do buildings, not global politics.
What is it with Trump and nominating people for positions who seem to think that the position they're being considered for shouldn't even exist in the first place? Is he trying to be president contrarian or some shit?
[QUOTE=Alice3173;51687822]What is it with Trump and nominating people for positions who seem to think that the position they're being considered for shouldn't even exist in the first place? Is he trying to be president contrarian or some shit?[/QUOTE]
I swear Trump's Presidency is just a social experiment of what happens when you take people that hate one thing, and put them in charge of that thing.
[QUOTE=Alice3173;51687822]What is it with Trump and nominating people for positions who seem to think that the position they're being considered for shouldn't even exist in the first place? Is he trying to be president contrarian or some shit?[/QUOTE]
He's really just appointing somebody that reflects his stance. He's been pretty hostile toward the UN so naturally he appoints somebody to basically just go there and say fuck you.
[QUOTE=Alice3173;51687822]What is it with Trump and nominating people for positions who seem to think that the position they're being considered for shouldn't even exist in the first place? Is he trying to be president contrarian or some shit?[/QUOTE]
Taking "anti-establishment" a bit too literally
While I doubt that this woman is a good choice, I sort of have to agree that providing almost a quarter of all funding the UN receives is a bit steep.
[QUOTE=Splarg!;51687894]He's really just appointing somebody that reflects his stance. He's been pretty hostile toward the UN so naturally he appoints somebody to basically just go there and say fuck you.[/QUOTE]
That explains why they're all idiots, assholes, or both.
Well, if the US doesn't want to make such contributions to the UN, it should lose its veto power, right? It's only fair.
[QUOTE=archangel125;51688177]Well, if the US doesn't want to make such contributions to the UN, it should lose its veto power, right? It's only fair.[/QUOTE]
How is it fair? Are other security council members making equal financial contributions?
[QUOTE=Anderan;51688191]How is it fair? Are other security council members making equal financial contributions?[/QUOTE]
Frankly, all the security council members can get fucked. Veto power's a bad joke, it turns the UNSC into a vehicle for maintaining the dominance of existing superpowers and protecting their interests, usually at the cost of the rest of the world.
[QUOTE=RIPBILLYMAYS;51687741]22% of the entire funding is a lot for one country to contribute.[/QUOTE]
The US has a GDP of ~18 trillion dollars, and the world total is about 75. Considering the US also has the special, special deal of always being in the security council along with the ability to veto anything, maybe the US isn't exactly getting pounded in the ass by this deal.
[quote]In her testimony, Haley describes UN successes, including its health and food programs, its weapons monitoring and some of its peacekeeping missions. But she adds that it's also "an institution that is often at odds with American national interests and American taxpayers." [/quote]
This is stupid. It's a symptom of Trump's seeming inability to compromise unless there is immediate payoff. This argument belies populist sentiment that preferred situation is UN behaving to the whistle of US interests. This is entirely unrealistic, seeing that US's 4% of world population already pulls far more than its weight in UN.
US funding of UN is proportional to its GDP, so relative to its economy US doesn't fund UN more than anyone else. This proportion shrinks every year with US's declining proportion of global GDP. Total US funding to UN, including peace keeping, is less than 1% of US total defense budget. Against this, I'd say that UN funding has pretty good value for money in international relations.
US blackmailing its share of UN funding is more likely to accomplish US being sidelined in UN and it being further taken over by authoritharian governments.
[QUOTE=Alice3173;51687822]What is it with Trump and nominating people for positions who seem to think that the position they're being considered for shouldn't even exist in the first place? Is he trying to be president contrarian or some shit?[/QUOTE]
Well what did you expect?
An idiot to make good decisions?
Psshaw
[QUOTE=EcksDee;51688404]Well what did you expect?
An idiot to make good decisions?
Psshaw[/QUOTE]
No, I'm just more impressed that he still manages to surpass my already very low expectations for his stupidity. Even more impressed that his supporters are pretty much as rabid as ever in their blind support of him as well.
[QUOTE=archangel125;51688192]Frankly, all the security council members can get fucked. Veto power's a bad joke, it turns the UNSC into a vehicle for maintaining the dominance of existing superpowers and protecting their interests, usually at the cost of the rest of the world.[/QUOTE]
without veto power there was no way to even get the soviets or the chinese involved in the UN, making the whole organization pointless
Veto power stops shitty little third world holes from matering. As it should be.
[QUOTE=download;51688594]Veto power stops shitty little third world holes from matering. As it should be.[/QUOTE]
okay seriously what the hell is your deal
[QUOTE=Saturn V;51688648]okay seriously what the hell is your deal[/QUOTE]
Why would anyone want the world's despots having a say in international politics? For all its faults the veto power stops these places from impacting the rest of us.
[QUOTE=download;51688669]Why would anyone want the world's despots having a say in international politics? For all its faults the veto power stops these places from impacting the rest of us.[/QUOTE]
most of the countries in the world are democratic
[editline]18th January 2017[/editline]
[QUOTE=ultra_bright;51687699]Let it all burn, why should the US be holding up the rest of the world?[/QUOTE]
because if America pulls out then china will probably end up the dominant influence at the UN
Not only is Reagan spinning in his grave, so is Wilson. He's betraying Republican and Democratic ideals in one fell swoop.
This is such horseshit. The bully on the bully pulpit is going to dismantle American influence on the world.
We should really start calling the Republicans Regressives at this point.
[QUOTE=archangel125;51688177]Well, if the US doesn't want to make such contributions to the UN, it should lose its veto power, right? It's only fair.[/QUOTE]
actually If we do not pay our dues we absolutely do loose our voting status.
also the belief that the US should be getting something out of the UN completely defeats the point of it. The UN is a forum where issues can hopefully be resolved, conflicts can be disarmed and international cooperation can be fostered. If its policy was completely dictated by the highest bidder, the second highest bidder wouldn't want to work with it
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;51688697]most of the countries in the world are [b]democratic[/b][/QUOTE]
Personally would have put quotation marks around the word democratic, sure they say they are democratic but have you looked at Hong Kong recently? Not only them but a lot of "democratic" african nations aren't anything like the democracies we know of in Europe and North America
[QUOTE=download;51688594]Veto power stops shitty little third world holes from matering. As it should be.[/QUOTE]
jesus christ
fuck everyone else so long as im fine right
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.