+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: UN budget approved but US votes against

  1. #1
    Senior Contributor xrough's Avatar
    Join Date
    09 Jan 07
    Location
    Manila
    Posts
    1,295
    Country: Philippines

    UN budget approved but US votes against

    UN budget approved but US votes against


    Agence France-Presse

    UNITED NATIONS - The General Assembly early Saturday approved a two-year UN budget of 4.17 billion dollars (2.9 billion euros) but the United States cast a lone dissenting vote.

    After marathon overnight talks, 141 members endorsed the recommendation of the assembly's budgetary committee to support UN chief Ban Ki-moon's request for the 2008-2009 budget, up 0.5 percent from the previous one.

    The United States voted against because it objected to a 6.7 million-dollar outlay in the budget to fund a follow-up to a 2001 world conference on racism and racial discrimination which it viewed as anti-Israel.

    The US delegation withdrew from the 2001 conference on racism in Durban, South Africa, because it felt that the parley singled out Israel "for censure and abuse" and suggested that apartheid existed in the Jewish state.

    In recent days, US diplomats here also complained that the 25 percent increase in the administrative part of the budget was too high.

    The United States is the world body's largest contributor, covering around 22 percent of the regular budget.

    Ban welcomed the adoption of the budget by the assembly but expressed regret that "the resolution was not adopted by consensus, marking a break with tradition after 20 years."

    "The Secretary General urges all member states to return to consensus decision-making and to demonstrate a greater sense of flexibility and compromise, beyond individual national interests and in the common cause of multilateralism for the good of humankind," his press office said in a statement.

    Separately, the assembly approved 1.28 billion dollars to fund the proposed UN-African Union 26,000-strong peacekeeping force for Sudan's war-torn Darfur region until next June 30.

    It also appropriated 182.44 million dollars for a UN force to be deployed in Chad and the Central African Republic to protect civilians from the spillover of the Darfur conflict.

    In outlining his proposed budget in October, Ban vowed to pursue reforms to make the world body leaner, nimbler and more efficient.

    He then told the assembly's budgetary panel that his proposed budget for 2008-2009, up 23 millions dollars, "is not much, considering the demands upon us."

    Among the major challenges facing the UN, he cited financing for the joint UN-AU force for Darfur, other UN missions in the Democratic Republic of Congo or Somalia as well as the fight against global poverty, HIV/AIDS or climate change.

    "Never has the world so needed a strong United Nations. Yet never have resources been stretched so thin," Ban then said, underscoring the need for "careful fiscal management" and internal changes to make the UN "faster, more flexible and more efficient in delivering better results with the limited assets at our disposal."

    The UN budget is funded with contributions from the organization's 192 member states based on their respective ability to pay, taking into account factors such as national income, population and level of debt.

  2. #2
    Military Professional
    Join Date
    15 Sep 06
    Posts
    6,755
    Only 22% America? Hang on a cotton-picking minute, the other 191 nations pay 78%. It would seem that not everyone is pulling their weight. I will have to see where the budget goes. I bet there are a lot of countries with their hands out.
    Semper in excretum. Solum profunda variat.

  3. #3
    Administrator Tarek Morgen's Avatar
    Join Date
    08 Feb 07
    Location
    Kassel
    Posts
    4,097
    Country: Germany
    Member Nation Contribution (% of total UN budget)
    United States 22.00%
    Japan 19.47%
    Germany 8.66%
    United Kingdom 6.13%
    France 6.03%
    Italy 4.89%
    Canada 2.81%
    Spain 2.52%
    China 2.05%
    Mexico 1.88%

    numbers from 2006
    uh I might be wrong


  4. #4
    Official Thread Jacker Senior Contributor gunnut's Avatar
    Join Date
    27 Jan 06
    Location
    DPRK, Demokratik People's Republik of Kalifornia
    Posts
    21,322
    Country: United States
    The true reason we're against it is because the increase was only 0.5% over the previous year's budget. Here in America our corrupt government demands a minimum of 4% increase year over year.
    "Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

  5. #5
    Regular
    Join Date
    28 Apr 07
    Location
    Latvia
    Posts
    72
    Country: Latvia
    For the countries, aspiring for the permanent seats in the Security Council, it would be somewhat awkward to vote against the budget now. They may change the pattern later - when they will be in, reducing their contributions to the level of those of some of existing permanent members.
    Usus magister est optimus

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

     

Similar Threads

  1. Federal Budget
    By mostlymad in forum International Politics
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 01 Apr 07,, 21:43
  2. Articles and links for the Military Professional
    By Officer of Engineers in forum The Staff College
    Replies: 115
    Last Post: 20 Nov 06,, 16:28
  3. George Bush, please! Punish Kim Jong Il
    By roseman in forum International Politics
    Replies: 122
    Last Post: 12 Apr 06,, 23:33
  4. Defence Budget cannot be discussed in Parliament
    By Samudra in forum International Politics
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 03 May 05,, 20:35
  5. The True Federal Budget Deficit Is $880 Billion
    By oneman28 in forum International Economy
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 23 Apr 05,, 19:49

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts