World Library  
Flag as Inappropriate
Email this Article
 

United States and the United Nations

The United States of America
United Nations membership
Membership Full member
Since 1945 (1945)
UNSC seat Permanent
Ambassador Samantha Power

The United States of America is a charter member of the United Nations and one of five permanent members of the UN Security Council.

Contents

  • U.S. role in establishing the UN 1
  • Sources of conflict 2
  • The U.S. arrears issue 3
  • The Iraq issue 4
  • U.S. Congress looks into reform of the U.N. 5
  • Visa refusal controversy 6
  • The future of the U.S. in the UN 7
  • See also 8
  • References 9
  • External links 10

U.S. role in establishing the UN

The UN is an outgrowth of the Atlantic Charter. It appeared in the Declaration by the United Nations on January 1, 1942, in which 26 nations pledged to continue fighting the Axis powers.

Their main inspiration was the

  • Official website of the United States mission to the UN
  • http://www.un.org/aboutun/history.htm
  • US Often Uses Security Council Veto for Israel

External links

  1. ^ John Allphin Moore and Jr. Jerry Pubantz. The New United Nations: International Organization in the Twenty-First Century (Upper Saddle River, New Jersey : Pearson Prentice Hall, 2006), 43-44
  2. ^ a b John Allphin Moore and Jr. Jerry Pubantz. The New United Nations: International Organization in the Twenty-First Century (Upper Saddle River, New Jersey : Pearson Prentice Hall, 2006), 44
  3. ^ John Allphin Moore and Jr. Jerry Pubantz. The New United Nations: International Organization in the Twenty-First Century (Upper Saddle River, New Jersey : Pearson Prentice Hall, 2006), 43
  4. ^ John Allphin Moore and Jr. Jerry Pubantz. The New United Nations: International Organization in the Twenty-First Century (Upper Saddle River, New Jersey : Pearson Prentice Hall, 2006), 46
  5. ^ John Allphin Moore and Jr. Jerry Pubantz. The New United Nations: International Organization in the Twenty-First Century (Upper Saddle River, New Jersey : Pearson Prentice Hall, 2006), 51
  6. ^ a b John Allphin Moore and Jr. Jerry Pubantz. The New United Nations: International Organization in the Twenty-First Century (Upper Saddle River, New Jersey : Pearson Prentice Hall, 2006), 52
  7. ^ Francis O. Wilcox. “II. The Yalta Voting Formula” The American Political Science Review 39, no. 5 (Oct, 1945), http://www.jstor.org/ (accessed September 30, 2008), 953
  8. ^ Francis O. Wilcox. “II. The Yalta Voting Formula” The American Political Science Review 39, no. 5 (Oct, 1945), http://www.jstor.org/ (accessed September 30, 2008), 944
  9. ^ Francis O. Wilcox. “II. The Yalta Voting Formula” The American Political Science Review 39, no. 5 (Oct, 1945), http://www.jstor.org/ (accessed September 30, 2008), 943
  10. ^ Francis O. Wilcox. “II. The Yalta Voting Formula” The American Political Science Review 39, no. 5 (Oct, 1945), http://www.jstor.org/ (accessed September 30, 2008), 954
  11. ^ John Allphin Moore and Jr. Jerry Pubantz. The New United Nations: International Organization in the Twenty-First Century (Upper Saddle River, New Jersey : Pearson Prentice Hall, 2006), 53
  12. ^ Chronis Polychroniou. “Rise and Fall of US Imperialism” Economic and Political Weekly 30, no. 30 (July 29, 1995), http://www.jstor.org/ (accessed September 30, 2008), 58
  13. ^ [1], Why does the US refuse to pay its UN bill?
  14. ^ Security Council 7 March 2003
  15. ^ Radio France > Dossiers > Conflit USA - Irak
  16. ^ Fox News http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/Iraq_WMD_Declassified.pdf . 
  17. ^ "Task Force on the United Nations". 
  18. ^ "Bill Summary & Status 109th Congress (2005 - 2006) H.R.2745". 
  19. ^ "Bill Summary & Status 109th Congress (2005 - 2006) S.1394". 
  20. ^ "Bill Summary & Status 109th Congress (2005 - 2006) S.1383". 
  21. ^ The Washington Post http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/10/AR2007041002033.html . 
  22. ^ Playfuls.com - Play your life!
  23. ^ One-Chairman Show, Kommersant, Apr. 12, 2007
  24. ^ Online Magazine - Civil Georgia
  25. ^ UN debates Kosovo's independence, BBC, 3 April 2007, 23:30 GMT
  26. ^ Министр иностранных дел Сергей Шамба расценивает нежелание СБ ООН заслушать абхазскую сторону как «необъективное отношение к одной из сторон в конфликте» Сообщество "За демократию и права народов"
  27. ^ Georgian Separatist Spurned by U.S By ALEXANDRA OLSON The Associated Press Tuesday, April 10, 2007; 11:23 PM
  28. ^ Rice warns Russia against helping separatists in Georgia RIA Novosti, 11/ 04/ 2007
  29. ^ Holcberg, D. 12 May 2001. The United States Should Withdraw From the United Nations. Capitalism Magazine
  30. ^ Weisman, S. 2 August 2005. Bush's U.N. Agenda Is Well Under Way. The New York Times
  31. ^  
  32. ^ Chomsky, Noam (2006). "Failed States: The Abuse of Power and the Assault on Democracy". New York, New York, United States: Holt Paperbacks 

References

See also

Enhance Cooperation with and Strengthen the United Nations: We are enhancing our coordination with the U.N. and its agencies. We need a U.N. capable of fulfilling its founding purpose—maintaining international peace and security, promoting global cooperation, and advancing human rights. To this end, we are paying our bills. We are intensifying efforts with partners on and outside the U.N. Security Council to ensure timely, robust, and credible Council action to address threats to peace and security. We favor Security Council reform that enhances the U.N.’s overall performance, credibility, and legitimacy. Across the broader U.N. system we support reforms that promote effective and efficient leadership and management of the U.N.’s international civil service, and we are working with U.N. personnel and member states to strengthen the U.N.’s leadership and operational capacity in peacekeeping, humanitarian relief, post-disaster recovery, development assistance, and the promotion of human's rights. And we are supporting new U.N. frameworks and capacities for combating transnational threats like proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, infectious disease, drug-trafficking, and counter terrorism.

It was published in May 2010. This quote was found embedded on the 46th page in regards to the United Nations.

Recently the United States Government released its National Security Strategy for 2010. National Security Strategy.pdf

Consistent with its mainstream critics, the majority of the US feels strengthening the UN is unimportant or only somewhat important, with a minority holding the view that strengthening the UN is very important.[31] While most agree that the UN could be improved, John Birch Society and Wayne LaPierre of the National Rifle Association, oppose the United Nations on the basis of its perceived failures. LaPierre wrote the book "The Global War on Your Guns," in which he alerts the U.S. to the supposed threat of the Arms Trade Treaty.

In the US, complaints about the UN surface regularly in the domestic mainstream media. Some critics who oppose international constraints on US foreign policy contend that the US should withdraw from the UN, claiming that the United States is better equipped to manage the global order unilaterally.[29] More frequently, critics argue that the UN should be reformed to bring it more in line with US policy and leadership.[30]

The future of the U.S. in the UN

In April 2007 the Sergei Shamba who was due to speak at the UN headquarters in New York. The incident caused an international dispute as Russian Permanent Representative Vitaly Churkin accused the USA[21] of not letting one side of the conflict speak before UN. Security Council president, British Ambassador Emyr Jones Parry, backed the Russian demand for Shamba's visa.[22][23] But the U.S. Ambassador, Alejandro Wolff, accused the Russian side of “a mischievous effort” to raise “false analogies” between Abkhazia and Kosovo, thus “complicating the discussion.”[24] The USA stated that such airport to UNHQ visa access was not guaranteed to countries seeking international recognition; Kosovo president Fatmir Sejdiu had been given a visa.[25] Sergei Shamba himself described the situation as "dual standards".[26][27][28]

Visa refusal controversy

On June 17, 2005, the Bush administration and several former U.S. ambassadors to the UN have warned that this may only strengthen anti-American sentiment around the world and serve to hurt current UN reform movements. The bill passed the House in June 2005, and a parallel bill was introduced in the Senate by Gordon Smith on July 13, 2005.[19] However, a number of leading Senate Republicans objected to the requirement that the U.S. contributions be halved if the UN failed to meet all of the criteria. The UN Management, Personnel, and Policy Reform Act of 2005 (S. 1394), introduced on July 12, 2005 into the Senate by Sen. Norm Coleman [R-MN] and Sen. Richard Lugar [R-IN], called for similar reforms but left the withholding of dues to the discretion of the President.[20] Neither piece of legislation made it into law.

The [17] with numerous recommendations on how to improve the UN.

U.S. Congress looks into reform of the U.N.

Following the overthrow of the former Iraqi government, the Iraq Survey Group led an exhaustive search of Iraq for WMD. Ultimately, while over 500 "degraded" chemical warheads were found,[16] no deployable WMD of any kind were found and all WMD production facilities had been found to be inactive since 1991.

Rightly or wrongly the "this evening" qualification was ignored, perhaps because the implications of its English translation are ambiguous. The statement was widely interpreted in the English-speaking world as meaning that France would exercise its right as a Permanent Member of the Security Council to veto any resolution at any time ("whatever the circumstances") to use force against Iraq.

Other countries, led by France, Germany and Russia, maintained that Resolution 1441 did not authorize the use of force without passage of a further Resolution. French President Chirac stated "My position is that, whatever the circumstances, France will vote 'no' because this evening it considers that it is not necessary to make war to achieve the stated goal of the disarmament of Iraq".[15]

In November 2002, the UN Security Council adopted Resolution 1441, giving Iraq an ultimatum to co-operate in disarmament within an unstated timeframe of a few months. However, in March 2003, the U.S., supported by fifty countries (including the United Kingdom, Spain, Australia, the Czech Republic, Denmark, the Netherlands and Poland) which the Bush administration referred to as the "Coalition of the willing" launched military operations against Iraq. On April 9 Saddam Hussein's regime was overthrown and Iraq was placed under occupation, marked by the Fall of Baghdad. The U.S. argued that this action was authorized by Resolution 1441, since Iraq had failed to comply by co-operating fully in the identification and destruction of its weapons programs, and since Resolution 1441 promised 'serious consequences' for lack of full compliance and achievement of its objective.

Further conflict between the U.S. and some UN members arose in 2002 and 2003 over the issue of Saddam Hussein had not fulfilled the obligations he had entered into at the end of the Gulf War in 1991, namely to rid Iraq of all weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) and to renounce their further use. A series of inspections by the IAEA failed to find conclusive evidence that proved allegations that Iraq was continuing to develop or harbour such weapons. The findings were conveyed by the leading weapons inspector, Hans Blix, who noted Iraq's failure to cooperate with the inspections on several counts.[14] The U.S. replied by saying that the responsibility of proof of disarmament was upon Iraq, not on the UN or the U.S.

George W. Bush addressed the General Assembly on September 12, 2002 on Iraq prior to the passage of Resolution 1441.

The Iraq issue

U.S. debt to the United Nations, from 1995 to 2005
Year Regular budget Peacekeeping Total
31 December 1995 $414 million (73%) $816 million (47%) $1.231 billion (56%)
31 December 1996 $376 million (74%) $926 million (57%) $1.303 billion (61%)
31 December 1997 $373 million (79%) $940 million (60%) $1.313 billion (64%)
31 December 1998 $316 million (76%) $976 million (61%) $1.294 billion (64%)
31 December 1999 $167 million (68%) $995 million (67%) $1.170 billion (67%)
31 December 2000 $165 million (74%) $1.144 billion (56%) $1.321 billion (58%)
31 December 2001 $165 million (69%) $691 million (38%) $871 million (41%)
31 December 2002 $190 million (62%) $536 million (40%) $738 million (44%)
31 December 2003 $268 million (61%) $482 million (45%) $762 million (48%)
31 December 2004 $241 million (68%) $722 million (28%) $975 million (33%)
30 September 2005 $607 million (82%) $607 million (28%) $1.246 billion (41%)

Under Helms-Biden, the U.S. paid $100 million in arrears to the UN in December 1999; release of the next $582 million awaits a legislative revision to Helms-Biden, necessary because the benchmark requiring a 25 percent peacekeeping assessment rate ceiling was not quite achieved. The U.S. also seeks elimination of the legislated 25 percent cap on U.S. peacekeeping payments in effect since 1995, which continues to generate additional UN arrears. Of the final $244 million under Helms-Biden, $30 million is payable to the UN and $214 million to other international organizations.

U.S. arrears to the UN currently total over $1.3 billion. Of this, $612 million is payable under Helms-Biden. The remaining $700 million result from various legislative and policy withholdings; at present, there are no plans to pay these amounts.

After prolonged negotiations, the U.S. and the UN negotiated an agreement whereby the United States would pay a large part of the money it owes, and in exchange the UN would reduce the assessment rate ceiling from 25% to 22%. The reduction in the assessment rate ceiling was among the reforms contained in the 1999 Helms-Biden legislation, which links payment of $926 million in U.S. arrears to the UN and other international organizations to a series of reform benchmarks.

The UN has always had problems with members refusing to pay the assessment levied upon them under the United Nations Charter. But the most significant refusal in recent times has been that of the U.S. Since 1985 the U.S. Congress has refused to authorize payment of the U.S. dues, in order to force UN compliance with U.S. wishes, as well as a reduction in the U.S. assessment.[13]

The U.S. arrears issue

Under the Reagan administration, the U.S. withdrew from UNESCO, and withheld its dues to encourage the UN to repeal Resolution 3379, which it did in 1991. The U.S. was—and continues to be—the member state levied most heavily by the UN, so U.S. policymakers expected this strategy to be an effective way to oppose Soviet and Arab influence over the UN. When the UN repealed Resolution 3379, the U.S. resumed dues payments, but not before the U.S. had accumulated significant and controversial arrears.

The U.S. government's repeated opposition to Arab military actions has created much more tension between the U.S. government and the United Nations. The General Assembly Resolution 3379 (determining that Zionism is a form of racism and racial discrimination) of 1975 was strongly opposed by U.S. officials. In 1991, the General Assembly adopted Resolution 4686, which effectively negated Resolution 3379. Use of its veto power to prevent the Security Council from issuing resolutions condemning Israeli military action has frequently divided the U.S. from the Soviet Union, China and France in the Security Council; since 1989, the U.S. government has dissented against security council resolutions on 12 occasions out of 17 total instances when a permanent member vetoed. Of these 12 occasions, only two related to issues other than the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. In 2009, the U.S. government abstained from Security Council Resolution 1860, which called for a halt to Israel's military response to Hamas rocket attacks, and the opening of the border crossings into the Gaza Strip.

Conflict between the U.S. and the UN predates the collapse of the Soviet Union. In 1971, the UN adopted Resolution 2758—which affected the admission of the People's Republic of China and the removal of the Republic of China—despite objections by the U.S. government (see China and the United Nations). The U.S. government changed its own China policy shortly afterward, however, so the conflict between the UN and US foreign policy was short-lived.

Since 1991, the United States has been the world's dominant military, economic, social, and political power (not to mention hosting the UN Headquarters itself in New York City); the United Nations was not designed for such a unipolar world with a single superpower, and conflicts between an ascendant U.S. and other UN members has increased.

Sources of conflict

Relations between the U.S. and the Soviet Union (later Russia) within the UN have evolved in step with the larger geopolitical situation between the two powers. While the Soviet Union was boycotting the Security Council and China's seat was represented by U.S.-friendly Republic of China (instead of the communist People's Republic of China which would replace the ROC in the UN in 1971), the U.S. and UN jointly condemned the invasion of South Korea by North Korean troops, leading to the UN sanctioned Korean War. Later, the U.S. persuaded all permanent members of the Security Council to authorize force against Iraq after that nation invaded Kuwait in 1991. This was a major step toward U.S. and Russian reconciliation after the end of the Cold War.

Shortly after the establishment of the United Nations, the United States came into conflict with another member of the Security Council. Since the Soviet Union was a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council, it had the power to veto any binding UN resolution. In fact, Soviet foreign minister and UN ambassador Vyacheslav Molotov used veto power twice as often as any other permanent member, earning him the title "Mr. Veto". (see Soviet Union and the United Nations)

The United Nations was the first League of Nations, had been championed by Woodrow Wilson after World War I to prevent future conflicts. While it was supported by most European nations, it was never ratified by the United States Congress due to the inability to reach a compromise regarding the Lodge Reservations or the Hitchcock Reservations.

The most important American contribution to the United Nations system is perhaps the Bretton Woods conference. This conference took place in 1944 and its goal was “to create a new international monetary and trade regime that was stable and predictable.”[11] This new system opened world markets, promoted a liberal economy and was implemented through different institutions, such as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund.[12]

The United Nations officially came into existence on October 24, 1945, when the Charter was ratified by the Republic of China, France, the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom, the United States as well as a majority of other signatories.

[6] Finally, during the Yalta conference, Stalin agreed to make the USSR a member of the United Nations.[10] its inclusion in the charter was never a matter of negotiation for Roosevelt and his allies.[9] Though the veto power question created a lot of disagreement among the different signatories,[8] In 1945, representatives from 50 countries met in

[4] It is interesting to note that “Roosevelt saw the United Nations as the crowning achievement of his political career.”[3] The negotiations mainly took place during the Dumbarton Oaks Conference and the Yalta Conference, where the three world leaders tried to reach a consensus concerning the United Nation’s structure, purposes and principles.[2]

This article was sourced from Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. World Heritage Encyclopedia content is assembled from numerous content providers, Open Access Publishing, and in compliance with The Fair Access to Science and Technology Research Act (FASTR), Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., Public Library of Science, The Encyclopedia of Life, Open Book Publishers (OBP), PubMed, U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Center for Biotechnology Information, U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health (NIH), U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, and USA.gov, which sources content from all federal, state, local, tribal, and territorial government publication portals (.gov, .mil, .edu). Funding for USA.gov and content contributors is made possible from the U.S. Congress, E-Government Act of 2002.
 
Crowd sourced content that is contributed to World Heritage Encyclopedia is peer reviewed and edited by our editorial staff to ensure quality scholarly research articles.
 
By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. World Heritage Encyclopedia™ is a registered trademark of the World Public Library Association, a non-profit organization.
 


Copyright © World Library Foundation. All rights reserved. eBooks from Project Gutenberg are sponsored by the World Library Foundation,
a 501c(4) Member's Support Non-Profit Organization, and is NOT affiliated with any governmental agency or department.