Well, it goes both ways from what I know. On the one hand, the UN was founded, in large part, by the US. The US also takes responsibility for a bit more than 20% of the UN's budget every year, on average. However, it also hardly ever pays anywhere near what it commits to. I read someplace the US owes something like just over a billion in back dues. More details here, if you're interested...
Also, the US reputation for singlehanded* vetoes is legendary... outside the US. (Obviously, that's not a story for the domestic news cycle.) Again, however, they're certainly not the only ones to abuse the veto system. They just do it more often and more blatantly.
What should be obvious is that, the more powerful a given country is, the less of a need it perceives for the UN's existence. So it's not quite true to say that relatively powerful countries like France, Russia and China need the UN "because it's the only place they can throw their weight around". They can do fine without it.
What should be just as obvious is that the countries who most loudly complain of the UN's "uselessness" are motivated to show that this is in fact the case, at every opportunity. Given that these same countries are disproportionately relied on to contribute to the UN's various endeavours, you can see where a problem arises.
So the reform issue... if "the old (i.e. current) UN" is based on who won WWII, what should form the basis of a "new UN", or equivalent? India and Pakistan to get permanent membership on the SC? Germany and Japan? Goodbye France, and the UK? A great big fuckoff golden throne a la Louis XIV, for John Bolton to sit on? I dunno...
The US has got at least another 10 to 20 years as king of the world. I think the next three or four presidents should use that time to consolidate (or salvage?) America's reputation for fairness, generosity and -- in all seriousness -- being a beacon for freedom and global justice. Because it's kind of a Jekyll and Hyde country, seen from the outside.
I like the America that understood the roots of WWII well enough to foot the bill for the Marshall Plan. That was courage, intelligence and a kind of strength hard to find a precedent for in history. OTOH, anybody that's seen the movie Dazed and Confused knows O'Bannion -- I think Bush has shown an O'Bannion face to the world over the last six years, and that's not a fair representation of the US, IMO.
Anyway, sorry for the long and rambling post... I need sleep. In summary, I think any institution like the UN depends most heavily on the continued support of its most powerful members. As soon as they decide to starve (or even just ignore) it, it becomes very difficult to rally the rest to keep it afloat. That's the cold hard reality of the situation.
*By which I mean, the US and Israel -- they count as one functional unit in the UN, basically never voting different ways on anything.
Also, the US reputation for singlehanded* vetoes is legendary... outside the US. (Obviously, that's not a story for the domestic news cycle.) Again, however, they're certainly not the only ones to abuse the veto system. They just do it more often and more blatantly.
What should be obvious is that, the more powerful a given country is, the less of a need it perceives for the UN's existence. So it's not quite true to say that relatively powerful countries like France, Russia and China need the UN "because it's the only place they can throw their weight around". They can do fine without it.
What should be just as obvious is that the countries who most loudly complain of the UN's "uselessness" are motivated to show that this is in fact the case, at every opportunity. Given that these same countries are disproportionately relied on to contribute to the UN's various endeavours, you can see where a problem arises.
So the reform issue... if "the old (i.e. current) UN" is based on who won WWII, what should form the basis of a "new UN", or equivalent? India and Pakistan to get permanent membership on the SC? Germany and Japan? Goodbye France, and the UK? A great big fuckoff golden throne a la Louis XIV, for John Bolton to sit on? I dunno...
The US has got at least another 10 to 20 years as king of the world. I think the next three or four presidents should use that time to consolidate (or salvage?) America's reputation for fairness, generosity and -- in all seriousness -- being a beacon for freedom and global justice. Because it's kind of a Jekyll and Hyde country, seen from the outside.
I like the America that understood the roots of WWII well enough to foot the bill for the Marshall Plan. That was courage, intelligence and a kind of strength hard to find a precedent for in history. OTOH, anybody that's seen the movie Dazed and Confused knows O'Bannion -- I think Bush has shown an O'Bannion face to the world over the last six years, and that's not a fair representation of the US, IMO.
Anyway, sorry for the long and rambling post... I need sleep. In summary, I think any institution like the UN depends most heavily on the continued support of its most powerful members. As soon as they decide to starve (or even just ignore) it, it becomes very difficult to rally the rest to keep it afloat. That's the cold hard reality of the situation.
*By which I mean, the US and Israel -- they count as one functional unit in the UN, basically never voting different ways on anything.
Last edited by spastic bullet (2006-07-30 04:54:00)
