Talk:United States and the United Nations

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject International relations This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, an attempt to provide information in a consistent format for articles about international organizations, diplomats, international meetings, and relations between states.
If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
??? This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the importance scale.
United Nations This article is part of the United Nations WikiProject.
UN Portal


Contents

[edit] Voting record of US at UN

Where is the record or discussion of US voting on UN bills. That is, where it is in agreement with most other states and where it is in disagreement, and a discussion of patterns if any. If it appears in another article there should be a link. How can this central record be absent?

[edit] Debt Table Unclear

I find the presentation of the "US debt to the United Nations Table" unclear. I would have expected the columns to be some combination of: Amount Owed, Amount Paid, Percentage Paid. But in the current table it is not clear what is what. Jlenthe (talk) 17:10, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree. How much is the US in arrears? Mike 17 December 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.162.139.34 (talk) 07:51, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] PLEASE BACK UP THIS STATEMENT...

Thanks for this page. It helped me with an essay! Nice work, authors! --68.9.60.185 18:29, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Please back up this statement: "Arguably, the United States has only cooperated with the United Nations on two major issues."

What constitutes a "major issue"? What are the major issues? -- Jiang 23:30, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)

This statement is factually incorrect and is just one example of the POV issues that pervade the article. I've edited to a statement that reflects the facts at hand in a NPOV way. Raymond Arritt 04:15, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A shame

At least the author is sincere when describing US intentions in the UN. "I wont pay what I own, so that if you want to keep me, submit to my demands." They dont pay what they own, they make foolish and childish trhreats like that, and they expect the UN to bow and wiggle its tail like a good puppy.

What a nice example the nation that loves democracy, that is the most humanitarian and well-developed in the entire planet sets for us, the less favored of the world! LtDoc 12:46, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

hmmm maybe thats cause The US is the UN, why the hell should we give them all the money,equipment, and soldiers that we do if they wont do what we say. Oh and by the way, we would stomp your country into the ground, hell just Texas would do that
Both of these comments are clear examples of what is not necessary here nor in the article itself. Take it up elsewhere and discuss the facts as they stand here; don't devolve into hyperbole and crass generalisation. See this page if you want to know how to present your case here. kabl00ey 09:15, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
We really should just leave the UN and stop giving all aid to every other nation on earth. Watching them squirm will be fun. Travis T. Cleveland (talk) 23:02, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] TWO MAJOR ISSUE

Hi there,

I suppose the use of the words "two major issues" was imprecise. I meant that the United States has only executed a major military operation within the context of a Security Council resolution twice.

If you look at Use of U.S. Forces Abroad, it is clear that US and UN have worked together on major military operations just three times (Korea, Iraq, and Somalia, with the last of these on a much smaller scale).

Since the United States does not make major contributions to many other UN operations (e.g. peacekeeping operations), I felt that saying the US and UN have arguably worked together on two major issues was a fair assessment.

Why did you remove the secion on peacekeeping operations? -- Acegikmo1 05:14, Feb 1, 2004 (UTC)


The section on peacekeeping has been moved to the main UN article since only one sentence in it is specific to the US. -- Jiang 05:19, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)


[edit] US ABUSE OF UN VETO

Hi, So this is a redirect from "us abuse of un veto". i m the original author and i am quite happy to see that the topic has not survived. its proved many things to me.

once again thanks very much :)

How about we put a section in the main article about abuse of the veto from all the nations on the Security Council? The US isn't the only country who likes to veto. Also, I'd think the title of the topic is a bit POV.24.159.55.213 (talk) 05:45, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that a section on this would be appropriate in a page whose subject matter is the US:UN relationship. A mention of it, however, wouldn't be amiss. I agree that the title of the topic is somewhat POV. Whilst I might agree that it has been 'abused', this is subjective and open to interpretation. kabl00ey (talk) 01:42, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] REMOVED TWO PARAGRAPHS

This paragraph was removed for NPOV issues:

Following the overthrow of the former Iraqi government, U.S. forces conducted an exhaustive search of Iraq for weapons of mass destruction. Had the weapons been found, their presence would have legitimized the invasion. No such weapons were found, which essentially proved that Iraq had not violated any UN Security Council resolutions, that the Iraqi government could not have chosen to take any action of disarmament to comply with Resolution 1441, and that the invasion of Iraq was not legitimate or legal. As of Q1 2006, U.S. President George W. Bush continues to state in public speeches that Saddam Hussein had a "choice", and that he "chose to go to war".

Failing to find WMD does not "essentially prove" that Iraq had not violated any UN Security Council resolutions. For example, they may have had them but moved them to Syria before the war, or they may be in Iraq but just not found yet (unlikely but possible). Also, even if Iraq did not have WMD, they could still have failed to comply with the resolution by not being adequitely cooperative (which is arguably what happened).

I also removed this paragraph because it repeats content introduced in the 'The U.S. arrears issue' section:

One area in which the United States has been involved in a long-running struggle with the United Nations is over its finances. Due to its status as the most powerful nation at the time the United Nations was established, the United States has always been set down for the largest contribution to the United Nations budget. However, the United States has on occasion delayed payments and has therefore built up a debt in its contribution to both the regular budget and the peacekeeping budget:

Milquetoast 14:22, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

The first paragraph was re-added; I've removed most of it again. As the previous poster suggested, 1441 created various obligations for Iraq: letting inspectors in, granting them certain privileges, submitting a "currently accurate, full, and complete" declaration of weapons, etc. Even if it had never even dreamed of making WMDs, Iraq would have been in breach of its obligations if it had failed to do any of those things. The big debate prior to the war was whether Iraq has fully complied with those obligations and, if not, whether the Security Council should give it more time to do so or if it should authorize armed intervention (or whether 1441 itself authorized unilateral armed intervention).

--219.94.78.226 10:45, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

In addition, there are still chemical and biological weapons tagged by UN inspectors before 1998 that are unaccounted for, and Iraq never provided any evidence of their destruction. To this date, the tagged items have not been found, nor any evidence that they were destroyed. Even if Iraq did not have an operating program to manufacture WMDs, it failed to provide proof that it had destroyed WMDs that were known to exist in Iraq prior to expulsion of UN inspectors.

Yo dudes!! look at this section: "Visa refusal controversy"
--- what does that have to do with general US-UN relations? it simply is irrelevant/unnecessary to mention

[edit] UN coined by..

From the UN article:

The term "United Nations" was coined by Winston Churchill during World War II, to refer to the Allies (see History of the United Nations). Its first formal use was in the January 1, 1942 Declaration by the United Nations, which committed the Allies to the principles of the Atlantic Charter and pledged them not to seek a separate peace with the Axis powers. Thereafter, the Allies used the term "United Nations Fighting Forces" to refer to their alliance.

From the United States and the United Nations article:

The term "United Nations" was first coined by President Franklin Delano Roosevelt in the Declaration by the United Nations where, on January 1, 1942, 26 nations pledged to continue fighting the Axis powers.

Do we know which is correct? Rex the first 13:42, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The future of the U.S. in the U.N.

Re the statement that movement for U.S. withdrawal from the U.N. is "growing": is this supported by objective references such as opinion polls? If not, it should be reverted. Raymond Arritt 02:39, 28 July 2006 (UTC)



Trust me, I live in Texas, and that is a HUGE movement- Real_Texan_08

I go to college in Maryland and live in New York. I lot of people i know in both states would like to not only see the U.S. leave the U.N. but see the U.N. forced to leave U.S. Territory.-Bentley4

Some civilians may have these feelings, but no serious US politician/statesmen would ever advocate anything like that.204.227.243.16 14:03, 30 April 2007 (UTC)pkmilitia

Actually, bills have been proposed by politicians to leave the UN such as HR1146. So it would seem that there ARE "serious US politician/statesmen" that advocate leaving. Travis Cleveland 22:59, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Expansion

 Please help improve this article or section by expanding it.
Further information might be found on the talk page or at requests for expansion. (January 2007)

There seems to be a lot of material missing between 1945 and 1991. -- Beland 04:40, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Balance to US finiancial obligations

The section titled "The U.S. arrears issue" might better be titled "U.S Financial Obligations to the U.N." so as not to suggest a bias. This section could then describe the financial contributions made to the U.N. by the U.S. as well as those that have been withheld. A source for contributions made by the U.S. To the U.N. is the US Office of Management and Budgets' Report on US Contributions to the United Nations System dated July 31, 2006.


We might also want to put a note about the contradiction of the U.N not want to be dependent on 1 nation for it's funding yet expect the U.s and Japan to cover 40% of the budget.65.96.132.149 01:40, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rick Santorum and WMDs found in Iraq?

The section entitled "The Iraq issue" has what looks rather dubious claim. Specifically the following paragraph:

In June, 2006, Senator Rick Santorum, R-Pa., announced in a quickly called press conference that "We have found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, chemical weapons." Since 2003, he reported, "coalition forces have recovered approximately 500 weapons munitions which contain degraded mustard or sarin nerve agent. Despite many efforts to locate and destroy Iraq's pre-Gulf War chemical munitions, filled and unfilled pre-Gulf War chemical munitions are assessed to still exist." He added a warning about the hazarda the chemical weapons still pose to coalition troops in Iraq. For more in depth detail and analysis of the report, go to FoxNews.com and find the article titled "Report: Hundreds of WMDs Found in Iraq".

This directly contradicts the section on the occupation of Iraq here [1]

I did track down the Fox News article[2], but it even states the following:

The weapons are thought to be manufactured before 1991 so they would not be proof of an ongoing WMD program in the 1990s.

and

Offering the official administration response to FOX News, a senior Defense Department official pointed out that the chemical weapons were not in useable conditions.

While this article does seem to show that Rick Santorum did make that statement, it isto very poorly written and possibly misleading propaganda in an election year for Mr. Santorum. I could not find any similar articles for this claim on CNN, NYT, BBC, or other news agencies.

Recommend deleting or rewriting that paragraph. --Jeremyh113 21:06, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

How can you call anything poorly written with phrases like "it isto very poorly written and possibly misleading propaganda in an election year for Mr. Santorum." Grammer? Spelling?

[edit] Bias

"The September 11, 2001 attacks on the U.S. and subsequent military conflicts have clarified the desire of other countries to use the UN as a vehicle to rein in what they see as American unilateralism."

I wonder if a paragraph could hold more bias towards the US? This seems to be tops.201.19.185.68 00:31, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

To be perfectly honest, I don't think this is biased at all. Given the anarchical global system of states and the US dominant position as unchallenged hegemon, there are states who believe the best way to limit unilateral action, perceived or actual, by the United States is through the world's dominant international governmental organisation. To follow on from that, the events of and post September 11, 2001 (particularly the US attack on Iraq) have been the impetus of this belief; prior to September 11 there was, from what I understand, far fewer claims of US unilateralism. Therefore the statement, in my opinion, is not biased. However, you could criticise it for not being referenced, which I think would be valid. kabl00ey 00:49, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

"The U.N. 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. For a number of years, the U.S. Congress refused to authorize payment of the U.S. dues, in order to force U.N. compliance with U.S. wishes, as well as a reduction in the U.S. assessment."

Perhaps an ending phrase of "a.k.a. blackmail" is adequate?201.19.185.68 00:33, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps a mention of US hesitancy to give funds without adequate protections against corruption (OIL FOR FOOD SCANDAL) would be more appropriate.

[edit] suggestions for new material

What were issues involving the United States between 1945 and 1990's. It's not well covered. One thing I can think of was the UN police action in Korea, commonly known as the Korean War in the US. The Allies fought for the UN, including the US, Turkey, Australia, and some others.Dereks1x 21:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Veto Power

I was redirected here from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_veto_power but there doesn't seem to be any information here about how they've used their veto power. Could we have some information?

the UN has a list of all exercises of UN Security Council veto powers here: http://www.un.org/depts/dhl/resguide/scvote.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.146.15.88 (talk) 03:15, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] arrears percents

What are the percentages supposed to mean in the arrears table? Coleca 18:18, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Archive

As little discussion has been entered into lately and the most of the prior discussion relates to entries in the article that now don't exist, I'm requesting that this current talk page be archived so that discussion can begin anew and clearly. kabl00ey 09:38, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] U.S. Withdrawal from U.N.

I removed this section (The future of the U.S. in the UN) because of to many biased remarks and not citing references or sources.

[edit] The future of the U.S. in the UN

The relevance of the UN in the modern world is questioned by its critics, and there is a small but growing movement in the U.S. to withdraw from the UN, which members of the movement see as nonproductive morally and practically. This in part stems from a desire to ensure that sovereignty stays with national bodies, and not be yielded to any sort of extranational organization. Another possible reason for this dissent is its use as a negotiation tactic; by threatening to walk out, the U.S. is voicing its displeasure and putting pressure on the UN to address U.S. concerns and interests. Yet another motivation is dismay at the failure of the UN to fulfill its goals in such areas as peacekeeping and human rights.

Few observers expect the "get U.S. out of U.N." (a pun on the initials for the United States and the pronoun "us") movement to result in the U.S. actually withdrawing. Proposed legislation in both houses of U.S. Congress to withdraw has been met with minimal support, and has never come close to becoming U.S. policy. The appointment of John Bolton, however, who had been a vocal critic of the United Nations, as U.S. Ambassador in July 2005 was generally viewed as an indication that the George W. Bush administration was growing even more skeptical of the merits of the UN. However this approach changed with the appointment of the more conciliatory Zalmay Khalilzad as U.S. Ambassador in April 2007.

That is the whole section. If someone wishes to revise it by adding sources and removing personal opinion, please do so. But until that time it needs to stay out.