Here are the most recent figures I could find about the payments due to the UN from its 15 top contributors.

Since I have read many posts about the UN being ineffective, and that the UN nations should be presented the bill for the US's current troop deployments around Iraq, I would think that those arguments would have a lot more weight if the US first paid its huge debt to the UN ... ;)

The previous chart focuses only on peacekeeping debts,and it is but one of many very interesting facts and charts about the UN budget and member states' assessments and payments, find them here.

Maybe we're busy paying more than 25% of the NATO bill? ;) [img]tongue.gif[/img] :D

We should be paying those bills, too. It's a Congressional thing. You'd think that, since a large number of Congressmen want UN authorization for any action in Iraq, they could manage to approve the UN payment. Of course there are political considerations involved.

[ 03-03-2003, 06:57 AM: Message edited by: Ronn_Bman ]

It is interesting thought that if you'll check the "Payments of Largest Payers to Regular Budget" section found through that link you'll find that the US tops the chart. ;)

This chart IS interesting, Ronn - and among other stuff, it shows that France had had no prior debt, and has been paying the full amount of his year's assessment in January 2002. While the US has been paying the bulk part of his in October, and currently has a larger debt than it had at the end of 2001. ;)

[ 03-03-2003, 08:42 AM: Message edited by: Moiraine ]

Moiraine, I replied to this in your "No Need for War" thread, so I shan't do it again here. In sum, though, you fail to state that the US is the single largest contributor to the UN bar none - even given its arrears.

The thing that got me about those charts is that the US and Japan together pay close to 50% of UN costs... that's amazing. It also appeared more that the US got behind on it's payments, not that it wasn't paying.

Anyway... the US could cover some of it's "sit around and threaten Iraq into compliance" expenses using all that cash it has in arrears... except that the amount that the US is behind would barely pay for a week or two of theater force maintenance.

<font color=orange>As I recall Senator Jesse Helms blocked the UN payments over ... I'm having to dig deep into that brain of mine... It's not a pretty site either... over Planned Parenthood. Really it was over abortion... I think... He found it repugent that we were paying for abortions overseas. I may be wrong on the reason, but I'm right on the person.</font>

This chart IS interesting, Ronn - and among other stuff, it shows that France had had no prior debt, and has been paying the full amount of his year's assessment in January 2002. While the US has been paying the bulk part of his in October, and currently has a larger debt than it had at the end of 2001. ;) </font>[/QUOTE]That is because the US gov't fiscal year starts Oct 1, so we do pay our dues at the first of our fiscal year. ;)

<font color = lightgreen>Unfortunately, the UN was designed to be nearly useless/ineffective. It has become the stereotypical "500-pound gorilla" because no one dares float the idea that the UN should be dismantled, or at least restructured completely.
[img]graemlins/erm.gif[/img] No, I am not one of those strange people who believe the UN is some sort of "one world government" monster. It is simply a dinosaur whose time, in its current incarnation, has passed.

That being said, if the US wants to be part of the UN, even if by paying only lip service, then we should "put up or shut up".</font>

<font color="#ffccff">Azred, I was with ya all the way to the last line [img]smile.gif[/img] As has been pointed out, the USA is the LARGEST contributing nation bar none, and that it does pay it's dues, only the payments seem to be out of sync due to a Fiscal Year differential. Someone else noted that between the USA and Japan you account for nearly 50% of the operating cost....now that sounds real fair....

Edit: Someone should bring up the NATO costs and who pays those as well...</font>

[ 03-04-2003, 12:16 PM: Message edited by: MagiK ]