US And UN
Is the United States Giving too Much to the United Nations? Does it seem
like
whenever the United Nations (UN) sends peacekeepers to a region that the
United
States (US) bears the majority of the debt and load of troops?
Does it seem that
we are the only country supply material and "doing it all?"
Is the US
the worlds police department? No we aren't. The US is doing its job
when the UN
asks for assistance when a country needs peacekeepers in a time
of transition,
redevelopment, or serious acts against the rights of humans.
The US is not the
controlling force behind the UN like some people believe.
For those of you how
do, grow up! It is true that the US pays more than some
other countries, but we
do not carry the whole budget. We only cover 25% of
the regular UN budget and
peacekeeping operations. That comes to a total of
$313 million for the regular
budget and $282 million for peacekeeping, and
whatever other contributions that
Congress decides to give to other UN
programs. Some might say that this is too
much, well I believe that it isn't
enough. The UN runs many programs and tries
to maintain peace in an effort to
thwart war. How much would you pay for a
global peace? Whatever it is that
you just said probably isn't enough. Why
should any US citizen worry about
what the UN does, we are the US, the most
powerful country in the world? It
should be a matter of your concern since the
US is vulnerable, maybe not
from some other falling superpower, but to some
third world country that is
trying to get their hands on a medium yield nuclear
weapon. How does this
effect the UN? Well the UN works with small third world
countries to get them
developing in the right the direction, away from weapons
of mass destruction
and more towards a better agriculture system of
infrastructure. What type of
military support does the US give the UN? Currently
the UN has around twenty
peacekeeping operations going on around the world, the
most recent being the
mission to East Timor. There are about 26,000 UN
peacekeepers around the
world and about 900 of those are American, so we
contribute about 3% of the
peacekeeping force. The largest contributor is Poland
with about 1,100 troops
and other personnel. I think that if a country like
Poland can give 1,100
troops, we can do better. Yes, that might mean that we
might loose more men
and women, but we have the largest Navy, Air Force, and the
second largest
Army in the world. I am not saying we put all our Armed Forces at
the
disposal of the UN, but we can give more. Does this mean we will have to
pay
more, no. Congress recently passes a law saying that the US will pay no
more
than 25% of the UN regular budget or peacekeeping budget, and the UN is
working
with a no-growth budget for the first time. This is a win-win
situation for the
US if we gave more. It shows the world that the US does
care about other
countries other than itself, and it can spread the interest
of the US to places
where it might not usually get. This doesn't mean that
the US is going to take
over the world, it means that the US should take the
world into consideration
when it comes to making some policy decisions. You
might think that if the US
gives troops to an UN operation that is lead by a
foreign commander that the US
has no say it what happens. Well, that is wrong
the President of the United
States never relinquishes control of any US
armed forces no matter the
circumstance. The US should be more forward in the
way it handles peacekeeping
operations. I am not saying whenever there is
trouble the US should run to that
country and hold its hand, but we should go
forth and help when we have an
opportunity to share with the struggling
country a hand up and get it going
again. An example is helping the sovereign
state of Bosnia-Herzegovina and
Kosovo. These are two countries that
broke away or are trying to break away and
become sovereign complete and not
worry about Serbs coming in to ruin their way
of life. What I am saying is
that the US is a big financial backer of the UN
but, we should give more in
the way a human personnel. The US is a country that
has many resources and we
use quite a bit for the defense of our own country,
but we should put some of
these resources to the use for the spread of peace
throughout the world. The
first real test of the UN came during the Korea War,
when the US lead forces
went to stop the invasion of South Korea from the
communist North
Korean/Chinese armies. That was a success, the UN didn't fall
apart like some
people thought, and the "spread of communism" stayed
north of the 38th
parallel. I know that this may seem ludicrous to some, that we
should get
more involved in the way things should be run around the world when
the
President of the United States doesn't know how to keep his pants zipped
up.
In the age of better communication and technological advances we
should be able
to spread peace and wealth around the world, and just not keep
power in the
hands of those who have it. We were once a world where we didn't
know or cared
what was happening in some third world nation that most of us
can't find on a
map, but in a world that grows closer with each click of the
mouse we need to
step and take a stand against oppressive leaders no matter
what country it is. I
believe that this can be done, I also believe that it
might not happen any time
in the next fifty years. I just hope that future
generations will look back at
years of war, conflict, and starvation in some
countries while others wasted
food, and wonder why didn't people try to make
things better for all? Why didn't
countries like the US, Great Britain,
France, Germany, and Japan step up and
give these countries the ability to
get moving in the right direction? I just
hope that this day will come, and
we can all live as a one.