In terms of spending, there would be a remote connection between the UN and the US military. Spending for all UN projects and agencies is about $10 Billion per year, whereas one estimate of US military spending for 2005 is currently at $420 Billion.

see…http://www.globalissues.org/Geopolitics/ArmsTrade/Spending.asp

This military budget by the US, will be almost as much as the military budgets of all other countries combined. Interesting that the US is in arrears in its UN fees.

Timkin - re: the US and arrears to the UN. The US is the largest contributor to the UN. Last figures I saw was that the USA's membership fees comprised 25% of all fees collected.

My understanding was also that the US had paid up, and it was during the Clinton period that the US was refusing to pay.

Without the USA's contribution, the UN would have been bankrupt long ago.

Roberto

I love the old Chestnut of "The Americans only act out of self -interest". Feeble minded lefties seem to preach this constantly.
All countries only ever act out of 'self-interest' & I defy any member of the left to give me an example of a country that dosen't.

BTW Steve - Great article.

Roberto,

It could be said that it is uncertain as to whether or not the US has fully paid up all its UN fees, but if a number of factors are considered such as national wealth, (or indeed spending on the military), then the US is only a small contributor to the UN compared to other countries. The US has also been quite obstructionist in the development of such things as the International Criminal Court.

Should the US start to go it alone too much, then of course it will become highly isolated in its policies, and it will then have a world wide PR problem to add to its other problems, such as its present economic problems.

If looked at very broadly, then the situation in Iraq has been a diplomatic disaster. The internal conflicts within Iraq, and the conflicts between Iraq and other countries have been occurring for decades. Literally millions have died or suffered horribly, (including many children), and many $100’s Billions have been spent, but at the end of it all, what is there to show?

The capture of Saddam Hussein and a few of his supporters, a partial democratic election, a country still in considerable conflict, great suffering of the people still continuing, and of course a few corporations have ingrained themselves into the Iraq economy.

I think it would be very useful to try and learn from it all, and to determine if there could have been a better way. This way could then be used if a situation similar to Iraq occurs again in the future. I think the CIA or the US government should not be allowed to continue to make the same mistakes indefinitely.

There is always a problem in using an army to try and bring about democracy, in that eventually there could be an enemy that has a better army. This occurred in Vietnam, and by various accounts, both Iran and North Korea may be able to beat the US if there was a war between them, particularly if the US forces are already stretched. This becomes very concerning, as the US might resort to nuclear weapons if they are being beaten. What then?

There has to be better ways developed to bring about improvements in world wide democracy (but mind you, I think our own government has a long way to get real democracy in government also).

Does anyone seriously think that a weakened and chastened America would result in a better, more peaceful world? The idea is stupid and could not be put forward with a serious face. I suppose it all boils down to what you want more. A peaceful democratic world or the destruction of America. It's pretty obvious what's more desirable to alot of people. All the negativity and damnation of the situation in Iraq is surely put forward with more than a healthy dose of schadenfreude.

How long did it take for democracy in France to truly flower after the revolution? How many fledgling democracies in Eastern Europe are still having teething problems after 16 years? How long did it take Western Europe to settle down after the withdrawl of Rome, who left behind the building blocks of stable and governable society? Yet democracy and stability in Iraq is supposed to be instantaneous! It's been 2 minutes since Iraq was liberated yet I see Amnesty International bleating on about women in Iraq being worse off now than before. I'd love to see the rationale behind this statement. Considering the level of genocide and political murders committed by Sadam and his sick government you'd think that Amnesty would have been in the forefront of support for the removal of this regime, but I suppose the pushing of a political barrow is more important than being fair dinkum about human rights.

The only hope for the world is political stability. The only way people get fed, housed and clothed is through political stability. Democracy, in any of its varied forms, is the most promising way of delivering this stability. Any set back for the US is of course a blow to democracy, and any blow to democracy is harmful to peace.

Timkins:
RE: your points:
1. If the US provides >25% of the UN's gross operating budget, then how could it be argued that the US is "...only a small contributor to the UN compared to other countries".

2. "...then the situation in Iraq has been a diplomatic disaster. The internal conflicts within Iraq, ... Literally millions have died or suffered horribly, (including many children), and many $100’s Billions have been spent..."

The issue is that Saddam is about 68 years old. He was never going to live forever, and he had installed a succession plan involving his two sons, who hated each other's guts! In the event that something happened to Saddam, the transitional arrangements of power were always going to be suspect, and lead to some type of uprising(s) such as from the Islamist Sunnis, the Shia's or the Kurds. By default this would have sucked in Iran to preserve its Western border and exert influence over the Shias, Kuwait in the South, Syria in the North East, Turkey rolling in to quell the Kurds - in other words a geo-political free-for-all. In this context US would have been called on to exert olitical and military pressure to control the situation.

Sure the situation as it currently is in Iraq, is difficult and disappointing. But it sure beats the above scenario.

Ps. The only real murdering and killing that is going on in Iraq is by the insurgents, with their indiscriminate suicide bombing etc. They have largely given up attacking the US and Coalition forces, and are concentrating on soft civilian targets. Perhaps is worth directing some condemnation at them!

Cheers

Roberto