UNSC bid of Japan, Germany, India and Brazil rejected. Is Japan to blame ?

[Duo]

The United Nations has become an expensive farce: The United States paying the lion's share of the budget for the world's largest anti-American organization.

Actually the US hasn't payed their dues to the UN in quite a while now...

[lexico]

Actually the US hasn't payed their dues to the UN in quite a while now...

Is that why they got criticized ?
*bill reads: three months overdue... notice to quit or ..."

[Bramicus]

Actually the US hasn't payed their dues to the UN in quite a while now...

You need to do your homework. The United States contributed $438 million to the United Nations' 2005 budget of more than $1.8 billion, making it the largest donor.

[bossel]

You need to do your homework. The United States contributed $438 million to the United Nations' 2005 budget of more than $1.8 billion, making it the largest donor.

Speaking of doing your homework: paying the assessed contribution of 2005 (if the US actually already did so, don't know) does not relieve the debt from past years. If my info is correct, the US still owes the UN some 1.55 billion $ for the regular budget, peace-keeping operations & tribunals.

The US is paying (when they actually pay once in a while) the lion's share, because they have the biggest GNP. Actually, for quite a while they paid less than they would have had to acc. to the contribution key, because the US budget was over the ceiling of 25% of the combined GNPs of the world (could you call that "world GDP"?).

[Bramicus]

paying the assessed contribution of 2005 (if the US actually already did so, don't know) does not relieve the debt from past years. If my info is correct, the US still owes the UN some 1.55 billion $ for the regular budget, peace-keeping operations & tribunals.

Actually the United States has been paid up on its dues for several years, since the disagreement about five years ago was resolved. As for the matter of peacekeeping operations financing, etc., that is a different matter. Some years the United States ends up owing the United Nations; some years the United Nations owes the United States a refund. That's usually resolved by the next year and is merely a matter of bookkeeping.

I think I read somewhere that the House of Representatives has recently (over the objections of the Bush administration) passed a bill threatening to withhold half the U.S. dues unless the United Nations fulfills certain criteria. That's politics for you.

[bossel]

Actually the United States has been paid up on its dues for several years, since the disagreement about five years ago was resolved. As for the matter of peacekeeping operations financing, etc., that is a different matter. Some years the United States ends up owing the United Nations; some years the United Nations owes the United States a refund. That's usually resolved by the next year and is merely a matter of bookkeeping.

Not really. As of May 2005 the US owed the UN for the regular budget alone a smacking 607m $, 241m $ of those are prior years' due. I don't know if & how much the US paid in June & July 2005, but I seriously doubt that they paid the whole amount.

Peacekeeping operations, US debt: 893m $
Tribunals: 54m $
Total: 1.554 billion $

[lexico]

India slams 'alternative proposals' on UNSC
Dharam Shourie (PTI)
United Nations, July 2, 2005

In a harsh attack on UN member states like China who advocate consensus as the only basis for expansion of Security Council, India has asserted that the strength of developing nations is their numbers and to deny them vote would mean taking away their main weapon.

"To say that there should be no vote but a consensus is to disarm them (developing nations) of their main weapon. The rhetoric of anti-privilege masks the reality of a cynical defence of entrenched privilege," Indian Ambassador Nirupam Sen on Friday told the United Nations General Assembly's high level segment considering a document on UN reforms to be presented to a September summit of world leaders for adoption.

Rejecting proposals which either call for expansion in only non-permanent category or seek to deny developing countries a place among permanent members, he said accepting them would mean status quo which will neither empower General Assembly, not help enhance developing nations' role in the decision making process.

Sen said "a country that displaced another through a vote" is now proposing consensus for others, an apparent reference to Communist China's bid on October 25, 1971 to replace Republic of China as sole representative of China in the UN through a procedural vote. The Assembly had then rejected credentials of Republic of China and accepted those of the People's Republic of China.

"After winning the vote by a bare majority, it proposes much above two-thirds majority for others," Sen said without naming China. "It talks of participation of developing countries but blocks their real participation through expansion of permanent membership leading to improved working methods involving them in UNSC subsidiary bodies."

The Uniting for Consensus (UFC) group led by Pakistan and Italy and supported by China has proposed that expansion should be only in the non-permanent category by addition of ten members. But G-4 have drafted a resolution, which calls for addition of six permanent and four non-permanent members.

US pressured China into supporting Japan's entry, but it didn't for India ?? Both the US and China are opposed to the G-4 proposal, and the 12 nations in the Pakistan lead UFC, Argentine, Canada, Colombia, Costa Rica, Italy, S.Korea, Malta, San Marino, Mexico, Spain, and Turkey also choose to oppose the G-4 proposal.