Back to General

More UN problems

Historical capture recovered from the Wayback Machine · captured 2008-05-06 · 130 posts
U.N.'s World Food Program Cried Poverty While Sitting on Cash Stockpile of More Than $1.22 Billion
Friday, May 02, 2008

E-Mail Print Share:

Just weeks before it announced the onset of a global food crisis and the urgent need for donors to provide at least $775 million in additional funding, the World Food Program (WFP) was sitting on a cash and near-cash stockpile of more than $1.22 billion.

The startling figure is contained in the latest audited statements of the WFP, which were endorsed by WFP’s executive director, Josette Sheeran, on March 31, 2008 — just a month before Sheeran announced at an international aid conference on April 22 that a “silent tsunami” in rising food prices demanded the huge infusion of cash for WFP’s latest budget.

In an op-ed article published in the International Herald Tribune on May 1, U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon further declared that the WFP had just “$18 million cash in hand” in the wake of its appeal for emergency funding.

The audited statements are due to be presented to the annual Rome meeting of WFP’s supervisory executive board in June.

Click here to see the audited financial statements.

The $1.22 billion figure, tallied as of December 31, 2007, represents an increase of nearly $400 million over the WFP’s cash reserves a year earlier, as laid out in a report to the WFP’s governing executive board in June 2007.

Click here to see the investment performance report.

The cash stockpile was in addition to pledges for an additional $1.33 billion, all of which left the organization with more than $2 billion in anticipated cash and reserves just before it made its most recent urgent appeal.

In all, the auditors declared, WFP had added an additional $91 million in cash assets over the 12-month period, leaving the U.N.’s emergency food supplier with roughly the same reserve assets it held in 2005.

Asked a series of questions about the reserves by email yesterday, WFP had not replied by the time this story was published.

Ever since WFP first announced the looming crisis of food aid for the world’s poorest people — based largely on dramatic international hikes in food costs — the World Food Program and other United Nations spokesmen, including Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, have been steadily ratcheting up the tab required to top off WFP’s budget to meet 2008 needs.

Initially, Sheeran announced that some $500 million was needed, though she added that would not fully fund such things as school food programs for some 20 million hungry youngsters. By the time of the aid conference, attended largely by U.N. agencies and World Bank representatives, the needed funding had risen to $775 million.

By the time the conference ended, Secretary General Ban put the shortfall at roughly $1 billion.

Ban also announced that a U.N. task force dealing with the food crisis would need as much as $1.6 billion in additional funding for seed programs and other means of expanding the global food supply.

On Thursday, President George W. Bush called on Congress to add $770 million in new international food aid to some $350 million in new aid he announced after WFP announced the “silent tsunami” crisis.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,353944,00.html
Wow. Moon says they only have 18 million and then an audit shows 1.2 billion.. Im convinced the UN is riddled with corruption
The U.N. is criminal and should be abandoned/destroyed.

Fuck them and the horse they rode in on.
___________________________
Nemo me impune lacessit
Originally posted by: -]45th[-*Devil
The U.N. is criminal and should be abandoned/destroyed.

Fuck them and the horse they rode in on.


Actually, their laws are the supreme law of our land according to the Constitution
Originally posted by: -]45th[-*Devil
The U.N. is criminal and should be abandoned/destroyed.

Fuck them and the horse they rode in on.


I think in theory the UN could be great. But currently they fall so short they are ineffective
Originally posted by: -]45th[-*Devil

Fuck them and the horse they rode in on.


Signed.
Originally posted by: DieselFuel!
Originally posted by: -]45th[-*Devil
The U.N. is criminal and should be abandoned/destroyed.

Fuck them and the horse they rode in on.


Actually, their laws are the supreme law of our land according to the Constitution


Who voted on joining the U.N.? (this is a serious question) Was it the U.S. Congress or the States themselves?
___________________________
Nemo me impune lacessit
I think there's alot of confusion as to who actually signed what. Just because we participate in something, doesn't neccessarily mean we are obligated to.

For example - The US never signed the Hague treaty, although we loosely cooperate with its guidelines.
What I'm getting at is this: The U.N. isn't a treaty, it is a government. If the United States Congress signed us up to participate in the U.N., I would say that is illegitimate. I am of the opinion that for it to be valid, then just like the U.S. Constitution, a vote would have to go to each State and be ratified by the States.
___________________________
Nemo me impune lacessit
Originally posted by: DevilNuts
I think there's alot of confusion as to who actually signed what. Just because we participate in something, doesn't neccessarily mean we are obligated to.



According to the Constitution, you are dead wrong.
Originally posted by: -]45th[-*Devil
If the United States Congress signed us up to participate in the U.N.


You do realize that Congress represents that states, correct? I mean, that is kind of the whole point of it's existence.
Originally posted by: DieselFuel!
Originally posted by: DevilNuts
I think there's alot of confusion as to who actually signed what. Just because we participate in something, doesn't neccessarily mean we are obligated to.



According to the Constitution, you are dead wrong.


Outline your case. I would like to hear this.
A Coward dies a thousand deaths, a Hero only one.
Originally posted by: Aria Giovanni.pZ
i am a pussy
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_clause
Originally posted by: DieselFuel!
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_clause


I thought that was what you were alluding to. So my next question: Do you consider the UN a "treaty"?

A Coward dies a thousand deaths, a Hero only one.
Originally posted by: Aria Giovanni.pZ
i am a pussy
Originally posted by: [-NM-] -SS-
Originally posted by: DieselFuel!
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_clause


I thought that was what you were alluding to. So my next question: Do you consider the UN a "treaty"?



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Charter

The United Nations Charter is the treaty that forms and establishes the international organization called the United Nations[1]. It was signed at the United Nations Conference on International Organization in San Francisco, California, United States, in 1945, by 50 of the 51 original member countries.
Originally posted by: DieselFuel!
Originally posted by: [-NM-] -SS-
Originally posted by: DieselFuel!
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_clause


I thought that was what you were alluding to. So my next question: Do you consider the UN a "treaty"?



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Charter

The United Nations Charter is the treaty that forms and establishes the international organization called the United Nations[1]. It was signed at the United Nations Conference on International Organization in San Francisco, California, United States, in 1945, by 50 of the 51 original member countries.


So you consider a treaty that creates the foundation of the UN as comparable to.. say NAFTA?

I ask that you outline your position better instead of just a quote and link. I find that irritating. In other words, elaborate on your position, otherwise you leave the rest of us wonder where you really stand on the issue and that would be your fault.


A Coward dies a thousand deaths, a Hero only one.
Originally posted by: Aria Giovanni.pZ
i am a pussy
Legally, the only manner in which we, as a nation, may act opposite the clauses and legislated determination of the UN is to withdraw our membership from the UN Charter.

Sorry, SS.
Originally posted by: [-NM-] -SS-


So you consider a treaty that creates the foundation of the UN as comparable to.. say NAFTA?

I ask that you outline your position better instead of just a quote and link. I find that irritating. In other words, elaborate on your position, otherwise you leave the rest of us wonder where you really stand on the issue and that would be your fault.



I didn't know I needed to elaborate, I thought it was pretty cut and dried. We signed a treaty in the UN Charter that Constitutionally bound us to the UN rules.

I am not saying I approve or disapprove. I just thought it should be mentioned. I know some of our resident rabid 2nd amendment advocates would never want to cheapen the Constitution.
Originally posted by: T. Wrecks
Legally, the only manner in which we, as a nation, may act opposite the clauses and legislated determination of the UN is to withdraw our membership from the UN Charter.


T.Wrecks would know, he used to be a captain!

Originally posted by: [-NM-] -SS-
So you consider a treaty that creates the foundation of the UN as comparable to.. say NAFTA?

Under US law, no it's not. Under US law NAFTA is considered a congressional agreement, not a treaty. The UN was formed by a chartered agreement, which under US law holds the same status as a treaty.TW is correct, the only way we can ignore the UN is to leave the UN.

What a lot of people don't know is that anything the UN passes automatically supercedes anything we may have as an individual nation.
Post edited by Psicotic1 at 5/2/2008 10:52:23 AM
Originally posted by: DieselFuel!
Originally posted by: [-NM-] -SS-


So you consider a treaty that creates the foundation of the UN as comparable to.. say NAFTA?

I ask that you outline your position better instead of just a quote and link. I find that irritating. In other words, elaborate on your position, otherwise you leave the rest of us wonder where you really stand on the issue and that would be your fault.



I didn't know I needed to elaborate, I thought it was pretty cut and dried. We signed a treaty in the UN Charter that Constitutionally bound us to the UN rules.

I am not saying I approve or disapprove. I just thought it should be mentioned. I know some of our resident rabid 2nd amendment advocates would never want to cheapen the Constitution.

I need to learn to type faster
Originally posted by: Psicotic1
Originally posted by: [-NM-] -SS-
So you consider a treaty that creates the foundation of the UN as comparable to.. say NAFTA?

Under US law, no it's not. Under US law NAFTA is considered a congressional agreement, not a treaty. The UN was formed by a chartered agreement, which under US law holds the same status as a treaty.TW is correct, the only way we can ignore the UN is to leave the UN.

What a lot of people don't know is that anything the UN passes automatically supercedes anything we may have as an individual nation.


I don't think that is true Psi. I believe their are provisions in various areas. THey cannot for example dictate to us where we deploy our military. I will have to review this since its been a long time but their are exclusions set forth to prevent the UN from goverining us.
Okay, we will wait patiently for examples of said clauses.
Originally posted by: Psicotic1

What a lot of people don't know is that anything the UN passes automatically supercedes anything we may have as an individual nation.


Which is why I hate the UN. It destroys our nations sovereignty and with it, each individual State's sovereignty as well.

Fuck that.
___________________________
Nemo me impune lacessit
Blame the Constitution.
Originally posted by: -]45th[-*Devil
Originally posted by: Psicotic1

What a lot of people don't know is that anything the UN passes automatically supercedes anything we may have as an individual nation.


Which is why I hate the UN. It destroys our nations sovereignty and with it, each individual State's sovereignty as well.

Fuck that.


The UN can't do anything like that. They can make policy decisions for the members but who is gonna enforce anything they do? Hell, we passed a few resolutions in congress to hold money from them and they really couldnt do anything. So don't worry
Any luck on those clauses yet?
Originally posted by: DieselFuel!
Any luck on those clauses yet?


Havent looked and probably won't until this weekend. Any luck on growing up?
Another unprovoked insult from the victim? I thought you only attacked when people attacked you?

Oh well.


Originally posted by: ~~Snake~~
Originally posted by: Psicotic1
Originally posted by: [-NM-] -SS-
So you consider a treaty that creates the foundation of the UN as comparable to.. say NAFTA?

Under US law, no it's not. Under US law NAFTA is considered a congressional agreement, not a treaty. The UN was formed by a chartered agreement, which under US law holds the same status as a treaty.TW is correct, the only way we can ignore the UN is to leave the UN.

What a lot of people don't know is that anything the UN passes automatically supercedes anything we may have as an individual nation.


I don't think that is true Psi. I believe their are provisions in various areas. THey cannot for example dictate to us where we deploy our military. I will have to review this since its been a long time but their are exclusions set forth to prevent the UN from goverining us.

Yes, I suggest you reread the Charter also. It most certainly does give them the right to dictate to member states. Especially if it goes to the International Court of Justice:
Originally posted by: Article 94 Paragraph 1
Each Member of the United Nations undertakes to comply with the decision of the International Court of Justice in any case to which it is a party.


Originally posted by: Article 104
In the event of a conflict between the obligations of the Members of the United Nations under the present Charter and their obligations under any other international agreement, their obligations under the present Charter shall prevail.


No matter what laws or treaties a nation may mave, UN laws and treaties trump.Since the basis of the thread was on treaties, that's what I was refering to.Not miltiary deployment.And in many instances, yes they can dictate to member states where their military is deployed.UN peacekeeping forces are one example. The Charter limits the UN's ability to dictate military deployment if the deployment is in response to an immediate threat to that nation.


Post edited by Psicotic1 at 5/2/2008 11:57:00 AM
Originally posted by: T. Wrecks
Legally, the only manner in which we, as a nation, may act opposite the clauses and legislated determination of the UN is to withdraw our membership from the UN Charter.

Sorry, SS.


Nothing to apologize for and didnt take it that way. What I am alluding to is a much bigger issue and that would be our sovereignty.

I understand that it can be argued that the Supremacy Clause is treated as if it were our own, but I find it very difficult to believe that we as a Nation would hold a treaty that establishes a UN Council and members with the ability to supersede our very own laws and structure. Obviously for the UN to enforce them is a completely different matter altogether. Look at our Treaty with NATO. Should they have say in our affairs, especially internal?

I see it as a technicality that needs to be reviewed and done away with because of the inherent dangers of the wording. What if the UN decided to interfere with our election process by voting in one of the current candidates and did so under the Clause?

Look back and you will understand why I asked the questions I did. Understand the intent now? So ask yourself, would the UN really be a part of the Supremacy Clause?

I would say HELL NO, but I am not a lawyer either, haha.

A Coward dies a thousand deaths, a Hero only one.
Originally posted by: Aria Giovanni.pZ
i am a pussy
Originally posted by: DieselFuel!
Another unprovoked insult from the victim? I thought you only attacked when people attacked you?

Oh well.




I don't like you and will make an exception!


Originally posted by: Psicotic1
Originally posted by: ~~Snake~~
Originally posted by: Psicotic1
Originally posted by: [-NM-] -SS-
So you consider a treaty that creates the foundation of the UN as comparable to.. say NAFTA?

Under US law, no it's not. Under US law NAFTA is considered a congressional agreement, not a treaty. The UN was formed by a chartered agreement, which under US law holds the same status as a treaty.TW is correct, the only way we can ignore the UN is to leave the UN.

What a lot of people don't know is that anything the UN passes automatically supercedes anything we may have as an individual nation.


I don't think that is true Psi. I believe their are provisions in various areas. THey cannot for example dictate to us where we deploy our military. I will have to review this since its been a long time but their are exclusions set forth to prevent the UN from goverining us.

Yes, I suggest you reread the Charter also. It most certainly does give them the right to dictate to member states. Especially if it goes to the International Court of Justice:
Originally posted by: Article 94 Paragraph 1
Each Member of the United Nations undertakes to comply with the decision of the International Court of Justice in any case to which it is a party.


Originally posted by: Article 104
In the event of a conflict between the obligations of the Members of the United Nations under the present Charter and their obligations under any other international agreement, their obligations under the present Charter shall prevail.


No matter what laws or treaties a nation may mave, UN laws and treaties trump.



That is still not correct Psi. Maybe its how Im looking at it. For example the UN or UN security council couldnt tell us to send our military into a conflict and we just have to listen. They couldnt tell us to change our currency. They couldnt tell us to change to the metric system. They simply make policy decisions they expect member states to comply with.

Which is why when congress voted on holding money from them they couldnt do anything even when it was in violation of that charter.

Originally posted by: Psicotic1
Originally posted by: ~~Snake~~
Originally posted by: Psicotic1
Originally posted by: [-NM-] -SS-
So you consider a treaty that creates the foundation of the UN as comparable to.. say NAFTA?

Under US law, no it's not. Under US law NAFTA is considered a congressional agreement, not a treaty. The UN was formed by a chartered agreement, which under US law holds the same status as a treaty.TW is correct, the only way we can ignore the UN is to leave the UN.

What a lot of people don't know is that anything the UN passes automatically supercedes anything we may have as an individual nation.


I don't think that is true Psi. I believe their are provisions in various areas. THey cannot for example dictate to us where we deploy our military. I will have to review this since its been a long time but their are exclusions set forth to prevent the UN from goverining us.

Yes, I suggest you reread the Charter also. It most certainly does give them the right to dictate to member states. Especially if it goes to the International Court of Justice:
Originally posted by: Article 94 Paragraph 1
Each Member of the United Nations undertakes to comply with the decision of the International Court of Justice in any case to which it is a party.


Originally posted by: Article 104
In the event of a conflict between the obligations of the Members of the United Nations under the present Charter and their obligations under any other international agreement, their obligations under the present Charter shall prevail.


No matter what laws or treaties a nation may mave, UN laws and treaties trump.



You are wasting your time. We were right the first time, and we could post the entire charter and Constitution broke down with commentary, and you are still going to get "Sorry, you're wrong" without one iota of evidence to back of the argument.

Nice work, thanks for elaborating on my initial point.
Originally posted by: ~~Snake~~
For example the UN or UN security council couldnt tell us to send our military into a conflict and we just have to listen.

Originally posted by: Article 43 Paragraph 1
All Members of the United Nations, in order to contribute to the maintenance of international peace and security, undertake to make available to the Security Council, on its call and in accordance with a special agreement or agreements, armed forces, assistance, and facilities, including rights of passage, necessary for the purpose of maintaining international peace and security.
Post edited by Psicotic1 at 5/2/2008 12:04:52 PM
Originally posted by: Psicotic1
Originally posted by: ~~Snake~~
For example the UN or UN security council couldnt tell us to send our military into a conflict and we just have to listen.

Originally posted by: Article 43 Paragraph 1
All Members of the United Nations, in order to contribute to the maintenance of international peace and security, undertake to make available to the Security Council, on its call and in accordance with a special agreement or agreements, armed forces, assistance, and facilities, including rights of passage, necessary for the purpose of maintaining international peace and security.





We can disect that clause like anything in the legal system to exactly what it means or not. And again I would state you are incorrect if you think the UN could tell us to deploy our military in a war and we would just have to listen. Hell, we can't even agree on the constitution in this country and how its interpreted.

Weird my post will not separate from your bold or quote. And I have it outside of your quote. odd:

Post edited by ~~Snake~~ at 5/2/2008 12:07:05 PM
Originally posted by: DieselFuel!
You are wasting your time. We were right the first time, and we could post the entire charter and Constitution broke down with commentary, and you are still going to get "Sorry, you're wrong" without one iota of evidence to back of the argument.

Nice work, thanks for elaborating on my initial point.

Beginning to see that.
Originally posted by: Psicotic1
Originally posted by: DieselFuel!
You are wasting your time. We were right the first time, and we could post the entire charter and Constitution broke down with commentary, and you are still going to get "Sorry, you're wrong" without one iota of evidence to back of the argument.

Nice work, thanks for elaborating on my initial point.

Beginning to see that.


If you want to act like DF that is one thing. Im open to discussion on it but don't believe that we are obligated to do anything the UN states. You have not provided me any examples or furhter documentation from the US perspective that backs that. I already explained one case where we didnt pay the UN what was required and what happened? So please don't act like I don't take into consideration your points. I do and I don't believe you have convinced me otherwise.
Originally posted by: ~~Snake~~
You have not provided me any examples or furhter documentation from the US perspective that backs that.


You mean besides the Constitution?