EU urges U.S. not to cut U.N. funds, stay committed to climate deal

[webfact]

EU urges U.S. not to cut U.N. funds, stay committed to climate deal

By Michelle Nichols

REUTERS
 

Frederica Mogherini, the European Union's Foreign Policy chief, attends a news conference with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov following their meeting in Moscow, Russia, April 24, 2017. REUTERS/Sergei Karpukhin

 

UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - The European Union urged the United States on Tuesday to keep funding U.N. agencies and stay committed to a global deal combating climate change as Washington pushed the 28-state bloc to increase its pressure on Syria, North Korea and Iran.

 

U.S. President Donald Trump has proposed an unspecified reduction in funding for the United Nations and its agencies, as well as enforcement of a 25 percent cap on U.S. funding for peacekeeping operations.

 

Agencies such as the U.N. children's agency UNICEF, the World Food Progamme and the U.N. refugee agency UNHCR are funded voluntarily by governments and the United States is a top contributor to many of them.

 

"Let me be very clear, and speak directly to our American friends. It is essential for us that we all keep investing in these U.N. agencies. They are as important to global peace and security as defence spending – or even more," EU Foreign Policy chief Federica Mogherini told the U.N. Security Council.

 

She said EU funding amounted to half the agencies' total budgets and was a contribution "to our own common security."

 

Washington also pays 22 percent of the $5.4 billion core U.N. budget and 28.5 percent of the $7.9 billion peacekeeping budget. These assessed contributions are agreed by the 193-member U.N. General Assembly.

 

Trump complained last month that the United States shoulders an unfair burden of the cost of the U.N., but said if the world body reforms how it operates, the investment would be worth it.

 

Mogherini also pushed Washington to stay committed to a global agreement to combat climate change, a deal that Trump has threatened to quit. He has promised to announce a decision by the end of May.

 

"Climate change is real, and is already impacting on our security environment. Everything is linked. So we continue to hope that the United States will find a way to remain committed to the Paris Agreement," Mogherini said.

 

U.S. Ambassador Nikki Haley called on the EU to "apply more rigorous sanctions" on Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and his government and "impose tough autonomous measures" on North Korea and downgrade diplomatic and economic ties with the Asian state.

 

On Iran, Haley told the Security Council: "The European Union can and should do more to underscore to Iran that its destabilising actions in the region, including support for extremist and terrorist groups, must cease."

 

(Reporting by Michelle Nichols; Editing by James Dalgleish and Tom Brown)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2017-05-10

[khwaibah]

They are afraid that their gravy train will stop running.

 

[darksidedog]

So the US spends about $1.2 billion on the UN and Donald thinks that is too much, but he is happy to spend close to $30 Billion on a wall.

With the whole world coming together for an agreement on combating climate change, he wants the US to pull out, which would be disastrous.

I do hope that one day he will understand the bigger picture.

[boomerangutang]

                                     Sorry European leaders.   You know the US has an anti-science dufus in charge now, don't you?   All bets are off.   All reasonable decisions from the US are a thing of the recent past.  It's a whole new ball game.  Now, you've got to expect dumbass decisions from the WH.   Sorry, but things won't get better for at least 2 years - when hopefully, there will be a majority of reasonable people in Congress.   Until then, it's going to be a bumpy uphill slog.

[MaxYakov]

4 hours ago, darksidedog said:

So the US spends about $1.2 billion on the UN and Donald thinks that is too much, but he is happy to spend close to $30 Billion on a wall.

With the whole world coming together for an agreement on combating climate change, he wants the US to pull out, which would be disastrous.

I do hope that one day he will understand the bigger picture.

The UN - Not worth even $1.2 billion (if that's what it is)

The Wall - Priceless

 

If the EU urges it (whatever it is) it must be a bad idea.

[nauseus]

"Climate change is real, and is already impacting on our security environment. Everything is linked. So we continue to hope that the United States will find a way to remain committed to the Paris Agreement," Mogherini said.

 

The climate must be changing a lot faster than I thought to impact the security environment (whatever that is supposed to mean)? 

[elgordo38]

10 hours ago, darksidedog said:

So the US spends about $1.2 billion on the UN and Donald thinks that is too much, but he is happy to spend close to $30 Billion on a wall.

With the whole world coming together for an agreement on combating climate change, he wants the US to pull out, which would be disastrous.

I do hope that one day he will understand the bigger picture.

Nevvvvver happen. He thinks in 8MM

[boomerangutang]

4 hours ago, nauseus said:

"Climate change is real, and is already impacting on our security environment. Everything is linked. So we continue to hope that the United States will find a way to remain committed to the Paris Agreement," Mogherini said.

 

The climate must be changing a lot faster than I thought to impact the security environment (whatever that is supposed to mean)? 

It's not the words I would use, but here's what I think it means:

 

                               People worry about their personal safety and security,  Americans no less than others.

If climate keeps changing fast, primarily in regard to (but not exclusively) rising seas and increased desertification, then that will exacerbate the number and desperation of migrants.  Part of that manifests in more armed conflicts, more poor people, increasing over-fishing (already, hundreds of Chinese fishing vessels are encroaching on shorelines worldwide), spreading of disease, and so on.

[nauseus]

28 minutes ago, boomerangutang said:

It's not the words I would use, but here's what I think it means:

 

                               People worry about their personal safety and security,  Americans no less than others.

If climate keeps changing fast, primarily in regard to (but not exclusively) rising seas and increased desertification, then that will exacerbate the number and desperation of migrants.  Part of that manifests in more armed conflicts, more poor people, increasing over-fishing (already, hundreds of Chinese fishing vessels are encroaching on shorelines worldwide), spreading of disease, and so on.

A lot of links in that chain.  

[USPatriot]

12 hours ago, darksidedog said:

So the US spends about $1.2 billion on the UN and Donald thinks that is too much, but he is happy to spend close to $30 Billion on a wall.

With the whole world coming together for an agreement on combating climate change, he wants the US to pull out, which would be disastrous.

I do hope that one day he will understand the bigger picture.

Once again you are wrong but you just hate trump and America.

Each year the United States gives approximately $8 billion in mandatory payments and voluntary contributions to the United Nations and its affiliated organizations. The biggest portion of this money – about $3 billion this year – goes to the U.N.’s regular and peacekeeping budgets.

[Scott]

Off-topic posts removed.   Please stay on topic.  

[Dumbastheycome]

13 hours ago, darksidedog said:

So the US spends about $1.2 billion on the UN and Donald thinks that is too much, but he is happy to spend close to $30 Billion on a wall.

With the whole world coming together for an agreement on combating climate change, he wants the US to pull out, which would be disastrous.

I do hope that one day he will understand the bigger picture.

He only sees  the  biggest  picture !  Sadly  he is  not  so photogenic !

[anon4546543]

13 hours ago, MaxYakov said:

The UN - Not worth even $1.2 billion (if that's what it is)

The Wall - Priceless

 

If the EU urges it (whatever it is) it must be a bad idea.

Sadly, the UN is mostly just a huge expensive talkfest. The so called security council is a joke, most programmes are totally ineffective. (anyone quote a positive)

The fact that any of five countries can veto some positive measures shows just how much a waste of time and money this huge over bloated organisation has become.

And all the spongers that administer and suck the funds away. UN is a total and worthless joke.

Even some "good" parts of this organisation such as UNESCO could be administered at a fraction of the cost by some devoted practical deliverers of services, not the corrupt current spongers. 

I would close it down.

As an aside, I saw a programme about the EU. The presenter bragged that the EU had more diplomats, representatives, clerks and hangers on, spongers than all of the UN. 

I hope you see my point.

[boomerangutang]

                              The UN is like democracy:   it's cumbersome and rife with problems, but it's the best system/entity for the job.

 

                      If the world is screwed up with the UN and all its peace-keeping / environmental / human rights initiatives, ......imagine what the world would be like without the UN.  

 

                        Before the UN, there were world wars on average about every 30 years (each generation of men were required to don metal helmets and march off to trenches).   Since the UN, there have been some military conflicts but no wars involving full-tilt employments of military hardware/personnel of large powerful countries.

 

                               The UN also does a lot re; environmental studies and recommendations.  I've perused parts of their online site for over an hour.  unep.org     

 

 

 

[Ahab]

The UN is a complete joke and utter failure. The US should cut funding to every thing except humanitarian relief, kick them out of New York and let them relocate to somewhere in the EU or perhaps Middle East. Good riddance!

Edited May 11, 2017 by Ahab
Spelling

[thaibeachlovers]

1 hour ago, boomerangutang said:

                              The UN is like democracy:   it's cumbersome and rife with problems, but it's the best system/entity for the job.

 

                      If the world is screwed up with the UN and all its peace-keeping / environmental / human rights initiatives, ......imagine what the world would be like without the UN.  

 

                        Before the UN, there were world wars on average about every 30 years (each generation of men were required to don metal helmets and march off to trenches).   Since the UN, there have been some military conflicts but no wars involving full-tilt employments of military hardware/personnel of large powerful countries.

 

                               The UN also does a lot re; environmental studies and recommendations.  I've perused parts of their online site for over an hour.  unep.org     

 

 

 

You refer only to Euro conflicts. The countless millions that have been maimed and killed in the many, many proxy wars fought in Sth America, Asia and Africa would disagree with you.

[Scott]

Troll post removed.  

[thaibeachlovers]

13 hours ago, USPatriot said:

Once again you are wrong but you just hate trump and America.

Each year the United States gives approximately $8 billion in mandatory payments and voluntary contributions to the United Nations and its affiliated organizations. The biggest portion of this money – about $3 billion this year – goes to the U.N.’s regular and peacekeeping budgets.

The so called peacekeepers are a waste of space- Yugoslavia, Bosnia, Srebrenica, Rawanda, South Sudan, etc. Even in Haiti, all they did was give them cholera.

 

[Srikcir]

On 5/10/2017 at 8:32 AM, webfact said:

if the world body reforms how it operates, the investment would be worth it.

Said same thing about NATO. Then after meeting with NATO officials Trump declared that NATO has changed and US funding will continue at present levels. 

With an education from US Ambassador to the UN Haley and Secretary of State Tillerson, I expect the same response from Trump on UN funding.

[jerojero]

Talking to brick wall. Oh! And brick wall has more intelligence than Trump.

[ilostmypassword]

Indian solar power prices hit record low, undercutting fossil fuels

Wholesale solar power prices have reached another record low in India, faster than analysts predicted and further undercutting the price of fossil fuel-generated power in the country.

The tumbling price of solar energy also increases the likelihood that India will meet – and by its own predictions, exceed – the renewable energy targets it set at the Paris climate accords in December 2015.

India is the world’s third-largest carbon polluter, with emissions forecast to at least double as it seeks to develop its economy and lift hundreds of millions of citizens out of poverty.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/may/10/indian-solar-power-prices-hit-record-low-undercutting-fossil-fuels

[jerojero]

So the US spends about $1.2 billion on the UN and Donald thinks that is too much, but he is happy to spend close to $30 Billion on a wall.
With the whole world coming together for an agreement on combating climate change, he wants the US to pull out, which would be disastrous.
I do hope that one day he will understand the bigger picture.

But a wall will make him and millions of stupid Republicans feel better. 'One day' with Trump will never come. Sad.

[Dumbastheycome]

This  topic  demonstrates  the typical lack of  consensus that institutions such as the  UN  and  Nato  do at least  provide  some  measure of  moderation. 

The  general public  internationally  are mostly  victim  to the  aspirations  of those  that contrive themselves  into  power by use of the  illusion of  democracy. 

The  remainder  have  never  known  even this  illusion of democracy.

The result  of intervention on their  behalf  does  not seem to provide  anything  better and  usually  worse.

But the  great propaganda  machine would  have  you  believe  otherwise.

Because where and when it happens  there is a payoff... but it is not yours or intended  to  ever be!

 

 

 

 

[habanero]

On 5/10/2017 at 8:50 AM, darksidedog said:

So the US spends about $1.2 billion on the UN and Donald thinks that is too much, but he is happy to spend close to $30 Billion on a wall.

With the whole world coming together for an agreement on combating climate change, he wants the US to pull out, which would be disastrous.

I do hope that one day he will understand the bigger picture.

I don't think the U.S. should give one red dime to the U.N.. In fact, I would like to see the U.N. leave New York.  

[Dumbastheycome]

12 minutes ago, habanero said:

I don't think the U.S. should give one red dime to the U.N.. In fact, I would like to see the U.N. leave New York.  

About the  same  time  the  US  leaves  territory  it  occupies  by annexing 

[the guest]

On 2017-05-10 at 3:50 AM, darksidedog said:

So the US spends about $1.2 billion on the UN and Donald thinks that is too much, but he is happy to spend close to $30 Billion on a wall.

With the whole world coming together for an agreement on combating climate change, he wants the US to pull out, which would be disastrous.

I do hope that one day he will understand the bigger picture.

But he said, 'and the Mexicans will pay for it'. 

[Scott]

Troll post removed.  

 

Please stay on topic.

[habanero]

9 hours ago, Dumbastheycome said:

About the  same  time  the  US  leaves  territory  it  occupies  by annexing 

I think the cost to the US is totally unfair. The real estate value and the cost to New York City, makes it unwise to keep the United Nations in New York any longer. Other countries could benefit more by having the UN in their own backyard. Also, the cost to the US would greatly be reduced. 

 I know this may be a little off topic, but I think I needed to respond. 

Also, which territories would you be referring to?

[Rhys]

...you mean 45 CH did not send them a letter?