Trump to host September 18 meeting of world leaders on U.N. reform

[rooster59]

Trump to host September 18 meeting of world leaders on U.N. reform

By Michelle Nichols

 

U.S. President Donald Trump arrives at the White House after a trip to Springfield, Missouri, in Washington D.C., August 30, 2017. REUTERS/Carlos Barria

 

UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - U.S. President Donald Trump, a frequent critic of the United Nations, will seek to gather global support for reforming the world body when he hosts an event at U.N. headquarters in New York on Sept. 18, a day before he formally addresses the 193-member organisation.

 

Countries will be invited to attend Trump's function if they sign on to a U.S.-drafted 10-point political declaration backing efforts by U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres "to initiate effective, meaningful reform," according to a draft of the political declaration seen by Reuters on Friday.

 

Trump has complained that the U.S. share of the world body's budget is unfair, pushed to slash funding and described it as a "club for people to get together, talk and have a good time."

 

Trump, who took office in January, has since described U.S. funding as "peanuts" compared to the important work of the organisation.

 

The United States is the biggest U.N. contributor, providing 22 percent of its $5.4 billion biennial core budget and 28.5 percent of its $7.3 billion peacekeeping budget. The contributions are agreed on by the 193-member General Assembly.

 

Trump, Guterres, who also took office in January, and U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley are scheduled to speak at the Sept. 18 event, diplomats said.

 

The draft political declaration states: "We support the secretary-general in making concrete changes in the United Nations system to better align its work on humanitarian response, development and sustaining peace initiatives."

 

"We commit to reducing mandate duplication, redundancy and overlap, including among the main organs of the United Nations," the draft declaration reads.

 

The United States also is reviewing each of the U.N. peacekeeping missions as annual mandates come up for Security Council renewal in a bid to cut costs. The United States is a veto-wielding council member, along with Britain, France, Russia and China.

 

Haley has said there is "a lot of fat around the edges and some abuses that happen at the U.N. but I do think it is very important that we make the most of it."

 

Ethiopia, which is president of the 15-member Security Council for September, said on Friday it would hold a high-level council meeting on peacekeeping reform on Sept. 20 that will be chaired by Ethiopian Prime Minister Hailemariam Desalegn.

 

Ethiopian U.N. Ambassador Tekeda Alemu told reporters it was unclear if Trump would attend the meeting, which would be his first appearance in the Security Council, but that he expected about 10 heads of state or government to be present.

 

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2017-09-02

[Dave67]

Oh my God, Trumps going to address the UN. Probably rant about The Wall and fake news, I bet his advisors are shitting themselves

[zaphod reborn]

I don't even think his master Putin will support him on this.

[boomerangutang]

For an hour before Trump goes to address the UN leaders' meeting, his advisors will be telling him; "Sir, please don't talk about how great Nazi sympathisers are.  Oh, and please don't repeat how you want to ban all Muslims from entering the US, ....or about the great big beautiful wall you're going to built, or..........."

 

Trump will smile, and say, "Don't worry, I'm president. Remember?  I'll do fine."

 

Then Trump will go on the dais, adjust the microphone and commence to say something like; "Ladies and gentlemen. Welcome.  I'm like a smart person, so I'm going to speak without a silly teleprompter.   I had a bigger crowd in January than Obama did. I'm very rich. Obama wiretapped my phones, he even put a security camera in my gold-plated sauna. So what are we here to talk about?  Oh yes, the U.N.  You people are doing alright, but the US pays too much.  Mexico is going to pay our share.  Believe me folks."

[Dave67]

1 hour ago, boomerangutang said:

For an hour before Trump goes to address the UN leaders' meeting, his advisors will be telling him; "Sir, please don't talk about how great Nazi sympathisers are.  Oh, and please don't repeat how you want to ban all Muslims from entering the US, ....or about the great big beautiful wall you're going to built, or..........."

 

Trump will smile, and say, "Don't worry, I'm president. Remember?  I'll do fine."

 

Then Trump will go on the dais, adjust the microphone and commence to say something like; "Ladies and gentlemen. Welcome.  I'm like a smart person, so I'm going to speak without a silly teleprompter.   I had a bigger crowd in January than Obama did. I'm very rich. Obama wiretapped my phones, he even put a security camera in my gold-plated sauna. So what are we here to talk about?  Oh yes, the U.N.  You people are doing alright, but the US pays too much.  Mexico is going to pay our share.  Believe me folks."

" I need facts, facts, you know what I mean, facts, I need the facts, I need the facts before I say anything, say anything, They were very bad people, bad people, and good people,  on both sides, both sides"

[farcanell]

Trumps going to be pissed when he learns that he can't fire UN delegates 

[Dave67]

Advisors say they Know how to keep Trump "On Message

[Thaidream]

Hopefully, General Kelly will have met with Trump and ordered him to follow the prepared script that has been written and contains a positive message. Should Trump go off script he will be on dangerous ground- such as presenting a bill to the United Nations for past due pledges and calling out various countries by name.

 

What amazes me is that as many times as Trump goes off script and 'shoots his mouth off' he just can't seem to understand why there is so much uproar.  A normal person would realize that you just can't say whatever  without sound thought and proper decorum and a realization that the World is listening.  You're right - Donald Trump is not normal- he thinks he is always right and shows severe symptoms of a narcissistic personality disorder.  Even when he went to Texas during a disaster- his speech centered on how big the crowd was that showed up.

[Jingthing]

The smart money is on trump coming off as a bigger clown than Bibi at the U.N.

 

Gentlemen -- place your bets!

[iReason]

9 minutes ago, Thaidream said:

Even when he went to Texas during a disaster- his speech centered on how big the crowd was that showed up.

"how big the crowd was"

 

First words that came out of his mouth when he addressed them.

[Credo]

He will stay on script at the UN.   Nobody is going to be impressed.   No voters there.   He doesn't usually even address anybody he doesn't want to or doesn't hold him in total adoration.   It will be a blah, blah, blah speech, punctuated with some silly, stupid requests and insulting to the intelligence of world leaders who have to listen.   

 

 

[hawker9000]

"UN reform".  What a joke.  Trump shouldn't waste his time; heaven knows the US has already wasted far too much money.   Just withdraw from it and kill the NYC lease.   It's worse than useless, unless you're some government flunky who can't get a job anywhere else, or an equally useless NGO for whom it's their favorite begging spot.

 

Edited September 2, 2017 by hawker9000

[simple1]

19 minutes ago, hawker9000 said:

"UN reform".  What a joke.  Trump shouldn't waste his time; heaven knows the US has already wasted far too much money.   Just withdraw from it and kill the NYC lease.   It's worse than useless, unless you're some government flunky who can't get a job anywhere else, or an equally useless NGO for whom it's their favorite begging spot.

 

UN often comes under criticism, but one doesn't see realistic alternatives suggested. A few achievements worth mentioning, eradication of smallpox & WHO plus numerous other positive outcomes. NGOs are crucial for humanitarian relief operations, though suppose some NGO activities would be a waste of space according to some.

[ilostmypassword]

1 hour ago, hawker9000 said:

"UN reform".  What a joke.  Trump shouldn't waste his time; heaven knows the US has already wasted far too much money.   Just withdraw from it and kill the NYC lease.   It's worse than useless, unless you're some government flunky who can't get a job anywhere else, or an equally useless NGO for whom it's their favorite begging spot.

 

Trump disagrees with you.

 

"Trump, who took office in January, has since described U.S. funding as "peanuts" compared to the important work of the organisation."

[craigt3365]

2 hours ago, simple1 said:

UN often comes under criticism, but one doesn't see realistic alternatives suggested. A few achievements worth mentioning, eradication of smallpox & WHO plus numerous other positive outcomes. NGOs are crucial for humanitarian relief operations, though suppose some NGO activities would be a waste of space according to some.

I use to work at the U.N. on occasion years ago. The stories I heard. Reform is desperately needed. They do have some great programs. But in other areas, a complete waste of time and money.

 

I support Trump on this. Sadly, doubt he'll be able to get anything done.

[farcanell]

8 hours ago, simple1 said:

UN often comes under criticism, but one doesn't see realistic alternatives suggested. A few achievements worth mentioning, eradication of smallpox & WHO plus numerous other positive outcomes. NGOs are crucial for humanitarian relief operations, though suppose some NGO activities would be a waste of space according to some.

And not to mention the fact that the world, as a whole, needs a place where delegates from all countries can be represented... regardless of effectiveness.

 

if the US doesn't want the UN in NYC, I'm sure it can be relocated to Brussels (for example), which I'm sure would be an economic and political win for that country/ city.

 

and.... world leaders should lead... the UN is a tool to do this, and only an idiot would throw that tool away. ( duh... my 8mm spanner wont fit the 12mm nut... toss that useless thing in the trash)

[Meljames]

Should be a good train wreck;  a la Qaddafi 

Edited September 3, 2017 by Meljames

[William C F Pierce]

Trump is a rogue Elephant that is easily frightened by a North Korean Mouse. What chance has he got of standing up to the Elephant Guns of other UN members if they choose to ignore or Veto him?

 

 

[Jingthing]

I use to work at the U.N. on occasion years ago. The stories I heard. Reform is desperately needed. They do have some great programs. But in other areas, a complete waste of time and money.
 
I support Trump on this. Sadly, doubt he'll be able to get anything done.

I can't bring myself to support 45 on anything. He's a national disgrace and embarrassment. I think better to say I support a position on a particular issue. Never him. Heck even the worst authoritarians in history favored some reasonable policies such as not poisoning all the babies.

[boomerangutang]

17 hours ago, hawker9000 said:

"UN reform".  What a joke.  Trump shouldn't waste his time; heaven knows the US has already wasted far too much money.   Just withdraw from it and kill the NYC lease.   It's worse than useless, unless you're some government flunky who can't get a job anywhere else, or an equally useless NGO for whom it's their favorite begging spot.

The UN is a big target.  It's easy to throw mud from afar.  As much as anyone else, I could find fat to cut out of the bureaucracy.  Yet, like someone mentioned earlier on this thread, "what is the alternative?"  Should it be 'every country for itself?'    Or, back to how Europe was just before WWI, with three coalitions - which was a major reason why WWI escalated so quickly - each coalition was poised to mobilize and fight at the slightest provocation - and they did.

 

Here's a UN organization, UN Environment  that I think is actually doing a whole lot of good. Check it out:  unep.org/asiapacific/

[Scott]

I worked for the UN for a number of years and served on a Special Committee for Unaccompanied Minors and Vulnerable Persons.   The program was very expensive to operate, in part because it had to please so many factions, including the host country where the asylum seekers resided -- and they held ultimate power to over ride a decision.   There was also a lot of political pressure from groups and countries.   Most of the members of the Committee were specialists in law (refugee law, in particular), Social Work/Psychology and a few who specialized in knowing about in country conditions.   Much of the bureaucracy was not caused by the UN, but by the countries with various interests.  

 

Whether there can be reasonable reform, I don't know.   I am a fierce critic of the UN in general, but we do need a body where ideas can be said and heard.   We need a place where the arguments and alliances can be made in a peaceful manner.   The alternative is to fight it out and that is much more expensive than the UN.  

 

 

[hawker9000]

3 hours ago, Scott said:

I worked for the UN for a number of years and served on a Special Committee for Unaccompanied Minors and Vulnerable Persons.   The program was very expensive to operate, in part because it had to please so many factions, including the host country where the asylum seekers resided -- and they held ultimate power to over ride a decision.   There was also a lot of political pressure from groups and countries.   Most of the members of the Committee were specialists in law (refugee law, in particular), Social Work/Psychology and a few who specialized in knowing about in country conditions.   Much of the bureaucracy was not caused by the UN, but by the countries with various interests.  

 

Whether there can be reasonable reform, I don't know.   I am a fierce critic of the UN in general, but we do need a body where ideas can be said and heard.   We need a place where the arguments and alliances can be made in a peaceful manner.   The alternative is to fight it out and that is much more expensive than the UN.  

 

 

"The alternative is to fight it out and that is much more expensive than the UN. " 
 

And yet that's precisely what keeps happening - has been happening all along actually - despite the UN!  UN peacekeeping is like quack doctoring (just fabulously more expensive and spectacularly less effective).   We live in a connected world now.  Brick & mortar confabs no longer necessarily serve any purpose that can't be served in the "cybersphere", and the UN certainly doesn't serve any.   If Brussels wants it (and they may well be looking for some new snake oil to be peddling in just a few years...), by all means let 'em have it.

[Scott]

3 minutes ago, hawker9000 said:

"The alternative is to fight it out and that is much more expensive than the UN. " 
 

And yet that's precisely what keeps happening - has been happening all along actually - despite the UN!  UN peacekeeping is like quack doctoring (just fabulously more expensive and spectacularly less effective).   We live in a connected world now.  Brick & mortar confabs no longer necessarily serve any purpose that can't be served in the "cybersphere", and the UN certainly doesn't serve any.   If Brussels wants it (and they may well be looking for some new snake oil to be peddling in just a few years...), by all means let 'em have it.

The conflicts that occur are reasonably limited in scope and regional in nature.   I think that without the discussions that occur in the medium of an organization like the UN, they would be much larger.  

 

[hawker9000]

17 minutes ago, Scott said:

The conflicts that occur are reasonably limited in scope and regional in nature.   I think that without the discussions that occur in the medium of an organization like the UN, they would be much larger.  

 

Pure conjecture and meaningless relativistic rationalization besides.  A conflict can ALWAYS be "bigger".    Did the UN stop, or "limit" the Korean War?   Heck no - they couldn't stop the Chinese from stepping in to expand the scope of the conflict dramatically, any more than they can get China to do something about their rogue client state now!  Did the UN prevent 9-11?  Oh, I guess 3000+ dead, not counting all the dead & wounded in terrorist attacks since plus those that have occurred fighting terrorism SINCE, are "reasonably limited in scope and regional in nature."   Did it prevent or even oppose Russia in raising an iron curtain that kept just about the whole of Eastern Europe in absolute subjugation for almost half a century?  If KJU deploys a nuke, well, I guess that too will be more "limited in scope and regional in nature" than things theoretically could have been (and that'll be a big comfort, won't it?).  If wars since WWII have been less expansive then before, it certainly doesn't have anything to do with the UN.  Frankly, MAD and international conglomerates undoubtedly have far more to do with it.

Edited September 4, 2017 by hawker9000

[pegman]

On September 2, 2017 at 5:32 PM, simple1 said:

UN often comes under criticism, but one doesn't see realistic alternatives suggested. A few achievements worth mentioning, eradication of smallpox & WHO plus numerous other positive outcomes. NGOs are crucial for humanitarian relief operations, though suppose some NGO activities would be a waste of space according to some.

Want to achieve things then get rid of the veto.

[pegman]

2 hours ago, hawker9000 said:

Pure conjecture and meaningless relativistic rationalization besides.  A conflict can ALWAYS be "bigger".    Did the UN stop, or "limit" the Korean War?   Heck no - they couldn't stop the Chinese from stepping in to expand the scope of the conflict dramatically, any more than they can get China to do something about their rogue client state now!  Did the UN prevent 9-11?  Oh, I guess 3000+ dead, not counting all the dead & wounded in terrorist attacks since plus those that have occurred fighting terrorism SINCE, are "reasonably limited in scope and regional in nature."   Did it prevent or even oppose Russia in raising an iron curtain that kept just about the whole of Eastern Europe in absolute subjugation for almost half a century?  If KJU deploys a nuke, well, I guess that too will be more "limited in scope and regional in nature" than things theoretically could have been (and that'll be a big comfort, won't it?).  If wars since WWII have been less expansive then before, it certainly doesn't have anything to do with the UN.  Frankly, MAD and international conglomerates undoubtedly have far more to do with it.

Sadly, the UN has not been able to curtail the American's imperialism. But then it's so easy to blame the UN for  their self inflicted miscalculations. Who was to know their great mercenary  in Afghanistan, Bin Laden,   would bite the hand that fed him?  Should the UN also be blamed for believing the lies Powell told it about WMD's in Iraq? Halliburton as peacemaker! Your killing me here, 555.

[craigt3365]

9 hours ago, pegman said:

Want to achieve things then get rid of the veto.

One of the biggest problems!

[craigt3365]

9 hours ago, pegman said:

Sadly, the UN has not been able to curtail the American's imperialism. But then it's so easy to blame the UN for  their self inflicted miscalculations. Who was to know their great mercenary  in Afghanistan, Bin Laden,   would bite the hand that fed him?  Should the UN also be blamed for believing the lies Powell told it about WMD's in Iraq? Halliburton as peacemaker! Your killing me here, 555.

Bin Laden was the greatest mercenary for the US? I can't quite laughing.

 

Your killing me here. 5555