Republicans planning to use United Nations as the GOP “sleeper issue”

Republicans planning to use United Nations as the GOP “sleeper issue”– As Reagan used the Panama Canal Treaty as his “issue,” says pollster and author Frank Luntz, so can a 2008 candidate find that “issue.” Suggests Luntz: Because the Republicans want to win in Iraq, and they want a “strong military,” the issue they can use to keep the White House in 2008 is the United Nations.

The UN, says Luntz, “has not supported the American position” and was “hostile” in Iraq. Says one of the New Hampshire citizen panel: “I have to believe that with this liberal media that we have, if the UN was doing good things for this country, we would have heard about it. But, they’ve demonstrated an anti-United States posture, they’re–they’re totally corrupt, and there’s no, uh, there’s no proof in the pudding that they’re going to be willing to change that.”

None of the New Hampshire voters had a “favorable impression” of the United Nations, nor did a single person believe the United States “gets its money’s worth.”

A unanimous show of hands, however, indicated that the doings of the UN “should be an issue.”
“Incredible,” segues Luntz, pointing to the United Nations as the GOP “sleeper issue,” as determined by research done for Fox. Telling the UN “Enough is enough,” says Luntz, is an issue the GOP can use to rally its base in the upcoming election.

“The Republican voters,” continues Luntz, “are just so sick and tired of the UN taking positions against the US, and they’re even angrier that taxpayers fund the UN.”

Counterpoints to the Republican anti-UN argument

The U.S. pays less of its GNP to the UN than other nations
The Assembly has established the principle that the UN should not be overly dependent on any one member to finance its operations. Thus, there is a ‘ceiling’ rate, setting the maximum amount any member is assessed for the regular budget. In December 2000 , the Assembly revised the scale of assessments to reflect current global circumstances. As part of that revision, the regular budget ceiling was reduced from 25% to 22%. The U.S. is the only member that meets the ceiling. In addition to a ceiling rate, the minimum amount assessed to any member nation (or ‘floor’ rate) is set at 0.001% of the UN budget. Also, for the least developed countries (LDC), a ceiling rate of 0.01% is applied.

UN Successes in security issues
The Human Security Report 2005 produced by the Human Security Centre at the University of British Columbia with support from several governments and foundations, documented a dramatic, but largely unrecognized, decline in the number of wars, genocides and human rights abuses since the end of the Cold War. Statistics include:

a 40% drop in violent conflict;
an 80% drop in the most deadly conflicts; and
an 80% drop in genocide and politicide.
The report argued that international activism — mostly spearheaded by the UN — has been the main cause of the post–Cold War decline in armed conflict, though the report indicated the evidence for this contention is mostly circumstantial.

In the area of Peacekeeping, successes include:

The US Government Accountability Office concluded that UN Peacekeeping is eight times less expensive than funding a U.S. force.
A 2005 RAND Corp study found the UN to be successful in two out of three peacekeeping efforts. It also compared UN nation-building efforts to those of the U.S., and found that of eight UN cases, seven are at peace, whereas of eight U.S. cases, only four are at peace.

The UN provides many important functions that the US benefits from

International Atomic Energy Agency
International Civil Aviation Organization
International Labour Organization
International Maritime Organization
International Telecommunication Union
World Health Organization
World Intellectual Property Organization
World Meteorological Organization

Neocons Don’t Like the UN because it keeps them from running amok, and helps people rather than corporations

International Court of Justice
Human Rights Council
Humanitarian assistance
International Fund for Agricultural Development

Regards,

Jim