Will slashing funds reform the U.N.?

AP:

Culminating years of frustration with the performance and behavior of the United Nations, the House voted Friday to slash U.S. contributions to the world body if it does not substantially change the way it operates.

The 221-184 vote, which came despite a Bush administration warning that such a move could actually sabotage reform efforts, was a strong signal from Congress that a policy of persuasion wasn't enough to straighten out the U.N.

"We have had enough waivers, enough resolutions, enough statements," said House International Relations Committee Chairman Henry Hyde, R-Ill., the author of the legislation. "It's time we had some teeth in reform."

The legislation would withhold half of U.S. dues to the U.N.'s general budget if the organization did not meet a list of demands for change. Failure to comply would also result in U.S. refusal to support expanded and new peacekeeping missions. The bill's prospects in the Senate are uncertain.
[...]
During the two days of debate, legislators discussed the seating of such human rights abusers as Cuba and Sudan on the U.N. Commission on Human Rights and the oil-for-food program that became a source of up to $10 billion in illicit revenue for former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein.

Good. It's about time those ridiculous seatings were addressed. I just don't understand how anyone can justify placing Sudan or Cuba on a human rights board. It defies all logic. It's about as stupid as putting a third-world country with no infrastructure in charge of a worldwide economic development and advancement commission. Or entering a quadripalegic in a triathalon

Rep. Jeff Fortenberry, R-Neb., won backing for an amendment under which the United States would use its influence to ensure that any member engaged in acts of genocide or crimes against humanity would lose its U.N. membership and face arms and trade embargoes.

We definitely need some incentive for member nations to keep their status. What good is an organization if its enemies are invited in?

Hyde was joined by lawmakers with a litany of complaints against what they said was the U.N.'s lavish spending, its coddling of rogue regimes, its anti-America, anti-Israel bias and recent scandals such as the mismanagement of the oil-for-food program in Iraq and the sexual misconduct of peacekeepers.

The administration on Thursday had urged the Republican-led House to reconsider the legislation. The administration said in a statement that it is actively engaged in U.N. reform, and the Hyde bill "could detract from and undermine our efforts."

Eight former U.S. ambassadors to the United Nations, including Madeleine Albright and Jeane Kirkpatrick, also weighed in, telling lawmakers in a letter that withholding of dues would "create resentment, build animosity and actually strengthen opponents of reform."

Now that's funny! As if there aren't already feelings of resentment, animosity and opposition to reform in the ranks of the U.N. bureaucracy. This is precisely why we must reform. I doubt the U.N. will listen to anything besides money. After all, did they listen or act when Saddam defied 12 resolutions? Do they listen to the genocide in Africa or the forced abortion and other human rights abuses in China? No. Once the cash flow is stopped up, maybe we'll finally turn some heads.

[...Rice cited some "extremely important reforms" such as] management, peace-building and halting the proliferation of dangerous weapons technology.

The bill, with amendments, lists 46 reforms sought. They include cutting the public information budget by 20 percent, establishing an independent oversight board and an ethics office, and denying countries that violate human rights from serving on human rights commissions.

The secretary of state would have to certify that 32 of the 39 reforms have been met by September 2007, and all 39 by the next year, to avoid a withdrawal of 50 percent of assessed dues.

U.S.-assessed dues account for about 22 percent of the U.N.'s $2 billion annual general budget.

The financial penalties would not apply to the U.N.'s voluntarily funded programs, which include UNICEF and the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees.

So what exactly is the President's plan for reform? I know he would rather solve the U.N. problem diplomatically and without threats of pulling funds, but will that work better than the House's bill? I'm not sure which of these two methods will work, or which will impede the other, but I'm glad that at last we're arguing over how to reform the U.N. instead of whether to reform it. That world body needs some major changes if it's to avoid becoming the "toothless tiger" that the League of Nations was, not to mention a human rights joke.