U.N. votes vs. aid
In the nearly 30 years since the United States began tracking votes in the United Nations General Assembly, only twice did other countries' voting “coincidence” with the U.S. exceed 50 percent. The average over the same period is an abysmal 32.7 percent.
Based on the State Department's latest congressionally mandated U.N. voting report, U.S. “support” from other countries dropped 9 percentage points from 2011 to 2012, the largest year-to-year decline over the past decade and second largest drop since the government started tracking the recorded votes, according to a Heritage Foundation analysis.
And continuing a familiar Turtle Bay trend, “most major (U.S. aid) recipients voted against the U.S. more often than they voted with the U.S.,” Heritage reports. Among them, Iraq, Afghanistan and Egypt.
It's been argued ad nauseam that U.S. foreign aid should be linked to support for U.S. priorities at the U.N. But since the U.S. started tracking U.N. votes, nothing has changed. The same can be said about the U.S. standing within the U.N., where America pays the most dues but is allotted the least amount of consideration.
Eventually, even the most addlepated realizes when he's been cheated to excess. When will the Obama administration, forever defending the U.N. “mission,” wake up and realize as much?
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Digitized medical records: They’ve become an unsecured threat
- Pittsburgh Laurels & Lances
- Greensburg Laurels & Lances
- Alle-Kiski Laurels & Lances
- The Thursday wrap
- The Corbett administration gives itself a headache with selective transparency
- The Box
- The flood of illegals: Misplaced blame
- Saturday essay: Ants with tool belts
- Alle-Kiski Laurels & Lances
- The MH17 tragedy: Putin’s duplicity