Re: [FT]United Nations?

At 04:23 PM 5/1/99 -0700, you wrote:

<snip>

Not to argue the usefulness of the UN or the way the US is paying (or
not)
it's dues, but the following quote struck me as being , well, odd.

>"Speaking for the European Union and associated States, Germany's
representative
>said that non-payment, particularly by the major debtor, caused
difficulties
>in achieving efficiency and reform. 

Hmm, so efficency and reform can only be introduced with an infusion of
cash?? I thought
efficiency was making the best use of what was available. Seems bizarre,
no?

>As a permanent member of the Security
>Council, the United States had a special responsibility. Its higher
assessment
>was in accord with its capacity to pay, as determined by agreed- upon
criteria.
>The United States was also the sole beneficiary of a "ceiling", or
maximum
>level of contributions.Speaking for the European Union and associated
States,
>Germany's representative said that non-payment, particularly by the
major
debtor,
>caused difficulties in achieving efficiency and reform. As a permanent
member of
>the Security Council, the United States had a special responsibility.
Its
higher
>assessment was in accord with its capacity to pay, as determined by
agreed-upon
>criteria. The United States was also the sole beneficiary of a
"ceiling", or
>maximum level of contributions."
>
>  The full text of the press release can be found at
>http://www.un.org/plweb-cgi/idoc.pl?305+unix+_free_user_+www.un.org..80
+un+
un+pr1999+pr1999++dues
>
>  The main UN page is at http://www.un.org/.
>
>Enjoy,
>Tom Granvold				<thomas.granvold@eng.sun.com>

Don