Talk:United States and the United Nations

Untitled

this is for modle un

Voting record of US at UN

Where is the record or discussion of US voting on UN bills. That is, where it is in agreement with most other states and where it is in disagreement, and a discussion of patterns if any. If it appears in another article there should be a link. How can this central record be absent?

Debt Table Unclear

I find the presentation of the "US debt to the United Nations Table" unclear. I would have expected the columns to be some combination of: Amount Owed, Amount Paid, Percentage Paid. But in the current table it is not clear what is what. Jlenthe (talk) 17:10, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree. How much is the US in arrears? Mike 17 December 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.162.139.34 (talk) 07:51, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

PLEASE BACK UP THIS STATEMENT...

Thanks for this page. It helped me with an essay! Nice work, authors! --68.9.60.185 18:29, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Please back up this statement: "Arguably, the United States has only cooperated with the United Nations on two major issues."

What constitutes a "major issue"? What are the major issues? -- Jiang 23:30, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)

This statement is factually incorrect and is just one example of the POV issues that pervade the article. I've edited to a statement that reflects the facts at hand in a NPOV way. Raymond Arritt 04:15, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

A shame

At least the author is sincere when describing US intentions in the UN. "I wont pay what I own, so that if you want to keep me, submit to my demands." They dont pay what they own, they make foolish and childish trhreats like that, and they expect the UN to bow and wiggle its tail like a good puppy.

What a nice example the nation that loves democracy, that is the most humanitarian and well-developed in the entire planet sets for us, the less favored of the world! LtDoc 12:46, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

hmmm maybe thats cause The US is the UN, why the hell should we give them all the money,equipment, and soldiers that we do if they wont do what we say. Oh and by the way, we would stomp your country into the ground, hell just Texas would do that

Both of these comments are clear examples of what is not necessary here nor in the article itself. Take it up elsewhere and discuss the facts as they stand here; don't devolve into hyperbole and crass generalisation. See this page if you want to know how to present your case here. kabl00ey 09:15, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

We really should just leave the UN and stop giving all aid to every other nation on earth. Watching them squirm will be fun. Travis T. Cleveland (talk) 23:02, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Good idea, this will be fun, however we'll need another distraction to the media to make sure it wont notice this. 66.183.59.211 (talk) 05:05, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

It would appear that Travis Cleveland and 66.183.59.211 didn't get the message from Kab100ey. The talk page is for discussing ways to improve the article... it is NOT for voicing personal opinions on the subject matter... it is not a forum for debating any topics other than what to put into or take out of the article. PS, to LtDoc: it's "owe", not "own.68.35.66.170 (talk) 06:45, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

TWO MAJOR ISSUE

Hi there,

I suppose the use of the words "two major issues" was imprecise. I meant that the United States has only executed a major military operation within the context of a Security Council resolution twice.

If you look at Use of U.S. Forces Abroad, it is clear that US and UN have worked together on major military operations just three times (Korea, Iraq, and Somalia, with the last of these on a much smaller scale).

Since the United States does not make major contributions to many other UN operations (e.g. peacekeeping operations), I felt that saying the US and UN have arguably worked together on two major issues was a fair assessment.

Why did you remove the secion on peacekeeping operations? -- Acegikmo1 05:14, Feb 1, 2004 (UTC)

The section on peacekeeping has been moved to the main UN article since only one sentence in it is specific to the US. -- Jiang 05:19, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)

US ABUSE OF UN VETO

Hi, So this is a redirect from "us abuse of un veto". i m the original author and i am quite happy to see that the topic has not survived. its proved many things to me.

once again thanks very much :)

How about we put a section in the main article about abuse of the veto from all the nations on the Security Council? The US isn't the only country who likes to veto. Also, I'd think the title of the topic is a bit POV.24.159.55.213 (talk) 05:45, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that a section on this would be appropriate in a page whose subject matter is the US:UN relationship. A mention of it, however, wouldn't be amiss. I agree that the title of the topic is somewhat POV. Whilst I might agree that it has been 'abused', this is subjective and open to interpretation. kabl00ey (talk) 01:42, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

A discussion of the arguments put forth by those who believe that the U.S. has abused its veto power would clearly be apropos in this article. As it currently stands, this article is in dire need of evidentiary support and objective analysis from different perspectives (i.e. perspectives of those who support the U.N. I think that a table listing all the resolutions that the U.S. has vetoed would benefit this article and provide a useful resource for people researching the topic, and would offer an unbiased account of the U.S.'s use of its veto. A separate article on the veto itself could outline how other nations have used or abused the veto as well.

Napzilla (talk) 23:03, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

REMOVED TWO PARAGRAPHS

This paragraph was removed for NPOV issues:

Following the overthrow of the former Iraqi government, U.S. forces conducted an exhaustive search of Iraq for weapons of mass destruction. Had the weapons been found, their presence would have legitimized the invasion. No such weapons were found, which essentially proved that Iraq had not violated any UN Security Council resolutions, that the Iraqi government could not have chosen to take any action of disarmament to comply with Resolution 1441, and that the invasion of Iraq was not legitimate or legal. As of Q1 2006, U.S. President George W. Bush continues to state in public speeches that Saddam Hussein had a "choice", and that he "chose to go to war".

Failing to find WMD does not "essentially prove" that Iraq had not violated any UN Security Council resolutions. For example, they may have had them but moved them to Syria before the war, or they may be in Iraq but just not found yet (unlikely but possible). Also, even if Iraq did not have WMD, they could still have failed to comply with the resolution by not being adequitely cooperative (which is arguably what happened).

I also removed this paragraph because it repeats content introduced in the 'The U.S. arrears issue' section:

One area in which the United States has been involved in a long-running struggle with the United Nations is over its finances. Due to its status as the most powerful nation at the time the United Nations was established, the United States has always been set down for the largest contribution to the United Nations budget. However, the United States has on occasion delayed payments and has therefore built up a debt in its contribution to both the regular budget and the peacekeeping budget:

Milquetoast 14:22, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

The first paragraph was re-added; I've removed most of it again. As the previous poster suggested, 1441 created various obligations for Iraq: letting inspectors in, granting them certain privileges, submitting a "currently accurate, full, and complete" declaration of weapons, etc. Even if it had never even dreamed of making WMDs, Iraq would have been in breach of its obligations if it had failed to do any of those things. The big debate prior to the war was whether Iraq has fully complied with those obligations and, if not, whether the Security Council should give it more time to do so or if it should authorize armed intervention (or whether 1441 itself authorized unilateral armed intervention).

--219.94.78.226 10:45, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

In addition, there are still chemical and biological weapons tagged by UN inspectors before 1998 that are unaccounted for, and Iraq never provided any evidence of their destruction. To this date, the tagged items have not been found, nor any evidence that they were destroyed. Even if Iraq did not have an operating program to manufacture WMDs, it failed to provide proof that it had destroyed WMDs that were known to exist in Iraq prior to expulsion of UN inspectors.

It might be worth mentioning that even if the US had found evidence of WMDs, it would not have changed the fact that the invasion of Iraq was still undertaken without the approval of the Security Council, and therefore still considered illegal by the other states in the UN.

Napzilla (talk) 05:27, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

How exactly Iraq did not cooperate is not mentioned clearly enough in the article. If Iraq really tried to directly stop the inspection, the invasion's legitimacy would have nothing at all to do with whether or not Iraq really had WMDs since the United States only wanted the inspection to determine the truth of whether or not there were WMDs. If Iraq's failure to cooperate was due to internal problems and not deliberately, the first paragraph should be put back since the consensus view was that there were no WMDs found. (if Iraq had them it wouldn't bother hiding then and just name them "peace keeping weapons" and the inspectors would leave them alone) 66.183.59.211 (talk) 05:24, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Resolution 687 (1991) esablished a ceasefire with conditions ,one of them being to fully cooperate with the weapons inspections. Iraq obstructed the weapons inspections continually, leading to military action against them in '93 and '98. Iraq didn't allow any inspections for the last four years before the invasion in 2003. Although the US did not have much international support for the invasion, under the terms of resolution 687, just as in '93 and '98 it was legal to use military means to force compliance, as the terms of resolution 687 were not cancelled by any subsequent resolutions. Mxlptlk (talk) 01:50, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Stating that the American invasion of Iraq is "illegal" is bullshit, plain and simple. Exactly which "laws" did the United States violate? The assertion that the United Nations has the standing to label the actions of a democracy "illegal" is absolutely laughable. The president of the United States received Congressional authorization to invade Iraq and that is all he needed; he is not beholden to the whims of France. The Constitution of the United States supercedes the irrelevant pronouncements of the United Nations. Claiming that American action in Iraq is "illegal" is not only wrong, but blatantly biased. Moreover, which "other states" exactly have claimed that American action in Iraq is illegal? Also, mentioning the WMD issue, to the exclusion of all others, completely omits various other justifications put forth by the Bush administration for its actions in Iraq. But that is beside the point. The UN is not the final arbiter as to whether the actions of the United States are "legitimate" or "legal"; the paragraph in question that was removed was so insanely biased there is absolutely no room for it in a supposedly neutral encyclopedia. 74.141.152.62 (talk) 00:16, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

UN coined by..

From the UN article:

The term "United Nations" was coined by Winston Churchill during World War II, to refer to the Allies (see History of the United Nations). Its first formal use was in the January 1, 1942 Declaration by the United Nations, which committed the Allies to the principles of the Atlantic Charter and pledged them not to seek a separate peace with the Axis powers. Thereafter, the Allies used the term "United Nations Fighting Forces" to refer to their alliance.

From the United States and the United Nations article:

The term "United Nations" was first coined by President Franklin Delano Roosevelt in the Declaration by the United Nations where, on January 1, 1942, 26 nations pledged to continue fighting the Axis powers.

Do we know which is correct? Rex the first 13:42, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

FDR was the first to use the term, according to the UN Website. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.129.250.251 (talk) 21:33, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

The future of the U.S. in the U.N.

Re the statement that movement for U.S. withdrawal from the U.N. is "growing": is this supported by objective references such as opinion polls? If not, it should be reverted. Raymond Arritt 02:39, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Trust me, I live in Texas, and that is a HUGE movement- Real_Texan_08

I go to college in Maryland and live in New York. I lot of people i know in both states would like to not only see the U.S. leave the U.N. but see the U.N. forced to leave U.S. Territory.-Bentley4

Some civilians may have these feelings, but no serious US politician/statesmen would ever advocate anything like that.204.227.243.16 14:03, 30 April 2007 (UTC)pkmilitia

Actually, bills have been proposed by politicians to leave the UN such as HR1146. So it would seem that there ARE "serious US politician/statesmen" that advocate leaving. Travis Cleveland 22:59, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

No one has answered Raymond arritt's original question, which was, "is this supported by objective references such as opinion polls?" On the contrary, the opinion polls I have read indicate that the majority of U.S. citizens favor a stronger U.N. with more authority over the U.S. On the other hand, history has shown us just how much the "better men" in Washington value the attitudes and desires of Hamilton's "great beast," so polls of popular opinion should probably be compared to the consensus of the ruling elites.

Napzilla (talk) 23:10, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Shame on me for using rasmussen polls as an 'objective' data set, but it is the best I could find. Enjoy: http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/united_nations/38_have_favorable_opinion_of_u_n2

Expansion

There seems to be a lot of material missing between 1945 and 1991. -- Beland 04:40, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Balance to US finiancial obligations

The section titled "The U.S. arrears issue" might better be titled "U.S Financial Obligations to the U.N." so as not to suggest a bias. This section could then describe the financial contributions made to the U.N. by the U.S. as well as those that have been withheld. A source for contributions made by the U.S. To the U.N. is the US Office of Management and Budgets' Report on US Contributions to the United Nations System dated July 31, 2006.

We might also want to put a note about the contradiction of the U.N not want to be dependent on 1 nation for it's funding yet expect the U.s and Japan to cover 40% of the budget.65.96.132.149 01:40, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Rick Santorum and WMDs found in Iraq?

The section entitled "The Iraq issue" has what looks rather dubious claim. Specifically the following paragraph:

In June, 2006, Senator Rick Santorum, R-Pa., announced in a quickly called press conference that "We have found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, chemical weapons." Since 2003, he reported, "coalition forces have recovered approximately 500 weapons munitions which contain degraded mustard or sarin nerve agent. Despite many efforts to locate and destroy Iraq's pre-Gulf War chemical munitions, filled and unfilled pre-Gulf War chemical munitions are assessed to still exist." He added a warning about the hazarda the chemical weapons still pose to coalition troops in Iraq. For more in depth detail and analysis of the report, go to FoxNews.com and find the article titled "Report: Hundreds of WMDs Found in Iraq".

This directly contradicts the section on the occupation of Iraq here [1]

I did track down the Fox News article[2], but it even states the following:

The weapons are thought to be manufactured before 1991 so they would not be proof of an ongoing WMD program in the 1990s.

and

Offering the official administration response to FOX News, a senior Defense Department official pointed out that the chemical weapons were not in useable conditions.

While this article does seem to show that Rick Santorum did make that statement, it isto very poorly written and possibly misleading propaganda in an election year for Mr. Santorum. I could not find any similar articles for this claim on CNN, NYT, BBC, or other news agencies.

Recommend deleting or rewriting that paragraph. --Jeremyh113 21:06, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

How can you call anything poorly written with phrases like "it isto very poorly written and possibly misleading propaganda in an election year for Mr. Santorum." Grammer? Spelling?

Whoever added that last statement is guilty of committing the fallacy of tu quoque. The real question is whether the report is accurate, not the grammatical principles employed by the person raising the question. Given Fox News' reputation for dishonesty and inaccurate reporting, the former Administration and its allies' reputation for the same, and the fact that no reliable report of Iraq operating a WMD program in violation of of the resolutions has surfaced yet, I would also recommend revisions.

Napzilla (talk) 23:18, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Bias

"The September 11, 2001 attacks on the U.S. and subsequent military conflicts have clarified the desire of other countries to use the UN as a vehicle to rein in what they see as American unilateralism."

I wonder if a paragraph could hold more bias towards the US? This seems to be tops.201.19.185.68 00:31, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

The truth is never neutral. --Arthur Borges 02:08, 27 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arthurborges (talk • contribs)

To be perfectly honest, I don't think this is biased at all. Given the anarchical global system of states and the US dominant position as unchallenged hegemon, there are states who believe the best way to limit unilateral action, perceived or actual, by the United States is through the world's dominant international governmental organisation. To follow on from that, the events of and post September 11, 2001 (particularly the US attack on Iraq) have been the impetus of this belief; prior to September 11 there was, from what I understand, far fewer claims of US unilateralism. Therefore the statement, in my opinion, is not biased. However, you could criticise it for not being referenced, which I think would be valid. kabl00ey 00:49, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

"The U.N. has always had problems with members refusing to pay the assessment levied upon them under the United Nations Charter. But the most significant refusal in recent times has been that of the U.S. For a number of years, the U.S. Congress refused to authorize payment of the U.S. dues, in order to force U.N. compliance with U.S. wishes, as well as a reduction in the U.S. assessment."

Perhaps an ending phrase of "a.k.a. blackmail" is adequate?201.19.185.68 00:33, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps a mention of US hesitancy to give funds without adequate protections against corruption (OIL FOR FOOD SCANDAL) would be more appropriate.

I wouldn't call the original statement biased so much as a case of non sequitor. The 11 September 2001 attacks clarified that there's a lot of people in the Middle East that are fed up with the United States' foreign policy. Either the statement was meant to state something to the effect of "Other nations' responses to US military operations following the 11 September 2001 attacks have indicated that they believe that the UN should prevent the US from acting unilaterally," or its author meant to imply that the attacks on the US were secretly sponsored by the UN. In either case, the statement should be removed. The whole point of founding the UN was to prevent nations from unilaterally going to war, which means that it would be responsible for preventing aggression by any of its member states, including the United States. The statement needs to be revised and backed with evidentiary support before being included again. Also, the US has butted heads with the UN since well before 1991; support for Israeli aggression, the proxy war against the popular Sandinista government of Nicaragua, and opposition to the economic strangulation of Cuba all predate the collapse of the Soviet Union.

-Napzilla (talk) 05:56, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

suggestions for new material

What were issues involving the United States between 1945 and 1990's. It's not well covered. One thing I can think of was the UN police action in Korea, commonly known as the Korean War in the US. The Allies fought for the UN, including the US, Turkey, Australia, and some others.Dereks1x 21:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Veto Power

I was redirected here from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_veto_power but there doesn't seem to be any information here about how they've used their veto power. Could we have some information?

the UN has a list of all exercises of UN Security Council veto powers here: http://www.un.org/depts/dhl/resguide/scvote.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.146.15.88 (talk) 03:15, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

arrears percents

What are the percentages supposed to mean in the arrears table? Coleca 18:18, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Archive

As little discussion has been entered into lately and the most of the prior discussion relates to entries in the article that now don't exist, I'm requesting that this current talk page be archived so that discussion can begin anew and clearly. kabl00ey 09:38, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

U.S. Withdrawal from U.N.

I removed this section (The future of the U.S. in the UN) because of to many biased remarks and not citing references or sources.

This section should be removed. Someone had put up a Chomsky article and passed it off as current academic opinion within the U.S. for a relinquishing of its veto power in the Security Council and submitting to the rulings of the International Court of Justice. Where do we make the connection between relinquishing a veto power and promoting democracy? This is absurd and violates NPOV. For now, I have clarified the source of this bit in the section, but really, it should be deleted entirely.Chrisjustinparr (talk) 22:20, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

The future of the U.S. in the UN

The relevance of the UN in the modern world is questioned by its critics, and there is a small but growing movement in the U.S. to withdraw from the UN, which members of the movement see as nonproductive morally and practically. This in part stems from a desire to ensure that sovereignty stays with national bodies, and not be yielded to any sort of extranational organization. Another possible reason for this dissent is its use as a negotiation tactic; by threatening to walk out, the U.S. is voicing its displeasure and putting pressure on the UN to address U.S. concerns and interests. Yet another motivation is dismay at the failure of the UN to fulfill its goals in such areas as peacekeeping and human rights.

Few observers expect the "get U.S. out of U.N." (a pun on the initials for the United States and the pronoun "us") movement to result in the U.S. actually withdrawing. Proposed legislation in both houses of U.S. Congress to withdraw has been met with minimal support, and has never come close to becoming U.S. policy. The appointment of John Bolton, however, who had been a vocal critic of the United Nations, as U.S. Ambassador in July 2005 was generally viewed as an indication that the George W. Bush administration was growing even more skeptical of the merits of the UN. However this approach changed with the appointment of the more conciliatory Zalmay Khalilzad as U.S. Ambassador in April 2007.

That is the whole section. If someone wishes to revise it by adding sources and removing personal opinion, please do so. But until that time it needs to stay out.

I'm removing the last paragraph of the section titled "The future of the US in the UN." There has been a standing call for evidentiary support of the claims in this paragraph in the discussion for a while, and no one has provided any support. I'm also revising the first paragraph for similar reasons.

-Napzilla (talk) 00:25, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Nothing about UNESCO?

I'd think that would merit a full section in this article. THF (talk) 22:48, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Move proposal

I'd like to hear editors' thoughts on moving this article to United States Mission to the United Nations.

My thought is that this would better define the article in an encyclopedia fashion, and help avoid pov, bias, and scope issues. Mystache (talk) 04:46, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Re: US and UN

It would be rather silly to include a fringe movement as a significant portion of the long and supportive history of U.S./UN relations. The U.S. was a key element in creating the UN and has been a strong supporter. Even under conservative administrations, the U.S. continues to quietly fund those UN agencies it supports. In addition, the U.S. is the largest financial contributor to Peacekeeping - remember this is a purely voluntary contribution. So many are misinformed about the U.S./UN relationship, it would be a great shame if Wikipedia adds the to misinformation campaign. Junebug1969 (talk) 16:54, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Merge Proposal with United States withdrawal from the United Nations

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was no consensus. This discussion should have been closed, and the merge performed, back in October 2011 (or November 2011 at the latest), at which point support for the merge was unanimous. However, since then ARTEST4ECHO has posted a valid objection to the merge, and there has been no response to his objection in the more than a year since he posted it. NukeofEarl (talk) 18:25, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

---

I would like to propose a merger of the referenced article, since I reckon if I"m trying to find sources and keep the article clean, it might as well be on this article.
The reference article was even used once for "Did you know?" in 2007, and I think it would be a shame if it ever gets featured again on main page, since this (United States and the United Nations) article provides a broader view on the subject. It already contains a litany of non-sourced material for the anti-UN mentality in the US - but I think we're ought to verify if there's any encyclopedic relevance to any of this (the House bills and the news articles about them being a good example of that).

• Merge United States withdrawal from the United Nation into United States and the United Nations

Please let me know your thoughts.

Ebacci EN (talk) 05:31, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

• I'd support such a merge - that article is poorly sourced and arguably gives too much coverage to a fringe topic. I'd say it can be better covered as a subsection of this article. Robofish (talk) 20:57, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

• Support - if you do think that article is worth the effort, then the place for it is within the confines of this article. --... there's more than what can be linked. 14:23, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

• Support 7e7 (talk) 05:12, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Although so far it seems we have unanimous support, I'd suggest giving a few more weeks for anyone willing to discuss the merger to make their case. I've proceeded with the correct steps as delineated on Merging and added the tags to both pages. I've also corrected the link on the source talk page that directed to itself, while it should be directed to this talk page instead. I apologize for the mistakes but I have to say the process is not very user-friendly, though I have heard Wikipedia is planning some changes to turn editing easier. After a few more couple of weeks, I believe anyone can start selecting the good references on the source article (if any) that shall make into this destination article. Ebacci EN (talk) 05:30, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

• Support

The topic seems to fit better into the parent article United States and the United Nations than as it's own standalone article. As it's own currently it lacks adequate citations and appears to have NPOV issues. The section regarding the Future involvement in the UN in the parent article is relatively short and can fit the more expansive information in present in the current article. --ShortShadow (talk) 01:24, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

• Merge POV title is misleading. Why the delay? anyone be bold and merge ASAP. Widefox; talk 12:48, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
• Disagree While I seem to be in the minority, I think I disagree. The move to pull the US out of the UN seem to be a different topic to me. First, this page is about the how the US and the UN work together in a official government setting. The move to remove the US, isn't a government sanctioned action, it's a grass roots movement. While related, I think it would muddy the waters, so to speak. Second, the United States withdrawal from the United Nations page is more like a "9-11 Conspiracy" type page. The people who want to get the US out of the UN are considered "Fringe" by most standards. It would be like trying to merge 9/11 conspiracy theories into September 11 attacks. While the two are relates, they focus on two different things. However, I realize I am in the minority here.--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 16:00, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV

I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:

1. There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:17, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on United States and the United Nations. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100218221016/http://www.un.org/aboutun/history.htm to http://www.un.org/aboutun/history.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:36, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Since 1985 quote

The article says this:

"Since 1985, the U.S. Congress has refused to authorize payment of the UN dues, in order to force UN compliance with U.S. wishes, as well as a reduction in the U.S. assessment"

I'm removing it for three reasons:

1. The source is a New York Times article from 1988 2. The text comes from the original article, only it has been altered to change its meaning. It has been understood on Quora and elsewhere that this meant that the US paid zero dues, which is not what the citation says, and indeed is obviously false. 3. The claim itself has been invalidated several times since the 1988 article.

Its got to be possible to talk about the US withholding dues without using such a poor quote and source. (and, of course, both sides of the issue should be covered, like the fact that the US pays more than twice what the next largest nation pays in total, which includes billions that go to the UN and are not considered to be dues). My goal today is simply to remove the misleading citation and sentence, not make the permanent fix (perhaps I'll be back later for that if no one else does it). EntropyTV (talk) 04:55, 3 April 2020 (UTC)