[Unknown Target]

Guess what: they're moving it everywhere.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050520/ap_on_go_co/un_reform

Granted, the reforms are still good reforms, but it's still retarded that the US is holding the UN hostage.

[aldo_14]

I didn't think the US had been paying its dues to the UN anyways.  Ultimately, I don't think it's the right of the US to tell the UN how to reform, but the right of all member nations.  To me, the specific threat to withhold money from programs considered to be 'wasteful' leaves far too much room for political maneuverings - for example, if the US wants the UNs / WHOs anti-AIDs policy to focus on abstinence.

It does strike me that, if the US pays 25% of the UNs total dues, then that is (at a guess, without a statistical comparison of relative economies) probably a bit disproportionate.

[Swamp_Thing]

"The "United Nations Reform Act of 2005" targets a panoply of issues that have troubled critics of the United Nations, particularly Republicans, for years. Among other things, it would seek to cut funding for programs seen as uselessand bar human rights violators from serving on U.N. human rights bodies".

So, the americans are trying to kick themselfs out of UN bodies?
Because i know of quite a few human rights violations going on in the US today...

[aldo_14]

The US may have exempted themselves from prosecution for human rights violations/war crimes, I think.  At least, I know they did for any peacekeeping troops.

Ultimately, I think that's really an attempt to cut the Chinese out.  Which is not entirely unjustified in itself, as the Chinese record is still far from sterling.

[Flipside]

I'm more concerned about reducing funding for projects they deem and unneccesary'. Would this, for example include Stem Cell research etc? Would this really be a window for enforcing US-style morality onto other countries in the UN?

I'd very much like to know which projects the US deems as 'useless' before I made an opinion.

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Flipside
I'm more concerned about reducing funding for projects they deem and unneccesary'. Would this, for example include Stem Cell research etc? Would this really be a window for enforcing US-style morality onto other countries in the UN?

I'd very much like to know which projects the US deems as 'useless' before I made an opinion.

My thoughts exactly.

[Liberator]

Something that should be noted is that just because the US isn't funding it doesn't mean the research isn't being done.  There is a disturbing reliance on Government to get things done and what you end up with is an enviroment where no one balks at $1000 hammers or $500 toilet seats.

[Bobboau]

I'll have to agree with Lib on this one

[vyper]

Originally posted by Liberator
Something that should be noted is that just because the US isn't funding it doesn't mean the research isn't being done.  There is a disturbing reliance on Government to get things done and what you end up with is an enviroment where no one balks at $1000 hammers or $500 toilet seats.

The alternative is more privately funded research which leads to privately held IPR. This in turn results in higher priced medical treatments.

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Liberator
Something that should be noted is that just because the US isn't funding it doesn't mean the research isn't being done.  There is a disturbing reliance on Government to get things done and what you end up with is an enviroment where no one balks at $1000 hammers or $500 toilet seats.

If the government funds research, the government - i.e. the entire nation - 'owns' the research.  If it's privately funded, then the fund-er owns it.

Hence, it's better to have government funding - IMO.  The trick is to make sure it's not abused ala the $1000 hammer example (although isn't that example more commonly associated with military funding and how they sluice away money for the off-the-books black projects?).  Ultimately, every government abuses its financial privelege, regardless of whether it's research or other sources of expenditure.

Although I'm not sure what the whole research thing has to do with any of this.

[Kosh]

bar human rights violators from serving on U.N. human rights bodies.

So it would also bar the US from the UN human rights bodies......

[Liberator]

Originally posted by vyper


The alternative is more privately funded research which leads to privately held IPR. This in turn results in higher priced medical treatments.

Which in turn is countered by a more draconian, but(to me at least) more acceptable use of Government power by forcing the funder to share the discovery because it is too important to one group to hold sway over(cure to cancer type stuff).

I have no problem with a company making money on things they have payed lots of money to develop.  The copyright/trademark/IPR should expire when said company has made back their investment and half-again.

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Liberator


Which in turn is countered by a more draconian, but(to me at least) more acceptable use of Government power by forcing the funder to share the discovery because it is too important to one group to hold sway over(cure to cancer type stuff).

I have no problem with a company making money on things they have payed lots of money to develop.  The copyright/trademark/IPR should expire when said company has made back their investment and half-again.

Then where is the incentive for the company to invest?  It's a nice thought of getting private industry to finance this stuff, but ultimately the interest of private industry is in personal profit rather than the 'greater good', per se.  Companies will ultimately invest in a revenue stream over the long term, rather than a short term benefit; it's possibly because of this that we see less useful drugs being developed (because to charge, say, $500 per dose for a cancer cure would result in a company getting into hot water anyways, so it's better to make money off of 'trivial' things).

We've already seen stuff like this when it comes to Aids drugs, and specifically the actions of the larger manufacturing companies/the US (where they are - mostly - based) to try and block the creation of generic (cheaper) versions for 3rd world countries and soforth - I think India in particular has stoked a furore by allowing the cheap manufacture of generic Aid drugs.

The problem IMO is that the most 'valuable' - in terms of profit - drugs and inventions will be the most urgently needed.  When it comes to non-essential inventions (i.e. not life-or-death scenarios), I have nothing against companies making money off of it.  But when it comes to serious international crises, IMO (again) you have to make these things generally available to all (including the poorest and most needy), and it's very hard to balance that with allowing companies to operate as businesses, unless you add governmental control that removes the whole profit issue from the equation.

[.::Tin Can::.]

Lets move the UN to New Jersey!

[Thrilla]

Originally posted by .::Tin Can::.
Lets move the UN to New Jersey!

Dear God nooooooooooo!!!!

[icespeed]

we just learnt about an anti-cancer drug today called gleevec, (it's used in chronic myeloid leukaemia... i think) which costs $60 000 each year for one patient; you can't stop taking it unless you want to die. governments generally can't afford to subsidise drugs like that to an acceptable level for patients.

[achtung]

You've got to realize that the drug companies don't care where the money comes from as long as they can suck as much money as they possibly can out of sick people.