It is relevant. Net ODA as % of GDP ensures that each member is paying a fair share of their 1970 commitment. Though it may not seem related, a similar relationship is seen in the collection of taxes. If "cold hard cash" is all that matters, people in the US in higher tax brackets should pay not a higher dollar amount than someone in a lower bracket. That is ridiculous. Granted that living in a country and owing taxes to the govt isn't equivalent to being a UN member and pledging 0.7% of GDP assistance, but I wish it were. This website lists some benefits of a .7% commitment.
As long as the Israeli government is looking the other way while the settlers steal land, there is no greater priority than establishing borders for Palestinians. This is happenning following the Israeli government rejecting the opportunity to freeze settlement construction as a condition to overall negotiations. They claimed that they would not engage in talks as long as preconditions were on the table - I myself have never seen any agreement ever between any two entities which did not have a basic unspoken agreed fundamental basis such as "you can not allow land to be stolen while we are deciding who owns it". So in effect, the Israeli government is allowing its people to directly target the absence of borders. I don't understand what could be more important to a country? Is that not reasonable?
But a much smaller percentage than many wealthy countries. Do some research. This has been debated and researched on this forum before. USA! USA! USA! when warranted, but facts do matter.
I agree this very embarassing for us. Our support for the current despicable right wingers in Israel is hurting us greatly.
Adjust it to include the war funds. Anyway, <iframe src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/n7ow42B0sT8" allowfullscreen="" width="420" frameborder="0" height="315"></iframe>
So, you are a charity, and someone comes to you and goes.... You can have $20 million operating capital, which is only 1% of a countries GNP, or you can have $1 million operating capital which is 10% of a nations GDP. Which do you think would do the charity better? Yep....COLD HARD CASH ! DD
WE are clearly number one in supplying weapons. I wouldn't be surprised if in most of the conlficts, wars, guerillas movements, full-scale US invasions etc. both sides kill with weapons made right here in the USA. It is probably our main industrial export.
That is irrelevent to the charity, they just need the most money to help the most people. The larger/richer countries also have higher expenses, and churn. The USA gives far and away more $$$ than any other country, using the GDP and percentage in order to lower the value of that money in people's eyes is silly. IMO, the USA should be taking more care of the USA than the rest of the world.... DD
We need to start charging other countries for military protection.....places like Germany and Japan have had the benefit of not spending on their military for years (Sure they lost the big war, time to help pick up the tab though).... If we are going to be the world's police the cost needs to be defrayed. DD
Do you seriously think we have a military presence in those countries merely to be a benevolent superpower? We won't deploy unless there is something in it for us. And by "us" I mean the rich. It may not be tangible like "cold hard cash" but it's there.
Germany has been spending on its military for decades. We are also one of the countries spending the most on Afghanistan. Current military budget is 31.7 billion Euros/year. http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=7612611
Actually just withdraw and let them do it themselves. I don't think we have to worry about the Ruskies invading Germany or the Germans invading France or Russia again.
The event, to me, sheds light of embarrassment on the current state of affairs in the talks with Palestine and where our support and focus lies, rather than our reaction to the vote. This is just an easy focal point as this proxy situation is forced. Laws are in place to discourage the UN and related agencies from helping countries in circumventing the processes in place to gain UN membership status. Denying the funds might have undertones of political bravado, but the laws are the laws, and the position was taken early this month that the funds should have to be denied. They knew what they were doing with that vote, and it is deliberately painting us in a corner. That said, if things were the way they should be in other areas regarding agreements and peace talks, perhaps the normal methods of obtaining recognition and membership would be more accessible and palatable. It's easy to join in and bash, or post graphs that seem to disingenuously belittle the US and their stances, but in this position I don't see how the US can do anything else. I guess it's up to the administration to actually call for the denial of the funds? Talk about being painted into a corner. The article itself says that many voted to spite US/Israel, and laughter emitted when Israel cast their no vote, but the some of you criticize the US for a taking a political stance when following laws that are clear and in place. It's like high school or something.
The process is briefly as follows: Spoiler The State submits an application to the Secretary-General and a letter formally stating that it accepts the obligations under the Charter. The Security Council considers the application. Any recommendation for admission must receive the affirmative votes of 9 of the 15 members of the Council, provided that none of its five permanent members — China, France, the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America — have voted against the application. If the Council recommends admission, the recommendation is presented to the General Assembly for consideration. A two-thirds majority vote is necessary in the Assembly for admission of a new State. Membership becomes effective the date the resolution for admission is adopted Perhaps the process is bad from their point of view. You're going to have USA be the only permanent member to deny membership. If Palestine goes this route and they get burned quick. Again as I mentioned, it's USA/Israel vs the world on this. USA will remove funding to thwart full membership and the world will continue voting yes in everything that USA doesn't have last word on. Who will blink first? I say money makes the world go round...
