Guest essay by Eric Worrall
h/t Breitbart – According to http://foreignpolicy.com, the Trump White House has ordered the State Department to cut at least 50% of US contributions to the United Nations.
EXCLUSIVE White House Seeks to Cut Billions in Funding for United Nations
U.S. retreat from U.N. could mark a “breakdown of the international humanitarian system as we know it.”
State Department staffers have been instructed to seek cuts in excess of 50 percent in U.S. funding for U.N. programs, signaling an unprecedented retreat by President Donald Trump’s administration from international operations that keep the peace, provide vaccines for children, monitor rogue nuclear weapons programs, and promote peace talks from Syria to Yemen, according to three sources.
The push for such draconian measures comes as the White House is scheduled on Thursday to release its 2018 budget proposal, which is expected to include cuts of up to 37 percent for spending on the State Department, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), and other foreign assistance programs, including the U.N., in next year’s budget. The United States spends about $10 billion a year on the United Nations.
…
The cuts would fall heaviest on U.N. programs, like peacekeeping, UNICEF, and the U.N. Development Programme, that are funded out of the budget of the State Department’s Bureau of International Organization Affairs. It remains to be seen whether other U.N. agencies popular with Congress, like the World Food Programme and U.N. refugee operations — which are funded out of separate accounts in the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the State Department, respectively — will get hit as hard. But one source tracking the budget proposal said the Trump administration is considering cuts of up to 36 percent on humanitarian aid programs.
…
The United States has to pay just over 22 percent of the U.N.’s $2.5 billion administrative budget. Additionally, Washington pays billions of dollars for peacekeepers and helps underwrite a swath of other programs that fight hunger, settle refugees, and battle climate change.
…
Read more: http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/03/13/white-house-seeks-to-cut-billions-in-funding-for-united-nations/
There are no details of specific cuts to UN Climate Change programmes, but it seems likely they will be cut.
My question – why not cut 100%? How does anonymising aid money through the UN bureaucracy benefit US taxpayers? If a country wants to receive the generosity of United States, say to help with resolving a crisis, the leader of that country should appeal in public, in person to President Trump, so the whole world knows where the aid money is coming from.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
A great opportunity for China to extend their influence.
China will have stings attached that the US wouldn’t.
And everyone knows it.
ya reckon?
seems to me theres a LOT of string tied into USaid in places its been
I havent heard african recipients of help from china kicking up
we DO hear a lot about us aid though
and if their peacekeeping roles in syria libya yemen etc are anything to go by?
their absence might well improve things
cant get much worse
“China will have stings (sic) attached that the US wouldn’t.”
Whereas the US has the Mexico City Policy, which I find utterly shameful.
ozspeaksup wrote: “ya reckon?
seems to me theres a LOT of string tied into USaid in places its been”
Examples?
ozspeaksup wrote: “I havent heard african recipients of help from china kicking up”
Oh, yeah, the Africans are real happy with the way China does business.
ozspeaksup wrote:: “we DO hear a lot about us aid though”
Examples?
ozspeaksup wrote: “and if their peacekeeping roles in syria libya yemen etc are anything to go by? their absence might well improve things”
Well, we made a mistake by electing the delusional Barack Obama as president, and he certainly screwed things up royally all over the world, but we have fixed that now, and we won’t be absent from anything that affects our national security or national interests in the future. Whether you, or anyone else likes it or not.
ozspeaksup wrote: “cant get much worse”
Naive, too, huh.
Felflames,
While the Chinese $$$ may have strings attached, $$$ is $$$ regardless of strings
No, allowing the Chinese into your third world country is the same as bringing in the Mafia. The strings attached to their money can and do get people killed.
I don’t think it is at all shameful to say u.s. aid is conditional on sound principles like not forcing u.s. taxpayers to promote and subsidize abortions.
There are plenty of other strings attached to international agreements that are purely self serving and designed only to promote u.s. economic, political, or military dominance. I don’t see how the Mexico City policy is at all self serving, but it is principled.
TA: “Oh, yeah, the Africans are real happy with the way China does business.”
The Chinese are all over Africa. Chinese construction companies are expanding port facilities, building new airport runways and terminals, refurbishing railways. The Chinese are buying into natural resources, especially minerals and mining. They’re financing energy projects, real ones like coal, that the World Bank wouldn’t touch because of climate change orthodoxy.
They are making friends in Africa, and they are doing it quietly.
Yep, China is doing all the things UN claimed it was going to do oh so long ago. China also gets permanent lease on huge tracts of land, quietly, something America was vilified for by the UN and political left in America.
The Chinese are doing old fashioned colonialism, like what the British used to do, back when they ran the world.
The UN is so self righteous they would never allow “China strings” to happen, oh, that is only US strings I suspect.
“Mike McMillan March 15, 2017 at 10:46 am
They are making friends in Africa, and they are doing it quietly.”
Only with corrupt officials and politicians, not so much the locals.
Let China extend its influence among the thugs and grifters at the UN if it wants to. Without US support to prop up the UN it will eventually fold like a cheap suit.
Ideologically, the UN has already “folded”.
Aren’t they the ones that have pushed this whole “Global Warming” scam to the detriment of humanity?
Aren’t they the ones that are anti-Capitalist and favor Socialist or Marxist/Communist economies?
And aren’t they the ones who are anti-Israel and anti-US politically?
So there’s no use throwing money at your political, economic, and social enemies.
Let’s get the U.N. out of the U.S. and the U.S. out of the U.N. (Move the UN (minus the US) to Beijing where the air isn’t breathable.)
Moving the UN to Beijing would certainly be an eye opener for them (Self Contained Breathing Apparatus optional)
Yes, I agree the UN has lost its way. If we wish to help other nations we should do it on a case by case basis where we can help meet their needs, not have the crooked UN soak up most of the funds.
It seems to me that if we are paying for “influence” through the UN, we could pay directly to actual people and nations and cut out a huge wasteful anti-Semitic, anti-American middle man.
Well spoken. +10
Who cares if China gets more influence in the UN. It’s a worthless organization.
What the Chinese have been doing at the UN for the last 30 years has been to make themselves very effective at getting the support of weaker countries while actually putting almost no money of their own into the game – that is, unless they get mining concessions, or the like. (which they exploit ruthlessly)
Look closely at China’s investments and loans to Venezuela – now that the entire country is going down, China is pulling out, horrified that all of the money that they thought would give them a good return is instead, lost. That case in itself has put a huge crimp in China’s willingness to spread cash around the third world anymore.
The Chinese laugh at the foolishness of the US, to keep throwing billions of dollars away trying to buy “friends” while requiring almost nothing in return – there is no WAY any Chinese businessman or government official (but I repeat myself) would ever make a mistake of that kind – he would find his throat
instantly cut by his rivals if he did.
President Trump, being a business man first, could perhaps renegotiate “Strings” of our own in return for Not pulling funding from the UN
The US pays 22% and China pays 5%. Both get equal say.
Great point. Math and logic can triumph over feelz and virtue signalling.
That’s an excellent example of how those that represented the US in the past were clueless about the Art of the Deal.
Professional politicians only strive to collect from the populus and turn the money over to global governing bodies to do with as they please (after getting their cut off the top), all the while looking virtuous to the welfare crowd as they live like kings on the backs of the workers.
Even with a 50% cut we would still pay in twice as much as China and I doubt that includes the cost of having the UN hdqrs in NYC.
Both China and Russia are on the Security Council, and they can and do veto important actions proposed by the U.S., Britain, France or other members.
Influence over what?
Nothing they don’t already have influence over in any event. The UN was taken over by the USSR from the get-go with the hidden help from the USSR supporters in the DOS and the President’s Administration at the time. It’s no secret that much of Roosevelt’s administration was sympathetic to Communism
M Courtney, the UN is an anti US organization that needs to be stripped down to what it was founded for – a place to meet to prevent wars or negotiate peace or to sanction countries that go overboard on human rights, etc. It has become another intrusive tier of government with a centrally planned over print that serves an ‘old world’ political agenda.
They don’t seem to have done so well on the narrower issues for which it was designed, and the social programmes they have designed haven’t worked either.
The world can’t do without the US, and that includes China. Re world trade deals, why should the world’s economic engine dilute its power in a ‘show of hands’ multilateral deal. This is a Sister Teresa’s role for the US. They are the only country in the world that can do unilateral deals that suit both signatories. And politically, why similarly dilute your power to a ‘show of hands’ system where you are despised and ridiculed by countries who want a political set up that is anathema to the US.
Let China have the role. It’s their politics that everyone seems to rave about. It would be a sobering lesson for most of this dysfunctional world although it is the one lesson that seems unlearnable. But you can rest assured that US will be there to save you all from yourselves when, as designed, it all goes south.
Plus ten
I suggest splitting United Nations. Keep what is clearly in line with its charter – Article 1.1
“To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace;”
Everything else should be left to survive on its own – just like all other political, idealistic or activist non-governmental organizations. Having seen how United Nations misused its unique position and established IPCC on lousy principles, I guess we are better of with cooperation between groups of countries than by the monstrous United Nations. Monopoly is bad, competition is good.
“The UN was not created to take mankind to heaven, but to save humanity from hell.”
— Dag Hammarskjöld, Secretary-General from 1953 to 1961
«The primary, the fundamental, the essential purpose of the United Nations is to keep peace. Everything it does which helps prevent World War III is good. Everything which does not further that goal, either directly or indirectly, is at best superfluous.»
— Henry Cabot Lodge, Jr.
Even if it is within it’s charter, why keep functions that the UN is clearly incapable of performing?
Yay!
Now cut the rest!
The top 5, by percent:
USA 22.0
Japan 9.7
China 7.9
Germany 6.4
France 4.9
From: http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=ST/ADM/SER.B/932
That funding scale is a bit parochial. Try:
Europe 24.5%
USA 22%
R
As an entity though the EU will not endure so the Europe “as a whole” figure of 24% is rather meaningless.
It would be like comparing the EU to NAFTA and thereby including Canada and Mexico in the USA percentage.
What will the EU percentage be after the Brexit?
How much of the EU percentage comes from the UK?
Europe is what 28 nations?
Europe percentage is actually <1% per member nation
ralfellis, I’ll go with your numbers when the EU nations give up their individual seats.
> ralfellis
Yes, I see you could make that case. If it is indeed the EU writing the check to UN, then I wonder why UN would report the results by country. Even so, to your point, the US is paying 15% more per capita. In my analysis I excluded UK from EU (rah!). Populations: US 319 M, EU 443M
Some will argue that premium is unfair because US creates tonnes more CO2 than EU per capita. But social arguments aside…
Ralfellis
Your funding scale is a bit parochial. Try:
510 million people in Europe 24.5%
324 million people in USA 22%
There. Fixed it for you.
Then China at 1.3b is really getting a deal as they should be paying 48%
Stalin demanded that each of the 15 Republics that made up the USSR should have a vote in the UN General Assembly.
The Americans said well if thats the case we demand a vote for each of our 48 states that make up the United States of America.
The Russians never raised the subject again.
The UN is a corrupt bureaucracy with ambitions of its own.
For instance the Habitat program sounds good until you read a little more deeply. See Page 8 of here: https://thedemiseofchristchurch.files.wordpress.com/2015/09/unitednations-conference-on-human-settlements_habitat1.pdf The highlights of P. 8 are mine.
or the “Sustainability” program which has insinuated itself into the education system and local governments world wide.
See here for an exam exemplar: https://thedemiseofchristchurch.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/exemplar-3-2008-exam.pdf
Note how the student is pushed towards writing the “correct” answers. Further research shows this course has base texts that include UN Agenda 21 and the Brundtland report.
And of course there is the insane “Anthropological CO2 causes Global Warming” program better known as the IPCC which we know about.
As it appears that every initiative of the UN seems to point to attaining complete dominion over every country I could go on – I recommend that we should all scrutinize the UN writings very closely – especially politicians who incorporate them into the laws of our countries.
I think it would be great if the USA can pull its complete budget. Maybe the whole UN organization will then fall like the house of rotten cards it has become.
The world will be a better place without this corrupt institution which simply gobbles up the wealth of western nations.
See how the UN even has an influence over my own city.
https://thedemiseofchristchurch.com/2013/03/13/are-we-experiencing-a-communist-infiltration-sponsored-by-the-united-nations/?iframe=true&theme_preview=true
Cheers
Roger
…… Actually, not enough strings were attached to US aid money. Too much money went to petty tyrants legitimizing and empowering them in the UN…. These countries should have been dancing lock step to all and every demand the US placed upon them…. and no complaints.
Agree. Cut the lot.
I think a 50% cut now is a great idea. Trump, as a businessman, can simply watch how the remaining 50% is used and then make more cuts if it’s being used inefficiently.
You can bet that the UN won’t be able to use the remaining half properly.
They will have barely enough to fund the critical administrative functions, such as travel, accommodation and entertainment.
Sign me up. For many years I thought the UN was a flawed but nessecary organization. It has taken awhile but the nessecary part of that equation is gone. Like its predecessor the League of Nations the UN has outlived its usefulness.
Although many news reports will focus on refugee programs, food aid, and peacekeeping operations those are only
window dressing for less popular projects. Globaloney is the U.N. house speciality. Like
the EU the UN is a workaround solution for programs that won’t pass democratic
processes.
Going to a Trump rally in Nashville this
afternoon. Should be lots of protestors and a
general circus atmosphere. Let them squeal. Once the money runs dry they will focus on doing something productive with their lives.
Like the EU the UN has grown exponentially and has lost many but not all of its core reasons for existing.
The Un however has a far greater scope than the EU and there is no other international organisation quite like it.
So severe pruning of its programmes in order to focus in on the genuinely necessary parts of its mandate yes. Actions that may lead to its abolition or the replacement of America by China? That’s a different matter
tonyb
Last I heard a few years back, China was exporting capitalism to Africa, which many of its left-leaning dictator run countries rejected!
“Going to a Trump rally in Nashville this
afternoon.”
Great! I’ll be watching on tv.
I heard a businessman this morning say he was at a trade association meeting a few weeks ago, with a lot of manufacturers from around the U.S., and he said the mood there was “euphoric” because of Trump’s business policies. He said he had talked to a lot of company leaders who told him they were moving jobs into the U.S.
All this while the Left and the MSM do everything they can to harm Trump and the U.S. With little effect.
MSNBC got hold of an illegal copy of Trump’s 2005 tax return yesterday and they hyped it all day as some kind of revelation of a Trump scandal, and it turns out Trump made about $140 million in profit that year and paid $38 million in taxes, about 25 percent of his income, which was larger than what Obama paid at 19 percent and Bernie Sanders paid at 13 percent. Laura Ingraham suggested Trump needed a better accountant because he was paying too much.
So MSNBC’s big tax return scandal fizzled, and now they and CNN have shifted the story to how maybe Trump put this tax return out himself to fool everyone into thinking there is no “there there”.
The radical Left and the MSM are a great danger to the United States. Their lies are undermining the United States, and its leader, here and around the world. The only way to defeat this danger is to expose these people for the liars they are, at every opportunity.
Correction: Trump earned $153 million in 2005, paid $36.5 million in taxes.
If you look at their politics, the Left has become the Marxist/Socialist Progressive (aka Communist) Democrat Party.
They are a party of identity politics, which pits one group against another and their members have become unbearably condescending in their “holier-than-thou” attitude, all the while fomenting hatred rather than cooperation and real progress in the United States.
And they dare call the rest of us “deplorables”… What a sick joke.
I keep asking what happened to “the great melting pot” pushed so loudly by the left for several decades? Never get any answer at all from any leftist.
2hotel9, @5:43
“melting pot” is no longer desired
Instead of taking on the morals, ethics, social and economic ways of, say America,
the new theme is to be diverse (the nice word)
Balkanisation is the other way of thinking about it (bad word)
“balkanisation” A word I have been crapped all over for having used, by leftists that is. Divide and conquer, that is the term that replaced melting pot, the political left REALLY likes that one. As long as they are the dividers.
And that figure is direct taxation.
Trump has huge buying power and no doubt spends massive amounts of money. When one includes tax paid on buying, sales tax, property taxes and the like, his annual contribution to the US treasury is huge.
Sales and property taxes are state and local taxes, not federal. Which just goes to show how much Trump contributes to all the states where he has a presence.
Hey troe, you ought to make yourself a sign for the Trump rally that says “WUWT” on it, and we will see if we can spot you in the audience.
“If you look at their politics, the Left has become the Marxist/Socialist Progressive (aka Communist) Democrat Party.”
I’ll tell you what, the radical Left is starting to look very much like radical Islamic extremists. The way they deal with the world is very similar, although the western world’s radical Left hasn’t resorted to murdering innocent people yet, but they mimic every other intimidation tactic of the radical Islamic extremists.
“Like the EU the UN is a workaround solution for programs that won’t pass democratic
processes.”
That’s it in a nutshell, in describing the motivation of Western participants.
Another characteristic is that it is a useful way for third world elite families to get their hands on Western taxpayers’ money.
Eric:
“…so the whole world knows where the aid money is coming from.”
Most of the USAID programs that provide advisors, food and material to
targeted countries are clearly and unambiguously marked “U.S.A.” in
some way or form.
USAID has traditionally provides eyes and feet on the ground in sensitive
regions providing information that feeds back to various US agencies without
involving overt military or diplomatic personnel activities.
Is there any part of the President’s budget proposal that cuts funding to
the “dark” or black ops agencies?
I have personally witnessed USAID being taken and sold to refugees by local governments and by UN “peacekeepers” so spare me that crap. When it arrives in the country it is sent to it is out of US control and immediately goes either into black market or is used as a tool against the very people it is intended to aid. Hell, lets us revisit Oil For Food! That would be lots of fun, I have piles of documents and discs full of information for ya.
!00% Driving a helicopter for many years in impoverished nations saw millions of $ changing hands with USA aid !
Yea, aid from all was pretty much open to this in the places I interacted with it all, Central America, Central Africa, proximity to a coast line was usually the only real difference. People are people, takes some form of outside imposed discipline to avert such crap. UN ain’t it.
“Once the money runs dry they will focus on doing something productive with their lives.”
Doubt it. Far more likely they’ll attach their lamprey mouths to the next succulent victim.
I wish Australia would do the same. It annoys me that the few western nations that fund you UN are constantly being attacked and degraded by the parasitic multitude that contribute nothing but enjoy the bureaucratic largesse of the UN. A reduced budget may see the UN restrict it’s activity to the most important issues; sharpen it’s focus.
The UN is runniing the great global climate fraud design to wreck the Western democracies and impose world government and a socialist world on us. Give them nothing and spend the money on coal fired power plants just as China, Japan,(43) and the rest of Asia are doing..
It pleasantly amazed me to realize that here, while we argue about climate change and the Paris accord, and about how the left is pushing all of this constantly – here Trump is, and he ignores all of that, and instead just aims to cut the Throat of the Beast directly. YES!
(Of course, here comes McConnell, McCain, Graham, and Shumer to say “oh no we can’t do that, we don’t dare do that)
I’m with you Lawrie.
The UN is seen as just another step in a career path for ex politicians.
Our ex PM, Kevin Rudd was right peeved when the current PM, Malcolm Turnbull wouldn’t back his bid for the top UN job.
It’s just like the whole AGW game . . one giant self licking ice cream.
These days, it’s main focus is enriching the pockets of the various bureaucrats. I don’t see that ending just because the US aid changes – they’ll still be first in line for the goodies.
Why not cut all 100% and directly provide relief for the famine in Africa. Quicker, better, more focussed
And a lot easier to cut out the leaches if you can control the whole chain from top to bottom.
If you don’t like leaches, stay out of the swamp!
“Quicker, better, more focused”
And cheaper and more effective, and more humanitarian.
Auditable as well. The UN refuses to be audited.
And who supplies the expertise to deliver this?
You have the people with the language skills, logistics expertise, knowledge of the local climate and terrain, and, perhaps most importantly the knowledge of who will and will not shoot at you and steal everything?
You know the local health situation, what epidemics are around, what parasites? What vaccinations are needed? What is the best way to medivac staff who are injured or sick?
Like the UN has any of those?
jrkrideau, the WHO (part of the UN) did a terrible job responding to the Ebola outbreak in Africa a few years ago. They even admitted as much.
As in, they did nothing at all for 5 months while people died.
Yeah, it might turn out this it is complicated, and nobody knew that.
Because the UN has obviously solved all the major problems in the world?
Re: Monna Manhas..
Yeah, I believe the most work was handled by the private Christian organizations, taking care of the people. Maybe the UN would have the political channels to allow supplies, etc to be shipped, but the bulk of the heavy lifting was done outside of the UN umbrella.
jrkrideau
and who ( WHO ) supplies the expertise?
Tender !!!! ( or who will do it for less gets the business )
so many Companies in the world to choose from, no results, no pay, no contract, no business !
$2.5 Billion administrative costs…$2,500,000,000.00.
Another mini empire … I would like to see where that money actually goes
I suspect a lot ends up in tax havens and bank accounts with no names attached.
Strange to say, here in Italy beneficial organization has not duty to publish their budget!
I think that the budget will speaks more than hundred pathetic advertisements about charity in TV.
NGOs/beneficial organizations/”charities” have become parasitic homes for people who seek power by avoiding democratic and legal restrictions. It is long past time to deeply audit and critically review, and reform the so-called not-for-profit industry.
well said hunter, they are all way beyond being fit for purpose.
A recent article in the Wall Street Journal revealed that a large and increasing number of non-profit organizations are paying their leaders in the million dollar plus per year range. I can remember many years ago when I worked for a large corp that the local United Fund, that uses large corps to extract donations from their suppliers, had over a dozen executives earning over 6 figures (in a medium sized city).
>> “charities” have become parasitic homes…
In Britain the CEOs of charities now outstrip industry and government in their earnings. So if you give to a charity you are merely funding the comfortable lives of the executives – who may give a couple of pennies to the needy, but only if they are feeling generous that week.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4044686/Meet-begging-bowl-barons-helping-fund-international-charity-chiefs-eye-popping-pay-bankrolled-BRITISH-aid.html
Ralph
Not true of all charities.
Charities in the US range from outfits like the Clinton run one (I’ve forgotten the name) that spends all of it’s money on improving the lifestyle of the Clinton clan, to groups like the Salvation Army that routinely get 80% or more of the money donated to the needy.
That’s compared to government charity that rarely gets more than 10% of the money stolen for it to the poor.
MarkW
Don’t understand why you knock the Clinton Foundation. Bill & Hillary were flat broke when they left the White House. The Clinton Foundation did wonders for them.
/sarc
Check and see if the UN publishes an annual report or if each agency does. (Some is going to graft and bribes just like a big bank or engineering company)
Lets not forget the religious side of the UN. A new religion for all maybe?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2701340/posts
Try googling “united nations” and “religion” on the same line. You could also try “united nations” and “satan” or similar etc.
Cheers
Roger
http://www.thedemiseofchristchurch.com
USA could pay a good portion of its dues by collecting on the unpaid parking tickets of foreign “dignitaries.”
Might have to fork out quite a bit of that to pay the London congestion charge!
Reblogged this on Climatism and commented:
“My question – why not cut 100%?”
Exactly. And maybe then the CO2-obsessed, fear mongering, climate fragile and unelected UN might consider how it spends other people’s hard earned money. Like jetting 40,000 elites to exotic destinations every year to gabble over “climate” catastrophe. Hypocrites.
A year ago the Canadian PM Trudeau pledged $2.5 billion to the UN so they can continue with their limo rides, gourmet meals and six figure salaries….I mean to save the planet, that’s right, how silly of me.
Bravo!!! Bravo!!! Bravo!!! He should also start a “League of Freedom” that only includes freedom loving democratically based societies. The problem with the UN is that it doesn’t make any distinction between tyrants and democratic republics. They make moral equivalencies between N Korea and the US.
Also, the UN abused its position and attempted to use this climate change as a ruse to redistribute the wealth of the developed world to the undeveloped world. It basically is a criminal looting organization whose efforts were almost always anti-US and freedom.
Climate “Science” on Trial; How Does Ice Melt In Sub-Zero Temperatures?
https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2017/03/05/climate-science-on-trial-how-does-ice-melt-in-sub-zero-temperatures/
Climate “Science” on Trial; The Criminal Case Against the Alarmists
https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2017/02/21/climate-science-on-trial-the-criminal-case-against-the-alarmists/
Here’s another singing the same song.
“This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution.”
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/barbara-hollingsworth/un-s-top-climate-official-goal-intentionally-transform-economic-0
Do the global warmists and alarmists understand they are being used by the socialists?
I think some would happily recognize it but the majority wouldn’t have a clue they are being used by the scam masters.
Yep, to understand the insanity of climate “science” you have to understand the politics.
Socialism and Climate change have this in common. You must have no mathematical abilities whatsoever!
Do the global warmists and alarmists understand they are being used by the socialists?
What percentage of global warmists and alarmists are, in all honesty, socialists?
Do they mind being used?
They are socialists, always have been, thats why they keep pushing lies.
It’s all about the politics…and the money.
Climate “Science” on Trial; How Does Ice Melt In Sub-Zero Temperatures?
https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2017/03/05/climate-science-on-trial-how-does-ice-melt-in-sub-zero-temperatures/
Just How Much Does 1 Degree C Cost?
https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2017/01/25/just-how-much-does-1-degree-c-cost/
“He should also start a “League of Freedom” that only includes freedom loving democratically based societies. The problem with the UN is that it doesn’t make any distinction between tyrants and democratic republics. They make moral equivalencies between N Korea and the US.”
Yes, that’s the Huge problem with the UN. They coddle murderers, treating them as normal, rational people, instead of the psychopaths they are.
Yep, we need an organization that make freedom and democracy the superior moral system, and excludes, isolated and I entities the bad apples.
I will add that the sword-bearer (i.e. governments) can never engage charitable works. This is because all their money comes from the power of their sword.
a “breakdown of the international humanitarian system as we know it.”
Always look for the positive folks – cut wastage and do what you have to if you really believe in “humanitarianism”. In adversity work harder for what you believe in UN guys!!!
Any bureaucracy that is faced with a budget cut ALWAYS bleats about the important missions as if those were the ones coming under the axe. Any city budget cuts will mean fewer fire, police or EMS personnel NEVER fewer administrators. It’s the same for every government or NGO organization.
Let use them Kickstarter or better DonorSee.
If Taxpayers like UN, they can keep it, but by voluntary means.
For sure! 🙂
There is every reason to move the UN out of the USA and into a country in Africa or Asia. I suggest South Africa.
Still not tired of winning, but I will hold back my cheers until we see some results.
Joel.
YOU ARE A FEW KM OUT,. ZIMBABWE
Oh, Yea! Perfect locale for the UN! Mugabe has probably been quietly angling for this for years.
What’s wrong with Somalia?
🙂
SteveT
I know most people here will disagree with me, but the predicted decline in supranational organizations is not a good omen. We are going back to the same old national level that has not given such a good result. Most people assume that war between developed heavily armed nations is a thing of the past. That assumption was also made in the 1920’s, and it tends to be wrong. Another observation is that people are usually not very happy with their governments when things are not going well, and the next global crisis is likely to see a lot of that since we did not recover well from the previous one, and a lot more people is now more vulnerable.
You make a fair point, but there is a balance here. Those, like me, who are happy with this news are understandably annoyed with all the fraud, waste, and abuse at and by the in. The organization is eroding from within, and is resistant to attempts to reform it. To me, I saycut the funding 50%. See if that shocks some reform. If not, its time to replace it.
It is clear for all to see that yours is a pipe dream. The UN does not do what it was expected to do when created.
I bought my house 12 years ago for more than US $5 million, my next door which has another 600 m2 of floor space (with private beach access0 was just sold for an undisclosed sum to a retired UN bureaucrat !!!
“Most people assume that war between developed heavily armed nations is a thing of the past. That assumption was also made in the 1920’s, and it tends to be wrong.”
The Chinese military has a new theme about how it is possible to survive a nuclear war. That’s a dangerous mindset to have. It might lead them to do something very foolish.
A message to the Chinese leadership: After we both exchange our nuclear weapons, those survivors in the United States will still be armed to the teeth with conventional weapons, and we invite your survivors to come over and try to take our country away from us.
That goes for the Russians, too.
It won’t be over after you fire your nukes.
Paranoid, are you? How did this thread escalate to nuclear warfare?
TA – You are not the first to have such conclusions about an invasion of the US of A homeland.
Isoroku Yamamoto – “You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass.”
MCR
Who would want any country that glows in the dark? Idiocy!
Javier: “I know most people here will disagree with me, but the predicted decline in supranational organizations is not a good omen. We are going back to the same old national level that has not given such a good result.”
WR: Agree. Therefore cutting 50% is better than leaving. Like all organisations UN will have to do an ‘effectivity check’.
But leaving the IPCC for the full 100% would still be a very, very good idea, because the IPCC construction in itself is ‘anti-scientific’.The goal of the IPCC is political and the IPCC is going the wrong way. Quitting IPCC for the full 100% would be a very good signal..
I’m not sure what good you assign to these supranational organisations? You seem to be saying that they stopped war, but that’s clearly nonsense. And who is now heavily armed? The US, China (perhaps) and Russia (if any of it works). Each has nuclear weapons and so conflict is unlikely.
The period of supranational organizations has also been the period of highest democracy levels in the world and the most peaceful period in history and probably in the entire existence of our species. People might miss it if it comes to pass.
As Leif is won’t to say, correlation is not causation.
You need to demonstrate that the UN and other supranational organizations had anything to do with the rise of democracy around the world and wasn’t just a bystander while others did the heavy work.
Democracies birthed the United Nations. Should have aborted the monster. UN is NOT a spreader of democracy, that is one of their biggest lies. They defend and spread socialism, always working toward global socialism. Javier appears to be quite happy with that situation.
Correlation is not causation. I maintain that the world has been at peace DESPITE the UN. I have no doubt that the UN has done more harm in the world than it has helped. It is an organization that is filled with unelected, unaccountable, and corrupt bureaucrats that collectively waste, and outright steal most of the funds they are entrusted with. It has insufficient controls over the spending and disbursement of funds, lacks common standards for auditing of programs, and has very little protections for whistle-blowers so that abuses can be uncovered. And even when they are, the UN secretariat often does not have the ability to investigate them and/or punish those responsible. In short, it is a recipe for corruption and abuse of authority at all levels with little or no oversight by the countries funding it. And that is the optimistic assessment. Allegations of outright criminal activity within and by the UN are legion. So why do we continue to fund this organization?
Javier is right — without the UN, the pre-WWI monarchies became post-WWI tyrannies. Correlation does not equal causation, but it also doesn’t equal random chance. The Cuban missile crisis did not become WWIII (in part) because we presented a case to the UN and the world saw the evidence. This type of forum was missing prior to WWII.
No, it did not become WWIII because Khrushchev’s advisers and generals sat his vodka swilling drunk a$$ down and convinced him JFK was going to pull the trigger. But hey! Believe any fantastical crap you want, its a free country. For now.
This looks like a global temp chart. You can pick out any trend you like. For number of conflicts, 18th century looks best. Not enough data for military death rate for any meaningful conclusion and it is of course the key.
The trend is very clear for the last half of the 20th century up to now.
The Cuban Missile Crisis did not become WWIII because neither the US nor Russia wanted it to become one.
Had the UN not existed, all the information would still have been presented to the world.
Your naive belief that the UN has prevented conflict is cute.
Most of you don’t seem to know what the phrase “in part” means (but, MarkW, it’s cute that you think you do). I think most of you also don’t realize how close we were to WWIII during the Cuban Missile Crisis. Our presentation to the UN was a key factor in getting the rest of the world on our side and helped to defuse the crisis.
That is just one example. If that was the only example, the UN would be worth the cost. But there are many other instances, on a smaller scale, where the UN has helped transition nations from conflict into peace (just as there are examples where they failed.)
No, Kennedy not backing down from Khrushchev is what averted the incident escalating to open war. But hey! Continue believing whatever fantastical crap entertains you.
MarkW — I did present evidence, you failed to read it. http://origins.osu.edu/article/avoiding-scourge-war-challenges-united-nations-peacekeeping
Here is the independent report to the United Nations on their peacekeeping efforts:
http://peaceoperationsreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/HIPPO_Report_1_June_2015.pdf
There have been plenty of failures of UN peace efforts, but there has also been successes. Everything from monitoring elections to providing peacekeeping forces and DMZs. However, we should learn from the failures, rather than ignore the successes. Most of the failures came from an inadequate mission rather than harm caused by UN troops. For instance, we often have UN troops that are not authorized to do anything beyond being present in an area. This type of activity will never be successful.
South Sudan is not “solved”, but it is much better than it was during the Sudanese Civil War.
“South Sudan is not “solved”, but it is much better than it was during the Sudanese Civil War.” Really? Exactly when did the ongoing, continuous state of war in Sudan stop? Got a date for that? Cause according to your beloved UN it never stopped, add to that your beloved UN Peacekeepers are a major part of the problem and it never will. They stop the people from defending themselves and stand aside as the “government” forces rape, torture, enslave and murder at will. You seem to be just fine with that.
I didn’t claim that South Sudan was “solved”. Nor is it my “beloved UN”. The UN needs significant reform. Just like every bureaucracy. It’s such ridiculous logic to assume that there are only two choices here. According to you, either I believe that the UN is perfect or it is absolute failure and should be obliterated.
My only point is that the world is better with the UN than without. The UN needs reform and specific programs (such as the IPCC) are failures. Many here act like the UN is should be a tool for American projection of power, not an international body where some nations (gasp) disagree with us. It’s easy to pick at imperfect successes as failures. That attitude does not give you an intelligent and rational understanding of international politics.
You keep shilling for them, so yes, it is your “beloved” UN. Lie down with dogs, get up with fleas, and you got the itch.
Since the UN has done no good and much harm, why is it’s demise such a bad omen?
The UN hasn’t prevented a single war and has made others worse through inept meddling.
MarkW — that sort of logic is insane. How do you know how many wars did not start because of the UN?
Where do you develop confidence in that statement? It seems like it is something that you made up — Somehow you have this imagination that all conflicts that would have occurred without the UN did occur.
Nobody is arguing that the UN is perfect, but there is huge difference between declaring the IPCC inept and declaring the UN a failure.
http://origins.osu.edu/article/avoiding-scourge-war-challenges-united-nations-peacekeeping
I develop confidence in that statement by observing the mess that the UN has made of just about everything it has ever been involved in.
MarkW — but your observation skills aren’t exactly “science”. I suspect you see the few disasters (like the IPCC) and miss the successes (like Sudan and the continual drop in warfare.)
That’s not the best way to make informed decisions.
You just keep pushing that leftarded meme! Sudan? Success like Sudan? Are you using heroin? And what drop in warfare? There is a continual state of war throughout Africa and the Middle East and south Asia, and lets not forget the Philippines, Central and South America. You are just too funny.
You keep claiming that the UN is responsible for this drop in warfare, yet you fail to present any evidence to support your belief.
You seem to believe that the mere fact that the UN exists proves that it works.
Many things have contributed to the unprecedented long period of peace that we have enjoyed, between them, the desire by most countries to join and participate in supranational organizations of regional or global nature. By enhancing economical ties and helping to deal with differences they make war more difficult.
It is as you say, Javier. Some more remarks.
WR: In history countries (and people) became rich by taking what was produced by others. Production was limited to what could be produced by hand. Then we invented science and technology and ‘economy’. We became able to start cheap mass production. And we invented the way to cooperate multinational (international organisations) to avoid wars. And we started to unify separated small economies, because we needed mass markets to sell our massively produced cheap mass products. Therefore lots of us became rich, taking others (the rest of the world) with us in the slipstream.
We are not at the end of that process. Just half way. We must improve our international organisations, not throw them away. (with the exception of the anti-scientific IPCC construction).
In European and other histories we see the following. First there were wars between groups of individuals. Then between villages. Later between groups of villages. Still later between ‘provinces’ of for example 1000 or 2000 km2. Civil wars are often something like ‘provinces’ that fight with each other. We ended with centuries of national wars, wars between countries or states. Here also you see the ever growing scale. And then we invented multinational organisations.
We need a scale at the higher level than ‘nations’ or ‘states’. But not instead of. Some things are better arranged on a lower level. Other things on the international or supra-state level. No one in the US wants to throw away the Federal State of the US because you need that supra-state level. Would it be better when every US state would have his own army? No, I don’t think so. Think in levels.
Not understanding the ‘whole of the process’ is ‘not understanding history’. We need to proceed, but often in an even better way. Not to step back.
Wim Röst
If you want to trust your freedoms to the UN, go ahead (it hasn’t worked for anybody else)..
Just don’t drag the rest of us into that festering swamp.
Who do you mean by “we”? Is it you personally or mankind generally?
The Arab world from Libya, Egypt, Israel, Palestine,Lebanon,,Yemen, Iraq, Syria, Iran, Pakistan and Afghanistan together with half the African continent has been torn apart by our “long period of peace”.
I could also include Tibet and Ukraine. These are all I can recall at the moment but I’m sure a little research would reveal others. So where has the UN been successful?
SteveT
The only way people get rich by taking what others have produced is by using government.
In the free market, you can only take what people are willing to give to you. Those who get rich do so by providing a product or service that other people want to buy.
Which is exactly what leftist tw,,,,its are fighting against. Freedom of association, trade and commerce are evil. And don’t get them started on property ownership, which they call theft from the people.
MarkW — in a free market system, there are plenty of ways to exploit government to gain wealth. It is called “rent-seeking”, and it is widespread. Other, long-successful practices include predatory pricing, false product claims, hidden pricing, and collusion.
For instance, the ACA was a huge boondoggle to health insurance companies and big-Pharma. Insurance is specifically precluded from anti-collusion laws. They used their government lobbyists to get laws passed that were favorable to them. It’s not like we have a choice — there is no economic value of “not dying” and you can’t buy a second-hand heart bypass operation on E-bay. Health care is one prime example where the free-market has utterly failed by exploiting their government connections.
Javier,
I still see value from structures that allow competition when we the public have a choice that is not there under a ‘one-world government’ arrangement. This preference applies not just to overall government in a theoretical view, but also to the individual and many issues of day-to-day government.
When issues are being decided through different proponents offering different propositions, there can be a spectrum of severity in public response, one extreme spectral end being open warfare. Warfare cannot be ruled out in future when nothing signifant has been done to extinguish it.
Personally, I feel that sad extreme outcomes like war are more likely to happen under supranational structures than distributed ones, simply because the former causes more frustrated people through lack of choice and participation in decision making even if that participation is illusory.
Javier
…and over the past 40 years, the UN has been “good” because? How about some examples.
Like most hyper-political organizations (e.g. labor unions), the UN started off with admirable goals. But, just like other bureaucratic organizations, they don’t/can’t change with the times. They become temples of rent-seeking.
The UN is worse simply because it is unaccountable to anybody.
This may help moderate congestion on the Upper East Side. Have you ever counted the number of Town Cars with the diplo-plates that always seem to be illegally parked right in front of boutique or restaurant?
Just like London! Diplomatic Immunity is full of abuse & corruption.Many diplomatic cars are loaded with traffic offence tickets but never get paid under the DI banner!
I lived in that part of Manhattan for a decade. You are not exaggerating, and those people are regularly abusing their privilege. At least Rudy tried to rein them in a bit.
Ahh the good old UN.
The organisation that takes on world problems which are in a disastrous state and makes them infinitely worse.
UNEXIT.
To the fear or even fear of the possibility that China will gain influence: so what? The Chinese have risen in stature on the strength of thier economy. Period. If they choose to fritter away resources on the UN let them. Our focus in the US is on raising our standard of living and quality of life. We are taking on some of the systemic issues that have been allowed to fester because they require making
choices.
There are those in the US who cherish playing an important role on the international stage. Others seem to like playing saviour and still others enjoy the US being a patsy. Let us build our country, extend a friendly hand to our actual friends; and keep a sharp eye on those with ill intent. Lead by good example rather than yapping about it. We will be fine.
“State Department staffers have been instructed to seek cuts in excess of 50 percent in U.S. funding for U.N. programs,”
Don’t get your hopes up. The statement above suggests that only elements of UN funding will be cut by over 50%. Which could mean a couple of initiatives, not the entire budget.
The UN is a legacy institution founded at the close of WWII to cement the hegemony of the victorious “Allied” powers in the aftermath of war. There is little upside for the US to withdraw from the UN. But we surely don’t have to bankroll an institution that many times works contrary to our national interest. The US has a lot of power with its permanent seat on the security council and our veto. We need to hang on to the power where it helps us and we need to defund paying for activities that are against our national interests. We certainly don’t want to fund the Climate Change/Sustainable Development nonsense that the UN programs constantly spew.
It is unwise to walk away from the political part of the UN. It is important the US participates to protect its interests.
“The US has a lot of power with its permanent seat on the security council and our veto. We need to hang on to the power where it helps us and we need to defund paying for activities that are against our national interests.”
Good advice. I like the thought of Trump staying in the UN and disrupting their evil ways for the next eight years, and that doesn’t require huge amounts of U.S. taxpayer money, just a Trump twitter account.
I would argue that the U.N. is an organization which amplifies the power of smaller nations and blunts the power of the larger ones. It also provides a forum for the airing of disputes and some degree of mutual cooperation on global issues. The mediation is important for smaller states in avoiding wars.
Although the ensuing discussions and verbal tugs of war may blunt the power of the larger states, it should also be recognized that many times the larger states are drawn into wars between smaller states as they defend their allies or geopolitical positions.
Most often, these larger states would be better off by far if these sorts of entanglements were avoided by negotiation.
John
Yup. Worked well for the Israelis and Palestinians.And look at all the improvements to Haiti…
Oppps. Never mind.
You don’t need the UN if you want mediation. All you need are two parties that want mediation.
As to restraining big powers. Where?
The only power the UN has is to issue press releases.
The food programs will continue. Those are really subsidies to US farmers.
I wouldn’t call paying a farmer fair market price for production a subsidy, even if the government intends to give it away as aid. The US or Canada certainly doesn’t need to use the UN to broker needed food. They might help distribute it in non-war zones. Where are they in Somalia, Yemen, Libya, Sudan and some west Africa areas? Did they try to get the school girls back from Boko Haram? Do they do anything about the treatment of girls/women in the Middle East? Who are the members of their human rights councils? Just asking… The US (and Canada-ya, right) should pay for membership in the General Assembly and Security Council – that’s it. Every other program has been bent into Agenda 21/30 under the rubric of “sustainability.
Would you apply the same rules to car production? or Coal ? or Steel? or do farmers have a privileged place in the economy and are not subject to the same economic laws as everyone else.
Your deep, burning hatred for farmers and tax payers is quite curious.
If the government is increasing demand over and above what the market would otherwise support. That’s a subsidy.
Thank goodness. These UN weasels have have had their sights set on diminishing the U.S. in almost every way possible(bogus global warming regs etc) for decades now.
When someone tries to do something actually useful, it is the job of the UN bureaucracy to make sure they are stopped. From 2001 until 2006, Stephen Lewis worked as United Nations UN Special Envoy for HIV/AIDS in Africa. In a radio interview he described how the bureaucrats outflanked him and prevented any action that might have improved the plight of the Africans.
Back in the 1950s the UN might have been driven by idealism and hope. Now it is dominated by cynicism. It is a great example of The Iron Law of Bureaucracy and mission creep.
And yet Stephen Lewis would be among the first and loudest to defend entrenched bureaucracies. He being of the Lefty persuasion.
Funny about that. 🙂
Most of the humanitarian groups are fronts to be honest. Even Vaccine programs, as recently exposed the CIA was running a fake vaccine program.
NED are purely infiltration of foreign states as are many other orgs like Hand in Hand with Syria (UK) and The White Helmets which are meant to be an NGO but are funded to the tune of millions by the UK and US even though they are in fact a terrorist linked entity.
Even more UN funding goes toward stealing the sovereignty from US voters. Ask any farmer.
Many other UN humanitarian groups are nothing other than fronts to fund despots who use said aid to leverage events at home, like using food to force people to move lands, and line the pockets of cronies.
The UN should be dismantled, it is not doing what it was created for, it is a thing unto itself and is cooped by lefty crack pot socialists and literally communists
“Lefty Socialists”! The worst kind!
There is too much corruption in the UN to maintain any level of support. They needed to be good stewards of the gifts from the American people and they weren’t. There is no accountability. There is plenty of need in this country for those funds.
“There is too much corruption in the UN to maintain any level of support.”
That’s an innate problem inherent in the design of the organization. The vast majority of the member countries have corrupt governments and those provide the likewise corrupt bureaucrats that run both the U.N. and its organizations.