Report: Trump Orders Massive UN Budget Cuts

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.

Advertisements

282 thoughts on “Report: Trump Orders Massive UN Budget Cuts

      • 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.

      • 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 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.

    • 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

      • 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.

      • 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.

      • 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?

      • 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

        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.

      • 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.

    • 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.

  1. 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.

      • 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.

  2. 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.

  3. “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.

  4. 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.

  5. 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.

    • 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?

      • 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.

      • 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 !

  6. $2.5 Billion administrative costs…$2,500,000,000.00.
    Another mini empire … I would like to see where that money actually goes

    • I would like to see where that money actually goes

      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.

      • 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)

  7. 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.

  8. 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.

  9. 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/

  10. 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.

  11. Let use them Kickstarter or better DonorSee.
    If Taxpayers like UN, they can keep it, but by voluntary means.

  12. I hope that the cuts will specifically set out which UN programs are to be defunded.

    The standard strategy of opponents of general cuts is to pick out the “cute puppy” program and to use the false rhetorical argument about how the cuts are all about a hatred of “cute puppies”.

    • Forrest, that’s just a standard bureaucratic response to budget cuts, i.e., threaten to cut the program/area that is most necessary to the purpose of the organization. For example school systems always threaten to cut the number of teachers, never administrators.

  13. 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.

  14. 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.

      • 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

    • 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 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.

      • 2hotel9 writes — “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?

        The UN hasn’t prevented a single war and has made others worse through inept meddling.

        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.

        South Sudan is the newest member of the United Nations, having seceded from Sudan earlier this year. The peaceful separation is considered an example of successful U.N. peacekeeping.

        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.

      • Javier
        March 15, 2017 at 8:55 am

        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.

        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.

  15. 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.

  16. Ahh the good old UN.
    The organisation that takes on world problems which are in a disastrous state and makes them infinitely worse.
    UNEXIT.

  17. 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.

  18. “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.

  19. 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.

    • 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.

      • If the government is increasing demand over and above what the market would otherwise support. That’s a subsidy.

  20. 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.

  21. 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.

  22. 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

  23. 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.

  24. YES!!!!!! This is 70 years overdue! Now, time to round up the criminals who have been using the UN for their criminal sh*t, rape as a weapon, intentional starvation of millions of women and children, slavery, theft on a global and industrial scale, fraud on a global and industrial scale, mass murder, hell, the UN has been an organized crime syndicate since the mid 1950s.

  25. My question – why not cut 100%? How does anonymising aid money through the UN bureaucracy benefit US taxpayers?

    Because that is not the point of this aid. The goal is to help stabilize the world to make it a safer place.

    • Since the UN has abjectly failed in it’s primary goal, just disband the thing and stop wasting money on it.

    • And that has failed SPECTACULARLY. Seeing as the UN is the current #2 cause of instability in the world, islam being the reigning #1, it is high time the UN got a good, solid a$$ f**king. And yes, benefit to the taxpayers paying the bill is the point.

      • I’m well aware that the UN has many controversial programs, but how do you figure they are the current #2 cause of instability in the world? It seems like you are just making that up.

        I’m not defending the UN, I’m trying to illustrate that the assumption is wrong as stated in the article. Anonymizing aid makes it possible to support nations that we would normally not support and provide stability to those regions. In other words, there is a benefit to anonymizing aid — we can oppose the politics of a nation while supporting the people in the nation.

        There is little doubt in my mind that many aspects of the UN are stabilizing, but it is easy to point to the nonsense of the UN (bureaucracy & the IPCC) while forgetting about UNICEF, clean water, and education initiatives. Americans find it too easy to forget the disastrous post-WWI history while pretending that the UN had no role in stabilizing the world post-WWII.

      • Because the UN is the current #2 cause of instability in the world. Facts, they are your friend, unless you are pushing global government propaganda, then you run from them like a fat kid chasing an ice cream truck.

      • Because the UN is the current #2 cause of instability in the world.

        Based on what? What is the measures of the cause of instability? What is ranked 3, 4,& 5 on that list? What is the independent organization who tracks these measures?

        As far as Islam is concerned, generally religion is a stabilizing force in the world. Most people like to point to flash points of history, but miss the elimination of other flashpoints by a common religion. Radical Islam is troubling, but so is Radical Christianity.

      • “As far as Islam is concerned, generally religion is a stabilizing force in the world.” I will just let that glittering jewel of ignorance stand on its own. You can own that one, babe.

  26. “battle Climate change” – I’m guessing the battle is trying to pull those monies from Trump’s hot hot hands.

  27. It seems to me nothing of substance comes out of the UN anymore now that they are the champions of how many fairies can dance on the head of the plantfood pin.

    How about we send a goodwill ambassador who can stifle a laugh, charge them rent for the building, and call it good?

  28. High time we all ditched the gaggle of gangsters for a very limited United Liberal Democratic Nations and we know who we are (it’s largely the direction of boats and feet stoopids). Aspirationals can have a say but no vote until they meet the minimum standards and the gangsters can please themselves and do business with each other while our borders and markets are closed to them. That should do it.

    • observa
      March 15, 2017 at 6:13 am

      High time we all ditched the gaggle of gangsters for a very limited United Liberal Democratic Nations and we know who we are (it’s largely the direction of boats and feet stoopids).

      As far as I can see there is not an organisation anywhere with “Democrat” or “Liberal” in their name which is actually democratic or liberal.

      SteveT

  29. The UN was an idea that should have been buried with Franklin Roosevelt, after it became apparent that Stalin was not willing to act in good faith.

  30. As Trump moves forward in a businesslike manner he is doing an excellent job of shaking up the status quo. Hit them all and hit them hard! They will have to publicly come out to defend their earlier and future decisions for all of us to see. That will continue to rattle their cages and we will be able to hear the baboons scream! Just gotta love it!

  31. http://www.texemarrs.com/061997/national_parks_belong_to_un.htm

    The statist’s goal was to turn the US over the UN slowly. AGW is a major part
    of that effort. Anyone who has not read Agenda 21 on their website needs to
    do so.

    The UN is the elitist’s tool for world domination. Elimination of nationalism
    and national borders is part of the mechanism.

    We should make the G20 Nations function in the original goal of the UN,
    eliminating any attempt to erase national borders or cultures.

    Get the US out of the UN and the UN out of the US!

    • I have been waiting for two separate concepts to be pushed which, fortunately, the election of Trump might have at least delayed. One is that the voting power of countries in tne UN be weighted based on each country’s population. The second concept is a global individual income tax, with almost punitive taxes for wealth redistribution on the global 1% – which would be anyone earning over 35,000 USD per year. China, India, and the Muslim world would inherit the earth.

      There are many on the left who would view this as the only way to compensate the world for the evil capitalism of the west.

      • Of course all of the wealth that the left wants to redistribute was created by the evil capitalism in the first place.

  32. Except for corruption, inefficiency, lack of oversight, comical duplication of task forces, and so on, the UN is a great organization for the US to throw money at.

    The Obama solution to the UN problems would be to hide/spin away the problems (with support from the elite media) followed by a nice long Obama speech followed by a photo op with Hollywood stars.

    Poor, corrupt countries pay almost zero to the UN budget and are of course corrupt hence have zero incentive to stop the waste and corruption. Every country has one vote on UN reform initiatives.

    In 2015, 35 countries will be charged the minimum regular budget assessment (William: minimum UN budget assessment US pays 28 percent peace keeping and 22 percent adminstration for comparison) of 0.001 percent which works out to approximately $28,269 each. Twenty countries will be charged the minimum peacekeeping assessment of 0.0001 percent or approximately $8,470 apiece.

    The U.N. badly needs reform, but the U.S., despite the mammoth checks it writes, can’t reform the U.N. alone. In the one-nation, one-vote world of the U.N., it needs support from other nations. Unfortunately, many of them remain blasé about U.N. budget increases, corruption, and inefficiencies because the financial impact on them is miniscule.

    To change the institution, the first thing that needs to change is the thumb-on-the-scales system that makes the U.S. the biggest bill-payer, but just one of 193 voting members when it comes to demanding honesty, efficiency and effectiveness in return for its over-generous payments.

    To change the institution, the first thing that needs to change is the thumb-on-the-scales system that makes the U.S. the biggest bill-payer, but just one of 193 voting members when it comes to demanding honesty, efficiency and effectiveness in return for its over-generous payments.

    Who Pays?

    Over the last six decades, the share of the U.N. expenses borne by poor or small member states has steadily ratcheted downward to near- microscopic levels. From 1974 to 1998, the minimum mandatory payment for the regular budget for example, fell from 0.04 percent to 0.001 percent. For the peacekeeping budget, the minimum is 0.0001 percent.

    In 2015, 35 countries will be charged the minimum regular budget assessment of 0.001 percent which works out to approximately$28,269 each. Twenty countries will be charged the minimum peacekeeping assessment of 0.0001 percent or approximately $8,470 apiece.

    By contrast, the U.S. is assessed 22 percent of the regular budget (approximately $622 million) and over 28 percent of the peacekeeping budget (approximately $2.402 billion).

    Put another way, the U.S. will be assessed more than 176 other member states combined for the regular budget and more than 185 countries combined for the peacekeeping budget. Who says America isn’t exceptional!

    This is more than a complaint about dollars. It’s also about the value received for those outsized contributions. Consider:

    · An independent academic study assessing best and worst practices among aid agencies ranked U.N. organizations among the worst.

    · Atop all that, U.N. employees enjoy extremely generous benefits and salaries—over 32 percent higher than U.S. civil servants of equivalent rank. ….

    …Unfortunately, oversight and accountability at the U.N. have historically been weak. And on the rare occasion when internal watchdogs bite, the organization moves to defang them.

    Take the case of the Procurement Task Force (PTF) , a special U.N. unit that went to work in 2006 to root out corruption. It uncovered fraud, waste, and mismanagement involving contracts valued at more than $630 million. It led to misconduct findings and convictions of U.N. officials.

    Unfortunately the PTF was eliminated in 2008—at the behest of countries angry about PTF actions against their nationals holding U.N. staff positions. The U.N. has not completed any major corruption cases since the PTF was eliminated.

    Poor oversight is made worse by U.N. hostility toward its own whistleblowers. Only a few weeks ago, nine staffers from various U.N. organizations sent a letter to the Secretary-General asserting that the U.N. affords “little to no measure of real or meaningful protection for whistleblowers.”

    The U.N. badly needs reform, but the U.S., despite the mammoth checks it writes, can’t reform the U.N. alone. In the one-nation, one-vote world of the U.N., it needs support from other nations. Unfortunately, many of them remain blasé about U.N. budget increases, corruption, and inefficiencies because the financial impact on them is miniscule.

  33. Oh noes! Without US money, how will the UN Peacekeepers be able to continue to spread cholera and child sexual abuse throughout the world!

  34. ……oh! oh!…….Trudeau will want to make up the shortfall so he can have his picture splashed all over the world……………and Canada cannot afford it. Could I claim refugee status in the USA?

  35. I find it odd that an American billionaire thought he needed to fund vaccine programs in
    third world countries and is doing so. Third world countries need birth control pills more than anything else.

    • The only thing that has ever reduced birth rates are increases in wealth and improvements in child survival rates.

      • I would argue with you about the improvements in child survival rates. Those just seem to lead to overpopulation and more poverty. There are several reasons for having large families. First and foremost is the genetic imperative. When life expectancy is low due to starvation, disease or predation having many offspring insures that at least a few will survive. Second, in agricultural societies many offspring are necessary to assist with the crops. Religious requirements probably developed originally from the first two but also help guarantee survival of the religion. Increases in education and living standard seem to negate the first two but not necessarily the last.

      • I just point to the real world, where family size plummets when wealth and survival rates go up.
        Even in the absence of any change in religious affiliations.

  36. It’s pretty funny that no one ever thinks that the money provided the UN is too much , but a cut is considered some sort of disaster. The U.S. can’t even balance its budget, so what’s it doing giving money away to an organization that has a record of dishonesty and fraud? The media hides all of the U.N. scandals pretty good.

  37. I’ve had this ‘wish’ for a long time to help greatly reduce the role of the US in the UN, and visa-versa. But to just scream “US out of the UN and UN out of the US” makes one look like a nut. What you need is an idea, a plan, that has a rational goal for them, but also gets what we’d want.

    My view is, (/sarc-on) the US has seen so much peace and prosperity since the UN has been located in NYC, I think it’s very selfish and unfair that the US should be the sole recipient of this. (sarc-off)

    What I would propose is a 10 year plan. Announced in 2020, the UN would pick a spot for their NEW UN headquarters. A place most in need of help, where their influence and ideas could be best used, let’s say Darfur. The current host country (USofA) would fund the building of an EXACT Replica of the current UN building, allowing for minimal confusion during the transfer. The next host country would be responsible for the buildup of their infrastructure, roads, utilities, airport, brothels, whatever is currently needed for the UN members.

    Then in 2030, they relocate to their new home, and proceed to demonstrate their skills at uplifting that society, and they would announce the next UN home for 2040. The vacant UN building in NYC reverts to private ownership, with the exception of the UN hall, which can be used by the UN for emergency meetings. But the remainder of the office space would be rented out.

    Then in 10 years, they would move again. I figure by that time, the current host country (Darfur) would happily pay to build the next UN office to get them out of their country. Thus, the UN could truly spread their kindness throughout the world and demonstrate to all the great power of the United Nations. And the US gets back some prime real-estate. Oh well, one can wish, can’t I?

  38. I’m with the withdraw 100% from UN and kick them out of NYC crowd.

    My recollection is probably flawed, but for all the money we contribute to the UN, it doesn’t buy us any love. The only countries that usually vote with us are England, Australia and sometimes Canada. (I wonder what these countries have in common?)

    The UN is a corrupt organization and has grown to oppose nearly everything the USA used to stand for.

    “Say goodnight Gracie.”

    • We could seize the land under the Kelo rules, tear down the buildings and make a nice “green space” for the watermelons. That should make them happy… But, of course, it would not, because it would pull the rug from under many of their rackets and their desire to pull down the USA.

  39. The Forth Turning…

    The UN will lose influence, the EU will collapse, Russia will grow, wars will break out in Europe and SE Asia AND S America, USA will strengthen, and it will advocate the reconstitution of the NEW UN with greater USA China Russia influence.

    It has happened before and will again. This BS Malthusian Climate nonsense will be forgotten under the rubble of cities.

  40. When it comes to the UN, 50% decrease in funding taken out of the present and future earnings of USA tax-victims is not “massive”. 90% cut would not be what I’d call “massive”. Now, if we clawed back 50% of the loot spent through the UN over the last 60 years to foment riot and terrorism, genocide and looting, now THAT might be rightly called massive.

  41. Apparently I am behind the times. It is now agenda 2030, a small victory.
    Maybe Trump can erase the One World Government idea completely.

    • Not so long as the UN exists in any form. Not to mention the Club of Rome and the Biltbergers or the islamics. History has shown that there are always people who think that idea they rule the world is just dandy. Those people have caused the biggest massacres in history so the current heirs to that bad idea should just be taken out and shot. Precautionary Principle in action.

  42. It is about time the Middle East stepped up to the plate and gave aid to everyone around the world, instead of just to the Muslim Ummah.

    Perhaps Pakistan can fund polio vaccinators, instead of murdering them:
    https://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/mar/25/pakistan-polo-vaccinators-murder-militants-salma-farooqi

    Perhaps Saudi Arabia can fund humanitarian aid to Syria, instead of funding ISIS:
    http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/hillary-clinton-wikileaks-email-isis-saudi-arabia-qatar-us-allies-funding-barack-obama-knew-all-a7362071.html

    There is absolutely no point in America trying to sort out problems in the world, while its so-called allies are spreading hatred and mayhem everywhere they go. The UN is a failed agency, because it refused to admit the failings of its Eastern members, so it deserves to wither and die. I for one will not mourn its passing.

    Ralph

  43. InInternational humanitarian systen? You mean like in the face of genocide they issue a sternly worded memo and do nothing else? That system?
    Good riddance.

  44. Reading the comments I’d say the ayes and hoorays have it. Cut their contribution. Our new U.N. Ambassador is very charming and personable. She will sell it with a smile.

  45. The UN is openly anti US, anti Democratic, anti Capitalist and they don’t attempt to hide their intentions. The hubris of the whole organization to believe it can go on acting this way and still expect the US to not only house it but be its’ major supporter is telling that they can go on acting this way and maintain US support.

    • Don’t forget anti-peace also. Using UN funds to facilitate Hamas tunnels and attacks and doing so in recurring cycles after Hamas gets beaten back periodically is slime. See also the UN role in the Six Day War, again at the expense of the targeted population for preparedness.

      • Palestinians attack Israeli’s.
        Israeli’s strike back at the attackers.
        The international community goes up in arm about the latest Israeli violation of the peace.

      • And lets us not forget the ongoing war on the Korean Peninsula. Thanks to the UN it will never end.

  46. That the UN can do with belt tightening would seem to be obvious. That it has no teeth also seems obvious and the big 5’s veto right has a lot to do with that. A major change in funding will force them to look at the waste in the whole structure and a decent cut in the contribution coming from the US might be able to force that. A similar % cut from most other nations will do nothing more then being an inconvenience resulting in the daily office clean becoming a twice a week service.
    As far as the quoted 22% admin contribution versus the 5% from China goes. Those numbers can be deceptive. What is the $ gain to the US economy by having the UN HO in New York. Quite a few people seem to work there, over 6000 directly involved with the UN not counting other agencies. Many are US citizens, also many from other nations. But they all spend their UN earned money, or most of it, in the US. They rent or buy a place to live, they shop local, etc. When there is a major assembly going on the place is totally jammed and hotels are full, they eat in local restaurants. All this provides further employment within the economy.
    One will have to do the numbers but I won’t be surprised if the cost to the US economy is actually a gain both to the tax system which pays the 22% but certainly to the economy as a whole.
    I have no doubt that China will be happy with having the UN HO in the country. The prestige and influence at international level that it gains will be enormous.

    • outtheback
      March 15, 2017 at 9:05 am

      Jobs do not help an economy per se, they provide a bit of local stimulus but if those jobs are not creating any wealth they are just a drain on taxpayers money which is what is ultimately paying for those jobs. The government might be better paying those people the same money to do nothing which would save incidental costs in the process.

      Remember, jobs not creating wealth or assisting wealth creation are a drain on the economy. The UN creates nothing but misery and famine, and does nothing meaningful to prevent most wars

      SteveT
      .

  47. There is so much redundancy in programs with bureaucrats in both the UN and participating governments doing the same thing. Direct US assistance for development or natural disasters would be much less than half the cost and the ID of the helper would be clear.

    UN has no managerial skills in the area of budget efficiency. With no pressure for real dollar effectiveness or accountability and, indeed, a political ideology ill suited for economic efficiency, these guys live high off the hog and operate safari style. Moreover, the UNFCC is not compatible with development, essentially blocking poor countries from having cheap energy needed for teal economic development. Chopping their budget to less than half is about right for providing the services they already put out. A second round would chop out function and program frills.

  48. Get ready for the massive “but for the children” appeal campaign, complete with Angry Bird costumes and Bill Nye appearances.

  49. Go watch the documentary on YouTube of the Six Day War. The cowardly compliance of the UN Peacekeepers to leave in the face of the Egyptian military moves without even a vote of the security council demonstrates just what a waste of money they are and actually counterproductive for peace by presenting false appearances of effectiveness. The lies from Russia and within the Arab ranks is also instructive.

  50. “How we can possibly be giving a billion pounds a month when we’re in this sort of debt to bongo bongo land is completely beyond me.
    “To buy Ray-Ban sunglasses, apartments in Paris, Ferraris and all the rest of it that goes with most of the foreign aid. F18s for Pakistan. We need a new squadron of F18s. Who’s got the squadrons? Pakistan, where we send the money.”

    That’s what Godfrey Bloom, then UKIP, said about the UK foreign aid budget in 2013.
    The problem seems very similar to the U.N. spending sprees.

  51. But who will warn us of ebola outbreaks if WHO is not there and asleep at the switch and playing political admin games?

  52. Thermonuclear weapons have kept the peace such as it is between major powers. That and a desire for peace in the West. The U.N. has played a very secondary role in that regard

    Same for the claim that the EU has kept the peace in Europe for 70 years. The EU has not existed for 70 years. They are claiming credit for the EC which was never the EU. Typical bollocks.

  53. The reality is that the USA is now a poor debtor nation with a huge federal debt, huge annual deficits and huge annual trade deficits. The USA has to borrow the money that it uses to support the UN. I estimate that the money the federal government is having to borrow today will end up costing the tax payers more than 12 times the amount borrowed over the next 180 years. We cannot keep doing this. We need to cut out all unnessary spending. Let the new rich nations of the world pay for the UN.

    • The debt levels are reaching unsupportable levels. The US will renounce it’s debt sometime in the future.
      They will either do it directly by simply refusing to honor it’s debts, or indirectly by cranking up the printing presses and making the currency and any debts denominated in that currency worthless.

  54. That is the bottom line. All the Western democracies borrow money to give away! Read that again please. Slowly, so it sinks in.

  55. This will be an excellent opportunity for the rest of the world to demonstrate exactly how committed they are to a strong UN. No doubt their citizens won’t mind paying higher taxes to make up the shortfall from withdrawn US contributions. In addition, the UN itself could help its cause by trimming away some of its bloated administration. Doing this will encourage all of its Third World hangers-on to use whatever expertise they possess to get honest jobs.

    • Perhaps they could move their headquarters to someplace with cheaper real estate prices. That way they can pay their people less.

  56. “My question – why not cut 100%? How does anonymising aid money through the UN bureaucracy benefit US taxpayers?”
    This is probably the most stupid question I have ever saw here. Eric, do you work for Breibart? Are you a populist? This reveals that you do not know nothing about history or the UN role in the present world. The UN never was created to benefit US taxpayers (or taxpayers from any country in the world). I can understand that you do not agree with the UN climate program and action (as I do not agree too). But saying what you said is just incredibly poor and populist. I could even say childish. It’s somehow worrisome that, in an once very respectable “climate” and “science” blog, void opinions like yours are taking to much protagonism.

      • PS: The purpose of the US government is to be of benefit to the citizens of the US.
        If you want to do charity, do it with your own money, not with money taken by force from others.

  57. Good move President Trump . The gross inequity of what the USA pays the UN is absurd .
    As noted above the USA pays AT Least 22% of the UN cost vs China’s 5 % . and that does not include $$Billions the Obama’s administration promised to funnel in the name of saving the planet .
    On top of all that USA tax payers are on the hook for the most expensive military force in the world by a mile so that other countries can use it on social programs .
    The message is step up other countries the free ride is over and UN stop blowing the money on a hot air scam with a nice cut for yourselves .

  58. About Time!!! I have wondered why USA kept supporting such a corrupt organisation especially as they seem to hate the US anyway.

  59. In making policy the UN should base this policy upon scientific findings. In making policy on climate change this is not what the UN has done. Something similar to the UN but that bases policy upon scientific findings is needed.

  60. The UN has slowly been corrupted over the years. It is just a front for the far right to push their agenda onto smaller countries in their great game. How often have we seen far right governments like Russia and China veto perfectly reasonably UN resolutions, not for humanitarian reasons, but for reasons of political gaming? It still has some good parts, but much of it is a sick joke run by the far right to benefit themselves.
    With the UK leaving the EU, Trump pursuing isolationism and popular parties rampaging across the world, the UN will be as effective in world peace as was the League of Nations.
    Lets hope the end result is not WW3.
    ps. The results from the Dutch elections may herald the high watermark of the far right, lets keep our fingers crossed.

    • Gareth, you win an award for the most use of the term “far right” in any WUWT comment ever! In only seven sentences you used the term “far right” four times. That’s 57% of the time. You do seem to have an obsession with it. You also make use of left justification extensively on your margins. That’s quite a fitting style.

      • Like most socialists, Gareth can’t reason, so he substitutes hatred and hopes that nobody notices.

    • Like most socialists, Gareth believes that the political spectrum goes like this.
      Communist, socialist, far right.
      With the far right defined as anyone who does or believes something Gareth doesn’t like.
      It really is fascinating how openly communist countries are being declared as being far right.

  61. The UN has slowly been corrupted over the years. It is just a front for the Leftist Ideologues to push their agenda onto smaller countries in their great game. How often have we seen Leftist/Socialist governments like Russia and China veto perfectly reasonably UN resolutions, not for humanitarian reasons, but for reasons of political gaming? It still has some good parts, but much of it is a sick joke run by the Leftist Ideologues to benefit themselves.
    With the UK leaving the EU, Trump pursuing isolationism and popular parties rampaging across the world, the UN will be as effective in world peace as was the League of Nations.
    Lets hope the end result is not WW3.
    ps. The results from the Dutch elections may herald the high watermark of the Leftist Ideologues, lets keep our fingers crossed.

    There, sweety, fixed it for you.

  62. “There, sweety, fixed it for you”

    Madam, do you really believe, in your wildest conservative fantasies, That Russia, China and the US are left wing societies? Really?
    If France is daft enough to elect a Front Narionale as President, that will mean most of the security council is composed of either right, or far right countries.
    China, a right wing Dictatorship
    Russia, a quasi right wing dictatorship
    Great Britain. Rapidly moving to a hard right position and isolationism.
    USA, governed by a hard right Conservative administration favouring isolationism
    France, in danger of electing a far right President.

    If with these members you really think the UN is a left wing organisation, all I can say is I think you need to get out more.

    • Aww, got your panties in a twist, have you? Too funny. Leftards like you are very entertaining. Go ahead, tell us how NAZIs are on the political right, we love laughing at that retarded crap.

    • Gareth Phillips
      March 16, 2017 at 4:27 am

      “There, sweety, fixed it for you”

      Madam, do you really believe, in your wildest conservative fantasies, That Russia, China and the US are left wing societies? Really?
      If France is daft enough to elect a Front Narionale as President, that will mean most of the security council is composed of either right, or far right countries.
      China, a right wing Dictatorship
      Russia, a quasi right wing dictatorship
      Great Britain. Rapidly moving to a hard right position and isolationism.
      USA, governed by a hard right Conservative administration favouring isolationism
      France, in danger of electing a far right President.

      If with these members you really think the UN is a left wing organisation, all I can say is I think you need to get out more.

      What kind of bubble are you in? Take a step back and look again.
      While it is true many of the places you mention are dictatorships there is not much evidence for right wing anything. China and Russia are better described as totalitarian and are of socialist/communist origin, who gains? The elite of those parties are the winners.

      Great Britain leaving a failing socialist, undemocratic EU and rejoining a wider world is isolationist?

      USA governed for the last eight weeks by a new administration has already been tried and found guilty, whereas for the past twenty five years it has been in the the clutches of left/socialist policies carried out by the Democrats on each coast with the help of a RINO interlude.

      Your wording in regard to France betrays your bias (“daft” and “in danger of”). The French will only elect a far right President if the working class joins the middle classes to defeat the elite. I’m not sure how that qualifies as far right. Don’t forget that Mr Hit…. started as a socialist.

      SteveT

      • In Gareth’s world, communism and socialism only produce good things.
        Ergo if something is bad, it must be right wing.

    • Oh and while I’m here Gareth, what do you think the UN’s Agenda 21 and Agenda 2030 are, if not more socialist desires to redistribute wealth, destroy free enterprise and private property and leave ordinary people defenceless in the face of a rampant global elite who aim to control everything and everyone?

      I think you’re the one who needs to get out more, preferably with open eyes.

      SteveT

  63. While it is true many of the places you mention are dictatorships there is not much evidence for right wing anything. China and Russia are better described as totalitarian and are of socialist/communist origin, who gains? THE ELITE OF THOSE PARTIES ARE THE WINNERS.
    That sounds like Right or left wing dictatorships. In reality China and Russia have more of the indicators of right wing dictatorships, and if you think that Trump, May and LaPen are left wingers, and Obama governed a left wing regime, all I can say is that you need to brush up on the fundamentals of Politics ( Part 1A)
    By the way, far left and far right dictatorships tend to meet on the opposite side of the circle.
    Hitler was never a socialist. The name “National Socialism” was used as a convenient way to disguise its fascist intentions.
    And you reckon I am in a Bubble ?
    Jeez, I can see why you voted Trump.

    • You assume I voted for Trump. Despite the ease of illegal voting in America from what I’ve read there are difficulties involved at my age, being British and living in SW France.
      Perhaps, if you think Hit…. was not a socialist it is you who should do a bit more studying – perhaps here –
      http://ray-dox.blogspot.fr/2006/08/this-article-is-published-on-internet.html
      There is a lot to read and much of Hitl… own words from Mein K….. and his speeches etc.

      As a taster, how about a direct quote from Hitler himself?

      “We are socialists, we are enemies of today’s capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions”
      (Speech of May 1, 1927. Quoted by Toland, 1976, p. 306)

      Also, you are the one claiming I said all the above dictatorships were left wing. Certainly, I accept that I said Obama had a left agenda and pointed to left wing origins for Russia and China. I merely raised the question, you claimed they are right wing.
      “China, a right wing Dictatorship
      Russia, a quasi right wing dictatorship”

      Perhaps you could let me know what “the indicators of right wing dictatorships are”?

      This is not personal, just historical accuracy at stake.

      SteveT

      • Right-wing and left-wing are poor descriptors because politics is three-dimensional. There is a distinction between “LIbertarian” (limited government, isolationist) and “Neo-Conservatism” (activist government, interventionist) even though both are considered “right-wing”.

        National Socialism is socialism. However, the form of socialism includes government control over trade (highly protectionist) and a strong relationship between “select” corporate leaders and government (known as “Corporatism”.) Putin jailing rival business leaders is a prime example of National Socialism.

      • Historical accuracy is usually one of the first targets of leftists. Rewrite history to fit the agenda, a tactic they absolutely love.

    • “Hitler was never a socialist.” Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha,,,,,,,,,,hahahahahahahahaha Leftards, you are always so comical.

  64. I forgot what the article was about and why I wanted to post so I’ll just run with the thought in my head.
    Money for the UN can come when the US public has universal health care even if we –God Forbid!– have to tax all of us for it.
    Privatized health insurance is pointless except for the privatized providers and the debt collectors who intend to lien any and all householders property for any of the health debts of any and all of the residents of the household. The usury being practiced by the government against people dropping/refusing health coverage has only one target. To push debt against the segment of the population that owns their own homes.
    Adding a health tax to FICA deductions is the only fair way and it confounds common sense that our elected officials would pass something as insane as a penalty tax instead of just deducting a tax. We are a nation of moneylenders out to parasitize the enfeebled public staggering under a load of parasites.

    • I’ll go one step further. The best way to pay for universal health care is through corporate income taxes, not FICA.

      We already pay enough taxes to provide 100% healthcare in nearly every other nation. Based on healthcare costs per GDP, we spend $1 trillion more per year than the second most expensive nation in the world (Germany) — and they have 100% health care coverage. The extra $1 trillion in healthcare spending is all markup which mostly goes to health insurance companies, big pharma, medical equipment manufacturers, legal fees and collection fees. Profit guaranteed by our government legislation.

      Worse yet, using employer provided health insurance (and/or payroll taxes) are direct taxes on hiring. In other words, we are taxing companies to hire employees and rewarding those who hire employees overseas. We need to reverse that equation. Until then, healthcare is an entitlement program for the rich. People who have problems with entitlement programs seem to have no problem with these entitlement for the rich programs. $1 trillion is twice the cost of all welfare spending each year.

      All that being said, it has little to do with UN spending.

Comments are closed.