Guest essay by Eric Worrall
h/t Breitbart – According to http://foreignpolicy.com, the Trump White House has ordered the State Department to cut at least 50% of US contributions to the United Nations.
EXCLUSIVE White House Seeks to Cut Billions in Funding for United Nations
U.S. retreat from U.N. could mark a “breakdown of the international humanitarian system as we know it.”
State Department staffers have been instructed to seek cuts in excess of 50 percent in U.S. funding for U.N. programs, signaling an unprecedented retreat by President Donald Trump’s administration from international operations that keep the peace, provide vaccines for children, monitor rogue nuclear weapons programs, and promote peace talks from Syria to Yemen, according to three sources.
The push for such draconian measures comes as the White House is scheduled on Thursday to release its 2018 budget proposal, which is expected to include cuts of up to 37 percent for spending on the State Department, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), and other foreign assistance programs, including the U.N., in next year’s budget. The United States spends about $10 billion a year on the United Nations.
…
The cuts would fall heaviest on U.N. programs, like peacekeeping, UNICEF, and the U.N. Development Programme, that are funded out of the budget of the State Department’s Bureau of International Organization Affairs. It remains to be seen whether other U.N. agencies popular with Congress, like the World Food Programme and U.N. refugee operations — which are funded out of separate accounts in the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the State Department, respectively — will get hit as hard. But one source tracking the budget proposal said the Trump administration is considering cuts of up to 36 percent on humanitarian aid programs.
…
The United States has to pay just over 22 percent of the U.N.’s $2.5 billion administrative budget. Additionally, Washington pays billions of dollars for peacekeepers and helps underwrite a swath of other programs that fight hunger, settle refugees, and battle climate change.
…
Read more: http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/03/13/white-house-seeks-to-cut-billions-in-funding-for-united-nations/
There are no details of specific cuts to UN Climate Change programmes, but it seems likely they will be cut.
My question – why not cut 100%? How does anonymising aid money through the UN bureaucracy benefit US taxpayers? If a country wants to receive the generosity of United States, say to help with resolving a crisis, the leader of that country should appeal in public, in person to President Trump, so the whole world knows where the aid money is coming from.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Notice the cuts will affect programs…
…not their salaries
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.
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.
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.
“battle Climate change” – I’m guessing the battle is trying to pull those monies from Trump’s hot hot hands.
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?
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.
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
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.
It was the tool of the USSR from the get-go and hasn’t changed much since then.
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!
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.
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.
Who Pays?
I hear the sound of rattled cages.
Oh noes! Without US money, how will the UN Peacekeepers be able to continue to spread cholera and child sexual abuse throughout the world!
Don’t forget AIDS. They have don’t a pretty good job of spreading that as well.
US haters will only get 10% of their budget from the US. That’s deplorable.
The following are the links to above quotes.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/sep/07/what-has-the-un-achieved-united-nations
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2015/06/16/america-pay-way-too-much-for-united-nations.html
……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?
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.
Yep…. :<)
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.
Amen!
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.