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.
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.
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.
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
.
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.
I would cut all funding until the UN submitted to an audit.
+10
Indeed, along with Trump’s COMPLETE tax returns.
Yes, you should petition the IRS to release DJT’s tax returns since they are the ones holding them under 3 different audits. States of New York, Florida and California. He can release nothing while they are auditing it, pinhead.
You first.
His tax returns are an irrelevant talking point, just like Barry’s Kenyan birth certificate at this point in time.
Just sayin…..
Get ready for the massive “but for the children” appeal campaign, complete with Angry Bird costumes and Bill Nye appearances.
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.
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.
But who will warn us of ebola outbreaks if WHO is not there and asleep at the switch and playing political admin games?
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.
Excellent article and remarks by Eric Worrall. Thanks for the good news WUWT.
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.
“U.N. Admits Role in Cholera Epidemic in Haiti” https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/18/world/americas/united-nations-haiti-cholera.html?_r=0
And they want to “save” us from global warming?
That is the bottom line. All the Western democracies borrow money to give away! Read that again please. Slowly, so it sinks in.
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.
“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.
Another leftist who suffers under the delusion that the UN does anything useful.
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.
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 .
About Time!!! I have wondered why USA kept supporting such a corrupt organisation especially as they seem to hate the US anyway.
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.
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.
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.
Hey wait, Gareth claims the UN is dominated by the far right.
“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.
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
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
This is getting WAY off topic. Cease and desist, both of you. Anthony
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.
If anyone (like me ! ) is a bit of a political anorak and finds politics fascinating, this is a good introduction to the fundamentals of political thought.
http://factmyth.com/the-left-right-political-spectrum-explained/
It really is fascinating how socialists actually believe that they are the smart ones.
Wow, no wonder you are so screwed up in the head.
Meanwhile….
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/03/15/haley-demands-un-withdraw-report-branding-israel-apartheid-state.html
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.