Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

U.S. Negotiates $285 Million Budget Cut to UN, May Cut Even More

U.S. Negotiates $285 Million Budget Cut to UN, May Cut Even More

Haley promised the U.S. will “continue to look at ways to increase the U.N.’s efficiency while protecting our interests.”

Last Thursday, the United Nations (UN) voted to condemn America’s recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and decision to move its embassy to the city.

Professor Jacobson pointed out in a follow up post that the vote gave President Donald Trump to turn that loss into a win with money. The UN loves to crap on America, even though we host the UN and contribute a ton of money into the organization that has basically become useless.

That is exactly what Trump has done: $285 million budget cut to the UN. There may be more cuts to come, too.

On Christmas Eve, U.S. Ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley announced the $285 million cut to the organization’s 2018-2019 budget. She stated that everyone knows about the “inefficiency and overspending” of the UN and she intends to not allow “the generosity of the American people be taken advantage of.”

The cuts include “across-the-board cuts in expenses for travel, consultants and other operating expenses” along with a tightening of “rules on on compensation and new ways to maximize the us of United Nations headquarters in New York to reduce the need for expensive leased space.”

Haley promised the UN that during future negotiations, “you can be sure we’ll continue to look at ways to increase the U.N.’s efficiency while protecting our interests.”

Professor Jacobson wrote:

Trump also needs to make the UN pay a price, which is more than a monetary issue. It is an opportunity to shrink the size of the anti-American, anti-Israel UN bureaucracy, and to undo Obamas legacy of subjugating the American political process to the will of the UN, on a host of issues from climate to the Iran nuclear deal.

The U.S. contributes $10 billion per year to the UN, of which $4 billion are assessed dues, and $6 billion are voluntary contributions. This places the US as the largest funder of the UN by far, more than double what China contributes. Trump should announce that he has instructed the state department and other necessary agencies to propose a specific plan that cuts the US contribution in half. That would still leave us as the largest funder, but would present the UN with serious consequences.

The US could still maintain some voluntary funding that serves our interests, and would continue to participate in the Security Council. But the days when American taxpayers funded people who actively work against us would come to an end.

However, the announcement did not say that the cut is in America’s contribution. But if you look at the numbers the professor stated, our cut could go down. At Hot Air, Ed Morrissey wrote that if “the percentage applies evenly to the savings, we cut our total outlay by $62.7 million.” The UN’s budget is at $5.4 billion. Morrissey continued:

As a percentage of the overall budget, the cuts announced by Haley amount to just under 5.3%. That’s not insignificant — a 5.3% cut in real terms to the US federal budget would remove $217 billion in spending — but it’s not a crippling blow either. Plus, it seems very unlikely to have been part of a punishment for the General Assembly vote that took place last week, as budget negotiations would have been going on for months.

Human rights groups have decided to wait on more details of the cuts before making statements. They hope it doesn’t affect the UN’s “ability to monitor abuses or respond to emergencies – major parts of its work.” However, the groups did not disagree with the cuts…they just hope it doesn’t affect the human rights portion of the UN.

Then again, what good has the UN done when it comes to human rights? Look at the human rights council for 2017. THEY HAVE VENEZUELA AND SAUDI ARABIA AND CUBA ON THE PANEL. If the UN cared so much about human rights then why do they have countries on the council that regularly violate human rights?!

Let’s not forget the numerous child sexual abuse cases against supposed UN “peacekeepers” in Central African Republic (CAR). Dozens of French peacekeepers faced accusations of sexually abusing children in the former French colony, including forcing young girls to have sex with a dog. UNICEF interviewed 98 girls and the reports went to top officials at the UN. The French peacekeepers went back to France. However, in January, a judge decided not to pursue charges.

Then the organization decided to suspend its employee Anders Kompass after he leaked the information about the scandal in CAR because the organization did not do anything to address the scandal.

In 2005, an internal UN report found numerous sexual abuse accusations against peacekeepers in Haiti, Sierra Leone, Bosnia, Cambodia, East Timor, and the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). They also faced allegations in Liberia of “having sex with girls as young as 12.” The peacekeepers often exchanged sex for food or money.

This past April, reports came out that UN peacekeepers formed child sex rings in Haiti when the UN stepped in after the ouster of President Jean-Bertrande Aristide in 2004. Victim V01 told the AP that for three years, between the ages of 12 and 15, “she had sex with nearly 50 peacekeepers, including a ‘Commandant’ who gave her 75 cents.” The men even taught the children how to speak Sinhalese so they “could understand express sexual innuendo.” The UN investigators noticed the children used the language to communicate.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

It is a start, but still not enough.

    UnCivilServant in reply to ooddballz. | December 26, 2017 at 12:39 pm

    Indeed. Our response should be “We have overpaid for the past sixty years, so we’re going to stop paying for the next sixty.”

The UN was never a worthwhile business to begin with. Its founders, frustrated that the League of Nations didn’t ensnare the USA (because an American-minded Senate rejected that treaty in 1919), were bound and determined to get the USA in Version 2.

The UN is run on a one-vote-per-country rule. Voting rights are unrelated to the amount of dues paid. Today, with the large bloc of Muslim countries (about 56), plus another large number of dictatorships that will always vote against Israel and the USA at every turn, there is absolutely no sense to stay in the UN.

    “Most people believe that the United Nations was started with the high ideal of preventing war, but it was started as a seed that could be grown into world government.”

    https://www.thenewamerican.com/print-magazine/item/26075-the-un-founding-and-founders

    Two things at the top of the UN Lust List,
    — the authority to tax, freeing it from having to ask for “contributions”
    — its own standing army and the disarmament of member states

    To this last part our own State Dept. was at one time pretty cool with that. See, Freedom From War: The United States Program for General and Complete Disarmament in a Peaceful World

    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, PUBLICATION 7277 (1961), found here,
    http://dosfan.lib.uic.edu/ERC/arms/freedom_war.html

    Given the way the State Dept utterly caved on that 2015 “deal” with Iran, those career hacks in State probably still want a disarmed America.

      pfg in reply to pfg. | December 26, 2017 at 7:40 pm

      Read this chilling language at the end of Pub. 7227, “In Stage III progressive controlled disarmament and continuously developing principles and procedures of international law would proceed to a point where no state would have the military power to challenge the progressively strengthened U.N. Peace Force and all international disputes would be settled according to the agreed principles of international conduct.”

      Read this part again, “where no state would have the military power to challenge the progressively strengthened U.N. Peace Force”

Get. Us. Out.

    Ragspierre in reply to Anchovy. | December 26, 2017 at 2:20 pm

    No, not completely out. We need to retain the power to veto the really crazy stuff.

    But all BUT that would be a VERY good idea.

    And send them somewhere that more suits their “thinking”, like Yemen.

      A UN Security Council veto only applies to UN actions and. as the UN has NO authority to do anything except to members nations which allow it, UNSC action means little beyond providing some argument for authority for an action. The only actors who have any real power are the US, Russia, China and the EU. So, in reality, the only actor with any REAL power is the US. We do not need the UN. It is only a drain on the US and we should provide no more funding than 1/2 of the operational assessment.

        Ragspierre in reply to Mac45. | December 26, 2017 at 7:07 pm

        “…the UN has NO authority to do anything except to members nations which allow it, UNSC action means little beyond providing some argument for authority for an action.”

        Which has meant going to war several times, which is pretty meaningful. Your comment is bullshit.

        “The only actors who have any real power are the US, Russia, China and the EU.”

        More bullshit. See Falklands, war.

        “So, in reality, the only actor with any REAL power is the US. We do not need the UN. It is only a drain on the US and we should provide no more funding than 1/2 of the operational assessment.”

        You contradict your own stupid self. I simply asserted we should not completely withdraw. You (in your knee-jerking knee-jerkery) contradicted that BUT also advocate continued funding.

        The kind of “thinking” one expects from a Birther.

we should pay 1/193rd of the GA’s base budget, nothing more, and tell the leeches they are no longer welcome in NYC.

take the land back and do something useful with it: the UN has a backup HQ in Switzerland, so let them go there & GTFO of the USA.

the negotiations won’t be hard: “This is what the USA is going to do. Deal with it.” and hand them the 90 day eviction notice.

WE should pay NOTHING.

These pathetic “countries” need us. We don’t need a single other country.

America can provide virtually 100% of everything we need. We, along with RUSSIA, are the only 2 countries that can do this.

To hell with the UN. In fact, we should move the entire Organization and place them in Nigeria and then let them see that horror.

I’ve always thought the UN building would be easy to push over. And who would miss it?

Cut back on the diplomatic privileges ie as in criminal activity. Make all of the foreign diplomats pay all of their outstanding parking tickets they owe the city of New York to start with. This would be a nice windfall for the city. It would also go a long way to paying off some the debt the city owes. After the parking tickets are paid, then boot them out.

I always thought the UN HQ would make a great whorehouse. Similar function but way more honest and could help NYC balance it’s budget.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend