By The reputation of the United Nations must be getting increasingly bad under Ban Ki-moon’s watch considering that both Democrats and Republicans in the US Congress were able to agree that UN funding needed to be cut:
Lawmakers are poised to cut spending on the United Nations by hundreds of millions of dollars, less than a week after U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon came to Congress to ask for continued strong support.
Congressional aides said the expected $377 million in cuts — much of which would hit U.N. peacekeeping — were unlikely to put the United States in arrears on its dues because it has built up significant credits at the United Nations that could be used.
The reduction in U.N. funding was agreed upon as part of a deal reached by President Barack Obama and Republican and Democratic congressional leaders last week to pare $38 billion in spending during the current fiscal year, which ends September 30, and avoid a government shutdown.
The deal must still be approved by Congress. That is expected to happen this week, although there are opponents in both political parties who think either too little or too much will be slashed from government spending under the agreement.
Cuts to accounts affecting the United Nations will probably make the deal more popular in the Republican-led House of Representatives, where critics of the United Nations say the world body is bloated and serves as a forum for bashing Israel, a close U.S. ally. [Reuters]
You can read the rest at the link, but must of the money cut was going to UN peacekeeping operations. For those not familiar with UN peacekeeping operations they are basically staffed with Soldiers from 3rd world countries like Bangladesh and Pakistan as basically a make money scheme for those Soldiers who are paid little in their home countries. Than the countries they serve in places like Sudan, the UN peacekeeping force actually becomes a source of revenue for those countries which of course brings massive fraud. With other UN programs we have seen the fraud that has gone on North Korea where the UN Developmental Program became Kim Jong-il’s personal ATM among of host of other UN programs being abused by the North Koreans.
So the UN is filled with fraud and deserves to be cut, but if you read the rest of the article the US is still providing billions of dollars in funding to this fraud filled organization.
3:08 am on April 13th, 2011 1
It's well past time…
6:17 am on April 13th, 2011 2
That's right un! That's what you get!
6:21 am on April 13th, 2011 3
The UN was built to counter the overpowering American dominance after WW2 (read the KGB's Venona Papers).
It has served its purpose.
We're rapidly become a 3rd World nation. Nothing to stop our slide now except making "draconian" cuts like the Tea Party wants. And we know how unlikely THAT will be…
We can disband the UN now…
7:33 am on April 13th, 2011 4
That's a START! Need to do a COMPLETE DEFUND of the UN. Doesn't matter who has the "watch". The UN is at BEST, a dead horse.
8:25 am on April 13th, 2011 5
I've always enjoyed how UN-friendly orgs, nations, and people have liked to chide stingy America by how little, GDP-wise, the US gives to the UN. I like how they chop things out of the figuring:
Like recent events in Libya. Because it was started by a group of agreeing nations and then handed over to NATO, and not "the UN", it doesn't count. Even if the operation is supposed to be officially a UN-led show, if the US does not put its forces under the command of the UN, but does participate in the military action, it doesn't count. Nations sending troops to Crete to seperate the Greeks and Turks counted, but US troops along the DMZ in South Korea didn't….
10:17 am on April 13th, 2011 6
Sorry, but I take offense at your comments about the peacekeeping forces. The UN Peacekeepers are serving a very important role. By making such a comment, you're essentially pissing in the face of some of your readers who've participated in UN peacekeeping missions, people who've saved countless lives and put their safety and well-being at risk in order to do so.
10:18 am on April 13th, 2011 7
Question: Should the US be on the UN Security Council if it doesn't want to pay its dues?
11:27 am on April 13th, 2011 8
I've seen quite a few American troops wearing UN arm brassards at the JSA. They don't count either?
12:04 pm on April 13th, 2011 9
should be billions not millions
12:31 pm on April 13th, 2011 10
Of course you guys are cutting back. You guys are bankrupt. You guys are poor and broke.
1:28 pm on April 13th, 2011 11
The United States is responsible for 22 percent of the core U.N. budget and more than 25 percent of its peacekeeping costs and that doesn't even include the indirect costs that USinKorea mentioned. The US is more than paying our fair share.
6:31 pm on April 13th, 2011 12
"The U.S. is more than paying our fair share." More accurate is that the U.S. is being foolish for covering any cost for the UN.
8:21 pm on April 13th, 2011 13
#11,
Dude, you're making a blanket statement about UN peacekeepers.
#12,
What you don't mention is that the assessment of contribution is based on the GNP, and the maximum is set at 22% (so, you might actually be paying less than your fair share on that). As a matter of fact, you're actually paying less since your contribution to peacekeeping should be 27%, but an outdated American law caps those contributions to 25%. Those are rates that were decided by UN members, including the US.
8:24 pm on April 13th, 2011 14
@#6 – What have I said is inaccurate? The UN peacekeeping forces are primarily filled with soldiers from developing nations that by serving in the UN peacekeeping force is a payday for them. UN peacekeeping forces have been linked to numerous cases of fraud over the years:
8:42 pm on April 13th, 2011 15
The UN is great!
It provides a nice place for third world diplomats to make a big show of hating America to satisfy domestic agendas while they secretly enrich themselves at America's expense.
America knows and encourages this as it keeps the leadership of the third world mostly on America's payroll.
Sometimes they pass a resolution openly supporting America's goals which can be waved around as justification for doing crappy things… and sometimes they write a strongly worded letter which can be ignored.
So what.
10:07 pm on April 13th, 2011 16
The Arab nations that have all of that new oil wealth should be paying for the UN. Afater all, the UN generally supports all of their "Death to Israel" nonsense.
11:21 pm on April 13th, 2011 17
The UN "peacekeepers" in the Congo raped women and children. Those in Lebanon watched as Hezbollah launched rockets and fired mortars at civilians in Israel. Et Cetera.
The UN and Jimmy Carter forced Zimbabwe to accept a blatantly fraudulent "election" and installed Robert Mugabe as president for life. Et Cetera.
Name one thing the UN has touched that it hasn't screwed up…
We would have been much better off without a UN.