May 20, 2005
Voting with our pocketbook
US Congress bill to withhold dues from UN unless it reforms
A United States congressional committee drafted a bill that might withhold millions of dollars in dues from the United Nations unless the world body launches wide-ranging reforms.
…
One of the bill’s most controversial proposals will be linking dues to the reforms it spells out. The document stipulates that if the reforms are not carried out, Congress would withhold 50 percent of US dues to the UN general budget, taking the money from programmes it deems inefficient and wasteful.
“No observer, be they passionate supporter or dismissive critic, can pretend that the UN’s current structure and operations represent an acceptable standard,†said Hyde in a hearing on UN reform.
The United States contributes 25% of the UN’s general budget. This, of course, doesn’t include things such as peacekeeping missions, the military stepping in for tsunami relief, etc., which constitutes a great deal more funding. They do this, being about 5% of the world’s population. All this to support an organization that is at best, indifferent, and at worst hostile to our interests.
It appears that the UN has forgotten the golden rule: He who has the gold, makes the rules. They seem to want it both ways. They want us to bankroll their operations, but they can’t stand it when we want to make sure we get some value (or at least some gratitude) for our money.
I’ve said before that withholding funding isn’t my preferred method for dealing with the UN. My preferred method is to toss their asses out of New York, disinfect the building on Turtle Bay, and turn it into commercial office space. Let them see who listens to the United Nations when the USA not only removes all monetary support, but all military and diplomatic support as well. But, that’s got about a snowball’s chance in hell of happening.
Of course, Hyde’s proposal only has a block of ice’s chance in hell, but that’s at least worthy of commentary. One of the things that libertarians and small-government types always have to mention is the fact that any time government money gets into the mix, so does government regulation. In fact, that’s one of the strongest arguments (argument not generated by the teachers unions, at least) against school vouchers. Many detractors of vouchers believe that as some of that federal money funnels into private schools, it will do nothing but extend the hand of federal regulation further into those schools. With money comes regulation, the two are inseparable.
Well, in this case, the shoe is on the other foot. If the UN expects us to contribute such a large share of their budget, they shouldn’t be surprised in the least that we want a strong say in how it’s spent. If they don’t want us to wield this power, they shouldn’t expect us to pay so much that we have power to wield. It’s that simple. Nobody would bat an eye if Zimbabwe tried to stop their payments, because it’s a drop in the bucket. But when the United States tries to influence policy with our money, it ruffles a few feathers.
UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan chief of staff Mark Malloch Brown echoed those fears during Hyde’s hearing. “We feel very strongly that your reform ideas, what we know of them, are very good and very strong and very consistent with what other countries want,†Malloch Brown said. However, he added that withholding dues “separates you from your allies because it’s seen as America acting alone.â€
Ahh, the dreaded “unilateral” brand. After all, that label has influenced this administration ever so much in the past. And as in the past, it holds no weight. Nobody else carries the UN like we do, so nobody else has this sort of weight to throw around. And if they don’t have this sort of weight, they’re not going to stick their necks out to join us, because there’s no benefit and a big downside.
But even more, there’s a bigger hidden message involved. What Brown is saying is, ‘Sure, your ideas are good, and we’ll give them their due consideration. But we’re not actually going to implement them, so we’d appreciate it if you don’t put any consequences on it.’ Of course, for the UN this is nothing new. They made quite a few resolutions about Iraq in the last 12 years, and didn’t really seem to care for attaching consequences to any of those. But in this case, you can either stop expecting us to pay so much money, or you can ask us to be quiet. I’m sorry, but you have to pick one or the other. If you don’t want us to use this sort of leverage, don’t give us so much leverage to use.
As I said in my last post, this is still just sabre-rattling. The problem, though, is that sabre-rattling only works if the other side thinks you have the cojones to actually follow through. I fear that in this case, the UN is not taking us seriously, and the expected effect will not come about. Oh well, there’s always “Plan B”. A nice office off Turtle Bay would probably rent for a pretty penny.
Last, let me say that I am now getting pissed about Yahoo! News. The story I linked in my last post all of a sudden links to a more updated AP story. It may be the same general topic, but please, give me a permalink URL…
3 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
They want us to bankroll their operations, but they can’t stand it when we want to make sure we get some value (or at least some gratitude) for our money.
That sounds like my ex-wife’s motto.
As I said in my last post, this is still just sabre-rattling. The problem, though, is that sabre-rattling only works if the other side thinks you have the cojones to actually follow through.
I filled for divorce, which is what the US ought to do.
I feel your pain about Yahoo news. The story updates as the AP updates their wire story. Kind of disturbing, if you consider the memory hole and all that.
In any case, its always annoying as hell.
This is nothing but socialism on a global scale. It is like the concept we have here in the US that the wealthy should contribute the most money to the “public good”, but shouldn’t have any more say in how that money is used than a citizen who pays no taxes at all.