The UN is free to act criminally with US taxpayer money because it is immune from prosecution. One of obvious reasons we must get out. 4/16/09, "Report: U.N. spent U.S. funds on shoddy projects," USA Today, Ken Dilanian. UK news is most welcome.
3/3/11, "U.K. Pulls Plug on United Nations Spending, in Move That is Bound to Hearten U.S. Critics," Fox News, George Russell
"Critics of U.S. spending on the United Nations got a huge boost—and supporters of that spending, especially the Obama Administration, took a body blow—from an unlikely source
- this week: the British government,
- on four U.N. agencies at the end of next year,
- “as a matter of absolute urgency;”
The tough actions were revealed as the Republican majority in the U.S. House of Representatives, led by House Foreign Affairs Committee chairperson Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, has been gearing up an extended critical look at U.N. funding as part of its overall budget austerity plan.
- The British revelations also came while U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice was on an extended cross-country tour, drumming up grass-roots support for U.N. funding in what is sure to be a protracted battle....
The basis of that switch is the same urgent necessity hanging over almost every Western government: austerity. For Britain’s coalition government, however, the need to make dramatic domestic cuts has been coupled with a promise to avoid cuts, and even make budget
- increases, in the money it sends
- But the outcome could be an international game-changer:
- and penalizing them
- Such an attitude is “long overdue,” in the opinion
deserve better than they have been receiving from the U.N.”
- The U.S. pays 22 percent of the so-called”core” budget of the U.N. Secretariat, and
- 27 percent of peacekeeping expenses, but
- estimated $6.3 billion overall.
- channeled through non-U.N. institutions, such as the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria (GFATM),
The implementing agencies typically charge a percentage for their services. Most of the U.N. agencies that have gone fully under the British budget ax are relatively inconsequential in U.S. terms. They include:
- -- the Vienna-based U.N. Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO), a so-called “specialized agency” that promotes industrial development in poor countries, with a budget for 2010-2011 of $517.8 million. The U.S. left UNIDO in 1996.
- --UN-HABITAT, a Nairobi-based agency mandated “to promote socially and environmentally sustainable towns and cities with the goal of providing adequate shelter for all.” 2010-2011 budget, about $396 million.
- --the International Labor Organization (ILO), a specialized agency for overseeing international labor standards, based in Geneva. 2010-2010 budget: $1.1 billion;
- --the U.N. International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (UNISDR), another Geneva-based operation intended to coordinate disaster prevention efforts and “build resilient nations and communities as an essential condition for sustainable development.” 2010-2011 budget: about $28 mllion
- “could not find any evidence of UNIDO having a significant impact on global poverty.”
The U.N.’s disaster reduction system “has not performed its international co-ordination role well.”
but “does not have a significant impact” on global poverty reduction goals. So partial funding in the future would be funneled through a different British ministry.
- Other U.N. organizations got sharp critiques of their “poor value for money,” and stern warnings to shape up within two years or face deep funding cuts—or perhaps worse.
- The $2.2 billion Food and Agriculture Organization, which the British government says has a “key role” to play on global food security issues,
- but were rated merely “adequate” for their performance.
- their “weak” delivery of services and “weak” framework for producing results.
- But even there, the government found room for additional improvement.
- The shock waves inspired by the British announcements may soon be followed by others.
- U.N. affiliated development banks.
- Norway is a dear friend to the U.N. But it is important to be honest and let friends know when they don’t deliver what they promise.”
- “it will have consequences.”
'George Russell is executive editor of Fox News'
via Weasel Zippers