Americans are without raises, but "the United Nations has raised the wages of 4,800 of its staffers by 3 percent."...The few remaining US taxpayers provide about a quarter of the entire UN budget. The UK has already undertaken cuts to the UN. (3/3/11) Why finance a hate group that's officially immune from criminal prosecution?
9/2/11, "How to force the United Nations to change," Benny Avni, NY Post
"It won’t become law anytime soon, but a bill to be introduced in the House next week to revolutionize how America finances UN activities is already stirring up Turtle Bay.Which needs it. A top member of the US delegation to the UN, Ambassador Joseph Torsella, publicly complained this week that while the salaries of US officials are frozen due to budget constraints,
- the United Nations has raised the wages of 4,800 of its staffers by 3 percent.
That “unwarranted” raise was determined by a structure where America’s vote equals any other member’s,
- so Torsella’s complaint won’t change anything.
What would? In a language East River bureaucrats understand well -- French: Rather than prix fixe, Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (D-Fla.) wants America to dine รก la carte.
All UN members now pay an annual membership fee as determined by the General Assembly. The size of each country’s dues equals its share of the world economy, as reflected in its gross domestic product -- with room for negotiation."...- (As our GDP is nearing zero, wouldn't that cut our "dues" to zero? ed.)
(continuing, NY Post): "As the world’s largest economy, we pay far more than any other country -- a full 22 percent of the regular UN budget (which was $516 million in 2010), and 27 percent of peacekeeping (which totalled $1.9 billion last year). What do we get in return? Well, that’s decided in the UN halls -- where
- each member gets one vote, no matter what it pays.
- the wealthiest of them, Saudi Arabia, pays less than 1 percent of the UN budget.
Rep. Ros-Lehtinen thinks enough is enough. Rather than pay what UN bureaucrats say we owe, she’d give that decision to elected Americans: The president would determine which UN bodies and programs serve America’s interests, and therefore deserve funding, and which are harmful to us and our allies -- and get zilch.
To listen to the attacks on her plan from the Obama administration and others, you’d think the idea is so outlandish and so destructive that we shouldn’t even look at it. One UN advocate, Jeffrey Laurenti, accused “conservative fundamentalists” of launching a “suicide attack” againstthe world body. In reality, the United States has already tested it -- to great success.In the late 1980s, one of our most internationalist presidents, George H. W. Bush, threatened to withdraw funds from any UN body that admitted “Palestine” as a member state. None did. And back in 1984, the Reagan administration pulled out of the utterly corrupt UNESCO -- forcing it to clean up its act to get US funding restored. (In 2003,
- President George W. Bush
- announced UNESCO “has reformed,” and rejoined it.)
- But urging isn’t enough -- the UN pay hike shows that....
America, by the way, won’t necessarily be alone in this fight. Tokyo diplomats tell me they find it harder to justify maintaining Japan’s status as the second largest UN contributor (14 percent of the budget) -- especially now, as Japanese voters finally realize their country is unlikely to
- ever join the exclusive UN club of five permanent Security Council members.
- and spewing out hate just after the 10th anniversary of 9/11."...
4/16/09, "Report: U.N. spent U.S. funds on shoddy projects," USA Today, Ken Dilanian
"Federal prosecutors in New York City were forced to drop criminal and civil cases because the U.N. officials have immunity, according to the report."...(para. 4)
"Commissioner Dov Zakheim, a former Pentagon controller, asked...whether the agencies have immunity "if they siphon (their U.S. grants) all off into Swiss banks? Is that accurate? They will be
- totally immune, no matter what they do with the money?"
"My understanding is, yes," Gambatesa replied."...
-------------------------------
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....
Moreover, the British actions change the focus of the debate, from gauzy generalizations about the need for and importance of the U.N. to a realistic look at what it actually achieves.
The basis of that switch is the same urgent necessity hanging over almost every Western government: austerity....
- 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.”"...
3/30/10, "UN immune from criminal prosecution. Did you know?" SciForums
---------------------
For the record, this post became yet another in the long list of my posts that was vandalized after completion and posting, ie large portions were blotted out and therefore unreadable. I re-did the post. As I've explained before having looked at all angles, I can only discover one continuous variable in the matter, which is google. ed.
.
No comments:
Post a Comment