UN Expenses increase 25% — for what?
posted at 10:47 am on March 21, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
Send to a Friend |
printer-friendly
The UN has presented its member nations with a request for additional funds for the current fiscal year — a whopping $1.1 billion not previously budgeted. That amounts to a 25% increase in operating costs for Turtle Bay, giving the UN its largest budget ever. Part of the request would fund the Durban conference on racism, a controversial forum which Canada has decided to boycott for its anti-Semitic flavor. Much of it, though, comes from the Bush administration’s own initiatives:
Despite long-standing efforts by successive U.S. administrations to rein in U.N. spending, the United Nations this month presented its top donors with a request for nearly $1.1 billion in additional funds over the next two years — boosting current U.N. expenses by 25 percent and marking the global body’s highest-ever administrative budget, according to internal U.N. memos.
Much of the increased spending flows from Bush administration demands for a more ambitious U.N. role around the world. During President Bush’s tenure, the United States has signed off on billions of dollars for U.N. peacekeeping operations in Sudan and elsewhere, and authorized hundreds of millions for U.N. efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq, where U.N. officials helped organize elections and draft a new constitution.
U.N. administrative costs have more than doubled, to about $2.5 billion a year, since Bush took office, while peacekeeping expenses have increased threefold, with nearly 110,000 peacekeepers in 20 overseas missions at a 2008 cost of about $7 billion.
“This is a breakdown of a 20-year-long effort to rein in U.N. spending,” said John R. Bolton, who served as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations early in Bush’s second term. “What happened in the late part of the Clinton administration, but most spectacularly in the Bush administration, is that the principle of zero nominal growth broke down completely.”
This sounds familiar, doesn’t it? The Bush administration talked about fiscal responsibility at home, too. Instead, he and the Republican Congress decided to launch a number of expensive new and expanded federal programs. It shouldn’t come as much of a surprise that he did the same at the UN, too. Even the spending reform plan he tried to implement at the UN costs $100 million to administer, and the UN refuses to cut other programs to fund it — so ironically, spending reform makes the UN cost even more than before.
However, unlike here with Congress, the UN has no accountability for its spending. The US cannot vote out the existing management structure, and neither can anyone else. The present corrupt, bloated bureaucracy at Turtle Bay satisfies far too many of the member nations, primarily because it keeps the UN from focusing on their own oppressive, corrupt regimes. Instead, the Human Rights panel and the Durban conference remains fixated on Israel, while its constituent nations of Cuba, Saudi Arabia, Libya, and others escape condemnation for their own brutal human-rights abuses.
The US should refuse to pay the fees. However, at the same time, we should rethink the programs that we have pushed at the UN in order to underscore the need for reform and fiscal responsibility. Just as with our own federal government, the more oversight we give the UN on issues, the more power we transfer to the unelected global body, even in a de facto manner.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
I wish we’d quit supporting this useless organization.
someguy on March 21, 2008 at 10:52 AM
Internet rumor:
League of Democracies being formed, to bypass the UN on issues of national security. Any truth to this?
captivated_dem on March 21, 2008 at 10:55 AM
Yeah, its gonna be made up of the EU, and the NAU?
Romeo13 on March 21, 2008 at 10:56 AM
That sorry, crooked operation just eats money and wastes our resources. They should run them out of town and put that prime real estate to some good use.
rplat on March 21, 2008 at 10:57 AM
I am still trying to figure out why we keep supporting what has to be the most worthless, useless, does-nothing organization in the world.
pilamaye on March 21, 2008 at 10:57 AM
They need the money now.
They are no longer raking it in from their Oil for Food scandal with Iraq.
bridgetown on March 21, 2008 at 10:58 AM
UN… UNaccountable, UNbelievably UNreliable, UNsuccessful, UNderhanded, UNderfoot…
scalleywag on March 21, 2008 at 11:00 AM
and now UNderfunded
scalleywag on March 21, 2008 at 11:01 AM
Don’t worry. They won’t have to make these special requests any more when the next Dem administration pushes through giving 0.7% of American GDP to the UN.
eeyore on March 21, 2008 at 11:01 AM
Good point!
tlynch001 on March 21, 2008 at 11:02 AM
Wow. So it’s true? /s
captivated_dem on March 21, 2008 at 11:06 AM
Tear the damn place down and use the steel in the fence.
Limerick on March 21, 2008 at 11:07 AM
Anyone remember the pictures of Bush’s recent trip to Africa?
He was having himself a fine old time with people who loved him because he was doling out welfare to them at the expense of the US taxpayer…
No wonder he’s more popular over there than over here. :P
Vatican Watcher on March 21, 2008 at 11:07 AM
I’m not really sure the UN stacks up, on any level.
I have run across their operatives in the third world. I could see what was in it for the men staying in the same high-end hotels I used, and hanging out in the ex-pat bars. Too many of them were schtuping chinese meth-whores when they weren’t bragging about schtuping children. This was in Asia but the scandal of this happening in Africa is the story that broke.
I couldn’t quite see what was in it for anyone else but the UN.
Maybe it was a nuance too far.
Ares on March 21, 2008 at 11:08 AM
I blame the refugees they’re “protecting”. It seems the underage girls are now demanding $2 per trick.
Plus they’ve got those expensive Goebbels Warming & anti-poverty conferences in exotic locations.
rbj on March 21, 2008 at 11:09 AM
And for what it is worth USAID was no different from what I saw.
NGOs probably cause more harm than good.
Ares on March 21, 2008 at 11:09 AM
Completely understandable. Someone has to pay for the penthouse apartments, parking tickets, boondoggle trips to exotic locations and all of the family members on the pay rolls. Everyone needs to be more understanding.
TooTall on March 21, 2008 at 11:13 AM
I agree……the east coast needs a Mustang Ranch for wayward politicians.
Rovin on March 21, 2008 at 11:18 AM
Now we can expect the UN to be 25% more effective.
/snort
Cicero43 on March 21, 2008 at 11:22 AM
25% more effective? meaning 25% more underage girls raped and passed around as sex xlaves?
I almost wish the US would say “damn the consequences” and just, for one year, cut off all aid to the UN and our “fair weather freinds”
We could probaly pay off our deficit in 1 or 2 years.
Wyrd on March 21, 2008 at 11:26 AM
Maybe you haven’t been keeping up with current events, Ed, but the price of hookers in New York is pretty high these days.
Blacklake on March 21, 2008 at 11:28 AM
Unfortunately, The UN is going through a large renovation here in NYC. They ain’t going anywhere, anytime soon.
awake on March 21, 2008 at 11:31 AM
Hmmm… interesting thought…
The UN wants this money, and the increase in funding .7% of GDP just for Poverty relief, and more for “Peace keeping missions”…
Um, isn’t it time to draw the line? When does an organization turn from a International Group of Nations, to a government in and of itself?
Romeo13 on March 21, 2008 at 11:33 AM
That’s right, and the cost to U.S. taxpayers of that idiotic giveaway (sponsored by none other than Senator Barack Obama) is estimated to be nearly $1 Trillion over the next 15 years.
The thievery and fraud that program will fund will make the oil-for-food thievery and fraud look like nickel and dime stuff.
AZCoyote on March 21, 2008 at 11:38 AM
How much does old kofi get in retirement pay?
peacenprosperity on March 21, 2008 at 11:51 AM
Better to house this useless organization on US soil. That way we can liquidate the corrupt institution quickly if things get out of control.
Can’t we fund our share of this huge tax increase just by putting the rent up?
Pax americana on March 21, 2008 at 11:51 AM
It’s disgusting that we support the UN. It’s even sadder that our government is willing to pony up a 25% increase.
Lance Murdock on March 21, 2008 at 11:58 AM
UN: Useless Nincompoops.
Mazztek on March 21, 2008 at 12:12 PM
Why, why, WHY are we still a member? WHY do we host them in New York? Why would we consider giving another $1.1B to an organization that exists to ***-block America at every chance? We are acting like an abused wife that takes ongoing beatings instead of leaving.
Every day I read the news I become a little more isolationist.
cannonball on March 21, 2008 at 12:15 PM
I hate my government. The Founding Fathers would be ashamed too…
Tim Burton on March 21, 2008 at 12:26 PM
Hey, those refugees the in Democratic Republic of the Congo, Liberia, Burundi, and Haiti don’t just rape themselves, you know. Someone’s got to pay for it. Might as well be the United States.
Laura on March 21, 2008 at 12:26 PM
No, we absolutely cannot get out of the UN. We have a Security Council veto which stops the idiots from doing too much damage. What we should do is to use that veto all the time and thus destroy the UN from within.
thuja on March 21, 2008 at 12:33 PM
They are having to make up for that shortfall from the Food for Oil program.
Just A Grunt on March 21, 2008 at 12:39 PM
I like Michael Savage’s approach.
Close the UN. Kick every diplomat out. Turn the building into housing for the homeless.
Dr.Cwac.Cwac on March 21, 2008 at 12:43 PM
forward the bill to Ted Turner and Bono..
DaveC on March 21, 2008 at 12:46 PM
Blasphemy!
What does the UN say to the US? “Give us your money. Now shut up and sit down!”
Et tu Brute on March 21, 2008 at 1:22 PM
How about this? Let them just finish those renovations, then drag everyone in there to Newark, and put them on planes to Switzerland. Then use the building for the World Trade Center V. 2.0.
dmh0667 on March 21, 2008 at 1:29 PM
Just wait until they force their Globull warming big government garbage on us.
It’s time to drop out of the UN.
SaintOlaf on March 21, 2008 at 1:32 PM
It takes a lot of money to pass worthless resolutions.
Marc01 on March 21, 2008 at 1:37 PM
Don’t worry, once LOST, the Law of the Sea Treaty takes hold, the UN will tax and fine it’s way to being the highest funded government on the planet, and appropriations and requests won’t be part of that picture. And with that level of power and the corresponding loss of sovereignty on the part of the US and the West, they will be less concerned than ever about legitimacy as they pursue their goals.
Maquis on March 21, 2008 at 2:15 PM
Must be for legal fees for all of those UN peacekeepers that got busted raping women and children…
RMCS_USN on March 21, 2008 at 2:59 PM
Back at U.N.,
We sure do like boot in our teeth.
Earlg on March 21, 2008 at 3:37 PM
Could they send me an application for work? I want to work for them, unlimited travel, unlimited expenses, no accounting, that’s who I want to work for.
right2bright on March 21, 2008 at 3:38 PM
Another indices as to why I’m probably not going to vote this year.
thegreatbeast on March 21, 2008 at 4:02 PM
Don’t worry. They won’t have to make these special requests any more when the next Dem administration pushes through giving 0.7% of American GDP to the UN.
eeyore on March 21, 2008 at 11:01 AM
How are the Republicans any better? Bush has increased funding to the UN.
aengus on March 21, 2008 at 5:03 PM
How are those reforms coming along? I see an opportunity for negotiations here.
Not that any of our statesmen/women would do anything that logical. Crap.
cs89 on March 21, 2008 at 5:17 PM
We do need to get out of the UN, but we can not do it as long as the UN remains in a postion to pursue its goal of becoming the One World Government. I just wish I could say our own government was not helping them achieve that goal.
Franklyn on March 21, 2008 at 6:26 PM
Co-ordinate with the Japanese and the other big-percentage countries. A nice firm “NO” position should be taken here, please. Starve the monster to death, if that’s what it takes.
mojo on March 21, 2008 at 10:47 PM
No and get the hell out of the US! The UN is an evil farce that has gone by the sell by date. Time to scrub the board and start over.
dogsoldier on March 21, 2008 at 11:45 PM
There we go.
labrat on March 22, 2008 at 3:00 AM