Bolton on the UN Renovation: $440 million from the US
posted at 7:15 pm on May 5, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
Share on Facebook | regular view
Former UN ambassador John Bolton gave a rather reserved interview on Fox News regarding the planned $2 billion renovation at Turtle Bay — 22% of which will get funded by the US. Bolton has a resigned air as he explains that we fund 22% of all UN operations, and that the renovation planning used the same formula:
The renovation really isn’t the issue here, and one senses that Bolton feels the same way. Either the UN is a worthwhile use of American funds or it isn’t. If it is, the renovation doesn’t make it less so, and the building obviously needs a lot of work, as seen in the Fox video. After several decades, buildings usually require this kind of work, although $2 billion seems like a rather expensive project even for the United Nations.
If the UN isn’t a worthwhile expense, then the renovation makes no difference, either. One has to wonder why nations don’t simply put their money towards the programs that actually deliver benefits and forego the fancy building and standing bureaucracy that adds little to the benefit of anyone. Multilateralism doesn’t require a UN, and the expense of maintaining the club begins to demand a cost-benefit analysis that supports it. The corruption and abuses that have been rampant at Turtle Bay add to the “cost” in both money and credibility of the member states. The Human Rights Council make the world worse every day it remains in existence thanks to its membership of notorious human-rights abusers, and no one can affix a cost to that liability.
What the UN needs is an overhaul of its membership, its leadership, its bureaucracies, and the HRC most of all. Unfortunately, it’s easier for everyone to renovate the building without considering the cancers within it.
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
Comment pages:
$440 million that could be better spent here, right Hillary? Obama?
ThePrez on May 5, 2008 at 7:22 PM
I cannot think of one good thing the UN has done in the past ten years…or I should say a good thing that they havent taken advantage of or screwed up. Why are we giving them all this money again?
SoCalInfidel on May 5, 2008 at 7:22 PM
John Bolton is the second person whom I’d vote for president without any reservation.
The first person is myself.
Indy Conservative on May 5, 2008 at 7:23 PM
How about the US Government fix the Barracks, Dorms etc for our Military first? Or maybe I am just bias!
upinak on May 5, 2008 at 7:25 PM
I wrote Elizabeth Dole about cutting some (if not all) funds to the United Nations when Hugo Chavez came to America and smeared our president as “Satan”. She wrote me back, or someone in her office did, and said that U.N. was doing good work around the world. Blech.
Condemn the building and place it in ____________________ . I choose Equatorial Guinea.
SouthernGent on May 5, 2008 at 7:25 PM
$440 million?
BFD. Pocket change. The U.S. is spending that much per day just trying to “renovate” Iraq and those “renovations” probably won’t least nearly as long to boot.
MB4 on May 5, 2008 at 7:27 PM
The utterly worthless and dangerous UN that is doing all in it’s power to scam it’s way to global taxation with the IPCC’s global warming fraud should not get one more red cent from us EVER. The Kremlin is less anti-American than the freaking UN. Let it crumble and kick them out.
Maxx on May 5, 2008 at 7:28 PM
The $2 billion price tag is ridiculous–we should be able to rent a giant bulldozer to push that place into the river for a mere fraction of that.
ReubenJCogburn on May 5, 2008 at 7:28 PM
Lol…I think that every blogger here at hotair would say the same thing about themselves…me included
SoCalInfidel on May 5, 2008 at 7:29 PM
I’m totally in favor of renovating the U.N. building … into a condo, or a corporation headquarters.
Tony737 on May 5, 2008 at 7:31 PM
I think that every blogger here at hotair would say the same thing about themselves SoCal
Not me man, too many innocents would die in the nuclear fire!
Tony737 on May 5, 2008 at 7:33 PM
It’s unfortunate this country is not ruled by me.
The population would have been reduced by at least 100 million because many wouldn’t live in my conservative way of ruling.
Indy Conservative on May 5, 2008 at 7:36 PM
What would happen to them. Do tell!
SouthernGent on May 5, 2008 at 7:39 PM
Everything is equal, apparently. $300 million for a bridge to nowhere? Pfft. We’re spending that much on a nation security system. So we should fund the bridge, right?
amerpundit on May 5, 2008 at 7:40 PM
I thought you can guess. They would leave of course.
Take your mind out of the gutter. I don’t kill. People kill themselves when Right is Right.
Indy Conservative on May 5, 2008 at 7:45 PM
Ahhhh. If only the federal government had ballot issues like the states do to approve such things.
THIS WOULD NEVER PASS THE PUBLIC VOTE!!!
azcop on May 5, 2008 at 7:46 PM
2 bil. Gee, that’s only 52.6 mil a floor. What could go wrong?
Limerick on May 5, 2008 at 7:47 PM
We’re spending about $80-90 billion per year or $1.5-$2 billion a week or $220-300 million a day; and much of that is going to feeding and equipping our troops.
We’re certainly not spending $440 million a day “renovating” Iraq.
SteveMG on May 5, 2008 at 7:48 PM
The Unmitigated Negative is good for two things:
1.Redistributing wealth
2.Legitimizing tyrants
What more could a
fascistsocialistcommunistliberal ask for?VolMagic on May 5, 2008 at 7:49 PM
I’d be willing to bet good money that Israel would be happy to lend us a few D9 bulldozers to handle that renovation.
JadeNYU on May 5, 2008 at 7:51 PM
You think there’s 100 million of them? Granted, I’m sure it’s more than what the media will report to. I wasn’t suggesting you’d kill them. I’d hope you’d kill all the cash cows that use them to hold down wages, though!
SouthernGent on May 5, 2008 at 7:52 PM
Um… one thing he said caught my interest… assessed or mandatory contribution?
Ummm… since when is it MANDATORY that we pay? Did Congress loose its power to the UN?
Romeo13 on May 5, 2008 at 7:59 PM
Errr… go look at the lease. The UN has no choice but to do the work at great expense. This goes back to the day they signed the lease on the place.
lexhamfox on May 5, 2008 at 7:59 PM
OK, my apologies.
100 million, more or less, they sure will not stand my rule of conservative Law and Order.
Mexico, Canada or the Turd World countries can absorb them.
Indy Conservative on May 5, 2008 at 8:02 PM
Ahhh I want one of those bridges to “No-Where” since I helped pay for half of it. And I am not talking Federal. My State is paying or was paying for half of it.
Don’t believe everything until you hear it from on of the people who live there. Good Lord.
upinak on May 5, 2008 at 8:05 PM
Because kofi got his and retired so now it’s the turn of the other hoodlums to get their spoils.
peacenprosperity on May 5, 2008 at 8:05 PM
My guess is that the final cost of the project will be closer to $4,000,000,000.00 After all, all those thugs from the Third World live by corruption and will somehow find a way to grab a piece of the action.
Let’s cut our losses and throw the rats out. Move the place to Havana.
Zorro on May 5, 2008 at 8:08 PM
Good thing economically this benefits New York. America’s Mayor knows a thing or two about anything that benefits America’s city benefits America.
We don’t need the UN. Put them under a tent in the desert of Saudi Arabia so that they can benefit that area economically. Then pull our members and stop paying dues. America doesn’t need the UN.
ThackerAgency on May 5, 2008 at 8:28 PM
The UN has finally started to talk about food shortages, and their World Food Program is sitting on $1.2 billion! Another black hole for money that rivals the US Congress!
Tom
marinetbryant on May 5, 2008 at 8:29 PM
I believe Trump offered to do it for less than $1 billion.
JeffC_95 on May 5, 2008 at 8:33 PM
And in a lot less time.
Heck, anyone he’s fired could have done it better then these guys.
- The Cat
P.S. You better believe that only a small chunk is actually going into the renovation. And of that, contracts to friends and family.
MirCat on May 5, 2008 at 8:36 PM
Let Britain’s Gordon Brown spell it out for you as he advocates abandoning borders and national sovereignty in favor of a world run by the UN. . .
Speech given by Gordon Brown at JFK Library in Boston
heroyalwhyness on May 5, 2008 at 8:40 PM
I believe your 80-90 billion is very dated as the last I checked Iraq spending is now at about 150 billion a year and that doesn’t even count long term “residual” costs which will be very substantial, so the U.N. $440 million is very close to daily spending in Iraq. I would call it “renovating”. What would you prefer to call it “de-renovating”? George and Juan would not be pleased.
MB4 on May 5, 2008 at 8:40 PM
A pity the jihadi jets on 9/11 missed it.
Would’ve saved all the need to renovate this flatulent absurdity.
But they knew that it was a crucial point of their Fifth Column.
Why not relocate it to some island?
Preferably with an active volcano.
profitsbeard on May 5, 2008 at 8:51 PM
How’s this for a “formula”..
For every dollar the US gives to the UN for rennovation one staff position is eliminated from the bloated bureaucracy of America-hating thugs who inhabit Turtle Bay. Guaranteed it would be the first time ever a UN project would come in underbudget!
highhopes on May 5, 2008 at 9:01 PM
Demolish the sickening mess and rebuild from scratch, if indeed we must be saddled with this bureaucratic pos at all. It couldn’t cost more than 1/4 of that to build a new one, and do it modestly.
Why these career money-suckers can command luxurious headquarters is beyond me. Eff ‘em.
Jaibones on May 5, 2008 at 9:03 PM
Donald Trump weighed in on this three years ago and it’s STILL hilarious.
tree hugging sister on May 5, 2008 at 9:05 PM
can we pay them in monopoly money i mean thats about as much as the un is worth .
Mojack420 on May 5, 2008 at 9:09 PM
Nah, we should pay them in hookers. That’s where most of their pocketed cash goes anyway.
Grayson on May 5, 2008 at 9:27 PM
For $2 billion we could build them a gleaming new headquarters in New Orleans. Help with the Katrina reconstruction, let them stay within the US (although I’d prefer they took their business elsewhere). It’s not a bad idea, right?
And then sell the current headquarters to Trump and let him turn it into condos or whatever.
funky chicken on May 5, 2008 at 9:27 PM
$440MM before or after lopping off the top 10 floors?
Kid from Brooklyn on May 5, 2008 at 9:34 PM
We need somewhere neutral to move the headquarters. I suggest we move it to Antarctica since it is shared by several countries. And put it right in the middle so as not to show any bias. Land is probably pretty cheap too.
Corsair on May 5, 2008 at 9:37 PM
Subsidize the UN rennovation. I’d rather put the money into Iran, China, Russia (or even the DNC). At least we’d understand the effect of our taxes.
petefrt on May 5, 2008 at 9:42 PM
Revoke the lease. Let them build somewhere else. Who cares where. NO MONEY. They aren’t worth a plug nickel or a slug.
dogsoldier on May 5, 2008 at 9:48 PM
John Bolton for President! Love him.
mariloubaker on May 5, 2008 at 9:49 PM
I don’t know about POTUS, but I’d sure like to have him as Secretary of State.
njcommuter on May 5, 2008 at 10:05 PM
mikeyboss on May 5, 2008 at 10:15 PM
It will never happen. For what this organization is supposed to be doing, it would be better to close it down. Less expensive too.
4shoes on May 5, 2008 at 10:38 PM
Two billion dollars that go right into….the hands of Americans performing the renovations.
Sounds like a pretty good deal for America.
Next.
Dave Rywall on May 5, 2008 at 10:46 PM
Let’s hear it for urban renewal: Convert the UN into a Wal-Mart SuperCenter.
petefrt on May 5, 2008 at 10:58 PM
This is Gordon Brown’s baby too. Based on Soros economics.
Global Marshall Plan
They changed their website a couple of years ago, but I kept all the original info, including names of those involved, in a rather messy text file.
Connie on May 5, 2008 at 11:20 PM
$440M to buldoze the site and salt the earth it sat on? Seems kind of expensive.
That is the only kind of ‘renovations’ the U.N. should get.
That and/or move it to the center of the largest mass grave in Iraq (or Rowanda – take your pick). You can even name it after Kofi – after all he’s partially responsible for the two sites.
CrazyFool on May 5, 2008 at 11:33 PM
Don’t much care for Donald (the comb-over) Trump but he ripped the UN renovation a new orifice before a House (or was it a Senate) committee. The project riddled with incompetence and corruption made Pentagon toilets a bargain.
i b squidly on May 5, 2008 at 11:38 PM
If the UN were really committed to peace, they voluntarily should move lock, stock and barrel to Israel.
Of course the Israelis would not be thrilled with all the spies and child sex ring operators in their midst.
Dr. Bob on May 5, 2008 at 11:57 PM
Why Turtle Bay? They should build it on Plum Island where all the other government created freaks of nature are created.
m1a1usmc on May 6, 2008 at 7:37 AM
I’m thinking total demolition would cost a lot less than $440 million… and would result in a lot more good than continuing this corrupt, soulless bureaucracy!
dominigan on May 6, 2008 at 9:41 AM
UN…..GET OUT!!!!
Renovate the UN while our soldiers live in squalor. Nice.
Dr.Cwac.Cwac on May 6, 2008 at 12:43 PM
With the number of genocidal wars the UN has happily overseen, the name of Turtle Bay should join Auschwitz and Buchenwald.
njcommuter on May 6, 2008 at 1:22 PM
Comment pages: