Following UK lead, US congress looks to limit funds to UN which uses US taxpayer money fraudulently but is immune from prosecution

Americans are without raises, but "the United Nations has raised the wages of 4,800 of its staffers by 3 percent."...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 criminals who are 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 á 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.

Which leaves spending priorities prey to UN politics, where large blocs dictate the agenda. Thus Arabs states can fan the United Nations’ legendary anti-Israel sentiment -- even though

• 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.)

Mark Kornblau, a spokesman for our UN ambassador, Susan Rice, says she believes that cuttingUN funds would “undermine American leadership in the world.” She’s also said that
increasing our UN participation will put us in a better position to urge UN reform.

• 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.

Nothing will change overnight, though anti-American ugliness at this month’s General Assembly might turn up the heat. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and others are headed here for the annual show; they’ll be in town clogging up traffic

• 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)...

(4th parag. fr. bottom): "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,

long one of the U.N.’s staunchest supporters. In a sweeping and hard-nosed reorganization of priorities for its $10.6 billion multilateral foreign aid program, the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition government of Prime Minister David Cameron has pulled the financial plug entirely

• on four U.N. agencies at the end of next year,

put three others judged merely “adequate” on notice that they could face the same fate unless they improve their performance

• “as a matter of absolute urgency;”

and issued pointed criticisms of almost all the rest....

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.

Norway, for example, has long been one of the most reliable U.N. piggy-banks....Its direct contributions to U.N. organizations are upwards of $900 million, not counting money channeled through

• U.N. affiliated development banks.

It ranks as the U.N.’s sixth-largest donor. Nonetheless, a spokesperson for the country’s development aid agency, Norad, told Fox News, “We are inspired by the new British review, and will look closely to see what lessons can be learned from it.

• 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






.