Sisyphus might have preferred his eternal labor with the boulder to attempting to reform the United Nations. Florida representative Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, a Republican, is having a go it nonetheless with her U.N. Transparency, Accountability, and Reform Act, which deserves the support of all the Republican presidential candidates. It is meant to allow us to better track how our dollars are spent at the United Nations and to tie U.S. contributions to our policy goals.
Historically, U.S. diplomacy has succeeded in achieving some of the easier reforms. But the tougher U.N. reforms have been forthcoming only when Congress has withheld or threatened to withhold funding. The United States contributes a quarter of the U.N.’s budget but is entitled to only one vote on how it is spent. It is thus unsurprising both that budget constraint and management reforms are of more interest to the United States than to most other members, and that withholding funds is our strongest leverage in forcing structural change at Turtle Bay.
Advertisement
In its opening days, the Obama administration naïvely believed that the U.N.’s resistance to reform was the product of a “sour climate” created by the Bush administration’s unilateralism, and attributable to U.S. contributions’ being in arrears. Neither the election of the most pro-U.N. president in American history nor subsequent payment of dues has made the body any warmer to change. This is not a surprise. We have tried it the naïve way, and it is now time to give Turtle Bay a whiff of sterner stuff.
The Ros-Lehtinen bill stipulates that the lion’s share of the U.N. budget be moved from mandatory to voluntary funding. This would fundamentally alter the current system, under which the United States simply is informed what it must pay each year. Under the one-country, one-vote procedures at the United Nations, the United States has no more say over the budget than does tiny Tuvalu. The budget can be passed by two-thirds of the U.N. General Assembly (129 nations) that collectively could pay less than 1 percent of all dues over the objection of the United States, which pays 22 times that amount. Moving toward voluntary funding would lessen the likelihood that United States taxpayers’ dollars could be used to support anti-Israel initiatives such as the Durban conference or the notorious Goldstone report.
Moreover, voluntary dues would encourage more efficiency at U.N. agencies that have become accustomed to automatic funding and lack any real incentives to economize or compete. On Monday, a U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, Joseph M. Torsella, complained that plans to increase the salaries of U.N. employees by 3 percent were “inappropriate at this time of fiscal austerity.” Apparently, no one at the United Nations understands the meaning of the word “austerity.” Incredibly, the U.N.’s budget has increased faster than the federal government’s in the last ten years, despite the United States’ bearing the majority of the cost for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The bill would also withhold funds from the embarrassing Human Rights Council until it removes from its committee those nations listed as human-rights abusers, known sponsors of terrorism, violators of religious freedom, and those currently under sanctions — a commonsense initiative that could only possibly be controversial at the world body, which sees nothing amiss in North Korea’s serving on the proliferation committee.
The bill could go even farther. We would like to see provisions granting the United States unfettered access to all U.N. internal audits and other internal documents, a revival of the U.N. mandate review to eliminate irrelevant or outdated activities, and changes to make the U.N.’s quasi-inspector-general unit truly independent, with expanded resources and authority.
In recent years, reform of the United Nations has taken a predictable pattern. First a scandal, then a congressional investigation, and then funds’ being withheld until steps are taken toward remedying the deficiency. This pattern has led to dues reductions, the establishment of an ethics office, and some improvements in overseeing and investigating the conduct of peacekeepers after widespread rape allegations. The United Nations will never truly be reformed, but Ros-Lehtinen is to be saluted for putting her shoulder to the rock.
Sisyphean labour indeed! On point. Let the UN be dragged naked into the agora to blame their benefactors for not giving them a proper burial. The river Styx awaits.
Better yet, in addition to making our contributions voluntary, I suggest that we factor into that amount a private company would charge the UN for rent for that prime NYC real estate. And when they don't change and we withhold our money, they should still pay us rent.
Ms. Ros-Lehtinen is to be saluted; no one else is doing anything.
But the most effective reform would be to simply close the UN and send all their bureaucrats home.
Can anyone cite any (positive) accomplishments attributable to the UN?
we don't need to reform the un we need to pull out of it all together and tell them to take their anti-semetic, anti-american, anti-women, anti-ignorant infidel agenda to another country (i think iran would be the perfect place for these thieves to gather)
In terms of dollars spent vs. missions accomplished, the UN has a worse track record than even "green jobs" - not an easy bar to sneak under!
Considering the rampant and institutionalized hostility of the UN toward America and its allies, the question is not how to better account for and spend this money; the question is why the USA continues to participate at all.
Ideally the budget for the UN should be $0. The UN makes the federal government look efficient, ha ha. We have plenty of things to spend money on, the UN is an easy cut.
Like some of the other comments here, the question should be: Why are we participating in this corrupted organization? It doesn't do us or anybody for that matter any good.
I really don't know how an organization like the UN could be useful. It fails at anything it does. Nobody would be dumb enough (well maybe the US would be) to give it any power to give it teeth. Giving it that power would only make it more dangerous then it already is. It gives a platform to dictators and other scum. Even if we made it a League of Democracy (by kicking out 3/4 of the countries) it would still be pretty pointless.
Frankly the UN needs to join the League of Nations in the dustbin of history.
"The bill could go even farther. .." Oh please, please, let the first reform be the defunding and shut-down of UNRWA. This malign organization probably does more to perpetuate the Israel-Palestinian conflict than any other factors. For over 60 years, they have maintained and subsidized the refugees with no requirements for the refugees and their Muslim “brothers” to take any actions to re-settle them. They just sit there – with one of the highest birth rates in the world – perpetuating them selves and waiting for their “return”. NO other refugee group anywhere, at anytime, has had this kind of “service” for this long. Any attempts to solve the refugee issue is immediately attacked as a plot to “liquidate the Palestinian revolution” – something that MUST be done if peace is to ever break out.
As for UNRWA itself, like all bureaucracies, it is self-perpetuating; all looking to increase its “client base” and the service it provides. It has no institutional interest in re-settlement, or any other resolution of this self-inflicted “problem”.
UNESCO also needs to cease to exist. Its only function is to ensure tourism rich Western European nations get free money to preserve their revenue sites. See the sacred German Mudflats.
Another debate is coming on Capitol Hill. This one relates to withholding funds from the United Nations. The UN has become an inept, impotent organization at best and a purveyor of rape and other crimes at worst. Why should the US pay for an organization that trades Food for sex with underage girls, is a network of pedophiles, cannot decide on a final definition of terrorism, cannot keep its own members (who have sworn to uphold and defend the sanctity of life) from slaughtering their own citizens (Syria, Sudan, Somalia, Nigeria, Iraq, Iran, China, need I continue?), and regularly votes AGAINST US interests and resolutions?