President looks to scale back U.S. involvement in activities outside the national interest
President Trump is reportedly preparing an executive order that will significantly reduce U.S. involvement in the United Nations.
The draft order, “Auditing and Reducing U.S. Funding of International Organizations,” would terminate funding completely for any international organization that meets one or more of several criteria.
The criteria include those that recognize the Palestinian Authority or PLO, fund abortion, or work to circumvent sanctions against Iran or North Korea. The order also calls for “at least a 40 percent overall decrease” in funding to international groups overall.
The order would also create a committee tasked with identifying where cuts can be made, The New York Times reported. The committee would take a closer look at the International Criminal Court, peacekeeping missions, the UN Population Fund, and developmental aid to countries that oppose U.S. policy.
A 40-percent decrease overall in U.S. funding towards the U.N. and other international organizations would save American taxpayers a significant amount of money.
And while the internationalist ideologue will insist that the U.S. is merely fulfilling its international moral obligations, such an assertion assumes the U.N. and its peacekeepers are actually doing their jobs.
A 2014 study of U.N. peacekeeping operations with a mandate to protect civilians — conducted by the U.N. itself — discovered that U.N. troops “did not report responding to 406 (80 percent) of [the 570] incidents where civilians were attacked.”
The 2010 cholera outbreak in Haiti which killed more than 8,000 people was traced to U.N. peacekeepers, and U.N. staff members have been accused of sexual exploitation, rape, and abuse in at least 10 countries in Europe, Africa, and the West Indies.
A 2012 study by researchers at NYU and Mississippi State University of the best and worst aid agency practices found that the U.N. had some of the very worst. “The biggest difference is between the UN agencies, who mostly rank in the bottom half of donors, and everyone else,” the report noted.salaries nearly a third higher than their U.S. civil servant counterparts.
In addition to being a drain on America’s treasury, our extravagant commitments to the U.N. often undermine the nation’s moral credibility.
Rampant accusations of fraud, mismanagement, corruption, and sexual assault aside, the U.N. is the organization charged ostensibly with protecting world peace and human rights that counts China, Cuba, Burundi, Egypt, Iraq, Venezuela, the UAE, and Saudi Arabia among the members of its Human Rights Council.
Kuwait was British created and client well before 1914 as one of the Indian “Political Dept’s” Trucial Coast states which is why Sir Percy Cox had a confrontation with Hashemite Feisal post 1918 to maintain the separateness of Q8.
The U.N. a useless organization r1
In a Democratic legal system if you have decision that you think is erroneous or unjust you can appeal that decision and many times it is reversed.
U.N. opinions and or resolutions are non-binding and have no legal standing, biased, unjust, arbitrary and capricious (the same apply to the ICJ – International Court of Justice).
The U.N. has issued numerous opinions and resolutions that are biased, unsubstantiated and contrary to historical and factual evidence. This U.N. collusion with corrupt and biased countries and the issuance of egregious opinions and resolution has eroded the credibility of the U.N. beyond repair.
This has raised the ire and an outcry by many nations, politicians and institutions to de-fund the U.N. and dismantle it.
It is well known that the U.N. and the ICJ can only offer and issue a non-binding advisory recommended opinions and resolutions which carry no legal affect. They can only issue a non-binding recommendation and resolution and if it is accepted by all parties, then their recommended opinion and resolution is applicable. Otherwise it has no meaning, validity, and no legal standing.
Therefore, my suggestion is stop panicking and aggrandizing these biased criminal organizations. Their recommended non-binding opinion has no no legal standing and no meaningful value.
By reacting to and citing the non-binding recommendations or resolutions of this criminal organization as having any validity, you are misleading the public that the non-binding recommended opinions which are non-binding by these criminal organizations might have some validity, which is not.
It is time to expose the fraud and deception by these unethical, corrupt and unjust organizations and dismantle them completely.
It will also save a substantial amount of money and resources that could be put to a better use.
YJ Draiman
Nikki Haley Tells United Nations: “For Those Who Don’t Have Our Backs… WE’RE TAKING NAMES” (Video)
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2017/01/nikki-haley-tells-united-nations-dont-backs-taking-names-video/
@ Frank Adam:
Yes. Kuwait expelled its Palestinian Arabs — who were much of its managerial class — and cut off funding to the PLO, as did much of the Arab world in response to the PLO’s support for the Iraq invasion and brutal annexation– including looting anything that could be removed back to Iraq and a policy of systematic mass rape — of Kuwait. If Israel had not chosen that moment to cut a deal, the PLO might have gone bankrupt.
Meanwhile, the idiot left here was repeating the canard that Kuwait was historically part of Iraq and had been separated by Western colonialism. Iraq was created by the British in the ’20s and Kuwait in the in the early ’60s, out of the ruins of the Ottoman Empire.
good idea
Given the financial losses to the PA in Kuwait with Saddam Hussein are what drove the AP to try Oslo; it will be welcome if the US cuts its aid to the PA, to UNWRA and cuts its subs to the UN by the budget of the two Palestine Committees and to UNESCO till UNESCO cuts the PA back to observer status.
However the aim should be to improve the UN overall especially as it was created – like the League of Nations before – to better the World, but also to facilitate US influence over it which is why the US has since 1945 poured in so many dollars.
Dealing with a problem often involves offering something better as bait and Trump in his pride as author of the Art of the Deal would do well to propose revising UN subscriptions to align with GDP on running five year averages which is a standard accounting practice. Then those who are out can be asked to cough up and US contributions cut RATIONALLY by the total of under assessments of subscriptions. This also opens the way to kiss and make up later.
@ Ted Belman:
Does anyone know if this means no more support of UNRWA?
Such action is the best indicator of Trump’s attitude to the PA. Since the PA won’t change its ways, it is finished. Trump won’t put up with their bullshit.