How to reform the United Nations
It should come as no surprise that Americans favor the United Nations by a margin of two-to-one. After all, it is difficult to dislike an organization whose intended purpose is to prevent wars.
Unfortunately, the United Nations has been an abject failure at preventing wars. But what the United Nations does fairly well is keeping the peace after the wars are over.
When the shooting stops, blue-helmeted armed forces from a variety of U.N.-member nations are often thrown together and sent in to try to keep fragile peace agreements from coming apart. For the most part, they have been successful.
When these peacekeeping operations are underway, the United States always pays its fair share and more, either in troops or cash or both. Indeed, despite the carping about the U.S. being behind in its “regular” U.N. dues, the U.S. has always provided over half of the U.N. budget.
If peace-keeping operations were all the United Nations did and did well, then two-out-of-two Americans would probably give the U.N. their support and Congress would always make sure our “regular” dues are paid up. Unfortunately, some U.N. officials think it is their role to do social engineering and, when they do, they sometimes step on the toes of the very people who are supposed to be their main sources of financial support.
Family planning is a good example. If U.N. officials would stick with educational programs designed to teach third-world mommies and daddies the advantages of having fewer children, the U.N. would enjoy broader support. But when the U.N. preaches abortion as the major weapon in the struggle to keep the world’s population within certain limits, then those who oppose abortion become understandably upset.
After all, they argue why should their tax dollars go into pro-abortion programs? They have a point and a majority in the U.S. Congress has been withholding America’s “regular” U.N. dues in an effort to stop what it feels to be U.S. taxpayer-sponsored infanticide.
But the U.N. has other problems as well. The U.N. staff is too large and overpaid. While the people who pay their inflated salaries must make-do with Ripple and Velveeta, the U.N. elites are wolfing down their Chablis and Brie in swanky New York apartments.
Many of the U.N. elites see absolutely nothing wrong with living high-on-the-hog because they come from backward countries where it customary for a tiny minority of elites to live well while the vast majority of their countrymen are picking through the trash for food. So, some U.N. elites don’t understand why so many members of the U.S. Congress are upset about their eat, drink and be merry New York lifestyle. After all, isn’t living well the purpose of being part of the elite?
Recently, the Congress and the White House struck a compromise that restricts the use of U.N. funds which, hitherto, were used to foster infanticide in return for which the U.S. will start paying some if its back U.N. dues.
Prior to this budget compromise, there was talk among some U.N. delegates about suspending the ability of the United States to vote in the General Assembly and in the Security Council. But that was all it was. Just Talk. Any serious attempt to keep the U.S. from voting would force the U.S. to cut off all funding to the U.N. and over half the U.N. budget would be gone.
Unfortunately, the major media failed to point out that our regular U.N. dues are just a drop in the U.N.’s Champagne and Caviar bucket. So, to many Americans it was made to seem that we were the villains instead one of the few nations truly dedicated to the high purposes for which the U.N. was founded.
My solution to the U.N.’s penchant for high living is to move U.N. Headquarters to Killeen, Texas. Only the truly dedicated would show up for work. Fire the rest.
William Hamilton is a nationally syndicated columnist and featured commentator for USA Today.