Brits refuse to fund some UN agencies
It's not going to save a lot of money, but the symbolic importance of the British government refusing to fund some UN agencies, cutting funding for others, and criticizing the whole bloody mess overall should not be lost on anyone - especially the one worlders, the anti-American multi-lateralists, and international blood suckers who live off UN grants.
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 major exception: UNICEF, the U.N. children's aid agency, which got a strong endorsement and a funding increase.
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. The British revelations also came while U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice was on an extended cross-country tour, drumming up grass-roots support for U.N. funding in what is sure to be a protracted battle. Unveiling of the new British priorities undoubtedly will hearten her opponents on Capitol Hill.
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 agencies that will be cut off are fairly minor, but the critique of some of the UN's major programs was unusually harsh:
Other U.N. organizations got sharp critiques of their "poor value for money," and stern warnings to shape up within two years or face deep funding cuts-or perhaps worse. The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) was slammed for "long-lasting historic underperformance." The $1 billion International Organization of Migration (IOM), which manages refugee camps, among other things, "only fills a marginal gap in the international humanitarian architecture." The $2.2 billion Food and Agriculture Organization, which the British government says has a "key role" to play on global food security issues, "does not adequately fulfill a critical role."
Some of the mightier U.N. organizations, like the U.N. Environmental Program (UNEP) and the World Health Organization, were deemed "critical" by the British in terms of their international role, but were rated merely "adequate" for their performance.
The UN is not only a mess economically, it is corrupt to its core. The Secretariat - the office of the Secretary General - is so bloated with waste and fraud that no one can say for sure how much they spend every year. Entire agencies are milked by their program chiefs with the help of large corporations and NGO's while not accomplishing a single one of its goals.
No one knows where all the money goes. No one in the US actually knows how much we spend on the UN because a lot of money that we give to private organizations like the Global Fund to Fight Aids is actually administered by the United Nations. They act as Project Managers for billions of funds, taking their cut while expensing the organizations for first class accomodations and the like.
If a couple of more western nations wake up and start to demand accountability, the gravy train might be slowed a bit. Meanwhile, Republicans in the House have no doubt taken what the Brits have done to heart and will slash US funds with even more enthusiasm.