Cruz: No money for UN until anti-Israeli resolution reversed
The United States contributes about $3 billion a year to the UN's regular and peace keeping budget. That's more than 20% of the regular budget total and 29% of the peace keeping budget. All told, including voluntary and mandatory funds supplied courtesy of the US taxpayer, the US gives the UN $8 billion a year. Our contributions represent more than 176 other nations' contributions combined.
Senator Ted Cruz thinks it's ti me we use that leverage to protect our Israeli allies.
Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) vowed Saturday to not allow the U.S. to give money to the United Nations until it reversed its Friday decision forcing an end to Israeli settlements.
Cruz tweeted that he spoke with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, adding, "No US $ for UN until reversed."
Cruz's tweet echoes the sentiments of Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), who said Saturday he would propose halting U.S. funding to the U.N. as well.
"It's that important to me," Graham told CNN. "This is a road we haven't gone down before. If you can't show the American people that international organizations can be more responsible, there is going to be a break. And I am going to lead that break."
The U.N. voted 14-0 Friday to stop Israel settlements in areas of the West Bank and East Jerusalem. President Obama authorized the U.S. to abstain from voting on the measure, drawing backlash over the decision to break from the longstanding U.S. policy of shielding Israel from U.N. reproaches.
If there was ever a time the US government should stick it to the UN, this is it. Previous presidents were too enamored of the UN's high minded goals to lower the boom on the fat cat UN diplomats who gladly take our money and then trash us on the floor of the general assembly.
For most nations, it's always popular to savage Israel and the US, making us the villian or the cause of their own government's corruption and incompetence. But most on the left and even some conservatives believe we should overlook those facts in order to support an organization that takes on many burdens - like the care of refugees and world health.
In truth, the refugees are worse off with the UN caring for them than they would be if private concerns ran the refugee program and world health crises, like the recent ebola outbreak, show that WHO is nearly helpless without massive assistance from the United States.
During the cold war. the UN was a convenient place where the superpowers could meet and defuse crises before they got out of control. But the absolute failure of the UN to deal with the Syrian civil war, and other conflicts in Africa show that the American taxpayer - and the world - is not getting any value for their contributions.
US out of the UN? It certainly is something that must be seriously considered. At the very least, there's no need to fund an organization that deliberately undermines a key ally in an important part of the world.