House Republicans planning legislation to defund the UN

New Republican Congress considers ending American funding of United Nations

Senior US Republicans are planning legislation that could stop US funding of the United Nations (UN) after the international body voted to condemn Israeli settlement building in the Occupied Territories.

The House Freedom Caucus, a group of right-wing congressman, will meet next week to decide between two proposals for the new law. One would reduce American funding of the UN while the other would make funding voluntary and mandate that any contributions must be agreed by Congress every two years.


Republicans prep bills to defund UN

The Senate is expected to take up its own measure aimed at the organization’s funding. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said last month that Congress should defund the United Nations unless it repeals the resolution on Israeli settlements.

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) echoed Graham’s statement to BuzzFeed.

“I believe Congress should end U.S. taxpayer funding for the United Nations unless and until the U.N. reverses this anti-Israel resolution, and I believe there will be considerable support in Congress, I hope in both parties, to do exactly that,” Cruz told the news outlet.

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) also said he supports the measure.

GOP seeks to punish UN with funding cut after Israel vote

The move to slash US funding to the UN by congressional Republicans was triggered by the Obama administration’s decision to abstain from a Security Council vote earlier this month that declared Israeli settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem illegal. Without the US veto, the Security Council passed the measure.
Oklahoma Rep. Jim Bridenstine is developing the legislation…

Defund the United Nations

It turned out that states with different interests and values weren’t going to act as a band of righteous international enforcers. In fact, as demonstrated in Rwanda and the Balkans, when confronted by hideously predatory forces bent on mayhem and murder, U.N. peacekeepers would simply stand aside.

In the decades after the U.N.’s founding, the influence of Third World dictatorships grew, and so did the institution’s anti-Western and anti-Israel orientation, culminating in the Zionism resolution that U.S. ambassador to the U.N. Moynihan so memorably inveighed against. That vote was finally reversed in 1991, but prejudice against Israel has become one of the U.N.’s core competencies — as well as impenetrable bureaucracy.

Graham: Defund UN after Israeli settlement vote

Congress Threatens to Defund UN over Anti-Israel Vote

U.N.’s anti-Israel vote fuels Republican calls to defund world body
Let’s see how far this gets.

New whistleblower policy could give move to defund the UN a boost

One weapon at their disposal could be a U.S. statute passed in 2015 that mandates Washington to withhold 15 percent of its UN contributions if the Secretary of State does not certify the organization is implementing and enforcing “best practices” to protect whistleblowers from retaliation for “internal and lawful” public disclosures.

The full extent of those contributions is not really known: the Obama Administration quit publishing tallies in 2010. But the U.S. is responsible for paying 22 per cent of the UN Secretariat’s so-called regular budget of some $5.46 billion for 2016-2017, which is about half of what the organization is expected to spend. (The U.S. is also responsible for 28.57 per cent of the current $7.9 billion UN annual peacekeeping budget.)

Bill to Get U.S. Out of UN Introduced in New Congress

H.R.193 was re-introduced in the 115th Congress on January 3, the first day of the new Congress, by Representative Mike Rogers (R-Ala.) and a coalition of liberty-minded lawmakers. While the full text of the legislation is not yet available online, sources on Capitol Hill confirmed that the bill was the same as H.R. 1205 of the 114th Congress, also known as the American Sovereignty Restoration Act. The new bill is currently going under the header, “To end membership of the United States in the United Nations.”

Article Continues Below

If approved, the legislation would repeal the UN Participation Act of 1945, which authorized U.S. involvement, and shutter the U.S. government’s mission to the outfit. It would also “terminate all membership by the United States in the United Nations, and in any organ, specialized agency, commission, or other formally affiliated body of the United Nations.” That specifically includes UNESCO, which President Ronald Reagan withdrew from, along with the World Health Organization, the UN Environment Program (UNEP), the UN’s dictator-controlled “Human Rights Council,” and more. It would end all U.S. involvement in all UN conventions and agreements, too.

The proposed law, introduced in numerous Congresses in recent decades, would also end all funding to the UN and all of its agencies — with the estimated savings to taxpayers reaching as high as $10 billion per year, and potentially even more. The legislation prohibits all U.S. military involvement in UN “peacekeeping” schemes, too, creating a ban on U.S. troops serving under UN command.

Don’t Defund the U.N., Just Say ‘Go!’

The better move is: Just leave. Withdrawal from the U.N. would make transnational progressives go ballistic, but it would hearten millions – the kind of patriotic, self-determining citizens whose fury at statism’s transition into globalism catalyzed Trump’s candidacy (and, in Britain, spurred Brexit). Put the politics aside, though. Leaving would be the right thing to do.

The U.N. is Ground Zero of the totalitarian Islamist-Leftist quest to eviscerate Western principles and individual liberty – and, while they’re at it, the Jewish state.

You think I’m exaggerating? The U.N. is the Islamist-Leftist vehicle for nullifying American constitutionalism – its guaranteed freedoms and the very premise that the People are sovereign. In just the last few years of Obama’s eager collaborations, the U.N. has produced resolutions that erode First Amendment liberties, calling on member states to outlaw negative criticism of Islam. It has overridden the Constitution’s protections against treaties that harm American interests, endorsing the Iran nuclear deal to give it the imprimatur of international law even though it is unsigned, unratified, and would not have had a prayer of attaining the required two-thirds supermajority Senate approval.

Trump Could Be the Most Hostile American President the UN Has Ever Faced

It was a casual, throwaway remark that gave the first hint of Donald Trump’s take on the United Nations since he became president-elect. The UN was virtually unmentioned in the 2016 election campaign, but he is making up for that now. “The United Nations has such great potential,” he tweeted the day after Christmas in another signal of how he intends to conduct foreign policy, “but right now it is just a club for people to get together, talk and have a good time. So sad.”

The stunning and dismissive insult is circulating around the world, not only in UN offices but also in foreign ministries and international media. It adds to the mounting apprehension and palpable fear of what is to come from what could be the most hostile government in Washington that the UN has ever faced, in both the White House and in a right-wing Republican-led Congress itching to diminish the role of the organization and bankrupt many of its programs and services.

The UN is beyond reform

Trying to reform the UN is like redecorating a house whose foundations are not just built on sand, but rotten through and through. Half-measures like selected and temporary cut-offs of funding won’t work. A total withdrawal of U.S. funds until serious reforms take place offer the best hope, but it is a slim one. Getting out of the UN and creating a new confederation of democracies with proven records of adherence to human rights might work, but the checkered history of NATO suggests that is a problematic solution as well, given the primacy of national interests for sovereign states, and the problem of free-riders and the selective adherence to the principles and terms of a treaty.

Perhaps it’s time to recognize that idealistic internationalism has failed, and that we can advance our interests and protect our security by relying on our own political order of electoral audit, free and open debate, and ballot-box accountability, and by making alliances with those nations that serve our interests rather than, like most of the UN member states, actively subvert them. D.C. isn’t the only swamp our new president needs to drain.

Commentary: Rein in the United Nations

Additionally, U.N. policy promotions are often unworkable and devoid of priority. In the midst of a raging civil war, the World Health Organization has recently pushed the Syrian government to reduce smoking rates in its country. This is a clear indication that the United Nations is out of touch with what’s important.

In addition to ineffective programs, the United Nations regularly pushes economic policy reports that advocate weakening property rights. The 2016 U.N. Secretary-General’s High-Level Panel on Access to Medicines report indicts Western patent systems for high drug prices and low global access, while ignoring the role of intellectual property in encouraging medical innovation. Panel participants even suggested phasing-out intellectual property altogether, and substituting industry research and development expenditures with government funding.


h/t Baltimoran


Follow IWB on Facebook and Twitter