Crazy- US taxpayers give $3 billion to keep UN functioning

UN no go zoneIts funny isn’t it how our ex-PM Helen Clark disparaged Americans so much, but now she lives and works in New York in a building and job and wage that depends largely upon payments from US taxpayers.

Those taxpayers will cough up around $3.024 billion this year towards the United Nations’ regular and peacekeeping budgets, more than what 185 other countries combined are paying. CSN News reports-


“While the U.S. contribution in 2015 to the U.N. regular budget is $621.9 million, the 35 countries contributing the least will pay just $28,269 each, Heritage Foundation scholar Brett Schaefer told the Senate Foreign Relations subcommittee responsible for multilateral institutions.

And where the U.S. will pay $2.402 billion towards the separate peacekeeping budget, the 20 countries contributing the least will pay just $8,470 each.

Putting those together, “the United States will be assessed approximately $3 billion this year, based on the projected budgets for the regular and peacekeeping budgets, while the 20 least-assessed countries will be assessed less than $37,000 [each] this year for both of those budgets,” he said.

The U.S. currently accounts for more than one-fifth (22 percent) of the regular U.N. budget. The next biggest contributors are Japan (10.8), Germany (7.1), France (5.59), Britain (5.17), China (5.14) and Italy (4.4). Russia’s contribution is 2.4 percent.

The 56 countries of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) – which include 10 of the world’s 20 top oil-producing nations will together contribute around $360 million (compared to $3.024 billion for the U.S. alone).

The other four permanent members of the U.N. Security Council – Russia, China, Britain and France – will together account for around $2.523 billion (compared to $3.024 billion for the U.S. alone).

The U.S. contribution to the separate, and much larger, peacekeeping budget is 28.36 percent this year

Schaefer told the committee he believed it was in the interests of the U.S. to have an effective United Nations, but to be useful the U.N. must be competent, efficient, transparent, accountable, and must hold employees to the highest standards of conduct.

“Unfortunately, the current organization falls short.”

On the question of evaluating the cost-effectiveness of various U.N. agencies, Schaefer recalled that the Clinton administration in the mid-1990s withdrew from the U.N. Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO), “because it wasn’t providing any value that they could determine.”

“I think similar evaluations should be done across the U.N. system on a periodic basis to evaluate and determine whether we should or should not continue to participate and support it the way we have.””

I know one UN dept that definitely won’t be achieving much and that is the United Nations Development Programme run by one ex NZ PM.

However the larger question is why why why do US taxpayers keep electing politicans who agree with this farce? If the US should provide any financing at all to this scurrilous extreme left organisation it should be the minimal amount possible, and the UN should be kicked out of New York. I suggest Somalia as the best alternative venue. Knowing her penchant for refugees, Clark will love it there, and she will be well away from those Americans she detests so much.

4 thoughts on “Crazy- US taxpayers give $3 billion to keep UN functioning

  1. Hmmmmm…..I wonder how her ‘marriage’ with Peter Davis is going?

    I despise the UN and the way it gets governments to sign agreements that sound so innocuous to their citizens. Agreements that give them more control over us and such agreements from which we cannot withdraw.


  2. Socialism will work when it figures out how to not be parasitic on Capitalism.
    It will then be Capitalism.


    • The U.N./socialists have no compunction about robbing the productive whilst maintaining, in their heads, the higher moral ground. It’s always good to be reminded which side the bread’s really buttered.


    • There is a simple question: a bludger is starving in the street.

      Do you feed them or kick them to the curb?

      Anyone who feeds them is a “socialist”.
      Anyone who does not is a capitalist, believes in freedom, the Constitution, and personal responsibility.

      There is no middle way; there are no other options(*)

      (*OK, a shot to the head I guess, which is both Capitalist and truly compassionate)


Comments are closed.