Today, President Trump will address the U.N. General Assembly. As New Yorkers fume over traffic nightmares created by the president and by hordes of visiting diplomats, they may (again) question, as do many Americans, why U.S. taxpayers support this badly managed and scandal-scarred institution. Especially when the U.N. so frequently works against our interests and seems incapable of accomplishing its primary mission.
A new Gallup poll shows that 73% of Americans think the U.N. does a poor job of “maintaining international peace and security,” and 70% say the same about the U.N. “upholding international law” and “protecting human rights.” That’s a lousy report card for an organization that spends roughly $70 billion per year.
Elsewhere in the world, the U.N. scores better, which is not surprising since poor countries, which constitute the majority of members, look to wealthier nations for handouts via the U.N. The nations of Sub-Saharan Africa, for instance, are especially keen on the sprawling organization.
WALTZ DELIVERS BLUNT WARNING TO NATIONS DEFYING IRAN SANCTIONS, TOUTS GREENLAND DEAL
How does that wealth transfer happen? One way was described by President Trump’s U.N. Ambassador Mike Waltz in recent testimony before Congress: “The U.N. let countries use peacekeeping missions as cash cows for their militaries. Peacekeepers could bring equipment, park it, never use it, take it home brand new, and get it paid for by the U.N.” Those operations can employ “10,000 to 18,000 soldiers”; the costs, Waltz says, are “quite significant.” He is ending that practice — just one step in reforming the bloated U.N., whose budget has quadrupled over the past 25 years.
Americans have reason for skepticism, given the frequent votes that go against the U.S. or our ally Israel. For thirty-three years in a row, the General Assembly has voted to end our embargo on Cuba, and for decades it has opposed Israel’s attempts to protects its citizens from Palestinian terrorists. Waltz calls the body a “cesspool of antisemitism.”
WALTZ SLAMS FRANCE AFTER STUNNING SOCIAL MEDIA ATTACK ON US AFTER UN VOTE
Not only is the U.N. frequently hostile to the U.S., it is often ridiculous. Most recently, the U.N. voted overwhelmingly to adopt a new map which blows up Africa’s presence on the globe; the U.S. was the sole dissenter. In a memo explaining our outlier vote, Deputy U.S. Representative Yaryna Ferencevych called such resolutions “barnacles on our work here” and wrote: “Instead of focusing on genuine problems of international peace… this body is debating map projects from the 16th century, and their role in promoting reparations and “cognitive justice.”
The U.N. rarely has much real-world impact. Critics might question, for instance, what the U.N. has done to resolve the Russia-Ukraine War, or how it has helped keep the world’s oil flowing through the Strait of Hormuz. The answer in both cases is zero.
Instead, the U.N. is hyper-focused on climate change, gender equality and other issues that may scratch a globalist itch, but appear little related to the cause of peace.
Meanwhile, the U.N. is going broke. Last year the Economist reported: “On May 5th the U.N. will brief members on a previously unreported $600m (17%) cut to its $3.7bn [administrative] budget aimed at avoiding default this year. It will include a hiring freeze… Yet it may not be enough. A combination of deadbeat members and mad budget rules have led to a liquidity crisis.”
TRUMP BRINGS NEW HEAT TO CONTROVERSIAL UN AGENCY AS ALLEGED HAMAS TIES ENGULF SCORES OF EMPLOYEES
The article goes on to warn that a “leaked memo” suggesting that the Trump administration might cut off funding to the U.N. threatened “a financial crash in the citadel of peace and security.”
The Trump White House has not bankrupted the U.N. by withholding payments. Instead, it appointed Waltz to drive much-needed reforms and who is, according to Politico, “generally well-regarded, including among many Democrats on Capitol Hill.” That’s rare praise for a Trump appointee.
TRUMP ADMINISTRATION PROBES UNRWA OVER ALLEGED EMPLOYMENT OF 1,500 TERRORISTS
Waltz is working to downsize the bloated U.N., focusing on its staff of 100,000 — individuals who are paid roughly 17% more than equivalent U.S. civil servants, according to Waltz. According to testimony he gave to Congress a few months ago, Waltz’s team pushed through a “historic 15% cut $570 million out of the U.N.’s regular budget. That will eliminate nearly 3000 headquarters positions.” That change alone provided a savings for U.S. taxpayers of $126 million. Waltz recently told Fox Digital that budget cuts now total $1 billion.
Waltz is also overhauling U.N. peacekeeping operations, some of which, as he has said, have been around for “30, 50 or even 80 years.” Waltz argues such forces are important to provide breathing room for political settlement of a conflict, but it “can’t then become an excuse to not have a political resolution. When you have a peacekeeping force, for example, in DRC and Congo, at the cost of a billion dollars a year, that’s been there for 30 years,” it should end.
Waltz is just getting started; reforming an institution so large and complex takes time, which he may not have. Soon, the U.N. will elect a new secretary-general to succeed Portugal’s António Guterres, who has served since 2017. Currently, most of the candidates who have stepped forward appear eager to embrace the reforms advocated by the White House, alarmed that President Trump is ready to eviscerate the U.N.’s funding if changes are not made and a U.S.-friendly official not elected.
CLICK HERE FOR MORE FOX NEWS OPINION
Finances are not Trump’s only weapon. As Politico reported, when the White House announced the creation of the Board of Peace last year to oversee the Israel-Gaza conflict, “U.N. officials and diplomats were really, really unnerved,” seeing that Board as some sort of “rival peacemaking institute.”
However, permanent members of the Security Council, which include Russia, China, France, the U.K. and the U.S., can veto candidates. That is making the race unpredictable. If the members cannot agree, they could extend Gutterres’ term by another year, which would likely mean that President Trump would have less say in the outcome.
That could trash the White House’s push to Make the U.N. Great Again and would be disastrous for the U.N.
