Americans are coming to realize the United Nations is not the organization we once trusted, even revered. The UN betrays the idealism expressed in the preamble to its charter, forged over sixty years ago in San Francisco, which states, “We the peoples of the United Nations determined?to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small?” Two recent events demonstrate why the American people and their elected officials should be scrutinizing our country’s subsidization of the United Nations.  

Last week the UN held elections to the newly created United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC), successor to the failed UN Commission on Human Rights.  The United States declined membership in this newly created body because, as United States Ambassador John Bolton explained, “Absent stronger mechanisms for maintaining credible membership, the United States could not join consensus on this resolution.” Bolton expressed his concern that only the organizational name had been changed, the problems remained. Joining the United States in dissent were only Israel, the Marshall Islands and Palau. 

In response to a question posed during a webchat hosted by the State Department on March 23, 2006, Bolton explained the importance of having members committed to human rights on the new UNHRC:

“?the quality of membership of the Human Rights Council is going to go a long way to determining its success.  The Commission on Human Rights was widely discredited on many fronts, but the most visible sign of the Commission’s decay was the inclusion, and in some cases the leadership, of such countries as Cuba, Zimbabwe, and Sudan.  We cannot allow that to happen again.

“Additionally, the membership of the inaugural Council will be of particular procedural importance.  Many of the processes that will permanently characterize the meeting and the actions of the Council will be decided by the first collection of nations to hold those seats.”

Members elected this week include Algeria, China, Cuba, Pakistan, Russia and Saudi Arabia. Heritage Foundation analyst Brett D. Schaefer, in HUMAN RIGHTS RELATIVISM REDUX: UN HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL MIRRORS DISCREDITED HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION, concludes, “These countries were key players in undermining the effectiveness of the now-defunct Commission on Human Rights, and so it is very likely that they will play the same role on the Council, steering it away from confronting human rights abuses within their borders and in general.” 

Ironically, just before the election, the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom issued its 2006 ANNUAL REPORT, which profiles the egregious record of China, Cuba, Pakistan, the Russian Federation and Saudi Arabia. Here are some excerpts about the records of these five countries as to religious freedom:

Cuba: “Religious belief and practice continue to be tightly controlled in Cuba, where the government rarely permits the construction of new places of worship. A new law on religion, adopted last year and meant to ‘legalize’ certain religious activity, actually reinforces the government’s efforts to maintain control over religious practice. Reports indicate that at least three Protestant house churches have been closed, confiscated, and/or demolished since the new law went into effect. In the past year, both registered and unregistered religious groups continued to experience varying degrees of official interference, harassment, and repression.” [Source: ANNUAL REPORT OF THE UNITED STATES COMMISSION ON INTERNATIONAL RELIGIOUS FREEDOM; May 2006, p. 91.]    

China: “Every religious community in China is subject to serious restrictions, state control, and repression. The most severe religious freedom abuses are directed against Tibetan Buddhists, Uighur Muslims, Roman Catholics, house church and unregistered Protestants, and spiritual groups such as the Falun Gong ? abuses involving imprisonment, torture, and other forms of ill treatment. Though the Chinese government issued a new Ordinance on Religion in March 2005, its provisions, in fact, restrict rather than protect religious freedom, offering Party Leaders more extensive control over all religious groups and their activities.” [ANNUAL REPORT; 83] 

Pakistan: “?a number of the country’s laws, including legislation restricting the Ahmadi community and laws against blasphemy, frequently result in imprisonment on account of religion or belief and/or vigilante violence against the accused. These religious freedom concerns persist amid the wider problem of the lack of democracy in Pakistan, an obstacle the current government has done little to address. ?Given the importance of Pakistan in the U.S. government’s efforts against terrorism, the failure of the Pakistani government to implement genuine religious freedom reforms is a cause for serious concern.” [ANNUAL REPORT; 89]       

The Russian Federation: “Since the [United States] Commission [On International Religious Freedom] expressed strong concern in its May 2003 report that the Russian government was retreating from democratic reform and endangering significant gains on human rights, including freedom of religion or belief, it has become increasingly clear that this is a deliberate policy of the Russian government. ? The country’s progress toward the rule of law and protection of religious freedom and other human rights is now in peril.” [ANNUAL REPORT, 159.]    

Saudi Arabia: “The repressive Saudi government continues to engage in an array of severe violations of human rights as part of its repression of freedom of thought, conscience, and religion or belief. Abuses include: torture and cruel and degrading treatment or punishment imposed by judicial and administrative authorities; prolonged detention without charges and often incommunicado; and blatant denials of the right to liberty and security of the person, including coercive measures aimed at women?” [ANNUAL REPORT, 190.]   

Ambassador Bolton certainly is correct to be very skeptical, as should be the American citizenry. America contributes 22% of the UN budget; it’s worth asking what kind of return we are receiving. That this Council, dedicated to advancing human rights, could have members which include some of the biggest violators, turns the intended mission of the UN, as expressed in its Charter, upside down. 

The second event at the UN came when the General Assembly accepted the advice of its Budget Committee to oppose reforms that would have placed greater power in the hands of the Secretary General.  Resistance to reform was concentrated in the bloc of countries called the G-77, composed of over 130 countries, largely “Developing World” states.

Ironically, but not surprisingly, the UN keeps seeking more money, seriously considering global taxes, when it fails to spend wisely what it already possesses. Eric Shawn, the FOX NEWS correspondent who covers the UN and author of THE UN EXPOSED: HOW THE UNITED NATIONS SABOTAGES AMERICA’S SECURITY AND FAILS THE WORLD, responded to a question by Kathryn Lopez of NATIONAL REVIEW ONLINE as to UN waste of funds:

“Unknown amounts. I titled one chapter of the book “$400,000 in a Desk Drawer” because a review of 58 audits released by the Volcker investigation revealed billions frittered away, from the 400 grand stashed in a U.N. office in Iraq with “unrestricted access” that the staff would dip into for ” loans,” to overpaying Gulf War reparations to Kuwait by $2 billion. A recent internal U.N. investigation found what it called “a culture of impunity” when it comes to U.N. spending. It said peacekeepers spent $10.4 million leasing a helicopter that should have cost $1.6 million. $65 million was spent for fuel in the Sudan and Haiti that wasn’t needed, $2.4 million for hangers in the Congo that were never used, and on and on. In January, one U.N. study found overpayments in the Peacekeeping department amounted to more than $300 million.”   

Senator Thomas A. Coburn, M.D. (R-OK), Chairman of the Subcommittee on Federal Financial Management, has been raising questions about the proposed renovation to the UN Building, arguing the organization lacks transparency and discipline when it comes to handling its finances. A letter dated May 5, 2006, sent to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and signed by Senators Coburn, James M. Inhofe (R-OK) and Jeff Sessions (R-AL), raises concern about the building’s projected current cost of $1.749 billion. The letter, available on the webpage of the Subcommittee on Federal Financial Management, requests assistance from Secretary Rice in obtaining answers about UN plans to implement measures that would reflect transparency by June 15, 2006. “[T]he United Nations must have meaningful and full transparency with its procurement contracts and budget before we can agree to begin funding this $1.749 billion procurement project,” the Senators assert. They seek a specific date by which the UN will “make public all grants, contracts, task orders and other procurement vehicles since January 1, 1995,” including costs, recipients of funds and terms of contract.     

The United States must demand real UN reform: adoption of effective freedom of information regulations, adherence to international accounting standards, vesting the UN Office of Internal Oversight Services with real authority (David M. Walker, Comptroller General of the United States, recently submitted prepared testimony to Congress which said OIOS operates at the discretion of the agencies and programs it audits), swift, decisive disciplinary action against UN officials involved in corruption or other misdeeds, abandonment of all talk of international taxation, making sure true outlaw states are not full-fledged members. 

Kofi Annan will depart from the Secretary General’s post in December; new leadership will come forward. The UN Security Council can recommend who should hold the position but the General Assembly decides. The outlook for a true “reform” candidate is bleak. On the vote to decide the Annan “reform” plan, 120 members, who contribute a very small percentage of the UN budget, voted down the proposal in the General Assembly. The 50 countries in support ? including the United States ? contribute most of the UN budget but have very little sway in the General Assembly.      

The United States and other countries committed to real reform do have the power of the purse; we should wield it. It’s time for the UN to recover its sense of self; otherwise it’s time for the United States to do more than threaten to withhold money; it’s time for us to really withhold. The UN resembles an alcoholic who has lost all moorings. The best intervention a bartender and family members can do is refuse to sell or give alcohol to that wayward person. Withdrawal of 22% of its budget might snap the UN back to its senses. If not, it just shows that all along we’ve been wasting our money on a corrupt organization that has eclipsed its true purpose.

 

Guest columns do not necessarily reflect the views of Accuracy in Media or its staff.

Share This

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

About the author