Consequences
Trump looking at reducing, or possibly eliminating, U.S. role in UN
When it comes to the United States, there's one thing and one thing only that matters to the United Nations: $3 billion. That's what we give them every year in funding, which is far more than any other nation on this Earth. It accounts for more than 20 percent of the UN's total budget, and an organization that lives on salaries, accommodations and travel expenses for its bureaucracy will find itself in a real fix if it's major funder decides to stop or reduce the checks.
So I'm going to guess that t
hey're a tad bit nervous today:
The Trump administration is considering actions that would reduce the U.S. commitment to the United Nations and evaluate whether the United States should pull out of multi-national treaties, officials said.
The results could be reduced American funding for the U.N. agencies and withdrawal from treaties like the Paris climate accord reached by the Obama administration, said the two officials who spoke on condition of anonymity because the actions were not completed yet.
Trump has criticized some multi-national agreements and the United Nations, the latter in especially harsh terms after the Security Council voted in December to condemn Israel over settlement activity in disputed areas also claimed by Palestinians. The Obama administration abstained in that vote instead of using the U.S. veto in the Security Council.
After tweeting that the U.N. had become “just a club for people to get together, talk, and have a good time," Trump told reporters in December that "there is such tremendous potential, but it is not living up ... When do you see the United Nations solving problems? They don't. They cause problems.”
Remember, the Trump Administration has powerless to do anything about the UN's Screw Israel resolution, which passed in the waning days of the previous administration after John Kerry and his boss worked out the language with Israel's enemies and refused to veto the measure. That creates real problems for Israel because it has the potential to make West Bank settlers and Israel officials international criminals, subject to prosecution at the Hague.
The resolution is in force now, and Trump can't veto it retroactively. What he can do is make the UN pay a price for pulling this little stunt in the first place. Past Republican presidents complained about the UN at times but never even hinted at reducing our involvement in or commitment to it. One of the reasons the establishment is nervous about Trump is that he doesn't simply accept that we have to always do certain things just because we've always done them, and the UN is certainly rife for a re-evaluation, as are all treaties to which we've signed on.
There could be down sides to leaving the UN, one of which is that our veto on the Security Council is the only thing that stops far worse mischief from happening. That's probably why they're talking about a "reduction" but not a full withdrawal, at least not yet. The UN is a creation of the post-World War II era, and the world is not aligned the way it was 70 years ago. It's also more than fair to say that the UN has strayed far from the original vision of its founders. Why should an American president in 2017 consider himself honor-bound to operate within this structure when it might make far more sense to establish new agreements with trustworthy allies?
Especially in light of what the UN's been doing recently, these are questions long overdue to be asked.
View Comments
