It's happening: U.S. will cut its 2018 contribution to the UN by $285 million

Let's be honest: You loved it last week as you watched Nikki Haley lay the smack to the UN for its ridiculous resolution against our recognition of Jerusalem as Israel's capital, and you really loved the implied threat to make the UN pay when it was time for the U.S. to cut the check for its 2018 contribution to the UN's operations. But you also feared: It would be awful if we made this threat and then backed down, going ahead and giving the UN the same money we always do in order to "maintain our influence" or whatever. That's what the diplomatic/foreign policy establishment would suggest we have to do, after all. Rhetorically you drop the hint, but actually following through is too risky, so you never actually do that. If we'd gone that route, it would have been like getting invited to your favorite restaurant for dinner, only to show up and find it's been shuttered by the health department. Dang. Bureaucrats ruin my life again!

---

But not this time:

The U.S. will cut its 2018 contribution to the United Nations by $285 million—nearly 25 percent—an announcement that comes days after more than 120 nations criticized the United States for its decision to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. Ambassador Nikki Haley made the announcement Sunday, but specifically blamed the world body for its budgetary excesses without making a specific reference to last week's vote on President Donald Trump's controversial Jerusalem decision. “The inefficiency and overspending of the United Nations are well known. We will no longer let the generosity of the American people be taken advantage of or remain unchecked,” Haley said in a statement announcing the cut to the U.N.'s overall $5.4 billion budget. “This historic reduction in spending—in addition to many other moves toward a more efficient and accountable U.N.—is a big step in the right direction.” Haley said there might be further budget cuts in the future. President Trump's proposed 2018 spending budget would end funding for U.N. climate change programs and would cut funding to the United Nations Children’s Fund, also known as UNICEF, by 16 percent. Trump has long discussed cutting U.S. contributions to the U.N., and Haley hinted that the current administration could be motivated by a lack of support for its efforts around the world, specifically after the Jerusalem vote on Thursday.

---

---

This is going to hurt the UN more than you might think. It's total operating budget is $5.4 billion, and it relies on the United States for 22 percent of that. That means they just lost nearly 6 percent of their total funding for 2018. Do-nothing bureaucratic entities like the UN never work harder on anything than they work to make sure the money keeps flowing so they can pay all their paper-pushing, do-nothing staff. It costs a lot of money to pay people to draft all those anti-Israel resolutions, you know! The UN is nothing more than a make-work organization for freedom-hating multinationalists who probably couldn't hold a job at Burger King to save their own lives. The last thing they want to have to do is prioritize and face the reality that their resources are unlimited, and they can neither print money nor force others to write unlimited checks forever. As far as I can tell, this is the first time a UN member state has forced the organization to pay a price for its reckless, irresponsible behavior. We've often wished that someone would - and ideally we've hoped it would be the United States - but there always seems to be some reason American presidents come up with for why it would just cause too many other problems to actually make the UN feel some pain for the harm it does to freedom and human rights in the world. I share the sentiments of many of you that it would be awfully satisfying to have the U.S. quit the UN and tell it to get the hell out of our country. But there is a strategic argument against doing that. Many evil countries treat the UN's resolutions as having the force of law, and they use the UN's actions as legal authorization to do terrible things. A perfect example is the anti-Israel resolution Barack Obama allowed to pass in January, which could result in many Israeli diplomats around the world being arrested and tried as war criminals under the guise of "international law." That's outrageous, of course, but because the UN passed the resolution many nations will claim legal standing to make it happen. Because the U.S. is a permanent member of the Security Council, we have the power to veto resolutions like that. If we quit the UN and gave up that power, the UN could run even more rampant than it already does against nations who care about freedom. Israel stays in the UN to look after its own best interests, but Israel isn't on the Security Council. We are, and our veto is an indispensible tool in checking the UN's excesses. Giving up that power would probably create serious situations throughout the world that would require much more difficult, dangerous and expenses responses on our part. But that doesn't mean we have to keep giving them money without restraints when they disrespect and act against our interests and those of our friends. And how satisfying is it that, finally, when a U.S. president threatens to make the UN pay for its nonsense, he means it, and follows through?

---