• Print friendly
• E-mail a friend
• Contact Us
• Social Networks
  • 
  • 
  • 
  • 
  • 
  • 
  • 
  • 
  • 
  • 
• Stock Market
  • Weather
  • Gas Prices
  • Flight Info
  • Lottery
  • Recipes
  • Soccer

Opinions

Jan Egeland's slip is showing UN's real mission

by Klaus Rohrich

January 3, 2005

The comment by UN Undersecretary for Human Services Jan Egeland that Americans are under-taxed and stingy is yet another manifestation of the UN’s uglier side. While the organization played a vital role in world affairs more than 50 years ago, today’s UN bears little resemblance to the organization that was founded in 1945. For openers, it appears that the UN has morphed into a partisan organization of countries dedicated to denigrating America and all for which it stands. Egeland’s insensitive comment is yet more evidence that this is the case.

The fact is the United States government and consequently US taxpayers pay approximately 20% of the UN operating budget. America’s contribution to other nations in need of aid in terms of its Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is right in line with that of most other western democracies. The percentage of GDP that the US devotes to foreign aid is approximately 1/4 of 1%, which is approximately the same percentage of GDP as that paid by Sweden, Norway and Germany. It is somewhat higher than France and substantially higher than the oil-rich Arab states’ contributions. The annual US contribution to needy countries amounts to approximately 40% of all money spent by all the world’s nations on foreign aid.

However, facts have never deterred UN officials from pushing their agenda at any opportunity that may arise, no matter how poignant or gauche. A case in point is the recent disaster in Asia, which will likely result in excess of 500,000 deaths when the tally is complete. Egeland’s assertion that Americans are taxed at too low a rate, which prevents them from contributing more in foreign aid (spelled U-N) is indicative of how he and the rest of the UN bureaucracy feels about human beings. In their eyes humans are mere tax drones whose only purpose is to produce an endless revenue stream so that the UN may advance its agenda of "saving the world".

While on the subject of the Asian catastrophe, why did Kofi Annan continue vacationing in the face of one of the greatest natural disasters in history?

Examination of the UN’s world stance reveals a darker picture. Secretary General Kofi Annan’s proclamation that the Americans’ adventure in Iraq is "illegal" is nothing less than an attempt at creating a climate conducive to a single world government, presumably headed by the monolith in New York. The same holds true for Egeland’s assertion about the US tax structure.

The idea of a world government headed by people like Annan and Egeland is scary as hell. In extrapolating the UN’s position on various world issues today, it’s not a stretch of the imagination to believe that the UN would be capable of finishing Hitler’s job of ridding the planet of Jews. At least one would get that impression considering the countless anti-Israel and anti-Zionism resolutions that the UN has initiated. Last year’s feeding frenzy in Durban, South Africa was proof positive that the definition of "racism" in the parlance of the UN is subject to change without notice.

The current "oil for food" scandal bubbling up at UN headquarters is yet another example of just how abjectly corrupt this organization really is. One of the reasons that Iraq is having such a difficult time breaking free from totalitarianism is because the insurgents in Iraq have been able to arm themselves in a lavish manner with the $21 billion that was diverted away from food and toward the coffers of Saddam Hussein, the Baath party and their UN sympathizers. This all happened in broad daylight and appeared to be made possible through collusion with French, German and Russian interests, aided in no small part by the UN. The fact that the Secretary General’s own son, Kojo Annan has figured prominently in this farce does little to instill confidence in this once august world body.

Nations interested in maintaining a commitment to democracy would be well advised to leave the United Nations and put their money into an organization that is more conducive to democracy. Two or three of the world’s more prominent democracies dropping out is all it would take to finish the UN once and for all. At the same time we would rid ourselves of the moralizing and self-aggrandizing bureaucrats that seem to infest the organization. In business it often makes sense to cut one’s losses and abandon unprofitable ventures to keep from throwing good money after bad. In terms of the UN, I think we are long past that point.