UN Chops Budget By $250M

United Nations

First Posted: 12/25/11 11:55 AM ET Updated: 12/26/11 09:29 AM ET


For only the second time in the last 50 years, the United Nations is cutting its budget, this time by $250 million US.


In an agreement struck Saturday morning, the two-year budget will be slashed from $5.41 billion US to $5.15 billion.


The 193 members of the UN negotiated around the clock for several days, with the United States and European countries, all suffering a major economic crisis, battling for the spending cuts.


UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon pledged more cuts in the coming months, noting that “governments and people everywhere are struggling.”


U.S. negotiator Joseph Torsella told Reuters that it was a "budget for a strengthened, more efficient and more effective United Nations,” putting the organization on “the path of real fiscal discipline and continued reform."


Over the past two decades, the UN's biennial budgets have had an average boost of five per cent — except for 1998 when the General Assembly made a cut. After adjusting for inflation, the world body spends more than twice what it did in 1971.


Torsella said he took a hardline when it came to increased salaries for UN staff. The United States, the organization’s largest financial funder, accounts for 22 per cent of the UN budget.


In his address after the deal was approved, Ban acknowledged the organization needed to “cut fat.”


The slimmer budget means cuts to various missions around the world. However, it does not affect peacekeeping, which is in a separate budget.


FOLLOW HUFFPOST CANADA

For only the second time in the last 50 years, the United Nations is cutting its budget, this time by $250 million US. In an agreement struck Saturday morning, the two-year bu...
For only the second time in the last 50 years, the United Nations is cutting its budget, this time by $250 million US. In an agreement struck Saturday morning, the two-year bu...
Filed by Christian Cotroneo  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 175
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4  Next ›  Last »  (4 total)
12:31 PM on 12/26/2011
I'm not at all clear how a 4.6 percent reduction can be characterized as a "slash".
12:10 PM on 12/26/2011
Were the UN to cut its budget according to its effectiveness:

--preventing at least some African-on-African genocide

--doing ANYTHING about the global Jihadist plague, including Muslin killing Muslim

the UN would Owe the world untold trillions
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Dardedar
Not here to play patty cake...
06:34 PM on 12/26/2011
Nonsense. The UN has provided drinking water to over a billion people, through effective immunization saves the lives of millions of children each year, has increased literacy rates 20% in twenty years, etc. And this is accomplished with a core yearly budget equivalent to what the Pentagon spends every 32 hours. The UN is extremely effective, beyond your comprehension. Nothing comes close. Begin your education with 50 referenced examples here: http://www.un.org/aboutun/achieve.htm
11:54 AM on 12/26/2011
why pay for the UN when they veto us all the time russia and china?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Dardedar
Not here to play patty cake...
06:35 PM on 12/26/2011
That's how a democratic organization works. Can't have your way all of the time.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
MyNameIsJames
What should a person say in their micro-bio
11:21 AM on 12/26/2011
Here is the truth about the UN- a global body of deliberation and coordination is inevitable. The biggest foe to the UN are Conservative Southern Whites in the United States. This group has a disproportionatly negative influence on EVERYTHING that comes out of the USA at this time.

Fortunately, the demographics don't look good for this group- they are old, diminishing in size by the day.... and the younger generation has rejected that old Confederate worldview.

The one interesting thing about the Conservative Southerner in the USA - They have never challenged the global coordination and deliberation that takes place with global corporations and are strangely passive when it comes to global financing - although some are suspicious of the Federal Reserve.

One final thing about Southern Conservatives - look at the condition of the people who inhabit their states. This backwards region has absolutely no qualifications - in terms of political & economic culture to lecture anyone about solutions for the problems that face the world.

The sooner this region declines the better off the United States and the entire world will be in terms of ideas, beliefs, and actions.
April22
Some experiences in life are ineffable
11:32 AM on 12/26/2011
Your last sentence needs some revamping.

You are speaking of regions of the country as if sans of people. The decline of any people living within any area of a country is a decline for the whole country and all of its people.

Leaders are not necessarily reflective of "all" the people they profess to represent.

The South as the mid-West is not as generationally educated as populations on the East and West coasts.

Education is key to understanding any concept or idea, rather as, all we are is all we know.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
MyNameIsJames
What should a person say in their micro-bio
12:00 PM on 12/26/2011
No- It is implied that people are involved. What did you think I was talking about? The geography? When I write about decline- in this case, I am highlighting this region's decline of influence in US politics and worldview as we witness a generational shift from the older Southern Conservatives to a younger generation who doesn't want to follow the same ideas. Don't lump the Midwest in with the South. Their traditions are not the same. Being rural, or less educated is not the primary determinant here. The primary determinant is Southern Political Culture. If you don't understand what that is- google it and go on Amazon. There are many books that elaborate on this subject. It is NOT a secret.
Leaders often reflect culture - especially when leaders are voted into office by the people they represent.
12:08 PM on 12/26/2011
sorry but a full blown Guido (of which the NE is replete) is as bad or worse than the Con

Southerner (which includes millions of AA's, which you failed to mention)
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
MyNameIsJames
What should a person say in their micro-bio
01:18 PM on 12/26/2011
Did you read my description of who I was talking about in my opening sentences. I quote, "The biggest foe to the UN are Conservative Southern Whites in the United States. This group has a disproportionately negative influence on EVERYTHING that comes out of the USA at this time." That closes my case on who I was talking about.

You make the claim that NE is as bad or worse than Conservative Southerner. Give me some examples, so I can determine if you know ANYTHING about this topic.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
idisVA
11:19 AM on 12/26/2011
America will not get out of the UN no matter how much noise comes out of the WingNuts because America gets more than it puts in. The single biggest contributor is America but America is also the single biggest beneficiary of the UN System.
11:23 AM on 12/26/2011
idesVA you state, "The single biggest contributo­r is America but America is also the single biggest beneficiar­y of the UN System."

Perhaps you can explain?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
idisVA
11:32 AM on 12/26/2011
The US has traditionally gone to the UN for diplomatic cover to advance US interests abroad, especially in the Middle and Far East. The UN is the guardian of numerous International Treaties ( Law of the Sea ) of which the US is a signatory. For less than a billion dollars, America knows that this is a bargain.
April22
Some experiences in life are ineffable
11:37 AM on 12/26/2011
US funds 22% or more of the UN and, for the most part, orchestrates any military or "peacekeeping" operations. Also, most military leaders affiliated with the UN, through other UN nations, were educated and trained by the US military.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
idisVA
11:57 AM on 12/26/2011
The UN is a bargain and US knows it.
April22
Some experiences in life are ineffable
11:04 AM on 12/26/2011
"The slimmer budget means cuts to various missions around the world. However, it does not affect peacekeeping, which is in a separate budget."

Any ideas as to what the differences are between "missions around the world" and "peacekeeping operations," according to the UN, keeping in mind that the 5 permanent UN Security Council members are the top 5 legal arms dealers on the planet?
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Katina Cooper
10:53 AM on 12/26/2011
The bad part about the budget cut is that the hungry are the one who will be cut. The diplomats pay will increase. While we're at it, since this didn't make it on before, how about the mayor of New York demanding that the diplomats pay their parking tickets. That might get New York 4 to 5 hundred million. I'll wait for his answer. How many years do you think it will take for his answer?
11:04 AM on 12/26/2011
Actually, Katina, Mayor Bloomberg has already done exactly what you suggested.

In 2002, Mayor Bloomberg began a crackdown on Diplomats who are scofflaws and ordered their vehicles to be towed. It became so contentious with the Mayor's office and the UN that the State Department had to intercede and draft a compromise. The result is that NYC has collected a lot of the unpaid summonses from those scofflaws.

The Mayor addressed the UN in 2002, and in making light of the situation, began his remarks by joking. "If you own the illegally parked, black Lincoln Town Car with license plate number DPL 1-2-3-4, I'm sorry, it's about to be towed,"
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Dardedar
Not here to play patty cake...
06:40 PM on 12/26/2011
Well played. Very interesting.
April22
Some experiences in life are ineffable
11:09 AM on 12/26/2011
Thanks so much for that very interesting bit of news!

$17 million in unpaid parking fees from diplomats in NYC, not to mention the other crimes they claim immunity!

Consider me a fan for sharing news I probably never would have ever known without you!
11:30 AM on 12/26/2011
Claiming immunity from local laws is a global precept of diplomacy, it does not only just apply to diplomatic staff living in or visiting the US.

However, immunity does have its limits.

A few years ago, in NYC, a member of diplomatic staff from another country purposefully mowed down a uniformed NYPD officer, when the staff member was trying to escape after having hit someone else with his vehicle. NYC government, NYPD and the State Department worked together and that diplomatic staff member was ousted from the US. While that may not seem like a just outcome, consider that anyone who is ousted from the US and caused their government embarrassment is usually dealt with very harshly back on their home turf.
10:51 AM on 12/26/2011
Nice to know, that some of the US tax payers monies wont be squander to countires that hate Americans..
April22
Some experiences in life are ineffable
11:12 AM on 12/26/2011
Aren't you the erudite one. NOT!
11:31 AM on 12/26/2011
Some don't go thru life with blinders. Some prefer commonsense and logic. And some "Not"!
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
11:16 AM on 12/26/2011
Amen to that!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
idisVA
10:40 AM on 12/26/2011
I wonder why Bush did not get us out of the UN when Ambassador Bolton was suggesting to bring down portions of the UN Building because of its disdain for the organization.
10:51 AM on 12/26/2011
While I was not a huge fan of Ambassador Bolton, he was very astute in some of his observations of the UN.

Of all the countries, the US pays the highest membership fee. One of the Ambassador's tactics was to pay in installments and withhold payments until the UN showed initiative in reining in some of its capricious spending. Because the agency, would not only irresponsibly blow its budget, but continually come back to the US asking for millions more.

The reason no President will not get the US out of the UN, is that despite the UN's ineffectiveness, it is still essential to have an organization that tries to ameliorate some of the global political issues that affect the human race. It's just a shame this organization doesn't have the strong leadership that is required to make it run more efficiently.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
11:16 AM on 12/26/2011
Excellent post
April22
Some experiences in life are ineffable
11:20 AM on 12/26/2011
And take away a cashe of monies the US military could appropriate to use for their paracitic elitism empire wars for the creation of the new America?

Considering the US funds 22% or more of the UN, Bolton was throwing his weight around as a diversion to the gross mistake Bush and his administration had incurred worldwide and were losing!

5 permanent UN Security Council members are also the top 5 legal arms dealers on the planet - US is #1.

What were you thinking?
11:39 AM on 12/26/2011
Sorry, April - I cannot follow your logic nor do I understand your argument. You seem to have several disconnected thoughts in your post, which have nothing do with what I posted.

What I was explaining, as someone who personally witnessed this, is that the UN makes a practice of spending money they do not have and then expecting the US to bail them out. That was what the Ambassador was addressing.
10:37 AM on 12/26/2011
As someone who worked at the UN, I can attest they do not need to slash their budget. What they need to do is appoint strong leaders, stop their flagrant waste of money, hire qualified personnel, eliminate the boondoggling, and restructure the organization to be effective.

Nepotism is rife in this organization where employees often get paid twice the going rate. No one is ever fired no matter what crime they commit. Leadership is non-existent, and it often the most underqualified senior employees who ram their agenda down the throat of the organization.

If an employee dares to even suggest an idea which will improve efficiency, they are considered a pariah.

The only thing the UN does right, is that occasionally they get through the red tape and feed the poor and hungry of the world. But for the most part the organization only exists to perpetuate itself.
10:36 AM on 12/26/2011
MILLIONS in funds are lost every year.
No one knows where they go.
The individual departments within the UN have lavish salaries, but can't account for how their funds are spent.
Cutting their budget will not result in anything less coming out of the UN.
10:39 AM on 12/26/2011
Consequence, you totally hit the nail right on the head!
April22
Some experiences in life are ineffable
11:41 AM on 12/26/2011
Sounds like the Federal Reserve to me!
10:22 AM on 12/26/2011
The budget for this worthless organization needs to be $0.00
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Dardedar
Not here to play patty cake...
06:44 PM on 12/26/2011
Then we can spend more on war! And who cares about drinking water, food and immunizations for impoverished nations anyway?

"It's a bureaucracy certainly, but not huge," says former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright. The annual core [UN] functions cost about $1.25 billion, or she says, "roughly what the Pentagon spends every 32 hours." http://tinyurl.com/tii9
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
idisVA
10:17 AM on 12/26/2011
When you get out of UN, you'll have to get out of the World Bank and the IMF too because they are both an integral part of the UN System.
10:23 AM on 12/26/2011
Sounds like a plan to me.
April22
Some experiences in life are ineffable
11:46 AM on 12/26/2011
Understanding the interrelationships, as you point out, is more than important to understanding the dynamics of power within and between powerful governments and their agencies and large financial systems.

Very sharp!

Kudos, consider me a fan!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
idisVA
01:22 PM on 12/26/2011
Thank you. Consider me a fan too . FnF
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
10:17 AM on 12/26/2011
Good news but not good enough. The UN needs to slash its budget to zero, fly up its own a_______e and disappear.
marcdostl
Diogenesian & Classical Liberal
10:13 AM on 12/26/2011
And the USA needs to cut 1300 Billion from it's budget. It will NEVER happen under Obama - the King Kong of Debt and Deficit.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Dardedar
Not here to play patty cake...
06:47 PM on 12/26/2011
If you want to see the kings of debt, you have to look to your republicans:

1) Over the last 75 years, Republican administrations have had an average annual deficit of $83.4 billion. The average for Democratic presidents is one fourth of that, only $20 billion.
http://hnn.us/articles/8301.html

2) Since 1959 federal spending has gone up an average $35 billion a year under Democratic presidents and $60 billion under Republicans. Republican presidents increased the national debt much faster, more than $200 billion per year, versus less than a $100 billion per year under Democrats."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A20059-2005Apr1.html

3) "Using the Bush White House's own numbers, the federal government under Bill Clinton grew at an annual rate of 3.4 percent. But over the past four years under George W. Bush and his Republican Congress, the federal government has grown at a staggering rate of 10.4 percent. More damning is the fact that... George Bush never once vetoed a congressional bill." --Republican Joe Scarborough, "Rome Wasn't Burnt in a Day”, pg. 29 (2004)
marcdostl
Diogenesian & Classical Liberal
09:28 PM on 12/26/2011
Sport, You failed to mention one critical element in your analysis: Deficit and Debt to GDP. Since you failed to weigh this element, your analyses are essentially poppycock. You must take into account the Growth element of an economy. Via Growth, D&D’s can be greatly diminished, which is why RENALDO MAGNUS D&D is minuscule - esp when put into the economic context of the 1970’s and the failure of Congress to implement TEFRA.
So, other than that, what’s the point? History has always demonstrated deficits have gone down (the most) with a DEM Pres and REP Congress. They are worse under DEM Pres and DEM Congress.

I stand by my assertion: Pres Obama is the KING KONG of Debt and Deficit.
1) He inherited an annual deficit of 450 Billion (excluding TARP), and skyrocket-ed it by a Trillion dollars to almost 1500 Billion. They duplicated again the following year, and it won’t get any better this last year...BTW, Isn't Congress suppose to submit a Budget?
2) The Debt currently stands over 15T, up almost 5T in only 3 years. In the same 3 years, The Debt to GDP Percentage is now at 100%, up from the mid 60’s! If the current situation holds true – in another Obama term, the percentage will approach that of Italy and Greece.
marcdostl
Diogenesian & Classical Liberal
09:28 PM on 12/26/2011
Cont...

3) If the current rate increase of D&D continues, The USA will not only be downgraded again, but the USA will lose it’s badge as the WRC. This will spell disaster in more ways than can be explained here.
4) Because of Obama, Reid, and Pelosi, the path of ruin and rubble has been pursued by the DEMs. Through Base Line Budgeting, there is no turning back for any future Congress, esp considering the mindset of today’s NeoLiberals. Built in increases are the norms. Any reductions in the rate of growth (not an actual cut) the DEMs scream bloody murder.
5) Can we not talk about Bush? Every fiscally responsible person (aka Tea Partiers) knows that Bush capitulated to Big Gov spending. The irony of your argument, Is that BHO is 3-4X worse, and there is NO mention that his spending surpasses BUSH1&2, and RENALDO MAGNUS combined.
6) Joe S is a Republican? Maybe once ago. No true REP is a avid soccer fan.