Economics

Рождественская песнь Трампа

Dec 29, 2017 Jeffrey D. Sachs

НЬЮ-ЙОРК – В это Рождество, подарком со стороны Америки миру, было сокращение на $285 млн в регулярном бюджете Организации Объединенных Наций. Технически, регулярный бюджет ООН отражает консенсусное решение 193 государств-членов этого органа, но Соединенные Штаты явно были основной движущей силой, толкающей к сокращению. Действительно, Никки Хейли, посол США при ООН, сопроводила объявление в канун Рождества предупреждением о том, что США будут рассматривать дальнейшие сокращения.

Эбенезер Скрудж не мог бы сделать лучше. Сокращение бюджета значительно усложнит работу учреждений ООН предотвращать войны, помогать миллионам людей, перемещенных в результате конфликтов, накормить и одеть голодных детей, бороться с новыми заболеваниями, обеспечить безопасную воду и санитарию, и содействовать доступу к образованию и здравоохранению для бедных.

Президент Дональд Трамп и Хейли уделяют основное внимание раздутым расходам деятельности ООН и, там безусловно, есть место для некоторых сокращений. Но мир получает поразительный возврат своих инвестиций в ООН, и страны-члены должны вкладывать гораздо больше, не меньше, в эти организации и программы.

To continue reading, register now.

Subscribe now for unlimited access to everything PS has to offer.

As a registered user, you can enjoy more PS content every month – for free.

Already have an account? Log in

Subscribe to PS Digital

Access every new PS commentary, our entire On Point suite of subscriber-exclusive content – including Longer Reads, Insider Interviews, Big Picture/Big Question, and Say More – and the full PS archive.

Subscribe Now

Jeffrey D. Sachs

Writing for PS since 1995
354 Commentaries

Jeffrey D. Sachs, University Professor at Columbia University, is Director of the Center for Sustainable Development at Columbia University and President of the UN Sustainable Development Solutions Network. He has served as adviser to three UN Secretaries-General, and currently serves as an SDG Advocate under Secretary-General António Guterres. His books include The End of Poverty, Common Wealth, The Age of Sustainable Development, Building the New American Economy, A New Foreign Policy: Beyond American Exceptionalism, and, most recently, The Ages of Globalization.

new comment has been posted. new comments have been posted.

0 Comments on this paragraph, 7 Comments on this article

Jonathan Engel Jan 1, 2018

The UN really has but itself to blame in the decision of the US to impose a budget cut on the organisation. This has been long in coming, and the decision to put American policy to a vote in the General Assembly was just obviously a "last straw". The UN has just got to look at itself in the mirror at some point, and despite Prof Sachs' s thought that the UN has a very high return on investment, there are MANY areas where the UN is insisting of decredibilising itself in very visible ways.

As an outsider it seems to me that the focus on 'relatively peaceful' Palestine, and the relatively nice Israelis, in a region where killings by the hundreds of thousands annually, as well as oppression and torture hardly rates a single mention is an embarrassment, to say the least. That for some refugees retain their status (and our financing) in perpetuity, and others' status expires in a generation, is absurd, and patently racist. That countries where the rule of law is unknown, and human rights inexistant sit on UN committees who make dictates in these areas is immoral, and brings the organisation into disrepute.

Unless the UN makes a major, and probably painful effort to straighten out its act, it cannot expect democratically elected, and responsible governments to continue to pay, even if there is a lot of good done by the organisation. This should be obvious to Prof Sachs.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
M M Dec 30, 2017

The governance structures of many governments, their bodies and agencies are not fit for the 21st Century. Regrettably, we still live in a feudal society pretending being civilised, compassionate, supportive, etc. The UN and the world will survive Trump. Many monuments, buildings, walls, to include the most famous one, may exist today but that is not to say that they shall exist for ever. History is littered with idiots, incompetents, dictators, autocrats, etc. all of whom did so much damage to humanity and to this planet. The question that must now be asked, how about the day after Trump......will it be more of the same or will it be some idiot but with a different style......In either case, one better starts working on a new medium to replace Twitter.....the sooner ....the better.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
j. von Hettlingen Dec 29, 2017

Jeffrey D. Sachs lashes out at Nikki Haley's $285 million cut to the United Nations’ regular budget right before Christmas. She wanted to settle a score with the world body, following a vote on Jerusalem, that rejects Trump’s recognition of Israeli capital. Trump had previously hinted that the US might cut its UN funding, but the timing was provocative. While he was at the UN in September to attend the General Assembly, he criticised the UN for not "reaching its potential" in curbing North Korea's nuclear ambition. American critics had in the past complained about anti-Israel bias at the UN.
Even before Trump ran for president, UN bashing has always been popular among Republicans, and the Texas Republican Party has "repeatedly called on the US to leave the UN." Neo-cons like John Bolton, who was US ambassador to the UN between 2005-2006, and whose long-time criticism of the UN went a long way past healthy scepticism, hate the UN. He once famously said there was "no such thing" as the UN and called the US the world's "only real power". He even said that if the 38-storey UN building "lost 10 storeys today, it wouldn't make a bit of difference".
Although the US public approval of the UN is "at 64%, with just 29% viewing it unfavorably," there is widespread criticism about "wasteful programs." Cut is hence "necessary" to save resources. The author says Haley's "mistake is to slash the "overall budget, rather than reallocate funds and increase outlays on vitally needed programs that fight hunger and disease, educate children, and prevent conflicts." But Trump is more keen on using the UN as a vehicle for achieving US objectives, with little regard for humanitarian causes.
The author points out the "most dangerous reason for cutting the UN’s budget is to weaken multilateralism in the name of American 'sovereignty.'” Trump hates multilateralism and prefers that deals be concluded on bilateral basis. As a bully he wants to seek leverage over weaker nations. Multilateralism involves cooperation between nations, enabling them to join forces and negotiate from a position of strength. China also prefers bilateral negotiations.
"America is sovereign, Trump and Haley insist, and therefore can do what it wants, regardless of opposition by the UN or any other group of countries." It reveals how naive Haley and Trump are. Every UN member is sovereign and has the right to make its own decision. The US needs to respect other member states and not seeks to impose its will on others. Instead it resents those who disagree and punishes them for not doing its bidding.
In this regard most UN members have been doing the right thing - to respect the 1993 and 1995 Oslo Accords, and let the status of Jerusalem be resolved at the end of a peace process, as it is a too sensitive and complex issue to be addressed by outsiders, when both Israel and Palestinians have not reached an agreement on the future of Jerusalem.
As the General Assembly and the Security Council have "repeatedly declared the final status of Jerusalem to be a matter of international law," Trump's unilteral recognition of Jerusalem as Israel's capital had broken the law and undermined the prospect of any future peace talks. "When America stops listening to other countries, its vast military power and arrogance often lead to self-inflicted disasters." Trump is indeed itching for a fight. Cutting UN funding may just be the beginning. The dissent reminds of 2003, when the Security Council opposed the US-led war in Iraq.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Steve Hurst Dec 29, 2017

'The US share will be 22%' and this is after 'Many of the UN organizations receive additional “voluntary” contributions from individual countries interested in supporting specialized initiatives by agencies such as UNICEF and the World Health Organization'... A figure of 22% contributions put alongside the US share of the global GDP being 24.6% doesnt look wildly out.

US deafness to advice has nothing to do with the budget but is just arrogance and stupidity. Eg "The idea that it's going to be a long, long, long battle of some kind I think is belied by the fact of what happened in 1990... Five days or five weeks or five months, but it certainly isn't going to last any longer than that," Rumsfeld said in 2002.

The conflict with Iraq is about weapons of mass destruction, Rumsfeld insisted.

"It has nothing to do with oil, literally nothing to do with oil. It has nothing to do with the religion."

So it had nothing to do with anything then since there were no weapons of mass destruction. You know that really is a special level of stupid and its got nothing to do with UN contributions. Cutting US contributions to the UN isn't going to be big game changer, cutting US foreign policy stupidity could be
A new reply to this comment has been posted.