President Donald Trump is having a busy first week at the White House. The media has struggled to keep up, diverted by the spat over the relatively inconsequential matter of how many Americans pitched up in Washington for the inauguration.
While that has been going on Trump has been busy signing executive orders which in a matter of days have ditched policies on which Barack Obama devoted years. There wasn’t much of an Obama legacy to start with, but it’s difficult to see what will be left of it after a few more weeks of this.
There are now reports of a draft order enacting “at least a 40 per cent overall decrease” in American funding to the UN and its assorted agencies and similar international bodies.
This should mean a substantial saving for American taxpayers. In 2015 the United States bankrolled 22 per cent of the UN budget – $665 million. (The UK’s contribution was $141 million). That’s just the “regular budget”.
But this isn’t only about saving money. There is also the important question of whether the spending does more harm than good. Does it advance the cause of peace or does it help terrorists and brutal and aggressive dictatorships? Does it help to uphold freedom, democracy, the rule of law and respect for property rights? Or does it undermine those values? Does it assist wider prosperity on the planet or does it fuel the things that impoverish people?
It could well be that US funding for some organizations passes the test and should not be cut at all. For others, the cut should not be a mere 40 per cent – it should be scrapped entirely.
A committee on the “Auditing and Reducing U.S. Funding of International Organizations” will look at the details. Among the “benchmarks” under consideration will be whether the organization gives full membership to the Palestinian Authority or Palestine Liberation Organization. Other criteria will include support programmes that fund abortion or seek to undermine sanctions against Iran or North Korea.
We are to understand that there will be minus points for an organization that “is controlled or substantially influenced by any state that sponsors terrorism,” or groups involved in the persecution of minority groups or any other systematic violation of human rights.
It will also review development aid to countries that “oppose important United States policies.” The US foreign aid budget is over $50 billion a year – which makes the membership sub to the UN look like loose change. Much of that will be spent in a highly beneficial way that alleviates the suffering of some desperate people on our planet. But much will be wasted or damaging in the way it entrenches
the forces of tyranny.
Some proper scrutiny of all this spending is long overdue. There is nothing worthy about politicians handing over vast sums of other people’s money when it is used to promote violence and persecution. Unlike the Commonwealth, the UN will accept any regime as a member, no matter how vile it is. That is a great weakness.
It follows that the UK government should pay close attention to the new direction in Washington. Now it could be that in some cases the Trump administration does the right thing for the wrong reasons. Some of its isolationist rhetoric has been worrying. It could also be that it makes some mistakes and ceases to back projects that have merit. But the general approach sounds entirely reasonable and deserves
British backing.
There is a precedent. Back in the 1980s, Margaret Thatcher followed Ronald Reagan’s example with regard to UNESCO – United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. The UK withdrew its membership in 1985 shortly after the USA also cancelled its sub. This was due to UNESCO’s extravagance and the mismanagement of its budget. Appointments were characterized by cronyism and sometimes nepotism. There there was its anti-West propaganda – including its attacks on freedom of the press. The UK rejoined under Tony Blair in 1997 and
the USA under George W Bush in 2003 despite a complete failure of UNESCO to undertake proper reform.
The objections to UNESCO still apply. In 2013, for example, it held a ceremony to honour the brutal executioner Che Guevara. A couple of years earlier it emerged that it was funding a Palestinian youth magazine which praised Hitler.
The Reagan/Thatcher decision to pull out of UNESCO should be restored and the same approach applied much more widely. I hope that Theresa May and Donald Trump find time to discuss it this week.
