ShareThis Page
Trib editorial: U.N. budget cut long overdue |

Trib editorial: U.N. budget cut long overdue


It was the shot heard ’round Turtle Bay: the Trump administration’s announcement of America’s role in advancing more than $285 million in cuts in the United Nations’ 2018-19 operating budget.

Noting the world body’s “inefficiency and overspending,” U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley pulled no punches: “We will no longer let the generosity of the American people be taken advantage of or remain unchecked.”

The belt-tightening is long overdue.

From 2000 to 2016, U.N. staff (separate from peacekeepers) has doubled, according to Joseph Klein, a lawyer and author, writing for Over that period, the U.N.’s operating budget has increased about 119 percent (not adjusted for inflation).

And while the U.S. pays 22 percent of the U.N.’s regular budget (and about 28.5 percent of its peacekeeping budget) some nations pay what, in the past, has been likened to the price of a compact car.

By way of comparison, the 56 U.N. member states of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation pay only 5.6 percent of the U.N. regular budget. What the U.S. pours into the U.N. (one estimate put it at $10 billion in 2016) is more than the combined contributions of 176 other members.

But demanding fiscal restraint at Turtle Bay shouldn’t be a one-shot deal. For Team Trump, this should be only the first salvo.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.