U.K. Pulls Plug on United Nations Spending in Opposition of U.S."

FoxNews.com ^ | March 03, 2011 | George Russell

[Scanian]

Critics of U.S. spending on the United Nations got a huge boost—and supporters of that spending, especially the Obama Administration, took a body blow—from an unlikely source this week: the British government, long one of the U.N.’s staunchest supporters.

In a sweeping and hard-nosed reorganization of priorities for its $10.6 billion multilateral foreign aid program, the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition government of Prime Minister David Cameron has pulled the financial plug entirely on four U.N. agencies at the end of next year, put three others judged merely “adequate” on notice that they could face the same fate unless they improve their performance “as a matter of absolute urgency;” and issued pointed criticisms of almost all the rest.

The major exception: UNICEF, the U.N. children’s aid agency, which got a strong endorsement and a funding increase.

The tough actions were revealed as the Republican majority in the U.S. House of Representatives, led by House Foreign Affairs Committee chairperson Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, has been gearing up an extended critical look at U.N. funding as part of its overall budget austerity plan. The British revelations also came while U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice was on an extended cross-country tour, drumming up grass-roots support for U.N. funding in what is sure to be a protracted battle. Unveiling of the new British priorities undoubtedly will hearten her opponents on Capitol Hill.

[Vanders9]

Yeah, but they are working with children, so they are pretty much bullet proof at the moment. What politician wants to be accused of “hurting the kids”? It will take a little longer before the UK population is wised up enough for Cameron to be able to move on UNICEF.

[Vanders9]

Thats an easy one. See post #21

[econjack]

What politician wants to be accused of “hurting the kids”?

Therein is the crux of ALL of our problems. Politicians only care about getting reelected by people who really don't understand the issues. They give away our money [i.e., the 60% of us who pay taxes] to those who don't pay taxes. Personally, my feeling is: If you don't pay taxes, you don't get to vote. Think about how that would alter the landscape!

[Vanders9]

This is a fracture line with the whole concept of democracy. Our leaders are elected. Therefore they need public support. Therefore, there is always the temptation for them to do what is popular rather than what is right (tragically the two are not always the same). Even if they do believe in an unpopular course of action, the democratic process still means that such actions will be punished at the ballot box. What's the point of taking a principled stand if you will simply be fired for doing so, and therefore unable to influence the situation anyway? This is the problem here. Cameron certainly knows UNICEF's darker side, but he cannot move on them. The great British public will not stand for it. Not at the moment anyway.

Don't get me wrong, I think Democracy is great - there is a very definite link between free societies and rich, happy, and/or powerful societies. I'd certainly prefer to live in a democratic society than any of the autocracy's, theocracy's and plain dictatorships that are the lot of far too many people in this world. But there are weaknesses, and we need to be aware of them.

[Scanian]

I dunno...all the cuts the Tories have made have resulted in similar demagoguery.

[econjack]

This is a fracture line with the whole concept of democracy.

Absolutely true. However, consider this. In fact, we are a Republic, not a Democracy...a small, but significant difference. We do operate on representative gov't. However, we do have the technology now to do away with representatives and let the people vote on major issues directly. Voting electronically after qualifying (retina scan, finger prints, ??) is possible. With dead people in Lake County, Indiana, voting twice, how bad could this alternative be?

[sinsofsolarempirefan]

Letting people vote on issues directly would make the problem of democracy worse. By the end of the Athenian democracy (a pure and direct democracy), the Athenian people were voting themselves generous helpings of silver tetradrachms from the public treasury.
At least representative government puts the brakes on the whim of the mob to a certain extent...

[Vanders9]

Unfortunately, the problem with participative democracy, as opposed to representative democracy, is that it presumes the people a) know enough about the issues, b) care enough about the issues and c)are prepared to participate in the entire political process to a level that they are certainly not doing now. Now, it is possible, as some argue, that the reason people do not involve themselves in politics is that they feel their voice does not count, and that a participatory system would revitalise the electorate, but personally I doubt this. Even if they did, what guarantee would you have that the right decisions, as opposed to ones that simply reflect self-interest, would ever be made? Check your own tagline!

The fact is that democracies, even those with inbuilt constitutional absolutes like the US, are dependent on citizens taking an active part. This should not surprise. How can government "of the people, for the people, by the people" work if the people concerned do not participate?

[econjack]

You’re right...on all counts.