Where might the pioneers of the world’s severe, disappointed, America-loathing countries go if there were no United Nations?
Well, they’d be sorta destitute, wouldn’t they?
Keep in mind, this is an association that puts nations, for example, Cuba and Saudi Arabia on its Human Rights Council. Maybe such countries are on that board as negative cases for different states to consider…
Though that seems unlikely.
The UN is a convenient target for those who oppose a globalist agenda, yet it is a target against which criticism is justified.
Its accomplishments are few and its failures many. It’s merely an exercise in spreading socialism on a worldwide scale, with the United States expected to be the source of funding.
Yeah, well, maybe not. President Trump’s plans to cut funding for the UN naturally has exponents of this globalist institution in a rage, but the White House is pushing forward:
Writing in the establishment standard – bearer Foreign Affairs, Colum Lynch sounds the alarm.
“State Department staffers have been instructed to seek cuts in excess of 50 percent in U.S. funding for U.N. programs, signaling an unprecedented retreat by President Donald Trump’s administration from international operations that keep the peace, provide vaccines for children, monitor rogue nuclear weapons programs, and promote peace talks from Syria to Yemen, according to three sources.”
There’s quite a bit of talk about peace in that statement for world that seems to have PLENTY of war.
Is it accurate to say that we are to trust that a cut in subsidizing by the US will prompt to more war, that the answer for world clashes would be found if the US would simply build the measure of money it sends to the UN?
That would appear to be the suggestion, and most likely the implicit longing.
Why did Lynch not state “keep rebel countries from acquiring atomic weapons?” That ought to be the genuine objective, correct? Obviously, we know the appropriate response:
Like most UN projects, its “observing” of rebel countries is futile, and it unquestionably can’t prevent such countries from furnishing themselves any way they wish.
This is the reason Trump doesn’t respect the UN and in the event that he needs to, say, pursue our adversaries in Palestine, he will do precisely that.
The whole Foreign Policy piece is an activity in dread mongering with the objective of assaulting the Trump organization while attempting to sound modern and keen. So what else is new, liberals?
What’s more, the part about every one of the children who will bite the dust since they will abandon immunizations without cash from the US streaming to the UN? We suspect that if a universal association, or a nation so far as that is concerned, approached us for help in inoculating their children, we would react emphatically.
Obviously, that would deny the UN of the one program in its collection that may really accomplish something positive.