Connect with us

International

Can We Finally Talk About United Nations Funding?

Published

8 minute read

David Clinton The Audit

 

Billions of dollars disappear into the black hole. Not much value comes out the other end

No area touched by government policy should be off-limits for open discussion. It’s our money, after all, and we have the right to wonder how it’s being spent. Nevertheless, there’s no shortage of topics that, well, aren’t appreciated in more polite company. Until quite recently, I somehow assumed that Canada’s commitments to the United Nations and its many humanitarian programs were among those restricted topics. I had my own deep reservations, but I generally kept my thoughts to myself.

Then the Free Press published a debate over US funding for the UN. I know that many subscribers of The Audit also read the Free Press, so this probably isn’t news to most of you. If questioning UN funding was ever off limits, it’s officially open season now.

The Audit is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

The only defense of the organization to emerge from the debate was that America’s spooks need the surveillance access made possible by the UN headquarter’s New York address, and the city needs the billions of dollars gained from hosting the big party. No one, in other words, could come up with a single friendly word of actual support.

For context, Canada doesn’t bill for parking spots around Turtle Bay in Manhattan. And our spies are not up to the task of bugging hospitality suites anywhere nearby.

How much money do Canadian taxpayers spend on the United Nations? According to data from Canada’s Open Government resource, UN-targeted grants cost us at least $3.7 billion between 2019 and 2022. That number could actually be a lot higher since it’s not always easy to identify spending items as specifically UN-related.

Of that $3.7 billion, more than $265 million went to administrative and headquarters operations. Those administrative grants included $209 million directed to the “United Nations Organization” and officially described as “Canada’s assessed contribution to the United Nations Regular Budget”. Membership dues, in other words.

So what do we get for those dues? Arguably, nothing at all. Because the actual work of the UN happens through their specific programs – which were covered by the other $3.5 billion we contributed.

Unfortunately, those contributions are often misspent. Take as an example the eight million or so dollars Canada sends each year to the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL). Since 1978, UNIFIL’s 10,000-strong contingent’s only job has been to:

“confirm Hezbollah demilitarization, support Lebanese army operations against insurgents and weapon smuggling, and confirm Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon, in order to ensure that the government of Lebanon would restore its effective authority in the area”.

It’s no secret how splendidly that worked out. Hezbollah cheerfully spent the best part of the past two decades building some of the most robust military infrastructure on earth. And all under the direct supervision of UNIFIL.

Then there’s the disturbing relationship between United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) and both Hamas and Hezbollah. As I’ve already written, by their own admission, Global Affairs Canada completely missed (or chose to ignore) that one. UNRWA cost Canadians $55 million between 2019 and 2022.

It’s true that some UN peacekeeping missions from decades back saw success, like operations in Namibia, Mozambique, Sierra Leone, East Timor, and El Salvador. But the failures were, to say the least, noticeable. Those included Rwanda, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Somalia, Angola, Haiti, and Darfur. And all that’s besides the accusations of widespread, systemic sexual abuse committed by peacekeepers just about anywhere they go. The peacekeeping model’s value proposition is far from proven, but the financial costs are right out there in the open.

Besides their regular happens-to-the-best-of-us failures, the UN has carefully cultivated their own unique brand of corruption. In 2005, Paul Volcker’s Independent Inquiry Committee (IIC), for example, reported on widespread corruption and abuse associated with the UN’s Oil-for-Food program for Iraqi citizens.

The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) has long been associated with corruption, cronyism, and a general lack of financial control. But to be fair, those claims are very much in line with accusations regularly leveled against the UN as a whole.

Most Canadians are agreeable to sharing their collective wealth and expertise with those around the world who are less fortunate. But we’d be far more effective at it by creating our own programs and bypassing the rotting corpse of the United Nations altogether. That is, after all, what Global Affairs Canada is supposed to be doing.

While I’ve still got your attention, there’s one other United Nations-y thing that I’d like to discuss. While researching this post, I accessed official data representing all UN Security Council and General Assembly resolutions since 2000. Fascinating stuff, I assure you. But it didn’t turn out the way I’d expected.

You see, for years I’ve been hearing about how UN resolutions are overwhelmingly focused on condemnations of Israel – to the point where Israel takes up the majority of the organization’s time.

In fact, there were far too many spurious and gratuitously hostile anti-Israel resolutions. And I defer to no one in my contempt for each one’s dishonesty and hypocrisy. But unless there’s something very wrong with the official UN data on resolutions, condemnations of Israel take up no more than a small minority of their time.

Specifically, of the 1,594 General Assembly resolutions from the past quarter century, just 60 or so targeted Israel. And the Security Council faced a total of 1,466 resolutions over that time, of which only somewhere in the neighborhood of 55 concerned everyone’s favorite colonial-settler, apartheid, space laser-firing, and weather-controlling oppressor.

The cesspool that is the modern UN is bad enough on its own merits. There’s no need to manufacture fake accusations.

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Daily Caller

New York City Reportedly Seeking 14,000 Hotel Rooms For Migrants, To Spend Over $2 Billion As Crisis Rages On

Published on

From the Daily Caller News Foundation 

 

By Jason Hopkins

“The taxpayers can’t pay for this indefinitely” …

Spending on migrant services for the next three years will reach a total of $5.76 billion… The average cost to house illegal migrants per room is $352 per night.

New York City officials are reportedly looking to keep thousands of hotel rooms available for illegal migrants as the crisis in the Big Apple rages on, according to the New York Post.

The city’s Department of Homeless Services is seeking a contract with local hotels to provide roughly 14,000 rooms in order to shelter migrants through 2025, according to a report from the New York Post. The city anticipates spending on migrants in need of housing for the current fiscal year and the past two years combined will surpass $2.3 billion, with a significant amount of these costs going toward hotel rent.

“The taxpayers can’t pay for this indefinitely,” Nicole Gelinas, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute think tank, said to the Post. “We should stop using hotels as shelters by the end of the year.”

Spending on migrant services for the next three years will reach a total of $5.76 billion, with around 150 hotels currently sheltering migrants, according to the Post. The average cost to house illegal migrants per room is $352 per night.

A spokesperson for New York City’s Department of Homeless Services did not immediately respond to a request for comment from the Daily Caller News Foundation.

Well over 200,000 migrants have overwhelmed New York City since the spring of 2022, according to city officials. The influx of illegal migrants forced Mayor Eric Adams to declare 5% budget cuts in September 2023 for government programs and services in order to pay for their housing and other services, and in August of that year he said the city was reaching a “breaking point” from the sheer volume of migrants.

Spending on migrant housing forced city leaders to cut back on how long people could remain in the shelter system. Adams had said that the city’s right-to-shelter laws were never intended for large-scale migrant populations.

Migrants living in city shelters were ordered to leave after 30 days with no ability to reapply, although some exceptions for medical conditions or “extenuating circumstances” were made, per a decree from the mayor in March. Migrants under the age of 23 were given 60 days to remain in the shelter system, and other exceptions were made for migrant families.

“This issue will destroy New York City,” Adams said during a September 2023 town hall. “Every community in this city is going to be impacted. We have a $12 billion deficit that we’re going to have to cut – every service in this city is going to be impacted.”

When addressing the public last month after being indicted on alleged bribery charges, Adams claimed he had been targeted by the Justice Department ever since he began speaking out about the city’s immigration crisis.

New York City has several sanctuary laws in place that restrict how federal immigration authorities can cooperate with local law enforcement. While some moderate lawmakers have attempted to roll back these laws in the wake of numerous high-profile incidents involving illegal migrants, those efforts have so far fallen flat with the City Council.

Continue Reading

Agriculture

Robbing Western Canada’s Farmers to Pay for Eastern Canada’s Car Batteries

Published on

From the C2C Journal

By Gwyn Morgan

That the Liberal government would put productive, self-supporting western Canadian canola farmers at risk in order to protect heavily subsidized jobs in Ontario and Quebec is despicable but hardly out of character

If one were to rank contenders in the global trade wars, Canada would likely sit somewhere between pint-sized and pipsqueak. Then why would such a nation’s government choose frontal assault against the world’s biggest and most ruthless economic combatant, one wielding a range of weapons and tactics to organize a counter-attack? Yet this is just what the Justin Trudeau government has done in imposing massive import taxes on electric vehicles from China, writes Gwyn Morgan. And worse, Morgan notes, Trudeau & Co. are sacrificing farmers from western Canada on an altar dedicated to eastern auto workers – while taxing those farmers to help pay for the vast subsidies needed to keep the auto workers employed.

October 1 the federal Liberals’ new “surtax” of 100 percent on the import of Chinese electric vehicles (EVs) kicked in. Announced in late August and echoing a U.S. move three months earlier, the surtax comes on top of an existing 6.1 percent import tariff and doubles the landed price of those considerably less expensive EVs made across the Pacific Ocean. (New tariffs are also being imposed on imported Chinese aluminum and steel products.) China wasted no time in striking back where it would hurt most, launching an anti-dumping “investigation” into exported Canadian canola. Since there’s no evidence Canada’s agriculture sector is engaging in this anti-free-trade practice – which technically involves selling a product in a foreign market at a lower price than domestic buyers pay in the producing country – there’s a very high likelihood China’s investigation is a procedural pretext to halting imports of Canadian canola.

China’s move on the versatile oilseed was predictable given what happened following Canada’s arrest of Huawei’s Chief Financial Officer, Meng Wanzhou, in 2019. Along with arresting two innocent Canadian expatriates and triggering the infamous “two Michaels” imbroglio, the Communist regime  also blocked imports of canola from two major Canadian export handlers. Canola producers in Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba lost an estimated $1.5-$2.4 billion in revenue as a result of that year-long boycott.

Striking back where it hurts most: Following the Justin Trudeau government’s (top left) new “surtax” of 100 percent on the import of Chinese electric vehicles (EVs), China wasted no time in launching an anti-dumping “investigation” into exported Canadian canola, Canada’s second-most important farm crop. Shown at bottom right, Chinese President Xi Jinping. (Sources of photos (clockwise starting top-left): ©Kyodonews via ZUMA Press; Ethan Llamas, licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0Paul Kagame, licensed under CC BY-NC-ND 2.0Paul Howard Photo, licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 2.0)

Canola seeds are Canada’s second-most widely grown agricultural commodity, generating a critical 25 percent of the nation’s farm crop receipts, totalling $13.6 billion last year (agricultural prices fluctuate significantly). China has long been Canada’s biggest foreign canola buyer – importing 4.5 million tonnes worth nearly $4 billion last year – and was expected to purchase 70 percent of this year’s bumper crop.

The Justin Trudeau government’s initial press release described Chinese EVs as an “extraordinary threat” to Canada’s auto workers. (There aren’t any Chinese EV brands for sale in Canada yet.) But the reality is that Canada produces almost no EVs and there are few projects on the table to do so. The genuine long-term threat to Canada’s auto workers is the Trudeau government’s “mandate” that the auto industry phase out the manufacture of internal combustion engine-powered cars and light trucks by 2035.

Much of the global auto industry has been sliding into a state approaching panic over such national mandates, which are now regarded even by some of the industry’s most established and storied brands as an existential threat. Some countries are showing signs of abandoning the 2035 changeover or at least extending the timeline. Italian Prime Minister Georgia Meloni, for example, recently termed the European Union’s phase-out policy “self-destructive”, while her energy minister has urged the EU to lift the impending ban on gasoline/diesel-powered engines.

“Self-destructive”: While the Trudeau government continues to push for the phaseout of gasoline and diesel-powered vehicles by 2035 in order to force Canadians entirely into EVs, some European leaders are beginning to question similar mandates, including Italian Prime Minister Georgia Meloni (bottom left). (Sources of photos: (top right) DealerOn; (bottom left) AP Photo/Czarek Sokolowski; (bottom right) FaceMePLS, licensed under CC BY 2.0)

But not Canada, at least not under the current government. What is on the table are subsidies – some $52.5 billion as of April, according to the Parliamentary Budget Officer – to Honda, Swedish battery maker Northvolt, Ford, Stellantis, Volkswagen and General Motors to build EV battery plants in Ontario and Quebec. The total government support exceeds what the private-sector manufacturers are themselves investing. The labour forces at these facilities will thereby represent some of the costliest jobs ever “created” in Canada, and it is entirely guesswork whether any of these plants will ever recover their prodigious expense.

There are valid reasons for great concern about the importation of Chinese-made EVs. One is the recently voiced allegation that the regime is having EV manufacturers embed technology in the cars’ computers so that China’s military could one day remotely turn them off en masse, causing chaos in the targeted countries. But Canada’s options as a trade warrior are severely limited. A crude response like the one Trudeau has attempted – levying a “surtax” steeper than anything that was ever imposed by former U.S. President Donald Trump, the man Trudeau probably despises more than anyone else in the world – is definitely not one of them. Canada’s canola exports – our country’s number-one item sold to China – offered China an easy target for a punishing tit-for-tat response.

That’s because the American situation is substantially different from Canada’s. While the U.S. does manufacture EVs, the U.S.-China trading relationship is more complex and involves multiple large industries. This means there is no obvious single target for China to strike. And this makes Trudeau’s mimicking of the American tariff profoundly irresponsible. China holds the top cards at this trade table. Late last month, for example, China initiated further steps towards retaliation when its Commerce Ministry announced a three-month-long “anti-discrimination” investigation into Canada’s new tariffs.

Not-so-mighty trade warrior: With canola being Canada’s primary export to China, Trudeau’s crude “surtax” on Chinese EVs, steel and aluminum opened the country to a foreseeable – and foreseeably punishing – tit-for-tat response. (Source of graph: Janice Nelson)

That the Liberal government would put productive, self-supporting western Canadian canola farmers at risk in order to protect heavily subsidized jobs in Ontario and Quebec is despicable but hardly out of character. The Trudeau Liberals have a long record of making decisions or imposing policies that harm the West – and western farmers in particular.

Data from the Agricultural Carbon Alliance show that during just one month in 2023, livestock farmers paid an average of $726 per month each in carbon taxes, field crop farmers $2,024 and greenhouse operators $17,173. A sampling of 50 farms showed total carbon tax payments of $329,644 in just that one month. With the tax rate rising inexorably every year, within a few years those same 50 farms will be paying nearly $900,000 per month – $11 million in 2030 alone. There are 190,000 farms in Canada. The carbon tax has become yet another inter-regional financial transfer that skims wealth generated in the West to be spent on subsidy-dependent industries in Laurentian Canada.

A sampling of just 50 of Canada’s 190,000 farms showed total carbon tax payments of $329,644 in one month, an amount projected to triple by 2030 – while battery manufacturers based in eastern Canada are to receive $52.5 billion in subsidies. Shown at bottom, Ontario Premier Doug Ford and Prime Minister Justin Trudeau observe an assembly line at an event announcing plans for a Honda electric vehicle battery plant in Alliston, Ontario, April 2024. (Sources: (graph) Agriculture Carbon Alliance; (photo) The Canadian Press/Nathan Denette)

The harmful new 100 percent EV tariff comes at a time when the entire Canadian farming sector’s future is in doubt. A study sponsored by the Royal Bank of Canada predicts that by 2033, 40 per cent of Canadian farm operators will retire. A shortfall of 24,000 general farm, nursery and greenhouse workers is expected over that period. “These gaps loom at a time when Canada’s agricultural workforce needs to evolve to include skills like data analytics,” the study states. “To meet our medium and long-term goals, we’ll need to build a new pipeline of domestic operators and workers.” Every new policy move that adds to the agriculture sector’s woes makes such a metaphorical pipeline as unlikely as the physical pipelines that the Trudeau government’s other policies have killed, from Energy East to Northern Gateway. Ruinous policies such as the carbon tax need to go, and new policies that place agriculture at risk must be avoided.

The most perverse aspect of this lengthening saga is that the future of those battery plants that the Liberals intend to subsidize with $52.5 billion and counting, raised through carbon taxes and additional debt we cannot afford to incur, is itself in serious jeopardy. That is because the grandiose global plan to transition the world to EVs is looking increasingly like a house of cards, as we have long warned (please see herehere or here). As this has seeped into public consciousness, the once-exponential growth in EV sales has flattened.

As Forbes magazine recently reported, “Fully-electric passenger car demand is softening, fast. Unsold inventories have been clogging dealers’ lots. Manufacturers – from the biggest brands down to the smallest startups – are cutting back on production and investment plans.” Some prospective EV builders – like Apple – are dropping out entirely. Even before the U.S. and Canadian tariffs on Chinese EVs, reports and images came out of China showing fields packed with unsold (and possibly abandoned) EVs, a problem that lately is being “exported” as tens of thousands of Chinese EVs clog ports and shipping hubs in destination markets.

How does the future of Canadian EV manufacturing relate to the future of farming? The answer is that the first cannot exist at all without gigantic taxpayer-funded subsidies, while Canada’s farming sector – despite being an innately risky undertaking at the mercy of fickle Mother Nature and unpredictable market swings – is generally self-supporting and on balance profitable, at times highly so. What it needs above all is to be relieved of debilitating policies – first and foremost the carbon tax. We should not be robbing Canadian farmers to pay subsidies to battery-makers.

Global house of cards: With consumers awakening to the profound shortcomings of EVs, tens of thousands of unsold battery-powered cars have been clogging Chinese ports and shipping hubs (top right) – a problem now being “exported” to destination markets including Canada’s auto dealerships (bottom right). (Source of bottom right photo: Golden Shrimp/Shutterstock)

Instead, we need to encourage young people to enter the farming industry and provide them with the skills needed to “build that new pipeline” of agricultural workers. A country that can’t fuel and feed itself is a vulnerable country even in good times, and a starving, freezing one in bad. We Canadians are fortunate to have the natural resources needed to both fuel and feed ourselves plus create wealth by exporting the products that we derive from those resources. Canada’s oil, natural gas, coal, forests, fisheries and soils represent natural advantages that Canadians long ago became adept at leveraging into livelihoods and prosperity.

We have every reason to be outraged at a government that spends tens of billions of dollars subsidizing an entirely artificial industry in which our country has no innate economic advantage, while imposing heavy taxes on an industry that is absolutely vital to thousands of rural communities and to the food security of us all.

Gwyn Morgan is a retired business leader who has been a director of five global corporations.

Source of main image: bill barber, licensed under CC BY-NC 2.0.

Continue Reading

Trending

X