If If's And But's Were Candy And Nuts...

Every Day'd Be Christmas

I'm a bit short on time here, but I'm so excited that I just have to tell you the good news just announced by the UN.

Here's the intro quotation from the UN press release...

"UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - More than 500 million people can escape abject poverty, 250 million people will no longer go to bed hungry and 30 million children can be saved if rich countries double development aid over the next 10 years to $195 billion, a new U.N.-sponsored report said on Monday."

Now here is the punch line...

"Government aid from rich countries should amount to $135 billion in 2003, rising to $195 billion in 2015 or about 0.54 percent of these nations' GNP, about twice the current level to reach the Millennium goals, the report said. World leaders have agreed on 0.7 percent of GNP for development aid for the Millennium goals and other projects.

UNITED STATES LAGGING

But the United States with its $12 trillion economy would have to raise its contributions considerably.

Although the United States is the largest donor in the world, it contributes the smallest proportion of its GNP to development aid among 22 industrial nations.

Washington spends some 0.16 percent or $25 billion and to reach a target of 0.7 percent of its GNP, it would have to spend $80 billion.

Japan, the world's second largest economy, is also low at 0.20 percent as is Italy at 0.17 percent, and Germany at 0.27.

Among industrial nations, only Denmark, Norway, Sweden, the Netherlands and Luxembourg have spent more than the world target of 0.7 percent of their gross national product. Britain, Belgium, France, Finland and Ireland have made promised to reach the target before 2015. "

Who the hell gets to decide how much "Government Aid" should come from "Rich Countries?"

They actually have the audacity to suggest that we should more than TRIPLE our spending on the UN? ($25 billion versus $80 billion.) Well let me get my wallet out...huummmhhh...I seem to be a little short, Kofi.

Isn't this sort of like an eight year old kid going to their parents and announcing that they don't get enough allowance? All the while the parents are providing a roof over their head (in NY City in the case of the UN), clothing, food, etc.

All of these statistics quoted only account for official government giving to the UN. They don't count the value of things like military support in the form of the Carrier Abraham Lincoln and all of the aircraft currently in the Tsunami ravaged areas. And what about the US presence in Afgahnistan and Iraq?

Adding insult to injury, the figures also don't count the value of private donations by US citizens.

And regarding Denmark, Norway, Sweden, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, (and Belgium, France, and Finland for that matter) isn't it easy to pony up a wad of cash when you can huddle in the safety of the massive US military presence and the flight paths of a few hundred ICBM's bought and paid for by our tax dollars? Only Britain is even remotely capable of defending themselves without substantial support from the US.

Now, if you have the time, feel free to jump to my previous post, Nearly 15 Billion Down A Rat Hole, and find out how I really feel about the United Nations.

Any Questions??