Stardate 20030626.1646

(On Screen): Boy, I tell you; when it comes to diplomatic skill, no one does it better than the UN. Their timing is impeccable.

The UN building is falling apart. The UN wants to renovate. They figure it will cost upwards of $1 billion.

Where to get the money? From the United States, of course. The grand plan is for the US government to give the UN a 30-year interest-free loan. (Which effectively means that the US would pay the interest, which would amount to several hundred million dollars.)

This was floated back last fall, and I wrote about it in November. At the time, the reputation of the UN in the US was none too high given the bruising effort to get Resolution 1441 passed by the UNSC.

But time heals all wounds, right? They're bringing the subject up again, now that the UN was an even bigger impediment on the path to the war in Iraq. Ultimately we ended up bagging all attempts to even deal with the UN, and went on without them. So obviously the time is right to ask the US for a major gift, to support the UN. (Literally, given that the building is falling apart.)

There are two obvious questions: Why do they think we should do this? Because we did the last time. The UN building was originally built with an interest-free loan from the US, but of course this was at a time when most of the world was still recovering from World War II and couldn't really afford to contribute much. (They still can't, but there's no longer any excuse for that.)

"It is an established norm set by the host countries following the example set by the U.S. government after World War II to provide an interest-free loan," Niwa said.

Oh? Established norm? Is Belgium giving NATO a loan to rebuild NATO HQ in Brussels?

The second obvious question: Why would American citizens have any interest in spending their tax money like that on the UN, especially now?

That's a good one, isn't it? I sure can't think of any reason. What this amounts to is an auxiliary levy on the US for UN operations, above and beyond the 22% of the UN budget we now pay.

The General Assembly decided that the U.N. should not rely more on one member to finance its operations than another, and established a "ceiling" rate, setting the highest amount any country is assessed, according to the State Department.

The Assembly revised the scale of assessments in 2002. As part of that agreement, the regular budget maximum was reduced from 25 to 22 percent — the rate at which the U.S. is assessed for the regular budget.

The U.S. is the only member that pays this rate; all other members’ assessment rates are lower.

This de-facto expense they're asking the US to accept would raise us back above that 22% limit (which was instituted as a result of an American demand and threat, a fact this article doesn't mention).

A different way to look at it is that they're asking us to pay about half the overall bill. The projected interest the US would pay would amount to about half the principal of the loan, and the US would also be responsible for 22% of the repayments of the principal.

Th UN is supposed to be the world center of diplomacy. It's viewed by many as a nascent world government, the epitomy of post-national post-modernism. It is held up as an icon by leftists, a sparkling beacon representing the golden future.

And in the last year it's revealed itself to be corrupt, inbred, factionalized, venal, and amazingly inept.

This request for money from the US is the cherry on the top, that last little touch that makes the picture perfect. After what we've gone through with the UN in the last year, why in hell should we give the UN any extra help?

You know, if we refuse to loan them the money and the building continues to decay, maybe they'll pick up and move somewhere else. Like Paris. Then we can implode that damned building and improve the NYC skyline.