Bunker Mulligan "Let us endeavor so to live that when we come to die even the undertaker will be sorry." ~Mark Twain

I did a quick Google search on UN dues, and found that the US pays 25% of the general UN budget, along with 30% of the peacekeeping budget. Other countries feel this is appropriate because we have 29% of the world?s GDP.

The American people and our economy represent 29% of the world?s GDP, not our government. Yet we still have but a single vote in the General Assembly, and a permanent seat on the Security Council.

The dues structure is based on GDP percentage, but I could find no information on who else pays what. All counties are equal, except in paying for that equality.

I propose two things for continuing the organization: Every country represented at the UN must pay an equal percentage, and move the headquarters to Baghdad.

There are currently 191 member states, 19 of which (Afghanistan, Benin, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Comoros, Georgia, Guinea-Bissau, Iraq, Liberia, Malawi, Mauritania, Niger, Republic of Moldova, Sao Tome and Principe, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Suriname, and Tajikistan) are in arrears in dues payment. One of these, Iraq, has been a focus of the UN for the last 12 years. Paying bribes rather than dues, Iraq continued to ignore UN resolutions.

If all 191 members except Iraq and the five permanent members of the Security Council paid an equal share, they would each support the UN with 1/2-percent of the budget. That covers 92.5%. The five permanent members would each pay 1-1/2-percent, and Iraq, host of the new headquarters, would pay nothing, but furnish a building and utilities.

GDP as a measure of ability to pay is irrelevant. Name one single country where the government leaders suffer for lack of funds, regardless of how poor that country is. If the leaders of a country want representation at the UN, they pay the dues. This means some will not, and their share will have to be borne by someone else. But they don?t get a seat in the UN. Again, I believe the five permanent members should share this extra cost. It will be minimal, as fewer delegations to support means lower administrative costs.

Housing the UN in Baghdad should also reduce operating costs. Delegations would be smaller, as fewer diplomats would be as interested in serving there as they are in New York. It would also put the UN dead center of the primary issues before it. The positives keep adding up! Baghdad?s economy would grow with the increase in foreign money coming to town, and entrepreneurship would skyrocket as businessmen in Iraq jostled for position. Baghdad might even become a cultural center for the Middle East.

I would prefer to see the UN eliminated completely. But if it must survive, I would like to see significant changes such as these.

I intended to begin tracking the scandal which was the UN Oil-For-Food Program. But on doing a simple Google search, I found there are many people out there much better equipped to do the leg work on the issue. ABC News is beginning to look hard at the program, and Claudia Rosett has an in-depth piece in Commentary. There are also several blogs keeping tabs: Friends of Saddam is devoted to the issue, and Roger Simon keeps up to date. I will continue to follow these sites and update here as I see fit.

What is of interest to me in this whole thing is the misguided concept of the UN as a world governing body. It is nowhere close to what we, as Americans, would ever view as a representative government, although there are Americans who would like it to be so.

The problem is that most of the world is governed or ruled by political “elites.” These are people who have built political connections and close relationships through generations. Even our own Federal Government was set up with these people in mind. The Senate was to be populated with our own American elite class of politicians. The Constitution sets out selection of senators by the legislatures of each State. This changed only by Amendment. Balance was to be provided by the establishment of the House of Representatives, whose members would be elected by citizens in each state.

With the growth of our population, even our Congressmen are elected from among party activists rather than from the general populace, although the occasional Mr. Smith makes his way to Washington. Running for office requires the freedom to quit your job for the campaign duration, and contacts with people who can donate bucks. Think “lawyers”.

In most of the world, however, the idea of a Mr. Smith even thinking of a run for office is absurd. Tony Blair wasn’t elected Prime Minister by the people of Britain, he was elected by his party, who have the majority of seats in Parliament. He serves at the pleasure of his party. The same is true in almost all parliamentary governments. Other nations don’t even bother with elections except in closed-door discussions. Their political leadership come from a very select group. And the UN reflects that. Ever hear of Kofi Annan before he became the Secretary General? He was working within the bureaucracy of the UN much like his son is now–you know, one of those accused of skimming Oil-For-Food money?

I have yet to find a single way in which the UN has ever accomplished anything. There have been successes under the UN flag, but each of those has been the result of devoted attention by a single or pair of nations, often the US, Australia, Canada, or UK. More often, we end up with Rwanda or the decades-long peace-keeping duty like that in Cyprus.

I am for the dissolution of the UN. If this is the straw that breaks this particular back, I applaud the Oil-For-Food scandal. It may be the only way for the world to honor the Iraqis who died under Saddam Hussein.

UPDATE: There are a couple of more avenues for reading up on this. But there is a money quote from the lead crook I picked up at InstaPundit:

Before Sevan’s recent mysterious disappearance into the nether world, facilitated by boss Annan, who shrewdly packed him off on long leave before retirement, Sevan nonchalantly admitted, ” that as much as 10 percent” of the programme’s revenues may have been “ripped off,” telling a TV channel: “Even if 10 percent of the revenue was stolen, 90 percent got to the people it was intended for. Why does nobody report that?” he asked peevishly.

There you have it. “I deserve my cut.” Cast an eye on Scott Burgess’ view from London, and another from CBC News.