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.