Imagine what a mess the world would be if we didn't have the United Nations looking out for us. Why, we might have genocide in Dafir, bus bombings and stabbings in Jerusalem, rocket attacks from Gaza, girls kidnapped in Nigeria, gassings, beheadings and drownings in Syria, embassies burned and ambassadors murdered in Libya, ongoing wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, mass shootings in gun-free Paris and San Bernadino, bomb attacks on people in airports, trains and on subways in Belgium, England and Spain and airplanes blown out of the sky over the Mediterranean and Sinai.

We might even a Nut Nation led by bearded lunatics in black turbans resembling cow pies threatening to go nuclear.

Without the United Nations we might be in bad tro...

Oh, never mind.

Recently, having disrupted the 

status quo 

of the Republican Party establishment elite by winning the support of the unwashed masses in spite of the horror of the betters who have been running things (into the ground some might say) for nearly three decades, presumptive presidential nominee, Donald Trump, recently suggested that perhaps wealthy nations such as Germany, France and the United Kingdom should consider paying more for their own defense. These nations naturally reacted with horror. Paying for their own defense might seriously disrupt the vast welfare system the citizens of Germany, France and the United Kingdom have come to expect. After all, there are only so many pennies in a dollar, and pennies spent on moats and rifles can't be spent on bread, circuses and health care.

If he's into cost-cutting, perhaps Mr. Trump also should turn his attention to the United Nations.

Currently the United States pays 1/5 of the cost of the U. N. This leaves the other 192 nations including those mentioned above in addition to China, Japan, Russia, Canada, Australia, Sweden, Norway, Denmark,  Switzerland and South Korea to split the other four-fifths between them (1, 2).

On what other planet would this be considered reasonable? In what other country would this be considered sanity?

Obviously nations too poor to feed their own citizens cannot be expected to fund a United Nations which doesn't do much except give dictators the opportunity to pound their shoes on the counter and/or rail against the United States, but why can't the other advanced nations share the entire cost?

But even that might not be necessary were the United Nations to sell its multi-billion dollar real estate holdings in Manhattan and relocate. The profit from the multi-billion dollar sale properly invested might well fund the United Nations into perpetuity.

Growltiger suggests the United Nations might be better off relocated to Jerusalem. Not only is Jerusalem the city associated with three major religions, once the prissy, pompadoured diplomats' powdered posteriors were no longer safely ensconced in New York, they would be highly motivated to promote the possibility of peace between Israel and Palestine.

But if Jerusalem is deemed too dangerous, perhaps the United nations could promote what serves as planetary peace by locating the United Nations in temporary headquarters in whichever city from which the Secretary General hails. Just imagine the benefit that would have accrued to the impoverished nation of Ghana had Kofi Annan's election relocated 44,000 employees from New York to Accra. Or the benefits to the citizens of  "The Inca Empire" (sometimes referred to as Peru) when Javier Perez de Cuellar was elected. Kampuchea might not have become Burma and Burma become Myanmar had the United Nations moved to Kampuchea during U. Thant's tenure.

And best of all, perhaps Kim un-Nutjob of North Korea might not have been so quick to rattle his nukes were the world's top diplomats sitting in Seoul alongside Ban Ki-Moon.

So after he builds the wall, renegotiates the deals with China and Iran, fixes the U. S. economy, restores the military and repairs the Veteran's Administration and serves NATO with a bill for its share of the common defense, perhaps Mr. Trump can turn his attention on Turtle Bay and Trump the United Nations. In other words, keep the U. S. in the U. N. but get the U. N. out of the U. S. 

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

(1)  UN Budget 1

(2) UN Budget 2 

 

  -----------