Ban Ki-Moon called the United States a “deadbeat” donor to the UN. Why? Because we’re always late paying our 22% of the UN $5 billion budget. That’s right, we pay for one-fifth of the UN’s costs, and the head of the UN tells us we’re deadbeats.
The White House objected Thursday to U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon’s description of the United States as a “deadbeat” donor to the world body.
Ban used the phrase Wednesday during a private meeting with lawmakers at the Capitol, one day after he met with President Barack Obama in the Oval Office.
White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said Ban’s “word choice was unfortunate,” given that the U.S. is the largest contributor to the United Nations.
I’ve got an idea. Let’s really be deadbeats, and just stop paying. So, is there an apology in the works?
Ban, apparently concerned about his choice of words, issued a statement late Wednesday saying the U.S. “generously supports the work of the U.N., both in assessed and voluntary contributions.” Ban also said he enjoys “an excellent working relationship with the United States and appreciates the many ways that it supports the United Nations.”
That’s the AP’s edited quote. Here’s the actual quote, which is even less satisfactory:
In closing, Ladies and Gentlemen, let me just say a few words about a misunderstanding that has made news yesterday.
Speaking with a group of members of the House of Representatives, I noted how generous the United States has been in supporting the UN, both in terms of assessed and voluntary contributions. At the same time, I noted that the United States is also the largest debtor, owing more than $1 billion in arrears, soon to reach $1.6 billion. My point was simply that the United Nations needs the fullest support of its members, and never more so than in these very demanding times.
I think it’s not the times that are demanding, it’s the UN.
Ban ki-Moon?
Cack ihm oon.
I used to think it was just right-wing fuckwits who said, “Get the UN out of the US and the US out of the UN.” Now I’m not so sure.
That land on the East River is valuable and someone could redevelop it to build something actually useful and provide more tax revenue to the city.
I understand that as a citizen I can’t control where all of my tax dollars go to, but I do resent having to pay a small amount of my money to support an institution whose main main product seems to be anti-Semitism.
I second moving the UN out of its posh East River setting. However, the UN also wants to expand its office space. So to accomplish both aims….move the UN to Detroit. Cheap office space. Cheap housing for employees.
chsw
Suck it up, Moonie. Try getting funding from your vile Hate Israel club and STFU.
Actually, moving the UN to Detroit is not a bad idea. After living in the city for nearly two decades I just moved across Eight Mile Rd. to a suburb…no statement being made, my landlord got foreclosed.
Anyway, we have lots of room, plenty of people who need jobs, and anyone who has followed our former mayor and the city council knows the UN would feel right at home with our style of government.