The
U.S. and The U.N.: The End of a Bad Romance
By
Bruce Herschensohn
It
should be understood that from the beginning she wasnt faithful
and had no intention of being faithful. After the United States
of America and its World War II allies created the United Nations
Organization, the United States fell in love with her. He thought
the two of them had a lot in common. But the United Nations Organization,
dressed in apparel given her by the United States and wearing jewelry
given her by the United States, spent many New York nights of romance
with enemies of the United States. And so it went for 59 years of
hand-holding beneath the moonlight and stars on the East River near
the magnificent home that John D. Rockefeller of the United States
had given her.
She
was having exactly the style of life she wanted. She was having
fun, and at the same time she wanted enough affection retained between
her and the United States so that the United States would give her
what she wanted. Her long-range plan was to eventually make the
United States a "fair and equal" Third World Country while
current Third World Countries would then inherit a world leadership
position. There would be no rich and poor countries. They would
all be poor.
That
gleam in her eye called for an outrageous percent of the U.N.s
budget paid by the United States which the United States had already
agreed to pay, plus the grandest scheme of all: a "global tax"
to go to the U.N. from citizens of the United States and other industrial
countries. That tax, collected each year by the U.N. would then
be redistributed to less industrial countries of the world
with a nice administrative budget for her colleagues working in
her 39 story mansion.
As
absurd as all this may seem, there is more truth than fiction in
the summary above.
The
first I heard about such a U.N. tax was in the early 1960s when
U Thant was the U.N.s Secretary General. Like most others,
I laughed it off because such a tax was so absurd that it seemed
to be one of those subjects that was dead before it lived, advocated
only by the most radical and anti-U.S. bureaucrats of the U.N.
The
subject was not dead. The subject was just in hibernation. It kept
waking up every September when there was a new session of the U.N.
Each time it woke up, it seemed to gather more support.
The
next Secretary General, Kurt Waldheim put the subject on the calendar.
Early in his reign in 1972, both the U.N. Conference on the Human
Environment and the Club of Rome advocated a tax on industrialized
countries. (The Club of Rome is a global think tank that has had
great influence on the U.N., often asked by the U.N. to supply studies
and advice. It is composed of scientists, economists, former heads
of state and others. In 1972, it warned that the world would run
out of gold by 1981, mercury by 1985, tin by 1987, zinc by 1990,
petroleum by 1992, and copper, lead and natural gas by 1993.)
The
1980s saw Secretary General Javier Perez de Cuellar propose
the establishment of a U.N. Peace Endowment Fund with an initial
target of one billion dollars, not only from voluntary funds but
from assessed contributions as well.
Following
Javier Perez de Cuellar as Secretary General in 1992 was Boutros
Boutros-Ghali, who made the subject of a tax more prominent than
ever before. He proposed a tax on arms sales throughout the world,
a tax on international travel, and a general tax exemption for contributions
made to the U.N. by foundations, businesses and individuals. He
said, "The question of assuring financial security to the Organization
over the long term is of such importance and complexity that public
awareness and support must be heightened."
Although
Secretary General Boutros Boutros-Ghali spoke and wrote highly of
the sovereignty of the State, he added in his article, "An
Agenda for Peace," that "The time of absolute and exclusive
sovereignty, however, has passed; its theory was never matched by
reality. It is the task of leaders of States today to understand
this and to find a balance between the needs of good internal governance
and the requirements of an ever more interdependent world."
At the time, there was such enthusiasm for a tax that there was
serious argument over whether industrialized nations such as the
United States should simply be taxed as nations or citizens of the
selected nations should be taxed directly by the United Nations
Organization.
The
first years of the 21st Century have seen the most serious
threat of what is now called a "global tax" to be administered
by the United Nations Organization. Secretary General Kofi Annan
wrote a paper in which he itemized proposals for global taxation,
including a "bit tax" on the volume of data transmitted
through the Internet. Secretary General Annan noted that at one
U.S. cent on every 1,000 kilobytes of data, that tax "would
have generated $70 billion U.S. dollars."
Expanding
on a Bhoutros Bhoutros-Ghali idea, Kofi Annan argued for an international
air transport tax since "experts recognize air transport of
passengers and cargo as a key source of environmental pollution
due to emissions and noise."
Other
proposals of the Secretary General duplicated old proposals of Bhoutros
Bhoutros-Ghali and some new ones: taxation of arms exports from
one country to another, a carbon tax which could "contribute
to a global public good, namely the reduction in greenhouse gas
emissions." Kofi Annan noted that "a gallon of gasoline
or a ton of coal cannot be readily disguised." Another proposal
is for a currency transaction fee calling for taxation of foreign
exchange markets "probably collected at the point of payment
or settlement in the banking systems."
The
Global Policy Forum, a tax-exempt organization that has consultative
status and advises on financial matters for the United Nations,
added other proposals for "the changing role of states and
sovereignty." It stated, "The international community
cannot allow the United States government to hold the world hostage
and block vitally important progress. Like-minded governments and
citizen groups must advance together towards the goal of global
taxes." Proposals noted by the Global Policy Forum include
a fee for the use of radio/television/mobile phones and other items
within the electronic spectrum, a tax on the profits of transnational
corporations, a tax on international advertising, and a "parking
fee" for earth-orbiting satellites (although Kofi Annan said
"the satellite use of outer space would not generate significant
revenue at any reasonable tax rate.")
In
2002, Secretary General Kofi Annan appointed a "U.N. High Level
Panel on Financing for Development." Its Executive Summary
stated that "the Panel proposes that the international community
should consider the potential benefits of an International Tax Organization."
Throughout
all the proposals are three consistent objectives: to redistribute
wealth from rich to poor countries, to influence policy by increasing
the cost to consumers of products and services the U.N. opposes,
and to inaugurate a new avenue for income to the United Nations
Organization.
The
implications are, of course, tremendous to the United States, There
is the obvious damage to U.S. sovereignty and its place in the world,
and there is something else: even if the tax is well-spent by the
U.N., (which the U.N.s history tells us is outrageously unlikely)
such taxation would take away the ability to do those things the
United States has done through voluntary actions and turn them into
mandatory obedience. The U.N. should never forget that after World
War II, the United States could have made the world its taxpayer,
but instead the United States chose to tax its own citizens
to help friends and former foes rebuild their cities, as well as
finance governments that fought against us to construct the foundations
of democracy. Foreign aid from the United States has never stopped
in the years since then through the U.S. Government and through
considerable private charitable contributions.
No
one should assume a global tax is far-fetched. Unsurprisingly, French
President Jacques Chirac said, "We cannot avoid setting up
a system of international taxation."
The
Global Policy Forum wrote, "As recently as the 1990s, global
taxes seemed a distant hope bedeviled by technical concerns,
opposed by powerful interests and blocked by an intractable United
States government. But today the political balance has shifted."
Some
moonlit night near the end of 2004, U.S. Ambassador to the U.N.,
John Danforth, should go to the great mansion on the East River
with the mission of telling her, "Sorry, Sweetheart. I just
came by to tell you to gather your things."
I
know, I know. Ending a bad relationship is tough.
Bruce
Herschensohn teaches foreign policy at the Pepperdine University
School of Public Policy and is a Member of the Centers Board
of Directors.
[Posted
September 9, 2004]
Return
to Current Events Index
|