This is a guest editorial by Dr. Liberty. Dr Liberty is a retired US Army Lt Colonel, Military Intelligence with an emphasis on Middle East and the former Soviet Union, is currently an Associate Dean for the School of Arts and Sciences at a major University, and has a PhD in Theology specializing in Religious Liberty in Colonial America.

ENJOY!

Today, Hugo Chavez came to the secure shores of the United States and, to the applause of sycophantic non-aligned members of the UN, proceeded to spew invective against President Bush and the United States. While ignoring the obvious imbecility of the anti-Bush/US comments, there was one comment that did catch my attention. Chavez opined that maybe it was time to move the UN out of the US.

In part, Chavez was augmenting yesterday’s speech by Iranian President Ahmadinejad who called for the Security Council to be changed to better reflect the views of countries not aligned with the U.S. According to liberals, that would be everyone else…

Although I disagree with Ahmadinejad’s ridiculous assumption that leadership of the UN’s Security Council ought to be given to nations with little to no economic or military clout, I do agree that the UN’s Security Council membership ought to be revisited. I also agree that perhaps it is time to evict the ungrateful “we-hate-America-except-when-we-want-your-money-and-even-then-we’ll-complain-it’s-not-enough” tenants of Manhattan.

Proceeding from the assumption that the UN is, in fact, a viable organization (the debate to the contrary is too overwhelming, but for sake of this analysis it is assumed that keeping the UN on life-support is still desired), I would argue that the UN grossly misrepresents the constituents economic capabilities and global impact.

First, in the beginning of 2001, the UN established a scale of assessments whereby the US’ fiscal obligation was reduced to only 22%. Many would argue that the world’s greatest economic superpower can surely afford 22%, and should probably be paying far more. That said, just how much should the US pay to help keep the world safe? In order to appropriately evaluate true economic comparisons, perhaps it would be best to turn to the International Monetary Fund (IMF) data for 2005 concerning the GDP in terms of purchasing power parity (PPP). PPP is a more accurate method of comparing two or more countries as it factors in far more variables than a simple GDP in order to provide a viable comparison, and thus “equalizes” the purchasing power of the various nations.

In 2005, the world’s PPP was approximately $63.4 trillion. The US’ portion of this was $12.94 trillion, or 20.3%. Based upon this data, it would seem that the US is paying a bit more than its far share. Yet this may not be quite accurate as the UN budget for 2005 was $1.83 billion with the US’ assessment at $440 million, or 24%.

What about other nations?

This begs an interesting question. Should the European Union (EU) be treated as a single entity? The EU has certainly evolved since the Maastricht Treaty of 1992, yet even then it has as its foundation a unity of economic strength – essentially an economic union to counterbalance the US’ economy. In fact, the EU’s activities now cover all areas of public policy, to include foreign affairs and defense; there is even an EU flag. Thus, it would not be unrealistic to state that the EU should be treated as a single entity.

If so, based upon the World Bank’s data, the EU’s PPP is $12.95 trillion, virtually the same as the US’ percentage of 20.3% of the world’s economic purchasing power. Therefore, the 25 member states of the EU should be expected to provide 20.3% of the UN’s budget. In truth, they provide 38% of the UN’s budget.

The same holds true for Japan, which has 6.3% of the world’s purchasing power, yet pays 19.6% of the UN budget.

Thus the question must rightly be asked: if these three entities, the US, the EU, and Japan control 47.4 % of the world’s PPP, why is their UN assessment almost 80%? Asked in another way, why do 27 countries provide 82% of a UN budget that has a membership of 191 countries?

However, before one quickly points out the disparity between first and third world nations (are they called that any more??), the data for some other nations ought to be examined. For example, China, which controls 16.6% of the world’s PPP, contributes only 1.5% to the UN budget. India provides only 0.3% of the UN’s fiscal needs yet controls almost 6% of the world’s PPP. While not as egregious, Russia’s 1.2% UN assessment in less than half of its 2.7% global strength. Indonesia, with the 15th largest purchasing power parity at 1.5% pays only 0.2% of the UN’s annual requirements.

It is glaringly obvious that other member states are not providing their fair share.

Yet this brings up another interesting concern. If Russia pays only 1.2% of the UN’s general budget, China pays 1.5%, the UK 5.5%, France 6.4% and the US pays 22%, why does each of the five wield equal veto power as permanent members of the Security Council? Further, if the EU is a separate entity, then both France and the UK should be replaced with a single representative from the EU. Likewise, Russia ought to be replaced as being of insufficient economic strength to justify its place of authority on the Security Council.

In all fairness, based upon the five permanent member structure, the new Security Council should be comprised of the EU, US, China, Japan, and India.

Further, any UN missions requiring a UN presence should have a greater balance in its UN representation, especially based upon population demographics. As China and India together have a far greater percentage of the global population – 37%, it seems fair that they ought to bear the greater burden of providing individuals for such missions, with other member nations providing additional materials and supplies as appropriately apportioned. The same population standard should apply to every other nation. Countries such as Indonesia or Pakistan or Bangladesh, or even Mexico and Viet Nam must be expected to provide their fair share of global peacekeepers.

Yet this still begs the question to both Chavez and Ahmedinejad – will your two countries step up to the proverbial “plate” and deliver the leadership and financial benefits of being global leaders? It’s interesting to note that of all the global humanitarian organizations, largely funded by the US and EU, none are headquartered in either the Middle East or South America. When the tsunami rampaged across Indonesia, the most populous Muslim nation in the world, where were Venezuela and Iran? For that matter, where were the other nations of South America and the Middle East? It is true that Venezuela contributed a paltry $2 million for the relief efforts. As of this writing, I have been hard pressed to find any Tsunami contributions made by Iran. Perhaps there wasn’t much left over from the checking account to Hamas.

Of the contributions for the Tsunami relief, only 2% came from Middle Eastern nations. And the amount contributed by Venezuela was far less than Chavez spent on buying votes for his election.

Thus, the question stands to both Chavez and Ahmedinejad – if neither of you have the economic capability to be something other than a regional irritant, if neither of you can offer the world something more constructive than verbal platitudes, if neither of you can contribute to the world’s economic benefit, why should anyone listen? Further, one has to question either gentleman’s legitimacy as global patrons of peace, especially Ahmedinejad who has repeatedly called for the total elimination of another UN member nation. In truth, their perceived power derives from agitation, for both are morally bankrupt, offering inanity instead of solution. Hmmm, sounds like the Democratic Party.

I know I haven’t addressed moving the UN out of the US… but isn’t that obvious?