In a surprising speech during a meeting of the House Foreign Affairs Committee (HFAC) yesterday, Representative Dana Rohrbacher (R-CA) stated that the United States should completely withdraw from the United Nations.  Rep. Rohrbacher said that it is “flawed that we look for a global policy when half the members [of the UN] are gangsters, thugs, and lunatics…”  No, I’m not making that up.  Those were the exact words spoken by a member of Congress, one of the few people who represent us before the diplomats and leaders of the world.  And frankly, it’s embarrassing.

To suggest America doesn’t need the United Nations is like suggesting that Michael Jordan, even in his prime, didn’t need any teammates.  No one, regardless of talent can win a basketball game alone, one-on-five.  And no nation, no matter how powerful can solve the kinds of problems we face today alone.  On a number of issues such as peacekeeping, nuclear non-proliferation, and humanitarian aid to third world countries, the UN allows us to do things we would want or need to do anyway but at a much lower cost in money and people.  

With time running out before a temporary federal funding measure expires on March 4^th, the House of Representatives last week passed H.R. 1, which would provide funding for federal agencies for the rest of the fiscal year, through September 2011-but it cuts deep into the international affairs and peacekeeping budget. 

Don Kraus, CEO of Citizens for Global Solutions, laid out the consequences of the House budget to IPS News: "The House FY 2011 funding bill would have a devastating impact on U.S. foreign affairs funding, and if adopted could be a serious setback to U.S support for the Millennial Development Goals (MGDs).  The legislation would cut funding for critical poverty fighting food aid programs by up to 50 percent, decimate support for refugees in Africa, Burma, Iraq and other places, and shrink funding for fighting AIDS, Malaria and Tuberculosis.  This legislation represents a serious retreat for U.S. poverty reduction efforts."

President Obama released his budget proposal for Fiscal Year 2012 yesterday, launching the annual budgetary process in which the White House and Congress struggle to come to terms on spending legislation acceptable to both branches of government.  The outlook for international affairs funding in the President's budget is not overly encouraging, particularly regarding funding for the United Nations and peacekeeping missions--but all things considered, it could be worse.

The President's budget proposal provides $47 billion in discretionary spending for the Departments of State and the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID).  This represents a 1 percent increase from Fiscal Year 2010 (the last time the government successfully enacted a budget, as the FY 2011 budget has not yet been completed).  Unfortunately, funding for international organizations and peacekeeping would be reduced under the President's budget proposal, to $3.539 billion from the $3.8 billion total allocated in FY 2010.  $75 million is proposed for the Complex Crises Fund (CCF).  The President's budget also recommends creating a new Global Security Contingency Fund, a "funding mechanism to facilitate greater joint Department of Defense-State planning, funding, and execution of security sector and stabilization assistance programs worldwide."

Today, even Politico understands how disastorous it would be to if we listened to House Republicans and cut State and Foreign Aid spending to 2008 levels. Yet, there are still those who, like Rand Paul, would happy to reduce the PEPFAR budget, which provides antiretroviral drugs to AIDS patients in Africa. Check out the full Politico article here:

GOP seeks to slash foreign aid