John Bolton, President-elect Trump's former National Security Adviser, said that Congressman Elise Stefanik (RN.Y.), whom President Trump chose to be ambassador to the United Nations, had “no work cut out for her” when it came to reforming the United Nations. “There is,” he said. .
Bolton, now a vocal critic of President Trump, argued in an op-ed Thursday that one of the obstacles to successful U.N. reform is the State Department's bureaucracy. He also advocated for a reassessment of the contributions the United States provides to its 193 member organizations, suggesting some cuts should be made.
“That burden falls not only on U.S. missions to U.N. member states, but also on the State Department's regional bureaus responsible for bilateral relations with 192 other member states,” Bolton wrote in an op-ed for the Wall Street Journal. It will be widespread,” he said.
“For decades, regional offices have advocated prioritizing myriad bilateral issues and found reasons not to engage,” Bolton, who served as U.N. ambassador, wrote. “For reform to be successful, Secretary of State nominee Marco Rubio will need to take the reins.”
Shortly after winning the 2024 presidential election, President Trump nominated Stefanik to the post, which required Senate confirmation.
The New York Republican is a strong supporter of Israel and has criticized the United Nations' condemnation of the Jewish state's military operations in Gaza following the Oct. 7, 2023 attack by the Palestinian militant group Hamas. In September she pursued diplomatic institutions, infected By “anti-Semitic corruption.”
The former national security official argued that the United States should cut its contributions to the United Nations, writing that current spending levels are “out of control.”
Countries make two types of payments to the United Nations: assessed contributions and voluntary contributions. In Bolton's view, assessed contributions required of member states “equivalent to a tax on the United States by other United Nations member states.”
“That alone is reason enough to reject the concept of evaluation, since it is not our votes in these bodies that matter. The only votes that matter are our Security Council votes (and vetoes). ” and is our main shield against the one-country-one-vote majority throughout the United Nations system,” he wrote in an op-ed.
He added: “Our permanent membership and votes in the Council are enshrined in the UN Charter, and we have the power to veto changes to the Charter.” “Therefore, the potential negative impact of terminating assessed donations is essentially zero.”
Bolton, a defense hawk, said Stefanik and Trump's pick for secretary of state, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), announced shortly after taking office that the United States no longer accepts the concept of assessed contributions. He wrote that it should be done, and argued that it was for that reason. The United States will only pay voluntary contributions “determined by evaluating the performance of each UN agency and program.”
He said this approach would ensure that UN programs could prove their worth through performance. Mr. Bolton warned that the United States should reduce funding levels if voluntary programs do not perform well.
“UN agencies that are funded solely by voluntary contributions, such as the World Food Program, generally tend to perform better than those that are funded through evaluation,” Bolton wrote. “Because they have to prove their worth every year, they have an incentive to maintain and even improve their performance. We need to reduce funding.”
Mr Bolton recommended that the US withdraw from the Paris-based United Nations Education, Culture and Science (UNESCO), which it formally rejoined in May last year.
“Many other reforms are possible, but they would fall short of the power to unilaterally control our contributions,” he wrote Thursday. “And we need a bigger defense budget. Cutting contributions to the United Nations would be a good start to finding the money we need.”
