Congressman Paul opposes US involvement in the United Nations and sees the entity as a threat to national sovereignty. He has stated that membership in the United Nations is fundamentally incompatible with American sovereignty and the Constitution. He has repeatedly called for the US to end it's membership in the organization, and has repeatedly introduced legislation to force this act.
In addition to noting the Constitutional aspects of membership, Congressman Paul has noted that membership in the UN is a no-win situation for the US. He uses the example of Iraq and notes that the US ceded it's authority to go to war to UN and invaded Iraq in part to enforce UN resolutions that Iraq was violating. However, this loss of sovereignty did not prevent the US from being seen as dictatorial and going in on it's own.
In 2005 Congressman Paul opposed rejoining the UNESCO portion of the UN, which supposedly a science and education department of the UN. He notes that the US committed to paying $60 million per year (1/4 of the budget) to a group whose views and agenda are openly hostile to the US.
Also in 2005 and again in 2006, Congressman Paul introduced and got legislation passed through the House that would prevent US taxpayers from having to pay UN taxes. The language stated that no US taxpayer dollars may be used to develop, implement, or impose any tax on American citizens to raise revenue for the UN. Congressman Paul also noted that the UN continues to build the foundation for global government, and a worldwide tax is the key to their entire agenda.
In 2009, Congressman Paul spoke out against the Civilian Stabilization Initiative. This initiative gave the UN control of a 5,000 troop UN stabilization force for nation-building purposes.
Reimbursement of Peacekeeping Missions
In September of 1997, Congressman Paul spoke on the House floor and questioned the UN's right to call for the US to pay back dues when the UN never reimburses the US for it's peacekeeping duties.
American Sovereignty Restoration Act
In September of 2000, Congressman Paul spoke on the House floor about legislation that he was introducing called the American Sovereignty Restoration Act.
An International Tax
In May of 2001, Congressman Paul spoke on the House floor about his opposition to the United Nations. He specifically speaks against a bill to fund the UN. He notes that there is a movement for the loss of sovereignty from the US to the UN. He notes the groundwork has been laid to pay an international tax to the UN.
Amendments to Defund the United Nations
In July of 2001, Congressman Paul introduced amendments to end funding for the United Nations. He discusses the loss of sovereignty through the UN. He also notes that an attempt was made to move the US from the Human Rights Council of the UN and replace the US with the Sudan - where slavery is practiced.
UN Insult
In January of 2005, Congressman Paul issued a "Texas Straight Talk" discussing a recent UN comment calling the US stingy for it's offer to aid tsunami victims.
Another UN Insult January 3, 2005
Let me take this opportunity to wish readers of this weekly column a very happy New Year. I appreciate your willingness to work for liberty by staying informed about the actions of your government, and I hope you will redouble your efforts this year to spread the message of freedom. Remember to visit my congressional website- www.house.gov/paul - throughout 2005 to find new weekly messages and speeches, which you are free to distribute to your family and friends.
You may have heard one United Nations official comment that America is being stingy with its offer of millions of dollars in aid for tsunami victims. His attitude toward your money is typical of globalist bureaucrats, who ultimately view the UN as a means for transferring wealth from America to other nations. Americans are very generous people, and undoubtedly will donate tens or even hundreds of millions to private organizations to help the victims of this terribly tragedy in Asia. We hardly need the UN to chide us about our supposed lack of generosity. The oil-for-food scandal brewing in the United Nations also has provoked long-overdue denunciations of the organization from several pundits and politicians on the right. Of course most of you didn’t need a scandal to convince you that the UN is anti-American, or that it egregiously wastes our tax dollars. I’m glad more Republicans are finally catching on to what many Constitutionalists, libertarians, Birchers, Goldwaterites, and religious conservatives have been saying for decades: we should get out of the UN, and get the UN out of America.
I certainly agree with these newly minted critics, having advocated getting out for twenty-five years. This growing anti-UN sentiment provides an opportunity to make a larger point, namely that participation in the organization is fundamentally incompatible with American sovereignty and the Constitution. Obviously, many of those now calling for the U.S. to withdraw from the UN resent its refusal to sanction our war in Iraq. Few Americans realize, however, that the resolution passed by Congress cited various UN resolutions more than twenty times as justification for invading Iraq-- in contrast to the media images of President Bush “going it alone” and disregarding the UN. So despite the anti-UN bluster from the right, a Republican president’s stated reason for invading Iraq was that it failed to obey UN resolutions!
This approach gives us the worst of all worlds. When we play along and cite UN resolutions as justification for our actions, we grant credibility to the ideas of international law and global government-- signaling our willingness to surrender precious sovereignty in the bargain. Yet we gain little in exchange. Other nations still consider us only too willing to ignore the international rules when it suits our purposes, and we remain deeply mistrusted by much of the envious world. America would be far better off simply rejecting global government as a concept, and openly embracing true sovereignty for every nation.
UNESCO
In April of 2005, Congressman Paul used his "Texas Talk" to address the US participation in UNESCO, the educational component of the United Nations.
Why Do We Fund UNESCO? April 18, 2005
At the end of 2002 President Bush announced that the United States would rejoin UNESCO, an educational agency of the United Nations. One year later the First Lady was dispatched to Paris for a ceremony marking the end of our 20-year absence from UNESCO, where she assured the world that the US would be a “full, active and enthusiastic participant” in the organization.
Rejoining UNESCO, of course, means paying for it. Our new commitment to UNESCO costs $60 million annually for starters, fully one-quarter of the agency’s budget. Sadly, I believe the administration made this decision as a concession to our globalist critics, who decry supposed American unilateralism. UNESCO stands for United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization, which sounds lofty. In truth, the agency is nothing but a mouthpiece for the usual UN causes, including international abortion and population control; politically correct UN curriculum for American schools; and UN control of federal land in America through so-called World Heritage sites.
President Reagan rightly withdrew the U.S. from UNESCO in 1984, citing the organization’s financial mismanagement, blatant anti-Americanism, and general hostility to freedom. He believed the organization had become too politicized, too bloated, and too hostile to free markets. Furthermore, UNESCO enjoyed rapidly expanding budgets during the 1970s and 1980s, which President Reagan felt American taxpayers should not shoulder. President Reagan was correct in identifying UNESCO as an organization that did not act in America's interest, and he was correct in questioning why the United States should fund 25 percent of UNESCO's budget for that privilege.
From its inception UNESCO has been openly hostile to American values, our Constitution, and western culture. Why in the world should we send tax dollars to an organization that actively promotes values so contrary to those of most Americans? To better understand the origins and ambitions of UNESCO, we need only consider a quote from Sir Julian Huxley, brother of the famous Aldous Huxley. Julian Huxley was the founding director-general of UNESCO when he said the following: "The general philosophy of UNESCO should be a scientific world humanism, global in extent... It can stress… the transfer of full sovereignty from separate nations to a world political organization… Political unification in some sort of world government will be required…to help the emergence of a single world culture."
Those who supported rejoining UNESCO claim the organization has been reformed over the years. Yet it’s strange that in two decades since the United States left UNESCO, we only started reading about purported reforms in the year 2000. Are we to believe that after nearly twenty years of business as usual, a large bureaucracy like UNESCO suddenly reinvented itself in a few short years? Is it worth spending $60 million every year on an organization with such a terrible history of waste, corruption, and anti-Americanism?
President Reagan’s politically brave withdrawal from UNESCO portended an era of greater disengagement from the United Nations itself. Congress can revitalize that worthy goal by urging the administration to rethink its terrible decision to entangle the American people with an organization as rotten as UNESCO. I recently introduced a congressional resolution urging an official withdrawal from UNESCO, and I plan to attach the resolution as an amendment to a foreign aid spending bill this summer. It will be interesting to see whether the same members of Congress who savaged the UN before the Iraq war actually vote to get America out of UNESCO.
Stop Paying UN Taxes
In June of 2005, Congressman Paul released a press statement noting his support for preventing US citizens from paying taxes to the UN.
Congress Passes Paul Amendment to Reject UN Taxes
June 15, 2005 Washington, DC: The US House of Representatives today unanimously passed legislation introduced by Congressman Ron Paul that ensures no Americans will be forced to pay taxes to the United Nations. Under Paul’s amendment to a State Department funding bill, no US taxpayer dollars may be used to develop, implement, or impose any tax on American citizens to raise revenue for the UN. “The UN continues to build the foundation for global government, and a worldwide tax is the key to their entire agenda,” Paul stated. “This is not hyperbole-- in fact, the UN’s own website is quite open about the organization’s ambitions. The UN has established a system of international laws and international courts; now it needs an enforcement mechanism in the form of an international army. If UN bureaucrats succeed in creating a worldwide tax, they will become totally unaccountable to national governments and their citizens.”
The UN has sought to impose a global tax for years. The infamous “Tobin Tax,” imposed on cross-border currency transactions, has been the dream of UN globalists since the late 1970s. The Tobin Tax was designed to create an independent source of funding for UN bureaucrats, who resent having to rely on what they see as paltry UN dues paid by member nations. A tax on currency exchanges conservatively would raise $300 billion annually, giving the UN an ongoing stream of income.
Political differences thus far have prevented the Tobin Tax from becoming a reality, but many other UN tax proposals have been considered. In 2004 a group of G8 nations agreed to explore a UN tax on airline tickets, which also could raise billions every year. Paul’s legislation sends a strong message to the world that the American people will not accept any form of UN taxation.
In June of 2006, Congressman Paul released another press statement noting a provision he introduced to reject the payment of UN taxes.
Congress Passes Paul Provision to Reject UN Taxes
June 15, 2006
Washington, DC: Congressman Ron Paul continues to lead the fight against United Nations global tax proposals, which could add another level of taxes to the state, local, and federal taxes Americans already pay.
The US House of Representatives last week passed the Foreign Operations appropriations bill, which fund the nonmilitary activities of our federal government overseas—including our United Nations dues. Paul crafted language that prohibits the Treasury from paying those dues if the UN attempts to implement or impose any kind of tax on US citizens. That provision was included in the final Foreign Operations bill, which Congress passed last week.
“The UN continues to build the foundation for global government, and a worldwide tax is the key to their entire agenda,” Paul stated. “This is not hyperbole-- in fact, the UN’s own website is quite open about the organization’s ambitions. The UN has established a system of international laws and international courts; now it needs an enforcement mechanism in the form of an international army. If UN bureaucrats succeed in creating a worldwide tax, they will become totally unaccountable to national governments and their citizens.” The UN has sought to impose a global tax for years. The infamous “Tobin Tax,” imposed on cross-border currency transactions, has been the dream of UN globalists since the late 1970s. The Tobin Tax was designed to create an independent source of funding for UN bureaucrats, who resent having to rely on what they see as paltry UN dues paid by member nations. A tax on currency exchanges conservatively would raise $300 billion annually, giving the UN an ongoing stream of income.
Political differences thus far have prevented the Tobin Tax from becoming a reality, but many other UN tax proposals have been considered. In 2004 a group of G8 nations agreed to explore a UN tax on airline tickets, which also could raise billions every year. Paul’s legislation sends a strong message to the world that the American people will not accept any form of UN taxation.
Can the UN be Reformed
In June of 2005, Congressman Paul used his "Texas Talk" to address the possibility of reforming the UN.
Can the UN Really be Reformed? June 20, 2005
Congress voted last week to give the United Nations unprecedented new authority to intervene in sovereign states, under the guise of UN “reform.” The reform bill theoretically provides for Congress to withhold 50% of US dues to the UN, but this will never happen. The bill allows the Secretary of State to make the ultimate decision about payment, and the State department strongly opposes withholding our dues in the first place. In fact, the State department is the UN’s closest ally in the entire federal government. This talk about withholding our dues is nothing but hot air designed to dupe real conservatives outside Washington into believing Congress is getting tough with the UN. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Both the congressional leadership and the Bush administration are firmly committed to globalism, as evidenced not only by their commitment to the UN, by also by their position on trade agreements like CAFTA. Mark my words, in five years nobody will be talking about UN reform and our dues payments will be higher than ever. The supposed reform bill will not change the bureaucratic nature of the UN, nor will it transform the nations of the world into wise, benevolent, selfless actors. It will, however, expand the UN’s role as world policeman and establish the precursor to a UN army.
If you don’t think American armed forces should serve under a UN command, you should know that the reform bill establishes a “Peacekeeping Commission” charged with bolstering the UN’s ability to respond with military force to conflicts around the globe-- even in wholly internal conflicts that do not affect the US in the slightest. Many conservatives have bought into the neoconservative dream of using the UN as a tool to advance an aggressive US foreign policy. But granting more power to the UN can only serve the interests of globalists, who see national sovereignty as an obstacle to their goals. The more we involve ourselves with the UN, the more we entangle ourselves in the affairs of other nations to our own detriment.
America has nothing to show for our 60 years in the UN except for tens of thousands of dead or injured soldiers, and hundreds of billions of wasted tax dollars. The 20th century-- the UN century-- was the bloodiest in the world’s history. We must stop fooling ourselves that the UN is an instrument of world peace. The problem is not that the UN is corrupt, or ineffective, or run by scoundrels. The real problem is that the UN is inherently illegitimate, because supra-national government is an inherently illegitimate concept. Legitimate governments operate only by the consent of those they govern. Yet it is ludicrous to suggest that billions of people across the globe have in any way consented to UN governance, or have even the slightest influence over their own governments. The UN is perhaps the least democratic institution imaginable, but both Democrats and Republicans insist on using it to “promote democracy.” We should stop worrying about the UN and simply walk away from it by withdrawing our membership and our money. We should demand a return to real national sovereignty, and respect other nations by rejecting our failed interventionist foreign policy. By doing so we would make the world a more peaceful place.
International Taxes
In March of 2006, Congressman Paul used his "Texas Talk" to discuss possible UN taxes through the United Nations Development Program.
International Taxes? March 6, 2006
April 15th is once again approaching and with it the necessity of filling out your tax return. It is a good time to reflect on the taxes you do pay - and especially on the taxes you may soon be forced to pay. Throughout the year you paid federal taxes through withholding, including Social Security payroll taxes. You also paid state income taxes, unless you’re fortunate enough to live in Texas or another state without an income tax. You paid local property taxes. You paid local sales taxes and numerous miscellaneous taxes on your vehicles and gasoline and so many other things. Like most people, you probably feel taxed to death by all these layers of taxes. Well, hold on to your wallets, because the United Nations once again has launched a plan to impose a whole new level of global taxes on us.
The latest UN tax scheme was revealed at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland in January. At this conference of the world’s financial elite, the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) unveiled a UN plan to take seven trillion dollars from developed nations for use by the UN to save the rest of the world from all of its problems. The United Nations remains determined to rob from wealthy countries and, after taking a big cut for itself, send what’s left to the poor countries. Of course, most of this money will go to the very dictators whose reckless policies have impoverished their citizens. According to the international bureaucrats of the UN, wherever poverty exists in the rest of the world it is always our fault. According to them, our prosperity comes not from hard work, legal protection of property rights, and our capitalist system, but rather because we exploit the poor of the third world. Somehow, it’s always our fault.
Where will the seven trillion dollars to fund the latest UN scheme come from? Much of it is to come from a UN-imposed fine on countries that in the UN’s judgment are polluting too much. This attack on productivity will slow our economy and lead to a loss of jobs in the United States. The UN global tax plan also resurrects the long-held dream of the “Tobin Tax,” and doubles the targeted income from such a tax to a whopping three trillion dollars. The "Tobin tax," named after the Yale professor who proposed it, would be imposed on all worldwide currency transactions. Such a tax could prove quite lucrative for the UN, given the vast amount of currency that trades hands at certain times. It also might be a politically acceptable starting point, because most average people do not engage in cross-border currency transactions. A dangerous precedent would be set, however: the idea that the UN possesses legitimate taxing authority to fund its operations.
Since I was elected to Congress I have been fighting continuously against these UN efforts to pick your pocket. In the 109th Congress I successfully amended the Foreign Operations Appropriations Act of 2005 to prohibit any of the funds in the Act from being used by the U.N. to develop or publicize any proposal concerning taxation or fees on any United States person to raise revenue for the U.N. or any of its specialized or affiliated agencies. I also introduced H. R. 1017 in the current Congress which would permanently prohibit United States contributions to the United Nations if that organization develops, implements, or publicizes any proposal to tax Americans. Of course, my preference is that the United States end its participation in the corrupt UN entirely, and I introduce HR 1146 in every Congress to do just that. But until my colleagues are willing to take this important step, I will continue to offer measures like my amendment last year to help protect your hard-earned money from the greedy hands of the globalist United Nations.
Rejection of UN Taxes
In June of 2006, Congressman Paul used his "Texas Talk" to discuss the congressional rejection of UN taxes.
Congress Rejects UN Taxes June 19, 2006
Let me ask you a question: Do you think you pay enough taxes? Throughout the year you paid federal taxes through withholding, including Social Security payroll taxes. You also paid state income taxes, unless you’re fortunate enough to live in Texas or another state without an income tax. You paid local property taxes. You paid local sales taxes every time you bought something, and you paid numerous miscellaneous taxes such as vehicle license fees and federal gas taxes. Like most people, you probably feel taxed to death by all these city, county, state, and federal taxes. Well, hold on to your wallets, because the United Nations now wants to impose a whole new level of global taxes on us. UN bureaucrats think rich nations like America ought to give more money to poor nations- a lot more- simply because we’re rich. Never mind the billions of foreign aid tax dollars we send overseas every year; never mind the billions donated to overseas charities by Americans, the most charitable people on earth. The UN mindset blames the western world for poverty everywhere, assuming that our relative wealth must have come at the expense of the third world. The poor countries themselves are never deemed responsible for their own predicaments, despite their often corrupt governments, lack of property rights, and hostility toward wealth-producing capitalism. Somehow, it’s always our fault. So the UN holds conferences to talk about how we should pay to make things right, and the idea of a UN tax naturally arises. Understand that the UN views itself as the emerging global government, and like all governments, it needs money to operate. The goal, which the UN readily admits, is to impose a comprehensive set of global laws on all of us- laws that supersede sovereign national governments. To do this, the UN needs a global military, a global police force, international courts, offices around the globe, and plenty of highly-paid international bureaucrats. All of this costs money. Rest assured that the UN is absolutely serious about imposing a global tax. In fact, it has been discussing a global currency tax for years. The "Tobin tax," named after the Yale professor who proposed it, would be imposed on all worldwide currency transactions. Such a tax could prove quite lucrative for the UN. The Tobin tax is not the only idea being considered. Some have suggested taxing all airline travel or carbon emissions. The ultimate goal is an income tax, which will be imposed after we’ve all swallowed the concept of UN taxing authority. Fortunately, the House of Representatives last week passed my language in the 2007 Foreign Operations bill that prohibits the Treasury from paying UN dues if the organization attempts to implement or impose any kind of tax on US citizens. But that only protects us for another year. Given the stated goals of the UN, it would be foolish to believe the idea of a global tax will go away.
Out of the UN
In a 2007 debate, Congressman Paul spoke about his desire to exit the UN. He notes that going to war to enforce a UN resolution is not legal according to the Constitution.
Foreign Relations Funding Bill
On June 10, 2009 Congressman Paul spoke about his opposition to funding for certain UN provisions to create a foreign affairs nation building office.
I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me these 2 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this bill. Some are hopeful that this will be a less militaristic approach to our foreign policy. Quite frankly, I don't see any changes. I wish it were something that would represent a humble foreign policy, but when you put an extra $100 million into the military operations of the United Nations, I hardly think this is a change in direction. Actually, it's $18 billion that is going into more meddling, and we don't have $18 billion.
The President has now asked us here in the Congress to follow the PAYGO rules. Well, that might be a good idea if we had set aside the idea that we would raise taxes, but we're not going to cut any domestic spending for this foreign spending, so the odds of this following the PAYGO rule are essentially nil.
I want to call attention to one provision in this that is rather disturbing to me, and that is the Civilian Stabilization Initiative. This is new. It was not invented by this administration. It was invented by the last administration. This is to set up a permanent standing, nation-building office with an employment of or with the use of nearly 5,000 individuals.
So what is the goal of this new initiative going to be? It will facilitate democratic and political transitions in various countries.
Now, if you want to talk about interfering in the internal affairs of other nations, that is exactly what this is all about. Facilitating democratic and political transitions? Well, of course. We've been doing that for a long time, but we've gotten ourselves into a lot of trouble doing it. We did it in 1953, and we're still suffering the consequences. This initiative is a little more honest. It's up front. We're actually supporting and funding a facility that would be involved in political transitions. The mandate in this is to ``reconstruct'' societies. That sounds wonderful. There are a lot of societies that need reconstruction, but so many of the societies that we have to reconstruct we helped to destroy or to disrupt.
Think of what our troops and our money have done in Afghanistan as well as in Iraq. I think this provision, itself, is enough reason to vote against this authorization.
