United Nations

The Wolf who cried “Boy”

IMG_0810

North Korea’s threat to fire a nuclear missile at Guam should the US try anything to jeopardize the hermit kingdom’s nuclear programme is more the domain of an hysteric media for now. He is the wolf crying boy – “I will eat your sheep when I wish, what are you going to do about it?” Of course, no sane government can dismiss his threats. The 33-year old leader has assassinated subjects and relatives who he feared might pose a challenge to him. He taunts his enemies in full knowledge the collateral damage the West may suffer would likely be factor fold higher than he stands to lose. North Korea’s GDP is estimated to be around $12 billion annually. Tokyo’s GDP is estimated to be around $1.5 trillion, 125x larger. Seoul’s GDP is around $780 billion (65x North Korea) but is located in shelling distance. From a purely militaristic standpoint, North Korea doesn’t stand a chance. The US has spy satellites parked permanently over North Korea surveilling troop movements, missile test sites and US submarines will have constant watch over Pyongyang’s naval activity. Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) is not a bargaining chip in this case. While it does raise the ‘risk’ factor, it is not enough to exclude war on the peninsula.

The problem is that all the while no action is taken, PyongYang’s arsenal grows more sophisticated. Kim has no plans to halt his development. In 1994 then President Bill Clinton came closest to taking action against its nuclear capability but in the end chose diplomacy. We are 23 years on and the capabilities are such that this game has increasingly limited life span. Trump made his thoughts clear in a 1995 interview. Try to talk him out and if all else fails take the military option

The more advanced his arsenal becomes, the more weight his demands carry. Kim is in his 30s. Assuming the West does nothing, there is another three decades of threats and bellicose to consider. Over time its weapons programme will be sufficiently credible to hit Washington DC. Just like Russian missiles in Cuba, America will not allow a condition which could threaten it to exist.

North Korea has 3 main nuclear missile launch sites (Musudan-Ri,  Punggye-Ri and Tongchang-Ri) among the fourteen nuclear facilities ranging from R&D, power generation,  mining and refined fissile material production. A surgical strike would be difficult to achieve without North Korea getting away a few missiles itself.

Why Guam? Of course one can view his threat in several ways. One, Guam is the current realistic technical capability of his nuclear weapons, two; Kim hasn’t said he’ll strike Washington DC which should be interpreted as evidence that he is not completely deranged and bragging about capabilities he does not yet have, three; he could theoretically bomb the US military installations in Okinawa which is closer than Guam and more likely to score a relative hit but he has been careful not to drag Japan into this contest (yet) and finally; his nuclear programme is his only bargaining chip. Were Kim to cease his atomic aspirations, he would literally be a sitting duck. He knows – as did his father and grandfather before him – the regime survives on the will of the Rest of the World to appease it. If he has no trump card, the RoW can ignore it.

On April 10th this year, China’s special envoy on the North Korean nuclear programme, Wu Dawei, visited Seoul with the idea of pushing a harder UN resolution in case of another nuclear test. In the short term China is hoping a short term halt to coal imports will bring Kim Jong-Un to heel they have not ruled out removing him entirely. It is the least preferred option but Trump’s moves will only mean China is being forced to up the ante. However China has been lamenting that it can’t force Kim to come to heel. Once again this is partly China testing the will of Trump versus his predecessor. Do not think for one second that China hasn’t been channeling Sun Tzu as to how it can pull off a geopolitical masterstroke by bringing Kim to heel and the US to back down. This is becoming harder to achieve, even more so with an unpredictable president.

Let us not forget the strategic benefits of North Korea to China. It provides a buffer to the US friendly South Korea and keeps furthering China’s status as a dominant force (economically and militarily) in the region. One of the last things China wants is the equivalent population of Australia (24 million) as refugees on its northern border. Best it remains contained inside a regime presiding over a tiny economy. Even less desirable is a US invasion/strike which puts a US protectorate on China’s doorstep.

Global markets are not reacting too erratically to this crisis. They are collectively taking the path of most common scenario vis-a-vis history to date. Minor risk on. Even Korean CDS spreads, at 14 year highs (61) remain well down on GFC and the death of Kim Jong-Il. However a president who wants to reassert US foreign policy after 8 years of willful abuse under his predecessor may be more than willing to take decisive action and put an end to the North Korean problem. He won’t risk it unless his generals can give a very high level of assurance the collateral damage will be minimal

While some media want to believe that Trump is itching for a war in North Korea or Iran to resurrect his sliding poll numbers, that is an obtuse way of thinking. North Korea is a growing threat. Pure and simple. If North Korea gets a capability to potentially hit the US mainland then that is untenable. Any country that threatens to attack another puts itself on a geopolitical chess board of its own making. This is dragging China into a game it would rather not play but inevitably Beijing realizes that it has to take control before Trump takes it from them leaving them in the worst of all worlds.

Cooler heads to prevail? Maybe but something suggests that North Korea is brewing beyond what markets are currently pricing.

IMG_0809

 

China data leaves warmists in the cold

IMG_0747.PNG

As far as curioisity on any subject goes if 19 out of 20 agreed and one dissented wouldn’t you wish to work out why the lone body thought that way? Is he or she mad? On what grounds? Do we simply suck up the consensus and accept it? That’s worked well over time. Well the Chinese Meteorogical Administration has dropped a bombshell on the warmists confirming there has been no statistically significant warming since 1998. The CMA put forward the following analysis,

“In preparing the new database…the CMA say they addressed a number of problems with other surface temperature databases, in particular the relatively poor coverage of stations across Antarctica, Africa, South America, and Asia. They note that the IPCC AR5 report concluded that the warming trends in these regions are associated with a lower confidence level. They also improved the absence of early period stations, especially before 1940….The researchers find very clear evidence for the recent warming hiatus. Their results show linear trends of 0.104 °C per decade, 0.247 °C per decade and 0.098 °C per decade for the three periods, respectively. The trends were statistically significant except for the period 1998–2014, the period that is also known as the ‘‘warming hiatus”.

I would imagine Premier Xi will listen to his internal CMA over others when setting climate abatement policy. Maybe 2030 becomes 2040 or later…so why are so many governments engaged in group think where they clearly fail to heed reality? Perhaps they are so knee deep in their own poor policy decision making that they don’t want to admit they’ve acted in haste. South Australia and Tesla anyone?

Group think alive and kicking

IMG_0295.PNG

It is hard not to laugh at the headlines in media these days. Group think pervades. The headline that 19/20 nations agree by definition must mean the 1/20 (no guessing who) is dead wrong. Sort of like one kid answering the question incorrectly to a teacher and being ridiculed by the rest of the class). This is sadly the kind of mentality which carries far more risk. Consensus is bunk. Consensus is basically the euphemism for complacency. No matter how many scandals break about homogenized temp data (even from government bodies (i.e. IPCC & NOAA to name two), deliberate concocting of data which serve a purpose or confirmation that 98% of the models using this bogus data have overestimated ‘warming’. The point is that so deeply entrenched are 19 nations in group think that they are basically falling into cognitive dissonance. That is to say they only look for the confirmation bias rather than truly seek alternative theories which might hold merit.

If one objectively reads the Paris Climate Accord the US is spot on to refuse chipping in $3bn to a pot where the three other largest polluters have openly confessed they are doing   next to nothing to combat climate change. Sure rosy press releases push the idea that they’re fully on the climate crusade bus but reality is China has no plans to actively reduce CO2 emissions til at least 2030. Do people honestly believe Premier Xi will guarantee he’ll sacrifice Chinese economic prosperity for climate abatement? President Putin? PM Modi? Will they risk putting a bullet in the brain of the economy to save the planet? Not a chance.

The French plans to ban the sale of petrol/diesel cars after 2040 is also laughable. If you want to bury relatively technology starved French automakers like PSA Peugeot-Citroen. 23 years isn’t much of a lead time in the auto industry if one is decades behind to catch up. Will the grid be able to handle the 2mn new cars France sells annually? Will anyone do the math on the toxic gunk that goes into a Li-ion battery? Will special provisions be given to emergency services which require combustion engines to power the heat exchangers that help life saving equipment function?

No. But think of it the other way. How smart is Trump to make the rest of the world do all the hard yards  at no penalty to the US? That is the art of the deal.

It only takes one to prove me wrong

IMG_0261.JPG

“No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.” – Einstein

Einstein meant that all the consensus in the world won’t mean he’s correct. It only takes one person to prove him wrong. It wasn’t surprising to see social media share Stephen Hawking’s prognosis on Trump leaving the Paris Climate Accord. More tellingly most overlooked the zany assumptions made in Hawking’s comments (250 degrees C temps and climate like Venus) and focused on who he was attacking. Seriously do you honestly believe that the earth’s temperatures will reach that if you relied on your own logic on this planet?As the coldest temperature in 110 years was recorded in rural NSW Australia overnight no one said boo. Had it been the hottest temperature in 110 years the media would be spewing global warming stories all week.

Last week we had former UN climate chief Christiana Figueres warn that the next three years will be crucial to stopping the worst effects of global warming. Let’s not forget that climate change is so critical to Figueres that she thinks gender inequality should be tackled at the same time and she openly discussed discrimination against males when it came to hiring in her department. Still talking of the climate alarmist letter she co-signed warning of catastrophe why don’t they analyze the “ground breaking” Paris Climate Accord they all laud when those responsible for 75% of the world’s CO2 emissions aren’t taking urgent action? China won’t peak out on CO2 until 2030, India has dozens of coal fired power on the drawing board over coming decades and Russia’s 4-page commitment is worthless. “Ah yes but they are signatories!” I heard many chant in response to the Paris Climate Accord. They might as well have signed a whiteboard in a non marking pen for what it is truly worth.

The Paris Climate Accord is essentially a system which makes as much sense as you quitting smoking on my behalf. How do I benefit exactly? Paying for air I can’t breathe. The Paris Climate Accord is nothing but a mechanism for wealth distribution controlled by a bloated UN which wishes to add more to its ridiculous budget and offices despite claims it is slimming down!

“The latest U.N. regular budget, while superficially smaller than the previous budget, made no fundamental programmatic or structural adjustments—e.g., reducing permanent staff, freezing or reducing salaries and other benefits, and permanently eliminating a significant number of mandates, programs, or other activities—that would lower the baseline for future U.N. budget negotiations.[10] Despite the Secretary-General’s proposal to eliminate 44 permanent posts, the 2012–2013 budget actually increased the number of permanent posts by more than a score compared with the previous budget. The failure to arrest growth in U.N. employment, salaries, and benefits is especially problematic because personnel costs account for 74 percent of U.N. spending according to the U.N.’s Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions (ACABQ).[11] Without a significant reduction in the number of permanent U.N. posts or a significant reduction in staff compensation and related costs, real and lasting reductions in the U.N. regular budget will remain out of reach.”

However what did Hawking say that makes his words credible? That is like saying Fed Chair Janet Yellen should be believed for saying we won’t see another financial crisis in our lifetimes. Let’s just accept it because many don’t know better. I haven’t seen the most rabid climate alarmists make a 250 degree claim. 98% of climate models to date have drastically over-predicted the extent of warming. The UNIPCC has been embroiled in so many scandals, climb downs and corrections that it can’t be relied on as a credible body. Many of the lead authors in the UN Climate bible have little experience in their fields and an investigation showed that  gender and minority status were given priority over ability in the investigative teams on each chapter. This is openly admitted by the UNIPCC as Donna La Framboise’s Delinquent Teenager’ highlighted,

IMG_0262.PNG

So if an internal survey that has been written up by the IPCC itself criticizing the process how can anyone put any validity in the argument?

Ahh but NOAA has told us that warming is getting worse. How could NASA lie? Oh the same NOAA that was subpoenaed after refusing to turn over emails related to an internal whistleblower who claimed the data had been homogenized (aka manipulated).

As argued many times before, human consumption patterns do not reflect the fear. SUV sales continue to grow as a % of sales, air travel is predicted to double by 2030 and sales of Tesla’s in HK or Norway fall off a cliff if generous tax incentives aren’t given to the wealthy to subsidize their virtue signaling.  This isn’t to doubt Hawking’s intelligence but Yellen, Greenspan, Bernanke, Kuroda and Draghi aren’t dummies either but it doesn’t preclude them from making mistakes and being wrong.

Oh, and for those that believe Hawking’s claims of rising sea levels the price of beachfront properties in a Sydney is preposterously high and even in Mauritius homes prices are still buoyant. Actions not words. Then we can always believe the immortal words of Australia’s former Climate Commissioner Tim Flannery who warned us that the waves would lap the 8th story of apartment blocks on the coast. He lives in a waterfront property himself. Actions not words.

IMG_0263.JPG

Climate sceptics are idiots by association

IMG_0149.JPG

Burn this image in your head first. It is Tokyo today. As you can see for such an evil carbon emitting industrialized nation as Japan the skies are blue as any you’d find in Australia. Ironically Japan is a country often selected as a country that must pay into the climate change pot for its sins rather than get a pat on the back for its ability to be clean and productive. So it was no surprise that once again I read the bias in the press reporting from the G-7. Because Trump is a climate sceptic and disagrees with the other 6, articles tried to use this as a reason to beat up on those who won’t bend to the will of the alarmists because he is in their view – an idiot. The inference is that all climate skeptics must be fools by association. Exactly the same garbage at the time of Brexit. A table circulating with Trump, Farage, Putin and other ‘undesirables’ supporting Leave and Obama, EU officials and bodies like the NUS and Greenpeace backing Remain. Then we get the result of the referendum.

I will openly admit that the President has many flaws but to use this as a basis of driving the climate change agenda is pathetic. One article blathered on about his lies (hardly news) and then made the reference to “universally accepted science” which is a huge porky in itself. It isn’t settled. One of the reasons it isn’t settled is down to the data manipulation, amateur hour ethics of bodies like the UNIPCC, NOAA and numerous universities with agenda driven studies numerous of which numerous have been exposed for fraud. Climate alarmism is nothing more than wealth redistribution as the above picture highlights.

If indeed it is universally accepted why bother investing billions of side-by-side research papers to formulate the same outcome? What we have is the construction of multiple rail lines built next to each other operating each at 10% capacity. It is such inefficient capital allocation. Why do we need 50,000 climate disciples flying annually to mega junket tourist locations all to kneel at the altar of the COP summits. This could be delegated to 1% of that number. It shows at the very least that the disciples are the biggest hypocrites. If the science is so settled and everyone is so universally on board as they claim then there is no need to keep twisting the truth to squeeze more funds to prove what we already (supposedly all) agree on.

Seeing Merkel make an argument about 6 countries in favour of following through with the Paris Agreement and America against is laughable. Is America, or at the very least its President required to follow consensus for the sake of group think? Is global politics now reduced to going with the flow? Should dissenting opinions be treated like conservative speakers at universities? This is exactly why it is so hard to respect the current crop of global leaders. One seriously doubts that they truly believe it outside of it being an agenda item to secure votes. Climate alarmism is the socialism of the 21st century.

So perhaps the ‘idiots’ are the ones that can’t escape the pre-formed bias against America’s Commander-in-Chief. Talking about German car imports (when many BMWs and Benz’s are built in the USA) and other gaffes don’t really do him favours but if the media wants to take the moral high ground at the very least they can balance the views on the climate debate (and others) and admit the multiple self-inflicted wounds and inaccuracy of decades of forecasting models where 98% have proven wildly off target. It reminds me of compliance seminars in my old industry. We’d fly in compliance officers to train us about the penalties and Big Brother! We’d focus on the evils of all our competitors and the punishment meted out to them. I asked a simple question – “why don’t we use compliance breach examples from our own company and the manner in which we dealt with it as a matter of getting people aware of being a responsible corporate? Can we honestly say farts don’t smell?” It sums up the climate alarmists perfectly. Everyone else is at fault and everything we do is virtuous, honest and worthy of self-praise.

If Trump is so stupid how come the media keep getting fooled? Now they demand an insurance payout

IMG_0672.JPG

I used to read Der Spiegel. I even paid for a subscription but eventually the journalism lost its edge. This week’s article calling for Trump’s removal makes my decision sound. Read the following section several times and honestly ask yourself is this journalism? Put aside personal views of the President and objectively look at what the article ‘Donald Trump is a menace to the world’ written by Klaus Brinkbäumer is suggesting, if not demanding.

“He is a man free of morals. As has been demonstrated hundreds of times, he is a liar, a racist and a cheat. I feel ashamed to use these words, as sharp and loud as they are. But if they apply to anyone, they apply to Trump. And one of the media’s tasks is to continue telling things as they are: Trump has to be removed from the White House. Quickly. He is a danger to the world.”

So how would you suggest we do it? No, that is not an option. Should we ignore the democratic process by which he was elected?  Should we ignore the fact that even if he was a ‘liar, a racist and a cheat’ people voted in full knowledge of all of his ‘pussy grabbing antics’? The problem with this type of article is that it ignores reality on so many fronts. As I’ve written many times, if you are not a citizen of a country your input on their citizens’ voting intentions is irrelevant. Essentially what you are pleading for is the same as making a willingly high risk investment in a stock which goes bust then complaining to your broker you were misled and ask for your money back.

Elections are much like stock markets. Your voting intention is akin to investing in your country. In the case of America you had two stocks to choose form. One was the hedge of the other. If you wanted to reinvest in the diminishing returns of the last 40 years you bought Clinton Inc. If you wanted to bet on higher risk with potentially higher high return with a start up you voted for Trump Corp.  The media were slimeball stockbrokers trying to persuade investors (voters) to buy into the safety of Clinton Inc because they knew that the commission pay-off would be larger for them. However investors had enough of struggling through decades of exceptional losses, downgrades, dividend cuts and incompetent CEOs. Even worse they got sick and tired of the shareholder meetings where CEO Obama would talk about how successful his stewardship had been when an increasingly dissatisfied shareholder base kept on checking their statements and questioning the dud investment let alone disapproving of his suggested successor.

Mr Brinkbaumer, your article is exactly the problem with the media. You claim the media’s task is to ‘continue telling things as they are’ but you’ve failed on so many levels so many times that your trust rating is even lower than President Trump which stands in the early 40% range. The problem is that the only insurance you can buy in politics is the opposition. None other exists because the premiums would be too high and the payouts too low.

What your article painfully overlooks is that had the previous mob, who no doubt you think is the solution, was actually the problem. That 40 years of painful neglect led to record numbers on welfare, food stamps and income inequality. The investors knew that backing Clinton Inc, whose entire manifesto spoke to helping the needy that had been neglected by her own party (by deduction including the man she intended to replace), was such a palpable untruth that had the Democrats so brazenly lied in a stock prospectus she would really have been jailed.

After Comey’s decision to testify, my social media feeds lit up like a Christmas tree. I deliberately held back from making any call at the time because there was no evidence other than speculation. Yet social media had already made up its mind – “impeachment! – the orange buffoon is going down!” “The smoking gun!” Of course it turns out that the knee-jerk reaction was proved a falsehood. The media once again let its subjectivity rule the day. Like Rachel Maddow’s scoop on his taxes. She sold it as grounds to get him on tax evasion like Al Capone in The Untouchables. She essentially said “we’ve got the book keeper.” Yet she was gunned down in the elevator by her own leftist journos. You know when the media attacks its own that even it from time to time has flashes of objectivity, albeit too brief because lessons are never learned.

Sadly for the rest of the world, as much as we may despise Trump (he has flaws) and protest at his actions we have absolutely no rights to lynch a democratically elected President much less encourage his downfall. This type of reckless behavior is indeed more disturbing. It essentially says you don’t respect the democratic rights of Americans. What is worse is it the same downright condescending attitude people had during the elections that completely ignored the plight of those that voted for him remains. I remember reading one article suggesting that there be an intelligence test required to have voting rights.  That is totalitarian behaviour if there ever was!

The leftist media continues to forget that the one sure way to help him do another 4 years is to keep up the same broken record dialogue. Indeed in the next 3+ years the Americans will have the opportunity to sack him if indeed they see a better alternative. Trump was always the start-up IPO bet. American voters knew full well he was a risk and they took it. His volatile stock performance is not a big surprise.

Klaus, you conveniently forget that Trump is a by-product of decades of neglect. Had the past four decades of the incumbent political class done a sound enough job he never would have seen the light of day. Instead of putting blame on the causes you simply place it all on him. Instead of some introspection on asking why he is where he is you can’t remove yourself from the group think of attack dogs. That anything he may achieve will be discredited and anything he does wrong will be given full thermonuclear uranium tipped coverage. That my dear friend is shame on you.

It would be nice to see some balance in coverage because if you don’t social media will drag up example after example for you further discrediting your supposed ‘telling things as they are’. We must all remember that digital media has a half-life of infinity. Is it any wonder 25% of the workforce in media has been culled in recent years. It isn’t that advertising revenues are falling it is because you don’t provide enough value for advertisers to warrant posting ads in your publication. Guaranteed if the journalism attracted readers the ad revenue would climb with it.

So once again, the bigger danger to the world is you not him. We should never encourage the overthrow of democratically elected governments because we dislike the outcome. Don’t forget that Clinton had 99% of the mainstream media on her side, leaked debate questions to give her an advantage, a pussy-grabbing video against her opposition and more but still lost. Why? The attitude of expecting a coronation and frankly Hillary Clinton didn’t put in the work.

Suppose no dirt is found on Trump? That constant media mud slinging fails to stick. Evidence surely that maybe he is just a brash, uncouth, narcisstic bully rather than someone that must be removed as a danger to the world. Sure, he doesn’t exactly act in a manner very befitting of the most powerful office in the world but he got there legitimately.  Indeed if he is as unhinged as you imagine surely Pyongyang would be under a mushroom cloud and Assad would be a victim of SEAL Team 6. In fact you might point out that the incredible weakness of his predecessor on foreign policy makes Trump’s more assertive stance a welcoming relief rather than a terrifying prelude to WW3.

Your article is so typical of the snowflake culture. The type of attitude that seeks to ban people from making addresses at universities, once the cradle of free speech. You ignore what you don’t want to hear and pass judgement on those who fail to hear you. Once you learn to listen to others you may find that you come to understand why even people like Van Jones can eventually see why Trump won’t be outed so easily. For indeed if he is as big a fool as everyone makes out the media won’t be needed to point it out. It will be painfully clear and in 2018 Americans will get a trial IPO and 2020 the opportunity to buy or sell stock in Trump Corp.

I should thank you for this article for helping confirm why I didn’t bother renewing my subscription.

Why is Australia bothering with the UN?

IMG_0670

If there is one club that annoys more than the European Union it would have to be the United Nations. You’ll struggle to find an organization that has better pay for play rules than this. It makes the Clinton Foundation look like the wooden spooners in the amateur league. While the UN espouses virtue signaling at every turn one only needs to do a quick check of its multiple councils to work out it is about buying influence. It’s Human Rights Council is littered with countries that have appalling human rights records (Saudi Arabia, China, Cuba, Egypt and Qatar to name a few) whose main goal in life is to beat up Israel. The UN IPCC has the some of the worst sets of governance and conflicts of interest as to beggar belief. The former President of the IPCC had vast funds funneled through a supposed ‘research’ body he was the owner of. The amount of lies, falsehoods, manipulation and editorial oversight makes a mockery of the process. The IPCC’s sole purpose itself on endless life support. Its actions speak much louder than words and the 50,000 disciples who fly 1,000s of miles, spewing the dangerous CO2 they fear so much from the back of Boeings to kneel at the altar of the UN prove it.

Being elected to a UN council effectively says you are more important than you really are. The UN is nothing but a bunch of consensus hugging group thinkers who must buy their relevance. It is a club of hollow values.

If you are in the UN of course you want it to continue. The pay scales are incredible, On top of generous pay you can get housing support, kid’s schooling assistance, health insurance and other cost of living allowances that would make most people loyal slaves to the cause. Salaries consume 74% of the budget. The average salary of the 41,000 that work there is US$100,000. In Japan a D1-D2 level would be looking at $320,000 peer annum. No wonder they need members to keep chipping in more and more into the UN coffers to keep the circus going, Is it any wonder that pay for play is how you buy influence on councils.

The Heritage Foundation did an interesting study on the UN’s budget which shows how much it has exploded in the last 40 years.

IMG_0671.PNG

It stated with respect to trying to rein in the overbloated budget,

The latest U.N. regular budget, while superficially smaller than the previous budget, made no fundamental programmatic or structural adjustments—e.g., reducing permanent staff, freezing or reducing salaries and other benefits, and permanently eliminating a significant number of mandates, programs, or other activities—that would lower the baseline for future U.N. budget negotiations.[10] Despite the Secretary-General’s proposal to eliminate 44 permanent posts, the 2012–2013 budget actually increased the number of permanent posts by more than a score compared with the previous budget. The failure to arrest growth in U.N. employment, salaries, and benefits is especially problematic because personnel costs account for 74 percent of U.N. spending according to the U.N.’s Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions (ACABQ).[11] Without a significant reduction in the number of permanent U.N. posts or a significant reduction in staff compensation and related costs, real and lasting reductions in the U.N. regular budget will remain out of reach.”

Note the peacekeeping budget is on top of the administrative side of the UN. The US currently contributes 27.1% of the total peacekeeping budget which is around $9bn.

Which brings us to Australia. The UN is an overbloated, outdated and ineffective body which needs massive reform which will likely never come unless big members like the US aggressively defund it so it can be hollowed to efficient levels. Australian Foreign Minister Julie Bishop may criticize former PM Kevin Rudd for trying to buy UN votes with aid money but one can be pretty sure that if Australia is awarded a 2018 seat then she will be on the first flight to New York for a photo opportunity and the idea that Australia is relevant not to mention how important the UN is that we need to chip in more.