US House of Representatives Republican led Committee wants to cut US “foreign aid” including contributions to the UN and UN peacekeeping and the Organization of American States (OAS). The measure is not yet binding upon the US President, and is not likely to meet the support of the majority in the US Senate. However, it could yet be effective in denying actual funding for UN and/or UN Peacekeeping operations, (as the House of Representatives in the US has to authorize funding). New Ideological & Theological Trend: According to some observers, as or more troubling, this may be indicative of a new US drift toward isolationism. I see it slightly differently and perhaps even more negatively. It is a rejection of multilateralism. It may even be understood as a concession to those who view the United Nations as an adversary to the US both in policy and as an institutional concept. Such ideologically oriented persons and institutions perceive the United Nations as ideologically contrary to the US and US sovereignty. The “Antichrist”: There are also those, and not merely a small minority, who have come to view the United Nations in a theological context. Many believe that “Antichrist” will first emerge as UN Secretary General. A whole theologically driven book and film industry has arisen around this premise capturing a large segment of the US population.(See Photos Above - "Left Behind" series with a handsome, young and charismatic Russian accented UN Secretary General and secretly Antichrist) UN Peacekeeping as an Alternative to Full Blown Intervention: Little value appears to be recognized regarding UN contributions from peacemaking and democracy building to various humanitarian and human rights efforts. UN peacekeeping may not be particularly effective in terms of the stated mission, as the precedent of Bosnia & Rwanda may illustrate. However, even as a low intensity effort, the costs in financial and people terms may be efficient as compared to outright intervention especially if US military may be called upon. Some recent examples of greater efficiency include Ivory Coast and cease fire monitoring efforts in the Middle East. UN peacekeeping turns out to be fraction of the cost of outright US and/or NATO military intervention. Most appropriately, UN peacekeeping can be perceived even within US policy circles as a low cost-low intensity alternative when outright military intervention is not warranted or politically desirable. The trend toward a new ideological divide that pits the UN on the opposite side of a Republican dominated Congress is not welcome just as there appears a growing need for the UN’s humanitarian, peacekeeping and other efforts on a global basis. Ironically, this also appears as the UN is exhibiting a greater effectiveness in timeliness and response capability. By Ambassador Muhamed Sacirbey Facebook – Become Friend at “DiplomaticallyIncorrect” Twitter – Follow us at DiplomaticallyX