International
Can We Finally Talk About United Nations Funding?


David Clinton 
Billions of dollars disappear into the black hole. Not much value comes out the other end
No area touched by government policy should be off-limits for open discussion. It’s our money, after all, and we have the right to wonder how it’s being spent. Nevertheless, there’s no shortage of topics that, well, aren’t appreciated in more polite company. Until quite recently, I somehow assumed that Canada’s commitments to the United Nations and its many humanitarian programs were among those restricted topics. I had my own deep reservations, but I generally kept my thoughts to myself.
Then the Free Press published a debate over US funding for the UN. I know that many subscribers of The Audit also read the Free Press, so this probably isn’t news to most of you. If questioning UN funding was ever off limits, it’s officially open season now.
The Audit is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
The only defense of the organization to emerge from the debate was that America’s spooks need the surveillance access made possible by the UN headquarter’s New York address, and the city needs the billions of dollars gained from hosting the big party. No one, in other words, could come up with a single friendly word of actual support.
For context, Canada doesn’t bill for parking spots around Turtle Bay in Manhattan. And our spies are not up to the task of bugging hospitality suites anywhere nearby.
How much money do Canadian taxpayers spend on the United Nations? According to data from Canada’s Open Government resource, UN-targeted grants cost us at least $3.7 billion between 2019 and 2022. That number could actually be a lot higher since it’s not always easy to identify spending items as specifically UN-related.
Of that $3.7 billion, more than $265 million went to administrative and headquarters operations. Those administrative grants included $209 million directed to the “United Nations Organization” and officially described as “Canada’s assessed contribution to the United Nations Regular Budget”. Membership dues, in other words.
So what do we get for those dues? Arguably, nothing at all. Because the actual work of the UN happens through their specific programs – which were covered by the other $3.5 billion we contributed.
Unfortunately, those contributions are often misspent. Take as an example the eight million or so dollars Canada sends each year to the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL). Since 1978, UNIFIL’s 10,000-strong contingent’s only job has been to:
“confirm Hezbollah demilitarization, support Lebanese army operations against insurgents and weapon smuggling, and confirm Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon, in order to ensure that the government of Lebanon would restore its effective authority in the area”.
It’s no secret how splendidly that worked out. Hezbollah cheerfully spent the best part of the past two decades building some of the most robust military infrastructure on earth. And all under the direct supervision of UNIFIL.
Then there’s the disturbing relationship between United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) and both Hamas and Hezbollah. As I’ve already written, by their own admission, Global Affairs Canada completely missed (or chose to ignore) that one. UNRWA cost Canadians $55 million between 2019 and 2022.
It’s true that some UN peacekeeping missions from decades back saw success, like operations in Namibia, Mozambique, Sierra Leone, East Timor, and El Salvador. But the failures were, to say the least, noticeable. Those included Rwanda, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Somalia, Angola, Haiti, and Darfur. And all that’s besides the accusations of widespread, systemic sexual abuse committed by peacekeepers just about anywhere they go. The peacekeeping model’s value proposition is far from proven, but the financial costs are right out there in the open.
Besides their regular happens-to-the-best-of-us failures, the UN has carefully cultivated their own unique brand of corruption. In 2005, Paul Volcker’s Independent Inquiry Committee (IIC), for example, reported on widespread corruption and abuse associated with the UN’s Oil-for-Food program for Iraqi citizens.
The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) has long been associated with corruption, cronyism, and a general lack of financial control. But to be fair, those claims are very much in line with accusations regularly leveled against the UN as a whole.
Most Canadians are agreeable to sharing their collective wealth and expertise with those around the world who are less fortunate. But we’d be far more effective at it by creating our own programs and bypassing the rotting corpse of the United Nations altogether. That is, after all, what Global Affairs Canada is supposed to be doing.
While I’ve still got your attention, there’s one other United Nations-y thing that I’d like to discuss. While researching this post, I accessed official data representing all UN Security Council and General Assembly resolutions since 2000. Fascinating stuff, I assure you. But it didn’t turn out the way I’d expected.
You see, for years I’ve been hearing about how UN resolutions are overwhelmingly focused on condemnations of Israel – to the point where Israel takes up the majority of the organization’s time.
In fact, there were far too many spurious and gratuitously hostile anti-Israel resolutions. And I defer to no one in my contempt for each one’s dishonesty and hypocrisy. But unless there’s something very wrong with the official UN data on resolutions, condemnations of Israel take up no more than a small minority of their time.
Specifically, of the 1,594 General Assembly resolutions from the past quarter century, just 60 or so targeted Israel. And the Security Council faced a total of 1,466 resolutions over that time, of which only somewhere in the neighborhood of 55 concerned everyone’s favorite colonial-settler, apartheid, space laser-firing, and weather-controlling oppressor.
The cesspool that is the modern UN is bad enough on its own merits. There’s no need to manufacture fake accusations.
Economy
US strategy to broker peace in Congo and Rwanda – backed by rare earth minerals deal

MxM News
Quick Hit:
Senior Trump advisor Massad Boulos says the U.S. is brokering a peace deal between the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) and Rwanda that will be paired with “Ukraine-style” mineral agreements to stabilize the war-torn region.
Key Details:
-
The U.S. wants Congo and Rwanda to sign a peace treaty and, on the same day, finalize critical mineral supply deals with Washington. Boulos told Reuters that both deals are expected within two months.
-
Rwanda’s side of the treaty involves halting support for M23 insurgents, while the DRC has pledged to address Rwanda’s concerns about the Hutu-dominated FDLR militant group.
-
DRC President Tshisekedi has floated the idea of giving the U.S. exclusive access to Congolese minerals in exchange for help against M23. “Our partnership would provide the U.S. with a strategic advantage,” he wrote in a letter to President Trump.
Diving Deeper:
According to a Thursday report from Reuters, President Donald Trump’s administration is accelerating efforts to finalize a dual-track strategy in central Africa—pushing for a peace agreement between the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Rwanda, while simultaneously brokering “Ukraine-style” mineral deals with both nations.
Massad Boulos, Trump’s senior adviser on Africa, told Reuters that the administration expects the mineral agreement with Congo to be signed on the same day as the peace treaty, followed shortly by a separate deal with Rwanda. “The [agreement] with the DRC is at a much bigger scale, because it’s a much bigger country and it has much more resources,” Boulos explained, while noting Rwanda’s potential in refining and trading minerals is also significant.
The DRC and Rwanda have set a tight timetable, agreeing to exchange draft treaty proposals on May 2nd and finalize the accord by mid-May. Secretary of State Marco Rubio is scheduled to preside over the next round of negotiations in Washington.
Rwanda’s cooperation hinges on its withdrawal of support for M23 rebels, who have taken over key territories in eastern Congo. These insurgents have even paraded through captured towns alongside Rwandan troops, prompting international condemnation. In return, Congo has committed to addressing Rwanda’s longstanding concern over the presence of the FDLR—a militant group composed largely of Hutu fighters accused of plotting to overthrow Rwanda’s Tutsi-led government. The FDLR has been active in the region for years and remains a major point of contention.
The instability in eastern Congo—home to over a hundred armed groups—has prevented investors from tapping into the country’s vast mineral wealth. The DRC holds an estimated $24 trillion in untapped resources, including cobalt, copper, lithium, and tantalum, all essential for advanced electronics, renewable energy systems, and defense applications. Boulos emphasized that no deal will go forward unless the region is pacified: “Investors want security before they invest billions.”
Reports suggest M23 has seized control of major mining operations, funneling stolen minerals into Rwanda’s supply chain. Though the UN’s peacekeeping mission, MONUSCO, was designed to stabilize the region, it has been ineffective during this latest wave of violence. President Tshisekedi asked the mission to withdraw last year, and several countries—including South Africa, Malawi, and Tanzania—are now pulling their peacekeepers after M23 captured the regional capital of Goma in January.
Red Cross teams began evacuating trapped Congolese soldiers and their families from rebel-held areas on Wednesday. At least 17 UN peacekeepers have been killed so far this year.
In a March letter to President Trump, President Tshisekedi made his case for a strategic partnership, offering exclusive U.S. access to Congo’s mineral wealth in exchange for American support against the insurgency. “Your election has ushered in the golden age for America,” he wrote, describing the proposed deal as a “strategic advantage” for the United States.
Boulos, who has longstanding business ties in Africa, quickly visited the DRC following the letter and began working to finalize the terms of the proposed agreement.
Crime
Mexican Cartels smuggling crude oil in Texas, Southwest border

From The Center Square
By
The U.S. Treasury Department is cracking down on Mexican cartel crude oil smuggling in Texas and along the southwest border.
The department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control on Thursday (OFAC) sanctioned multiple Mexican nationals and Mexico-based entities involved in a drug trafficking and fuel theft network connected to the Mexican cartel, Cartel Jalisco Nueva Generacion (CJNG).
In February, the Trump administration designated CJNG and other Mexican cartels and transnational criminal organizations as Foreign Terrorist Organizations (FTOs) and Specially Designated Global Terrorist (SDGT).
Crude oil smuggling, “huachicol,” is interconnected with “a slew of criminal activities, including fentanyl trafficking,” and a range of violent crimes. It’s considered “the most significant non-drug revenue source for Mexican cartels and other illicit actors,” OFAC said. The thieves, “huachicoleros,” use a variety of means to steal fuel and crude oil from Mexico’s state-owned energy company, Petróleos Mexicanos (Pemex), including bribing and threatening Pemex employees, illegally drilling taps into pipelines, stealing from refineries and hijacking tanker trucks.
Their operations are facilitating “rampant violence and corruption across Mexico, and undercutting legitimate oil and natural gas companies in the United States,” OFAC states.
Stolen fuel is sold on the black market in Mexico and Central America through unregulated roadside fuel stops and cartel-controlled gas stations.
It’s also smuggled into the U.S. by brokers who label it as “waste oil” or hazardous material to evade detection. Stolen crude oil is then sold and shipped to oil and natural gas companies and refineries in Texas and nationwide, as well as to Japan, India, Africa and other countries, investigators found. It’s sold at a significant discount and the illicit proceeds are sent back to the FTOs and SDGTs.
According to law enforcement estimates, the U.S.-based importers earn roughly $5 million for each oil tanker shipment of crude oil to foreign jurisdictions, with multiple tankers leaving Texas ports every month. Most purchasing the shipments are likely unaware they’ve been stolen, OFAC states.
Those sanctioned this week include CJNG leader Mexican national Cesar Morfin Morfin (a.k.a. Primito) of Tamaulipas, for his alleged role in transporting, importing and distributing narcotics, including fentanyl, heroin, methamphetamine, cocaine, and marijuana, and fentanyl and methamphetamine precursor chemicals sourced from China into the U.S.
Primito’s older brother, Alvaro Noe Morfin, was also sanctioned for his alleged role in CJNG narcotics trafficking. Both Primito brothers are on a 10 Most Wanted list in Texas and Tamaulipas, published by U.S. Customs and Border Protection and the Mexican government.
Their younger brother, Remigio Morfin, was also sanctioned for alleged drug trafficking, operating out of Hidalgo, Mexico.
Mexican national Cesar Morfin was also sanctioned for his role in CJNG drug trafficking, as were two of his family members and business associates, who are linked to CJNG fuel theft, OFAC said. However, he’s allegedly now focused primarily on stealing crude oil, OFAC said.
As Trump administration border security efforts shut down illegal entries, Primito’s network refocused their efforts to smuggle crude oil into the U.S., OFAC said. “Given his control over port of entry bridges between the Tamaulipas and Texas border regions, Primito also charges fees to any trucks moving crude into the United States via these routes.” He and his subordinates also allegedly falsify official customs documents to facilitate cross-border smuggling of stolen crude oil, investigators allege.
In addition to the sanctions, OFAC and several federal agencies issued an alert to U.S. financial institutions urging them to vigilantly detect, identify and report suspicious activity that might be connected to stolen crude oil smuggled by FTOs and SDGTs.
“In recent years, fuel theft in Mexico, including crude oil smuggling, has become the most significant non-drug illicit revenue source for the Cartels and enables them to sustain their global criminal enterprises and drug trafficking operations into the United States,” the alert states.
The alert provides an overview of methodologies and financial typologies associated with cartel crude oil smuggling, includes red flag indicators and reminds financial institutions of Bank Secrecy Act reporting requirements.
Since the Trump administration designated Mexican cartels and transnational criminal organizations as FTOs and SDGTs in February, the Treasury Department has sanctioned 11 individuals and six entities affiliated with the Sinaloa Cartel, La Nueva Familia Michoacana, and the Beltran Leyva Organization.
Last September, OFAC also sanctioned nine Mexican nationals and 26 Mexico-based entities linked to CJNG fuel theft activities, including senior CJNG member Ivan Cazarin Molina (a.k.a. El Tanque).
-
2025 Federal Election13 hours ago
Mark Carney vows to ‘deepen’ Canada’s ties with the world, usher in ‘new economy’
-
Business2 days ago
Canada urgently needs a watchdog for government waste
-
2025 Federal Election2 days ago
The Last Of Us: Canada’s Chaos Election
-
Health13 hours ago
RFK Jr. orders placebo safety trials for all new vaccines in major policy decision
-
Alberta2 days ago
‘Existing oil sands projects deliver some of the lowest-breakeven oil in North America’
-
Business1 day ago
Overregulation is choking Canadian businesses, says the MEI
-
Business21 hours ago
Top Canadian bank ditches UN-backed ‘net zero’ climate goals it helped create
-
COVID-1920 hours ago
Tulsi Gabbard says US funded ‘gain-of-function’ research at Wuhan lab at heart of COVID ‘leak’