Monitoring Policy Making at the United Nations |
| ||||||||||||
General Articles on UN Finance
This section posts articles and documents on the UN financial situation, including the status of member states’ payments to the UN and how some countries, including in particular the US, fail to pay on time and in full.
Also See GPF's Pages on:
UN Finance
Articles
2008 |2007 |2006 | Archived Articles
Fact Sheet: Financing the United Nations (April 2006)
Late payment practices, US conditions on UN activities, and a spending cap on the Regular Budget for 2006 have deepened the UN’s financial difficulties. This fact sheet presents an overview on how member states fund the UN, including its Peacekeeping Missions, Programmes, Funds and Specialized Agencies. While member states’ mandatory contributions give the UN more independence, voluntary contributions - often tied to national interests - now constitute more than half of the UN’s funds. (Friedrich Ebert Foundation)
A US-backed spending cap threatens to put the UN in a financial crisis by July 2006, unless the organization implements management reform. This report summarizes the high-level discussion on “The Challenges of UN Finance,” organized by Global Policy Forum and the Friedrich Ebert Foundation. The meeting brought together NGOs, UN officials and diplomats to share information, discuss key issues, and consider action to strengthen the UN’s finances and head off the crisis.
This report, based on extensive surveys of US citizens, finds that a majority of US citizens support the work of the UN, and believe that the US should pay - not withhold - its dues to the UN regular and peacekeeping budgets. (Americans and the World)
In the 2001 budget, the US will spend about $310 billion on the military, about $10 billion on development aid, and virtually nothing on the UN. This editorial from the Singapore Straits Times argues that with this international misanthropy the US is only hurting itself.
This fact sheet compiled by the US Mission to the UN belies Senator Helms' claims that the American people do not want US arrears to the UN to be repaid.2008
Senate Appropriations Committee Approves FY09 UN Funding Bill, Criticizes Administration Underfunding of Peacekeeping (July 23, 2008)
The Senate Appropriations Committee approved a bill for the 2009 fiscal year to fund UN operations. The Committee exceeded President Bush’s recommended funding to many UN organizations such as the UN Children’s Fund (UNICEF) and the UN Population Fund (UNFPA). It also recommended higher spending for UN peacekeeping operations. But, even with the increase in funding, the US will still owe the UN peacekeeping operations $177 million. And, the Appropriations Committee still refuses to fund the UN Human Rights Council unless the Council acts in the US national interest. (UNA-USA)US Congress Approves $665 Million for United Nations and International Organizations (June 27, 2008)
The US Congress passed a supplemental appropriations bill to pay the UN $524 million. Most of the payment goes towards funding the UN peacekeeping mission in Darfur, while the rest pays for other UN peacekeeping missions in countries such as Haiti, Cote d’Ivoire, and Liberia. However, the US still owes the UN $1.734 billion and does not pay its UN bills on time and in full. If the US expects the UN to take on more responsibilities, the US will have to contribute more to the UN budget. (Better World Campaign)UN Headquarters – and Budget – Expands (March 29, 2008)
The UN has asked its members for an additional US$1.1 billion in 2008-2009 to finance renovation of its New York headquarters and to respond to the Bush administration’s demands of the organization in Iraq. US critics of the UN have called the budget increase extravagant. Yet, the UN does not have sufficient resources due to US debt of over US$2 billion. (Foreign Policy Association)United Nations System Funding: Congressional Issues (February 1, 2008)
Throughout UN history, the US Congress has forced its agenda at the organization by withholding contributions to projects it opposes, and tying US contributions to policy conditions. For example, the US has withheld funding for the Special Unit on Palestinian Rights since 1980 and threatened to reduce contributions to the UNDP for Fiscal Year 2008 unless the agency gives the US Mission greater access to information, particularly concerning projects in North Korea and Burma. (Congressional Research Service Report for Congress)Why Was the UN Budget Approved by Vote and not by Consensus? (January 29, 2008)
For the past two decades, UN member states have adopted the organization’s budget by consensus. But during the Fifth Committee’s meeting on the 2008-2009 budget, the US insisted on voting, after several disagreements. A major issue of discussion was the funding for a follow-up World Conference against Racism. Opposing this conference, the US voted against the budget. But the country was left isolated, as the G77 – supported by the EU – supported the funding. (Center for UN Reform Education)2007
Does the UN Still Matter? (July 12, 2007)
Critics, including two-thirds of the US population, express disappointment at the UN’s inability to bring peace to the Middle East and eradicate poverty and hunger in the global south. This Daily Times article points out that member states are themselves responsible for the UN’s shortcomings. The author urges the member states to collectively build upon the UN’s positive aspects and provide the necessary resources by paying their dues to the modest US$7 billion UN peacekeeping budget. According to the article, even though “the UN system is far from perfect, the world would be a poorer and more disorderly place without it.”House Passes FY 2008 State Department and Foreign Aid Spending Bill, Boosts Funding for UN Peacekeeping (June 25, 2007)
The US House of Representatives passed a bill to increase funds to UN peacekeeping operations as well as UN funds, agencies, and programs. The bill gives $195 million more than the President requested to the peacekeeping budget, although the US still owes $622 million. While some UN system budgeds received increased funding, the House banned funding to the Human Rights Council and the International Seabed Authority, and reduced funding to the United Nations Development Program. (UNA-USA)UN Chief Seeks More Peacekeeping Money (June 20, 2007)
UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon meets with Washington officials to urge the US to reduce its debt of almost US$1 billion to the UN peacekeeping budget. The US currently owes US$569 million and there is an additional US$500 million deficit in the 2008 budget. Senator Timothy E. Wirth, President of the United Nations Foundation and the Better World Campaign, points out that over 32,000 people from the US have signed an online petition insisting that US pay back its dues. (Associated Press)Ban Ki-Moon: Why the World Has Changed in the UN’s Favor (June 4, 2007)
People expect the UN to resolve more issues than ever before without a significant increase in funding. Despite the obvious financial limitations, Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon remains optimistic about the UN’s ability to stop global warming and the conflicts in Africa and the Middle East. He argues that that the world population is showing increasing support for “multilateralism and diplomacy” in dealing with these crises. (Newsweek)Uncle Sam the UN Deadbeat (June 1, 2007)
In 2000, the UN lowered the US share in the UN regular budget to 22 percent, and in the UN peacekeeping budget to 27 percent. In return, Washington promised to pay its long-standing debt to the UN. Since then, the US has ignored its promise, piling up a debt of almost US$1 billion. This sum could go a long way to pay for the considerable expansion of the UN peacekeeping operations that the US is advocating. Meanwhile, the US is spending almost $US500 million per day on its occupation in Iraq and Afghanistan. (Guardian)Biden: UN Arrears Resolution Progressing (May 22, 2007)
Senator Joseph Biden, chairman of the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee, expects to adopt a resolution asking for full funding of the UN and payment of the United States’ debt. According to UN management chief Alicia Barcena, the United States currently owes $785 million to the UN’s regular operating budget. Barcena also emphasizes the importance of the member states “paying in full and on time” in order to maintain UN’s “financial health” and continue peacekeeping operations. (Washington Post)House Bill Calls for Elimination of UN Entities on Israeli-Palestinian Issues (April 13, 2007)
The US House of Representatives has introduced legislation which would allow the US government to withhold its share of contributions, both voluntary and for the regular assessed budget, to UN programs that the US president deems “unbalanced on the Israeli-Palestinian issue” – or programs which give assistance to the Palestinian Authority. Furthermore, if passed, bill HR 1856 would restrict travel by Palestinian officials stationed at the UN to within a 25-mile radius of the New York City headquarters. (United Nations Association of the USA)Statement on Legislation to Allow Fulfillment of United States Financial Obligations to the United Nations (January 30, 2007)
This statement by the United Nations Association of the USA “strongly supports” a US Senate initiative that would allow the US to pay its UN peacekeeping dues in full, arguing that failure to settle the US$400 million debt “is both irresponsible and shortsighted.”2006
Post-Election, Where Do US-UN Relations Stand? (November 21, 2006)
The November 2006 US midterm elections resulted in Democratic control in the US Congress. Such a victory has many positive implications for US policy toward the UN argues this United Nations Association of the USA article. The author speculates that the Democratic successes will bring an increase in US funding for UN Peacekeeping operations. Also, the new Congress will likely push US President George Bush to nominate a new, less hostile ambassador, to represent the US at the UN, and reconsider whether the US should seek a seat on the Human Rights Council in the next election.Who Will Pay for UN Reform? (November 7, 2006)
This article looks at proposals to fund key UN reform initiatives to upgrade the UN’s computer system and improve field staff benefits. Japan has proposed that all permanent Security Council members should pay at least 3 - 5 percent of the regular budget, which would require Russia and China to increase their contributions. As the second largest contributor to the regular budget, Japan hopes that its big purse would increase its chances of gaining a permanent seat in the Council. The EU also supports raising the contributions of China and Russia, arguing that these countries should pay a greater share. (UNA-USA)Congress Sends Defense Authorization Bill to President; Provision Lifting UN Peacekeeping Cap Deleted (October 5, 2006)
When approving legislation on Defense Department spending for 2007, the US Congress sadly failed to lift the spending cap that prevents the US from paying more than 25 percent of UN peacekeeping expenses. Though US liabilities amount to “approximately 27 percent of UN peacekeeping costs,” Congress removed language to adjust the cap from the final version of the bill. The bill further stipulates that the US administration submit an annual report to Congress detailing all US contributions to the UN. (UNA-USA)US Gets as Much as It Gives to the UN (August 10, 2006)
Referring to its 22 percent share of the UN regular budget, Washington demands “value for money” and a dominant voice in management and administration of the world body. This Inter Press Service article considers the many benefits the US receives from the UN and how in turn Washington continuously undermines the UN Charter. The US gets more than 20 percent of UN procurement contracts and earns US$ billions a year from the New York location of the UN Secretariat and agencies. The US location of the UN headquarters also places Washington ideally for “spying” on and influencing UN diplomats.US Drops Insistence on UN Budget Cap for 2006 (June 26, 2006)
US Ambassador to the UN John Bolton has failed to persuade rich countries to restrict funding to the UN pending US-backed management reforms by the June 30 deadline. The General Assembly will lift the US-imposed budget cap. Developing nations perceive the US-proposed reforms as a tool to give more power to their rich counterparts. Bolton contends that the US will continue to press for the reforms and Congress may withhold contributions to the world body. (Reuters)New War of Words in UN's North-South Battle (June 8, 2006)
This Inter Press Service article elucidates US ambassador John Bolton’s perception of the role of the US in the United Nations. UN Deputy Secretary General Mark Malloch Brown decries the extent to which the US uses its financial contributions to control the UN. Bolton, on the other hand, enjoys and condones US eminence in the decision making process at the UN. Fearing that Bolton’s US-centered attitude will further isolate the US and undermine the UN’s financial situation, a coalition of NGOs sent a letter to US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice requesting that the US cooperate with the UN.UN Comments Trigger Row with US (June 7, 2006)
While UN Secretary General (SG) Kofi Annan agrees with his deputy’s call for more US involvement with the UN, US Ambassador John Bolton has strongly objected to what he calls “condescending, patronizing” remarks. Observers say that the confrontation between the two officials has brought to surface tensions within the UN over US threats to withhold funding unless the organization achieves significant US-proposed management reforms. Bolton has suggested that the Deputy SG’s criticisms will sway Washington further against the UN. (BBC)UN Risks Shutdown over US Budget Cap (June 6, 2006)
In this interview, a top UN aide says that if the US and Japan cut off funds as of July 1, the organization risks closing down. The two countries have threatened to maintain the UN budget cap unless the UN makes sufficient progress in fulfilling US-proposed management reforms. Fearing a loss of influence in the UN, developing nations have resisted the proposed reforms. The official points out that withholding funds will affect fundamental operations, for example, paying for utilities and interpreters, which in turn will affect larger projects such as the UN’s peacekeeping missions and humanitarian efforts around the world. (Reuters)Rich vs. Poor in Power Struggle, Says Top UN Official (May 31, 2006)
The US, Japan and the EU who collectively shoulder more than 80 percent of the UN budget, have imposed a spending cap as a “weapon for forcing management reforms” including staff buy-outs and giving more power to the Secretary General (SG). Poor countries, represented by the Group of 77 (G77) and China, argue that they have no say in decision making processes at the UN and intend to use their voting power to resolve this problem. Deputy SG Mark Malloch Brown says that the growing North-South divide stems not only from the reform proposals but also from the politics surrounding “power and the future control of the organization.” (Inter Press Service)UN likely to Run Out of Funds Early (May 25, 2006)
With a US$950 million spending cap, imposed by the US for 2006, the UN faces serious funding shortfalls for many of its activities. Unless member states agree on UN funding for the second half of 2006, the UN will not have any money to spend after June. Due to a very tight peacekeeping budget in 2006, the UN cannot cross-borrow from this budget either – a common practice in past years. Furthermore, since the UN has not implemented management reforms, Washington, the UN’s largest payer and debtor, could limit its contributions even further. (Washington Times)Without Action Now, the UN Capital Master Plan Is Not Going Anywhere Anytime Soon (May 16, 2006)
The “Capital Master Plan” to renovate the UN Headquarters building in New York has stalled. The General Assembly has not set a budget or financing plan, while previously secured funds have been restricted to a prior renovation strategy. The US government has refused to participate in discussion or release the necessary funds, despite Washington’s involvement in renovation plans for years. Meanwhile the UN building continues to deteriorate and fails to meet building codes. (United Nations Association of the USA)UN General Assembly Votes to Block Reforms (May 9, 2005)
The General Assembly (GA) has approved a recommendation from the Fifth Committee to block management reform proposals that would give Secretary General Kofi Annan more budget power. Observers say that the GA’s vote could lead to a “budget showdown” in June 2006. Since January 2006, the UN operates under a six month budget cap that will only be lifted if member states conclude that they have made enough progress on reform. The US pushed for the budget cap, which was opposed by poor countries. (Ireland On-line)Renovation of UN Complex Stalled by US, Official Says (April 18, 2006)
Washington continues to delay the renovation of UN Headquarters in New York. The US has been the only country to block the US$100 million needed to begin the project, with the delay costing US$225,000 a day. US Ambassador John Bolton claims the US offered US$23.5 million, but was “not convinced the larger amount was needed at the moment.” But surveys have shown the 55 year old building critically needs restoration. (New York Times)Staff on War Path with UN Chief (April 12, 2006)
UN staff members continue to express displeasure with Secretary General Kofi Annan’s management reform proposals. Staff members believe that Annan’s reforms are tantamount to turning the UN into a US-style corporation “where the bottom line would be governed by a value-for-money ethic.” Out-sourcing and staff buyouts demonstrate the intent to weaken the organization and allow the powerful to dominate. (Inter Press Service)Bolton Presses for New Method of Calculating Dues at the UN (March 29, 2006)
US Ambassador to the UN John Bolton proposes changes to the method of calculating UN member states’ assessments. Bolton suggests using purchasing power parity (PPP), an indicator to measure standards of living, instead of gross national products (GDP) to determine a country’s ability to pay. While the US, Japan and Europe’s largest contributors would see slight decreases of their assessments, other big member states such as China and Russia would face higher payments. (New York Times)Japan's Proposal on the Methodology for the UN Scale of Assessments (March 10, 2006)
Submitted to the Fifth Committee of the UN General Assembly, the Japanese proposal suggests introducing a minimum assessment rate of 3 or 5 percent for all permanent members of the UN Security Council. If adopted, China and Russia would need to increase their assessments to the UN. However, three days after Japan released the proposal, China stated that it “can not accept it.” (Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan)Japan May Cut Funding to UN (February 23, 2006)
Japan, which funds about 20 percent of the UN’s peacekeeping budget, reacted to a UN report alleging that the world body lost tens of millions of dollars through irregularities in peacekeeping procurement activities by threatening to reduce Tokyo’s contribution to the peacekeeping budget. However, some experts believe that Japan’s threat really represents a sign of frustration at failing to get a permanent seat on the Security Council. Others, like US Ambassador John Bolton, see the report's findings as an opportunity for “whole-scale change in the way many agencies and entities within the UN system operate.” (Los Angeles Times)UN Looks at Ways to Reduce its Staff (February 10, 2006)
The UN has considered outsourcing over 200 translation and documentation jobs in an attempt to reduce costs as part of its reform effort. The UN is under pressure from Washington to cut its budget, but a study commissioned by UN Secretary General Kofi Annan states that privatization will not definitely save money. The study also highlights other risks associated with privatization, including secrecy issues, political objections and job loss. (Boston Globe)UN Bodies Survive US Funding Threats (January 10, 2006)
By witholding its funds from various UN bodies, Washington perpetuates its bad reputation for using its economic influence to threaten the world organization. For 9 years the US cut off funding to the UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) and since 2002 it has failed to provide contributions to the UN Population Fund (UNFPA). While the US, as the richest country in the world, withheld over $125 million to UNFPA, every African nation pledged funds to the agency in 2005. (Inter Press Service)
Archived Articles
