*Originally published in 2022 and preserved as part of our archive project.Get E-International Relations delivered to your inbox, free of charge. As you sign up, consider becoming a paid subscriber to support our work.

Whether in geo-politics or geo-economics the idiom, “he who pays the piper calls the tune” is almost as old as humanity, and the idiom “who pays for the UN” is certainly as old as the UN How we pay for the UN. is a formula which dates to the end of WW2 and to the power-structures which prevailed at the time of the UN’s gestation, the creation of the Bretton Woods institutions, and of course post-war geo-politics and geo-economics. Delicately, it was a formula which considered the mess left by global war and the power structures of a new world order, who would have to shoulder geo-political and geo-economic responsibilities for the post-war recovery. So much has happened in world politics and economics since that of course the reader is entitled to consider why these formulas have not also fundamentally changed?

In 2021 funding to the UN Budget provided by the following countries is cited (below) in percentages: 

Normally in life we would expect the biggest treasurer to have the most influence but in the UN system the most powerful remain the permanent five members, their powers solidified on the cold cement holding up the first UN flagpole erected in 1947. Veto power in the Security Council lies firmly with those permanent five so the UN is not an organization recognizing the principle “pay to play.” How about the UN charter, founded on Sovereign Equality and Big Power Politics? should tiny Tonga with a mere 100 000 inhabitants continue to have the same voting power as USA or China? Now voting power in the UN system means many different things so we should not get carried away on a pipe dream of sovereign equality. It is more realistic to regard the UN as a global entity frozen in geo-political time and hamstrung by the delicate mechanisms of a 1945 clock which threatens at any time to send the whole planet back into upheaval. It is a bit like the plumber and the old plumbing. Tinker with the UN’s governance at your peril.

The United States and UN Funding

Under President Trump so much fuss surfaced that one might have concluded that the USA was the sole, not just the biggest, paymaster to the UN. The USA does remain by far the single largest financial contributor to the UN system, even after Trump has gone, and is likely to steer a more generous path under Joe Biden. The Council on Foreign Relations proceedings are revealing about American attitudes to the vexed subject of UN power, and whether it is cash worth paying. US Congress has long debated if American contributions are value for money. The Trump Administration consistently proposed significant decreases in UN funding and withheld funding to several UN bodies. At the same time, as is its way, Congress went ahead anyhow and funded most UN entities at higher levels than the Administration requested. The Biden administration supports re-engaging with the UN; the President’s FY2022 budget request proposed fully funding UN entities and paying selected U.S. arrears.

UN System Funding and whether it equates to anything like geo-political power is a different matter altogether. The UN system comprises interconnected entities including specialized agencies, funds and programs, peacekeeping operations, and the Secretariat itself. The UN Charter, ratified by the United States in 1945, requires each member state to contribute to the running expenses of the organization. The system is financed by assessed and voluntary contributions from UN members. Assessed contributions are required dues, the payment of which is a legal obligation formally accepted by a country when it becomes a member. Such funding provides UN entities with a regular source of income to pay for staff and implement core programs. For example, the UN regular budget, specialized agencies, and peacekeeping operations are all financed by assessed contributions. Voluntary contributions primarily finance elective projects, UN funds and programs. The final budgets for these entities may fluctuate annually depending on donor contribution levels.

The UN regular budget supports the core administrative costs of the organization, including the UN General Assembly, Security Council, Secretariat, International Court of Justice, special political missions, and human rights entities. The regular budget is adopted by the Assembly and used to honor a two-year period; however, in 2017 the Assembly voted to change the budget cycle to a one-year cycle beginning in 2020. Most Assembly decisions related to the budget are adopted by consensus. When budget votes occur (which is rare) decisions are made by two-thirds of the majority of members present and voting, with each country having a single vote. The approved regular budget for 2022 is $3.12 billion (constituting about $10 per person in the USA). The General Assembly determines a scale of assessments for the regular budget every three years based on a country’s capacity to pay.

Most recently, the Assembly adopted assessment rates for the 2022-2024 period in December 2021. The U.S. assessment is currently 22%, the highest of any UN member, followed by China (15.25%) and Japan (8.03%). What do Japan, or Germany for that matter get for their cash? Well, I suppose that is the very conundrum before us – power is different from money in the UN language, and money while equating to power, does not undue the complex power formulae conceived at the birth of the UN. For a start, cash is inevitably reflected in the levels of representation of each country in the organization and so (to some extent) influencing the contours of the UN By sponsoring bespoke positions or contributing generously to the Junior Professional Officer’s programme, member states can marginally increase their staffing presence at the UN This should not influence UN policy, but there are no members who do not want their state better represented in the UN system.

The UN Specialized Agencies

Now how does that leave the heavy lifers, the UN Specialized Agencies, who do most of the UN’s operational work? The short answer is often hard up for cash. The 15 UN specialized agencies, which include the World Health Organization (WHO), Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), and World Bank Group (WB), among others, have autonomous executive, legislative, and budgetary powers. Some agencies follow the scale of assessment for the UN regular budget, while others have bespoke formulas to determine assessments. Often, they must shake a tin box and campaign, especially in times of severe crisis. And when is a UN agency not in severe crisis? “Life at the UN” is surely the very definition of crisis? Operationally virtually all UN specialized agencies struggle from budget point to point, occasionally facing guillotine periods, when official spending is severely curtailed.

UN Peacekeeping Missions

The we have UN peacekeeping funding. There are currently over a dozen UN peacekeeping missions worldwide with over 80,000 military, police, and civilian personnel. UN Security Council resolutions establishing new operations specify how each mission will be paid. In most cases, the Council authorizes the General Assembly to create a kitty for each operation funded by assessed contributions; recently, the General Assembly temporarily allowed peacekeeping funding to be pooled for increased financial flexibility due to concerns about budget shortfalls. The approved budget for the 2021-2022 peacekeeping fiscal year is $6.37 billion (the equivalent of about $20 per person in the US). No, the UN does not take the money off homeless Americans, but you get the idea, some American must pay that overall share if the biggest contributor’s bar bill is to be settled!

The peacekeeping scale of assessments is based on modifications of the regular budget, with the five permanent Council members assessed at a higher level. The current U.S. peacekeeping assessment is 26.94%; however, Congress has capped the U.S. contribution at 25%. Other top contributors include China (18.68%) and Japan (8.03%) neither of whom put any sizable forces in genuine harm's way on peacekeeping- but they do help pay the bills! The reason for the lack of ground forces contributed by these countries (and this also applies to Germany) is historical.

American Arrears to the UN

Congress has authorized funding to the UN system as part of Foreign Relations Authorization Acts. When authorization bills are not enacted, Congress has waived such requirements and appropriated funds the UN through the Department of State and U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) accounts in annual Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs (SFOPS) appropriations bills. President Biden’s FY2022 budget request includes the following:  $1.66 billion (about $5 per person in the US) for the Contributions to International Organizations (CIO) account, which funds assessed contributions to the UN regular budget, UN specialized agencies, and other international organizations (a $157 million (approximately $0.48 per person in the US) increase over enacted FY2021 funding of $1.51 billion (about $5 per person in the US)). The request fully funds UN bodies and includes $82.4 million to........

© E-International