This house would freeze the United Nations budget

The phrase “give them an inch and they’ll take a mile” is appropriate here. It is noteworthy that Russia has a Security Council veto, but does not even appear in the top 15 nations contributing to the budget. The UN has become dependent on the USA and other industrialized nations to foot an enormous amount of the bill for UN operations. While the proportions of other states’ economies are markedly smaller, other nations sometimes reap far more of the rewards of UN existence than they contribute - “The United States is far and away the biggest single contributor to the U.N. system. In 2006, the total U.S. contributions came to at least $2.7 billion — and that excludes the private sector, which by most independent estimates, draws most of its $1.5 billion in U.N. contributions from U.S. sources.” [1]

Should the US remain a consistent donor and allow itself to be asked for more and more as the UN budget becomes more bloated, or should it assert itself and say that, in real dollars, a line must be drawn?

[1] Russel, George. “The U.N.: Even More Expensive Than It Looks” 06/11/2008 http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,448125,00.html

improve this

While it is true that the United States pays a substantial portion of the UN’s budget, it does so for historical and pragmatic reasons. Its economy and budget are significantly larger than other member states. It holds a veto over actions taken in the UN Security Council. It benefits from its size and position. As much as the UN is an influential player, this influence is transferred to the US automatically.

”There is nothing that restrains the United States from using the U.N. to defend and promote American interests abroad… As a permanent member of the U.N. Security Council, the U.S. holds veto power over 70% of the U.N. budget. As a country with citizens in senior U.N. leadership positions, we work to shape and influence U.N. activities.” [1]. Therefore the US has only to gain from its rather big contributions to the UN budget.

Furthermore this allows the US to insist on some UN decisions, which it feels are important such as the Palestinian issue – “… The United States has the leverage to prevent this diplomatic disaster if the Obama Administration wants to use it: we are by far the largest donor to the U.N., financing roughly a quarter of its entire budget.” [2].

[1] Danfor, John. Why the U.S. should keep the U.N. in business” 27/05/2011 http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/2011-05-27-Danforth-US-shouldnt-defund-UN_n.htm

[2] Kleefeld, Eric. “Gingrich: Cut Off U.N. Funding If They Recognize Palestinian State” http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/08/gingrich-cut-off-un-funding-if-they-recognize palestinian-state.php

The United Nations is a voluntary body and reflects global realities, including the role of the USA as the dominant superpower. Without the consent of the USA, the UN can achieve nothing, and active US opposition to the UN could destroy the organisation along with all its potential for good. It is better for the UN to accept US demands for budgetary restraint and reform than to provoke the USA by unrealistic demands into withdrawing from its councils.This means that the UN should reflect the views of the United States as a result "Policy of the United Nations should be based on three fundamental questions: Are we advancing the American interests? Are we upholding American values? Are we being responsible towards for the American taxpayer dollars?" According to Josh Rogin "Unfortunately, right now, the answer to all three questions is no." [1]

[1] Rogin, Josh. ” House Republicans' next target: the United Nations” 26/01/2011 http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/01/26/house_republicans_next_target_the_united_nations

improve this

This sounds rather like an ultimatum to the UN – if you don’t like what we give you and complain we won’t give you anything. The question here is that the UN really does need more money in order to give the necessary assistance to countries, which strive for basic things like food, water, protection - “We are here today on behalf of people the world has all too often forgotten: the weak, the disadvantaged, those suffering the effects of climate change, violence, disaster and disease,” Mr. Ban told those gathered in Geneva for the “programme kick-off” for the Appeal.“ [1] The whole concept of the organization is to provide help; however, of course, this help cannot come for free it has a certain cost. The UN general secretary should not constantly ask and appeal for funding, this is not his job, although it happens all too frequently. 

The UN protects the whole world and the fact that the US gives the most money for this protection should not be considered harmful to the American people.

[1] “Ban Ki-moon urges early funding for $3.8 billion UN humanitarian appeal” http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=25378&Cr=humanitarian&Cr1=appeal

improve this

The United States has made a significant investment in the institution. Not only was it a founder, but it plays host to the body in New York and makes the largest contribution of any nation each year. "The debate over whether the United Nations will continue to overcharge American taxpayers is over — and the U.S. wound up on the losing end. In a dramatic turnaround from steady declines since 2001, the percentage that the U.S. will be charged for U.N. peacekeeping has been sharply increased for the next three years, and U.S. taxpayers will end up paying roughly $100 million more each year than they would have if the 2009 assessment rate had been maintained.” [1] This is not acting responsibly in a time where Americans are feeling the pinch from the economic downturn. American taxpayers recognize that their society faces a great many problems that could be addressed with the dollars that are annually spent on the UN. While Americans are generally supportive of the institution, they have a right to know that their investment is used appropriately and pays dividends in good policy.

[1] Schaefer, Brent. “U.N. Dues: Obama Lets American Taxpayers Down” 6/01/2010 http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2010/01/un-dues-obama-lets-american-taxpayers-down.

improve this

UN money is spent responsiblyOf course the American taxpayers' money should not be spent promiscuously, but that's not the case. The United Nations spends the money it gets on solving global problems and helping the needy, both of which are useful to the United States as it is a role the US would otherwise have to perform.Furthermore international organizations such as the UN are highly advantageous to the US and its population. Sarah Margon and John Norris argue "Withholding funds from the United Nations would fail to reap significant savings, make it more difficult for our nation to lead, and seriously undermine our highest foreign policy and national security priorities …restricting U.S. support for the United Nations ultimately has a much higher price tag than it does savings as doing so substantially decreases our political legitimacy while costing America money and jobs.” [1]

[1] Margon, Sarah; Norris, John. “Withdrawing from the United Nations: A Misguided Assault” 2/05/2011 http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2011/05/un_withdrawal.html

improve this

UN reform has been a major objective of the United States, and government leaders assert that six years of no-growth budgets and pressure from the United States have resulted in reforms of the General Assembly, budget preparation procedures, the creation of sunset provisions for UN programs and improvements in staff security. It is argued that these reforms could not have been accomplished without the carrot and stick approach of the no-growth policy. The UN has a budget in the billions of dollars which it can spend more efficiently if it sets goals and priorities, evaluates outcomes and eliminates waste and corruption. This has already been proven in 1996-1997 –"…Although this budget is not as lean as my Government originally proposed, it is perhaps the most austere ever adopted by the General Assembly", the United States representative said. The budget included a number of significant reform measures and marked "another in a series of significant steps towards a more effective, efficient and accountable United Nations", he declared, calling the Organization "unique and indispensable".” [1]

The fact that the US has succeeded in keeping the UN to a no-growth budget for the past six fiscal years is indicative of the workability of the approach.

[1] “Tough, no-growth budget for 1996-1997” 1996 http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1309/is_n1_v33/ai_18339680/

improve this

No-growth budgets actually undermine fiscal accountability and discipline. While the USA has held the line on growth, it and other nations have simultaneously asked for the UN to do more in areas such as peacekeeping and nation-building. As the demands on the UN grow, and the budget does not grow with it, UN administrators are forced to move money around the budget to pay for basic overhead (even electric bills) and cover shortfalls in one program or another. Thus the basic goal-setting and accountability the US strives for is undermined. For example there have been complaints about taking money from the peacekeeping fund. The United Kingdom has objected "Resolution 50/218 on the Working Capital Fund did not give the Secretary-General a "blank cheque to fund the deficits of major contributors through enforced borrowing from peace-keeping accounts". Borrowing from peace-keeping funds to finance the regular budget is unacceptable,and if a memberstate goes so far as to refuse to pay the accumulation of more arrears could only increase the financial risk to the Organization. Cuba also felt that "the spirit that guided the founders" of the UN had not been reflected in the new budget. Instead, it had responded to the "hegemonic" and political interests of the major contributor and could be "the first in a series of measures leading, in essence, not to the reform but to the destruction" of the UN."¹

¹"Tough, no-growth budget for 1996-1997" 1996

improve this

The phrase “give them an inch and they’ll take a mile” is appropriate here. It is noteworthy that Russia has a Security Council veto, but does not even appear in the top 15 nations contributing to the budget. The UN has become dependent on the USA and other industrialized nations to foot an enormous amount of the bill for UN operations. While the proportions of other states’ economies are markedly smaller, other nations sometimes reap far more of the rewards of UN existence than they contribute - “The United States is far and away the biggest single contributor to the U.N. system. In 2006, the total U.S. contributions came to at least $2.7 billion — and that excludes the private sector, which by most independent estimates, draws most of its $1.5 billion in U.N. contributions from U.S. sources.” [1]

Should the US remain a consistent donor and allow itself to be asked for more and more as the UN budget becomes more bloated, or should it assert itself and say that, in real dollars, a line must be drawn?

[1] Russel, George. “The U.N.: Even More Expensive Than It Looks” 06/11/2008 http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,448125,00.html

improve this

While it is true that the United States pays a substantial portion of the UN’s budget, it does so for historical and pragmatic reasons. Its economy and budget are significantly larger than other member states. It holds a veto over actions taken in the UN Security Council. It benefits from its size and position. As much as the UN is an influential player, this influence is transferred to the US automatically.

”There is nothing that restrains the United States from using the U.N. to defend and promote American interests abroad… As a permanent member of the U.N. Security Council, the U.S. holds veto power over 70% of the U.N. budget. As a country with citizens in senior U.N. leadership positions, we work to shape and influence U.N. activities.” [1]. Therefore the US has only to gain from its rather big contributions to the UN budget.

Furthermore this allows the US to insist on some UN decisions, which it feels are important such as the Palestinian issue – “… The United States has the leverage to prevent this diplomatic disaster if the Obama Administration wants to use it: we are by far the largest donor to the U.N., financing roughly a quarter of its entire budget.” [2].

[1] Danfor, John. Why the U.S. should keep the U.N. in business” 27/05/2011 http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/2011-05-27-Danforth-US-shouldnt-defund-UN_n.htm

[2] Kleefeld, Eric. “Gingrich: Cut Off U.N. Funding If They Recognize Palestinian State” http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/08/gingrich-cut-off-un-funding-if-they-recognize palestinian-state.php

The United Nations is a voluntary body and reflects global realities, including the role of the USA as the dominant superpower. Without the consent of the USA, the UN can achieve nothing, and active US opposition to the UN could destroy the organisation along with all its potential for good. It is better for the UN to accept US demands for budgetary restraint and reform than to provoke the USA by unrealistic demands into withdrawing from its councils.This means that the UN should reflect the views of the United States as a result "Policy of the United Nations should be based on three fundamental questions: Are we advancing the American interests? Are we upholding American values? Are we being responsible towards for the American taxpayer dollars?" According to Josh Rogin "Unfortunately, right now, the answer to all three questions is no." [1]

[1] Rogin, Josh. ” House Republicans' next target: the United Nations” 26/01/2011 http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/01/26/house_republicans_next_target_the_united_nations

improve this

This sounds rather like an ultimatum to the UN – if you don’t like what we give you and complain we won’t give you anything. The question here is that the UN really does need more money in order to give the necessary assistance to countries, which strive for basic things like food, water, protection - “We are here today on behalf of people the world has all too often forgotten: the weak, the disadvantaged, those suffering the effects of climate change, violence, disaster and disease,” Mr. Ban told those gathered in Geneva for the “programme kick-off” for the Appeal.“ [1] The whole concept of the organization is to provide help; however, of course, this help cannot come for free it has a certain cost. The UN general secretary should not constantly ask and appeal for funding, this is not his job, although it happens all too frequently. 

The UN protects the whole world and the fact that the US gives the most money for this protection should not be considered harmful to the American people.

[1] “Ban Ki-moon urges early funding for $3.8 billion UN humanitarian appeal” http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=25378&Cr=humanitarian&Cr1=appeal

improve this

The United States has made a significant investment in the institution. Not only was it a founder, but it plays host to the body in New York and makes the largest contribution of any nation each year. "The debate over whether the United Nations will continue to overcharge American taxpayers is over — and the U.S. wound up on the losing end. In a dramatic turnaround from steady declines since 2001, the percentage that the U.S. will be charged for U.N. peacekeeping has been sharply increased for the next three years, and U.S. taxpayers will end up paying roughly $100 million more each year than they would have if the 2009 assessment rate had been maintained.” [1] This is not acting responsibly in a time where Americans are feeling the pinch from the economic downturn. American taxpayers recognize that their society faces a great many problems that could be addressed with the dollars that are annually spent on the UN. While Americans are generally supportive of the institution, they have a right to know that their investment is used appropriately and pays dividends in good policy.

[1] Schaefer, Brent. “U.N. Dues: Obama Lets American Taxpayers Down” 6/01/2010 http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2010/01/un-dues-obama-lets-american-taxpayers-down.

improve this

UN money is spent responsiblyOf course the American taxpayers' money should not be spent promiscuously, but that's not the case. The United Nations spends the money it gets on solving global problems and helping the needy, both of which are useful to the United States as it is a role the US would otherwise have to perform.Furthermore international organizations such as the UN are highly advantageous to the US and its population. Sarah Margon and John Norris argue "Withholding funds from the United Nations would fail to reap significant savings, make it more difficult for our nation to lead, and seriously undermine our highest foreign policy and national security priorities …restricting U.S. support for the United Nations ultimately has a much higher price tag than it does savings as doing so substantially decreases our political legitimacy while costing America money and jobs.” [1]

[1] Margon, Sarah; Norris, John. “Withdrawing from the United Nations: A Misguided Assault” 2/05/2011 http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2011/05/un_withdrawal.html

improve this

UN reform has been a major objective of the United States, and government leaders assert that six years of no-growth budgets and pressure from the United States have resulted in reforms of the General Assembly, budget preparation procedures, the creation of sunset provisions for UN programs and improvements in staff security. It is argued that these reforms could not have been accomplished without the carrot and stick approach of the no-growth policy. The UN has a budget in the billions of dollars which it can spend more efficiently if it sets goals and priorities, evaluates outcomes and eliminates waste and corruption. This has already been proven in 1996-1997 –"…Although this budget is not as lean as my Government originally proposed, it is perhaps the most austere ever adopted by the General Assembly", the United States representative said. The budget included a number of significant reform measures and marked "another in a series of significant steps towards a more effective, efficient and accountable United Nations", he declared, calling the Organization "unique and indispensable".” [1]

The fact that the US has succeeded in keeping the UN to a no-growth budget for the past six fiscal years is indicative of the workability of the approach.

[1] “Tough, no-growth budget for 1996-1997” 1996 http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1309/is_n1_v33/ai_18339680/

improve this

No-growth budgets actually undermine fiscal accountability and discipline. While the USA has held the line on growth, it and other nations have simultaneously asked for the UN to do more in areas such as peacekeeping and nation-building. As the demands on the UN grow, and the budget does not grow with it, UN administrators are forced to move money around the budget to pay for basic overhead (even electric bills) and cover shortfalls in one program or another. Thus the basic goal-setting and accountability the US strives for is undermined. For example there have been complaints about taking money from the peacekeeping fund. The United Kingdom has objected "Resolution 50/218 on the Working Capital Fund did not give the Secretary-General a "blank cheque to fund the deficits of major contributors through enforced borrowing from peace-keeping accounts". Borrowing from peace-keeping funds to finance the regular budget is unacceptable,and if a memberstate goes so far as to refuse to pay the accumulation of more arrears could only increase the financial risk to the Organization. Cuba also felt that "the spirit that guided the founders" of the UN had not been reflected in the new budget. Instead, it had responded to the "hegemonic" and political interests of the major contributor and could be "the first in a series of measures leading, in essence, not to the reform but to the destruction" of the UN."¹

¹"Tough, no-growth budget for 1996-1997" 1996

improve this

Circumstances can change rapidly. In one year there might be a significant need for peacekeeping or humanitarian needs, while in another, these needs might be less pronounced. This is the case in 2011 with conflicts in Africa “The United Nations refugee agency warned today that a lack of funding could undermine its ongoing efforts to provide humanitarian assistance to tens of thousands of people displaced by the unrest in Libya, saying it has so far received slightly over half of the funding it requested for the operation.” [1] In times of serious political unrest the UN assistance is of essential importance. Therefore it needs sufficient funding, which cannot be unalterable since the situation and conditions alter.

Furthermore pressures like inflation affect the UN as much as they impact the consumer in the streets of New York. Especially when inflation rates are rising. The current US inflation (as of 2011) is nearly 4% [2].  Inflation has meant a real-terms decrease in the UN budget—not a level budget. It is not realistic to assume that the same level of funding as six or more years ago is truly adequate for today or tomorrow.

[1]) “Libya: UN warns funding shortfall could slow aid effort for victims of conflict” 15/04/2011 http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=38122&Cr=libya&Cr1

[2] “Current Inflation Rates: 2001-2011” http://www.usinflationcalculator.com/inflation/current-inflation-rates/

In times of big environmental crises or military conflicts it is true that more funding is necessary. However this funding must come on a voluntary ad hoc basis, rather than from the regular budget of the UN. Because otherwise this would mean even a bigger financial burden on developed countries and especially on the US. The UN determines how much more money it needs in a certain operation in extreme unexpected situations.  As the general secretary Ban Ki-moon appealed for more financing to tackle Haiti's cholera epidemic – “Mr. Ban told a conference at the UN headquarters in New York that Haiti was in desperate need of more medical supplies and personnel…He appealed for he international community to dig deep to help stem the cholera epidemic in Haiti" ¹.

Inflation is an economic matter and in most of the cases it is taken into consideration when determining the UN budget. However in hard financial times – as they are since the financial crises (2008) and the complicated problems the US has with its public debt (2011) increasing the budget is simply unrealistic.

1. “UN appeals for more money to aid Haiti’s cholera epidemic” 3/12/2010 http://rjrnewsonline.com/news/regional/un-appeals-more-money-aid-haiti%E2%80%99s-cholera-epidemic

improve this

The UN is in a fiscal (budget) crisis that can only be alleviated by regular contributions from the US. Growth in funding has not met the demand for growth in programs—including demands placed on the UN by the US and its allies. During the Cold War, the UN was a largely impotent institution. With the Cold War over, and faith in multilateralism growing, the need to recruit and organize vast organisations to run many new programs has proven to be far more costly than the UN budget is able to handle.

Today major problems occur in a global level, which cannot be solved without extra funding - Somalia famine, reproductive health in Africa, Pakistan floods, Myanmar cyclone and many others. Global issues are constantly expanding and they demand more attention. Expanded commitments also require expanded funding  so the UN needs “robust financial support from the United States” to carry on its global-security, development, education, and health work, Mr. Ban told reporters on a day of meetings with congressional leaders.

In order for the UN to continue fulfilling its duty and primary role it needs the relevant support and financial assistance.

improve this

Again - in order to meet the financial demands of the UN, a growth budget doesn't need to be set. Even if there are problems, whose solving costs a lot today, this doesn't mean that it will continue to be so in the future. Every year problems of the status quo are different. A UN budget is determined to an extent that it can be met by the state parties. There is not an unlimited amount of money, which can be allocated to international organizations. Of course in times of deep global challenges, the more advanced and developed part of the world will try and do the best they can to help the ones in need. But a continuous increase of the UN budget is not the way to cope with the problems. It just creates a fund-consuming machine, which is becoming more and more expensive. Furthermore the US already donates too much money to the UN - "The U. S. State Department yesterday announced that the Obama Administration has agreed to contribute $4 billion to the United Nations Global Fund to fight AIDs, Tuberculosis, and Malaria from 2011 to 2013. The $4 billion represents a 38% increase over the previous U.S. commitment to the fund."¹

¹ Williams, Paul. "President Donates $100 Billion to the United Nations" 6/10/2010

improve this

Members of the UN are obligated by treaty to contribute. In fact, ten nations (all in Africa, Central Asia or the Caribbean) are being threatened with the loss of their General Assembly votes for arrears this year. These states are required to make far smaller contributions in total than the gaps often left unfilled by the USA. As of 2009 the US debt to the UN exceeds $ 1.5 billion [1]. Therefore the UN is more or less dependent on US payments. While the US does eventually contribute its dues, and the UN voluntarily complies with its demand to keep a level budget, the threat they hold over the UN is essentially a breach of treaty and should be treated as such.

^[1] http://www.betterworldcampaign.org/assets/pdf/briefing-book/us-debt-to-the-un.pdf

It is not clear who is a debtor to whom. First of all "The United Nations' Tax Equalization Fund (TEF) owes the United States nearly $180 million" [1] Furthermore Cliff Kincaid, a journalist who writes frequently on UN affairs states: "Claims that the United States owes the United Nations more than $1 billion are false. No legal debt exists or can exist. The UN Charter does not empower the organization to compel payment from any member state. Even the notion that the United States owes money in the sense of a moral obligation is fallacious. It ignores the military and other assistance that the Clinton administration has provided the UN and for which the United States has not been properly credited or reimbursed. Over the past five years, that assistance has amounted to at least $11 billion, and perhaps as much as $15 billion. The administration has been diverting funds from federal agencies, especially the Department of Defence, to the United Nations. " [2] We cannot claim the US does not pay enough to do the UN and therefore it "threatens" it.

¹ Shaeffer, Brett. "The U.S., the U.N., and a $180 Million Debt" 9/02/2011
² Kincaide, Cliff. "THE UNITED NATIONS DEBT Who Owes Whom?" 23/04/1998

improve this

The potential exists for the United States to appear as a bully to the other UN member states by demanding the institution bend to its will or lose support. An appropriate analogy can be found in a country's taxation policy. Individuals cannot simply withhold their taxes because they disagree with a government's policies. That usually lands them in jail. The US faces no such threat for non-compliance and thus makes a show of its leverage over the UN. Such an attitude potentially undermines the desire of other nations to be receptive to serious US needs, resolutions and reforms.

The US therefore needs to be very careful when exercising its power in the UN and deciding how much money to set apart; otherwise countries may start to question the role and importance of such a big international organization.

improve this

US leadership is enhanced when it asserts itself in the UN. America has the potential to shape developments in the world for good through its involvement in the UN. However, the UN is a representative body, and at times in its history smaller non-aligned states (with notably minimal contributions to the UN budgetary pie) have been able to trample on policies the United States feels are in its and the world's best interests. Inflexibility by the US shows these states that they need to toe the line with the US so enhancing the US leadership role. While Smaller states play an important role in the United Nations, as they represent a large majority of the membership. In recent years, they have emerged as important players in the international community. Their influence is not determined merely by the size of their territory, economy or military power, but also by their ability to achieve their goals. If these rising states wish to achieve their goals having the United States and the UN helping towards these goals, or at least not thwarting their attempts, is necessary. A passive approach by the United States to issues of reform would not serve the interests of either party.

improve this