Its hard to argue with $2473/page—and not thing the UN a wasteful place. Still, look at how many languages the EU must include? And remember: multilateralism isn’t for sissies.
It is budget season at the United Nations, and that is just one of several fights brewing. The two-month period of intense haggling is expected to be especially heated this year within the innocuous-sounding “Fifth Committee” that handles the crucial money decisions.
First, some major donors are demanding that Brazil, Russia, India and China absorb a larger share of the organization’s costs to reflect their new economic weight. Those countries, however, are having none of it.
Then comes the widespread frustration that Secretary General Ban Ki-moon presented a two-year regular budget of about $4.89 billion. At first glance, that seems to be a mere 0.5 percent increase over current spending — except an annex of nebulous “add-ons” is likely to push the number to at least $5.4 billion, a leap of more than 12 percent, which many members argue is unsustainable.
via Diplomatic Memo – Budget Fights Are Brewing at the United Nations – NYTimes.com.
9 responses so far ↓
kpackham // November 9, 2009 at 7:48 pm |
http://www.globalpolicy.org/un-finance.html This site has many good links to the various budgets and funding history. The problem that I see here is that it is easy to create a budget, and quite another thing to stick to it or make an accurate budget. I think that it is only fair to request that other member states make increased contributions as their economic standing allows. Perhaps there could be a suggested percentage of a country’s economic wealth that is to be given to the UN. the problem here is that the UN is voluntary and therefore can not depend on the same funds from year to year.
joshthebold // November 10, 2009 at 1:11 pm |
It sounds as though the system set up to build finances for the U.N. is just as complicated as the United States tax system. As I read this about the budgeting problems of the UN, it just brings to mind the need of complete UN reform. Excessive bureaucracy needs to be contained in order to cut wasteful costs. Here is a summary of Pres. Bush’s thoughts on UN reform in 2003. http://www.heritage.org/Research/InternationalOrganizations/BG-1700.cfm
ryanblank // November 10, 2009 at 2:46 pm |
Personally, I am of the opinion that the U.N. budget presents a great opportunity to the United States. With the U.N. growing more and more anti-American it may be time to remind them of the power and influence of the United States by informing them that the United States will no longer provide as much capital as we have in the past. The three most interesting reponses I can see are (A) the U.N. realizes the value of the U.S. and starts to be more supportive, (B) The U.N. collapses, or (C) rising economic powers decide to shoulder more of the financial burden in order to spread their influence. None of these alternatives are especially harmful to the United States. Option A is ideal as it increases the United States power abroad. B is not untenable simply because the U.N. often gets in the way of U.S. interests and does little to benefit the U.S. The possibility of C is relatively remote but even if BRIC contributed more the U.S. would not find itself in any worse position than it already is in. After all the U.S. only needs to threaten to cut their support down, they don’t have to follow through if BRIC states start to contribute more.
An interesting article revealing the U.S. contribution to the UN: http://thessaloniki.usconsulate.gov/un_cont.html
Katie May // November 10, 2009 at 2:49 pm |
I think that it is perfectly acceptable to demand that Brazil, Russia, India and China absorb a larger share of the UN’s costs. Russia and China are already part of the P5, and should make larger contributions, as should the emerging powers of Brazil and India. It is clear that the system needs to be reformed, but what I find interesting is that some member states don’t want these reforms because they would “lose political leverage”. This reasoning is ridiculous. The last thing I want to see is the UN following in California’s footsteps and getting billions and billions of dollars in debt.
http://www.globalpolicy.org/un-finance.html
angierios // November 10, 2009 at 4:10 pm |
To concentrate on a more specific issue, it was surprising to me that 65% of the budget goes for the salaries of 40,000 people. Now the U.N. must have employees and in the majority of cases their work is not voluntary, but it is disheartening to realize that the funding is going towards the bureaucracy instead of towards those situations and states where the common people benefit from aid. The article that I am posting with this, talks about the corruption at the U.N. which is fueled by a lack of accountability. The article is pretty old, but I found it interesting because the U.N. has the same problems in 1996 that it does now. It also talks about what would happen if the U.S. left the U.N. – something that the above post talked about – and it says that the U.N. would inevitably collapse from financial ruin. Which is hardly surprising since we are the largest contributor. As disgust towards the U.N. grows so is the number of people and organizations that do not care if the U.N. collapsed. As scary as this is, it looks like we are still headed in this very direction.
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-253.html
aysasaga // November 10, 2009 at 5:09 pm |
I don’t want to say that I don’t care about the U.N. because I think that on occasion it does function in important ways, but when I read this craziness about $2473/page all I saw was a microcosm of the U.N.’s lack of ability to manage much of anything. I agree that requesting BRIC’s to pay their share is completely appropriate AND necessary. Here’s a little bit about the UN budget (http://www.un.org/reform/investinginun/chap5.shtml), but like the first comment alluded to, sticking to this thing is a whole separate issue and consequently, I’d dare to call it useless.
davisck // November 10, 2009 at 5:11 pm |
http://www.afriquejet.com/news/africa-news/new-york-us:-22-un-member-states-up-to-date-in-payment-of-dues-2009102236845.html This is an interesting article that quotes Angela Kane about payments made by member states. She says that only 22 countries are current in their payments to the UN and most of them are smaller countries. I think that it is clear that there is a huge need to restructure the UN and its financing system because hardly anyone is keeping up on their payments.
The current financial difficulties also make it difficult for countries who are struggling to want to pay. The U.S. pays a lion’s share of the financing and that is fine except that other countries of similar size and importance (namely China and India) are getting off easy.
kayleytaylor // November 10, 2009 at 5:59 pm |
Ban Ki-moon said, “There is bureaucracy, and then there is the U.N.” Like the U.S., massive bureaucracies tend to fall under scrutiny for wasteful spending.
In the same interview, the Secretary General expressed concerns about appeasing the United States because so much of the international organization’s funding come from the U.S. Although holding the upper hand gives a country more control, the U.N. shouldn’t have to rely so heavily on any one country more than another. Here’s some current information on the United States and the U.N. budget. http://www.betterworldcampaign.org/issues/funding/us-funding-for-the-un-an-overview.html
marcymtz // November 10, 2009 at 6:32 pm |
It is kind of ironic that an organization that is meant to promote international peace can’t even pass a budget without conflict. First of all, I think it is so ridiculous that they have to spend so much money on producing the different documents. If you left the translation of the documents to each individual country, then that in itself would eliminate some of the bureaucracy. Additionally, BRIC needs to get over it and just pay more money to the United Nations. Sure they are developing nations, but there is a certain price that needs to payed for increasing GDP. I mean like with Kyoto, they act like they are all for reversing global climate change, but then they are unwilling to actually reduce their emissions. http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/kyoto/
You must be logged in to post a comment.