A TRUMP-TOWER-VIEW OVER THE UNITED NATIONS

British journalist Mark Seddon (former speechwriter to the UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon) responded to news about a $285m-cut to the UN budget as “a Trumpian Christmas present, announced as collective punishment for the member states who voted against his incendiary decision to recognise Jerusalem as the “capital of Israel”.

Perhaps it looks like that but the boss of the White House has expressly declared his desire to save on the United Nations, let alone other organisations, since his first days of the presidency. In early 2017, the Trump administration proposed to hold back on more than 30% in contributions to the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) and to reduce funding to international organisations by 40%.

The right of the strong

The United Nations, the successor of the League of Nations, celebrating its 73^rd anniversary this year is still to decide on reforms to meet contemporary realities and demands.

Two factors contribute to the most heated controversy over the past decades - the ever-increasing costs and the number of members of the UN Security Council.

The UN consists of the Secretariat (about 50,000 employees scattered throughout the world) and more than thirty independent organisations such as the Children's Fund (UNICEF), Development Program (UNDP), Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO), Refugee Agency (UNHCR) and so on. All of them have their own budgets based on the contributions of member states, as well as private individual donations.

The budgets of the United Nation’s so-called peacekeeping missions are also set up separately.

Thus, the “regular” biennial budget of the UN, covering the maintenance of its offices in New York City and other parts of the world, holding of meetings, various commissions and missions, was the main topic of discussions last autumn.

In fact, the newly elected UN Secretary-General António Guterres announced the need to optimize budget spending right after his election a year ago. Nevertheless, making such promises has been a well-known fact common to each and every new leader of the Manhattan office. After all, the Portuguese politician proposed nothing specific but cutting the air travel costs for the UN staff by 15%.

On September 18, the opening day of the 72^nd session of the UN General Assembly, Trump delivered a sulphurous speech accusing the organisation of excessive overstaffing, outsized budgets and inefficient performance. Mesmerised by his speech, the representatives of 130 member states signed his proposed Declaration on Reform of the UN, which had nothing specific on cardinal reforms either.

On December 24, right before the Catholic Christmas, the 72^nd session was to adopt the budget for the next two years. António Guterres proposed to cut it by $166m through reducing the financing of UN missions in Palestine, Libya, and Afghanistan and personnel salaries, as well as suspending the international development program.

However, the U.S. did not like the proposal. As a result, the American alternative calling for a $285m cut of budget spending was adopted. In other words, the right of the strong prevailed. The strong in this case means the one ‘who pays the piper to call the tune’. So, the general voting approved the budget for 2018-2019 based on the estimate of $5.395b. Apparently, none of the 193 member states, except the United States, should expect any saving privileges.

Also, Washington cut $600k on funding for peacekeeping operations. In fact, the White House plans to cut these costs by $1b. Payments to other UN institutions are also likely to be revised downward.

Delays and suspension of payments has long become a common practice among the member states but such a unilateral refusal of the United States to fulfil its obligations has no precedent in the history of this international organisation, and may have serious implications capable of destroying it.

A simple solution

The contribution of each country depends on its solvency and is based on its average gross domestic product (GDP) over a ten-year period, taking into account per capita income and external debt indicators.

Thus, the U.S. is the largest donor of the United Nations. The average annual contribution of the country to the “regular” budget is 22%. Americans insisted on this fixed rate in 2000 because otherwise they would have to pay much more. But it is unknown what system will be adopted for the calculation of the percentage ratio from now on.

Over the past year, the U.S. has transferred some $10b to the UN accounts. In addition to contributions to the “regular” budget ($600m), the country spent around $3.8b to finance peacekeeping missions and another $5.5b to maintain various organisations and programmes of the UN.

The other top ten major donors of the organisation include Japan, Germany, France, Great Britain, China, Italy, Canada, Spain, and Brazil.

However, not all of them make regular contributions. This is mainly due to economic problems of these countries but the cases when the member states demonstratively freeze the payments for political reasons are also known. So far, all institutions of the United Nations have followed a simple rule: as soon as the budget debt becomes equal to the sum of biennial contributions, a member state loses its right to vote. Exceptions are made for those who experience real economic difficulties. In 2016 and 2017, the UN deprived the voting rights of fifteen and six member states, respectively, for the non-payment of contributions.

Interestingly, the largest sponsor of the UN is also the most inaccurate payer. The U.S. have constantly delayed payments. For instance, they still owe $1.2b to the budget of 2010-2011.

In this regard, the UN had rather complicated relations with Israel in 2017. Each year the country contributes about $11m to the organisation's budget but in January, Israel decided to reduce payments by $6m after the UN Security Council resolution on the termination of settlement construction. Tel Aviv is going to cut another $4m this summer due to other resolutions.

Back in the 90s, the U.S. legislatively formalized restrictions on financial support for any UN structure that recognizes the statehood of the Palestinian Authority before Israelis and Palestinians reach an agreement between each other.

This seriously affected the UNESCO, when it recognised the Palestinian autonomy as a full member of the organisation back in 2011. In the same year, the U.S., Israel, Canada, Australia, and Poland stopped financing the organisation. In response, UNESCO debarred the U.S. and Israel from voting for the next two years. The rest of the countries paid their debts.

In 2012, the UN General Assembly granted Palestine an observer status, which meant its actual recognition as an independent state. Four years later, the UN Security Council adopted a resolution stating that Israel's establishment of settlements in Palestinian territory “had no legal validity, constituting a flagrant violation under international law.”

Meanwhile, the U.S. debt to the UN budget has accumulated and reached $550m by the beginning of 2018. Despite the Obama administration’s repeated appeals to the congressmen to allow the resumption of funding, the Republican majority had always responded with a refusal.

Trump has simplified everything announcing that the U.S. would leave the UNESCO in December 2018. No membership means no debt! Israel immediately made the same decision, which coincided with the election of Audrey Azoulay, a Frenchwoman born to a Moroccan Jewish family, as the new Director-General of the UNESCO. One would think it was the very moment to find a common language…

In the past, there had been instances when the member states left the UNESCO. But they had returned later. For instance, South Africa left the organisation in 1957 for its criticism of the Apartheid policy. But the country returned in 1994 under Nelson Mandela.

In 1984, the U.S. led by the Ronald Reagan administration left the UNESCO accusing it of anti-Americanism and wasteful spending. But the country returned in 2003 under the George W. Bush administration. Britain has been absent in the organisation for almost the same period (1985-2003) in protest against “the irrational use of budgetary funds and over-politicisation.”

The U.S. administration is also thinking about leaving the UN Human Rights Council. Israel is actively supporting this measure.

Incidentally, the U.S. has ceased its membership in the Global Compact on Migration since January 2018. According to the Voice of America, the U.S. permanent mission to the United Nations stated that the declaration “contains numerous provisions that are inconsistent with U.S. immigration and refugee policies and the Trump Administration’s immigration principles.”

The Voice of America also recalls that “in 2016, the 193 members of the U.N. General Assembly unanimously adopted a non-binding political declaration, the New York Declaration for Refugees and Migrants, pledging to uphold the rights of refugees, help them resettle and ensure they have access to education and jobs.” It seems the current U.S. administration follows different principles.

The “tourists” and the “privileged”

The lack of mechanisms for reforming the UN Security Council has generated many ideas for its re-organisation. But for several decades, none of the proposals has been accepted since each of them had too many opponents.

The main points of disagreement are the number of permanent and non-permanent members, as well as the right of vetoing decisions.

In 1946–1965, the UN Security Council had five permanent members (the U.S., the USSR (Russia), China, the UK and France) with the right of veto and six non-permanent members jokingly nicknamed “the tourists”, who would be replaced every two years. Later on this ratio has become equal to 5+10 and remained so since.

The UN member states are divided into five groups. Each of these groups has a certain number of seats in the Security Council. None of the states can be elected for the two consecutive terms. Brazil and Japan have been the longest-serving members of the Council (20 years). Argentina has been represented for 18 years; India, Colombia, and Pakistan – for 14 years; Italy and Canada – for 12 years; Germany and Pakistan – for 6 years each.

Kofi Annan, the UN Secretary-General in 1997-2006, once proposed two options for reforms bringing the total number of the Council members to twenty-four. The first option was to elect six new permanent members and three non-permanent ones. Secondly, he has proposed to establish a new class of membership, which would allow the re-election after four years, and addition of one non-permanent member.

Yet another idea was to set a rule when a country that had been elected to the Security Council more than five times would become its permanent member.

So, the ‘major battles’ are taking place for the permanent membership in the Security Council. Apparently, there are countries that well deserve a permanent seat in the Council but the complexities of interstate relations do not let any of them to claim it for real.

Brazil, Germany, India, and Japan are among the most likely candidates for admission. They are part of the so-called G4 group, which conducts regular meetings to discuss a joint action plan on the expansion of the Council. They have long considered the right of veto as the main trophy in this battle. But after years of unsuccessful attempts, they have decided to cheat: in 2005, they submitted a draft resolution to the UN General Assembly for consideration, which proposed that the new permanent members of the Security Council were debarred from the veto right for the next fifteen years. When this attempt failed, they said that they were ready to give it up. So far, G4 has achieved nothing in this regard.

There is also the G5 group, which represents the so-called second group of candidates for the permanent membership: Indonesia, Italy, South Africa, Egypt, and Nigeria. In fact, Italy does not pretend for the membership but offers the European Union as a collective member of the Council with an annual rotation of member states.

But the five “privileged” states are not eager to make compromises. As the victorious countries of the Second World War, they have empowered themselves with the right of veto, which they regularly use if the Council resolutions are contrary to their interests. During the 72 years of the UN existence, they have used it 227 times!

In 2013, France suggested to limit the right of veto in the Security Council in cases of genocide and mass atrocities. The proposal, which has been gaining popularity ever since, is approved by 114 member states.

As a unique organisation on the planet, which brings together almost all countries of the world, the UN is facing many challenges but the main one is earning a reputation that would not allow anyone to bargain power.

After the September speech of the U.S. President at the UN General Assembly, a joke has been swirling that “Trump has long looked down on the UN” from the top of his seventy-two-storey skyscraper known as the Trump World Tower and built in 2001 just opposite the headquarters of the United Nations. This must be a derogatory joke for such a prestigious international organisation.