|
A Trump Christmas Carol
At the behest of the US, the UN regular budget for 2018-2019 has been reduced by $285 million per year. But the world receives an astounding return on its investments in the UN, and member countries should be investing far more, not less, in its organizations and programs.
NEW YORK – This Christmas, America’s gift to the world was a $285 million cut in the United Nations’ regular budget. Technically, the UN regular budget reflects a consensus decision of the body’s 193 member states, but the United States was clearly the prime mover in pushing for the cut. Indeed, Nikki Haley, the US ambassador to the UN, accompanied the Christmas Eve announcement with a warning that the US would be on the lookout for further reductions.
Ebenezer Scrooge could not have done better. The budget cuts will make it that much harder for UN agencies to prevent wars, help millions of people displaced by conflicts, feed and clothe hungry children, fight emerging diseases, provide safe water and sanitation, and promote access to education and health care for the poor.
President Donald Trump and Haley make much of the bloated costs of UN operations, and there certainly is room for some trimming. But the world receives an astounding return on its investments in the UN, and member countries should be investing far more, not less, in its organizations and programs.
Consider the sums. The UN regular budget for the two-year period 2018-2019 will stand at around $5.3 billion, $285 million less than the 2016-2017 budget. Annual spending will be around $2.7 billion. The US share will be 22%, or around $580 million per year, equivalent to around $1.80 per American per year.
What will Americans get for their $1.80 per year? For starters, the UN regular budget includes the operations of the General Assembly, the Security Council, and the Secretariat (including the Secretary-General’s office, the Department for Economic and Social Affairs, the Department of Political Affairs, and administrative staff). When a dire threat to peace arises, such as the current standoff between the US and North Korea, it is the UN’s Department of Political Affairs that often facilitates vital, behind-the-scenes diplomacy.
In addition, the UN regular budget includes allocations for the UN Children’s Fund (UNICEF), the UN Development Program, the World Health Organization, the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, the UN’s regional bodies (for Asia, Africa, Europe, Latin America), the UN Environment Program, the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (for disaster response), the World Meteorological Organization, the UN Office on Drugs and Crime, UN Women (for women’s rights), and many other agencies, each specializing in global responses to crises, conflicts, poverty, displacement, environmental hazards, diseases, or other public needs.
Many of the UN organizations receive additional “voluntary” contributions from individual countries interested in supporting specialized initiatives by agencies such as UNICEF and the World Health Organization. After all, those agencies have a unique global mandate and political legitimacy, and the capacity to operate in all parts of the world.
The silliness of the US attack on the size of the UN budget is best seen by comparing it to the Pentagon’s budget. The US currently spends around $700 billion per year on defense, or roughly $2 billion per day. Thus, the total annual UN regular budget amounts to around one day and nine hours of US military spending. The US share of the UN regular budget equals roughly seven hours of Pentagon spending. Some waste.
Trump and Haley are squeezing the UN budget for three reasons. The first is to play to Trump’s political base. Most Americans recognize the enormous value of the UN and support it, but the right-wing fringe among Republican voters views the UN as an affront to the US. A 2016 Pew Survey put US public approval of the UN at 64%, with just 29% viewing it unfavorably. Yet the Texas Republican Party, for example, has repeatedly called on the US to leave the UN.
The second reason is to save on wasteful programs, which is necessary in any ongoing organization. The mistake is to slash the overall budget, rather than reallocate funds and increase outlays on vitally needed programs that fight hunger and disease, educate children, and prevent conflicts.
The third, and most dangerous reason for cutting the UN’s budget is to weaken multilateralism in the name of American “sovereignty.” America is sovereign, Trump and Haley insist, and therefore can do what it wants, regardless of opposition by the UN or any other group of countries.
In her recent speech to the UN General Assembly session on Jerusalem, where member states overwhelmingly rejected America’s unilateral recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, Haley told the rest of the world: “America will put our embassy in Jerusalem. That is what the American people want us to do, and it is the right thing to do. No vote in the United Nations will make any difference on that.”
This approach to sovereignty is exceedingly risky. Most obviously, it repudiates international law. In the case of Jerusalem, resolutions adopted by the General Assembly and the Security Council have repeatedly declared the final status of Jerusalem to be a matter of international law. By brazenly proclaiming the right to override international law, the US threatens the edifice of international cooperation under the UN Charter.
Yet another grave danger is to the US itself. When America stops listening to other countries, its vast military power and arrogance often lead to self-inflicted disasters. America Firsters like Trump and Haley bristle when other countries oppose US foreign policy; but these other countries are usually giving good and frank advice that the US would be wise to heed. The Security Council’s opposition to the US-led war in Iraq in 2003, for example, wasn’t intended to weaken America, but to protect it, Iraq, and indeed the world, from America’s rage and blindness to the facts.
“Bah! Humbug!” said Scrooge. But Charles Dickens’s point was precisely that Scrooge was the great loser from his arrogance, miserliness, and insolence.
=================================================================================
Jeffrey D. Sachs
JEFFREY D. SACHS
Writing for PS since 1995
275 Commentaries
Jeffrey D. Sachs, Professor of Sustainable Development and Professor of Health Policy and Management at Columbia University, is Director of Columbia’s Center for Sustainable Development and of the UN Sustainable Development Solutions Network. His books include The End of Poverty, Common Wealth, The Age of Sustainable Development, and, most recently, Building the New American Economy.
=================================================================================
Comments on this article
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
J. VON HETTLINGEN
Dec 29, 2017
Jeffrey D. Sachs lashes out at Nikki Haley's $285 million cut to the United Nations’ regular budget right before Christmas. She wanted to settle a score with the world body, following a vote on Jerusalem, that rejects Trump’s recognition of Israeli capital. Trump had previously hinted that the US might cut its UN funding, but the timing was provocative. While he was at the UN in September to attend the General Assembly, he criticised the UN for not 'reaching its potential' in curbing North Korea's nuclear ambition. American critics had in the past complained about anti-Israel bias at the UN.
Even before Trump ran for president, UN bashing has always been popular among Republicans, and the Texas Republican Party has 'repeatedly called on the US to leave the UN.' Neo-cons like John Bolton, who was US ambassador to the UN between 2005-2006, and whose long-time criticism of the UN went a long way past healthy scepticism, hate the UN. He once famously said there was 'no such thing' as the UN and called the US the world's 'only real power'. He even said that if the 38-storey UN building 'lost 10 storeys today, it wouldn't make a bit of difference'.
Although the US public approval of the UN is 'at 64%, with just 29% viewing it unfavorably,' there is widespread criticism about 'wasteful programs.' Cut is hence 'necessary' to save resources. The author says Haley's 'mistake is to slash the 'overall budget, rather than reallocate funds and increase outlays on vitally needed programs that fight hunger and disease, educate children, and prevent conflicts.' But Trump is more keen on using the UN as a vehicle for achieving US objectives, with little regard for humanitarian causes.
The author points out the 'most dangerous reason for cutting the UN’s budget is to weaken multilateralism in the name of American 'sovereignty.'” Trump hates multilateralism and prefers that deals be concluded on bilateral basis. As a bully he wants to seek leverage over weaker nations. Multilateralism involves cooperation between nations, enabling them to join forces and negotiate from a position of strength. China also prefers bilateral negotiations.
'America is sovereign, Trump and Haley insist, and therefore can do what it wants, regardless of opposition by the UN or any other group of countries.' It reveals how naive Haley and Trump are. Every UN member is sovereign and has the right to make its own decision. The US needs to respect other member states and not seeks to impose its will on others. Instead it resents those who disagree and punishes them for not doing its bidding.
In this regard most UN members have been doing the right thing - to respect the 1993 and 1995 Oslo Accords, and let the status of Jerusalem be resolved at the end of a peace process, as it is a too sensitive and complex issue to be addressed by outsiders, when both Israel and Palestinians have not reached an agreement on the future of Jerusalem.
As the General Assembly and the Security Council have 'repeatedly declared the final status of Jerusalem to be a matter of international law,' Trump's unilteral recognition of Jerusalem as Israel's capital had broken the law and undermined the prospect of any future peace talks.
'When America stops listening to other countries, its vast military power and arrogance often lead to self-inflicted disasters.' Trump is indeed itching for a fight. Cutting UN funding may just be the beginning. The dissent reminds of 2003, when the Security Council opposed the US-led war in Iraq.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
STEVE HURST
Dec 29, 2017
'The US share will be 22%' and this is after 'Many of the UN organizations receive additional “voluntary” contributions from individual countries interested in supporting specialized initiatives by agencies such as UNICEF and the World Health Organization'... A figure of 22% contributions put alongside the US share of the global GDP being 24.6% doesnt look wildly out.
US deafness to advice has nothing to do with the budget but is just arrogance and stupidity. Eg 'The idea that it's going to be a long, long, long battle of some kind I think is belied by the fact of what happened in 1990... Five days or five weeks or five months, but it certainly isn't going to last any longer than that,' Rumsfeld said in 2002.
The conflict with Iraq is about weapons of mass destruction, Rumsfeld insisted.
'It has nothing to do with oil, literally nothing to do with oil. It has nothing to do with the religion.'
So it had nothing to do with anything then since there were no weapons of mass destruction. You know that really is a special level of stupid and its got nothing to do with UN contributions. Cutting US contributions to the UN isn't going to be big game changer, cutting US foreign policy stupidity could be
2
Facebook Twitter Whatsapp Show More
Contact Us
THE YEAR AHEAD 2018
The world’s leading thinkers and policymakers examine what’s come apart in the past year, and anticipate what will define the year ahead.
ORDER NOW
putin standard bearer Lanzinger
PUTIN’S MEDIEVAL DREAMS
Dec 29, 2017 DINA KHAPAEVA says the country’s renewed interest in past despots signals a worrying cultural shift.
5
Add to Bookmarks
Previous
Next
FEATURED
The Evolution of the Refugee Crisis
Dec 27, 2017 ERIK BERGLÖF
Rescuing Europe’s Illiberal Democracies
Dec 26, 2017 DANUTA HÜBNER
The World Economy in 2018
Dec 21, 2017 MICHAEL J. BOSKIN
Racing the Machine
Dec 22, 2017 ROBERT SKIDELSKY
The Great US Tax Debate continued
Dec 19, 2017 PS EDITORS
|
