Pl Sc 3180 The United Nations #1
A. Introduction
- When we consider contemporary International Organizations, it is quite likely
that the United Nations will be one of the first that comes to mind. Certainly,
the office of UN SECGEN is a highly visible figure, called upon to serve as
the representative of the international community and to mediate disputes, and
to generally illustrate that the attention of the world is directed toward a
particular matter.
- The UN is perhaps the most famous international governmental organization,
as such an examination of its background, history, workings and evolution will
be undertaken over the next several classes.
B. Background
- Obviously, the idea for the United Nations sprang from the failure of the
League of Nations and was bandied about throughout the Second World War. Now,
it is important to realize that the League of Nations was not an overly optimistic
(or welcomed) term in the late 1930s and the early 1940s, yet, the notion of
an international community working together to ensure that another such war
did not develop took on increased relevance as the war drew on.
- In essence, what existed were two divergent patterns of thought – one
being that the League had failed in its mandate to prevent the coming of another
“World” War, but the particular carnage of that event demonstrated
the necessity of such an organization's existence. Meaning that while the events
of WWII inspired a search for some sort of international collective security
organ (above simple alliances), the experience of the League of Nations did
not auger well for the success of such an organization. Never the less, despite
the problems of the League, and the rise of realists ideas following the war,
the UN was launched in 1945, why? How would it differ from the League? These
are questions we will address shortly.
- First of all, as to the why. Well, the League was not entirely without its
supporters in the member states. You had Lord Cecil in Britain (one of the original
architects of the League) heading a society in that country, and others who
did not see the League as being an example of why this could not work, but rather
how the members had failed to allow it to work. Now, the League itself had essentially
been discredited, but the concept remained vital and alive.
- Perhaps more important to the why was the changed political attitude in the
United States. Various groups in this country were also championing the cause
of the league and the political environment was substantially different from
1919. Not only did this idea have the support of the executive branch (Roosevelt,
certainly, and Truman to a lesser extent), but this support was also bi-partisan,
with Republican leaders in Congress also supporting American participation.
The view across the political spectrum seemed to be that America did not have
the luxury of sitting on the side-lines following the Second World War (both
UK and Fr decimated by the war and in rather poor positions to provide leadership
in a post-war Europe without active American involvement). The United States
was not only willing to join but it was willing to play an active part in the
leadership of the organization.
- Throughout the Second World War, the allied nations had been invoking such
concepts, but at the 1st Washington conference of 1941-42 (Dec. 14 to Jan. 20),
the 26 allied nations first began to refer to themselves as the United Nations.
Note: at this conference, the allied nations agreed that none would conclude
a separate peace with Germany.
- The Moscow conference of 1943 advocated the formation of an “international
organization to safeguard peace and security”, this process continued
through Dumbarton Oaks (1944), Yalta (Feb 1945) where the permanent members
of the security council had their rights of veto established), and finally at
San Francisco in April-June of 1945. The question of permanent veto was one
that vexed the allies (who were the genesis of the United Nations). This was
something that the Soviets insisted upon as a precondition for their entry (mention
how different the world was in 1945 and how de-colonization had yet to occur
and the relevance of same). The Russians clearly saw themselves as being in
a minority position on the Security Council (remember the status of China),
and did not wish to be outvoted on every major question. The others were not
thrilled with this (though they might have changed their tune in about 20 yrs),
but saw this as the price for Soviet acceptance of the agreement. Of course,
this became the single most controversial aspect of the UN, and continues to
come under scorn at the present time.
- Another question that emerged was the status of the Soviet Union, and its
constituent republics (15, unless he is including Inner Mongolia). Again, the
numbers did not bode for the Soviet Union from the beginning (we will show a
table of veto’s later to illustrate how this changed over the years),
and they formally claimed to be a Union of distinct republics – not exactly
born out in reality. Compromise was reached, where two of the Republics received
their own seats – Ukraine and Byelorussia (Belarus).
- The United Nations Congress in San Francisco in 1945 had representatives from
50 countries, this conference drew up both the Charter of the United Nations
and the statutes of the International Court of Justice. Of the 50, all of the
46 states who had declared war on the axis powers were represented, also included
were the two Soviet Republics, Denmark and Argentina.
- The basic purpose of the United Nations was to maintain international peace
and security and to provide a forum for contact to achieve international cooperation.
Within the UN all members, as sovereign nations, were to be considered equal
(problem - security council & permanent members).
- The Question of where to locate the United Nations was another thorny issue
– US won largely as a result of $. Rockefeller donated a large chunk of
land in Manhatten (had not inconsiderable benefits for neighboring property
that he also owned) and the US gov’t provided an interest free loan for
the construction of the buildings. Naturally, this has ramifications for the
UN. At one point, you refused to extend Arafat a visa to speak before the GA,
this meant that the meetings had to be held in Switzerland. At the time, there
was discussion that the UN should move there permanently (Switz is not presently
a member of this, or any other international organization, would violate their
neutrality and ability to shelter $ and treasonous democrats). Mention the experiences
of Castro as well. Also, leads US critics t argue that this should be considered
to be part of your contribution to the UN and others to conclude that you are
benefiting financially from the presence of so many diplomats (who irk the NYPD
and others). Another issue of squabble, though it pales in comparison to some
of the ones that we will discuss shortly.
C, Purposes of the United Nations
- As identified in Article 1, the purpose of the United Nations are: “Safeguarding
of world peace, protection of human rights, equal rights for all peoples (mention
how pissed the Japanese were that this was left out of the Treaty of Versailles),
improvement of the general living standards in the world.” Of course,
they have not entirely succeeded in these goals, but that is why they are called
goals. Also, the issue of sovereignty tends to weigh in against activism.
- The Sovereign members of the United Nations also agreed to the following four
main principles: (long quote from Anchor p. 223)
(1) To actively safeguard peace by non-violent means (recommendations, investigations,
mediation, arbitration – Art. 35), by political or economic sanctions
(Art. 45), or by the use of armed forces (Art. 42) which were to be delegated
by the members (art. 43; military agreements governing the UN forces, the military
staff committee, and world-wide disarmament have not so far been concluded).
(2) To acknowledge the right of national self-defense (Art. 51), also with the
aid of regional security treaties (Art. 53).
(3) To non-interference in domestic affairs (which meant abandonment of the
protection of human rights in authoritarian states and totalitarian states;
the proclamation of the General Declaration of Human Rights in December 1948
remains unbinding).
(4) Loyal fulfillment of the UN obligations “in good faith” (Art.
2), esp. the pledge not to threaten or use force (for all practical purposes
ineffective). As a matter of principle, all states recognizing the Charter of
the UN and willing to abide by its charter were eligible to become members of
the organization.
- Objectives were written with agreement in mind (result of much haggling).
As such they are rather vague, and at times, contradictory. Remember that this
is an organization of sovereign states, with vastly differing perspectives and
cultures. In Article 2, the “domestic jurisdiction” clause is presented.
This precludes the UN to “intervene in matters which are essentially within
the domestic jurisdiction of the state.” By necessity, these matters are
defined on an ad hoc basis. (Therefore the political matters of disagreement
are never too far from the surface.
- For example, the US and the Soviet Union had perspectives that differed dramatically
when it came to the idea of human rights (mention the Marxist notion of economic
rights), so the wording had to be rather vague.
D. Six Basic Organs to the United Nations
1. The General Assembly
- Consists of representative of all member states within the United Nations.
As of 2000, there were 189 members in the UN. All have an equal vote in General
Assembly meetings. Of course this creates somewhat of a controversy, mention
the budget. However, this does represent one of the founding principles of the
UN, the equality of its members. This is the only one of the six organs in which
all nations are represented.
- The GA approves the budget of the UN (mention the problem there), acts along
with the Security Council to select the General Secretary, also passes resolutions
on a multitude of issues ranging from security to social and economic issues.
However, these recommendations have little force other than moral. The GA may
also discuss security issues not presently being discussed by the security council.
- Remember that in the League assembly decisions had to be unanimous, within
the UN, this is a little more flexible. Article 18 of the Charter states that
decisions on “important questions” must be reached by a majority
of 2/3 of those nations who are present and who voted (do not know if there
is a minimum for quorum). All of the other issues under consideration require
a simple majority. As far as what is meant by the term “important questions”,
well this includes such issues as – peace and security recommendations,
elections to the three UN Councils (Security, ECOSOC, Trusteeship), admission,
suspension and expulsion of members, trusteeship decisions, budgetary matters,
and those that the assembly decides (by a majority vote) to deem as such.
- Within the body there is something called the Group of 77, which is actually
up to over 130, and this is a caucus of Third World members that seeks to present
a unified front on emerging issues. This has met with limited success.
- In general, the UN has tried to decide issues by consensus, rather than by
rushing something through with a majority. There are some exceptions (resolution
condemning Zionism), but generally the effort is made to accommodate main points
of view. Result is that resolutions are usually watered down. Purpose is to
ensure that they do not see an exodus from the UN, ala the League.
- Regular sessions of the GA are held each year, beginning on the third Tuesday
in September and lasting to about mid-December. The opening of the UN is a rather
big deal and frequently heads of state (or heads of government) will participate.
Remember the standing ovation that Clinton received in the middle of the Monica
mess.
- The General Assembly, can also call a special session and did so 20 times
between 1947 and 1998. This can be called by the Security Council, or by a majority
of the member nations within the GA. May be requested during the regular session
and then reconvened following a break. Past session have dealt with security
matters (Palestine, Namibia, Lebanon, disarmament), political questions (Apartheid),
economic development (NIEO, International Economic co-operation, Raw materials),
common problems (drugs, environment, etc.)
- GA (majority) or SC (9members) may also call an emergency sessions of the
GA if they believe the SC to be deadlocked. These sessions may be convened in
24 hours. Ten have been called between 1947 and 1998: Middle East (Suez Crisis
of 1956), Hungary (rising of 1956), Middle East (1958), Congo (1960), Middle
East (1967), Afghanistan (1980), Palestine (1980-82), Namibia (1981), Occupied
Arab Territories (1982) and East Jerusalem (1997). They can make recommendations
(1950 Uniting for Peace resolution) for economic sanctions or military action
when the SC is deadlocked. Happened during the Suez Crisis (Brits and Frogs
were part of the problem and UNEF (United Nations Emergency Force) was created
to deal with the peacekeeping in the Sinai and Canal Zone.
- Assembly largely serves as a debating society, not useless (remember the Churchill
dictum about Jaw, Jaw?), but the size makes it rather unwieldy.
- Assembly is also entrusted with the budget (mention problems as they related
the US and its non-payment of dues.
- Finally, the GA has two elective functions, new members and to the other organs.
Application for a new membership goes to the SG, who transmits to the SC, where
it can be vetoed by any of the permanent members, discuss the log jam of the
1950s as it related to the admission of bloc states and US allies. Also selects
member to the SC (10 non-perms for 2 yr terms) and to ECOSOC.. Finally (swear),
in concurrence with the SC, it elects an SG and names judges to the International
Court of Justice.
2. The Security Council
- Consists of 5 permanent members (the US, China, France, UK, & Russia)
and 10 other members elected by the GA for 2 year terms. Each of the 5 permanent
members can veto any important action brought before the security council. Procedural
votes need a majority, substantive measures need a majority, plus the assent
of the permanent members. The reason for the veto was a lesson drawn from the
League of Nations, that in order for an organization to be effective, the Great
Powers must agree to support its actions. Paralysis through the Cold War - Show
the chart of Vetoes From p. 73 of Papp
- Discuss the controversy concerning the permanent memberships (how they were
created, who became PMs, others who seek such a position). Who do they think
the likely candidates are? Why? Go into the pros and cons of each mentioned.
- In terms of the non-permanent members. There were originally 6, but an amendment
to the charter (ratified in 1965 – amendments need 2/3 of GA and assent
of permanent members & 2/3 of SC), expanded the number to ten. Came largely
as a result of the continuing dispute over who could be elected to the SC. Originally,
as the result of a “Gentleman’s Agreement” in 1946, two elected
seats were assigned to LA, and one each to the Commonwealth, WE, EE, and ME.
Essentially assured a Western majority. However, the explosion in League membership
that took place in the 1950s (de-colonization) led to demands for increased
representation from Africa and Asia. Led to the amendment of 1965 (originally
proposed in 1963). Current assignment of seats reads as follows: five to Asia
and Africa, one to EE, two to LA, and two to WE and other states. Highly coveted
honour. Non-perms at present are: Norway, Ireland, Singapore, Colombia, Mauritius,
Ukraine, Tunisia, Bangladesh, Jamaica, Mali.
- Two main purposes of the body are to settle disputes peacefully and to meet
threats to peace with concerted action of the organization. Obviously, has not
been entirely successful at these tasks – paralyzed by veto and the cold
war. Korea and Kuwait were two exceptions, but these were indeed exceptional
circumstances.
- The Security Council has as its primary responsibility the maintenance of
peace and security. It may investigate any situation they see as posing a threat
to international peace. They then recommend a method to solve the problem. 3
Possibilities
i. Pass a non-binding Resolution
ii. Recommend that the international community use measure short of force (economic
sanctions, cutting of contact, etc). May require parties in dispute to appear
before and have their dispute adjudicated by the international Court of Justice.
iii. Use Force - Originally intended to be a UN army (did not occur), now based
on ad hoc arrangements. Usually Nord, Canadians & 3rd Worlders for peacekeeping.
- Also, in concert with GA, selects GS, members of ICJ, and admits new members.
- Body is in permanent session (unlike GA). Members, if matter under discussion
is deemed to affect their interests, may participate in the debate but not vote
on the matter. Also, states whether they are UN members or not, must be invited
to participate if they are party to dispute under consideration. Again, they
do not have a vote.
- One final aspect of SC before we move along, and that is the distinction between
procedural and substantive issues. For either to pass, need the support of nine
members of the council. Yet, latter can be killed by a veto from one of the
permanent members. Charter does not specify how to distinguish and the deal
was reached at SF that motion must occur to make a matter procedural, and such
a motion will be treated as non-procedural. Meaning that one of the permanent
members can kill it as this stage, by vetoing motion to declare it to be procedural.
In essence, the big five have the ability to kill just about anything, even
if it affects them. However, as we have seen, if body is determined to be deadlocked,
the matter can be submitted to the GA.
- The post cold war euphoria has declined a little bit, this did not guarantee
the end of the vetos, issues of national interest still exist (mention NK and
the PRC’s interest in that area, also reason for NATO to be involved in
Kosovo).
E. The United Nations #2
Six Main Organs (Cont.)
3. Economic and Social Council
- 54 members, each elected for a 3 year term. Initially the body had 18 members,
but this was expanded to 27 in 1965 and 54 in 1973. Members are elected by a
2/3 vote in the GA. Generally has had the large economically developed countries
as members, this caused the expansions of the body, as developing countries
sought to increase their presence and impact on Social and Economic policymaking.
- Primary function is to bring economic and social issues to the attention of
the UN. ECOSOC can hold meetings, do research, produce studies and reports,
and draft resolutions for consideration by the United Nations. For example,
this is the body that produced the 1948 Declaration on Human Rights. However,
this body has no legislative power of its own, can only make recommendations
to the GA and exists at its behest. The body meets twice a year, Spring in NY,
and in the summer in Geneva. It is the body of the UN with the greatest connection
to INGOs, they are often asked to appear at hearings, etc in a consultative
role.
- Functional Commissions that deal with: human rights; population; social development;
status of women; economic issues; narcotic drugs.
4. International Court of Justice
- 15 Judges elected to 9 year staggered terms. Elected by the GA and the Security
Council. Similar to the SG, the security council offers a recommendation which
is voted on by the general assembly. Ostensibly, its main role is to determine
whether or not a state has contravened the charter of the UN. In actuality,
it hears few cases and its decisions are frequently rejected by the losing party.
- Ex. Iran and Hostages, US and Contras
- Decisions are taken on a majority basis with nine judges being necessary for
quorum.
5. Trusteeship Council
- Established to prepare the territories of the losers of WWII for independence.
Of the 11 states initially under its direction, the last one - Palau.-( Which
was in trust to the United States) received its independence in 1994. This body
is virtually moribund, and has suspended meetings, and only awaits a Charter
Resolution to see it disbanded. Initially, the members of the body were: (1)
those states who administered trust territories; (2) permanent members of the
SC who did not have Trusts; and (3) elected members. The first category has
been abolished, and the other two (as mentioned are not overly relevant at the
present time.
6. The Secretariat
- Responsible for the day to day operations of the United Nations. Headed by
the Secretary General – Kofi Annan - personal symbol of the UN. Secretariat
has a staff of about 5,000 provides info about the UN and publishes its reports
and statistics.
The General Secretary
- Personal symbol of the UN, appointed by the GA on the recommendation of the
Security Council. Gaining this recommendation is the tricky part, as it has
been fraught with squabbles and politics. Three truly notable fights.
- In the first, when Trygve Lie’s term (5yr) was about to expire, the
Soviets vetoed the nominations of Lester Pearson (bastards!) and Paul-Henri
Spaak of Belgium, and the US responded by saying that it would not accept any
candidate other than Lie. UN saved itself from embarrassment by extending Lie’s
term for an additional 3 yrs by a GA resolution.
- In the second, in 1981, through 16 ballots, China vetoed Kurt Waldheim’s
bid for a third term. The Chinese asserted that it was nothing personal, they
just wanted someone from the developing world. The US blocked China’s
first choice Salim A. Salim of Tanzania. Eventually a compromise was reached
on Javier Perez de Cuellar.
- In the third, The United State objected strongly to a second term for Boutros
Boutros-Ghali, but the African countries insisted that the next choice also
come from that continent, believing they had been robbed by having the first
African denied a chance at two terms. Result was Kofi Annan.
- This process has always been heavily politicized, as a result the Gas have
either come from non-aligned European countries (exception was Lie, but Norway
did not join NATO until well into his term) or developing world.
- Seven SG’s
i. Trygve Lie (Norway) 1946-53
ii. Dag Hammarskjold Sweden 1953-61
iii. U Thant Burma (61-71)
iv. Kurt Waldheim Austria (72-81)
v. Javier Perez de Cuellar Peru (82-91)
vi. Boutros Boutros Ghali Egypt (92-97)
vii. Kofi Annan (97-)
- The Secretaries have assumed the role of spokepersons for the international
community and therefore have normally not been reluctant to take positions on
its behalf, though this does not always have a strong impact.
Formal Powers of the SG
i. Article 99 empowers SG to “bring to the attention of the Security Council
any matter which, in his opinion, may threaten the maintenance of international
peace and security. Waldheim and Iran.
ii. Article 98 entrusts him/her to perform such functions as are entrusted to
him by other organs. Hammarskjold used this as a mandate to do whatever was
necessary to implement directives from GA and SC relating to the Middle East,
Congo, and others.
iii. Hammarskjold asserted that the SG has the role of filling any of the gaps
left in operations by the SC and GA.
- The SG has become more than an administrator. Serves as personification of
the UN and wields a certain amount of moral authority. This is not to suggest
that he/she has unlimited influence, requires the co-operation of key states
to accomplish anything of substance. However, he/she does have the prestige
to bring issues to the attention of the General Public.
- The powers of the SG have evolved over the years. The expansion of these powers
from being a formal administrator to an international symbol has come from a
liberal interpretation of Article 98.Evolution of the role has also been the
result of the perception of the need for a visible mediator and helmsman. This
role has expanded since the inception of the body, as has the politicization
of the selection process.
Review of SGs.
i. Trygve Lie (1946-53)
- First dispute to come before the UN was the 1946 Iranian dispute, when the
US insisted that the failure of the Soviet Union to withdraw troops by deadline
time be placed on the agenda of the SC. The Soviets walked out in protest (first
of several occasions). Lie claimed the right to intervene in Security Counsel
debate on Iran (based on article 99), with an oral or written statement. The
SC resisted this, but Lie was able to maintain this right with respect tot he
GA.
- In general, he cheesed off both the US and the Soviets (probably meant he
was doing his job).
- He also endorsed UN action in Korea, which outraged the Soviets.
- Served 8 years, an expedient due to circumstances discussed earlier, but was
of dubious constitutionality.
ii. Dag Hammarskjold (1953-61)
- He contributed more to the notion of active leadership than any of the other
SGs. One of his early actions was to intervene to get the Chinese to release
(some of) the pilots downed in the Korean War.
- He also was involved in the Suez Crisis (1956), which provided a golden opportunity
for the exercise of SG leadership. Remember that the SC was deadlocked by French
and British vetos, so Hammar submitted a report to the GA concerning the possibility
of raising and dispatching UNEF troops to the canal region. He strongly influenced
the direction of operations. The GA asked him to prepare a plan for the creation
of an International (UN) emergency force. The result was 6,000 troops from 10
countries, who were on Egyptian territory from 56 to 67, and who began to arrive
11 days after the adoption of the resolution. This was the first use of the
term “Peacekeeping”, and would set the precedent for future operations.
- In Lebanon (1958), Hammar responded to Lebanese concerns about Syrian infiltration
of their border region. He sought to get around the Soviet veto, and declared
that he had the ability to fill vacuum and take appropriate measures, which
involved sending a small force (571 people) to the border region and getting
the Arab countries to introduce a pledge of non-interference.
- Finally, for Hammar, was the Congo Crisis (60-64 formally, but really continues
to the present day), which would mark the biggest UN operation (some 20,000
troops were there at the peak of the four year crisis. In 1960, the Congo had
gained independence from Belgium (Belgium?), with rioting, tribalism and mutinees
to follow. Katanga province (rich in minerals) seceded, and the Belgians intervened
to protect their nations and for less altruistic goals (access to Katanga).
Lumumba appealed to Hammar. He had initial support from the SC who authorized
him prepare a plan for military and technical aid. Soviets later balked at the
cost ($400 m over four years) and the accusations of favoritism by the troops
(initially on behalf of the Europeans, later suppressed the Belgians and their
mercs). Lumumba eventually toppled and executed, and Hammar himself died in
a plane crash while visiting the Congo. Order restored (after a fashion) by
1964, with Mobutu in charge, country would turn into a kleptocracy, not that
the Belgians were ideal administrators.
iii. U Thant (1961-71)
- Yemen, West Irian, and Cyprus were all scenes of UN action. The first two
were on the initiative of the SG, though they were approved by the SC. He also
attempted to mediate in the Cuban Missile Crisis, and was an outspoken if ineffective
opponent of the Vietnam War.
- This period also saw the end of UN forces in Egypt ( in 1967, though they
were brought back in 1973) and Congo (1964). Another element of the Congo Crisis
that has some relevance for the present day is that objections of the Soviet
Union and their failure to pay their share of the peacekeeping costs, out of
protest for the operation. Under Article 19 of the Charter, the US sought to
deprive them of their GA vote as a result. The Sovs threatened to leave the
UN and the issue did not pass.
iv. Kurt Waldheim (72-81)
- During his tenure the developing world became much more assertive in their
demands for economic change. This factored into his failure to secure a third
term (remember the Chinese veto).
- Was able to place peacekeeping forces in Egypt (1973) and Lebanon, but efforts
to mediate in Cambodia, Afghanistan and Iran were less successful.
- Perhaps best remembered for the scandal that emerged after he left office
(nazi, tell Gilbert Gottfried joke).
v. Javier Perez de Cuellar (81-91)
- Compromise candidate after US trashed redundant Tanzanian.
- His second term was much more successful than the first, where efforts to
mediate in the Falklands, Lebanon, Grenada, and Iran-Iraq proved to be fruitless.
However, the changing world circumstances during his second term (collapse of
USSR), and the general dissatisfaction with the war in both Iran and Iraq, allowed
breakthroughs in the Persian Gulf Conflict (round 1), Central America, Cambodia,
and Afghanistan.
- Was brought in to a changing world, but did play a role in the Gulf.
vi. BBG (92-97)
- First African, had been a UN troubleshooter in Africa as well as participant
in the Camp David talks (1979, not Chelsea). Peacekeeping forces were sent in
to Bosnia, Mozambique and Somalia (latter an unmitigated disaster) Mention antipathy
of US..
vii. Kofi Annan
- Macalester College grad.
- Had served as undersecretary for Peacekeeping in earlier days.
- Trip to Iraq in 1998, where he sought to gain iraqi agreement for the admission
of UN inspectors to blocked sights, with the threat of US military action looming
in the distance. They end up concurring, also included a respect for Iraqi sovereignty
in the deal. Naturally, this was not seen as an absolute victory and he took
some criticism.
UN Financing
A. Introduction
- This has been a problematical area for the United Nations since its inception
and has been the cause of near constant concern. Of course, the delinquency
of the United States is one of the first things that comes to mind when one
examines the monetary issues of the UN, but there are some others: profligacy
of the body, distribution of financing responsibilities among the member nations,
how the budget is determined, etc. We will examine each of these issues in this,
the last section dealing with the United Nations.
B. Assessment
- Determining what each nation should contribute has been a rather thorny process.
The initial principle established was that this should be based on the ability
of the member nation to pay, rather than a flat assessment for each –
“progressive” tax.
- Initially, there were four variables utilized in determining the assessment
for each country: total national income, per capita income, foreign exchange
earnings, and the economic dislocation suffered during WWII. The latter has
been removed.
- Within these assessments would be floors and ceilings to the amount each state
could contribute. The United States, which remains the single largest contributor
(actually, the single largest assessee, a difference we will explore in a moment)
initially had a ceiling of 40% of the total UN budget set for its contributions.
Understandable given the circumstances of the time. However, given the changes
to the World Economy, the US has consistently called for this amount to be reduced
– which it has been on three occasions, initially down to 33% (do not
know year), then to 25% in 1973 and recently down to 20% (within the last three
months, weasels at CNN did not provide a date, probably too busy prepping resumes
for Fox).
- On the other hand, the poorest 30 countries each pay 0.001% of the total UN
budget, based on the reforms of 1998, this is down from previous floors of .04,
.02, and .01%. More than 50 others pay .01%, this comes close to a majority
within the UN, and all told accounts for less than 1% of the annual budget.
Mention the dictum of Cardigan Naturally, this discrepancy is cause for serious
squabbles between the wealthier and poorer countries. The US has recently held
up its payments to the United Nations (more on this in a few moments) to seek
to have its contributions lowered to 20% of the total budget.
- The United States is not alone in shouldering a large amount of the financing
burden of the UN, until this year, it, along with Japan and Germany (the three
largest contributors, were assessed at more than half of the total budget. In
fact, the 8 single largest contributors to the body (in order – US, Japan,
Germany, France, Italy, UK, Russia and Canada) together account for roughly
75% of the total assessments. Conversely, the other 181 countries pay less than
a quarter of the operating costs. Of course, since the GA is the body which
decides on the budget (prepped by GS), this creates all kinds of difficulties.
The wealthier countries generally want the UN to cut expenditures while the
poorer countries seek to expand UN programs. The results are not always pretty.
- Of course, the general budget is only part of the total cost for the United
States, or of any wealthy countries contribution to the United Nations. While
troops for the peacekeeping missions are determined on an ad hoc basis, paying
for them is not. Countries are again assessed contribution amounts, and again
the Unite States pays the Lions share. Originally this was set at 33% of the
total amount, but has come down to 31.5%, with a reduction to 27.5% this year
and 25% in 2004. Given the increased role that the UN has played in this regard,
this is becoming an increasingly relevant issue.
C. Issues of Delinquency
- From earlier in the semester we remember that the Soviets went substantially
into arrears over the Congo crisis, and the US sought to deprive them of their
General Assembly vote under Article 19 of the UN charter. This did not work,
as the Soviets threatened to leave the UN if this happened, and the US could
not gain adequate support to stand up in this game of chicken,
- Recently, it has been the United States who has garnered most of the attention
for lagging behind in terms of payments. Presently, the United States owes the
UN somewhere in the range of $1 billion, and is arrears in both general and
peacekeeping contributions. Naturally, this creates problems with the US, the
UN and the other wealthy countries.
- This debt is more a question of will than of capabilities The US is not behind
in contributions to either NATO or the OECD, but is consistently (for the last
decade, at least) in arrears to the UN. Elements in Congress (mostly Republican,
but there are a few Democrat stalwarts) argue that with the skewed (read democratic)
system of voting in the General Assembly, this is the only way in which the
US can get its point across – to hold off payment until reforms occur
within the system. Now, whatever they think privately, the US has not lobbied
for a change in the voting system, within the GA, that would not play well in
the rest of the world, but has attempted an end run around this process by withholding
its contributions and essentially attempting to blackmail the UN into lowering
its assessment and instituting financial reforms. Of course, there are also
some moral considerations (abortion, etc), but the single largest complaint
has been with the budgeting process and the amount that the US has to pony up.
Difficult for US reps as they routinely get beaten up over this issue.
- However, the United States is not the only country that has been in arrears,
it has been estimated that in the recent past, 25 different countries have withheld
portions of their assessments for political reasons. The reason that the US
garners most of the attention is that it usually owes more than half of all
monies in arrears.
- The experience of the congo Crisis and the Soviet Union, has convinced American
lawmakers (of both stripes, this squabble began when the Democrats controlled
both houses) that Article 19 of the Charter was toothless. This article, which
states that
A member of the United Nations which is in arrears in the payment of its financial
contributions to the Organization shall have no vote in the General Assembly
if the amount equals or exceeds the amount of contributions due from it for
the preceding two full years. The General Assembly may, nevertheless, permit
such a member to vote if it is satisfied that the failure to pay is due to circumstances
beyond the control of the member.
- When the Soviets were able to successfully flaunt this article for two successive
years (the GA went through the entire session of 1964 without taking a formal
vote as it did not want to deal with this problem), this was interpreted by
reform minded congresspersons that a precedent had been set. However, the rest
of the world has not quite seen it that way. During the standoff in the mid-1990s,
the US pledged that it would meet its obligations once its overall contribution
ceiling had been reduced, however, the UN, led by the other rich countries,
stated that they would not even consider the issue until the debt had been discharged.
In fact, late last year US ambassador to the UN Richard Holbrooke argued that
the US was on the verge of being stripped of its GA vote and its place on the
budget committee. An agreement was eventually reached, and the US promised to
make good in exchange for the reduction.
- In terms of overall budget, the UN now operates with a budget less than it
enjoyed (in real terms) in the early part of the 1990s. Staff has been cut from
about 12,000 to 9,000 in that decade, largely at the insistence of the US and
some other rich countries. Still the debate continues, there are also issues
of money owed to nations participating in peacekeeping operations and those
that simply lack the ability to pay.
- Interesting in that the body is now being asked to take on a much greater
role while witnessing the amount of $ remitted to it dwindle.
- Their thoughts on potential ways to meet this shortfall between goals and
capabilities?
- What of the American position?
-