This article is from WeChat public account: Wish Think Tank (ID:zhczyj), original title “Because the United States does not issue visas, Russia proposes to move the United Nations headquarters… In fact, the crisis in the United Nations is even more urgent! “Author: Lee because he was (Institute of International Shanghai Academy of Social Sciences Research Assistant), Editor: Li Xue, Cover: Oriental IC
October 24 is the 74th anniversary of the founding of the United Nations, but the United Nations has recently been “not very flat.”
A few days ago, a rumor that “United Nations Headquarters will move to Xi’an” was circulated on the Internet. The Xi’an police in Shaanxi immediately launched an investigation and found that this was a person with ulterior motives, deliberately spreading rumors to implement fraud.
However, the country that wants the United Nations to “move” does.
According to the Russian satellite news agency reported on October 18, United Nations sources revealed that Russia officially submitted a draft resolution in accordance with the procedure, recommending that the First Committee of the UN General Assembly be moved from New York to Vienna or Geneva to protest against the US unfriendly visa policy.
The source said that the United Nations is expected to vote on the draft resolution in November. Kozmin, the Russian Deputy Permanent Representative to the United Nations, said earlier that the United States did not issue visas to 18 Russian diplomats during the current session of the General Assembly.
In addition to moving, the United Nations is facing a financial crisis of “the worst in a decade.”
A few days ago, UN Secretary-General Guterres warned member states that liquidity reserves may be exhausted before the end of this month, when the United Nations will not be able to pay its employees and suppliers in a timely manner.
Why is the world’s largest international organization so short of money?
1. Regular budget, everyone drags together
The United Nations funds are mainly divided into three major sections: regular budget, peacekeeping funds, and specialized agency funding.
In terms of the regular budget, since the 1980s, the General Assembly has adopted the principle of “majority decision” when deciding on the budget allocation plan – a two-thirds majority of the representatives of the participating countries agreed to adopt it.
The specific amount to be paid by each country is set by the Fifth Committee of the General Assembly (ie the Contributions Committee), based on the gross national product of a country. Factors such as population, ability to pay, etc., must not be less than 0.001%.
The ceiling has been falling. When the United Nations was first established, the United States assumed 40% of the total. From 1974, it did not exceed 25%, and now it is 22%.
According to Article 3.5 of the UN Financial Regulations, after the proportion and amount of contributions have been determined, Member States shall pay in full before the first month, that is, January 31.
However, in only 1/3 of the UN’s 193 countries, only one in six will comply with this requirement.
The developed economies of the Nordic countries, Switzerland, Canada, Australia and some developing countries are examples of paying their dues on time. Some countries even paid a portion of the amount in 2020. However, due to the small amount of contributions paid by these countries, the financial contribution to the United Nations is not significant.
Most countries will continue to drag on.
As of October 10 this year, 131 countries have paid, 62 countries have only paid a part, or did not pay at all. At the same time last year, 141 countries have completed their tasks.
More seriously, the total budget for 2019 was $2.85 billion, currently receiving $1.99 billion, accounting for only 70% of the total assessment, compared with 78% for the same period last year, with a difference of nearly $230 million.
Japan’s previous payment was very positive. It has also been delayed in recent years. It was paid in April from 2016 to 2017. It was in July last year and it was delayed in August this year.
In fact, the United Nations membership fees are usually not collected by the end of the year. At the end of last year, only 152 countries had paid, which is still the best record in recent years.
These old accounts are accumulating year by year, which is the biggest “culprit” of the current financial difficulties.
At present, unpaid countries are mainly distributed in the Americas including North and South America, Africa and the Middle East. Together with the accumulated old accounts in previous years, the unpaid total amount of the regular budget is as high as 1.385 billion US dollars. Seven countries, including the United States, Brazil, Argentina, Mexico, Iran, Israel and Venezuela, accounted for 97%.
Among them, the US$674 million in contributions has not been paid so far, plus 381 million in arrears in previous years, totaling $1.055 billion, accounting for 76% of the total arrears.
The reason is not difficult to understand. As a big source of contributions and contributions, the United States is very dissatisfied. The United States feels that it has invested a lot of money, but it has not gained enough voice and influence. protest.
For example, UNESCO is completely out of control of the United States, accepting Palestine as its member, and the United States immediately withdraws from the organization.
After Trump took office, this tough punishment was becoming more and more vivid. In December 2017, the then US ambassador to the United Nations, Nikki Heili, announced that the United States would “historically reduce” the UN’s biennial operating budget, requiring the latter to cut its operating budget and reform in accordance with the US program.
According to the 2020 Budget, the White House requires a 27% reduction in UN peacekeeping apportionment based on the amount of funding in 2019, a 25% reduction in regular budget and specialized agency funding, and a cessation of funding to include UNICEF and UN Women. Some projects and fundsInjection.
2. Peacekeeping expenses, the United States means
The cost of peacekeeping operations far exceeds the regular budget. In 2015, the annual peacekeeping fund was as high as 8 billion U.S. dollars. Compared with four years ago, the funds approved in 2019 dropped a lot, only 6.51 billion U.S. dollars.
In order to save money, since last year, the United Nations has closed peacekeeping missions in Côte d’Ivoire, Liberia and Haiti, compressing Sudan, Congo (gold) The size of the mission.
Nevertheless, there are currently 14 peacekeeping operations in operation in the United Nations, with approximately 100,000 peacekeeping police and civilian personnel from more than 120 countries participating. South Sudan, Mali and Congo (金) mission peacekeeping funds are around $1.1 billion.
The peacekeeping operation is established by the Security Council, and the UN General Assembly decides on the allocation of funds. However, there is no uniform peacekeeping account, and the UN General Assembly establishes a separate account for each action, with assessed contributions from Member States. Therefore, if there is a deficit in the account, the Secretary-General will have to pay a lot of trouble if he wants to use it from other surplus accounts.
Compared with the regular budget, the apportionment of peacekeeping operations is very different, and the five permanent members have far more responsibilities than other countries. In 2019, the “Five Chang” funds accounted for more than 57% of the total funds, including 27.8% in the US, 15.2% in China, and 14.45% in the UK, France and Russia.
In addition to the “five permanents”, Japan, Germany and the developed economies Italy, Canada and South Korea, which seek permanent seats in the Security Council, pay between 9% and 12% respectively.
In general, these 10 countries have raised more than 80% of peacekeeping funds, and the rest of the countries together are only 19.48%.
In the field of peacekeeping, the United States is still a “big debtor”, which is more expensive than the regular budget. At present, the peacekeeping projects that have been closed are owed $255 million, and the operating peace-keeping part is owed $2 billion.
In the early 1990s, the United States’ peacekeeping appraisal was at 3