It should come as no surprise that as one of the original founders of the whole concept of the United Nations, the United States of America was and currently is one of the greatest contributors to this international organization, specifically financially.

Because of this seemingly unequal payment distribution, many people holding political office or a significant reputation in the US have argued time and time again that the US should pull out of the United Nations altogether.

To better analyze the potential effects of this precarious situation, it’s important to understand the original intentions of the UN’s structure.

The UN is made up of six main sections, but two of these that hold most of the weight in the organization are the General Assembly and the Security Council.

The General Assembly encompasses all 193 states of the UN, and its members each have a say in the policies and deliberations that take place during each meeting. Their powers are extended further in setting the yearly budget and determining the appropriate extent to which financial contributions are made by each of the member states. These members of this sub-group also act as the democracy that nominates and selects the non-permanent members of the Security Council.

The Security Council consists of five permanent members: the United States, the United Kingdom, the Russian Federation, China, and France (the original victors of WWII and founders of the UN).  It also includes ten non-permanent members, who are elected for a two-year, non-extendable term by the suggestion of the Security Council and the voting process conducted by the General Assembly. This means that once a state is on the Security Council and serves its term for two years, it cannot be re-elected until an additional term has passed. Although all countries are welcome to join in deliberations made on policy, security, economics, etc., the only states that have a vote and that can decide to take action are those members of the Security Council.

Within the UN, there are many different “operations”, as they’re called, with the forerunner being “Peacekeeping”. The purpose of this operation is relatively self-explanatory; it serves to develop and promote peace in regions of the world in which there is serious conflict that cannot be solved by other means. Members of the military and even everyday citizens can contribute the necessary actions, materials, or solutions to help enforce the idea of peace.

 

But this global police force cannot operate without some kind of financial backing. That’s where the US comes in.

Not just the US, but all the member states. Just as club members must supply some kind of dues to become “part of the group”, member states of the General Assembly (Article 17) must also make some kind of monetary contribution.

The top 10 providers of assessed contributions to United Nations Peacekeeping operations for 2016 are:

1. United States (28.57%)

2. China (10.29%)

3. Japan (9.68%)

4. Germany (6.39%)

5. France (6.31%)

6. United Kingdom (5.80%)

7. Russian Federation (4.01%)

8. Italy (3.75%)

9. Canada (2.92%)

10. Spain (2.44%)

Incredible, right? The argument critics have that claims the US should back out of the UN solely based on the massive gap between its financial contribution compared to other member states doesn’t seem completely unfounded, looking at the statistics.

But one must remember the context of the UN’s conception. It was the end of WWII, and the war-torn countries of Europe and Asia had economies that were in danger of deep recessions due to the damage expenses required to rebuild. One of the only states with land and economy left untouched by the vicious hand of war was the US. In fact, their economy couldn’t have been better. It was the war itself that swept the nation out of its own depression and into prosperity.

Naturally, because of its physically and financially abundant resources, the US agreed to take on more of a share than its affiliates. Actually, any of the member nations are able to pay more than their specified share, as appointed by the General Assembly, although in the states’ rational best interests, it does not happen often.

Individual member states that are less developed, but still required to pay the peacekeeper fee are granted special discounts that are made up for by enacting a system of fees placed on the five permanent member states to compensate for the lack of overall income.

For 2017, the fiscal budget for US defense spending is $853.6 billion. 

For June 2016 to July 2017, the fiscal budget for the entirety of operations performed by the UN is $7.87 billion.

So by doing some simple math, that would mean that for the UN’s most recent fiscal year, the United States would have provided approximately $2.25 billion to the United Nations.

Imagine the kind of detrimental impact that would occur if the US would pull out of the UN, and the UN would lose that income. UN military and police forces alone cost $3.385 billion, and the UN doesn’t even have its own military. The special forces are voluntarily provided by individual member nations for international peacekeeping purposes, and this cost helps to fund that endeavor.

The issue of whether the US should stay in or leave the UN extends much farther than just the finances. However, government spending in the US is already through the roof, and just by taking a look at the National Debt Clock, anyone can see that they are already trillions (yes, with a “t”) of dollars in debt.

As far as paying more than their fair share, the US is one of the original five members, so there is a legitimate reason built directly into the charter that states these five are held responsible for the facilitation of UN operations. This includes providing consistent financial support held to a higher standard than that of any other members. The statistics don’t necessarily reflect that, what with Japan and Germany paying a greater percentage than the UK or France, but a lot of it is also based on varying factors the General Assembly takes into account such as individual economy.

The US has one of the world’s highest economies, and is typically known for being the most willing to offer support in the form of foreign aid. Typically, but not exclusively.

There are many fears that come with the US’ potential departure from the UN, but for now, the international operations will continue to take place and the US will remain one of the greatest providers (and debtors) of the UN’s income.

Sources:

“United Nations.” United Nations. United Nations, n.d. Web. 31 Jan. 2017.