US looks to slash UN payments
Trump dismissive of body’s worth
WHITE House instructions to the State Department to look for cuts totalling more than a third of its budget include orders for what potentially are even higher reductions in US payments to the UN.
US officials cautioned that the outline of President Donald Trump’s preliminary budget, to be released today, is unlikely to reveal much in the way of intentions for specific programmes. “We’re early in the process with respect to budget numbers… it may look very different a couple weeks or a couple of months down the road,” acting State Department spokesperson Mark Toner said.
But the outline could provide an indication of how the administration plans to deal with an international institution that Trump, during his campaign, said caused more problems than it solved, and was “just a club for people to get together and talk and have a good time”.
The US spends about $10 billion (R130bn) a year on and through the UN, a combination of assessed payments that run the secretariat, peacekeeping operations and programmes ranging from the International Atomic Energy Agency to the World Health Organisation, and “voluntary” contributions that include what is by far the largest amount of assistance to global humanitarian aid programmes.
Assessments are based on an agreed formula according to national wealth, under which the US pays between 22% and 28% of total costs. Most, but not all, of the assessed and voluntary payments come from the State Department budget.
Threats to decrease or withhold UN payments have been common in the past, particularly in Republican administrations, and the US has often found itself in arrears on assessed funding.
But the Trump administration appears more serious than most in its threats to make deeper and more permanent cuts in payments that would significantly affect UN operations.
At the same time, it has warned that it may withdraw altogether from UN agencies it considers particularly counter-productive.
Chief among them is the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC), a 47-member, Geneva-based agency whose rotating membership has included widely agreed rights violators such as Saudi Arabia.
Although President George W Bush refused to join, President Barack Obama reasoned that it was better to be within the tent than outside.
The principal US criticism of the UNHRC is that it has targetted Israel. But Obama officials argued that the US presence in the organisation had defended Israel and decreased the number of resolutions against it, while leading condemnations of countries such as Syria and North Korea.
During Trump’s first month in office, his administration considered vacating its seat at the council, but decided instead to simply warn it. In a letter to leading humanitarian non-profit organisations it said that “the Human Rights Council requires considerable reform in order for us to continue to participate”.
Foreign Policy also reported on Monday that the State Department had been instructed to seek cuts of more than 50% in funding for UN programmes, although US officials, speaking about budget plans on the condition of anonymity, said that number was above what is being sought.
In her January confirmation hearing, the US ambassador to the UN, Nikki Haley, said she would not “shy away” from using US funding as leverage to change the organisation.
At the same time, however, she said that “I do not think we need to pull money from the UN. We don’t believe in slash-and-burn.
“I haven’t had anyone talk to me about cutting off the aid,” Haley told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee of her conversations with the administration.
But “we need to look at each and every mission, see what we’re doing and see how we can make it more effective.”