Rich, poor divide: Obstacle towards UN reform

One strength of the UN is its universal membership. 

Virtually, every country of the world is either a UN member or a province of a member country.

The same cannot be said about the old League of Nations, which by contrast was flawed by the absence of several countries that are important actors on the global stage.

Recognising the role of power in world order, the UN Charter gave five great powers each a veto over substantive Security Council decisions.

The special privileges enjoyed by the permanent five came under criticism as membership of the UN kept expanding.

The rich and powerful countries that dominated the UN at its initial stages found their interests being usurped by the expanding membership mostly of poor countries who just emerged from colonialism.

These new members have concerns that are different from the rich and powerful nations.

Thus growth of membership affected voting patterns in the UN, where each country has one vote regardless of size and status.

During the UN’s first two decades, votes at the General Assembly regularly favoured America’s interest.

The Soviet Union stood as the main power to use its veto in the Security Council to counterbalance that tendency.

As new independent countries began to predominate, America found itself in the minority on many issues and has now become a country that uses the veto power most often on major decisions.

Differences

Differences over perceived priorities are most clearly exhibited in heated debates over UN budget allocations.

There has always been a controversy centred on how members should interpret the organisation’s charter, which states that “expenses of the organisation shall be borne by members as apportioned by the General Assembly.”

The precise mechanism for allocating budgetary contributions to individual countries is complicated, but historically, it is allocated on the basis of country’s capacity to pay.

Resistance to the budgetary formulae for funding UN activities has always existed. It has, however, grown worse progressively in large part because when the General Assembly apportions expenses, it does so according to majority rule.

The problem is that those with the most votes mostly poor countries of the Global South do not have the money, and the most wealthy and powerful countries mostly from the Global North do not have the votes but have what it takes to fund the UN.

Imbalance

Wide disparities have grown so that the 10 largest contributors to the UN command only 10 votes but pay 82 per cent of the UN budget.

At the other end of the spectrum, the poorest members pay only 18 per cent of the UN budget but commands 182 votes.

The deep imbalance has led to many fierce disputes between the rich and powerful countries on one hand and the poor countries on the other hand over the kind of issues on which the UN attention and resources should be focused.

Major contributors to the UN budget, sensitive to the amount asked of them per the assessment formulae and the purpose to which the funds are put, do not want to pay for programmes they oppose.

The US in particular was historically the most vocal about its dissatisfaction. It pays 22 per cent of the core UN budget and is also a primary contributor to UN peacekeeping and voluntary programmes.

Of late it has been withholding its dues to the UN.

This is due partly to the perception that the UN has now become a forum for criticising rich countries in general and the US in particular.

The US shows displeasure by withholding its dues and sometimes withdrawing from being a member of some UN agencies and programmes.
Japan, which pays 19.5 per cent of the UN core budget, second to the US, is also considering cutting its annual contribution to UN voluntary programmes.

Japan’s monetary contributions to the UN is much more compared to some of the countries enjoying permanent membership on the Security Council, yet its effort to be part of the Council keeps failing all the time.

Reforming the UN is not just issues relating to the interest of poor countries. Rich countries also have grievances to place on the table, creating a complex situation that frustrates the effort towards that direction.

The writer is Director of Programmes, Institute of Current Affairs and Diplomacy. E-mail: Lawmat2014@gmail.com