Under the terms of the UN Charter, Member States are legally
obligated to pay assessed dues that support the UN regular
budget. If Member States do not pay their dues, they are considered
to be in arrears to the organization and at a certain point
are in danger of losing their ability to vote in the UN’s
General Assembly. The UN regular budget funds the UN’s
operations in its Secretariat, mainly housed in New York and
Geneva, and functions that support the UN’s operational
capacity around the world. The UN budget runs on two-year
cycles, and Member States are assessed dues on a yearly basis
at the beginning of each year.
Key Steps Leading to the Current Crisis: Budget cap
Plus Disagreement on UN reform
Last year, in the discussions about the UN’s 2006-2007
budget, the United States was successful in an effort to link
approval of the UN’s budget authority to progress on
the UN reform agenda. While the two-year budget was agreed
to in principle, a $950 million “cap” was placed
on the spending authority of this budget—which represents
approximately 6 months of funding based on the approved $3.6
billion biennium budget. Ambassador Bolton made a statement
on December 6, 2005 explaining the U.S.’ concerns in
adopting a full two-year budget:
“It is becoming clear that management reforms that our
leaders agreed to in September will not all be implemented
by the end of the calendar year. Consequently, we have proposed
adopting an interim budget… to provide adequate time
to consider the Secretariat’s reviews of mandates and
UN regulations and rules. We have concerns about the wisdom
of adopting a two-year budget before Member States can make
all the decisions needed to implement important reforms, including
a mandate review.”
The adoption of this budget cap was an unprecedented move
that was resented by many Member States. South Africa's U.N.
Ambassador and incoming G-77 President Dumisani Kumalo criticized
supporters of the spending cap in a statement to the press
for trying to "force others to accept their vision of
the reform by resorting to coercive measures." If the
cap is not lifted by the time this spending authority runs
out—which is expected to occur in mid-late June or early
July depending on a number of factors—the UN will not
be able to expend additional resources.
On April 28, 2006, Member States of the United Nations broke
over 20 years of precedent by voting on a resolution in the
UN’s Fifth Committee, a subsidiary arm of the General
Assembly that focuses on budgetary matters. In the past, decisions
in that Committee had been made by consensus—a principle
that was developed to promote a cooperative spirit on budget
matters and that kept those who foot more of the UN’s
bills from being outvoted by the longer list of Member States
who pay less. The vote concerned a package of reform proposals
put forward by Secretary-General Kofi Annan in a report, called
“Investing in the United Nations: for a Stronger Organization
worldwide,” designed to make the organization, and the
budget process itself, more efficient. By a vote of 108-50
on a resolution put forward by the Group of 77, further consideration
of many of these proposals was significantly delayed. This
Fifth Committee action was approved by the General Assembly
on May 8, 2006 by a vote with a similar breakdown.
The discussions leading up to the votes on the Secretary General’s
Report, and the votes themselves in the General Assembly (GA)
and the 5th Committee, reflected a split between the countries
of the Group of 77 and China (G-77), and the larger UN donors,
such as the U.S.; member states of the European Union; Japan;
and the CANZ nations of Canada, Australia, and New Zealand.
Views of Member States:
In introducing the draft resolution
on the Secretary General’s (SG) report,
Ambassador Dumisano Kumalo of South
Africa, on behalf of the G-77, indicated that the G-77 “is
on record as strongly supporting the strengthening of oversight
and accountability of the organization,” but that it
had some issues with areas that “touch on the role and
prerogatives of Member States in the GA that are clearly enshrined
in the charter.” The most important of these “roles”
for the G-77 involves the budget. On that, Ambassador Kumalo
went on to say,
“However, we do not understand
or accept that in order for the Secretary General to carry
out his duties, this should be accompanied by the denial of
the right of all Member States to pronounce on the administration
of the United Nations, including on its budgetary decisions.
To suggest that a "small but representative group of
Members States" can replace the role of all Member States
in carrying out the oversight responsibilities of the General
Assembly is to deny every Member of the United Nations the
role due to them and to attempt to amend the equality of Member
States that is enshrined in the Charter.
“The Group of 77 and China stresses
in the draft resolution before you that proposals 20 and 21
do not bear any relation to the requests of the Assembly as
outlined in resolution 60/1 or in any other legislative mandate
adopted by the Assembly.
“The Group of 77 and China strongly believes that the
right of every Member State to have an equal say in the decision-making
of the Organization must be upheld. This right is not dependent
on the financial contributions of Member States to the budget
of the Organization.”
Proposals 20 and 21 to which Ambassador
Kumalo refers are the proposals in the SG’s report that
suggest changing the way the 5th Committee considers budget
issues. The SG’s report envisions that budget details
would be considered by “small but representative groups”
of Member States, rather than the 5th Committee as a whole,
and that these discussions would keep to a “strict timetable.”
The G-77 fears that such a change would result in a greater
role for the donor countries and weaken the voices of G-77
members in budget debates.
On the other side of the aisle are the
largest contributors to the UN budget, who have tied lifting
the 6-month spending cap, which expires June 30, to significant
reform of the UN. While impressive reform in many areas has
been made, specifically in areas directly under the SG’s
purview, it is unclear just how much reform would satisfy
these donor states, particularly when it comes to budget.
Most of these donors find the current budget process unwieldy
and overly time-consuming at best, and inherently unfair in
that they have too little control over the money that their
governments are contributing to the organization at worst.
In a June 10 speech to the Foreign Policy
Association, Sir Emyr Jones Parry, the UK’s Permanent
Representative at the UN indicated his thinking on the votes
in the 5th Committee and GA on the SG’s proposals. He
stated,
“We are in no doubt that the present
system of attempting to approve budgets within the UN is broken.
National parliaments do not generally consider the detail
of budgets through a committee made up of every member of
parliament, from all parties, by consensus. The present system
can be chronically inefficient. Some of the Secretary-General's
proposals were attempts to address this. It is extremely frustrating
that he has been prevented from explaining in greater detail
to the General Assembly his thinking on how such a system
could have been made to work for the UN.
“That was why the UK, the European
Union, and others totalling 50 countries, voted against the
G77's resolution on 28 April. Contrary to assertions from
the Chair of the G77, this was not a consensus resolution:
it comprehensively failed to incorporate the views, on many
essential issues, of the European Union and others.”
Following the April 28 vote in the 5th Committee on the G-77’s
resolution, U.S. Permanent Representative John Bolton summed
up his explanation of the U.S. “no” vote by saying,
“Mr. Chairman, absent top to bottom
management reform, the United Nations will continue to be
ill-equipped to meet the current demands that we as member
states place upon the organization. The United States is committed
to pursuing necessary management reforms to ensure that the
United Nations remains an effective, efficient, transparent,
and accountable organization. As such, the United States is
joined by many other states in voting ‘no’ against
the Resolution tabled by the Group of 77 and China.”
Moving Forward:
On June 28, 2006, Member States reached
an agreement on lifting the cap on the UN’s budget,
allowing for the organization’s function to continued
uninterrupted. While this has diffused the immediate threat
to possible shutdown of the UN’s operation, there are
still critical decisions left to be made on the scope and
road map for reform, allowing the United Nations to deal with
the many pressing issues on its agenda. The continued willingness
of each nation to compromise and wield reasoned diplomacy
will set the tone for the workings of the institution for
years to come.
