We pay for What?

By Li Hongmei People's Daily Online

The U.N. have for decades faced financial pressures, as its members have all along been dragged down in a whirlpool of disputes, and as a result, they would pay late or fall more seriously behind. The United States has invariably used its arrears to the U.N. as an effective weapon to coerce the international organization to go through the budgeting reforms as it expected, while its Asian ally Japan has always taken the U.N. Security Council as nothing but a membership club, paying in return for joining in. No gains, no pays. But when facing the global responsibilities, each has its own calculations, and each sticks to its own arguments.

On the other hand, China, as a developing country feeding the largest world's population, has to bear the snowballing arrears, increased on the basis of every fiscal year for UN, or every two years, and nearly tripled over the past seven years---- from 1.54% in the years of 2001-2003 to the present 2.667%. It is projected that China's payment to the U.S. will continue to rise in the coming years, to be mounting to 3.189% in the period of 2010-2012, up 20% over the current rate.

Besides the U.N. arrears, China has also contributed in due time and amount to many other U.N. programs all these years. For example, China donated $4 million to the U.N Trust Fund for Statistic Capacity Building to help it get rolling. And as one of its regular donations, China contributes $2.5 million each year to the U.N. World Food Program (WFP). In 2008, when the roaring grain price almost squeezed dry the program, China promptly injected another $2 million breathing new life to the charity-oriented world body.

On the contrary, the U.S., as the leading economic power house, set a bad precedent to the rest of the world with its long-festering dispute over delinquent U.S. dues. As a matter of fact, the U.S. was and is the world organization's largest debtor, with outstanding assessments of over $1.5 billion even in the Clinton Administration.

In 1986 alone, at the U.N., the U.S. delegation offered a harsh bargain: accept the new form of budgeting, and we will pay up. Reluctantly, other members agreed, adopting a verbal mechanism by which a consensus principle could be adopted, even if it was in violation of the U.N. Charter. However, when consensus budgeting was put in place, the U.S. ignored its pledge to pay off its arrears. As Pres. Regan was finishing his term in office in 1988, as a result, the U.S. owed 78% of arrears to the U.N. regular budget—a record $308 million.

Although the U.S. has since Regan Administration managed to persuade Congress to pay off arrears to the U.S. peacekeeping account, to this year, the U.S. still has $6,000 million in debt, and if this added to its increment of uncovered dues for years, its total debts to the U.N. would be as high as over $ 1 billion.

The new Obama Administration appears to have been endeavoring to revamp the U.S. international image by seeking after the multilateral diplomacy and also by rectifying the used-to-be arrogant attitudes to the U.N., pledging on various international occasions to fulfill the U.S. obligations to the U.N. On Sep.23, when Obama attended the general debates at the U.N. General Assembly, he announced in his speech that the U.S. would resume the cooperation with the U.N. and, when relating the U.N. arrears, he said half jokingly, "we have paid".

Members' distribution of the assessed contributions is based on their specific payment ability, which is defined not only by a country's GDP but its per capita income level as well. Even in 1980s, the German government argued with Washington that the U.S. should pay up or accept a lower assessment, which was rejected by the then U.S. immediately. The U.S. would never like to be underestimated in power but not in obligation.

China, despite the fact that its growing economy is still in its infanthood and it is not long ago that its considerable size of population just shook off poverty, would always readily assume its due international responsibilities. Why China persists in enhancing its share in the U.N. regular budget is actually beyond many ordinary Chinese, as other more visible players never do things without purpose. The U.S. pays for a more assertive veto role, and Japan increases its share with the desire for a long-coveted success----to win a seat as a standing member.

But why China does so? It is self-evident that the more engagement in the world body the more opportunities would be created for the national economic growth and people's livelihood. On top of that, with its increasingly enhanced comprehensive national strength, China has become more visible and vocal on the world stage, and correspondingly, it will have to pitch in to assume its due and even more international obligations, say, offer a hand to ease the U.N. budget woes.

But the outspoken Chinese diplomat Sha Zukang, who is currently head of U.N. Department of Economic and Social Affairs, pointed recently that many developing countries, China included, actually have no say that they deserve in dealing with the international affairs.

"It is unacceptable if China is merely asked to pump money and send staff but has no ear of the U.N.", Said Mr. Sha.