new internationalist
issue 262 - December 1994


|
UN membership embraces virtually the whole world but continues to
expand - due in the 1960s to decolonization and more recently to the arrival
of smaller nation-states, especially after the break-up of the USSR.

The Swiss people voted against joining the UN in a referendum in 1986;
Serbia and Montenegro have been debarred from taking up the former Yugoslavian
seat at the UN and have to reapply.
|
|
Official
representations of the UN's structure show the principal organs as satellites
revolving around the General Assembly. But a more realistic diagram
would be as below.
...THE REALITY

|
The decisions
of the Security Council are binding on member states; those of the General
Assembly are not. The five main victors in World War Two have permanent
membership of the Security Council and an individual veto over its decisions.
These five nations in practice also appoint the Secretary-General, though
officially the appointment is made by the Assembly on the Council's
'recommendation'.
|
|
By
early 1993 the UN was deploying four times the number of troops, 70 times
more police and over 100 times the number of civilian personnel as in
1987 at nearly 10 times the annual cost.2
CONTRUBUTION OF FORCES TO
UN PEACEKEEPING BY COUNTRY
Payment by the UN
helps poor countries like Pakistan and Bangladesh offset the cost of the
large standing army they want to keep for local strategic reasons. France
and Britain, meanwhile, contribute mainly to the force in Bosnia, which
is in their sphere of interest.
|
|
The UN is routinely criticized as a big bureaucracy wasting
vast amounts of public money. Yet its budget and staff numbers are small
given what the world expects it to deliver.
1993
UN regular budget
(cost of Secretariat, General Assembly, Security Council etc) $1.2 billion
UN peacekeeping budget $3.6 billion2
The
bill for the regular budget and peacekeeping is roughly the same as
New York City spends on its fire and police departments.1
The
bill for the UN's regular budget plus the costs of all its agencies
and projects ($6.5 billion in 1993) is about the same as US citizens
spend on cut flowers and potted plants each year.3
The
UN Secretariat employed 9,094 staff in 1990 - a smaller civil service
than the Canadian city of Winnipeg or the staff of the advertising company
Saatchi & Saatchi.1
The
UN and its agencies employed 51,484 people worldwide in 1990 - fewer
than the civil service of the US state of Wyoming or the health service
in Wales.1
|
|
WHO SHOULD
PAY THE BILLS...
|
|
The US is by far the biggest contributor to the regular UN budget,
though its current 25% share has been reduced from the 49% it undertook
to pay in 1946.

No country can pay less than 0.01% of the regular budget. That was $102,000
in 1993 and was paid by 87 member countries at the bottom of the scale.
Every member state must pay in US dollars - a severe disadvantage for
poor countries. UN reformers are keen to reduce the percentage paid by
the US to 10 or 12 per cent since the bigger the sum it pays, the more
leverage it inevitably has.
|
|
The UN suffers constantly from late payment of dues by governments.
The Secretary-General is not allowed to borrow even one dollar for a
week, yet governments are charged no interest on the late payment of
their dues.

The US is consistently behind in its payments to the UN yet the location
of the main UN buildings is worth $800 million a year in net income
to greater New York region - not counting the millions more spent in
the US to procure materials for UN peacekeeping and development efforts.5
|
1 Renewing the
United Nations System, Erskine Childers with Brian Urquhart, Development
Dialogue 1994:1.
2 Office of the Spokesman for the Secretary-General, 13 July 1994.
3 Surveys of Current Business, US Department of Commerce.
4 Assessment Table UN Doc A/48/503/Add.1, 11 Nov 1993.
5 UN Doc A/47/419/Add 3.




