Do countries just ante up “whatever they feel they can?” Are there any notorious tightwads with either cash or other contributions? Is the US typically stuck with the bill? How does it work?
There is a fixed scheme stating what portion of the UN budget every member nation has to contribute, based upon the nations’ wealth and economic power (the USA, largest single payer, is assessed at 22 per cent.) Every two years, the UN is drawing up a budget plan, and then the money the organization needs is split up among the member states according to the scheme. The regular budget for the current budget period, 2002-03, is approximately $2.6 billion.
Traditionally, willingness to pay UN contributions is low in many nations, and some nations, among them the US, delayed overdue payments over years to exert pressure on the UN.
The UN’s various subagencies specialized on certain issues, like UNICEF, UNESCO, and whatever, have separate budgets. A nation can also be a member of UNICEF without being a UN member (Switzerland has been, IIRC, a UNICEF member long before joining the UN in September 2002).
Check this for details.
Yeah, there is one coutry that “caps” it’s contributions. In other words, all the others pay a percentage of GDP regardless but this one country says it’ll only pay so much. Then it says that’s still too much and it further caps its contributions.
Obviously, it means the others have to subsidise the membership of that country. Whether that means “tightwad” I’m not sure … I guess it rather depends on how you feel about your own country.
Here’s, maybe, a starting point:
- I can’t (at the moment) find a really good link on the UN site that we’ve used before … I’lll keep looking …
… btw, I’m sure the world is terribly grateful to the US for its 44 peacekeepers.
Muffin, I bet a bunch of people would be surprised to know that. I know I am. What about contributions of armed forces?
That’s what the US tries push in place of cash.