US contributes way more than any other country to this useless organization. That needs to stop. The whole thing should be dismantled and the money put to better use.
True, the UN is quite ineffective and rarely will they do something worth while. The US contributes 2.5 times more than what Japan does. It's like with their military spending, we need to cut some of it, not all.
The US have three times the population of Japan, four times the GDP, and thirty times the area. Whichever method you chose, the amount that the US has to pay seems more than fair. Specially if you consider that they have special privileges such as a permanent seat in the security council and veto power.
If the UN is inefficient (which it is), perhaps we should try to work to improve. Dismantle it, and then having the create a new forum to discuss international matters would be even a greater waste of money.
As a Belgian, I can say that we contribute much more per capita to the UN than the US. Same goes for Sweden, Switzerland, Netherlands, Canada, UK, Germany, France, South Korea, Australia and perhaps a few others.
The UN might nog be perfect, just as we humans continue to be flawed in most things we do. But they do have accomplishments (solved conflicts in Mozambique, Angola, etc.), helped fight diseases all over the world, preventing last year that ebola spread even further. Children rights are acknowledged, Improvement is maybe needed, but throwing everything overboard is to rash.
Here are the numbers for USA/Belgium. Contribution: 604 million/22.1 million = 27.3 times more. Population 323 million /10.3 million = 31.6 time more people. So, Belgium's contribution is slightly more per capita, but not drastically so.
+rocamorar, the USA has a SC seat because it was a leading fighter in WW2, much like the other P5 members. Veto power is the same reason. That has nothing to do with how much it pays. Kapulani3 is right, the USA donates land, money, and time to a worthless organization that overlooks abuses in China (Tibet and Xinjiang aren't even on the decolonization list) and sides with the disgusting antisemites against Israel. Don't forget how they shamefully threw Taiwan to the wayside for Communist murderers in China.
One problem talking about these numbers, is that these are the contributions Assessed from each country. Using a dense and somewhat controversial formula, the US is charged ~$1.87 per capita, and Belgium ~$2.14.
However, in 2017 (easiest year I could find data for), the US additionally gave almost $10 Billion in 'Voluntary' contribuitions, to support other efforts, such as WHO, ICJ, Peacekeeping, and other UN-related activities. That changes the per capita contribution to ~$31.6 per capita for US.
US donations consist of a lot of vouchers which poor countries can use to buy products from US farmers. A big part of these donations can just be seen as subsidies to US farmers.
Once you give a country veto power, you can't exactly take it away. That country would be extremely outraged and could even leave and start a new union, leaving the world in a horrible position.
This seems to be one of those legends that's hard to prove or disprove. At various times, the US has owed money to the UN. But I believe that the spat had to do with billions in unpaid expenses that the UN owed to the US for peacekeeping activities. It seems to be a politically charged issue, so unbiased sources are hard to find. Without more research I can't say for sure.
I'd say that the UN's budget is pretty modest. Obviously they are a pretty ineffective organization, but I think they are generally a force for good and for creating more dialogue. At less than $4 billion a year, it's a bargain. Also, on a per-capita basis, the US pays a similar amount to other first world nations.
If we want to talk about areas where the US is shouldering an unfair burden, then military spending is the obvious elephant.
Kalbahamut, I agree with you. One small example - the UN Volunteer programme. I know a bit about this as I was supported by them to work for a year helping to set up the first ever adult emergency department in Malawi. Without their support, I would not have been able to.
Considering the number of sex trafficking reports by UN "peacekeepers" and the fact that the UN sits around and doesn't get actively involved in conflicts -- it's not only a useless organization but a corrupt one.
Oh no, there's corruption in a world organization! Who would've guessed?
Have you seen the corruption flowing through FIFA, Amnesty International, and literally every other world org? The UN's corruption is bad, but no where near as bad as some others
None of these countries, save for Canada and Mexico, actually pay their required amounts. Check the arrears amounts per country, it is in the billions.
Got most of them, but missed a fair few. Was surprised to see Saudi Arabia there, although they produce a lot of oil, they seem to give a sizeable amount of cash to the UN.
It actually shows more about the countries that spend massive amounts on Arms & Aircraft and little to the UN, but when in assembly those countries have the biggest mouths.
India has the world's 7th largest economy and doesn't even make the top 20 here. Although the USA contributes the most, I think you'll find if you do the maths, that Japan, Germany, Australia, Netherlands, Switzerland, Sweden and Belgium all contribute a larger proportion of GDP than the USA. China, however, has an economy 2/3 the size of the USA, and contributes less than a third of the amount.
The UN is not useless , it is a mechanism of control to solve and resolve disputes that effectively has avoided world war theatre combat since WW2. I don't care who you are the UN works and it is a mere fraction of overall military spending to try the carrot approach. Plus this allows for grievances to be brought before the world by any member and or non member state to have their voice heard. I also disagree that the UN hasn't been put to the test. The mere fact it is still alive proves that it has.
They don't care if it is actually useless or not. But they claim it is useless because they think it doesn't directly benefit them. If you're a farmer in Nebraska, it's hard to see why they should care if Pakistan and India go to war or not. I just wish they would be honest about their politics. It's not useless, they just don't care.
The UN wasn't designed to be the world police but to provide a forum for discussion and prevent wars between the major powers, which worked so far. By bringing all countries together as members, it naturally can't be the world moral compass or something. I'm also pretty sure that if it were "more effective", those complaining about it wouldn't like the result.
Never mind that the UN consists of a large number of agencies and thousands of programs that do all sorts of work, prepare agreements for intl. cooperation etc that ultimately bring lots of good to the world, eradicate diseases, provide refugee aid, facilitate air and sea transport and telecommunications etc etc that in many ways ultimately benefit also a farmer in Nebraska. Wars seem to be the most difficult to manage but that's pretty much a human fault, not limited to UN.
Those who say that the US should be putting the money used for UN contribution to "better use" should definitely put things into perspective, especially when we're talking about the world's first economy, 604M dollars is not a lot, at all.
To give you an idea, for the year 2020, Overseas Contingency Operations were estimated to cost approximately $174 billion (that includes the war on terror, wars in Iraq, in Afghanistan).
Now, we can still debate how much the UN really is useful for maintaining world peace, but only a few that are delusional would argue that the US overseas military actions are doing a better job.
But I'll admit, even though it proves one's point, it is not only about military expenditures. If you have a look at the whole US federal budget, the amount that goes to the UN is negligible, a drop in the ocean.
Not to mention that the UN was never created to meet US interests. It is still not the case today, even if they are the biggest net contributor.
If 604 million is "not a lot", kick on over to me and other Americans once in a while. Couldn't we cut this by a small percentage and put a few million towards actual Americans? The UN is a joke. You have the worst human rights abusers sitting on human rights councils, corrupt predators being caught in other nations on their payroll, and like NATO-- the USA funds most of it and does the heavy lifting, while clowns sit on the panels and make demands or pretend to be useful. Then you have other idiot politicians here who want to turn our decisions over to these globalist goons, to let them decide what is best for the greatest nation on the planet-- screw the UN. The fan club for Ryan Seacrest would be more useful and a better investment than this stupid charade.
The USA is the greatest nation on the planet. Whether you like it, or not. You're welcome to invent the wormhole to Earth 2, where China or Russia is #1, and see how you like things under their lead.
This quiz proves my rule of thumb with Jetpunk quizzes: when in doubt, guess Turkey. It won't always be the correct answer, but if you have one country left to guess, and you have not already guessed Turkey, go for it. I think your odds are pretty decent.
Why isn't India doing anything? Considering that they have a huge economy and a large population, they should be able to donate. It's not because they are developing. China, Turkey, and Mexico are developing and they donate lots.
It's not that India 'isn't doing anything', they only narrowly missed a spot in this quiz as they're currenty #21 in contribution. You also mention China, Mexico and Turkey. These countries are far more developed than India and have a much higher GDP per capita than India.
I really don't know enough about the UN to decide whether it is worthwhile or not or who should be paying more, and after reading all the comments here I still feel the same way. :)
So, rabble, how should they go about curbing their population? Mandate 1 child per family? Require adults to be sterilized? Maybe use a "vaccine" to secretly sterilize the population? How do you humanely curb population growth?
Sterilization & incentivization to encourage people not to birth human beings they're incapable of caring for at the most basic level, such as feeding, sounds like an incredibly humane thing to do.
The fertility rate for India is under 2.2 births per woman and has been decreasing rapidly over the last 15 years. They're nearly at replacement rate. India's population is still growing because their huge growth spurt from decades ago is still slowly working it's way up through the generations (which has happened to nearly every country at some point in the industrialization process).
I'm not saying India isn't overpopulated. It might very well be. But they have already tackled the sources of this problem and are just still dealing with the fallout. The only way to "curb" their population growth even further at this point WOULD be something like a 1-child-policy or mass murder.
What do countries get for giving the UN hundreds of millions of dollars? Relevancy? A stronger position when enforcing things like maritime boundaries (Can imagine that’d be important to Japan, Netherlands, Australia, SK, Sweden, Turkey.. etc).
Seems surprising that someone like India, Pakistan, Indonesia, maybe Philippines/Vietnam/Thailand, South Africa, Egypt, Colombia, Chile, Peru, spend so little on it. Seems like they’re some of the benefactors.
I’d wonder if China was just trying to pressure the USA into spending more; but $0.5-1 billion dollars doesn’t seem like it’d be a concern. I wonder if Russia has always coasted along or not.
I’d like to know what accounts for the discrepancy in contributions. I guess it’s more-or-less G7 countries at the top- but then why allow India/Russia/Saudi Arabia/Brazil to spend so little
If the UN is inefficient (which it is), perhaps we should try to work to improve. Dismantle it, and then having the create a new forum to discuss international matters would be even a greater waste of money.
The UN might nog be perfect, just as we humans continue to be flawed in most things we do. But they do have accomplishments (solved conflicts in Mozambique, Angola, etc.), helped fight diseases all over the world, preventing last year that ebola spread even further. Children rights are acknowledged, Improvement is maybe needed, but throwing everything overboard is to rash.
However, in 2017 (easiest year I could find data for), the US additionally gave almost $10 Billion in 'Voluntary' contribuitions, to support other efforts, such as WHO, ICJ, Peacekeeping, and other UN-related activities. That changes the per capita contribution to ~$31.6 per capita for US.
If we want to talk about areas where the US is shouldering an unfair burden, then military spending is the obvious elephant.
Have you seen the corruption flowing through FIFA, Amnesty International, and literally every other world org? The UN's corruption is bad, but no where near as bad as some others
Never mind that the UN consists of a large number of agencies and thousands of programs that do all sorts of work, prepare agreements for intl. cooperation etc that ultimately bring lots of good to the world, eradicate diseases, provide refugee aid, facilitate air and sea transport and telecommunications etc etc that in many ways ultimately benefit also a farmer in Nebraska. Wars seem to be the most difficult to manage but that's pretty much a human fault, not limited to UN.
To give you an idea, for the year 2020, Overseas Contingency Operations were estimated to cost approximately $174 billion (that includes the war on terror, wars in Iraq, in Afghanistan).
Now, we can still debate how much the UN really is useful for maintaining world peace, but only a few that are delusional would argue that the US overseas military actions are doing a better job.
But I'll admit, even though it proves one's point, it is not only about military expenditures. If you have a look at the whole US federal budget, the amount that goes to the UN is negligible, a drop in the ocean.
Not to mention that the UN was never created to meet US interests. It is still not the case today, even if they are the biggest net contributor.
Sincerely.
16/20 (80%) is better than only 1.1% of the rest of you guessers. Interesting.
I'm not saying India isn't overpopulated. It might very well be. But they have already tackled the sources of this problem and are just still dealing with the fallout. The only way to "curb" their population growth even further at this point WOULD be something like a 1-child-policy or mass murder.
Seems surprising that someone like India, Pakistan, Indonesia, maybe Philippines/Vietnam/Thailand, South Africa, Egypt, Colombia, Chile, Peru, spend so little on it. Seems like they’re some of the benefactors.
I’d wonder if China was just trying to pressure the USA into spending more; but $0.5-1 billion dollars doesn’t seem like it’d be a concern. I wonder if Russia has always coasted along or not.
I’d like to know what accounts for the discrepancy in contributions. I guess it’s more-or-less G7 countries at the top- but then why allow India/Russia/Saudi Arabia/Brazil to spend so little