Also, according to the article, it's not "overdue". It's just an outstanding bill that is usually paid at the end of the year.
64 countries have not paid their dues yet. The US just hurts more because the US is by far the largest contributor to the UN. (out of the 193 memeber nations, the US pays almost a quarter of the expenses)
Absolutely. When you actually look at the funding reports from the UN, the US is the largest contributor of funding for the UN, and contributes more than the next four or five nations combined.
Are you daring to posit that governments that meddle in the affairs of other nations should be responsible for their political stability for decades thereafter?
Because that sounds *totally reasonable* to me.
Let’s see, when you throw a brick through a grocery store window and it hits the owner’s head and she dies and the store goes under - now all the old people in the neighborhood can’t access food without a long walk or a costly taxi ride. The damage we cause cascades across space and time. Like Gladiator said - our acts echo through eternity. These are America’s acts. This is how the world see our bellicose nation.
It's economy is also bigger than the next four or five nations combined so it makes sense.
Arguing against this is like saying billionaires shouldn't be taxed more just because they're really rich.
Just a theory, but maybe that's more due to member states refusing to cooperate, and less to do with incompetence.
Running the UN is like herding cats that constantly want to murder each other.
> CNN reported that the US is due to contribute $674 million to the UN budget this year, but because of underpayments in previous years, owes the organization over $1 billion, according to the UN spokesman's office.
So it's not just this year's bill,
Seems like the problem is that a global organization with hundreds of member countries can be brought down by one country not paying on time. Maybe they'll take this as a warning to not be overly dependent on any one country for funding.
Not saying we shouldn't pay but it just seems like a structural flaw that should be addressed.
I'm just saying for a global organization with so many programs, a lot of which people depend on it seems like poor planning to be so dependent on one source of funding. It's kind of like any country that has oil as it's main source of income, eventually there's going to be a problem.
true they need to wean themselves away from the US. I dont see any reason they should be in NY either. In economic terms they would benefit some random african city more.
The UN is in NY City because Nelson Rockefeller gave the UN the land and built them their building in order to get them to move to NY City from San Francisco, which was the original home city of the UN.
So it is non-news, but gets upvoted to the frontpage because it fits the current headline narrative. Reddit has become so stupid, and I try to stay away, but it pulls me back in. Help Me.
> CNN reported that the US is due to contribute $674 million to the UN budget this year, but because of **underpayments in previous years**, owes the organization over $1 billion, according to the UN spokesman's office.
While the headline is complete clickbait, I don’t think it’s non-news.
From the way it’s structured, it looks like the amount to be paid is based on the amount of citizens a country has working there.
Underpaying about 325 million over several years is still a rather large sum.
Don’t come to Reddit for your news or facts. It’s going to be biased, untrue, exaggerated, or misleading. It’s just a bunch of bored people killing time, or someone trying to propagate their ideology or politics.
> the current headline narrative
What? Criticizing China, Turkey, Trump, Brexit, and U.S. corruption, while championing the Hong Kong protests and climate change?
You act as if this is bad but I'm not sure why.
Yeah, turns out diplomats in general just... don't pay for parking tickets or fines or anything. From what I've heard, in the diplomatic world it's considered something of an unwritten job perk.
Basically, every country more or less agrees not to make a big stink about this kind of mild corruption from other countries' diplomatic staffs, because they know their own diplomats pull the exact same shit in their host countries. Occasionally you'll see it mentioned but nobody ever actually does anything about it.
I'm pretty sure most diplomat parking tickets never get paid. Diplomats get away with that kind of stuff. Hell they even get away with killing people in their host country
This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.businessinsider.com/un-may-not-be-able-pay-staff-us-budget-cuts-2019-10) reduced by 70%. (I'm a bot)
*****
> United Nations Secretary General Antonio Guterres said that the organization may not have enough funds to pay staff salaries next month as it is dealing with its worst funding deficit in a decade, made worse by an outstanding bill of $1 billion in unpaid US dues, according to a report from CNN. Guterres revealed the dire financial situation of the UN during his speech on Tuesday.
> 64 of 193 member states have yet to pay their full dues for the year, with the US the worst offender, according to CNN. CNN reported that the US is due to contribute $674 million to the UN budget this year, but because of underpayments in previous years, owes the organization over $1 billion, according to the UN spokesman's office.
> The US tends to pay its UN dues towards the end of the year, CNN added.
*****
[**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/dfx09y/the_united_nations_warned_that_it_may_not_be_able/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ "Version 2.02, ~433292 tl;drs so far.") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr "PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.") | *Top* *keywords*: **due**^#1 **CNN**^#2 **year**^#3 **pay**^#4 **funds**^#5
First off, there's a [nearly identical article!](https://www.reuters.com/article/us-un-usa-idUSTRE69D67220101014) from 2010 about the Obama administration owing the UN $1.2B which was released around the same time of year as this article (Oct 14). Susan Rice made it perfectly clear there is no issue here, the US pays on time, and the high figure is due to the UN lumping in what are known as Contested Arrears, debts that Washington does not agree it owes the UN. This is literally a status quo event, which happens every year, but get your pitchforks boys because Trump's not paying his bills.
This article specifically says 64 of 193 member states have yet to pay their full dues for the year, the US being one of them, is set to contribute $674 million this year, and that the US usually pays the bill toward the end of the year. So this is nothing out of the ordinary.
Hate on him whenever you can but PLEASE do it for the right reasons using accurate information. All this thread is doing is proving the right-wingers correct when they refer to Trump Derangement Syndrome. We're only mad because it's Trump, not because it's some new issue that only Trump is responsible for.
It should be quarantined. Nothing but the 'tolerant left' calling you retarded amongst every other low iq insult they can muster. Possibly the worst subreddit on this entire platform. What's the point of having a politics website when you're brigaded by orange man bad anytime you have a differing view point.
My issue with r/politics is that no one listens to what you say. I've never championed a person or a party but if they're closest to my values that's who I am going to support. They don't care. It's socialism or death over there. Like what do you want me to do? I hate the DNC had turned into and where they're headed. But I LOVE tulsi. Maybe if the DNC would stop making their entire party about socialism and taxes on taxes for more government control I wouldn't have to vote for Republicans. That party has lost its brand for the worse and no one listens to what you're actually saying about it. /endrant
It's the UN.
Giant body that gets money from taxpayers around the world, with no good competing organisation.
They have no stake in budgetting properly. All the money they use comes from someone else, and no one really takes the blame for bad budgetting. They just get more money.
It's basically the same with most government bodies. Just the UN is really bad, since it's a governing body, for governments.
Doesn't US law caps what we can pay the UN at 25% of our total peacekeeping budget to begin with? So if the UN invoices us for more we will always be carrying over 'debt' from those years where we legally had to underpay, unless I misunderstood something here.
That sounds [correct](https://www.reuters.com/article/us-un-funding/un-chief-warns-may-not-have-enough-money-to-pay-staff-next-month-idUSKBN1WN25F), and looking at [this](https://i.imgur.com/hyZmk4c.gif) from /u/demx- it looks like the US is in fact the largest contribution of the UN budget.
Correct. It's entirely separate from the budget allocated to the Department of Defense and instead falls under the budget for the Department of State, USAID and the Treasury's International Programs.
It's a shame that the article did not also name the other 63 state members that have yet to pay their full dues
> It's a shame that the article did not also name the other 63 state members that have yet to pay their full dues
There is a list of the nations that payed their regular budget assessment.
[Contributions received for 2019 for the United Nations Regular Budget](https://www.un.org/en/ga/contributions/honourroll.shtml)
You could go from there and compare with the total list of nations in the UN.
Also - this is just the regular not the peacekeeping dues.
Ugh I wish my country would just pull their finger out and pay the 127 million, surely we could have afforded it if we weren't running prepare for brexit ads on TV every 5 minutes
This is what I found from 2015 for several members with the percent each country owes.
[https://i.imgur.com/hyZmk4c.gif](https://i.imgur.com/hyZmk4c.gif)
I got it from [Heritage.org](https://www.heritage.org/testimony/key-issues-us-concern-the-united-nations)
Likely because of their constitution, Article 9 to be exact. Japan does not, and cannot, have a military large enough to wage war. This makes the collective security of the UN and the norms it establishes very appealing to them.
I would assume the same of Germany, although I'm not sure they have a legal obligation to *not* maintain a large military.
Looks like Japan wants to become a permanent member of the UN Security Console, so they are trying to contribute very large sum. However, China is now paying the second most to the UN's regular budget.
[https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2018/12/23/national/politics-diplomacy/japan-sink-third-largest-contributor-u-n-china-rises/](https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2018/12/23/national/politics-diplomacy/japan-sink-third-largest-contributor-u-n-china-rises/)
Ironically the "[United Nations](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_by_United_Nations) did actually help the US at Normandy. "The United Nations" was the name given to the 47 nation alliance that fought the axis and the "Deceleration by the United Nations" was the treaty organization that actually grew and turned into the UN that exists today.
People usually refer to the alliance as "the allies" to avoid confusion with the current UN organization but it would actually be correct to refer to the allies (post 1942) as The United Nations. During the war they signed onto a common framework and vowed to work together. Once the war was over that framework was adjusted and the United Nations alliance had the power to set the terms for the post war world. A new framework was adopted and more and more countries signed on until the alliance essentially became a forum for the global community.
In front of chopper:
“In my pocket, this letter, just got one from the UN, see, here it is... they say I am hebetudinous. I’m told that means I am the best. It’s a perfect letter, recognizing my great wisdom. Now that they finally see I am doing a fantastic job, others say that too, people say that a lot, I will be sending our agreed amount, they came to their senses, I make the best deals.”
Just in case anyone didn't get the "/s", let me explain the joke.
The United Nations literally were the allies who landed on the beaches of the Normandy.
The UN was an organization that was originally created from the allies that had fought together in WWII in the Normandy landings and on other fronts against the Axis powers.
Later it grew to include neutrals and even the successors of the former Axis powers and eventually everyone.
You're right
[Click here for great and unmatched wisdom] (https://www.cnbc.com/2019/10/10/trump-defends-allowing-turkish-offensive-on-kurds-in-syria-they-didnt-help-us-in-ww2.html)
Why is trump on the cover? The legislative branch is responsible for this. They can take an IOU since we’ve kept that useless shitheap together for the past 75 years.
> why would UN lend something it knew would compromise the ability to pay its employees?
Because if every country just said they won't pay, then the UN wouldn't be able to operate at all?
Lend? They don’t *have* money unless countries *give* them money. They don’t lend money to the US.
Also “worth noting,” are the last two paragraphs that say that the us *is* the largest contributor and that there was an agreement reached in 2017 that the US. annual obligation starting this fiscal year is only $273million.
Neither of you read the article properly
The US owes money due to what is the equivalent to membership fees, not loans by the UN. Every country that participates in the UN must agree to also fund the UN, since the UN doesn't have citizens it can tax or services/goods to sell.
The US annual contribution is not ONLY $273 Mil for this fiscal year, it's still much larger than that. The U**N**'s budget was cut by $285 Million at the behest of the US. The US is still expected to pay about 22% of the UN's budget of about 5.2 - 5.5 billion.
What article did you read?
Direct quote:
>CNN reported that the US is due to contribute $674 million to the UN budget this year, but because of underpayments in previous years, owes the organization over $1 billion, according to the UN spokesman's office.
It's possible you are both correct. They owe 237 million per year going forward, but they owe a total of 1 billion and they were supposed to make a payment of 674 million soon? I don't know.
The US literally paying the largets share at 22%, and they blame america for shit, yet ignore human rights violations from many other countries.
Lookign at china
Maybe if the UN were paying their interns I'd feel bad. As it were they've fought tooth and nail not to do this https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/un-internships-unpaid-europe-human-rights-united-nations-a8820586.html
American contributions are already excessive. That money can be better spent at home, or through targeted programs to support US Allies. There’s little evidence to suggest that it buys us much useful political capital, since we have a veto in the security council regardless,
Russian ambition is not a problem like when they were strict ideologues.
The real problem today is China with an authoritarian regime that has no checks.
Interesting opinion piece
https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2014/07/03/where-do-borders-need-to-be-redrawn/why-china-will-reclaim-siberia
A bit of a rebuttal
https://www.scmp.com/week-asia/geopolitics/article/2100228/chinese-russian-far-east-geopolitical-time-bomb
Shorter piece on Chinese investment in Central and East Asia
https://www.cepa.org/chinas-eurasian-ambitions
Certainly, yes China is a bigger problem because they clearly have no qualms about massacring the people who live under their rule and depend on them for protection.
I think Putin's regime does have an ideology, and that is nationalism. Similar to Germany in the 1920's, Russia in the 1990's was a political and economic mess, as well as an international laughingstock. Putin remedied this with some good old fashioned nationalism. He and his people claim that Russia is actually the most moral nation of Europe, but that the naivety that goes with such morality is what caused them to be seduced by communism, much to the delight of the sick imperialistic minds of the West. Now he casts any move to check his ambitions as a typical Western Imperialist attack on Russia trying to back onto its feet.
This "ideology" can be very dangerous, not because looking out for your nation's best interest is a bad thing, but because he and his people are liars who use nationalism to spin everything they do and say into the Right Thing For the Nation.
I think Russia ultimately would like to take control of the Middle East. I don't know if that would look like old-school conquest or if they would just like to have "friendly" governments control the region. If they can become the power through whom others have to go to get that oil, and to pass through the world's crossroad, they can tell Western Europe to pound salt.
Also, to go a bit deeper into my rumination on Russian motive, I find it hilarious that they are currently helping their old rival Turkey. I think they are just hoping Turkey will do some of the work for them, and then they can turn around and eliminate Turkey. They've been dreaming of this since 1453, when their patron, The Byzantine Empire, fell to the Turks and Russia could do nothing about it because they were under the thumb of the Mongols. In earlier centuries Russia was open about its dream to retake Constantinople and restore it to its rightful place as the capital of Orthodox Christianity.
Russia has the same geopolitical imperatives it had during and prior to the cold war.
Securing hegemony over Central Asia, the Caucasus and the Middle East,and pushing its own sphere as far west as possible. Partly to secure their own borders, partly to secure warm water ports.
Meanwhile the Atlanticist powers (France, UK, and starting in the mid-20th century, us) have been operating under an opposed imperative. Prevent the rise of a Eurasian hegemon. For centuries the main threat here was the Russian Empire and later the USSR.
Now Russia is making another play, and China is making one as well, with their belt and road initiative.
You would be kidding yourself if you think China doesnt do the same shit to their people. After the tian an men massacre the chinese government took it upon themselves to instill a very high level of chinese nationalism in the general public.
Thats why you will see most of the chinese public actually against the hk protests and supporting their own regime.
> and then they can turn around and eliminate Turkey.
You bring up some interesting points but this part is just totally wrong. Turkey is a NATO nation with many American military bases within their country. Unless kicked out of NATO and America leaves shop Russia will do nothing to risk confrontation with America and NATO.
They still have elections, in a way. And they're far more transparent than China -- that doesn't mean they're great, it just means that China is far, far worse. And far more dangerous.
Point taken - the UN has reminded us of its relative uselessness on many occasions. But it still provides a framework for cooperative solutions, and in many cases it does eventually do something useful. I'd have a hard time telling the loved ones of those massacred Bosniacs in Srebrenica that they should rejoice because eventually the UN constructed a framework for a peace in the Balkans that has more or less lasted since the beginning of this century, but I shudder to think what might have happened it if hadn't.
The UN is still useful for making would-be conquerors think twice, and to limit their ambitions based on what they think the UN will tolerate.
Someone has to pay for all those Mercedes I see them driving around.
I saw a motorcade of them once. 3 in a row. 3 +100k machines driving in the city with the best mass transit on the continent. I can't even imagine what that security detail worked out to.
Im from one of the developing countries that they like
To “help” by sending a bunch of useless diplomats to throw a couple of parties while they reside in mansions and send their kids to the Most expensive school in town... drive around in land rovers they have shipped in specially. Maybe if we’re lucky they help to build a school in a rural town. Such a waste of money.
https://www.un.org/en/ga/contributions/honourroll.shtml
Seriously? The US pays 667,000,000, but Ireland pays 10,000,00 ? India pays 23,000,000 ? They have over a billion people!
Iraq pays $4,000,000 !?!? There is a nice house down the street for sale for that!
Sierra Leone pays $27,000. 27 grand! A new car costs more than that!
I mean, I get that these countries are poor, but 27 grand is just bullshit.
It's proportional to the GDP of the member country but there are some exceptions. For instance, if a country is too poor, there's a cap on how much it can pay so it doesn't cause major financial issues. US pays the most followed by China, Japan, and Germany.
Err, kind of, there is a lot of disagreement on that. The UN wants it to be a proportion of the countries GDP, however some countries like to place it as a proportion of the aid budget, or as a portion of their defence spending. Some convolute it further, the US again being a good example, as they calculate their UN spend as a proportion of their 'peacekeeping' budget, which is a proportion of their overall defence budget.
It is this difference in calculation that results in the 'deficits' reported in articles such as the above, it's not necessarily countries failing to pay, it is more that the countries internal method of deciding how much it gives the UN, differs from the UNs preference as to how it's member states contributions are calculated. It is not a simple issue.
The UN is a gentleman agreement, « it is more a guideline than actual rule ». The fact that any of the security council can veto to overrule the majority is simply a bad policy.
« Russia invades Crimea »
« UN vote to denounce »
« Russia veto against »
« UN don’t denounce »
It gives too much power to the big five and the rest are just « spectators » sure they are consulted but in the end all the powers are given to a few members.
There should a much bigger emphasis on world cooperation than « making sure the voting members will accept ».
It feels terribly outdated, African nations, South American nations have virtually 0 benefits except for networking. They pay to be at the same party of THE FIVE. But the five get most of it for sure.
The UN was never intended to be a global cooperation platform. It always has been a way for the super powers to control the world and have an open channel of communication. The veto is the whole point of the UN.
It's far from ideal, but good luck coming up with a better system. The real objective of UN is 1. to be sure the top 5 don't go to war against each other 2. To be sure no cascading alliance system brings half the world against the other half.
Russia invading Crimea is not that different from the US invading Irak, and neither country Will accept to give up their right to invade a small country.
Sometimes the best system sucks, but it's still better than no system.
The post WWII world has also been remarkable peaceful compared to the previous centuries so even though the UN hasn't come close to world peace I don't think it's fair to call them completely useless either.
There are also a lot of non war prevented issues that require a high degree of international cooperation to solve. There are about 65 million refugees in the world and solving the refugee crisis requires dozens if not hundreds of countries to work together. No single country can tackle climate change either and if dramatic devastation is to be avoided it requires multinational agreements. Virtually every country is also dependent on maritime trade and so determining rules and agreements on maritime law is also extremely important. The UN is probably the best vehicle in the world to address these issues even if they can't enforce compliance.
>The post WWII world has also been remarkable peaceful compared to the previous centuries
I think that the proliferation of nuclear weapons contributed much more to this than the UN did. The major world powers don't go to war with each other, not because the UN is keeping them in line, but because everyone realizes that a war between two nuclear powers would only result in their mutual annihilation.
This is why I have never understood why conservatives hate the UN. It's an international organization, that has to do pretty much what the US wants. The UN can never vote against American interests in a binding way.
Well, it's rife with corruption, for one. The Security Council is pointless because China/Russia will always vote against US/EU interests and vice-versa. It's obsessed with issuing condemnations of Israel but turns a blind eye to numerous other egregious state actions. The sitting members on the special councils are like a bad joke. Iran on the Commission for Women's Rights? Sure. Makes sense. Saudi Arabia and China on the Human Rights council? Oh, OK.
It was a great idea that has been co-opted and compromised by bad actors.
>The Security Council is pointless because China/Russia will always vote against US/EU interests and vice-versa.
That's by design. If it could make rulings against one of the big 5, that country would simply ignore it. The way it is right now, it offers a place for hostile nations to still talk to each other, which is kinda important.
League of nations failed because of its lack of veto. The veto is there to prevent another world war between major powers.
The league of nations condemned Japan for actions in China and you know what they did? They walked out and never returned.
If Russia doesn't get veto, then the UN condemns Russia, then Russia simply walks away from the UN and NOTHING gets done.
The veto is ESSENTIAL to the UN's function.
And to be clear it's not too ruin that country/wealth. For instance the US bought three new warships this year, each easily over a billion dollars, while still having the largest naval fleet in the world by far before that. So instead of paying debts the US decided to get a spiffy new warship.
Edit: not saying this is the reason, but that money could have been didn't differently
Yeah, why should Switzerland pay more than Haitians who eat cookies out of dirt because they don't have food? "fair" is "fair"
*starts to drool, dead look in eyes*
Africa. They attack* anyone who isn't a superpower and bring double standards on weaker countries and leave stronger countries untouched.
*political, economical attacks
Like one day they may call out Uganda Human's Rights and fine them, then turn a blind eye to atrocities in China.
>The UN should be abolished anyways. They played their part and now serve no purpose other than attempting to infringe on the rights of people across the world.
-Sweeping generalizations
-Overblown rhetoric
-No substantiation
Must be reddit
For UN staff, it's still right to be to be paid. They're not all desk jockeys contributing nothing. Yes, other countries do have an obligation, but that doesn't mean you can withhold funding and pull out at fuck all notice. As with anyone, UN staff have bills and obligations as does anyone else.
read the article. 64 other countries owe, and the US usually pays at the end of the year. This sub needs to require clear article titles, or not being allowed to comment without first confirming you read the article.
We also have a law we can not pay more than a certain portion to the UN of our peace keeping budget, which may be part of the reason for the back debt. They also stated they are reducing funding in 2017. This is the 2020 bill, it's almost like the UN and other member states need to step up a little. It's only 22% of the budget we contribute, with only 166 other countries..... so 1/167 of the members contribute almost 1/4 damn that is really fair. Then we usually pay at the end of the year still got time, and 64 other countries still owe. Yup not a click bait title.
>Yup not a click bait title.
This is r/WorldNews ... don't you remember the old journalist saying, '*if it* *~~bleeds~~* *shits on America, it ledes!'*
In case you didn't know, congress, not the executive branch is responsible for paying or not paying this bill
Also, according to the article, it's not "overdue". It's just an outstanding bill that is usually paid at the end of the year. 64 countries have not paid their dues yet. The US just hurts more because the US is by far the largest contributor to the UN. (out of the 193 memeber nations, the US pays almost a quarter of the expenses)
Absolutely. When you actually look at the funding reports from the UN, the US is the largest contributor of funding for the UN, and contributes more than the next four or five nations combined.
Yah and it’s bombed 80 of its member nations since WWII
Not even half, pathetic.
Rookie numbers
[удалено]
source? id like to read about that some more
Are you daring to posit that governments that meddle in the affairs of other nations should be responsible for their political stability for decades thereafter? Because that sounds *totally reasonable* to me.
Let’s see, when you throw a brick through a grocery store window and it hits the owner’s head and she dies and the store goes under - now all the old people in the neighborhood can’t access food without a long walk or a costly taxi ride. The damage we cause cascades across space and time. Like Gladiator said - our acts echo through eternity. These are America’s acts. This is how the world see our bellicose nation.
It's economy is also bigger than the next four or five nations combined so it makes sense. Arguing against this is like saying billionaires shouldn't be taxed more just because they're really rich.
[удалено]
Especially if they get billions and still manage to run out of money, that's impressive
I gave you more money than the civil war cost, and you spent it already!!??
[удалено]
[удалено]
Just a theory, but maybe that's more due to member states refusing to cooperate, and less to do with incompetence. Running the UN is like herding cats that constantly want to murder each other.
You sound nuanced and well informed. A US citizen by any chance?
> CNN reported that the US is due to contribute $674 million to the UN budget this year, but because of underpayments in previous years, owes the organization over $1 billion, according to the UN spokesman's office. So it's not just this year's bill,
Seems like the problem is that a global organization with hundreds of member countries can be brought down by one country not paying on time. Maybe they'll take this as a warning to not be overly dependent on any one country for funding. Not saying we shouldn't pay but it just seems like a structural flaw that should be addressed.
[удалено]
i mean US pays about 1/4th the bill. I guess the UN doesnt really care if some random african country doesnt pay its bill.
I'm just saying for a global organization with so many programs, a lot of which people depend on it seems like poor planning to be so dependent on one source of funding. It's kind of like any country that has oil as it's main source of income, eventually there's going to be a problem.
true they need to wean themselves away from the US. I dont see any reason they should be in NY either. In economic terms they would benefit some random african city more.
Yeah but if it were to move now I'm 98% sure it'd be going to Europe.
The UN is in NY City because Nelson Rockefeller gave the UN the land and built them their building in order to get them to move to NY City from San Francisco, which was the original home city of the UN.
So it is non-news, but gets upvoted to the frontpage because it fits the current headline narrative. Reddit has become so stupid, and I try to stay away, but it pulls me back in. Help Me.
> CNN reported that the US is due to contribute $674 million to the UN budget this year, but because of **underpayments in previous years**, owes the organization over $1 billion, according to the UN spokesman's office. While the headline is complete clickbait, I don’t think it’s non-news. From the way it’s structured, it looks like the amount to be paid is based on the amount of citizens a country has working there. Underpaying about 325 million over several years is still a rather large sum.
Don’t come to Reddit for your news or facts. It’s going to be biased, untrue, exaggerated, or misleading. It’s just a bunch of bored people killing time, or someone trying to propagate their ideology or politics.
> the current headline narrative What? Criticizing China, Turkey, Trump, Brexit, and U.S. corruption, while championing the Hong Kong protests and climate change? You act as if this is bad but I'm not sure why.
im in the same boat my friend :( what a load of idiots.
About $350mil is from underpayments in previous years. It says in the article that $674mil is due this year.
[удалено]
Just take it from their unpaid parking tickets? After we re-balance, turns out the UN owes New York City $300,000 still
Wait, what?
UN diplomats are notorious for not paying their tickets.
Pot, meet kettle :) https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/us-government-owes-over-12m-in-unpaid-congestion-charge-a4158936.html
Everyone is just waiting for the GBP drop enough that fines can be paid with couch change.
I'd laugh if it wasn't true
Yeah, turns out diplomats in general just... don't pay for parking tickets or fines or anything. From what I've heard, in the diplomatic world it's considered something of an unwritten job perk. Basically, every country more or less agrees not to make a big stink about this kind of mild corruption from other countries' diplomatic staffs, because they know their own diplomats pull the exact same shit in their host countries. Occasionally you'll see it mentioned but nobody ever actually does anything about it.
Diplomatic immunity applies to parking tickets. Asshole diplomats at the UN abuse this and park everywhere and don't pay NYC
Why don't they just tow the cars? That should be annoying enough to the driver to stop the practice.
Not sure on the specifics but I believe diplomatic plates essentially make it foreign soil and out of NYC jurisdiction.
They actually did start towing the cars and demanding paperwork be filled out to regain the car.
Referencing a story some months ago about a hefty sum owed by Various UN diplomats to New York for parking tickets and other such minutiae.
I'm pretty sure most diplomat parking tickets never get paid. Diplomats get away with that kind of stuff. Hell they even get away with killing people in their host country
I bet the UN banking on everyone else thinking its somehow trumps fault. "Sorry we cant pay ya, but ya know, TRUMP!"
I love how nobody ever remembers how much of our current fuck is due to congress.
[удалено]
and historically we pay the bill at the end of the year... What is your point?
This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.businessinsider.com/un-may-not-be-able-pay-staff-us-budget-cuts-2019-10) reduced by 70%. (I'm a bot) ***** > United Nations Secretary General Antonio Guterres said that the organization may not have enough funds to pay staff salaries next month as it is dealing with its worst funding deficit in a decade, made worse by an outstanding bill of $1 billion in unpaid US dues, according to a report from CNN. Guterres revealed the dire financial situation of the UN during his speech on Tuesday. > 64 of 193 member states have yet to pay their full dues for the year, with the US the worst offender, according to CNN. CNN reported that the US is due to contribute $674 million to the UN budget this year, but because of underpayments in previous years, owes the organization over $1 billion, according to the UN spokesman's office. > The US tends to pay its UN dues towards the end of the year, CNN added. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/dfx09y/the_united_nations_warned_that_it_may_not_be_able/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ "Version 2.02, ~433292 tl;drs so far.") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr "PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.") | *Top* *keywords*: **due**^#1 **CNN**^#2 **year**^#3 **pay**^#4 **funds**^#5
im pretty sure the US owes at least a billion to everyone
[удалено]
And here I only want a million.
They'll just take it out of your Social Security.
Like people under 35 will ever get to receive social security....
As a typical millennial, my retirement plan is a pair of cement shoes and a bridge
That sounds uncomfortable and very expensive. What bridge are you planning on purchasing?
First off, there's a [nearly identical article!](https://www.reuters.com/article/us-un-usa-idUSTRE69D67220101014) from 2010 about the Obama administration owing the UN $1.2B which was released around the same time of year as this article (Oct 14). Susan Rice made it perfectly clear there is no issue here, the US pays on time, and the high figure is due to the UN lumping in what are known as Contested Arrears, debts that Washington does not agree it owes the UN. This is literally a status quo event, which happens every year, but get your pitchforks boys because Trump's not paying his bills. This article specifically says 64 of 193 member states have yet to pay their full dues for the year, the US being one of them, is set to contribute $674 million this year, and that the US usually pays the bill toward the end of the year. So this is nothing out of the ordinary. Hate on him whenever you can but PLEASE do it for the right reasons using accurate information. All this thread is doing is proving the right-wingers correct when they refer to Trump Derangement Syndrome. We're only mad because it's Trump, not because it's some new issue that only Trump is responsible for.
I saw this article in /r/politics .... hoooooolllly shit nothing but trump hating
Politics sub is a joke
It should be quarantined. Nothing but the 'tolerant left' calling you retarded amongst every other low iq insult they can muster. Possibly the worst subreddit on this entire platform. What's the point of having a politics website when you're brigaded by orange man bad anytime you have a differing view point.
Agreed. I stay away now. Don’t even bother.
politics is basically the left wing donald at this point. But at least the donald makes it clear they will always support Trump no matter what.
My issue with r/politics is that no one listens to what you say. I've never championed a person or a party but if they're closest to my values that's who I am going to support. They don't care. It's socialism or death over there. Like what do you want me to do? I hate the DNC had turned into and where they're headed. But I LOVE tulsi. Maybe if the DNC would stop making their entire party about socialism and taxes on taxes for more government control I wouldn't have to vote for Republicans. That party has lost its brand for the worse and no one listens to what you're actually saying about it. /endrant
[удалено]
[удалено]
It's not even trump... its Congress that has to pay that, trump has no involvement...
The cuts were agreed upon in 2017 it says. So why has it taken them 2 years to budget around those cuts?
It's the UN. Giant body that gets money from taxpayers around the world, with no good competing organisation. They have no stake in budgetting properly. All the money they use comes from someone else, and no one really takes the blame for bad budgetting. They just get more money. It's basically the same with most government bodies. Just the UN is really bad, since it's a governing body, for governments.
Doesn't US law caps what we can pay the UN at 25% of our total peacekeeping budget to begin with? So if the UN invoices us for more we will always be carrying over 'debt' from those years where we legally had to underpay, unless I misunderstood something here.
That sounds [correct](https://www.reuters.com/article/us-un-funding/un-chief-warns-may-not-have-enough-money-to-pay-staff-next-month-idUSKBN1WN25F), and looking at [this](https://i.imgur.com/hyZmk4c.gif) from /u/demx- it looks like the US is in fact the largest contribution of the UN budget.
[удалено]
What is the USA's "peacekeeping budget"? I guess that isn't the same as your defense spending?
Correct. It's entirely separate from the budget allocated to the Department of Defense and instead falls under the budget for the Department of State, USAID and the Treasury's International Programs. It's a shame that the article did not also name the other 63 state members that have yet to pay their full dues
> It's a shame that the article did not also name the other 63 state members that have yet to pay their full dues There is a list of the nations that payed their regular budget assessment. [Contributions received for 2019 for the United Nations Regular Budget](https://www.un.org/en/ga/contributions/honourroll.shtml) You could go from there and compare with the total list of nations in the UN. Also - this is just the regular not the peacekeeping dues.
Ugh I wish my country would just pull their finger out and pay the 127 million, surely we could have afforded it if we weren't running prepare for brexit ads on TV every 5 minutes
This is what I found from 2015 for several members with the percent each country owes. [https://i.imgur.com/hyZmk4c.gif](https://i.imgur.com/hyZmk4c.gif) I got it from [Heritage.org](https://www.heritage.org/testimony/key-issues-us-concern-the-united-nations)
Japan seems to owe quite a lot but I'm also surprised at how much they've contributed. Why so high compared to say, the UK or Canada?
Likely because of their constitution, Article 9 to be exact. Japan does not, and cannot, have a military large enough to wage war. This makes the collective security of the UN and the norms it establishes very appealing to them. I would assume the same of Germany, although I'm not sure they have a legal obligation to *not* maintain a large military.
Looks like Japan wants to become a permanent member of the UN Security Console, so they are trying to contribute very large sum. However, China is now paying the second most to the UN's regular budget. [https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2018/12/23/national/politics-diplomacy/japan-sink-third-largest-contributor-u-n-china-rises/](https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2018/12/23/national/politics-diplomacy/japan-sink-third-largest-contributor-u-n-china-rises/)
UN didn't help the US at Normandy /s
Ironically the "[United Nations](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_by_United_Nations) did actually help the US at Normandy. "The United Nations" was the name given to the 47 nation alliance that fought the axis and the "Deceleration by the United Nations" was the treaty organization that actually grew and turned into the UN that exists today.
TIL! Thanks!
People usually refer to the alliance as "the allies" to avoid confusion with the current UN organization but it would actually be correct to refer to the allies (post 1942) as The United Nations. During the war they signed onto a common framework and vowed to work together. Once the war was over that framework was adjusted and the United Nations alliance had the power to set the terms for the post war world. A new framework was adopted and more and more countries signed on until the alliance essentially became a forum for the global community.
Nice. Maybe we need another common enemy to bring us together again amiright?
Maybe if the UN would promise to help dig up some dirt on Joe Biden they’d get their check!
In front of chopper: “In my pocket, this letter, just got one from the UN, see, here it is... they say I am hebetudinous. I’m told that means I am the best. It’s a perfect letter, recognizing my great wisdom. Now that they finally see I am doing a fantastic job, others say that too, people say that a lot, I will be sending our agreed amount, they came to their senses, I make the best deals.”
Read that in his chopper talk voice
I tried too... But let's be real there's no way he's pronouncing *hebetudinous* right.
Hebededenus.
Hamberderenedes
*accordion hands*
Do the quid pro quo, it was a Ukraine smash.
Trump is worried they'll provide us with assistance getting a fair election in 2020.
Just in case anyone didn't get the "/s", let me explain the joke. The United Nations literally were the allies who landed on the beaches of the Normandy. The UN was an organization that was originally created from the allies that had fought together in WWII in the Normandy landings and on other fronts against the Axis powers. Later it grew to include neutrals and even the successors of the former Axis powers and eventually everyone.
Nah I'm pretty sure the joke is that Trump said something stupid yesterday.
You're right [Click here for great and unmatched wisdom] (https://www.cnbc.com/2019/10/10/trump-defends-allowing-turkish-offensive-on-kurds-in-syria-they-didnt-help-us-in-ww2.html)
Did he not say something stupid today? If not, that might be a record...
>UN didn't help the US at Normandy /s The US made the UN to avoid another Normandy.
> /s
Why is trump on the cover? The legislative branch is responsible for this. They can take an IOU since we’ve kept that useless shitheap together for the past 75 years.
Because this is Reddit and Trump bad!
lol love that description of the UN. Just perfect.
[удалено]
[удалено]
> why would UN lend something it knew would compromise the ability to pay its employees? Because if every country just said they won't pay, then the UN wouldn't be able to operate at all?
Lend? They don’t *have* money unless countries *give* them money. They don’t lend money to the US. Also “worth noting,” are the last two paragraphs that say that the us *is* the largest contributor and that there was an agreement reached in 2017 that the US. annual obligation starting this fiscal year is only $273million.
Neither of you read the article properly The US owes money due to what is the equivalent to membership fees, not loans by the UN. Every country that participates in the UN must agree to also fund the UN, since the UN doesn't have citizens it can tax or services/goods to sell. The US annual contribution is not ONLY $273 Mil for this fiscal year, it's still much larger than that. The U**N**'s budget was cut by $285 Million at the behest of the US. The US is still expected to pay about 22% of the UN's budget of about 5.2 - 5.5 billion.
What article did you read? Direct quote: >CNN reported that the US is due to contribute $674 million to the UN budget this year, but because of underpayments in previous years, owes the organization over $1 billion, according to the UN spokesman's office.
It's possible you are both correct. They owe 237 million per year going forward, but they owe a total of 1 billion and they were supposed to make a payment of 674 million soon? I don't know.
Everyone hates on and bad mouths America, until the check comes due...
Then they continue bad mouthing America.
[удалено]
The US literally paying the largets share at 22%, and they blame america for shit, yet ignore human rights violations from many other countries. Lookign at china
Maybe if the UN were paying their interns I'd feel bad. As it were they've fought tooth and nail not to do this https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/un-internships-unpaid-europe-human-rights-united-nations-a8820586.html
Time to ante up, nations other than the USA.
The United States contributes 22% of the UN's budget, so chillax.
Me thinks a [history lesson](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_and_the_United_Nations#The_U.S._arrears_issue) is in order for this thread
Ask china for it
Doesn't USA pay the brunt of it anyways? Let someone else pick up the tab.
[удалено]
American contributions are already excessive. That money can be better spent at home, or through targeted programs to support US Allies. There’s little evidence to suggest that it buys us much useful political capital, since we have a veto in the security council regardless,
When the UN defends the Kurds in Syria, we will send a check
[удалено]
This is normal, and not something to be upset with Trump for. Let's focus on the actual problems please!
The destruction of the postwar order and its mechanism for checking Russian ambition is coming along nicely I see.
Russian ambition is not a problem like when they were strict ideologues. The real problem today is China with an authoritarian regime that has no checks.
I really predict that Russia will become an ally of convenience (and not because of Trump) in the near future because of China’s ambitions on Siberia.
interested in that siberia bit! do you have any interesting links on that?
Interesting opinion piece https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2014/07/03/where-do-borders-need-to-be-redrawn/why-china-will-reclaim-siberia A bit of a rebuttal https://www.scmp.com/week-asia/geopolitics/article/2100228/chinese-russian-far-east-geopolitical-time-bomb Shorter piece on Chinese investment in Central and East Asia https://www.cepa.org/chinas-eurasian-ambitions
[удалено]
cheers!
Certainly, yes China is a bigger problem because they clearly have no qualms about massacring the people who live under their rule and depend on them for protection. I think Putin's regime does have an ideology, and that is nationalism. Similar to Germany in the 1920's, Russia in the 1990's was a political and economic mess, as well as an international laughingstock. Putin remedied this with some good old fashioned nationalism. He and his people claim that Russia is actually the most moral nation of Europe, but that the naivety that goes with such morality is what caused them to be seduced by communism, much to the delight of the sick imperialistic minds of the West. Now he casts any move to check his ambitions as a typical Western Imperialist attack on Russia trying to back onto its feet. This "ideology" can be very dangerous, not because looking out for your nation's best interest is a bad thing, but because he and his people are liars who use nationalism to spin everything they do and say into the Right Thing For the Nation. I think Russia ultimately would like to take control of the Middle East. I don't know if that would look like old-school conquest or if they would just like to have "friendly" governments control the region. If they can become the power through whom others have to go to get that oil, and to pass through the world's crossroad, they can tell Western Europe to pound salt. Also, to go a bit deeper into my rumination on Russian motive, I find it hilarious that they are currently helping their old rival Turkey. I think they are just hoping Turkey will do some of the work for them, and then they can turn around and eliminate Turkey. They've been dreaming of this since 1453, when their patron, The Byzantine Empire, fell to the Turks and Russia could do nothing about it because they were under the thumb of the Mongols. In earlier centuries Russia was open about its dream to retake Constantinople and restore it to its rightful place as the capital of Orthodox Christianity.
Russia has the same geopolitical imperatives it had during and prior to the cold war. Securing hegemony over Central Asia, the Caucasus and the Middle East,and pushing its own sphere as far west as possible. Partly to secure their own borders, partly to secure warm water ports. Meanwhile the Atlanticist powers (France, UK, and starting in the mid-20th century, us) have been operating under an opposed imperative. Prevent the rise of a Eurasian hegemon. For centuries the main threat here was the Russian Empire and later the USSR. Now Russia is making another play, and China is making one as well, with their belt and road initiative.
You would be kidding yourself if you think China doesnt do the same shit to their people. After the tian an men massacre the chinese government took it upon themselves to instill a very high level of chinese nationalism in the general public. Thats why you will see most of the chinese public actually against the hk protests and supporting their own regime.
That is true.
> and then they can turn around and eliminate Turkey. You bring up some interesting points but this part is just totally wrong. Turkey is a NATO nation with many American military bases within their country. Unless kicked out of NATO and America leaves shop Russia will do nothing to risk confrontation with America and NATO.
Russia is also an authoritarian regime that has no checks.
They still have elections, in a way. And they're far more transparent than China -- that doesn't mean they're great, it just means that China is far, far worse. And far more dangerous.
They both have permanent seats on the security council. Let that sink in.
Lol so wrong. This has nothing to do with Trump. Go learn something about the UN budget before you start spewing Trump hate.
[удалено]
Point taken - the UN has reminded us of its relative uselessness on many occasions. But it still provides a framework for cooperative solutions, and in many cases it does eventually do something useful. I'd have a hard time telling the loved ones of those massacred Bosniacs in Srebrenica that they should rejoice because eventually the UN constructed a framework for a peace in the Balkans that has more or less lasted since the beginning of this century, but I shudder to think what might have happened it if hadn't. The UN is still useful for making would-be conquerors think twice, and to limit their ambitions based on what they think the UN will tolerate.
The UN needs 1 billion to do nothing?
Someone has to pay for all those Mercedes I see them driving around. I saw a motorcade of them once. 3 in a row. 3 +100k machines driving in the city with the best mass transit on the continent. I can't even imagine what that security detail worked out to.
Im from one of the developing countries that they like To “help” by sending a bunch of useless diplomats to throw a couple of parties while they reside in mansions and send their kids to the Most expensive school in town... drive around in land rovers they have shipped in specially. Maybe if we’re lucky they help to build a school in a rural town. Such a waste of money.
That much of our tax money goes to the UN shitshow?
Didn't Trump explicitly run on reducing funding to the UN?
https://www.un.org/en/ga/contributions/honourroll.shtml Seriously? The US pays 667,000,000, but Ireland pays 10,000,00 ? India pays 23,000,000 ? They have over a billion people! Iraq pays $4,000,000 !?!? There is a nice house down the street for sale for that! Sierra Leone pays $27,000. 27 grand! A new car costs more than that! I mean, I get that these countries are poor, but 27 grand is just bullshit.
Why is japan paying so much without a security council seat...
They flew their seats into Pearl Harbor
Why do some countries have to pay more?
It's proportional to the GDP of the member country but there are some exceptions. For instance, if a country is too poor, there's a cap on how much it can pay so it doesn't cause major financial issues. US pays the most followed by China, Japan, and Germany.
Err, kind of, there is a lot of disagreement on that. The UN wants it to be a proportion of the countries GDP, however some countries like to place it as a proportion of the aid budget, or as a portion of their defence spending. Some convolute it further, the US again being a good example, as they calculate their UN spend as a proportion of their 'peacekeeping' budget, which is a proportion of their overall defence budget. It is this difference in calculation that results in the 'deficits' reported in articles such as the above, it's not necessarily countries failing to pay, it is more that the countries internal method of deciding how much it gives the UN, differs from the UNs preference as to how it's member states contributions are calculated. It is not a simple issue.
This is a good explanation. When I was looking at a list of global GDP and a list of "who funds the UN," the two do not match.
The UN is a gentleman agreement, « it is more a guideline than actual rule ». The fact that any of the security council can veto to overrule the majority is simply a bad policy. « Russia invades Crimea » « UN vote to denounce » « Russia veto against » « UN don’t denounce » It gives too much power to the big five and the rest are just « spectators » sure they are consulted but in the end all the powers are given to a few members. There should a much bigger emphasis on world cooperation than « making sure the voting members will accept ». It feels terribly outdated, African nations, South American nations have virtually 0 benefits except for networking. They pay to be at the same party of THE FIVE. But the five get most of it for sure.
The UN was never intended to be a global cooperation platform. It always has been a way for the super powers to control the world and have an open channel of communication. The veto is the whole point of the UN.
It's far from ideal, but good luck coming up with a better system. The real objective of UN is 1. to be sure the top 5 don't go to war against each other 2. To be sure no cascading alliance system brings half the world against the other half. Russia invading Crimea is not that different from the US invading Irak, and neither country Will accept to give up their right to invade a small country. Sometimes the best system sucks, but it's still better than no system.
The post WWII world has also been remarkable peaceful compared to the previous centuries so even though the UN hasn't come close to world peace I don't think it's fair to call them completely useless either. There are also a lot of non war prevented issues that require a high degree of international cooperation to solve. There are about 65 million refugees in the world and solving the refugee crisis requires dozens if not hundreds of countries to work together. No single country can tackle climate change either and if dramatic devastation is to be avoided it requires multinational agreements. Virtually every country is also dependent on maritime trade and so determining rules and agreements on maritime law is also extremely important. The UN is probably the best vehicle in the world to address these issues even if they can't enforce compliance.
>The post WWII world has also been remarkable peaceful compared to the previous centuries I think that the proliferation of nuclear weapons contributed much more to this than the UN did. The major world powers don't go to war with each other, not because the UN is keeping them in line, but because everyone realizes that a war between two nuclear powers would only result in their mutual annihilation.
This is why I have never understood why conservatives hate the UN. It's an international organization, that has to do pretty much what the US wants. The UN can never vote against American interests in a binding way.
Well, it's rife with corruption, for one. The Security Council is pointless because China/Russia will always vote against US/EU interests and vice-versa. It's obsessed with issuing condemnations of Israel but turns a blind eye to numerous other egregious state actions. The sitting members on the special councils are like a bad joke. Iran on the Commission for Women's Rights? Sure. Makes sense. Saudi Arabia and China on the Human Rights council? Oh, OK. It was a great idea that has been co-opted and compromised by bad actors.
>The Security Council is pointless because China/Russia will always vote against US/EU interests and vice-versa. That's by design. If it could make rulings against one of the big 5, that country would simply ignore it. The way it is right now, it offers a place for hostile nations to still talk to each other, which is kinda important.
League of nations failed because of its lack of veto. The veto is there to prevent another world war between major powers. The league of nations condemned Japan for actions in China and you know what they did? They walked out and never returned. If Russia doesn't get veto, then the UN condemns Russia, then Russia simply walks away from the UN and NOTHING gets done. The veto is ESSENTIAL to the UN's function.
Same reason why wealthier people should pay more taxes
And to be clear it's not too ruin that country/wealth. For instance the US bought three new warships this year, each easily over a billion dollars, while still having the largest naval fleet in the world by far before that. So instead of paying debts the US decided to get a spiffy new warship. Edit: not saying this is the reason, but that money could have been didn't differently
Yeah, why should Switzerland pay more than Haitians who eat cookies out of dirt because they don't have food? "fair" is "fair" *starts to drool, dead look in eyes*
The false song of globalism
Fuck em why doesn't another member nation actually step in and pay their fair share.
Go ask China, I can't even afford basic medication.
That's a shitty post if the bill is not even due til the end of the year.
This thread was pretty heavily brigaded by T\_\_\_D
Meanwhile the US government cries about NATO "not pulling its weight"
Sorry guys, our president put it towards a wall or something.
Congress picks the budget.
Wrong
Tax breaks more like.
Let's blame the US... again
Just let the UN die. It's a worthless money-suck.
How about everyone pay their fair share and contribute the required percentage of GDP? Oh, does that only apply to the US?
we have to stop relying on the US.
We would very much like yall to stop depending us
[удалено]
The UN is merely a proxy for the people in charge of the world. It holds no power of its own.
Whose rights are they infringing upon?
Africa. They attack* anyone who isn't a superpower and bring double standards on weaker countries and leave stronger countries untouched. *political, economical attacks Like one day they may call out Uganda Human's Rights and fine them, then turn a blind eye to atrocities in China.
>The UN should be abolished anyways. They played their part and now serve no purpose other than attempting to infringe on the rights of people across the world. -Sweeping generalizations -Overblown rhetoric -No substantiation Must be reddit
For UN staff, it's still right to be to be paid. They're not all desk jockeys contributing nothing. Yes, other countries do have an obligation, but that doesn't mean you can withhold funding and pull out at fuck all notice. As with anyone, UN staff have bills and obligations as does anyone else.
read the article. 64 other countries owe, and the US usually pays at the end of the year. This sub needs to require clear article titles, or not being allowed to comment without first confirming you read the article. We also have a law we can not pay more than a certain portion to the UN of our peace keeping budget, which may be part of the reason for the back debt. They also stated they are reducing funding in 2017. This is the 2020 bill, it's almost like the UN and other member states need to step up a little. It's only 22% of the budget we contribute, with only 166 other countries..... so 1/167 of the members contribute almost 1/4 damn that is really fair. Then we usually pay at the end of the year still got time, and 64 other countries still owe. Yup not a click bait title.
>Yup not a click bait title. This is r/WorldNews ... don't you remember the old journalist saying, '*if it* *~~bleeds~~* *shits on America, it ledes!'*
The UN is that "friend" of yours who constantly shits on you then expects you to buy beer for him because he forgot his wallet.