Where does the UN get its funding from?

Hi, I'm quite new to the world of politics, but this is just something I want to know.

Where does the United Nations get its funding from? Do the countries who are part of it pledge an amount of their annual GDP to it? And also, do organisations mandated by the UN draw from these funds?

Like a membership fee, member states contribute to its annual budget. Same with the World Bank and EU

redcarpet wrote:

Like a membership fee, member states contribute to its annual budget. Same with the World Bank and EU

It's much more complicated than that. Many member states contribute nothing. Moreover, the UN sends monies back to many "contributors" reducing the real amount that they "contributed". It's certainly not "like a membership fee" at your local health club.

I don't know if this is still the case but the US used to contribute 25% of the total budget for the UN.
Japan also contributed more than it should.

The US gets back a lot, especially New York, because those 7,000 diplomats need to live and eat and rent.

I am sure you can Google or Wiki accurate information about this but I am too lazy to do it for you.


Ter

Yes, the USA still pays about one-quarter of the budget of the UN, with Japan in second place. I can't remember what Japan pays, maybe a little more than 10%.

The USA certainly does not "get back a lot". Don't think for one second that the money spent in New York by UN employees comes even close to a significant portion of the money the USA contributes to the UN. The vat majority of this money, obviously, gets thrown down the drain of useless endeavours, corruption, propaganda, and transfer-payments to dictatorships and other loser-counties.

Oleh Hadash wrote:

Yes, the USA still pays about one-quarter of the budget of the UN, with Japan in second place. I can't remember what Japan pays, maybe a little more than 10%.

The USA certainly does not "get back a lot". Don't think for one second that the money spent in New York by UN employees comes even close to a significant portion of the money the USA contributes to the UN. The vat majority of this money, obviously, gets thrown down the drain of useless endeavours, corruption, propaganda, and transfer-payments to dictatorships and other loser-counties.

Oh, like Israel?



Anyway, I find this interesting (from Pants-of-dog's wiki link):

Quote:

The current operating budget is estimated at $4.19 billion for the 2-year (biennial) period of 2008 to 2009, or a little over 2 billion dollars a year[46] (refer to table for major contributors).

$2 billion a year? Whoopee shit, you're seriously complaining about 22% of $2 billion a year?

Lol.

Oleh Hadash wrote:

Yes, the USA still pays about one-quarter of the budget of the UN, with Japan in second place. I can't remember what Japan pays, maybe a little more than 10%.

The USA certainly does not "get back a lot". Don't think for one second that the money spent in New York by UN employees comes even close to a significant portion of the money the USA contributes to the UN. The vat majority of this money, obviously, gets thrown down the drain of useless endeavours, corruption, propaganda, and transfer-payments to dictatorships and other loser-counties.

On a dollar in and dollar out basis, sure the USA does not get good value for money. But with having the UN based in America, the amount of eavesdroping on international negotiations the US can engage in with having the UN on US soil, and all the cons for having every nation in the world sending its leaders to the UN in the USA, the US does get a good deal from it - certainly in prestige, intelligence gathering, the ability to monitor international politics, etc...

Any country that is a permanent member of the Security Council is getting back a lot more than they're paying.

I think Mahzi's right. The five permanent members of the Security Council are China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States, each have a veto on all effective UN action. Although the Soviet Union was famous for its "Nyet" during the first decade or so, in the past 20 years or so well over half of all vetoes have been wielded by the United States. In this way the United States can veto resolutions condemning actions of its allies which are illegal in International Law. The next such veto is likely to be wielded in the near future over a motion condemning the illegal settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem.

I expect the State Department thinks of that as money well spent.

Wikipedia, linked before has a good chart for the Funding of the UN. Of note is Russia is the only member of the security that is not in the top 10 supporters for funding.

As for the UN Veto power, Wikipedia has a page for that too. Russia has used its Veto the most, China has used its the least. It's important to note here that these are real resolutions with real effects, for instance China has used its Veto the least because until recently (and even comparatively recently) China was more isolated than other nations to the world at large.

I don't think the US & Israel get anything out of any part of the UN, other than harassment and the enjoyment of giving money, and a good time in NYC, to a lot of 3rd worlders.

Bolton said something funny in the last few days -said we should be able to pay a la carte for whatever programs we support, and give a big FU to the ones that are used against us continually.