Late last month, the United Nations General Assembly did something that, in contrast to the weighty issues of war and peace, human rights, and international development that regularly top its agenda, was on its face unremarkable: It adopted a budget. Advocates for U.N. reform, however, have reason to celebrate: The U.N. operating budget delivered on Christmas Eve was $285 million (5 percent) less than the previous budget.
Some headlines implied that this was a unilateral decision by the U.S. In reality, these cuts had the buy-in of all U.N. member states, as well as Secretary-General Antonio Guterres — who initially proposed significant budget cuts — and had been in the works for months.
This continues a trend that began during the Obama administration. In fact, over the past 5 years, the U.N. not only has significantly reduced its last two operating budgets, it has also eliminated hundreds of posts; reassessed the U.N.’s staff compensation package, saving the organization $500 million over five years; and brought the cost per peacekeeper down by almost 20 percent.
Reform advocates should be encouraged. Their message has been heard. U.N. reforms now span two U.S. administrations and two U.N. chiefs, and Secretary-General Guterres has made clear that more changes are coming.
Going forward, the U.S. will begin budget negotiations of its own, which will include contributions to the U.N. It’s time this year for a new conversation. Now that the budget has been right-sized, we should discuss how the U.S. can strengthen the U.N., so it can better fulfill its critical responsibilities on the world stage.
Consider North Korea and its rapidly advancing nuclear program. The U.N. Security Council is the forum where the toughest sanctions in history were levied, which have, in the words of Ambassador Nikki Haley, “cut off 90 percent of North Korean trade and 30 percent of its oil.” The next step is for U.N. sanctions experts to actively monitor these sanctions to ensure compliance, activities funded by the U.N. regular budget.
The Trump administration has made burden-sharing an essential part of its foreign policy strategy. U.N. peacekeeping operations provide a prime example of that principle in action.
Peacekeepers throughout Africa help counter the rise of violent extremist groups such as al Qaeda, the Islamic State, and Boko Haram, with the threat posed by these groups tragically highlighted in October, when four U.S. soldiers helping to train troops in Niger were killed in an ambush. In neighboring Mali, U.N. peacekeepers help the government maintain control of a region once ruled by jihadists. To the south, as the Democratic Republic of the Congo approaches long-delayed presidential elections scheduled for this year, there is increasing likelihood that additional violence could erupt and the government implodes, causing more suffering for millions and destabilizing the region.
The presence of U.N. peacekeepers throughout the continent helps reduce civilian killings plus helps secure borders and reduce transnational crime, the fuel for terrorist groups. The U.N. peacekeeping budget must remain robust, since stability overseas impacts our security at home.
In other parts of Africa, Somalia, South Sudan, and northeastern Nigeria, as well as Yemen, are on the verge of famine due to a complex cocktail of conflict and environmental factors. While the U.S. has been exceedingly generous in its food assistance, the enormity of the needs has only increased. If agencies like the U.N.’s World Food Program do not receive adequate resources, some of the world’s most vulnerable populations will suffer needlessly, laying the groundwork for further instability and mass displacement.
In the Middle East, the U.N. has long been a partner in U.S.-led efforts to stabilize Iraq. In the wake of military operations to oust ISIS from Iraq, the U.N. is playing a central role in rebuilding schools, health facilities, water systems, and other forms of public infrastructure in areas recently liberated. With ISIS now largely routed, the country faces a crucial test: parliamentary elections slated for this May. As Iraq recovers, rebuilds, and attempts to attain a modicum of political stability — an effort that has been a key U.S priority for 15 years — maintaining funding for the U.N. will help the U.S. and its Iraqi partners solidify recent hard-fought security gains.
In the days and months ahead, some might call for reduced U.S. contributions to the U.N. in addition to the recent budget cuts. That would be unwise.
Put simply, U.N. funding must be guided by security realities on the ground, not on arbitrary calls from above. With the latest round of budget cuts, the U.N. is cutting waste and increasing cost efficiency. Now, the U.S. needs to continue to be strategic and measured in its approach, but must also consider increasing funding for front-line issues where the U.N.’s role is critical. To do otherwise could compromise the U.N.’s work on a number of fronts, potentially limiting our ability to benefit from the organization when we need it most.
Peter Yeo is President of the Better World Campaign and Vice President for Public Policy and Advocacy at the United Nations Foundation.
