Schemes of Bankruptcy: The United Nations, Funding Dues and Human Rights

The United Nations, in turning 80, has been berated, dismissed and libelled.  In September, US President Donald Trump took a hearty swipe at the body’s alleged impotence.  “What is the purpose of the United Nations?” he posed to gathered world leaders.  All it seemed to do was “write a really strongly worded letter and then never follow that letter up. It’s empty words and empty words don’t solve war.”  Never once did he consider that many of the wars he has allegedly ended have not so much reached their pacific terminus as having gone into simmering storage.

While harsh geopolitics has become violently fashionable and sneery of international law, an organisation whose existence depends on solidarity, support and cooperation from its often uncooperative Member States, is seeing itself slide into what has been described as a “worsening liquidity crisis.”  The crisis was given much stimulus by the organisation’s US$135 million deficit as it entered 2025.  By September’s end, it had collected a mockingly inadequate 66.2 per cent of the year’s assessments.

In October, the UN Secretary-General António Guterres, in speaking to the Fifth Committee of the General Assembly responsible for the entity’s budget, warned that the organisation was facing a “race to bankruptcy” unless Member States forked out their dues.  Last year, arrears totalled US$760 million.  With the need to return credits worth US$300 million to Member States at the start of 2026, some 10 per cent of the budget would be emptied.  “Any delays in collections early in the year [2026] will force us to reduce spending even more … and then potentially face the prospect of returning US$600 million in 2027, or about 20 per cent of the budget.”

While discussing finances can induce a coma, some preliminary discussion about the structure of contributions to the UN is necessary.  Assessed or mandatory contributions for 2025, measured by the “capacity to pay” formula, comprised the regular budget of the organisation covering administrative and operational costs (approximately $US3.7 billion); funding for international tribunals ($US43 million); the Capital Master Plan covering the renovation of the UN headquarters in New York; and peacekeeping operations (US$5.4 billion).  Voluntary contributions are self-explanatory enough, comprising optional donations from Member States and various other entities for humanitarian and development agencies, in addition to sustaining the broader UN system.

States discharging their obligations in making contributions to the regular budget receive proud mention in the Honour Roll of the UN.  Those not doing so risk losing their vote in the organisation if their financial lethargy continues for two years or more after the due date of contributions – not that this injunction has been well observed.  The United States remains famously tardy, and under Trump, boisterously so.  As the body’s primary contributor to the regular budget – assessed as 22 per cent in 2025 – and 26 per cent to the peacekeeping budget, this is particularly galling.

Since January, the current administration has savaged funding to various UN bodies.  On his first day of office, the President signed an executive order withdrawing his country from the World Health Organization due to its “mishandling of the COVID-19 pandemic that arose out of Wuhan, China, and other global health crises, its failure to adopt urgently needed reforms, and its inability to demonstrate independence from the inappropriate political influence of WHO member states.”

The UN Human Rights Council was the next fashioned target, with February’s withdrawal from the body justified on the basis that it had “protected human rights abusers by allowing them to use the organization to shield themselves from scrutiny”.  In sympathy for Israel, funding was also frozen to the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA), citing the allegation that employees had been “involved in the October 7, 2023, Hamas attacks on Israel.”

Revealing its crass, impulsive philistinism, the Trump administration proceeded to withdraw from the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) in July. “UNESCO,” declared State Department spokesperson Tammy Bruce, “works to advance divisive social and cultural causes and maintains an outsized focus on the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals, a globalist, ideological agenda for international development at odds with our America First foreign policy.”  Amidst all of this, the parochial agenda was made clear: UNESCO, in admitting Palestine as a Member State was “highly problematic, contrary to US policy, and contributed to the proliferation of anti-Israel rhetoric within the organization.”

Washington has been singular in this regard only in terms of scale.  China and Russia are also conspicuous in being late with their contributions while other Member States have simply pared back their UN contributions for reasons of defence and domestic expenditure.  War mongering is proving catching, while peacemaking, despite the boasts of the US President, is falling out of vogue.  A most conspicuous area to suffer has been human rights.

In October 2025, the International Service for Human Rights identified an ongoing campaign to defund the UN human rights agenda being waged in the General Assembly’s Fifth Committee.  In a report using material gathered from 37 diplomats, UN officials and experts, along with data analysis of UN documents and the organisation’s budget from 2019 to 2024, the ISHR identified a campaign of “coordinated obstruction” by Member States steered by China and Russia.  Coupled with Washington and Beijing’s “failure to pay their assessments in full and on time (respectively)”, the UN’s means of funding and implementing its human rights programs has been stymied.

Most to suffer has been the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), which finds itself $90 million short of what it needs for 2025.  Some 300 jobs have already been shed by the organisation.  “Our resources have been slashed, along with funding for human rights organisations, including at the grassroots level, around the world,” warns UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Volker Turk.  “We are in survival mode.”

The UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), responsible for humanitarian aid and crisis, has had to resort to the beggar bowl.  Facing its own budgetary razor, the body is seeking US$23 billion as a matter of immediacy, with the hope that it will save 87 million lives.  “Ultimately, in 2026,” the body announced on December 8, “the aim is to raise a total of US$33 billion to support 135 million people through 23 country operations and six plans for refugees and migrants.”

While wobbly, scarred by imperfections and marked by contentiousness, an organisation built from the ashes of murderous global conflict in 1945 risks becoming the very model of impotence Trump claims and no doubt wishes it to be.  In this, he can count on a number of countries, friendly or adversarial to the US.  Increasingly shrivelled and shrunken, the UN’s far from negligible role in seeking to conserve peace, flawed as it can be, or distributing aid and protecting human rights, risks vanishing into history.

The post Schemes of Bankruptcy: The United Nations, Funding Dues and Human Rights appeared first on CounterPunch.org.