Archimedes is credited for saying “Give me where to stand and I will move the Earth” to emphasize a tool’s power of leverage. Applying this concept to the United Nations, it could be said that these days it is money the tool’s power of leverage for the international body to fulfill its mission. Without money the United Nations can do little to manage the challenges the world faces.
It is true this is not the first time the UN has had a hard time with insufficient financial resources. Back in the 60’s for example, during the independence of the Belgian Congo and the decision of then Secretary General Dag Hammarskjöld to favor a robust peacekeeping force authorized by the Security Council in the area, the UN resources were exhausted and after that it was decided that the UN budget would split into two: one would go to the UN budget as such and a specific budget would be destined to the peacekeeping operations.
As it is well known, the United States is the most important financial contributor to both budgets. It provides 22 percent of the UN budget and 26 percent of the peacekeeping operations budget. China has closed the gap, becoming the second largest contributor with 20 percent for the first one and 23. 79 percent for the blue helmets. Thus, the two countries are responsible for almost half the financial resources the UN needs to work on several matters related to development needs, peace and security and human rights. The problem with this is that if the two countries do not pay, or pay in installments, or reduce their contributions, the UN would not have essential resources to carry out its very complex and demanding agenda. The United States did not pay its contributions to the UN budget in 2025 and covered only 30 percent of its funding to peacekeeping operations -which are facing a strong reform that may eventually lead to their disappearance.
One may wonder what the other 191 member countries do in terms of fulfilling their commitments toward the institution. Some countries pay, some do not -like Venezuela, under Maduro, although that may change with the new regime-, some like Mexico pay in instalments, and thus, the work of the institution cannot be done properly. Take human rights violations for example. To document war crimes or crimes against humanity, there is the need to collect information so that prosecutors have evidence to punish crimes against humanity. Without money to pay investigators more human rights violations could go unpunished.
In this respect there is a “follow the leader” bad example set by Washington under Trump. If the United States, that supported the creation of the United Nations and provided political and financial support to the institution during the Cold War and until the beginning of the 21 century decides it does not need this multilateral body anymore, other countries may follow. The US withdrawal from the World Health Organization (WHO), for example, was followed by Argentina’s Javier Milei arguing similar reasons as Trump’s.
To make things worse, last January US President Trump announced the withdrawal from 66 international programs, organizations and bodies responsible for environmental protection, reproductive health, refugees, democratic governance, electoral assistance, analysis on terrorism and its causes and a large etcetera. In Mexico the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and the International Organization of Migration (IOM) have reduced their personnel and cancelled programs programs due to lacking funs.
Trump says that it is unfair that US taxpayer finance international organizations that do not show gratitude to Washington -countries vote against the US in the General Assembly, he complains-, neither serve the American interests in the world. This administration had already downsized the USAID budget, thus reducing critical resources for developing countries. Others like Germany and the United Kingdom also announced reductions to development assistance -they need to increase their military budgets to comply with Trump’s wishes but that comes at the cost of reducing money to other agendas.
The scientific community working on environmental and health issues in the US has experienced monetary reductions in the budgets destined to carry out research on global warming, new diseases, vaccines, etcetera. Universities are having a hard time in dealing with Governmental supervision on their students, that supposedly carry out “anti-American- activities” -such as demonstrations against attacks on Palestinians by Israel; or those that simply criticize the Trump decisions. The visa restrictions established by the current administration in 30 countries are already impacting student, scientific and academic exchanges in a step against education, cooperation, diversity and tolerance.
In September 2025, Donald Trump created a body, the Board of Peace to oversee the peace process in Gaza. It is mentioned at the UN Security Council Resolution 2803 and was formally established on the sidelines of the World Economic Forum in Davos last month. Some Government endorsed the Board of Peace whose headquarters are located at the US Institute of Peace renamed as the Donald J. Trump Institute of Peace in Washington D. C. The countries supporting the Board of Peace are Argentina, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bahrein, Bulgaria, El Salvador, Hungary, Indonesia, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kosovo, Morocco, Mongolia, Pakistan, Paraguay, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, United Arab Emirates, United States and Uzbekistan. Although the members are from 21 countries -with several others intending to join plus those who have been invited and some others who have declined- it is clear this initiative diminishes the authority of the United Nations.
Mexico and Canada were also invited, but in the case of the maple leaf country, the invitation was rescinded after the much-talked speech of the Canadian Primer Minister Mark Carney at Davos. In the case of Mexico’s Claudia Sheinbaum, the Governmental authorities mentioned she would respond later. There are countries that have also rejected the new body, mostly Europeans: Croatia, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, New Zealand -not European but important as a South Pacific developed economy-, Norway, Poland, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom. Again, this proposal, as it has happened with other initiatives by Trump, is highly divisive and sends the message he wants to be in absolute control of the global agenda.
The Board of Peace does not establish a membership fee but there is a voluntary contribution of 1 billion US dollars that each member should provide to fuel the budget of the institution for Gaza reconstruction and global conflict management. This is the cost of having a permanent sit on the Board. If a member country does not contribute $1 billion, then its membership would only last three years. Canada, for instance, initially accepted Trump’s invitation but said it would not make any financial contribution. It is like American Express: to have the membership you must pay, but the initiative is hardly plural and multilateral. Rather it looks like the club of Trump’s friends.
To many, if the 21 current members make a 1 billion contribution to support the Board of Peace, then would they be willing to pay their dues to the United Nations as well? Because if countries are willing to contribute with 1 billion, then the argument there is no resources for the UN is not correct -the current budget of the United Nations is 3. 45 billion dollars, and the budget for peacekeeping operations is 5. 38 billion. Thus, the contributions of nine members of the Board of Peace would suffice to provide the United Nations with the money it needs to do its work. The question is: why would countries put a lot of money in the Board of Peace instead of paying their dues to the UN?
Last January, the UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres sent a letter to the 193 members of the institution, stating that the organization could run out of money by next July. He urged them to honor their financial obligations and to avoid the interruption of the UN most fundamental work.
Part of the problem says Guterres is that if the UN does not use the budget assigned it has to return it, but the paradox is that the international body must give back money that never received. Thus, paradoxically, the UN is not only not getting the money it needs but is also losing it.
To most developed economies the solution to this conundrum is voluntary contributions. In fact, whereas the mandatory contributions remain the same, it is voluntary financial resources that have growth. This, in principle, may lead to have enough resources for the multiple tasks of the UN. The reality is that, because voluntary fees are established not by the UN but the contributors, they finance programs they consider relevant. Instead, should these resources be managed by the UN, the international body would decide their allocation with a more global vision about the needs of the institution and its agenda. The fact that voluntary fees tend to prevail over mandatory contributions creates the feeling that some countries control, in fact, the UN agenda, such as the World Food Program (WFP) dominated by the US through voluntary contributions which in turn benefit major American food multinationals as providers of the institution.
The US claims the UN is expensive, and a waste of time and money. But, looking at New York, where the UN headquarters is located, the financial benefits for American companies that provide the international body with services and inputs are significant. The United Nations generates approximately 3. 69 billion dollars in annual economic output for New York City, according to a 2016 report of the authorities of the Big Apple. This economic impact includes roughly 1.64 billion in household earnings for the 15 890 individuals directly employed by the UN community, along with significant support for local businesses and tourism. Not only that: by hosting the UN, Washington garners diplomatic, political and other soft power benefits at the level of no other UN member country.
Few notice that New York has also become a hub for surveillance and intelligence gathering, a role the United States would likely lose if the international body shifted to Geneva, Nairobi or Beijing. Also, every time an ordinary or extraordinary gathering of the General Assembly takes place at the UN headquarters this convenes not only diplomats but journalists, civil society leaders and business executives who help set the global agenda. This convergence bolsters America’s status as a diplomatic capital and as a problem solver, well, until recently.
Leaving the UN without financial resources is a mistake since it diminishes its role in international affairs. This year, when the successor of Antonio Guterres is elected, the eyes of the world will be watching. Yet whoever is elected as the next Secretary General will be facing the most fundamental challenge the institution has ever had: its survival amidst calls insisting on its lacking relevance and shutting down.
Editor’s Note: The above guest column was penned by María Cristina Rosas, a professor and researcher in the faculty of political and social sciences at the National Autonomous University of Mexico in Mexico City. The column appears in The Rio Grande Guardian International News Service with the permission of the author. Rosas can be reached via email at: mcrosas@prodigy.net.mx
