Obama at the UN: Unfulfilled Promise

U.S. President Barack Obama and UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon toast at a leaders lunch on Sept. 20, 2016 (UN Photo).

U.S. President Barack Obama and UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon toast at a leaders lunch on Sept. 20, 2016 (UN Photo).

Sept. 20, 2016 –  U.S. President Barack Obama addressed the United Nations General Assembly on Tuesday for the eight and final time, delivering a lackluster speech, noticeable mostly for the sparsity of applause lines – in stark contrast to his 2009 maiden speech.

That speech seven years ago was constantly interrupted by applause and cheers for the newly-elected U.S. president who promised to herald in a new era of U.S. engagement with the world, music to the ears of UN diplomats and secretariat officials after eight years of George W. Bush and five years after his disastrous decision to invade Iraq without a Security Council resolution.

Obama told delegates in 2009 that he would close Guantanamo, responsibly end the Iraq war, work on an Israeli-Palestinian peace deal, stop the spread of nuclear weapons, and take action on climate change.

One the latter two, he has shown commitment and desire. The Iran deal, while far from perfect, appears to have, at least temporarily, halted Tehran’s quest for an atomic weapon. The U.S still remains a non-signatory to the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, one of nine countries preventing it from going into force.

On climate change, Obama’s rhetoric has been strong but his actions less so. Much is made of the Paris Agreement, but it is just that, a non-binding agreement that lacks the force of a treaty.

The Guantanamo Bay detention facility remains open, albeit with less that 100 detainees. Nevertheless, it remains open and some detainees have spent more than a dozen years there without charge or trial – in fact, Guantanamo has been open for longer under Obama than under Bush.

The U.S. officially withdrew from Iraq in 2011 but has been re-involved there since 2014 supporting the Iraqi government’s fight against ISIS. Despite the different nature of the operation, many aspects of the 2003-11 Iraq war remain, including an insurgency and armed sectarian conflict. The decision to hastily withdraw from Iraq in 2011 has drawn criticism that it left a security void that was exploited by ISIS.

On the Israeli-Palestinian conflict Obama called for a Palestinian state during his 2010 UN address but a year later vowed to veto a statehood bid by the Palestinians at the UN.

Where Obama has taken decisive action, such as in Libya, the outcome has been mayhem. Mandated to protect Libyan civilians using all means necessary, the US along with Arab and European allies ousted Gaddafi but failed to plan for the aftermath. The country now has two competing parliaments while another group controls the ports from where Libya exports its oil. The chaos also allowed ISIS gain a foothold in the country and it has become a major transit route for migrants seeking to make the dangerous crossing into Europe.

From the beginning of the Syria conflict in 2011, Obama insisted that Assad must step down and in 2012 he said that if Syria used chemical weapons that would cross a “red line.” Five years later Assad remains in power and continues to use chemical weapons against Syrian citizens.

While there were no easy options for resolving the Syria conflict, some countries at the UN, friendly to the US, suggest that the insistence by the US, along with France and the UK, that Assad step down prevented a solution, albeit an imperfect one, given Russia’s stance that Assad’s fate should be decided by a national poll. The more cynical inside the UN, say that the US, along with France and the UK, always knew that insisting Assad step down was never going to be viable and the status quo would continue - while giving the appearance that the Western powers were on the side of the Syrian people.

The U.S. also championed the cause of South Sudan independence, which was achieved in 2011. Yet, the breakup of Sudan has seen the misery continue for the South Sudanese people, with an estimated more than 50,000 killed in the past five years. Despite that many of the killings can be attributed to government forces, the U.S. remains opposed to an arms embargo on the country.

On the global refugee crisis, the U.S. president has been strong on rhetoric but short on action. A mere 10,000 Syrian refugees have been admitted to the U.S., which is less than the 13,000 admitted by Singapore and far less than the 600,000 admitted to Germany.

The partisanship and gridlock that characterize U.S. domestic politics are responsible for some of Obama’s failures, particularly on closing Guantanamo, ratifying the CTBT, the Disabilities Convention, and the Convention on the Rights of the Child. But that aside, despite his charisma and likability, Obama has lacked leadership and decisiveness in confronting global challenges in what is still a U.S.-led world order.

- Denis Fitzgerald
On Twitter @denisfitz

Doubts Raised Over Georgieva’s Qualifications for Secretary-General

kristalina_georgieva_7
Sept. 15, 2016 – Speculation continues to mount that Kristalina Georgieva, a Bulgarian who is the current EU budget commissioner, will be nominated for the post of UN secretary-general by a grouping of countries including Croatia and Hungary.

Her compatriot, Irina Bokova, the current UNESCO director-general, was Sofia’s choice, but Bokova’s results, in the four straw polls to date, show her with an average of five discourage votes, and that she is regarded as Russia’s preferred candidate is not likely to see her curry favor with veto-wielding Britain, France and the U.S.

Before the race for next SG got started in earnest, the widely-held view inside the UN was that Ban Ki-moon’s successor should be a woman – the first in the UN’s history, and that she should hail from Eastern Europe, the only UN regional group not to have held the post.

Results from fourth straw poll

Despite her laudable background, including a career with the World Bank and two EU commissioner posts – prior to her current assignment she was the EU commissioner for humanitarian aid, Georgieva is seen as lacking both UN and diplomatic experience.

Of the ten current candidates, all have either held, or currently hold, positions inside the UN or have served as their country’s foreign minister – with a few having done both, while Helen Clark and Antonio Guterres both served as their country’s prime minister before their senior UN appointments.

Next week’s high-level segment of the General Assembly is expected to include high-level talks on the margins about charting a way forward in finding a successor to Ban, and if Georgieva is to be nominated then it seems that would have to happen next week at the latest. Some Security Council members have indicated that it is already to late for a new entry to the race.

Whatever the outcome from talks next week, one thing is for sure – the race is far from over.

- Denis Fitzgerald
On Twitter @denisfitz

Related Stories: Veto-Wielding China Says Supports Malcorra for Next SG

Helen Clark to Announce Candidacy for UN Secretary-General Race

Still Seven Candidates for Next UN Secretary-General Three Weeks Before Interviews Begin

Race for Next UN Secretary-General Taking Shape

Natalia Gherman: Could Moldova’s Foreign Minister be the Next UN Secretary-General

 

Iran Denies Arms Transfers Cited in UN Report on Nuclear Deal

Screenshot 2016-07-18 at 4.26.41 PM

July 18, 2016 – Ban Ki-moon said in his first report to the Security Council on the implementation of the Iranian nuclear deal that he has received no information that nuclear related technology has been sold, transferred, or exported to Iran since the deal was implemented six months ago.

The report, discussed by the Council on Monday, did however contain information that a weapons shipment confiscated by the US Navy in March was bound for Yemen, in contravention of the agreement which bans Iran from exporting weapons for five years.

Screenshot 2016-07-18 at 3.56.46 PM
Ban wrote that the United States seized the weapons in international waters off the Gulf of Oman after its naval forces boarded a dhow, the Adris, on March 28, 2016. The United States in its report to Ban said the weapons shipment was likely bound for Yemen.

In its response, Tehran denied that the shipment originated in Iran and stated that it never engaged in such activity.

The report also cites the launching of ballistic missiles by Iran in early March. Resolution 2231 bans Iran for eight years from undertaking any activity related to ballistic missiles designed to be capable of delivering nuclear weapons, including launches using such ballistic missile technology.

Screenshot 2016-07-18 at 4.05.23 PMOther concerns raised in the report include Iran’s participation in a weapons exhibit in Iraq. Iran claims that the weapons displayed remained in Iranian ownership despite having crossed an international border.

Screenshot 2016-07-18 at 4.08.01 PM
The report also cites the travel of Major General Qasem Soleimani of the IRGC to Iraq in violation of a travel ban imposed by the Security Council. Iran says Soleimani was in Iraq at the request of the Iraqi government during its Fallujah operation.

Screenshot 2016-07-18 at 4.08.27 PM
For its part, Iran says it has yet to realize the benefits of the deal as its overseas assets are still frozen, that Iranian civilian aircraft are not given fuel at some EU destinations and that state and local governments in the US have sent threatening letters to foreign banks that invest in the Iranian energy sector.

The full report is here.

- Denis Fitzgerald
On Twitter @denisfitz

Race for Next UN Secretary-General Taking Shape

The six official candidates to date to succeed Ban Ki-moon

The six official candidates to date to succeed Ban Ki-moon

Feb. 22, 2016 – There are now six official candidates to succeed Ban Ki-moon and become the ninth secretary-general of the United Nations.

Four of the six declared candidates hail from the Balkans with the former Yugoslav countries hedging that strong trade links with Russia, as well as EU membership in the case of Croatia and Slovenia, and EU accession status, in the case of Macedonia and Montenegro, could see them bridge the West-Russia divide in the UN and get the support of both.

Besides Croatia’s Vesna Pusic, Macedonia’s Srgian Kerim, Slovenia’s Danilo Turk and Montenegro’s Igor Lusik, the two other candidates are Bulgaria’s Irina Bokova and Moldova’s Natalia Gherman.

Bokova, the current director-general of UNESCO, was nominated earlier this month by the Bulgarian government despite much speculation that her compatriot Kristalina Georgieva was Sofia’s favored candidate – the EU budget commissioner is also favored by the Western P5 countries, Britain, France and the US.

But all is not lost for Georgieva as the candidate process does not rule out a UN member state nominating two candidates nor does it stipulate that a candidate has to be nominated by their country of citizenship.

The sixth and most recent declared candidate is Moldova’s Natalia Gherman. UN Tribune was first to write about Gherman as a potential successor to Ban Ki-moon, noting back in April 2015 that Moldova’s strong ties with Russia, its non-membership of NATO, as well as her own pro-EU outlook, could see her emerge as a compromise candidate.

Gherman is scheduled to speak at New York’s Columbia University next week and it is interesting to note in her bio she lists fluency in English, German, Romanian and Russian – but not French, an unofficial requirement of UN secretaries-general. But there’s little reason for her to worry about this as it’s widely known that Ban Ki-moon was taking intensive French classes after his election, and French-languaue reporters still like to test him on his proficiency.

There are no clear favorites yet to succeed Ban and the list of candidates is sure to increase but what is clear so far is that the next secretary-general will come from Eastern Europe – there is no requirement as such but it is the only region not to have had a secretary-general and there is wide agreement in the general membership, if not the P5, that it is Eastern Europe’s turn – and that the UN may well elect its first female secretary-general.

Update: Feb 29, 2016 – Former UNHCR chief Antonio Guterres has been nominated by the Portuguese government. Guterres is a former prime minister of Portugal and served as UN refugee chief from 2005-15, during the worst refugee crisis in UNHCR’s history. The Portuguese government made the announcement on Monday. He is the first candidate to be nominated by a non-Eastern European member state and his candidacy, while popular, is likely to face stiff resistance from veto-wielding Russia.

- Denis Fitzgerald
@denisfitz

Related: Natalia Gherman – Could Moldova’s Foreign Minister be the Next UN Secretary-General?

Putin Coming to New York for UN General Assembly as Russia Presides Over UNSC

Screenshot 2015-08-30 at 4.11.25 AM
Aug 28, 2015 – With Russia presiding over the Security Council in September, its president Vladimir Putin is also coming to New York later next month for the high-level segment of the opening of the 70th General Assembly.

Putin last addressed the UN in 2005 for the organization’s 60th anniversary.

With Moscow chairing the Council next month, Putin will likely preside over a meeting of the 15-nation body during his visit.

If he does, it will be interesting to watch for which world leaders attend the meeting – and which ones will decide to boycott.

US President Barack Obama chaired a meeting of the Council last September and in September 2009.

A record number of world leaders are expected for this year’s opening of the General Assembly, which will also mark the UN’s 70th anniversary, including Pope Francis who will be the first pontiff since Benedict XVI in 2005 to address the gathering.

A high-level summit is taking place on Sept 25-27 where world leaders will adopt a set of goals to replace the MDGs, which expire at the end of the year.

Update: Russia has announced it will hold a high-level Security Council meeting at the Foreign Minister level on Sept. 30 to be chaired by FM Lavrov on “Maintenance of international peace and security: settlement of conflicts in the Middle East and North Africa and countering the terrorist threat in the region.” The concept note for the meeting is here

EU Countries Combined Provide the Same Number of UN Peacekeepers as Nepal

arton843

Aug 24, 2015 – Latest figures from the UN Dept. of Peacekeeping Operations show that 24 of 28 EU member states provide police and troops to peacekeeping missions for a total current contribution of 5,204 peacekeepers.

That’s less than five percent of the current 104,000 troops deployed in 16 missions worldwide and less than the 5,332 peacekeepers that Nepal alone provides.

A majority of EU states provide only tens of peacekeepers while others are in the low hundreds.

The top five EU troop contributing countries to UN peace operations are:

Italy – 1,111
France – 906
Netherlands – 681
Spain – 616
Ireland – 371

Bulgaria, Latvia, Luxembourg and Malta are the four EU countries that are currently not providing any troops to UN missions.

Among those providing the least peacekeepers are Cyprus, 2, Portugal, 3, Belgium, 5, Czech Republic, 13, and Croatia, 15.

Permanent UN Security Council member the UK provides 287 peacekeepers, which is less than fellow permanent member France but significantly more than Russia, 76, and the US, 78. China leads the way among permanent members providing 3,078 troops. The US is the biggest financial contributor to UN peacekeeping.

While Sweden is a strong supporter of the UN, it does not make the top five for contributing personnel to peacekeeping with a total current contribution of 279 police and troops combined. Fellow Nordic countries Finland and Denmark are providing 338 and 49 peacekeepers respectively. Non EU-member Norway is providing 97 peacekeepers.

Germany, which has aspirations of a permanent Security Council seat, provides 175 peacekeepers to current UN missions while neighbors Austria are contributing 191 personnel.

The tiny Baltic countries Estonia and Lithuania are providing four and 43 peacekeepers respectively.

The burden of peacekeeping is shared among South Asian and African nations with Bangladesh currently the top contributor, providing 9,398 peacekeepers, followed by Ethiopia, 8,309, India, 7,960, Pakistan, 7,665, and Rwanda, 5,600.

A summit on providing troops to peacekeeping operations will be held during the 70th General Assembly which opens in September.

- Denis Fitzgerald
On Twitter @denisfitz

A Guide to the Six UN Security Council Resolutions on Iran’s Nuclear Program

14030_527b5c9805d54-386x289
July 13, 2015 – The UN Security Council has passed six resolutions against Iran over its nuclear program, specifically requesting that Tehran end uranium enrichment activities and comply with requests from the International Atomic Energy Association. Collectively, the resolutions impose an assets freeze, travel ban and arms embargo.

1. Resolution 1696 was passed in July 2006 in response to an IAEA report that Iran had not complied with its safeguards agreement. It was adopted with 14 countries in favor and one non-permanent member against, Qatar. The text called on Iran to suspend uranium enrichment and to comply with the IAEA, stating that otherwise the Council would impose punitive measures under Article 41 of the UN Charter. Article 41 allows for measures not involving the use of force, i.e. sanctions.

Full text of Resolution 1696

2. Resolution 1737 was passed in December 2006 in response to Iran’s failure to comply with Resolution 1696. The text imposed sanctions – in this case, an assets freeze – against individuals and entities involved in Iran’s nuclear program. Currently, there are 43 individuals and 78 entities on the sanctions list. The resolution also banned the sale, supply and transfer of designated nuclear and ballistic missile technology to Iran. The resolution was adopted unanimously.

Full text of Resolution 1737

3. Resolution 1747 was passed in March 2007 and tightened the sanctions against Iran including preventing the export of arms from the country as well as adding individuals and entities to the list of those under an assets freeze. It also called on states to report to the Sanctions Committee the entry of certain individuals into their territory. The resolution was adopted unanimously.

Full text of Resolution 1747

4. Resolution 1803 was passed in March 2008 and for the first time imposed a travel ban on certain individuals associated with Iran’s nuclear program. It also added to the list of individuals that states must report to the 1737 Committee if they enter into or transit through their territory. Fourteen countries voted for the resolution while non-permanent member Indonesia abstained.

Full text of Resolution 1803

5. Resolution 1835 was adopted in September 2008. Unlike the previous four resolutions it was not adopted under Chapter 7 of the UN Charter. It imposed no new measures against Tehran but reiterated the four previous resolutions and endorsed a statement from the president of the Security Council calling for an “early, negotiated solution” to the Iranian nuclear issue. The resolution was adopted unanimously.

Full text of Resolution 1835

6. Resolution 1929 was adopted in June 2010 and tightened the arms embargo against Iran as well as expanding the list of individuals and entities subject to an asset freeze and travel ban. Non-permanent members Turkey and Brazil voted against the resolution while fellow non-permanent member Lebanon abstained.

Full text of Resolution 1929

NPT Conference Sparks Calls for New Treaty Banning Nuclear Weapons

No_nukes_tidyman
May 22, 2015 – The merits of a new treaty banning nuclear weapons have been debated over the past month in UN conference rooms during the five-year review of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which ends today in New York.

Among the reasons cited by advocates of a ban are the reluctance of nuclear armed states to meet their disarmament commitments and that nuclear weapons are the only weapons of mass destruction not banned by treaty, with chemical and biological weapons covered under separate conventions.

But the biggest reason cited is new information on the humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons. “We’re learning more every day as new documents become declassified and made available,” said Thomas Nash, director of the advocacy group Article 36. In some cases he said the research shows that “sheer luck has prevented the detonation of nuclear warheads.”

The growing information about the catastrophic consequences of nuclear weapons prompted an international conference in Oslo in 2013 on that very issue and concluded:

It is unlikely that any state or international body could address the immediate humanitarian emergency caused by a nuclear weapon detonation in an adequate manner and provide sufficient assistance to those affected… While political circumstances have changed, the destructive potential of nuclear weapons remains.

A follow-up conference in Vienna lead to what has become known as the Humanitarian Pledge, which calls for “effective measures to fill the legal gap for the prohibition and elimination of nuclear weapons and we pledge to cooperate with all stakeholders to achieve this goal.”

“What’s happening now is that because of this deeper frustration at the lack of progress and the intransigence of countries with nuclear weapons, I think states are saying we’re not going to wait for you, we’re going to move forward on negotiations for a treaty to prohibit nuclear weapons even without the nuclear armed states,” Article 36′s Nash said.

So far, 99 countries* have signed on to the pledge, which, as Nash acknowledges, does not outright call for an international treaty banning nuclear weapons but for “effective measures to fill the legal gap” prohibiting these weapons. He said the greatest pushback against the calls for a treaty for the prohibition and elimination of nuclear weapons have come from the UK who have said that it would be “like a referendum on the NPT and that it would basically undermine the NPT.”

“It only undermines the NPT if you see the NPT as something that legitimizes your position on nuclear weapons and the problem is that that is precisely what countries inside the NPT with nuclear weapons see the NPT as,” Nash said. While the NPT prohibits non-nuclear weapons states from acquiring such weapons it also calls for the recognized nuclear powers to disarm – which is not happening.

“They think it’s a great treaty that allows them to keep their nuclear weapons. It gives them special status,” he said, adding that France, the US and the UK are engaged in revisionism arguing that the NPT is not about disarmament, it’s about non-proliferation – even though disarmament is one of the three pillars of the NPT along with non-proliferation and the peaceful use of nuclear energy.

While it’s not clear if all of the 99 countries* that have so far signed the Austrian Pledge are in favor of a treaty to ban nuclear weapons or some other steps to fill the “legal gap,” what is clear is that the countries absent from the pledge are the nuclear armed states as well as NATO members and other countries that are in a security alliance with nuclear states.

Alyn Ware, a longtime disarmament campaigner and member of the World Future Council, said the calls for a treaty among like-minded countries for the prohibition and elimination of nuclear weapons are understandable as the nuclear weapons states are not yet prepared to abolish nuclear weapons. Under this scenario, non-nuclear countries would negotiate a treaty without waiting for the nuclear armed states and those countries in nuclear-weapons alliances to join.

“Such a treaty could be concluded quite quickly” he said. “However, a problem is that it would only apply to those countries that join. It would not impact on the policies of the nuclear-armed states and their allies. Another problem with the proposal is that there does not appear to be even a majority of the non-nuclear countries in support. When the proposal was discussed in the United Nations Open Ended Working Group on Taking Forward Multilateral Nuclear Disarmament Negotiations, a number of non-aligned countries indicated that they would not support a treaty like this that placed new obligations on them, but no additional obligations on the nuclear armed states.”

“Another type of ban treaty, one that might have more impact, would be one banning the use of nuclear weapons as a measure leading towards nuclear disarmament. You could probably capture more of the allied countries, maybe even some of the nuclear weapons states, in such a treaty” he said. “India has already put forward a proposal to the United Nations General Assembly on negotiating a convention to prohibit the use of nuclear weapons. It is a much shorter, and more realizable, step from this position to a ban on use, than it is to jump immediately to a ban on possession.”

Ware pointed out that the global ban on chemical weapons started first with a ban on use, followed by negotiations to achieve the Chemical Weapons Convention banning possession.

But campaigners for an outright ban say it is the only credible option, particularly as the draft final document of the NPT review conference, which has yet to be agreed on, reflects the views of the nuclear weapons states and their allies.

While an earlier draft noted the the growing interest in the humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons, the final draft now refers to a growing interest “among non-nuclear weapons states” in those consequences and raises doubts on other humanitarian concerns.

“It suggests that only non-nuclear-armed states and civil society learned anything about the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons over the last three years and argues that it is only the perception of some states that there could be no adequate response to a nuclear weapon detonation,” Ray Acheson of Reaching Critical Will wrote on Friday about the final draft. “States truly committed to disarmament must say ‘enough is enough’ to the nuclear-armed states. As of writing, 99 states* have endorsed the Humanitarian Pledge to fill the legal gap for the prohibition and elimination of nuclear weapons. The pledge should be the basis for negotiations of a nuclear weapon ban treaty.”

- Denis Fitzgerald
On Twitter @denisfitz

*The Pledge has now been signed by 107 countries

US, France, UK Tops for UN Secretariat Staff

First Phase Digital
Feb. 10, 2015 – Ban Ki-moon’s imminent announcement of a replacement for Valerie Amos as head of OCHA has put UN hiring in the spotlight with the United Nations chief under pressure to make the appointment based on merit.

In reality, the UN Secretariat is a political battleground where, as described in Thant Myint-U and Amy Scott’s definitive The UN Secretariat: A Brief History (1945-2006), “the UN’s member states compete for power and influence and attempt to diminish the power and influence of others.”

The most recent Composition of the Secretariat report illustrates how political power and financial contributions impact hiring with just three of the 193 UN member states – the United States (2,611), France (1,484) and the UK (931) – accounting for almost 15 percent of the 41,426 Secretariat staff .

The Secretariat, which the UN Charter says “shall be comprised of a Secretary-General and such staff as the organization may require” essentially implements the resolutions of the General Assembly and Security Council, including managing peacekeeping operations, and also includes OCHA and the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. It does not include specialized agencies such as UNICEF, UNDP and WHO.

Although US nationals contribute the most Secretariat staff, the Composition of the Secretariat report, which covers July 1, 2013 to June 30, 2014, says that it is under-represented in staff numbers but France and the UK are over-represented.

The US is the largest contributor to the UN’s regular budget, accounting for 22 percent, or $655 million annually, whereas France provides 5.5 percent, $151 million, making it the fourth biggest contributor, while the UK, at 5.1 percent, or $140 million, is fifth.

Japan is the second biggest financial contributor to the regular budget, assessed at 10 percent, or $293 million, yet only 255 Secretariat staff are Japanese. Germany is the third biggest contributor, assessed at 7 percent, $193 million. There are 516 German nationals working for the Secretariat.

China and Russia account for 5 percent and 2.4 percent of the regular budget, contributing $139 million and $66 million respectively, and there are 450 Chinese nationals and 562 Russians working for the Secretariat.

Amos is the first female head of OCHA and Ban is under pressure from civil-society groups to improve the UN’s poor record on appointing women to senior posts. According to the Composition of the Secretariat report, only 19 of the 75 undersecretaries-general and just 16 of the 64 assistant secretaries-general are women.

Related Stories:

Four Insiders Who Could Succeed Valerie Amos as OCHA Head

Replacing Valerie Amos: Political Appointment or Merit-Based?

Security Council Inconsistent on Women, Peace & Security

The UN’s Poor Record on Gender Equality

- Denis Fitzgerald
On Twitter @denisfitz

Image/UN Photo

As Obama Heads to UN, US Yet to Pay 2014 Dues

Usdollar100front
Sept. 10, 2014 – The United States owes the United Nations almost $1 billion in dues for 2013 and 2014 and is one of only two current Security Council members not to have paid in full this year.

The US is the biggest contributor to the UN’s regular budget and was assessed dues of $621 million for 2014, or 22 percent of the overall regular budget. The UN maintains a separate peacekeeping budget.

So far this year, the US has paid $83.8 million and its overall outstanding contributions (prior year and current year) for the regular budget is $921.3 million, according to information provided to UN Tribune by the United Nations Committee on Contributions.

While 115 of the 193 UN member states have paid their dues in full for 2014, the US is the only permanent member of the Council not to have done so and among all current 15 Council members, Chad is the only other member not to have paid in full, according to the Committee on Contributions Roll of Honor.

The United States government’s fiscal year begins on Oct. 1st and the US typically makes substantial payments to the UN in the fourth-quarter, though not nearly enough to clear its debt, but enough to prevent its inclusion on the Article 19 list which would result in losing its General Assembly vote.

Among the top five contributors to the UN budget, the US is also the only one not yet to have paid in full with Japan ($276 mln), Germany ($182 mln), France ($142 mln), and the UK ($132 mln) all paid up-to-date.

The US currently holds the rotating monthly presidency of the Security Council and President Obama has called a high-level Security Council meeting for Sept. 24th on threats to international peace and security from foreign terrorist fighters. So far, 13 heads of state or government from the 15 Security Council member states are slated to participate with China and Russia yet to confirm who will represent them at the meeting.

The last time Obama chaired a Security Council meeting was in Sept. 2009, then the meeting was on nuclear non-proliferation. China was represented by then president Hu Jintao while Russia’s PM Dimitry Medvedev represented Moscow. Libya’s Muammar Gaddafi was the only leader of a then Council member not to attend.

Obama is also participating in Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon’s Climate Summit on Sept. 23rd.

- Denis Fitzgerald
On Twitter @denisfitz

Image: Wikimedia Commons