The United Nations has recently taken a big step. On October 9, Reuters revealed that due to the huge financial gap, the United Nations had to lay off as many as 25% of peacekeepers and mission representatives, about 14,000 people.
This is the most serious staff reduction in the history of the United Nations, which has directly affected peace and humanitarian missions in many regions around the world. The main culprit of this "fiscal storm" is the two "financial owners" it relies on most, China and the United States. Both have not paid their 2025 dues, accounting for more than half of the total budget.
On the surface, it is neither of the two countries paid money; but deep down, but two completely different motives and patterns of thinking, this is not only a money bag issue, but also a summary of the crisis of global governance and trust.
The difference is huge.
Both China and the United States did not pay, but the character and the starting point are completely different, and first of all, the Chinese permanent delegation to the United Nations has consistently made it clear that this delay is procedural and is planned.
In the past three years, each is the fourth quarter, most of the time is concentrated between October and December, because the domestic financial allocation process has a fixed rhythm, which is not "loan accounting", but "going flow".
Moreover, China's payment record over the past ten years has been quite stable, and there have been no mistakes. In other words, the failure to pay this time is not a temporary change, but a step-by-step move.
But this time, China did not just "go through the process," but also proposed a new idea. By paying money "one step later", China sent a signal: It hopes that the United Nations can take a good look at its budget efficiency and whether it should "slim down" it.
The Chinese media have also commented that this "delay" is a gentle reminder to the budget process of the United Nations. Stop shouting that there is no money while the organization is bloated and overstaffed.
Looking at the United States, it is much more complicated and embarrassing. Since the Trump administration, the United States has simply refused to pay money. In the Biden era, it has not cleared this old debt. Now, adding up, the United States owes a total of 2.8 billion dollars, of which 1.3 billion are new accounts and 1.5 billion are old accounts. This is not a "late payment", but "I don't want to pay at all."
For a long time, the U.S. has used to use contributions as a political tool, and the United Nations does not conform to their will, directly knocking the neck and not giving money, this practice not only leads to the United Nations "financial blood loss", but also to the confidence of other countries in the multilateral mechanism.
The Secretariat of the United Nations has repeatedly issued official concerns, but the United States is still my way, this is not a financial issue, it is a strategic choice, so, although it appears that the Sino-U.S. does not match the contributions, but the logic behind it is different.
China is "process-based delay + reform reminder", and the United States is "strategic arrears + unilateralism", which lays the basis for the subsequent discussion of what the United Nations should do.
Money is just the trigger
Behind this storm, there are actually China's deep demands for United Nations reform. On October 6, Ambassador Sun Lei, China's Permanent Representative to the United Nations, said two things bluntly at the Fifth Committee of the UN General Assembly.
First, the United Nations must “increase quality and efficiency” by stopping the bureaucracy that is not productive, and secondly, give developing countries more speech and participation opportunities.
To be honest, China does not want to give money, but does not want to "give money," if the United Nations is still the original approach, large packages, inefficiency, that is irresponsible to the member state's investment.
China hopes that the money is spent more clearly, that the UN is doing more usefully, such as how the budget should be divided, how projects should be evaluated, where the money is going, whether it has been wasted, all these things must be said clearly and clearly.
In addition, developing countries have always felt that the United Nations is "the club of rich countries", and China has made it clear this time that to enhance the representation of developing countries in the UN Secretariat, not only have seats at meetings, but can speak out at the real executive level.
In the end, this makes the United Nations more like an agency that “serves the majority” rather than a tool manipulated by a minority, which also explains why China still emphasizes subsidiarity and is willing to take responsibility, even if it delays payments.
This is not a pick-up, but a "demand" while paying money. I hope this money is not a "silent investment", but a driving force for reform. Through this step, China has pulled the issue of membership dues from the debate of "who owes the debt" to the height of "how to reform".
This is not to tear off the face, but to constructively raise the issue, pushing the United Nations in a truly new direction that combines fairness and efficiency.
Not just lack of money.
This wave of job cuts has completely exposed the UN’s structural problems, the question is not who owes how much, but why the UN can so easily “bankrupt.”
One core problem is that the United Nations is too dependent on a handful of “paying big companies,” especially the United States, with a quarter of the contributions distributed annually, and the entire system shakes down once the United States “closes its wallet.”
But the problem is that the United States has both a "one-vote veto" superpower, and a long-term delay in membership fees, both as a judge and without paying the fee, this "inequality" has long left many countries unbalanced.
The impact of this 25% layoff is not as simple as the lack of a few translators in meetings. The withdrawal of peacekeepers and the reduction of missions mean that conflict mediation, security and humanitarian assistance in many areas may be suspended.
From Africa to the Middle East, from refugee camps to schools in epidemic areas, these are the basic orders maintained by the United Nations. Once the United Nations "slims down", the countries and people who need help most are often injured.
The current solution is very realistic, either the United States has to rush to fill the debt, or other countries temporarily "make money", but the domestic politics of the United States has become a pot, Congress allocations have to die, hoping in the short term to freeze this money, do not rely on specs.
On the other hand, China's reform ideas may be a longer-term exit, and only if the logic of the United Nations operations is smooth, more countries willingly can support it.
For example, reducing unnecessary office and administrative levels, improving project transparency, and making resource allocation fairer, if these reforms can be implemented, it is possible for the United Nations to get rid of its over-reliance on the "gold owner father" and truly become a global platform operated by the system.
If more developing countries stand on the position of China's reform and form a joint force, this "de-dependence" transformation may not be a dream, but the beginning of reality.
The United Nations is in crisis this time. It seems that membership dues are not in place, but what is really lacking is the trust mechanism for global governance. Neither China and the United States have paid their bills, but one is a planned delay and the other is a political arrears. The difference is not a little bit.
China's approach is to "delay participation" with reform intentions, hoping to make the United Nations more efficient and fair through systemic changes; and the choice of the United States is a long-standing "negative absence", neither wanting to give money nor wanting to dismiss power, dragging the United Nations unmoving.
This time, the United Nations stands at a crossroads. It can continue to make concessions for the "deadbeats", or it can take advantage of this crisis to rethink the meaning of its existence. If it wants to win back the trust of most countries in the world, it must prove that it is not a spokesperson for a few people, but a platform for real efforts for world peace and development.
This wave of contributions, the opportunity for the United Nations to rebuild, to rise from a “financial earthquake,” is not about who pays the money first, but whether it dares to change.
The Charter of the United Nations is very clear: it is an institution set up for the "common interests of all mankind". Now it is time to put this sentence into practice again.
Source of information
The United Nations will cut a quarter of global peacekeepers due to funding shortage 2025-10-09 08:35