east east east east

Source: All statements in this article have reliable sources of information contained in the article and at the end.

An international organization that has always been known for its authority and stability is now facing a financial hurry.

Due to the lack of funds for the United Nations, even the salaries of employees and the daily expenses of peacekeeping operations have become problems.

Surprisingly, the main reason for this problem is not that a small country "reneges on its debts".

Instead, the world's two most influential economies, China and the United States, were named for not paying full membership fees in time.

Although neither country paid the money, after digging deeper, we found that the two countries had their own plans and estimates.

The United Nations is not an alarmist worry with no worries about funds, but an international organ that relies on the contributions paid by member states on a daily basis.

In 2025, both the two largest contributors to United Nations expenditures will face funding constraints.

The regular budget needs to be cut from about $370 million (or on the order of $3.7 billion) to about $320 million.

The scope of job adjustment could reach 18.8%, and some lower-level positions were forced to "down".

At the same time, peacekeeping budgets are not immune.

Due to delayed payments and budget shortages, the United Nations is expected to make ¡°discretionary cuts¡± on peacekeeping missions.

Nearly a quarter of peacekeepers (soil rights) have been repatriated or suspended.

According to public reports, about 13,000 to 14,000 peacekeeping uniformed police and their supporting personnel around the world will be withdrawn or suspended from multiple mission areas.

Why can financial bad debts "defeat" an international organization?

Because the United Nations cannot print money like countries do, and there is no "commercial income" as a buffer.

If there is no money, the office will be closed, meetings cancelled, and staff dispatched.

These are not theoretical pessimisms, but realities that are gradually fulfilled.

At such a critical moment, the attitudes and strategies of China and the United States, the two largest investors, have become a key lever to crush the balance.

Among the challenging U.N. systems, the U.S. and China¡¯s fiscal attitude is the most remarkable.

Although both countries are "in arrears", the logic, methods and consequences behind it are completely different.

As the largest contributor to the United Nations for a long time, the United States has been set as a high proportion of contributors in terms of system design:

In 2025, its share in the regular budget is assessed to be about 22%.

In the peacekeeping budget, the United States also accounts for about 26 percent.

However, the U.S. government has had a tremendous shift in attitude toward paying the United Nations since the Trump era.

In its budget, it was proposed to cancel UN peacekeeping payments.

The so-called "pocket cuts" method is also used to directly withdraw allocations to the United Nations from the budget.

At the actual implementation level, the United States first defaulted on more than $1 billion as the norm.

It is reported that as of April 2025, the regular budget owes about $1.5 billion.

The United States also has large debts in the peacekeeping budget.

Even more tense, the U.S. is not breaking the deal entirely, but adopting a ¡°selective support¡± strategy for peacekeeping missions.

Regions that are willing to pay some budget to ensure the tasks they attach great importance to and benefit their own geographical interests.

On some tasks, it promises funds far below the set percentage and even refuses to pay.

In short, the United States uses UN finances as a "diplomatic lever".

Shuttling between budget power, control power and discourse power makes the arrears themselves a bargaining chip.

This way of strategic arrears makes the United Nations subject to budget arrangements and trust mechanisms everywhere.

Compared to the United States, China¡¯s ¡°debit¡± appears to be more of a ¡°delayed payment¡± than a complete rejection.

In the history of China's payment to the United Nations, it often pushes its dues to the end of the year or pays them across years because of the lag in domestic financial processes and budget arrangements.

The British "Financial Times" once pointed out that in recent years, China has extended the maturity of arrears from a few months to October and to the end of the year before payment, seriously affecting the cash flow of the United Nations.

According to public information, as of April 2025, China had a deficit of about $5.97 billion in the regular budget and about $5.87 billion in the peacekeeping budget.

China's share of payments has risen rapidly in recent years, and its share in the regular budget has reached about 20%.

China maintains that this delay does not mean non-payment, but a "procedural delay" in financial arrangement and budget rhythm.

China's permanent representative to the United Nations has also pointed out that the problem of delayed contributions is not only about the integrity of member states, but also about the design and effectiveness of the United Nations system.

China hopes to use this to streamline budgetary mechanisms, reform processes and increase transparency.

Therefore, from a Chinese perspective, this is a ¡°burdened deficit¡±.

Both the possibility of the final fulfillment of the contract is preserved, and it is also avoided to put yourself on the label of "liability country" at the beginning.

This strategy is ambiguous: itins both participation and preserves the space for negotiation.

According to public reports, the United Nations will implement cuts in around nine ongoing peacekeeping missions around the world, involving regional hotspots such as Africa, the Middle East and Europe.

In these missions, 13,000 to 14,000 peacekeepers (military, police, logistics support personnel) will face withdrawal or suspension.

In addition, some logistics bases, back-end support units and material security agencies will also be synchronized.

It is remarkable that UN Secretary-General Guterres has emphasized it at an internal meeting.

Peacekeeping missions can't be finished elegantly by "cutting" at will.

If the withdrawal is not appropriate, it may trigger a regional security vacuum.

Civilian casualties, refugee flows, and the resumption of arms could all follow.

The fiscal case is not an isolated crisis, but a reflection of the symptoms of the United Nations system itself.

When an international platform is forced to compress itself due to the exhaustion of funds, there is not only the red letter on the books, but also a crack in trust and a crisis in the system.

In this United Nations financial game, although China and the United States have different ways of arrears, they jointly point out one fact:

Traditional trust and rules alone cannot support the international mechanism of the 21st century.

The key to the future is not "who can pay first", but how to carry out reform in the current dilemma.

If the United Nations cannot use this crisis to open the opening of structural transformation.

Then the danger of being marginalized may be more severe than the danger of withdrawing peacekeepers.

If the reform can take a step forward, it will not only be a financial repair, but also an opportunity to reshape the legitimacy of the global multilateral mechanism.

Source of information

Watchers Network 2025-10-09 "Nearly $3 billion! the United States owes huge amounts, the United Nations exposed will cut a quarter of its peacekeeping forces"

2025-10-06 "Ambassador Sun Lei's speech at the opening ceremony of the regular session of the Fifth Committee of the 80th session of the UN General Assembly"

Member States having paid contributions for 2025 (Member States having paid contributions for 2025 by the United Nations General Assembly)
https://www.un.org/zh/ga/contributions/honourroll.shtml£©