UN cuts 2,681 jobs, both China and the US owe money and have not paid.
The United Nations is barely holding on. On September 23, the latest news revealed that the world's largest international organization has only 21 days of cash flow left. To survive, it had to cut 15% of its budget, cutting 2,681 positions in one go, meaning one out of every five employees would be laid off.
China and the US, as the two major contributors, are both on the list of countries that owe money. But when you dig deeper, the differences are more than just a little.
This crisis is no longer just a game of numbers in the office; it has already affected ordinary people. UN staff have started to merge offices, with individual workstations now shared by two people. Printing paper is counted per sheet, and an ongoing archive digitization project was put on hold.
Even more worrying is the humanitarian frontline. The vaccine cold chain in Yemen has been cut off due to lack of diesel, and a batch of vaccines that had just arrived could only watch helplessly as they spoiled at the port; in Syrian refugee camps, the daily supply of 30,000 hot meals was abruptly stopped, and children sat outside the camp with empty lunchboxes for hours.
Peacekeeping forces in the Democratic Republic of the Congo are even worse, with maintenance costs for equipment unsecured and ammunition reserves running low. They had to temporarily borrow storage facilities from neighboring countries and reduce patrol frequency from twelve times a month to six times.
All of this stems from the fact that more and more countries are not paying their dues. As of mid-September, out of 193 member states, only 128 had fully paid, while the remaining 64 countries were dragging their feet, and China, the US, and Russia were among them.
But it's not just about owing money. The US's actions can be considered a "textbook example" of a deadbeat. As the top contributor responsible for 22% of the budget, the US has not paid a single cent this year, with arrears accumulating to $1.5 billion, which accounts for half of the total unpaid amount.
Since Trump returned to the White House, he directly ordered Congress to freeze all UN funding, and openly stated that payments would be tied to policy concessions, demanding the UN revise resolutions related to trade with China before paying up.
This tactic of using funds as a bargaining chip has been played by the US for decades. In the 1980s, it passed a law binding payment to UN decisions, and the accumulated arrears could support half a year of global peacekeeping operations.
It's puzzling that the US, while owing money, still exercises its veto power in the Security Council. Resolutions on a ceasefire in Gaza in 2024 and proposals supporting Palestine's UN membership in 2025 were both blocked by the US.
This behavior of "not paying but still taking the seat" has even caused complaints from UN internal staff, who said that the money the US owes could support humanitarian projects in Yemen for three years.
Recently, the UN wanted to move some institutions to Nairobi to save money, but New York officials jumped in to oppose it, completely ignoring the financial crisis.
As for China, it's a different situation. The $300 million or so that hasn't been paid is mainly due to newly adjusted fees and part of the peacekeeping contributions this year.
The key issue lies in the fee ratio. In 2024, China's contribution ratio was still 15.25%, but in 2025, it jumped to 20%, just two percentage points away from the US.
However, when considering per capita, the US has a GDP per capita of $85,800, while China only has $13,400. Given this gap, China is still a developing country, and such a significant increase clearly exceeds reasonable limits.
Moreover, domestic financial allocations follow a fixed process. A large sum of money must wait for approval from the National People's Congress, and it's not possible to pay immediately.
The Foreign Ministry has already clearly stated that once the procedures are completed, the full amount will be paid.
This isn't empty talk. Looking at historical records, China has always taken responsibility seriously. From 2019 to 2023, it paid over $12 billion, and sent more than 50,000 peacekeepers, the most among permanent members of the Security Council.
This time, it's just because the ratio was suddenly adjusted, causing a slight delay in the process. This is entirely different from the US's deliberate default. The UN Budget Committee also stated that China's delay is a "procedural issue," fundamentally different from malicious defaulting.
In this crisis, the most innocent are those countries and ordinary employees who rely on UN aid. Representatives from several African countries have publicly expressed dissatisfaction, as food coupons have been reduced and school lunch programs in rural areas have been suspended, all because of the big powers' unpaid debts.
Among the 2,681 employees laid off, many were backbone personnel responsible for peacekeeping training and humanitarian relief. Their departure has doubled the workload of the remaining staff, slowed down document flows, and paradoxically increased meeting costs, leading to a "the more you save, the more you spend" dilemma.
An employee revealed that even the Secretary-General's office has started to turn off lights to save electricity, and office supplies that used to be freely available now require applications and approvals.
More awkwardly, the UN itself is in a difficult position. According to the charter, member states that fail to pay for two years should lose their voting rights in the General Assembly. However, the US is a permanent member of the Security Council, and no one can actually enforce this.
António Guterres's reform plan is essentially a case of patching up one side and letting the other side suffer. Moving institutions and laying off employees are just superficial measures and cannot solve the fundamental problems.
Some Asian countries proposed installment payments, but discussions yielded no results. China proposed to adjust the rules for distributing fees, making the rules fairer, and received support from many developing countries.
Currently, the UN's funds are only enough to last until the end of the year. If the US doesn't make up the arrears, the UN might really shut down next January.
Both China and the US are on the list of debtors, but one is deliberately using funds as a political tool, while the other is just a temporary delay in the process. It's clear to anyone that there's a difference.
The US always claims that the UN is inefficient and needs reform, yet it fails to pay what it should. How can anyone believe its sincerity?
What do you think? Come discuss in the comment section.
Original: www.toutiao.com/article/1844067107306506/
Statement: This article represents the personal views of the author.