By Javier Surasky
During a
briefing with UN member states on May 12, Secretary-General António Guterres
said something that hit me hard: "The liquidity crisis we now face is not
new, but today's financial and political situation adds even greater urgency to
our efforts." In plain terms, he admitted things are worse than ever.
After nearly a decade in his role, those words sound like the UN's top official
is owning up to the failure of his leadership.
The UN's
financial troubles are nothing new and stem from multiple causes. Member
states—especially the wealthier ones with bigger roles in the UN system—bear
the most responsibility. But let's be clear: while the General Assembly, made
up of these states, approves the budget and is supposed to pay up, the
Secretary-General is the one who drafts and manages it. He's also in charge of
the UN's administrative and financial operations. So, his role in this mess is
undeniable.
According to his report, Financial Situation of the United Nations (A/79/521/Add.1), released the same day as his briefing, the situation is dire: 2025 kicked off with a $135 million cash deficit. Collections this year have fallen short of projections, and by the end of April, the percentage of paid dues was the lowest in seven years. The report warns that unless collections in 2025 far exceed the past five years' average, the year could end as bad—or worse—than 2024 for the UN's regular budget operations.
For years,
the UN has been patching financial holes with Band-Aid solutions that weaken it
further. Late or missing payments from member states have disrupted the general
budget, forcing the UN to dip into funds meant for other purposes to cover
basic expenses. In 2018, the UN had to borrow from its Working Capital Fund as
early as May. Things "improved" slightly in later years, with
borrowings delayed to July (2019), September (2020), and November (2021).
However, the trend reversed again, with loans needed in September 2022, August
2023, and September 2024.
In 2024,
things got even uglier. The UN set dues totaling $3.22 billion, $231 million
more than in 2023. With unprecedented unpaid dues at the start of the year,
strict cash-saving measures were imposed from the get-go. The report notes that
without the General Assembly's approval to increase the Working Capital Fund
and tap into reserves from closed tribunals, the UN would have run out of cash
entirely. Even though 2024 ended with higher-than-expected collections from
late payments, uncertainty about future funds meant $255 million of the budget
went unspent, and reserves couldn't be fully replenished.
This year
started no better. By the end of April 2025, the UN had received $1.8 billion
in payments—$600 million less than the same period in 2024. Only 101 member
states had fully paid their dues, four fewer than last year. Of those, just 49
paid on time (within 30 days), with the United Kingdom as the only permanent
Security Council member among them. Alongside Germany and South Korea, they're
the only top 10 contributors to pay promptly. By May 14, 106
states had paid up, with France, another permanent Security Council member,
plus Japan, Italy, and Canada joining the list. Still, three permanent Security
Council members—among the top 10 contributors—haven't paid: the United States,
Russia, and China. First-quarter collections in 2025 dropped to 40%, compared
to 42% in 2023 and 52% in 2024, marking the lowest level in seven years.
It's
obvious the UN has either failed or been unable to take timely action. But it's
also clear that many countries' lofty talk of cooperation and multilateralism
falls apart when considering their financial commitments. The UN's funding
model is broken. Beyond operational complexities, the heavy reliance on
voluntary contributions lets countries dictate priorities, sidelining the UN's
needs. The web of overlapping funds could be streamlined, and it's unacceptable
that over 72% of the regular budget hinges on just 10 states, with more than
40% from only two. No organization would call this "normal."
The UN has
tolerated the intolerable, stumbling through with technical incompetence and a
political morality that resembles a mix of Shakespeare's Macbeth and Molière's
Harpagon. As always, the most vulnerable will bear the brunt of the
consequences.