China 'absolutely obsessed' with cutting spending at UN

China is joining the ranks of the United Nations’ fiscal hawks. Earlier this month, Beijing proposed its steepest cuts in U.N. peacekeeping costs, recommending that more than $150 million be cut from the $6.83 billion peacekeeping budget proposal for 2023/2024, according to an internal U.N. budget spreadsheet reviewed by Devex. The move, in one sense, aligns Beijing more closely with the U.S., Japan and other large donors, who have been pressing the United Nations for decades to rein in spending on its multibillion-dollar peacekeeping empire. For its part, Washington proposed $190 million worth of cuts in the budget, according to the spreadsheet. But China’s budget initiatives reflect sharply different priorities, eliminating posts for officials that promote human rights, gender equality, and victims’ rights. China — and the U.S. for that matter — did not succeed in securing most of the cuts it sought to impose in the budget, which was adopted on Friday by consensus. But diplomats believe Beijing is laying down a marker to forecast its long-term aims to shape U.N. spending priorities. “They want to send a political signal,” said one U.N.-based diplomat involved in budget negotiations. “They are absolutely obsessed with cutting,” the diplomat added. “Their concern is now one of a major contributor, which is reducing to the extent you can the level of your contribution.” Still, China’s stinginess reflects the increasing economic burden it has been required to shoulder in recent years, as its share of costs has risen to more than 18% of the U.N. peacekeeping budget — a figure that is expected to grow as high as 22% in the coming years, according to two U.N. diplomats. China’s current share of the U.N.’s regular administrative budget is 15%, and is likely to climb to between 18% and 19% by next year. In early June, it proposed slashing more than $10 million in budget contributions to the U.N. missions in the Democratic Republic of Congo, more than $15 million for Mali, and $4.5 million for the U.N. operation in Western Sahara. The calls for belt tightening in Africa risk placing China on a collision course with African governments, which would like to see the U.N. step up funding for African peacekeeping efforts. Beijing also sought to claw back more than $4 million by blocking the deployment of a ship in the U.N. maritime force in Lebanon, which supports the Lebanese Navy’s efforts to interdict illicit weapons entering the country. Two Western diplomats claimed the Chinese were motivated by revenge since its own offer to provide the U.N. sea force with a Chinese ship was rebuffed. But Japan, another chief donor, also proposed more than $4 million in cuts to the U.N. mission in Lebanon, according to the U.N. spreadsheet. “It’s unsurprising that China is concerned about rising peace operations costs as the second largest budget funder, but that isn’t the entire point,” Courtney J. Fung, associate professor at Macquarie University in Australia, told Devex. Fung said Beijing’s demands for greater transparency and accountability from the U.N. secretariat marks a “shift in China’s budget approach,” which has traditionally aimed to scale back funds for politically sensitive but financially insignificant programs that advance human rights and protections from gender violence. China and Russia also pressed for steep cuts in the amount of spending that will be required to close down the U.N. peacekeeping mission in Mali, known as MINUSMA. The debate over funding for the Mali mission comes two weeks after the Malian government abruptly demanded the U.N. immediately shutter the mission, the security body’s largest peacekeeping operation, with more than 15,000 troops. The mission was initially estimated to cost about $1.28 billion to operate. U.N. planners initially said they would instead need $850 million over 12 months to cover the costs of evacuating the troops and other personnel, and tie up a wide array of legal and administrative matters. The U.S. and its European partners proposed the U.N. be given $750 million and nine months to wrap up the mission. But Russia last week recommended the U.N. be given only $190 million and finish the job in six months. China proposed $400 million over the same period. The final budget — which ended weeks of negotiations in the U.N.’s budget committee, also known as the Fifth Committee — included $590 million for the drawdown by the end of December. “After two months of difficult negotiations, the Fifth Committee has reached agreement on a $6.1 billion budget for nine active peacekeeping missions, the support mission in Somalia, three service centers, and the support staff at UN Headquarters,” said Chris Lu, the U.S. ambassador for U.N. management and reform, in a statement. “We have also provided six months of financial commitment authority for the mission in Mali. When the costs for MINUSMA are excluded, this budget reflects a 4.9% increase over last year’s budget, with the increase driven largely by rising fuel costs, increased air operations, and higher equipment reimbursements.” But Lu expressed concern that the budget lacked sufficient funds to ensure the safe evacuation of U.N. personnel. “We remain seriously concerned that our decision today has increased the dangers faced by departing peacekeepers and the risk that UN assets will fall into the hands of those looking to destabilize Mali or bring harm to its people. That would be a great disservice to all the personnel who have served bravely in Mali for 10 years.” “It is our responsibility to provide the sustainable and predictable resources so the missions are adequately financed and sufficiently equipped to carry out their mandates,” added Silvio Gonzato, the European Union’s deputy head of delegation at the U.N., in a statement. “We didn’t rise to these standards in our decision on [the Mali mission], and while adhering to its outcome, we consider it one of the lowest moments of this committee. Our disregard for the repeated plea from both the mission and the Secretariat will hamper the mission’s ability to organize its withdrawal in adequate conditions, and hinder the safety and security of the peacekeepers and civilian personnel still deployed in Mali today.”