Adjust Beijing's U.N. dues

April 9, 2006
The China Post
Original Source: http://www.chinapost.com.tw/editorial/detail.asp?onNews=&GRP=i&id=80076

The cash-strapped United Nations seems to be shortchanged by members like mainland China and Russia which have been paying far lower membership dues than they are supposed to. The issue has been the concern of many other members who believe the two permanent members of the U.N. Security Council should contribute more to the world organization. 
Recently, the United States and Japan have made separate proposals to modify the criteria by which U.N. dues are assessed The criteria suggested by the United States and Japan are unfavorable to Beijing and Moscow. 
Japan, which is eager to get a permanent seat on the Security Council, suggests that the Council's five veto-wielding members contribute no less than 3 per cent of U.N. dues. Currently, mainland China pays only 2 percent while Russia pays 1.1 per cent to the U.N.'s US$1.9 billion budget. These contrast glaringly to Japan's contribution of 19.5 percent, second only to America's 22 percent. 
Japan's proposal is less radical than that put forward by the United States, which would have the U.N. calculate assessments the same way as the World Bank currently does, by using data based on purchasing power parity (PPP). Under that formula, mainland China's share of the U.N. budget would rise to 13.7 percent, while Russia's share would more than double to 2.5 percent. 
No wonder Beijing and Russia are piqued, although the PPP-based criteria would significantly boost the two country's economic status. Mainland China's world standing in terms of GDP would become number two, behind the United States. Russia would jump to number 10 from number 16. 
It seems that Japan's proposal is more favorable to mainland China, because its share of the contributions to the U.N. budget would increase by only one per cent, or about US$19 million, which Beijing can afford. Japan is right to argue that the five permanent members of the Security Council, which enjoy the coveted veto power, should have a minimum membership dues. In that case, a three per cent bottom line is reasonable. 
The United States proposal, in which membership dues are based on PPP, is vastly different. It makes mainland China look like an economic giant, while in fact it is a poor, developing country. Under PPP, mainland China's economy would balloon to US$6.45 trillion, compared to America's US$11 trillion and Japan's US$3.6 trillion. But the mainland's population of 1.3 billion would make its per capita GDP a meager US$5,000, compared with U.S.'s US$36,000 and Japan's US$35,000. Also, under the U.S. formula, India would be in the same class as Japan and Germany. But should India pay its U.N. dues similar to Japan's? 
There is no denying that the 191-member U.N. needs to reform, including the structure of dues assessment. Power should be accompanied by responsibility. It is fair to say, therefore, that both Russia and mainland China are shortchanging the world body on paying their dues.