![\"\"](\"http:\/\/www.shasegawa.com\/wp-content\/2008\/2017\/03\/170325_02.jpg\")
<\/a><\/figcaption><\/figure><\/center>
<\/p>\n
<\/a><\/center><\/p>\n
\u3000In its print edition article dated Mar 25th 2017, the Economist, explains that Donald Trump had proposed to cut $10.1 billion or 28 percent from the State Department’s budget for US contributions to UN organizations and other foreign aid programs. This is against the statement by US Ambassador, Nikki Haley, that the Trump statements are \u201cjust noise\u201d and need not be taken seriously. The Trump’s unpredictable approach may end up with China making the running of UN peace operations.<\/p>\n
<\/a><\/figcaption><\/figure><\/center>
<\/p>\n
\u3000The following is the print edition article of the Economists<\/a><\/em>. \u3000WHEN the draft of an executive order by Donald Trump saying he would cut America\u2019s contribution to the UN by 40% was leaked in January, alarm bells began clanging not just at the organisation\u2019s headquarters in New York but in chanceries all over the world. America pays for a good quarter of the body\u2019s costs and even more for its 16 peacekeeping missions that strive to mitigate some of the bloodiest conflicts on earth. Could he mean what he said? On March 16th, when the White House unveiled its budget for 2018, the answer was a defiant yes. The State Department, which channels America\u2019s contributions to the UN and its own foreign-aid agency, was told to chop $10.1bn from its budget, a cut of 28%.<\/p>\n \u3000For sure, this is but the start of months of bargaining between the White House and Congress. Several prominent Republicans, as well as an array of Democrats, said they would oppose cuts on such a scale. Moreover, what was dubbed the \u201cskinny budget\u201d was short on detail. Some saw it as theatre\u2014\u201cA Budget Blueprint to Make America Great Again\u201d, as Mr Trump described it\u2014that was not intended to be enacted as drafted. But even if the cuts were to be halved in size during negotiations, they would still punch a big hole in the UN\u2019s pocket. And no one now bets that Mr Trump does not mean what he says about pulling back from the world.<\/p>\n \u3000Some programmes are to be protected. Security aid to Israel, worth $3.1bn a year, will be kept \u201cat an all-time high\u201d. Pledges to Gavi, previously known as the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunisation, the President\u2019s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (better known as PEPFAR) and anti-malaria schemes will be fulfilled. But funds for climate-change programmes will cease (see article<\/a><\/strong>). And within the State Department\u2019s remit, \u201cthe US would not contribute more than 25% for UN peacekeeping costs\u201d. At last count, it was paying around 28%.<\/p>\n \u3000It is unclear how America\u2019s foreign commitments, particularly to the UN, will change. Countries\u2019 payments to the organisation are of two sorts: \u201cassessed contributions\u201d, calculated according to GDP, adjusted every three years and then written in stone; and a web of \u201cvoluntary\u201d agreements, negotiated by each country, usually yearly, for funding the gamut of UN agencies, such as the World Food Programme, the High Commission for Refugees and the UN Children\u2019s Fund. Contributions to the general UN budget, which includes the secretariat in New York and its worldwide offices (see chart), and a clutch of activities under its direct control, are \u201cassessed\u201d by formula and compulsorily handed over.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n<\/a>