inside the glass house

Japan and UN: Big bucks make little bang
NEW YORK -- Japan, the second largest contributor to the UN budget, is livid that it does not get enough bang for its bucks. After knocking at the Security Council door for more than 10 years looking for a permanent seat there, the Japanese government is frustrated that it has hit a dead end.

Although there is near-unanimous decision that both Japan and Germany are rightfully entitled to permanent seats, the world body has failed to agree as to which countries in the developing world should also be in the Security Council.

And so without broader representation to developing countries, Germany and Japan are going nowhere. They are in deep freeze. India and Indonesia are staking their claims on behalf of Asia; Mexico, Argentina and Brazil are fighting for the sole Latin American seat; Nigeria, South Africa and Egypt are the front-runners for Africa. Only one country can represent each of those geographical regions. And there's the rub.

The issue is so politically charged that a UN committee, once co-chaired by Sri Lanka, has failed to make any headway because of sharp divisions among member states. After 10 long years, it is limping its way into history.

A permanent seat in the Council gives the country immense prestige and power. And so, the bandwagon is overflowing with contenders -- genuine and false.

When he addressed reporters at a recent UN news conference last year, visiting Nigerian President Olusegun Obasanjo was visibly annoyed when he was asked whether South Africa, not Nigeria, should have a permanent seat in the Security Council.

Obasanjo, who is staking his claims for the same seat that South Africa is aspiring to, dismissed the question off-handedly when he told the journalist: "If Africa is to have a permanent seat in the Security Council, it would be discussed by African States, and not by the correspondent of the Financial Times."

Obasanjo's brusque remarks reinforces a fact of life at the UN: the restructuring of the Security Council is still a non-starter. As currently constituted, the 15-member Security Council does not truly reflect the membership of the world body because there are no developing nations who are permanent members. Of the 191 member states, more than two-thirds are from the developing world.

The composition of the Council -- unchanged in its essentials since 1945 -- is also at odds with the geopolitical realities of the 21st century. The Big Five who hold membership for life are the US, Britain, France, China and Russia. The Council also has 10 rotating non-permanent members, with no veto powers, holding office for two years.

The country suffering the biggest disappointment is Japan which is both an economic power and a major financial contributor to the world body. And now, it is threatening to penalize the world body.

Faced with an increase in its mandatory contributions to the 2004-05 UN budget, the Japanese government has said it plans to cut voluntary contributions to more than a dozen UN development agencies and international humanitarian organisations worldwide.

Japan held out the threat late last month when the UN approved its new budget, which hit the $3 billion mark for the first time in the history of the world body. As a result, Japan's mandatory contribution to the UN would rise by about $15.9 million this year.

The five major contributors to the UN's regular budget are the US, which pays 22 percent of the budget, Japan (19.5 percent), Germany (9.8 percent), France (6.5 percent) and Britain (5.5 percent). Last year, US dues amounted to $341.5 million, followed by Japan ($263.5 million); Germany ($131.9 million); France ($87.3 million) and Britain ($74.7 million).

With the exception of the United States, the remaining permanent members of the Security Council -- France, Britain, Russia ($16.2 million), and China ($20.7 million), pay much less than Japan. The assessment is based mostly on the state of each country's economy. In contrast, Sri Lanka pays about $216,000, India about $4.6 million and Maldives $13,500.

Despite paying a large proportion of the budget, Japan has far fewer high-ranking jobs in the UN system compared to western nations or permanent members of the Security Council. Japan also argues that its payments to the world body are disproportionate to the strength of its economy.

Although it accounts for only 13 percent of the global economy, Japan pays 19.5 percent of the UN budget, while the US pays only 22 percent, despite the fact that it accounts for 30 percent of world gross domestic product. If Japan decides to cut its voluntary contributions, the axe will fall on agencies such as the UN Development Programme (UNDP), the UN Population Fund (UNFPA) and the UN Children's Fund (UNICEF), all of which service the world's poorer nations.

Japan is the UNDP's second largest donor, providing $86.8 million in 2002, out of a total $670 million for all UNDP operations worldwide. Japan accounts for 14 percent of all contributions to UNFPA, and is also the second largest contributor to UNICEF, accounting for $95 million dollars annually.

Last year a Japanese foreign ministry spokesman placed these contributions against the backdrop of its demand for a permanent seat in the Security Council when he declared: "No taxation without representation."

The threatened cuts come at a time when Japan, under US pressure, has offered to write off a substantial part of the $7 billion dollars in debt owed to it by Iraq. In October last year, Tokyo pledged $1.5 billion in outright grants for the reconstruction of Iraq, plus $3.5 billion in concessional loans.

A statement by the Japanese foreign ministry explained it bluntly: "This is of direct concern to the national interest of Japan, which depends on the Middle East for almost 90 percent of its oil imports."

Back to Columns