September 22nd, President Trump is going to New York for the UN General Assembly, but this is somewhat ironic as the US is currently one of the strongest critics of the UN and also the largest debtor in terms of UN dues.

Speaking of which, this is his first appearance at the UN General Assembly since he took office again at the beginning of this year. However, everyone knows that the US has not been shy about ‘throwing shade’ at the UN in recent years; on one hand, it is the loudest and most opinionated member, while on the other hand, it is the biggest ‘deadbeat’ in terms of unpaid dues. This scene is indeed a bit ridiculous.

The US currently owes over $3 billion in unpaid UN dues, which is not a small amount, considering that the entire regular budget of the UN for a year is only a few billion.

The United States, as the country with the highest proportion of funding, contributes about 22% of the regular budget, and sometimes it often exceeds 25%. When it delays payment, the United Nations has a particularly hard time.

In fact, the United States is not short of money; military spending is several hundred billion a year. This membership fee is really not much to speak of. The reason for not paying is more of a political stance.

Since the beginning of Trump's first term, he has made it clear that he does not like multilateral organizations, feeling that the U.S. is 'being taken advantage of.' Thus, he successively withdrew from the Paris Climate Agreement, the World Health Organization, and so on. This current administration has again withdrawn from various organizations, clearly continuing the 'America First' approach.

But the United Nations is not a club where entry and exit depend on personal preference; it is the core of the post-war international order, undertaking multiple missions such as maintaining peace, promoting development, and protecting human rights.

Funding is the basis for its operations; without adequate funds, many things cannot be pushed forward. For example, peacekeeping operations cannot send personnel or purchase equipment if there is no money, which may worsen regional conflicts.

For example, in humanitarian aid, if organizations like the World Food Programme and the UN Refugee Agency face funding shortages, they may be unable to promptly assist thousands of disaster victims and displaced persons.

In fact, the United Nations has been quite strapped for the past few years. It is said that to save electricity, the Geneva headquarters dares not turn on the heating fully in winter, elevators are out of service, and hallway lights are only turned on halfway at night.

Even because of the electricity bill shortfall, they had to shut down the building for a month at the end of last year. It is heart-wrenching to think about it; the largest international organization in the world has been pushed to such a point.

But the U.S. does not seem to care; in their view, this is a way to pressure the United Nations for reform.

The Trump administration has always hoped that the United Nations would adjust according to U.S. wishes, such as abolishing some projects that are not beneficial to them, changing the budget allocation method, and even proposing to only 'voluntarily contribute' in the future, rather than 'paying according to the proportion.' In short, it's 'I'll pay if it's to my liking; if not, I'll default.'

This line of thinking from the U.S. is actually very dangerous. The United Nations is not a company run by one particular state; it is a platform supported by all member countries. In theory, both large and small countries have equal voices here and can collectively discuss international affairs.

If everyone decides whether to pay based on their own preferences, then the authority and effectiveness of the United Nations will significantly decline, which may ultimately lead to a regression in global governance and disorder in the international community.

Of course, there are countries that have consistently fulfilled their obligations, such as China, which, as the second-largest contributor, has never defaulted on dues. Even during the economic pressure of the pandemic, we have paid on time and in full.

This is not a matter of how much money there is; it is a matter of responsibility and attitude. The international community is like a large community; someone must maintain public order and look after collective interests. If everyone plays their own game, no one's life will be easy in the end.

Trump’s upcoming visit to the United Nations is likely to be a high-profile discussion on 'reform,' criticizing 'inefficiency,' and even continuing to promote his 'America First' ideology.

But the world has changed; the hegemonic approach of the U.S. is not the mainstream of the international community. The vast majority of countries still support multilateral cooperation and believe that only unity can address the common challenges facing humanity, whether it is climate change, the spread of pandemics, regional conflicts, or economic crises.

The United Nations will turn '80' this year. This organization, born from the ruins of World War II, carries humanity's deepest aspirations for peace and development.

It may not be perfect, and its efficiency may not be high, but its existence itself is a value. We cannot deny it entirely just because it has shortcomings, nor can we let it fall into paralysis because of great power struggles.

Ultimately, the international community is like the community around us, requiring everyone to contribute money and effort to maintain it together. If someone takes the lead in not paying and constantly criticizes the property management, can this community still be harmonious? Hopefully, the U.S. can make up for its arrears soon and return to the track of cooperation. After all, the world needs the efforts of every country, not the monologue of any one country.

However, Trump's visit may again be a 'media stunt,' but the issues at the United Nations need real solutions. Hopefully, all parties can set aside political games and truly do more for global public welfare.