United States, explained.
The United States' nameplate sits at a table in the UN Security Council chamber in New York City (Spencer Platt/Getty Images)
If the United States continues to diminish its role in the global institution, others are all too ready to fill the void.
Subscribe to The Informer for monthly expert analysis, and to Events for advance notice of visiting world leaders and distinguished guests.
You may unsubscribe from Lowy Institute newsletters at any time. For information on our privacy practices and how to unsubscribe, see our Privacy Policy.
The big picture benefits of a UN headquarters in New YorkThe big picture benefits of a UN headquarters in New York
When it comes to the United Nations, the maths seems simple for many Americans: the United States pays 22 per cent of the UN’s budget – a hefty share compared to the 192 other member countries. That’s why Washington’s leaked plan to slash its contribution by 90 per cent appears, to many, a no-brainer.
But such calculations overlook the unique benefits the United States gains from being the country host for the United Nations. By housing the physical headquarters of the organisation, Washington garners not only economic but also diplomatic, political and other soft power benefits at the level of no other UN member country. In 1946, New York City was voted by the UN General Assembly as the location for the UN headquarters, which has given the United States an outsized role on the global stage for nearly 80 years. America has subsequently not only been the UN’s largest financial backer, but also its diplomatic host – a status that carries power, access, and influence that money cannot buy.
America’s status within the UN was enshrined in the organisation’s founding. In 1945, when Second World War victors met to set up the United Nations, the United States, China, France, Russia, and the United Kingdom gave themselves a particular power: a veto in the UN Security Council, the body responsible for world peace.
For the United States, hosting the UN headquarters came in addition to its veto privilege. Since then, many Americans have taken the presence of the headquarters for granted. Some New Yorkers, especially in September, even resent the international bureaucracy crowding their city. But the Trump administration’s recent budget cuts threaten to unravel the benefits quietly accumulated over decades.
New York has also become a hub for surveillance and intelligence gathering, a role the United States would likely lose if the diplomatic centre shifted to Geneva, Nairobi or Beijing.
According to the City of New York, the UN generates $3.69 billion in economic output annually, and the 15,890 individuals directly employed by the UN community take home household earnings of approximately $1.64 billion, with thousands more ancillary jobs created for New Yorkers. But the real payoff isn’t in dollars: by hosting the most important event in diplomacy every year – the UN General Assembly – the country gains access to unique intelligence and influence. Think about it: the world’s top representatives live in the city, and their children study and vacation in the United States – an invaluable soft diplomacy benefit.
New York has also become a hub for surveillance and intelligence gathering, a role the United States would likely lose if the diplomatic centre shifted to Geneva, Nairobi or Beijing. A 2009 WikiLeaks document showed the extent of American intelligence gathering efforts at the United Nations. Beyond economics and intelligence, the annual UN General Assembly convenes not only diplomats but journalists, civil society leaders and business executives who help set the global agenda. This convergence bolsters America’s status as a diplomatic capital and agenda-setter.
The United States also wields visa power to influence participation in UN events, occasionally denying visas to diplomats and other officials. The United States made use of this power by threatening to deny the Palestinian delegation’s visas for this year’s UN General Assembly, just as many countries pledged to recognise the State of Palestine during the event. Even though the United States is technically not supposed to use visas as a diplomatic tool in this way, Washington’s decision will undoubtedly be a blow to the image of the two-state solution conference, which will likely be attended by the Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas remotely. While controversial, this underscores how hosting the UN confers leverage that goes beyond budget contributions.
Relocating the UN headquarters appears to be off the table for now. Still, the UN’s location isn’t guaranteed. If the United States continues to diminish its role and contribution, other countries stand ready to fill the void. China, for example, has capitalised on previous US disengagements to increase its influence within the UN. Whoever bridges the funding gap next will likely demand more influence – and who knows what they will ask for. Diplomats say many countries are already trying to broker a deal to host UN offices in exchange for extra financial contributions.
UN observers agree it is good for the organisation – and the world – to have more diversity when it comes to the location of its staff. After all, it makes much more sense for international development to happen in developing countries.
Still, critics of multilateralism should pause before celebrating cuts to US funding. While some Americans want a government focused solely on domestic interests and are sceptical of global agreements – especially on climate – even Trump voters may one day regret the loss of America’s role as the “world’s police”.
About the author
Stéphanie Fillion
Stéphanie Fillion is the editor-in-chief of Envoy, a magazine focused on the United Nations, diplomacy and global affairs.
The most-pressing world events explained by Lowy Institute experts and global contributors, in your inbox, every Thursday.
You may unsubscribe from The Interpreter at any time. For information on our privacy practices and how to unsubscribe, see our Privacy Policy.
