[SllX]

They’re never happy about the loss of money. For UN institutions, the US usually contributes a theoretical cap of about 22% but in real terms I think it’s more like a quarter of their annual budget or a little over in some cases. When we’re not paying, that’s a lot of money that UNESCO isn’t getting.

[overfeed]

Predictably, if/when China becomes the premier funder of UN organizations, there will be a lot of grousing about it by US politicians. The amount of soft-power being trashed is astounding

[SllX]

We’re the ones seeking to cap our contributions. The formula currently doesn’t allow for any one country to pay more than 22% with America the only one actually paying that much, save for the institutions we’ve cut off. For UN peacekeeping we’re actually assessed at 27% but Congress capped that to 25% back in 1993.

https://betterworldcampaign.org/us-funding-for-the-un/un-bud...

If any other country wants to step in and fill the gap, I don’t think Congress will care.

[overfeed]

> If any other country wants to step in and fill the gap, I don’t think Congress will care

"Countering the PRC Malign Influence Fund Authorization Act of 2023[1]" says otherwise.

1. https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/1157...

[SllX]

All of our foreign policy prior to January 20th 2025 is in a state of flux. Officially, Congress cares, but the first 7 or so months of this year have been enlightening in a strange way, and with our President taking the lead, there is a strong possibility that Congress will not care if the possibility of the PRC paying more comes up in any policy discussions.

[ashoeafoot]

Eh china finances a ton of members, who better vote in line as debtors should