By Qamar Bashir
Press Secretary to the President (Rtd)
Former Press Minister, Embassy of Pakistan to France
Former Press Attache to Malaysia
Former MD, SRBC | Macomb, Michigan, USA
The United States was once the proud architect of global multilateralism. In the aftermath of World War II, Washington orchestrated the creation of the United Nations and insisted on its headquarters being located in New York. With its generous financial contributions and diplomatic influence, the U.S. wielded immense leverage—projecting soft power and shaping international norms without firing a single shot. But over time, the very mechanisms it built began to emancipate other nations: the UN’s equal‑vote structure and independent agency frameworks enabled coalitions from the Global South and beyond to advance policies often contrary to U.S. interests.
By 2023, the U.S. remained the UN’s single largest benefactor, contributing approximately $13 billion, equating to over 25% of the total UN membership’s funding. In the UN’s internal budgeting, the U.S. covered 22% of the regular budget (about $820 million of a $3.5 billion total) and 26–27% of peacekeeping costs (~$1.5 billion of $5.9 billion), though a congressional cap limited payments .
But when U.S. influence waned at the UN—particularly in bodies without veto power such as WHO, UNESCO, the World Food Programme, and the International Court of Justice—the U.S. responded not with diplomacy, but retreat. Between 2017 and mid‑2025, American funding was slashed in key areas: $4 billion pledged to the Green Climate Fund was rescinded, its funding to UNAIDS and global health programs through USAID was terminated or dramatically reduced, malaria initiatives saw a 47% decrease, and the Gavi immunization grant of $2.63 billion was cancelled .
The consequences for the UN and global initiatives were immediate. Budget shortfalls threatened operations—from humanitarian relief to refugee assistance—forcing agencies like WHO, UNHCR, and UNAIDS to cut services, suspend projects, and initiate emergency cost-saving responses. Millions of the most vulnerable suffered as health programs, AIDS treatment, and refugee care unraveled across fragile regions .
Meanwhile, UN Secretary-General António Guterres and external analysts warned of institutional trauma: internal memos showed plans for a 20% reduction in Secretariat staff, slicing about $740 million from the UN budget and slashing nearly 7,000 jobs—a move driven by withheld U.S. dues and prolonged arrears that had exceeded $1.5 billion .
What’s unfolding is not mere disengagement; it is a dismantling of the post-war consensus. The unilateral “America First” doctrine has weaponized aid, redefined participation, and normalized punitive economics—whether blaming the UN for “anti-Israel bias” or freezing grants to agencies perceived as insufficiently subservient. U.S. states denying Israeli products risk losing federal disaster relief. UN rapporteurs and ICC judges investigating human rights violations are sanctioned or barred from U.S. soil. The result is bureaucratic sabotage: not just cutting checks, but cutting support for institutional integrity.
Still, the damage is irrevocable. Key UN functions—peacekeeping, health coordination, humanitarian relief—are now subject to fragmentation or politicization. Climate negotiations wobble without U.S. investment. Global norms—on human rights, nuclear non-proliferation, refugee protection—lose enforcement power. In effect, the United Nations, conceived as a shield against global chaos, risks becoming collateral damage of U.S. isolationism.
