Financing the United Nations
Towards a formula which is dependable and politics proof
Jan 18, 2026
The United Nations has numerous problems but all have been exacerbated by financial considerations. Every member is supposed to pay its “mandatory assessed contributions” which are calculated by a complicated formula based on the country’s gross national income, population size and external debt, among other factors.
The problem is that not all countries pay up when they should and some withhold their payments as a way of expressing their displeasure with the decisions made and/or actions taken by the UN.
The UN budget for 2025 was $3.72 billion plus peacekeeping which is a separate budget of $5.38 billion. The United States and China have by far the highest dues which together cover more than 40% of the UN budget.
Over the last two years the United States has an accumulated debt of $3.86 billion, China $877 million, and the Russian Federation $271 million with lesser amounts for the other 190 members. (If a member’s arrears equal or exceed the amount of contributions owed for the previous two years, the member can lose its vote in the General Assembly. As a result countries limit their arrears to 2 years) It is noteworthy that the biggest and most bellicose players owe the most.
The UN has been forced by inadequate funds to limit some activities especially in the peace keeping arena.
A better funding arrangement – one that isn’t dependent on the political machinations of its members is essential if the UN is going to play an important (and vital) role in the World. It needs funding that comes not from governments directly but from a some form of tax on international transactions which are outside the control of any country.
Resource Tax
The one that I favour (but it’s probably a pipe dream) is royalties on resources.
Does it really make sense that that because oil was discovered in a desert country inhabited up til then by nomadic tribes that they became some of the richest people in the world. I don’t think so! All of that oil (including what’s in Alberta) … and gold and diamonds in S. Africa (and in Canada) … and the new gold rush – rare earths … are part of the earth and their extraction and use should be monitored by an international body (like the UN) and at least of portion of that wealth (royalties) should go towards improving the world – such as peacekeeping, or helping with climate change mitigation (estimated at $5 trillion per year) as well as all the other things that the UN does.
There’s lots of potential there. I couldn’t find any world figures but in just Canada alone the production of oil, gas and refined petroleum was $112 billion in 2020 and our mineral production was $71.9 billion in 2023. Given that Canad is only about 6.5% of the landmass in the World, the total value of the world’s resources would be at least $3 trillion. A 1% royalty on that would be $30 billion more than enough to finance the UN.
Why is this likely a pipe dream? – because ownership of those resources is so ingrained into regional politics. The US just invaded Venezuela to get theirs and held up munitions for Ukraine until they signed a deal to allow US access to their minerals. The US wants Canada’s oil and minerals too. Canada’s constitution gives resources under the ground to the provinces but both internationally and domestically, these resources, to all intents and purposes, did not exist at the time that these countries (and provinces) were formed.
Canada has just paid its annual dues of $81 million to the UN for 2026. Its peacekeeping commitment is roughly $100 million much of which is buried within our defence budget. A 0.1% royalty on our oil and minerals would be about $180 million which would cover those UN dues. If Canada were to acknowledge that our resources belong to the Earth and and paid its dues from those revenues, it might set a precedent (and a message to other countries).
Financial Transaction Tax (FTT or Robin Hood Tax)
Financial Transaction taxes are another potential source for UN funding. They have been discussed and proposed in numerous jurisdictions over the years and as such they are well studied and understood and have the potential to raise large amounts of money. For example for the United States alone the chart below shows the potential revenues for various types of transactions. Various bills have been proposed in Congress since 2009 which varied in the size of the tax, which financial transactions would be taxed and how the new tax revenue would be spent.
In Europe, a package of transaction taxes was proposed for the EU, projected to raise up to €55bn ($75bn) per year.
Bill Gates presented preliminary findings to the 2011 IMF & World Bank meeting in support of a Robin Hood tax. Gates’s proposal was for a set of taxes which could raise between $48–250 billion per year on a G20 wide basis.
Such transaction taxes have also received support from the Pope and the Archbishop of Canterbury.
On an international level (which seems appropriate when talking about funding the UN) – trading in foreign exchange markets averaged US$9.6 trillion per day in April 2025. Those numbers are huge and a tax of only one thousandth of 1% (.00001) would generate 960 million/day or $350 billion per year.
FTTs were a hot topic 10 -15 years ago but they’ve fallen by the wayside and none have ever been implemented.
But the potential is there and any discussion of United Nations reform has to include dependable funding.
