Unlike NATO, there are no ‘free-riders’ in United Nations

President Trump’s speech to NATO allies this week has been the topic of much analysis, as media outlets, international observers and pundits sought to make sense of his latest comments regarding the alliance.

While Trump is no longer referring to NATO as “obsolete” as he did on the campaign trail, he is doubling down on the message that other NATO member countries have not sufficiently honored their commitments to investing 2 percent of their respective GDPs in defense by 2024 and that, as a result, the U.S. has to unfairly pick up the load.

In 2015, U.S. spending totaled roughly 75 percent of NATO members’ total defense expenditures and in 2016, only five of 28 countries met their 2024 defense-spending targets.

President Trump, like President Obama before him, has bemoaned the so-called “free-rider” problem in international politics — the idea that countries coast on the means, reach, and generosity of the United States, without putting enough of their own skin in the game. This isn’t a new issue, but it is more acute given the severity and scope of today’s global challenges.

In a similar vein, Trump has been critical of the United Nations, citing a perceived unfair funding structure that shoulders America with a disproportionate financial burden. But in reality, it’s just the opposite.

Under the U.N.’s assessed, mandatory contribution system, other nations shoulder the vast majority of funding. In fact, other nations pay 78 percent of the U.N. regular budget and 72 percent of U.N. peacekeeping budget. 

Far from being plagued by “free-riders,” the U.N.’s assessed funding structure requires all countries — no matter how big or small — to support the organization at a specific level. This avoids the funding inequalities the U.S. has experienced specific to NATO defense spending. 

Make no mistake, the U.N. saves American lives and dollars. Take the case of U.N. peacekeeping. The U.S. currently provides fewer than 100 soldiers, military advisors, and police officers to U.N. peacekeeping operations — accounting for less than .01 percent of the 115,000 uniformed personnel deployed in hotspots around the world.

More than 100 other nations, including dozens of strong U.S. allies, provide the troops and police that serve on these missions, which means we don’t have to send American soldiers into harm’s way.

As Admiral Mike Mullen, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff under Presidents Bush and Obama, said: “[United Nations] peacekeepers help promote stability and help reduce the risks that major U.S. military interventions may be required. Therefore the success of these operations is very much in our national interest.”

Not to mention, independent studies have shown it’s eight-times cheaper to send in a U.N. peacekeeper than a U.S. soldier. In short, U.N. peacekeeping is “exhibit A” for exactly what the president is looking for from other countries — for them to step in and step up.

Speaking to graduates of the U.S. Coast Guard Academy, the president said, “With the safety, security and interest of the American people as my priority, I will strengthen old friendships and will seek new partners, but partners who also help us, not partners who take and take and take.”

That’s what the U.N. is all about — old friendships and new partnerships — in support of our nation’s foreign policy and security objectives. Just last month, nine former Republican and Democratic U.N. ambassadors deemed the U.N. “an indispensable instrument” and said: “The whole U.N. system is built on burden-sharing that ensures the United States does not have to go it alone and that other countries stand up, rather than stand by.”

This is the great irony of the Trump administration’s fiscal 2018 budget request that was released last week. The budget calls for “significant reductions in U.S. contributions to international organizations” and a “strategic review” to determine the cuts, with priority being given to those organizations that “most directly support U.S. national security interests, such as NATO.” 

Let’s hope the administration comes around on the U.N. just as it did for NATO, recognizing the U.N. ensures the burden-sharing it demands while also directly contributing to our national security interests — a conclusion already reached by our diplomatic and military leaders.  

Peter Yeo is the president of the Better World Campaign (BWC), an organization that works to strengthen the ties between the United Nations and the United States. Along with the United Nations Foundation, the BWC is the result of Ted Turner’s $1 billion gift toward pro-U.N. causes.

The views expressed by contributors are their own and not the views of The Hill.