This clash has many aspects, from the political to the ideological, but has always landed on the runway of funding. The last clash - because it is neither the first nor the only one - about Jerusalem, capital or not of Israel, has become blackmail. This was clearly expressed  by Nikky Halley, the US ambassador to the UN, before the vote: "At the UN we are always asked to do and give more, so when we take a decision, by the will of the American people, on where to place our embassy, ​​we do not expect those we helped to target us". This blackmail after the vote became a real threat: "The US will remember this vote" , a threat reaffirmed by President Trump himself. But, how consistent is this threat? Let's start by understanding how what is officially called "United Nations System" (UN) elegantly translated in many languages ​​with ONU, "United Nations Organization" is financed.

When he presented his last ordinary budget proposal for the 2016-2017 period to the General Assembly, the former Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, called for $ 5.74 billion. The Assembly asked him to reduce it to $ 5.5 billion and ended up approving it for $ 5.57 billion. "As a sense of responsibility, I wanted to make sure that my successor would be able to carry out his tasks smoothly and with sufficient resources," said Ban Ki-moon. But where do all these billions come from? They come from the mandatory contributions from member countries and from voluntary contributions of organizations, businesses and individuals. The Rockefeller North American foundation, for example, in 1998 donated many millions of dollars to have the UN headquarters placed in New York.

Every two years, the General Assembly decides the ordinary budget and establishes the mandatory contributions. At the request of the United States, the maximum contribution level has been lowered from 25 to 22% and the minimum fixed in 0.001% of the total. The scale of these contributions is reviewed every three years and set according to the disbursement capacity of each country, measured according to the gross national income (GNI). The latest adopted by Resolution 70/245 of the General Assembly for the period 2016-2018, sees as main contributors the United States (22%), Japan (9.68%), the People's Republic of China (7.921% ), Germany (6.389%), France (4.85%), the United Kingdom (4.44%), Brazil (3.23%), the Russian Federation (3.088%), Canada (2.92%)%) and Australia (2.373%). A comparative evaluation of the contributions - see the pictures in the article How much do various countries contribute to the UN Budget? - with the Gross National Income  (see the same states in this picture), suggests a weary impression. These compulsory contributions are not always paid out in full and there are often the latecomers among them the United States: in February 2017, for example, only 31 out of 192 states had done their part. The UN has, for the Peace Missions, also a separate budget from the ordinary one. For the 2015-16 fiscal year this budget was $ 8.27 billion (for 82,318 soldiers in 15 missions worldwide). In 2017, the 8 main contributions to this end came from the United States (28.47%), China (10.25%), Japan (9.68%), Germany (6.39%), France (6.28 %), United Kingdom (5.7%), Russian Federation (3.99%) and Italy (3.75%).

The countless UN agencies - for example the World Health Organization, the FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization), the International Atomic Energy Agency - often have their own separate budgets financed with their participations and donations.

The United States has always claimed its role as the first financier to impose their point of view when decisions are taken. They have not always succeeded, and they have always complained by threatening to cut their contributions with symbolic delays, which they have never done both for the obligatory payments and the voluntary ones, and this just to avert being isolated. Things can change with Trump; the United States actually is already isolated and Trump does not care about the consequences when he puts into practice what he announces. Proof can be seen such as his will to repeal Obama Care, the new budget law, the cut to the funds of pro-abortion organizations and the plan to abandon Unesco after Israel for a decision on Jerusalem. Trump on his view about UN has on his side all the Republican party that has always seen the UN as smoke in the eyes. Not only that, but for a year now a virulent popular movement entitled Council for Citizens against Government waste campaigning for the US government to suspend all contributions to the UN. It claims that the almost 14 billion given to the UN is an unfair part of the 14 trillion federal deficit. This time the barking dog is likely to bite also for real. Is this slap in the General Assembly  a dignified sign of independence of the North American arrogance? The decisions of the General Assembly are politically important but not binding. It will therefore be a question of seeing if the countries that encourage the slap will not go back to stretch their hands begging and insofar the outcomes  of their gesture return empty.