US 'investment' in UN is for the common good: China Daily editorial

US Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley hailed a reduction in the United Nations' biennial operating budget on Sunday, calling it "a big step in the right direction".

The US managed to negotiate a cut of over $285 million in its contributions to the $5.396 billion budget for 2018-19 adopted by the UN General Assembly, with Haley declaring it meant the US "will no longer let the generosity of the American people be taken advantage of or remain unchecked".

As her remarks came just a few days after more than 120 countries condemned the United States for its unilateral decision to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, the implication was clear: The UN should support the US unconditionally if it wants its dollars.

That Washington regards the UN as a tool of US foreign policy was made evident by US President Donald Trump on Sept 18, when he said the US was "not seeing results in line with US investment".

The world's largest economy, the US is also the largest financial contributor to the UN — paying about 22 percent of the organization's core budget and 28 percent of its peacekeeping budget — and Trump has previously threatened to make deep cuts to the US' contributions if the UN failed to take a "bold stand" on the global mission he wants to define for it.

The US is in effect holding the UN to ransom on doing its bidding as UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres has admitted the cut in funding Trump was suggesting would create an "unsolvable problem" for the organization.

However, just because it is the biggest contributor to the UN does not give the US the mandate to impose its will on the intergovernmental body, which is tasked with promoting international cooperation and creating and maintaining international order, and whose 193 members, large and small, rich and poor, are supposed to have an equal say.

It is hypocritical for Washington to try to hide its intention by pointing an accusing finger at the UN for "inefficiency and overspending", as it is already a consensus among its members that the organization needs to cut its bureaucracy and improve its efficiency to better shoulder its responsibilities for international peace and security.

And it is wrong for the US to trumpet and practice "dollar diplomacy" at the expense of the UN's autonomy of action in pursuit of Trump's "America First" strategy.

GDP with environmental impact should no longer be pursued: China Daily editorial

A local leader may boast how well his city or province has done in protecting the local environment and ecosystems, but the central government has a series of standards and indexes to determine how much local officials have really done in these regards.

The National Bureau of Statistics, the National Development and Reform Commission, the Ministry of Environmental Protection and some other State and Party departments jointly released the results of analyzing these standards and indexes for 2016 on Monday. In the published results, such green development indexes as the utilization of resources, remedying contaminated soil or water, the environmental quality and the conservation of biosystems are listed for different provinces, municipalities and autonomous regions. Also published is the degree of satisfaction with the local environment expressed by residents.

This is the first time such information has been published, and it is to become an annual practice. The releasing of the information means it is not just the central government that will know how well a local government has performed in protecting the environment and local ecosystems, but also ordinary residents.

There is little doubt that a local government will face more pressure from both the central government and its local residents when it comes to how it performs in dealing with the enterprises that discharge pollutants and with industrial accidents that have an environmental impact.

Along with inspections by the Ministry of Environmental Protection and heavier penalties for violations of the environmental protection law, as well as the strict requirement for polluters to pay compensation for the pollution they have caused, the publication of these indexes is a move to further tighten the noose on polluters.

It goes without saying that all the measures the central authorities have adopted are meant to bring home the message that local leaders must change their mentality about economic growth.

It is a blessing for all when local leaders show deserved concern for environmental protection, and it would be stupid for local leaders to take it for granted that they can pay off the central authorities with handsome GDP figures without showing concern for the GDP's impact on the environment.