US President Donald Trump’s return to the White House on January 20 next year may be another calamity for the United Nations—particularly if the second term turns out to be a re-run of his first presidency (2017-2021).
Trump’s past track record included the US withdrawal from the UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO); threats against member states voting for anti-Israeli resolutions and slashing funds to a 72-year-old UN agency for Palestinian refugees.
Trump also pulled out of the 2016 Paris climate change agreement describing climate change as “a hoax;” threatened to “totally destroy” a UN member state, North Korea; subjected the UN’s annual budget to a $285 million reduction for 2018-2019, and made attempts to wreck the 2015 Iranian nuclear agreement.
Trump triggered a global backlash when he singled out both Haiti and African nations as “shithole countries” eliciting protests from the 55-member African Union (AU). Trump also came under fire for his insulting statements that “all Haitians have AIDS” and Nigerians who visit the US “would never go back to their huts.”
And now, Trump has promised to withdraw from the Paris climate treaty – a second time around.
Will a second Trump presidency be an equally disastrous sequel to the first? As Karl Marx once observed: “History repeats itself, first as a tragedy, second as a farce”.
“When a significant historical event occurs with serious consequences, it’s initially perceived as a tragedy, but if the same type of event happens again later, it can seem almost comical or absurd because people haven’t learned from the past mistakes”.
Is Trump capable of learning from his past political blunders?
Last week, Trump picked House Republican Conference Chair Elise Stefanik of New York to be his next ambassador to the United Nations. She is described as a hard-liner and a strong pro-Israeli stalwart.
In the UN, she said, Americans see a corrupt, defunct, and paralyzed institution more beholden to bureaucracy, process, and diplomatic niceties than the founding principles of peace, security, and international cooperation laid out in its charter.
“We must strive for a U.N. in which no one nation is expected to foot the bill but receive no accountability or transparency in return, in which no despot or dictator can sit in judgment of others while deflecting attention away from their own human rights abuses, and in which no organization corrupted by the likes of the Chinese Communist Party can dictate sweeping conventions and international standards across its membership.”
Dr James E. Jennings, President of Conscience International and Executive Director of US Academics for Peace told IPS the United States is approaching a period of renewed political turmoil at home combined with a jingoist policy abroad, clearly a dangerous combination.
Destabilizing moves threatened by the new Trump Administration based on MAGA rhetoric, he said, includes drastically cutting support for the Ukraine war, confronting Iran in a bellicose manner, and greatly weakening the United Nations and its agencies, including opposing even the merest lifeline to Palestine.
“It is particularly galling that the next Republican Congress seems willing–even enthusiastic–to follow Israel’s lead in cutting off all aid to UNRWA under today’s dire conditions in Gaza, with devastating consequences for human life and survival. Palestinian Children will die from the first day–and the second day–and the day after that, and so on day after day with no end in sight”.
It is a sad fact that most Americans, including many politicians, are ignorant of world geography and history, and therefore of the real-world consequences of turning a blind eye to human needs globally, he said.
“At this point only peace activism everywhere can make a difference, including importantly, Israeli peace activist organizations. One of them has an appropriate title–yesh gvul–“There is a Limit!” Activists everywhere must stand up. There is a limit!,” declared Dr Jennings.
Asked if Secretary-General Antonio Guterres is prepared for potential funding cuts that could come with the new Trump administration, UN Spokesperson Stephane Dujarric said: “I don’t want to pre-empt whatever decision may be made by the next (US) administration”.
“I would say that over the last few years the Secretary-General, I think, has been very frugal in managing the money because we’ve been over the last few years living in a liquidity crisis which has forced us to be very responsible how money is spent. The Secretary-General will work with the next administration”.
Asked about the US-UN relations under the first Trump presidency, Dujarric said: “What I can tell you is under the administration of President Trump four years ago, the Secretary-General had very good relations with the president.”
The fact that they had different opinions about a number of issues was clear to all, he said. “I think the Secretary-General stated his opinions. The US administration had its policies. It did not stop the Secretary-General from engaging with the United States government, just as all of the previous Secretary-Generals have”.
Dr Purnima Mane, former Deputy Executive Director (Programme) and UN Assistant-Secretary-General (ASG) at the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), told IPS it is truly sobering to reflect on the impact of the US presidential elections on the UN.
“There is serious concern that there will be a repetition of what transpired during 2017-2021, when the US, acknowledged till then, as a strong champion of the UN entered a difficult phase in its relations with the UN”.
Through this period, the US displayed caution, lack of confidence in and sometimes hostility about the UN’s workings. It withdrew from global agreements like the 2016 Paris climate change agreement and organizations it had supported like UNESCO, threatened certain member states, and cut overall US support to the UN.
Those were difficult years to say the least in terms of US-UN relations. In the last four years the US has shown renewed engagement with the UN but the world today is even more divided and in dire need for nations to work together to reinstate global order and bring economic and social equity to those who have consistently suffered as a result of the chaos we are seeing today, said Dr. Mane, a former President and CEO of Pathfinder International.
With many countries affected by political instability, civil unrest, and wars and with the negative impact of climate change even more palpable, Dr Mane pointed out, it seems redundant to state that the world continues to need an even stronger UN to bring the countries together for an impetus towards global stability and development.
The United States, she noted, definitely plays a critical role in making this happen. If funding cuts return, the US pulls out of more agreements and any of the 5 permanent member States of the Security Council promote their own agendas at the cost of global goals, the chaos that will follow is unimaginable.
“In some cases, other member states and foundations will hopefully augment their own support and take on greater leadership but in the current economic and political climate the world over, there is no guarantee of sustained and sizeable support or leadership”.
And in the interim, many more lives are likely to be lost, development globally will definitely diminish with the SDGs seriously threatened, and hard-won efforts and investments will be wasted. People all over the world including the US do not deserve this, she added.
Martin S. Edwards, Associate Dean for Academic and Student Affairs, School of Diplomacy and International Relations at Seton Hall University, New Jersey, told IPS there are two challenges for the UN in dealing with President Trump, and there are no good solutions for either of them.
There were optimists at the start of his presidency that just thought about efficiency: the President likes making deals, and there’s no better venue for making deals than the UN. So, some argued that the UN would benefit under Trump.
But that view ran into two problems: First, this is a presidency that does not value multilateralism a great deal, so there’s not much for the UN to work with the White House on.
Without a recognition of common interests, he argued, any international organization loses its punch. Second, and equally important, the Trump administration’s focus on unraveling the Obama-Biden legacy means that it will squander trust with allies, since the US is no longer viewed as a country that keeps its word.
“So, the President is not going to ask much of the UN, and the members are not going to ask much of the US. This is certainly not a stance that will benefit either party in the long term, and the funding issue is certain to come back up once the budget process unfolds in the House,” said Edwards.
Elaborating further, Dr Mane said: “Hopefully we will see this recognition from the US administration but it is too early to tell”.
“Though sadly history often repeats itself – and none of the presidential campaign rhetoric so far has been heartening in that direction – we might be pleasantly surprised to find that with global persuasion and pressure, and on reflection and consideration of what the risks are to the world including to the US, good sense will prevail”.
Surely, she said, the US will want to continue to be seen as a nation that plays a leadership role globally and desire to sustain and augment its own development. Hopefully this will help the US to play its part in fostering the UN as an institution that ensures and enhances global and national development – not seeing one as taking away from the other.
Thalif Deen, Senior Editor, UN Bureau, Inter Press Service (IPS) news agency, is a former Director, Foreign Military Markets at Defense Marketing Services; Senior Defense Analyst at Forecast International; military editor Middle East/Africa at Jane’s Information Group, USA; and one-time UN correspondent for Jane’s Defense Weekly, London.
