Photo by Markus Kammermann
How does one prepare for a tsunami? Pile sandbags around the house. Board up the windows. Move to higher ground. Those are all physical preparations for a natural phenomenon. But what does one do when a diplomatic tsunami is about to take place? Donald Trump and his team have already announced tsunami-like actions against the United Nations and several of its agencies starting January 20. Here in Geneva, the site of many U.N. organizations, the local press has sounded the alarm. “Will Donald Trump marginalize International Geneva?” Stéphane Bussard questioned in Le Temps. “Will Donald Trump cut off the flow of money to international Geneva which depends largely on US funding?” Dorian Burkhalter asked in Swissinfo. Both journalists recognized the important financial contributions of the United States to the United Nations and the menacing statements coming from the new administration about reduced U.S. support.
What will the diplomatic tsunami look like? The United States contributed 28% of all country donations to the U.N. and its agencies in 2023, the most of any country. In comparison, China, its major global competitor, contributed 15% to the overall budget. Importantly for the agencies based in Geneva, in 2023 the United States contributed 40% of the budget of the Office of the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees and 44% for the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV and AIDS, the largest country contribution. Globally, the United States also is the largest donator, at 25%, to the United Nations peace keeping operations and as well as 34% for the World Food Program. A major cutback in U.S. funding would have serious consequences for the U.N. which is already in a liquidity crisis since not all countries have paid their required contributions. A recent estimate shows that only 43% of the $50 billion requested for 2024 humanitarian aid has been paid.
What are the ominous signs a financial tsunami is coming? Trump famously tweeted before becoming president the first time that the 193-member body was “just a club for people to get together, talk and have a good time”. During his first term, President Trump cut off funding to the U.N. Population Fund, withdrew from the U.N. cultural organisation UNESCO, the Paris climate agreement and the U.N. Human Rights Council as well as undermining the World Trade Organization. Also in his first term, Trump initiated the year-long withdrawal process from the World Health Organization (WHO). Although President Biden reversed the decision, rumors have it that President Trump will again withdraw the U.S. from the WHO soon after January 20. To top off the Trump administration’s antipathy to the U.N., Elise Stefanik, a strong Trump ally and his designated U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations in New York, declared that “a complete review” of the U.S. funding to the U.N. is needed. Stefanik, like many members in Congress, strongly object to the U.N.’s criticisms of Israel over Gaza.
For those who are not fans of the United Nations, and there are many, it should be noted that the United Nations facing the upcoming tsunami is not in a situation of strength. One of the main reasons for the existence of the organization is maintaining international peace and security in accordance with its Charter, starting with Article 1 and particularly Chapters VI and VII. The organization, specifically the Security Council, has been ineffective in Ukraine and Palestine, to put it diplomatically. The subsequent polarization of the Security Council has undermined much of the U.N.’s legitimacy, and its effects have been felt throughout the United Nations system. Whatever leadership role the U.S. once had has also been reduced by unenthusiastic Democratic presidents as well as uncharismatic Secretary-Generals, and a feeling within the Global South that the U.N. is a remnant of the West’s colonial past.
So the Trump tsunami comes at a most inopportune moment when the institution itself is weak and unprepared for a major catastrophe. For the moment, the U.N. in Geneva, its European seat, seems incapable to place sandbags around the house, board up the windows or move to higher ground. Is New York better prepared?
“I think there’s more resignation than panic in New York,” said Richard Gowan, Director of U.N. Affairs at the International Crisis Group in New York. “We know that Donald Trump is going to repeat his anti-UN mantra,” he noted “But where the worries are very palpable is on the subject of U.S. budget policy…With Donald Trump, it seems inevitable that the organization’s financial situation will worsen.” As for solutions, what about Europe taking up the funding? Gowan has doubts; “In 2017-2018, European states partially compensated for the partial American withdrawal. But today, in view of the war in Ukraine, I’m not sure they have the financial resources and political will to act as protectors of the U.N.,” Gowan observed.
Gowan is realistic about New York’s reaction to Trump; “The U.N. secretariat [based in NY] has known that they could face a Trump comeback all year. There has been prudent planning behind the scenes on how to manage potential U.S. budget cuts. So (U.N. Secretary-General Antonio) Guterres and his team are not totally unprepared, but they know the next year will be extremely hard,” he told Reuters.
While the size of the Trump 2.0 tsunami may be debated – Gian Luca Burci, a former WHO legal counsel, argued that Trump’s second term “may be more extreme, but it may be also more strategic because Trump has learned the system he didn’t really know in the first term.” – there is no question that a major U.N. shakeup will take place. Does it matter? Probably not in Ukraine, Gaza or in several other war zones. But for its specialized agencies, especially those dealing with humanitarian affairs, the cuts could affect tens of millions of lives. In sum, it can be anticipated that post-January 20 will not only be difficult for the U.N. as an organization, but it will be especially critical for the people it serves in supplying their basic human needs.