Donald Trump, the UN and the future

Summary

Inside Geneva: Donald Trump, the UN, and the Future
Hosted by Imogen Foulkes
Released on February 4, 2025

---

Introduction

In this compelling episode of Inside Geneva, hosted by journalist Imogen Foulkes, the spotlight is cast on the seismic shifts in U.S. foreign policy under President Donald Trump's administration and their profound implications for the United Nations and global humanitarian efforts. Foulkes delves deep into three critical areas where U.S. strategies have significantly impacted international aid and humanitarian operations: the ban on the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) for Palestine refugees, the withdrawal from the World Health Organization (WHO), and the unprecedented freeze on U.S. foreign aid.

---

1. The U.S. and UNRWA: A Critical Humanitarian Pillar Under Attack

The episode opens with a discussion on the U.S. decision, echoed by Israeli actions, to cease support for UNRWA. Imogen Foulkes recounts how the U.S. under President Biden had previously withdrawn support amid allegations linking some UNRWA staff to the October 7 attacks. Despite UNRWA’s swift action in terminating the implicated staff, Israel’s parliament proceeded to ban the agency, challenging its operational continuity in Gaza.

Jurgen Jensehaugen, a representative from the Peace Research Institute Oslo, underscores the gravity of this ban:

“UNRWA is what we call the backbone of the humanitarian operation, meaning that they don't only bring in aid themselves, but they are really the operation which all other humanitarian actors depend on.”
(07:18)

He elaborates on the complexities introduced by Israel's vague implementation of the ban, particularly in East Jerusalem, and the broader implications for humanitarian coordination in conflict zones.

---

2. The Collapse of Humanitarian Infrastructure in Gaza

With UNRWA’s operational capacity severely hampered, the humanitarian landscape in Gaza faces potential devastation. Jensehaugen highlights:

“Transforming the type of operation that UNRWA has in that kind of environment, to do it properly takes two to three years. And here we have 90 days.”
(07:34)

The discussion delves into the role UNRWA plays in maintaining essential services like education and healthcare, and the challenges of replacing such a multifaceted organization within a constrained timeframe. The destruction of Gaza’s education system, or "scholasticide," is cited as a dire consequence of UNRWA’s weakened state.

Imogen Foulkes probes the impact of UNRWA’s potential collapse on education, questioning whether other organizations could fulfill its unique role:

“UNRWA is unique in the sense that it actually runs schools. So, you know, asking somebody else to run the schools, well, who's, who's that going to be?”
(10:29)

---

3. Israel’s Allegations and UNRWA’s Defense

The U.S. administration’s stance follows Israel’s claims of UNRWA’s alleged bias and links to terrorism. Jensehaugen addresses these serious allegations:

“Once UNRWA were told that some of their staff might have been involved, they took steps immediately. They fired all those accused even before they'd seen the evidence.”
(12:28)

He emphasizes the challenge of managing a vast workforce in a conflict zone and the importance of maintaining humanitarian operations to combat extremism.

---

4. Broader Implications for the United Nations

Jensehaugen warns of the dangerous precedent set by Israel’s eviction of UNRWA, expressing concerns over the potential erosion of UN standards:

“The expulsion of a UN agency is illegal. And by stating that they are working on a Plan B is a de facto acceptance of illegal law.”
(07:34)

The discussion shifts to the broader disrespect for the United Nations, with Jensehaugen noting:

“There is an increasing disrespect for what the UN stands for. And I think Israel has really been not just vocal, but taken very clear steps in this regard.”
(16:54)

He fears a negative spiral where undermining the UN could lead other nations to similarly retaliate against UN agencies.

---

5. The U.S. Withdrawal from the World Health Organization

Lawrence Gostin, a renowned public health professor at Georgetown University, voices his dismay over the U.S. withdrawal from WHO:

“The withdrawal from WHO flew under the radar, and it's probably the most consequential thing of all.”
(18:56)

Gostin elaborates on the critical role WHO plays in global health, noting the severance of collaboration and data sharing essential for combating diseases. He underscores the long-term negative repercussions for both global health and U.S. national interests.

---

6. Freezing of U.S. Foreign Aid: A Death Sentence for NGOs

The episode further explores the Trump administration’s unprecedented freeze on U.S. foreign aid, with Colm Lynch, a foreign policy journalist from Devex, expressing shock:

“The 90 state suspension is a death sentence for many small NGOs who just don't have the finances to sort of weather this kind of this period.”
(31:48)

Lynch discusses the immediate and long-term impacts on various humanitarian programs, highlighting the lack of preparedness for such sweeping cuts and the potential for significant setbacks in global aid efforts.

---

7. Expert Insights and Future Outlook

Throughout the episode, experts provide a nuanced analysis of the current crisis and its future implications:

• Jensehaugen highlights the strained position of the UN amidst these changes and the potential for other nations to follow suit in undermining UN agencies.

• Gostin remains cautiously optimistic about WHO's resilience but underscores the critical loss of U.S. support and the potential isolation of the United States on the global stage.

• Lynch warns of a bleak future for foreign aid, questioning whether this administration's actions signify a lasting shift away from multilateralism and international cooperation.

---

Conclusion: A Challenging Path Ahead for the UN and Global Humanitarian Efforts

Inside Geneva wraps up with a somber reflection on the future of the United Nations and global humanitarian operations amid these challenging times. Imogen Foulkes captures the essence of the discussion:

“Testing years for the United Nations ahead,” says Jensehaugen, reflecting the collective anxiety surrounding these policy shifts.

Despite the bleak outlook, Lawrence Gostin offers a sliver of hope for a return to American leadership and collaboration in future administrations. However, the overarching sentiment underscores a critical juncture for the UN and international aid systems, grappling with unprecedented challenges to their operational integrity and global cooperation mechanisms.

---

Notable Quotes

• Jurgen Jensehaugen:
  “UNRWA is what we call the backbone of the humanitarian operation...” (07:18)

• Lawrence Gostin:
  “The withdrawal from WHO flew under the radar, and it's probably the most consequential thing of all.” (18:56)

• Colm Lynch:
  “The 90 state suspension is a death sentence for many small NGOs...” (31:48)

---

Final Thoughts

This episode of Inside Geneva provides a comprehensive and insightful exploration of the profound shifts in U.S. foreign policy under President Trump and their far-reaching consequences for the United Nations and global humanitarian efforts. Through expert interviews and in-depth analysis, Imogen Foulkes effectively illuminates the critical challenges facing international cooperation and the future trajectory of global aid and politics.

---

For more insights, subscribe to Inside Geneva on your preferred podcast platform and explore previous episodes exploring pivotal issues in global humanitarian efforts.

Transcript

[Imogen Folks]

This is inside Geneva. I'm your host, Imogen folks, and this is a production from swissinfo, the international public media company of Switzerland. In today's program, the Israeli UN Ambassador says the United Nations Relief and Works.

[Lawrence Gostin]

Agency for Palestine refugees in the near east must cease all its operations and evacuate all premises it operates.

[Jurgen Jensehaugen]

UNRWA is what we call the backbone of the humanitarian operation. They are really the operation which all other humanitarian actors depend on.

[Imogen Folks]

As part of his blitz of executive orders issued yesterday, President Trump also delivered.

[Jurgen Jensehaugen]

On a campaign promise to withdraw the.

[Colm Lynch]

United States from the World Health Organization.

[Lawrence Gostin]

What is this one?

[Jurgen Jensehaugen]

Withdrawing from the World Health Organization?

[Colm Lynch]

Ooh, that's a big one.

[Lawrence Gostin]

The withdrawal from WHO flew under the radar, and it's probably the most consequential thing of all. The United states formed the WHO in the aftermath of World War II, and we've been its most influential member and biggest funder for over 75 years.

[Jurgen Jensehaugen]

The Trump administration has issued a halt.

[Imogen Folks]

To nearly all existing foreign aid.

[Colm Lynch]

The 90 state suspension is a death sentence for many small NGOs who just don't have the finances to sort of weather this kind of this period. So. So, yeah, shock and awe. Late today, the U.S. state Department suspended.

[Jurgen Jensehaugen]

All foreign assistance around the world for at least three months.

[Lawrence Gostin]

This is going to mean that all of the vital work of the World Health Organization, polio eradication, aids, TB and malaria, all of this important work is going to be even more underfunded.

[Jurgen Jensehaugen]

Donald Trump suspended American foreign aid on day one of his presidency. We've had periods in the past where Republican US Presidents have made statements to the effect that they'll stop funding the U.N. they want to pull out of the U.N. and the U.N. pulled through. So we're into difficult times. There will be some testing years, I.

[Colm Lynch]

Think, for existing foreign assistance awards. Contracting officers and grant officers shall immediately issue stop work orders. This notion that's sort of starting to percolate through my brain is this notion that this is really the end of foreign aid as we know it. Right. And that Somalia, faced with a major famine, the Americans stepped in and provided over a billion dollars. I don't really see this administration responding to a coming crisis with a major outlay of cash in the way that we have done historically.

[Imogen Folks]

Hello and welcome again to Inside Geneva. I'm Imogen. Folks. Now, it's been a turbulent couple of weeks globally, including here in Geneva, where newly inaugurated President Trump's foreign policy plans are causing shock, dismay, and huge worry. In today's episode, we take a deep dive into three areas where US strategy is having a significant effect on humanitarian operations. The first is something we were expecting. Israel's ban on the UN Relief agency for Palestinians, or unrwa, came into effect just days ago. Then later in the program, we'll hear from renowned public health professor Lawrence Gostin about the US decision to leave the World Health Organization. And we'll talk to US based foreign policy journalist Colm lynch about the implications of Washington's freeze on funding for foreign aid. But let's start with unrwa. The US under Joe Biden withdrew its support from the agency last year following allegations some UNRWA staff were involved in the October 7 attacks. UNRWA immediately fired the staff under suspicion. Nine out of 13,000 in Gaza and the UN investigated. Although many of Israel's claims could not be substantiated, Israel's parliament voted to ban UNRA despite the UN's insistence the agency is irreplaceable. That ban is now in force, but UNRWA insists it remains committed to working in Gaza. Jurgen Jensehaugen of the Peace Research Institute Oslo has written a report looking at the effect of banning unra. And he began by telling me that even as the ban came into force, it remained unclear how it would work.

[Jurgen Jensehaugen]

Well, it's, it's actually really unclear. So there's no, it's not without reason that journalists too are kind of baffled by this. The laws were, were passed and then after they were passed, Israel really ordered their own ministries to figure out how to implement these. And the exact mechanisms for how the laws will be implemented are rather vague. The first law says that UNRWA will be illegal in Israel. That means that East Jerusalem, as defined by Israel, is part of Israel now, of course, by, you know, the international system. Otherwise East Jerusalem is not part of Israel. But for the Israeli legal system, East Jerusalem is Israel. The other law is more vague. It says that engagement between Israel and UNRWA will be illegal, meaning that UNRWA can still exist, but Israeli officials cannot engage with unrwa. And that's where we get into complicated territory because Israel is the occupying power and everything the UN does within the occupied territories really is under the mercy of the occupying power. So there, it's really a question of how can UNRWA operate if they cannot engage with the occupying power.

[Imogen Folks]

You would think given the thousands of people trying to return to northern Gaza and the destruction we have seen in Gaza, that any limit on the humanitarian work which UNRWA has been providing would be quite disastrous.

[Jurgen Jensehaugen]

Yes, absolutely. So UNRWA is what we call the backbone of the humanitarian operation, meaning that they don't only bring in aid themselves, but they are really the operation which all other humanitarian actors depend on. So whether that's deconfliction, that is coordination with the Israeli army for security purposes, whether it's maintaining storehouses, whether it's securing distribution centers, UNRWA has 5,000 staff members working on aid and healthcare in the Gaza Strip, whilst other comparable organizations have a handful, a couple of hundred at most. So all the other agencies really depend on unrwa. So really the paradox here is that the ceasefire allows for more aid to come in, which is, you know, really good and necessary. The operation for distribution is being picked apart at the same time.

[Imogen Folks]

Well, the other UN humanitarian agencies, as you say, they do operate, but they are. UNRWA is the kind of linchpin between all of them. The other UN agencies have said there is no Plan B, we cannot step in. Wouldn't it been better to come up with a Plan B?

[Jurgen Jensehaugen]

So the first point is the UN's official position is that there cannot be a Plan B because they cannot accept the legality of the law. The expulsion of a UN agency is illegal. And by stating that they are working on a Plan B is a de facto acceptance of illegal law. The other part of it is really that the laws were passed with a 90 day timeline. And that simply isn't enough. If we think about this logistically, if we put aside the principled stance, what we heard when we interviewed people with a lot of humanitarian experience is that transforming the type of operation that UNRWA has in that kind of environment, to do it properly takes two to three years. And here we have 90 days. Even if we put aside principles, the UN position was it's just impossible to adapt. UNRWA is the best option we have. The flip side of the coin is, given that UNRWA will be banned, wouldn't it be better to at least scramble as much as possible within those 90 days to make sure that at least something was there and there. There is really a catch 22, the tension between the principal stance and the humanitarian imperative. And the UN apparatus really loses out either way. If they go all in on the principal stance, they're not adequately prepared on the humanitarian stance. If they go all in on the humanitarian stance, they're undermining themselves in a principled sense, which then opens for other actors in other conflicts and other contexts to also think about expelling the un. So it kind of opens really negative spiral really either way. And so it's a really difficult position for the UN to be in.

[Imogen Folks]

You said to really replace what UNRWA does would take two to three years. I mean, that's partly to do with the fact that, that they pretty much run the education system. The schools, I mean, that I imagine would be very hard to replace.

[Jurgen Jensehaugen]

I mean that I think we would be talking about even bigger window of time in a sense, because there we're really talking long term developments. Now in the west bank it's theoretically possible to see a situation where other actors could take over in relative short time. But in Gaza, it's not without reason that people describe it as scholasticide, meaning the systematic destruction of the education system. And UNRWA really is the only operator that has enough capacity to build that up relatively quickly. What the prospects for building up education in Gaza is it's very difficult to see. And if UNRWA is not able to operate, there's no other UN agency that does actual operational educational system. So UNICEF can deal with stuff like give advice and help set up curriculum and stuff, but they don't do schools. UNRWA is unique in the sense that it actually runs schools. So, you know, asking somebody else to run the schools, well, who's, who's that going to be?

[Imogen Folks]

Now that's a really interesting question because Israel has Long complained that UNRWA's teaching is biased and too pro Palestinian or even encouraging terrorism. Now, studies into that have not really borne out Israel's criticisms. But if UNRWA wasn't there, does that not leave the door open to possibly exactly the kind of education that Israel doesn't want?

[Jurgen Jensehaugen]

Yeah, I think this really comes down to the core hypocrisy, I would say, in this political attack against unrwa. Because if we take the postulate that Israel is making that UNRWA teaches these terrible school books. So as you said, you know, there had been a lot of research into this and yes, individual cases have been found that are problematic, but overall the school textbooks come out pretty good. The thing UNRWA does is that they take the school textbooks of the host country and in this case that would be the Palestinian Authority. When problematic issues arise, they're still forced to use those textbooks. But what they do is they do neutrality teaching, they do critical education processes, they do all these mechanisms that kind of neutralize all the problematic parts of the curriculum. They add human rights teaching, they add additional stuff that's not in the textbook textbooks. Now if UNRWA collapses and the Palestinian Authority take over, you have the same textbooks, but without all the UN neutrality mechanisms. So if that is Israel's plan, well, they're really stuck with a much worse version of what they claim to be fighting.

[Imogen Folks]

But a lot of people in Israel would point to the possible involvement of I think nine UNRWA workers, possible connection to the October 7th attack and say we cannot work with this organization any more and would say the kind of things that you're saying are really just not addressing the problem.

[Jurgen Jensehaugen]

So those, those allegations are extremely serious. And I think it's very clear if you look at this kind of objectively that once UNRWA were told that some of their staff might have been involved, they took steps immediately. They fired all those accused even before they'd seen the evidence, they investigating it and they asked Israel for concrete evidence. And there's been quite a lack of Israeli evidence. UNRWA has received lists of names, but when they've asked for follow up proof so that they can check up the matter, the evidence has very often been lacking. That's not to say that there might very well have been individuals involved in the attack, but one has to remember that in Gaza, UNRWA employs 13,000 people. They're not a state, they don't have intelligence operating system. It's very difficult for them to control everybody. But UNRWA's official line here is that they have zero tolerance, but they acknowledge that it's not zero risk. And so knowing the context in Gaza, they are aware that they might occasionally be infiltrated by bad actors and they take it very seriously when they are. And here is another kind of paradox. Whoever is going to take over an operation employing thousands of local Palestinians in Gaza, it's not completely unlikely that individuals representing a military faction might sneak in. That is unfortunate and everything must be done to ensure that that doesn't happen. But that's really the reality on the ground in such a extreme war context as is going on in Gaza. So I think the best approach would be, okay, let's work together to have stronger vetting processes, let's share intelligence so we can ensure that this type of infiltration doesn't happen. Banning the entire operation really undermines the stability that one wants, says one wants to achieve in Gaza because education functioning, humanitarian processes, development on the ground working, healthcare, that's the kind of thing that fights extremism. The type of war we've seen in Gaza over the past 15 months, that does not fight extremism.

[Imogen Folks]

Just taking this out to a slightly wider level, wider implications. Your report calls this the first Ever eviction of a UN agency by a UN member state, that member state being Israel. Do you think that other UN member states should be more concerned about this, about the precedent this could be setting and how the UN can function all over the world?

[Jurgen Jensehaugen]

Yes, I think so. I think we're in rather dangerous territory when it comes to certain standards that have been part of the system that has been shaped after the Second World War. I'm not saying that Israel is a uniquely bad actor, but I'm saying that the kind of policies that they've engaged vis a vis the UN sets a dangerous precedent that other actors with in similar contexts or other contexts in which they feel that the UN is infringing too much upon controlling what a state does or whatever, can be tempted to follow suit. We see, for instance, how a uniquely high number of UN staff have been killed in Gaza. I mean, we're talking over 270, I think, is the most recent number UN staff have been killed in this war. And if Israel gets away with that, if that becomes kind of an accepted casualty of war, then who's from stopping other states from also killing UN staff on the ground and saying, oh, it's just a by effect of war?

[Imogen Folks]

Do you think we're seeing a broader lack of respect and affection for the United Nations? We have seen, for example, now the new administration in the United States withdraw from the World Health Organization. An interesting, interestingly, we've seen them, Elise Stefanik, the new US Ambassador to the United nations, basically say we like UNICEF and we like the World Food Program because they protect America's interests. I mean, from the Geneva standpoint, that's kind of not really how the UN works, protecting individual member states interests.

[Jurgen Jensehaugen]

I think you're absolutely right. I think there is an increasing disrespect for what the UN stands for. And I think Israel has really been not just vocal, but taken very clear steps in this regard. I mean, everything from the shredding of the UN document to the attacks on the UNIFIL soldiers stationed in South Lebanon, to this political attack and also military attack on unrwa. So I fear that we're entering really very tense moment in which the UN is core to this strain.

[Imogen Folks]

Can it survive, do you think? Can the UN survive this kind of strain?

[Jurgen Jensehaugen]

I really hope so. We've had periods in the past where typically Republican US Presidents have made statements to the effect that they'll stop funding the un they want to pull out of the un. You know, the whole process surrounding the war in Iraq in 2003 was also built around this disrespect for the Security Council and the UN pulled through. So we're into difficult times. I have absolutely no doubt about that. I hope the UN manages to pull through, but. But it will be some testing years, I think.

[Imogen Folks]

Testing years for the United nations ahead, says Jurgen Jenserhaugen of the Peace Research Institute, Oslo. Not least for the World Health Organization, which had feared a US withdrawal. Let's not forget Donald Trump tried to do that in his first term, but hoped until the last possible moment that he might not take such a drastic step. Lawrence Gostin is professor of Global Health at Georgetown University in Washington, D.C. and has long been one of the people liaising between the United States and the who. I asked him for his reaction to Trump's decision.

[Lawrence Gostin]

Yes, I'm angry, I'm disheartened. I don't think there's enough understanding of how momentous this is. On day one of Trump's second term, he issued about 100 executive orders on all kinds of issues like immigration, on climate change. Truly horrible things. But the withdrawal from WHO flew under the radar and it's probably the most consequential thing of all. The United States formed the WHO in the aftermath of World War II, and we've been its most influential member and biggest funder for over 75 years. The idea that we would leave this organization that has kept the world safer and healthier is mind boggling to me. This is horrible thing for world health, but I think it may be an even more grievous wound to American national interests because it makes us isolated, alone and far more vulnerable and really fragile.

[Imogen Folks]

The consequences and implications of the United States leaving seem to me from the Geneva standpoint, very worrying. As you say, not just for the world, but for the United States itself.

[Lawrence Gostin]

I believe so. Funding is a big part of it, but it's not the only part. The United states funds roughly 20% of who's budget and who already has is already chronically underfunded. It has the same budget as a major US hospital, and yet it has a global mandate. It has a budget that's one quarter of the CDCs, which is only for one country. And so this is going to mean that all of the vital work of the World Health Organization on health emergencies, putting out fires around the world, polio eradication, aids, TB and malaria, all of this important work is going to be even more underfunded. So I think this is a very serious for who. I think WHO will survive, they will be nimble. The US will want to come back when we return to our sanity. But I do believe this is a harmful moment, not just in Geneva, but.

[Imogen Folks]

Really worldwide, but for the the United States itself as well. Everybody describes Donald Trump as a very transactional kind of person. Does he not understand the transaction of sharing information about emerging diseases and how that can be beneficial to the United States and U.S. citizens?

[Lawrence Gostin]

Well, I mean, I can't speak for what President Trump knows or doesn't know, but if he really did have a deep appreciation of the valuable relationship that the United States has with who, I don't think he would be taking the decision that he is taking. There are many ways that WHO benefits the United States. One of them you've mentioned is scientific exchange, which is something the US has been particularly strident about over the many, many years that I've been working with the US and with who, and for good reason. It's really important to share information about surveillance, epidemiology, outbreaks, mutations. It's important to share pathogen samples, genomic sequencing data. The United States needs these to be able to understand where the threats lie. Otherwise we're flying blind. But our pharmaceutical industry and our agencies like the NIH and CDC and FDA need them for innovation so that we can develop the vaccines and the treatments that keep Americans safe and everyone safe. The Americans are used to being at the front of the line for life saving medical technologies. They might find themselves at the back of the line when they don't have access to these essential, the essential data that WHO routinely shares with the world.

[Imogen Folks]

Do you feel for your colleagues at the Centre for Disease Control, who apparently been told this week to cease all contact with the World Health Organization with immediate effect?

[Lawrence Gostin]

I do. It is a very, very sad day for CDC and CDC staff. I will just say a couple of things. First, President Trump often tries to characterize, you know, make a caricature of WHO or CDC as being these remote bureaucrats that really don't understand things. But I know my friends at WHO and CDC to be doctors, nurses, scientists who come into work every day and do their level best to make the world a little healthier and a little safer. They do it without a lot of glory, without a lot of money. And to vilify them, I think, is really a horrible thing. And the president can be vindictive. You know, my very close friend Tony Fauci had his security detail taken away by President Trump, which seems to be pure, you know, vindictiveness. But I think beyond the staff at cdc, it's important to understand that the work that they do is important work. You know, when they're told not to communicate, it means that Americans don't find out about foodborne outbreaks. They don't investigate outbreaks of avian influenza in our cattle. They don't cooperate with state, local and tribal governments on vaccinations for children and adults. And they don't go to Africa, Asia, Latin America and try to put out fires before they come to the United States. This is truly damaging. And one of the things that I think about as I look at all of the thing, all of these orders that have taken place from the White House is I think, I can't think of one way that this advances U.S. national interests or security. If I did, I would say so, but I literally can't see any benefit to this for the United States.

[Imogen Folks]

I'm wondering though, you have been, as I said, quite vocal in your concern and opposition to this, to this decision to leave the who. You mentioned your colleague Tony Fauci. Are you nervous at all about the consequences for you personally of the stance you're taking?

[Lawrence Gostin]

Yes, a little bit. You know, there was a. Something went viral on the Internet recently and it, it was a picture of Tony Fauci and I smiling and laughing together. It happened to be. We were smiling and laughing because we're on a platform together talking about our old days, trying to work on the fight against aids. But the caption said there's Fauci and Gostin, you know, laughing and smiling after all the deaths they caused during COVID That's dangerous and it's wrong. But the sad thing is, is that it was retweeted by the incoming director of the nih. Now this is really just not the way we should be working together. I'm America. I believe in American health and well being and our productivity and our economy. I want the President to succeed. And I think there's a way to do that. If we just try to stop calling people names, caricaturing them as being something that they're not, or organizations that are something that they're not, and try to lift things up, build things up, I really think there's a way to do that. I think they're, you know, so better while also advancing American national interests.

[Imogen Folks]

Just to clarify there, the nih, the new director, head of the nih, that's the US National Institute for Health, new appointment there by the new administration who retweeted that fairly unpleasant slur against you and Anthony Fauci. I have a very last question for you and this is a very, perhaps Geneva or maybe rest of the world question, because we're all asking ourselves, is the United States really now moving away from the whole UN system, Not just the who, but we heard the Elise Stefanik, the new US Ambassador to the UN talking about only being interested in UN bodies that serve American people interests, which is, as I'm sure you're aware, not quite the purpose of the, of the United Nations. Do you think there's a danger of a real, the world's only superpower leaving the world's only multilateral organization?

[Lawrence Gostin]

No, I don't think Trump would leave the United Nations. The US Has a veto and the Security Council. And so I, no, I don't think he'll do that. But I do think it will leave a number of UN specialized agencies like who. And he will, and he will. He's not a person that believes strongly in multilateralism and international cooperation, international norms and treaty obligations on health, climate or other aspects. But, you know, I think, you know, the international community will survive. They will survive this. I'm absolutely confident of that. In some ways it may bring people together that they might negotiate a pandemic agreement in Geneva, for example, when they otherwise might not have. It will also mean that regions like the African region may have more self reliance and have a bit a cleaner, more louder voice in international negotiations. So I see there could be benefits, but overall it's horrible that the United States is not engaging, but we'll survive it. And then after four years, I do believe there'll be a new president and a very different view and America will once again get back to our position as an international leader and someone with high values. That's my hope and my dream, but it's also my expectation.

[Imogen Folks]

Nice to end that interview on at least a faint note of optimism from Lawrence Gostin. I'm sure humanitarian agencies in Geneva share his hopes. But hot on the heels of the WHO withdrawal announcement came a new blow. The US Announced a freeze on foreign aid, including everything from demining operations to HIV prevention programs. Colin Lynch, UN and foreign policy journalist who now writes for the specialist aid and development media platform devex, which is, by the way, a great resource for anyone who's interested in the topics we discuss here on Inside Geneva. I asked Colum if the UN in New York shared the dismay of Geneva.

[Colm Lynch]

I'm shocked as well. I mean, I'll give you one example. The UN Population Fund, which more than any other agency was preparing for cuts. They get cut every time a Republican administration comes into Office Trump did it the first time. They knew it was going to happen this time. But the difference is it was also kind of a stop order on work in the past, the Population Fund, they would be allowed to continue the projects that they had already secured financing for, and they just wouldn't get anything new. So they would prepare, you know, to find new donors to try and fill the gap. But this time it's completely caught them off guard. And I think, you know, an agency which was expecting hard times is kind of stunned by the way it's, it's unfolded. So they, this was a sweeping decision, not clear that they thought through the implications. Maybe they did. Maybe this chaos is exactly what they want. Maybe they want the whole, you know, sector to shrink, and it will shrink as a result of a 90 day suspension. I mean, a 90 day suspension is a death sentence for many small NGOs who just don't have the finances to sort of weather this kind of this period. So. So, yeah, shock and awe.

[Imogen Folks]

What do you think Trump's strategy is? I mean, people here and Geneva are asking, I mean, is it even a strategy?

[Colm Lynch]

So that's an excellent question, and it is a question that's being discussed internally by UN lawyers. So the UN Charter, Article 100 prohibits members of the international civil servant from taking orders, from responding to orders from a member state. So there are, you know, people within the system who believe that the stop order, demand, a stop work order, is a violation of the UN Charter. So, you know, the Americans are powerful enough to do whatever they want and, you know, the, the entire sort of industrial humanitarian development system, it's hard to see how it functions without US Funding. So they have leverage to, to break the rules, to stretch the charter in a way that really pushes the limits of international law. So whether it's proper or not, I mean, I remember an anecdote many years ago during the Bush administration. I did an interview with a top US official, Chris Burnham, who was the head of management, and he used to wear on his lapel a US Flag. And I did an interview which got him into a lot of trouble, where he said, sort of plainly, you know, my constituency, I answer ultimately to US Taxpayers. And of course, it caused them a lot of grief, particularly with the group of 77 and, and all that. But, you know, there is a tradition of American nationalism, particularly in the Republican Party, where you don't want to be seen as too, as having drunk the Kool Aid, as becoming too much a part of the UN System. And politically, you know, that was, I Think for the Americans, that was fine. And so, you know, now here we are again in a situation where I think administration is willing to go much further than, you know, wearing an American flag on their lapel.

[Imogen Folks]

You think they could finish off the UN this administration?

[Colm Lynch]

I don't know. You know, like I just, over the years, the U.N. like, I see it as sort of like a pendulum. You know, it kind of swings into relevance and swings out of it. You think about periods in which the UN particularly Security Council, has had overwhelming power, the ability to, you know, force countries to rewrite their anti terrorism rules after 9, 11. And then you would see dips, periods where it was quite paralyzed. Certainly during the pandemic it was, you know, the US And Chinese divisions were making it possible to reach agreement on basically anything, on anything reasonably reasonable about how to respond to the pandemic. So there is, there is a lot of that. But the US Values the Security Council and a lot of Republicans sort of dismiss the UN in the initial part of their administrations and then come around to kind of recognizing that they're quite useful. And I think, you know, Trump doesn't really hate the U.N. you know, if you remember.

[Imogen Folks]

I mean, don't you think he even knows what it is?

[Colm Lynch]

Oh, yeah, yeah, because he once, you know, had, I remember I had a conversation with Ban Ki Moon and he recalled like getting a call from Trump because he wanted to do the renovation of the UN building and he was trying to sell Ban Ki Moon on the idea of like changing contractors at the last minute. But also, you know, when he came in, when he came in, he loved to come to New York. He loved the pageantry, you know, guterres. The Secretary General would, you know, would arrange, and also his ambassador, Nikki Haley would arrange high level meetings where he could be the big dog. He, you know, I remember him going to the leadership luncheons. He loves that stuff. And, and I don't think he has any sort of inherent hostility towards the U.N. i think he just, you know, I don't think he's particularly ideological. So I think if it's useful for him, fine. If it's not useful for him, you know, he does whatever he wants. And, and you know, that's not just Trump, that's every administration. I mean, one, one point that's interesting is that Trump invited both the Secretary General multiple times and the UN Security Council to the White House. Joe Biden never did that, not once. So there are some interesting things. But, you know, why would he want, would he want to destroy the U.N. i, you know, I don't know, because, like, the, the image of the Americans blowing up, the whole thing, it's not great for the Americans. Right. And, and there are some people in the administration who I think understand that.

[Imogen Folks]

Well, I think that will be heartening for the humanitarian wing of the UN which, as you know, is in Geneva. Very last question, really. Then you said earlier that the 90 day, basically cease and desist order is a real death sentence for implementing NGOs on the ground. You know, how can they cope?

[Colm Lynch]

I don't think the humanitarian community in Geneva should, should take heart at all. I mean, I think that this notion that's sort of starting to percolate through my, you know, brain is this notion that this is really the end of foreign aid as we know it. Right. And that Somalia, a couple of years ago, faced with a major famine or the threat of a famine, the Americans stepped in and provided over a billion dollars. Ethiopia, the tsunami and Southeast Asia, peacekeeping operations. I mean, I don't really see this administration responding to a coming crisis with a major outlay of cash in the way that we have done historically. So what does that mean? I mean, you know, interesting tests will be Haiti. I mean, that's an issue where it's fairly local for the US it has to do with migration, with refugees. It may be an issue where they will either want to do something themselves to try and, you know, make life more livable there, but who knows? But are they going to do it if there's a famine again in Somalia? Are you going to see this administration committing a billion dollars, making that kind of contribution, leading the effort on Ebola in West Africa? I mean, there are certain things that the Americans had a lot of skill with. And, you know, for all the criticism of, you know, the US engagement, the fact that at the UN they're actually in more than a billion dollars worth of debt on the humanitarian side, they have really. They have more than pulled their weight. And, and so, I mean, if I talk to people at the un, they, you know, they've spent the last few years, you know, working very, very hard on other wealthy countries to get them to step up their commitments. The Gulf states, you know, China. Yeah. Others. And, and I mean, China does do a fair bit of stuff, but they tend to do it bilaterally, not through, not through the UN system. So. So I think they're in for some very, very hard times. Whether it leads to the, you know, the end of the U.N. i don't think so. But, you know, you know, you never know.

[Imogen Folks]

Colin lynch, journalist with devex Ending our discussion on the challenges ahead for the United Nations. We hope you enjoyed this edition of Inside Geneva. We'll be back with a new episode on Tuesday, February 18th. I'm Imogen folks, thanks for listening. A reminder, you've been listening to Inside Geneva, a Swiss info production. You can email us on Inside GenevaissInfo Ch and subscribe to us and review us wherever you get your podcasts. Check out our previous episodes how the International Red Cross Unites Prisoners of War with Their Families or why Survivors of Human Rights Violations Turn to the UN in Geneva for Justice. I'm Imogen folks, thanks again for listening. If you enjoyed this episode of Inside Geneva, do take a listen to another episode of our most popular episodes, aid Organizations and Racism. We are an incredibly diverse organization, as.

[Jurgen Jensehaugen]

Are most humanitarian organizations today. It has become a lot richer. It has become a lot closer to the beneficiaries, but our structures haven't changed. It's more difficult for me as an.

[Lawrence Gostin]

African to get into a position of.

[Colm Lynch]

Leadership, a position of management, than it.

[Imogen Folks]

Would for someone else. We hear how Geneva based humanitarian agencies are soul searching as they stand accused of institutional racism. What's behind the accusations and how are they being addressed.